Environmental Options Report

Home , Lesnes Abbey Woods

Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings

Date: November 2015 Version: Final

EAST OF SILVERTOWN

Environmental Options Report

NOVEMBER 2015

CONTACTS

Rosemary Tingle

Senior Environmental Consultant Environment

1.1.1.1 e [email protected]

CONTENTS

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 0.1 Background ...... 1 0.2 River crossing options ...... 1 0.3 Aims of the study ...... 1 0.4 Community and Private Assets ...... 1 0.5 Cultural Heritage ...... 2 0.6 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 2 0.7 Effects on All Travellers ...... 3 0.8 Ground Conditions ...... 3 0.9 Materials ...... 3 0.10 Water Environment ...... 4 0.11 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 4 0.12 Energy ...... 4 0.13 Noise and Vibration ...... 5 0.14 Air Quality ...... 5 0.15 Mitigation ...... 6

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 7 1.1 Background information ...... 7 1.2 Site Locations ...... 7 1.3 Aims of the Study ...... 8

2 THE OPTIONS ...... 9

3 METHODOLOGY ...... 13 3.1 Baseline Data Collection ...... 13 3.2 Assessment Methodology ...... 13 3.2.1 Introduction ...... 13 3.2.2 Study Scope ...... 15 3.2.3 Limitations and Data Gaps ...... 16 3.3 Traffic Forecasts Methodology ...... 16

i East of Silvertown

3.4 Community and Private Assets ...... 18 3.5 Cultural Heritage ...... 19 3.6 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 20 3.7 Effects on Travellers ...... 21 3.8 Ground Conditions ...... 22 3.9 Materials ...... 26 3.10 Water Environment ...... 28 3.10.1 Study Area ...... 28 3.10.2 Approach ...... 28 3.11 Townscape and Visual ...... 30 3.12 Energy ...... 30 3.12.2 Embodied Energy (Construction phase Carbon) ...... 30 3.12.3 Regulated & Unregulated Energy (Operational phase Carbon) ...... 31 3.13 Noise and Vibration ...... 32 3.13.2 Potential Noise sources ...... 33 3.14 Air Quality ...... 34 3.14.1 DMRB Air Quality Screening Model ...... 34

3.14.2 NOx to NO2 Conversion ...... 35 3.14.3 Model Verification ...... 35 3.14.4 Long Term Trend Analysis ...... 36 3.14.5 Significance ...... 36

4 BASELINE CONDITIONS ...... 39 4.1 Gallions Reach ...... 39 4.1.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 39 4.1.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 43 4.1.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 44 4.1.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 50 4.1.5 Ground Conditions ...... 51 4.1.6 Materials ...... 61 4.1.7 Water Environment ...... 62

4.1.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 65 4.1.9 Energy...... 66 4.1.10 Noise and Vibration ...... 66 4.1.11 Air Quality ...... 66 4.2 Belvedere ...... 69 4.2.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 69 4.2.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 73 4.2.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 74 4.2.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 80 4.2.5 Ground Conditions ...... 80 4.2.6 Materials ...... 87 4.2.7 Water Environment ...... 87 4.2.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 92 4.2.9 Energy...... 93 4.2.10 Noise and Vibration ...... 93 4.2.11 Air Quality ...... 93

5 OPTION 1: GALLIONS REACH IMMERSED TUNNEL ...... 97 5.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 97 5.1.1 Highway ...... 97 5.1.2 Mitigation...... 97 5.1.3 Summary...... 97 5.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 97 5.2.1 Highway ...... 97 5.2.2 Mitigation...... 97 5.2.3 Summary...... 98 5.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 98 5.3.2 Highway ...... 98 5.3.3 Mitigation...... 100 5.3.4 Summary...... 101

iii East of Silvertown

5.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 101 5.4.1 Highway ...... 101 5.4.2 Mitigation ...... 102 5.4.3 Summary ...... 102 5.5 Ground Conditions ...... 102 5.5.1 Highway ...... 102 5.5.2 Mitigation ...... 103 5.5.3 Summary ...... 105 5.6 Materials ...... 105 5.6.1 Highway ...... 105 5.6.2 Mitigation ...... 106 5.6.3 Summary ...... 106 5.7 Water Environment ...... 107 5.7.1 Highway ...... 107 5.7.2 Mitigation ...... 107 5.7.3 Summary ...... 108 5.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 108 5.8.1 Highway ...... 108 5.8.2 Mitigation ...... 108 5.8.3 Summary ...... 108 5.9 Energy ...... 108 5.9.1 Highway ...... 108 5.9.2 Mitigation ...... 109 5.9.3 Summary ...... 110

6 OPTION 1A: GALLIONS REACH IMMERSED TUNNEL (FIXED PUBLIC

TRANSPORT) ...... 112 6.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 112 6.1.1 Highway ...... 112 6.1.2 DLR addition ...... 112

6.1.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths...... 112 6.1.4 Mitigation...... 112 6.1.5 Summary...... 112 6.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 112 6.2.1 Highway ...... 112 6.2.2 DLR addition ...... 112 6.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths...... 113 6.2.4 Mitigation...... 113 6.2.5 Summary...... 113 6.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 113 6.3.1 Highway ...... 113 6.3.2 DLR addition ...... 113 6.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 113 6.3.4 Mitigation...... 113 6.3.5 Summary...... 114 6.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 114 6.4.2 Highway ...... 114 6.4.3 DLR addition ...... 114 6.4.4 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 114 6.4.5 Mitigation...... 115 6.4.6 Summary...... 115 6.5 Ground Conditions ...... 115 6.5.1 Highway ...... 115 6.5.2 DLR addition ...... 115 6.5.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 116 6.5.4 Mitigation...... 116 6.5.5 Summary...... 116 6.6 Materials ...... 116 6.6.1 Highway ...... 116 6.6.2 DLR addition ...... 116

v East of Silvertown

6.6.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 117 6.6.4 Mitigation ...... 117 6.6.5 Summary ...... 117 6.7 Water Environment ...... 117 6.7.1 Highway ...... 117 6.7.2 DLR addition ...... 117 6.7.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 118 6.7.4 Mitigation ...... 118 6.7.5 Summary ...... 118 6.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 118 6.8.1 Highway ...... 118 6.8.2 DLR addition ...... 118 6.8.3 Pedestrians and Cycle Path ...... 118 6.8.4 Mitigation ...... 119 6.8.5 Summary ...... 119 6.9 Energy ...... 119 6.9.1 Highway ...... 119 6.9.2 DLR addition ...... 119 6.9.3 Pedestrians and Cycle path ...... 119 6.9.4 Mitigation ...... 119 6.9.5 Summary ...... 119

7 OPTION 2: GALLIONS REACH BORED TUNNEL ...... 121 7.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 121 7.1.1 Highway ...... 121 7.1.2 Mitigation ...... 121 7.1.3 Summary ...... 121 7.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 121 7.2.1 Highway ...... 121 7.2.2 Mitigation ...... 121

7.2.3 Summary...... 121 7.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 122 7.3.2 Highway ...... 122 Designated Sites ...... 122 7.3.3 Mitigation...... 123 7.3.4 Summary...... 124 7.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 124 7.4.1 Highway ...... 124 7.4.2 Mitigation...... 125 7.4.3 Summary...... 125 7.5 Ground Conditions ...... 125 7.5.1 Highway ...... 125 7.5.2 Mitigation...... 126 7.5.3 Summary...... 127 7.6 Materials ...... 127 7.6.1 Highway ...... 127 7.6.2 Mitigation...... 128 7.6.3 Summary...... 128 7.7 Water Environment ...... 128 7.7.1 Highway ...... 128 7.7.2 Mitigation...... 129 7.7.3 Summary...... 129 7.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 129 7.8.1 Highway ...... 129 7.8.2 Mitigation...... 130 7.8.3 Summary...... 130 7.9 Energy ...... 130 7.9.1 Highway ...... 130 7.9.2 Mitigation...... 130 7.9.3 Summary...... 131

vii East of Silvertown

8 OPTION 2A: GALLIONS REACH BORED TUNNEL (FIXED PUBLIC

TRANSPORT) ...... 133 8.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 133 8.1.1 Highway ...... 133 8.1.2 DLR addition ...... 133 8.1.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 133 8.1.4 Mitigation ...... 133 8.1.5 Summary ...... 133 8.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 133 8.2.1 Highway ...... 133 8.2.2 DLR addition ...... 133 8.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 134 8.2.4 Mitigation ...... 134 8.2.5 Summary ...... 134 8.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 134 8.3.1 Highway ...... 134 8.3.2 DLR addition ...... 134 8.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 134 8.3.4 Mitigation ...... 134 8.3.5 Summary ...... 135 8.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 135 8.4.2 Highway ...... 135 8.4.3 DLR addition ...... 135 8.4.4 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 135 8.4.5 Mitigation ...... 136 8.4.6 Summary ...... 136 8.5 Ground Conditions ...... 136 8.5.1 Highway ...... 136 8.5.2 DLR addition ...... 136

viii

8.5.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 136 8.5.4 Mitigation...... 137 8.5.5 Summary...... 137 8.6 Materials ...... 137 8.6.1 Highway ...... 137 8.6.2 DLR addition ...... 137 8.6.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 137 8.6.4 Mitigation...... 138 8.6.5 Summary...... 138 8.7 Water Environment ...... 138 8.7.1 Highway ...... 138 8.7.2 DLR addition ...... 138 8.7.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 138 8.7.4 Mitigation...... 139 8.7.5 Summary...... 139 8.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 139 8.8.1 Highway ...... 139 8.8.2 DLR addition ...... 139 8.8.3 Pedestrians and Cycle Path ...... 139 8.8.4 Mitigation...... 139 8.8.5 Summary...... 139 8.9 Energy ...... 140 8.9.1 Highway ...... 140 8.9.2 DLR addition ...... 140 8.9.3 Pedestrians and Cycle path ...... 140 8.9.4 Mitigation...... 140 8.9.5 Summary...... 140

9 OPTION 5: GALLIONS REACH HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE ...... 142 9.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 142

ix East of Silvertown

9.1.1 Highway ...... 142 9.1.2 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 142 9.1.3 Mitigation ...... 142 9.1.4 Summary ...... 142 9.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 142 9.2.1 Highway ...... 142 9.2.2 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 143 9.2.3 Mitigation ...... 143 9.2.4 Summary ...... 143 9.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 144 9.3.2 Highway ...... 144 9.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 145 9.3.4 Mitigation ...... 145 9.3.5 Summary ...... 146 9.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 146 9.4.2 Highway ...... 146 9.4.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 147 9.4.4 Mitigation ...... 147 9.4.5 Summary ...... 147 9.5 Ground Conditions ...... 147 9.5.1 Highway ...... 147 9.5.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 148 9.5.3 Mitigation ...... 148 9.5.4 Summary ...... 150 9.6 Materials ...... 150 9.6.1 Highway ...... 150 9.6.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 151 9.6.3 Mitigation ...... 151 9.6.4 Summary ...... 151 9.7 Water Environment ...... 151

9.7.1 Highway ...... 151 9.7.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 152 9.7.3 Mitigation...... 152 9.7.4 Summary...... 153 9.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 153 9.8.1 Highway ...... 153 9.8.2 Pedestrians and Cycle Path ...... 153 9.8.3 Mitigation...... 153 9.8.4 Summary...... 153 9.9 Energy ...... 154 9.9.1 Highways ...... 154 9.9.2 Pedestrians and Cycle path ...... 154 9.9.3 Mitigation...... 154 9.9.4 Summary...... 155

10 OPTION 5A: GALLIONS REACH HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (FIXED

PUBLIC TRANSPORT) ...... 157 10.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 157 10.1.1 Highway ...... 157 10.1.2 DLR addition ...... 157 10.1.3 Mitigation ...... 157 10.1.4 Summary...... 157 10.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 157 10.2.1 Highway ...... 157 10.2.2 DLR addition ...... 157 10.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths...... 157 10.2.4 Mitigation ...... 158 10.2.5 Summary...... 158 10.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 158 10.3.1 Highway ...... 158

xi East of Silvertown

10.3.2 DLR addition ...... 158 10.3.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 158 10.3.4 Mitigation ...... 158 10.3.5 Summary ...... 158 10.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 159 10.4.1 Highway ...... 159 10.4.2 DLR addition ...... 159 10.4.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 159 10.4.4 Mitigation ...... 159 10.4.5 Summary ...... 159 10.5 Ground Conditions ...... 159 10.5.1 Highway ...... 159 10.5.2 DLR addition ...... 160 10.5.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 160 10.5.4 Mitigation ...... 160 10.5.5 Summary ...... 160 10.6 Materials ...... 160 10.6.1 Highway ...... 160 10.6.2 DLR addition ...... 161 10.6.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 161 10.6.4 Mitigation ...... 161 10.6.5 Summary ...... 161 10.7 Water Environment ...... 161 10.7.1 Highway ...... 161 10.7.2 DLR addition ...... 161 10.7.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 161 10.7.4 Mitigation ...... 162 10.7.5 Summary ...... 162 10.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 162 10.8.1 Highway ...... 162

xii

10.8.2 DLR addition ...... 162 10.8.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths...... 162 10.8.4 Mitigation ...... 162 10.8.5 Summary...... 162 10.9 Energy ...... 163 10.9.1 Highway ...... 163 10.9.2 DLR addition ...... 163 10.9.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths...... 163 10.9.4 Mitigation ...... 163 10.9.5 Summary...... 163

11 OPTION 20: BELVEDERE IMMERSED TUNNEL...... 165 11.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 165 11.1.1 Highway ...... 165 11.1.2 Mitigation ...... 165 11.1.3 Summary...... 165 11.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 166 11.2.1 Highway ...... 166 11.2.2 Mitigation ...... 166 11.2.3 Summary...... 166 11.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 166 11.3.2 Highway ...... 166 11.3.3 Mitigation ...... 168 11.3.4 Summary...... 169 11.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 169 11.4.1 Highway ...... 169 11.4.2 Mitigation ...... 170 11.4.3 Summary...... 170 11.5 Ground Conditions ...... 170 11.5.1 Highway ...... 170

xiii East of Silvertown

11.5.2 Mitigation ...... 171 11.5.3 Summary ...... 172 11.6 Materials ...... 173 11.6.1 Highway ...... 173 11.6.2 Mitigation ...... 173 11.6.3 Summary ...... 174 11.7 Water Environment ...... 174 11.7.1 Highway ...... 174 11.7.2 Mitigation ...... 175 11.7.3 Summary ...... 175 11.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 175 11.8.1 Highway ...... 175 11.8.2 Mitigation ...... 175 11.8.3 Summary ...... 176 11.9 Energy ...... 176 11.9.1 Highway ...... 176 11.9.2 Mitigation ...... 176 11.9.3 Summary ...... 178

12 OPTION 20A: BELVEDERE IMMERSED TUNNEL (FIXED PUBLIC

TRANSPORT) ...... 180 12.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 180 12.1.1 Highway ...... 180 12.1.2 DLR addition ...... 180 12.1.3 .Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 180 12.1.4 Mitigation ...... 180 12.1.5 Summary ...... 180 12.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 180 12.2.1 Highway ...... 180 12.2.2 DLR addition ...... 181

xiv

12.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths...... 181 12.2.4 Mitigation ...... 181 12.2.5 Summary...... 181 12.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 181 12.3.1 Highway ...... 181 12.3.2 DLR addition ...... 181 12.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 181 12.3.4 Mitigation ...... 182 12.3.5 Summary...... 182 12.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 182 12.4.2 Highway ...... 182 12.4.3 DLR addition ...... 182 12.4.4 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 182 12.4.5 Mitigation ...... 183 12.4.6 Summary...... 183 12.5 Ground Conditions ...... 183 12.5.1 Highway ...... 183 12.5.2 DLR addition ...... 183 12.5.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 184 12.5.4 Mitigation ...... 184 12.5.5 Summary...... 184 12.6 Materials ...... 184 12.6.1 Highway ...... 184 12.6.2 DLR addition ...... 184 12.6.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 185 12.6.4 Mitigation ...... 185 12.6.5 Summary...... 185 12.7 Water Environment ...... 185 12.7.1 Highway ...... 185 12.7.2 DLR addition ...... 185

xv East of Silvertown

12.7.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 186 12.7.4 Mitigation ...... 186 12.7.5 Summary ...... 186 12.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 186 12.8.1 Highway ...... 186 12.8.2 DLR addition ...... 186 12.8.3 Pedestrians and Cycle Path ...... 187 12.8.4 Mitigation ...... 187 12.8.5 Summary ...... 187 12.9 Energy ...... 187 12.9.1 Highway ...... 187 12.9.2 DLR addition ...... 187 12.9.3 Pedestrians and Cycle path ...... 187 12.9.4 Mitigation ...... 187 12.9.5 Summary ...... 188

13 OPTION 21: BELVEDERE BORED TUNNEL ...... 190 13.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 190 13.1.1 Highway ...... 190 13.1.2 Mitigation ...... 190 13.1.3 Summary ...... 190 13.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 190 13.2.1 Highway ...... 190 13.2.2 Mitigation ...... 191 13.2.3 Summary ...... 191 13.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 191 13.3.2 Highway ...... 191 13.3.3 Mitigation ...... 193 13.3.4 Summary ...... 193 13.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 193

xvi

13.4.1 Highway ...... 193 13.4.2 Mitigation ...... 194 13.4.3 Summary...... 194 13.5 Ground Conditions ...... 195 13.5.1 Highway ...... 195 13.5.2 Mitigation ...... 195 13.5.3 Summary...... 197 13.6 Materials ...... 197 13.6.1 Highway ...... 197 13.6.2 Mitigation ...... 197 13.6.3 Summary...... 198 13.7 Water Environment ...... 198 13.7.1 Highway ...... 198 13.7.2 Mitigation ...... 199 13.7.3 Summary...... 199 13.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 199 13.8.1 Highway ...... 199 13.8.2 Mitigation ...... 200 13.8.3 Summary...... 200 13.9 Energy ...... 200 13.9.1 Highway ...... 200 13.9.2 Mitigation ...... 200 13.9.3 Summary...... 201

14 OPTION 21A: BELVEDERE BORED TUNNEL (FIXED PUBLIC

TRANSPORT) ...... 203 14.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 203 14.1.1 Highway ...... 203 14.1.2 DLR addition ...... 203 14.1.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 203

xvii East of Silvertown

14.1.4 Mitigation ...... 203 14.1.5 Summary ...... 203 14.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 203 14.2.1 Highway ...... 203 14.2.2 DLR addition ...... 203 14.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths ...... 204 14.2.4 Mitigation ...... 204 14.2.5 Summary ...... 204 14.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 204 14.3.1 Highway ...... 204 14.3.2 DLR addition ...... 204 14.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 204 14.3.4 Mitigation ...... 204 14.3.5 Summary ...... 205 14.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 205 14.4.2 Highway ...... 205 14.4.3 DLR addition ...... 205 14.4.4 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 205 14.4.5 Mitigation ...... 206 14.4.6 Summary ...... 206 14.5 Ground Conditions ...... 206 14.5.1 Highway ...... 206 14.5.2 DLR addition ...... 206 14.5.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 206 14.5.4 Mitigation ...... 207 14.5.5 Summary ...... 207 14.6 Materials ...... 207 14.6.1 Highway ...... 207 14.6.2 DLR addition ...... 207 14.6.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 207

xviii

14.6.4 Mitigation ...... 208 14.6.5 Summary...... 208 14.7 Water Environment ...... 208 14.7.1 Highway ...... 208 14.7.2 DLR addition ...... 208 14.7.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 208 14.7.4 Mitigation ...... 209 14.7.5 Summary...... 209 14.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 209 14.8.1 Highway ...... 209 14.8.2 DLR addition ...... 209 14.8.3 Pedestrians and Cycle Path ...... 209 14.8.4 Mitigation ...... 209 14.8.5 Summary...... 209 14.9 Energy ...... 209 14.9.1 Highway ...... 209 14.9.2 DLR addition ...... 210 14.9.3 Pedestrians and Cycle path ...... 210 14.9.4 Mitigation ...... 210 14.9.5 Summary...... 210

15 OPTION 22: BELVEDERE HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE ...... 212 15.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 212 15.1.1 Highway ...... 212 15.1.2 Pedestrian and cycle paths...... 212 15.1.3 Mitigation ...... 212 15.1.4 Summary...... 212 15.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 212 15.2.1 Highway ...... 212 15.2.2 Pedestrian and cycle paths...... 213

xix East of Silvertown

15.2.3 Mitigation ...... 213 15.2.4 Summary ...... 213 15.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 213 15.3.2 Highway ...... 213 15.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 215 15.3.4 Mitigation ...... 215 15.3.5 Summary ...... 216 15.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 216 15.4.2 Highway ...... 216 15.4.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 217 15.4.4 Mitigation ...... 217 15.4.5 Summary ...... 218 15.5 Ground Conditions ...... 218 15.5.1 Highway ...... 218 15.5.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 218 15.5.3 Mitigation ...... 219 15.5.4 Summary ...... 220 15.6 Materials ...... 220 15.6.1 Highway ...... 220 15.6.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 221 15.6.3 Mitigation ...... 221 15.6.4 Summary ...... 221 15.7 Water Environment ...... 221 15.7.1 Highway ...... 221 15.7.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 222 15.7.3 Mitigation ...... 222 15.7.4 Summary ...... 223 15.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 223 15.8.1 Highway ...... 223 15.8.2 Pedestrians and Cycle Path ...... 223

15.8.3 Mitigation ...... 224 15.8.4 Summary...... 224 15.9 Energy ...... 224 15.9.1 Highway ...... 224 15.9.2 Pedestrians and Cycle path ...... 224 15.9.3 Mitigation ...... 224 15.9.4 Summary...... 225

16 OPTION 22A: BELVEDERE HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (FIXED PUBLIC

TRANSPORT) ...... 228 16.1 Community and Private Assets ...... 228 16.1.1 Highway ...... 228 16.1.2 DLR addition ...... 228 16.1.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths...... 228 16.1.4 Mitigation ...... 228 16.1.5 Summary...... 228 16.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 228 16.2.1 Highway ...... 228 16.2.2 DLR addition ...... 228 16.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths...... 229 16.2.4 Mitigation ...... 229 16.2.5 Summary...... 229 16.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 229 16.3.1 Highway ...... 229 16.3.2 DLR addition ...... 229 16.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 229 16.3.4 Mitigation ...... 229 16.3.5 Summary...... 229 16.4 Effects on All Travellers ...... 230 16.4.2 Highway ...... 230

xxi East of Silvertown

16.4.3 DLR addition ...... 230 16.4.4 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 230 16.4.5 Mitigation ...... 230 16.4.6 Summary ...... 230 16.5 Ground Conditions ...... 230 16.5.1 Highway ...... 230 16.5.2 DLR addition ...... 230 16.5.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 231 16.5.4 Mitigation ...... 231 16.5.5 Summary ...... 231 16.6 Materials ...... 231 16.6.1 Highway ...... 231 16.6.2 DLR addition ...... 231 16.6.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 232 16.6.4 Mitigation ...... 232 16.6.5 Summary ...... 232 16.7 Water Environment ...... 232 16.7.1 Highway ...... 232 16.7.2 DLR addition ...... 232 16.7.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths ...... 232 16.7.4 Mitigation ...... 232 16.7.5 Summary ...... 232 16.8 Townscape and Visual Impact ...... 233 16.8.1 Highway ...... 233 16.8.2 DLR addition ...... 233 16.8.3 Pedestrians and Cycle Path ...... 233 16.8.4 Mitigation ...... 233 16.8.5 Summary ...... 233 16.9 Energy ...... 233 16.9.1 Highway ...... 233

xxii

16.9.2 DLR addition ...... 233 16.9.3 Pedestrians and Cycle path ...... 233 16.9.4 Mitigation ...... 234 16.9.5 Summary...... 234

17 NOISE AND VIBRATION ...... 235 17.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 235 17.1.1 Background information ...... 235 17.2 Results ...... 235 17.2.1 Scenario 114 ...... 235 17.2.2 Scenario 115 ...... 236 17.2.3 Scenario 201 ...... 237 17.2.4 Summary of Results ...... 238

18 AIR QUALITY ...... 240 18.1 Background information ...... 240 18.2 Results – Option 7A ...... 241 18.2.1 Affected Road Network (ARN) ...... 241 18.2.2 Impact on Emissions and Potential Impact on Receptors ...... 242

18.2.3 Potential Future Exceedences of Air Quality Strategy NO2 Objectives ...... 244 18.3 Results – Option 13A ...... 245 18.3.1 Affected Road Network ...... 245 18.3.2 Impact on Emissions and Potential Impact on Receptors ...... 245

18.3.3 Potential Future Exceedence of Air Quality Strategy NO2 Objectives ...... 248 18.4 Results – Option 200 ...... 249 18.4.1 Affected Road Network ...... 249 18.4.2 Impact on Emissions and Potential Impact on Receptors ...... 249

18.4.3 Potential Future Exceedence of Air Quality Strategy NO2 Objectives ...... 251 18.5 Summary of Results ...... 252 18.6 Significance ...... 252

xxiii East of Silvertown

19 SUMMARY ...... 254

20 REFERENCES ...... 256

21 ABBREVIATIONS ...... 260

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 2A Options Description

APPENDIX 4A Cultural Heritage: Archaeological Gazetteer

APPENDIX 4B Cultural Heritage: Listed Buildings

APPENDIX 4C Cultural Heritage: Baseline Detailed Information

xxiv

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

0.1 Background

0.1.1.1 Transport for London (TfL) is proposing to construct two new fixed crossings over the River Thames between the proposed Silvertown Tunnel (Greenwich Peninsula – Silvertown) and the Dartford Crossing. These crossings are being referred to as ‘Gallions Reach’, connecting Beckton and Thamesmead, and ‘Belvedere’, connecting Belvedere and Rainham.

0.1.1.2 This project sits within a wider river crossings programme which seeks to transform cross-river connectivity between east and southeast London. This programme proposes a number of public transport, highway, pedestrian and cycle links to improve people’s access to jobs, support housing development, enhance the resilience of the transport network and encourage more sustainable travel.

0.2 River crossing options

0.2.1.1 In response to the 2014 consultation, TfL is considering the feasibility of both bridges and tunnels at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. There are two different types of tunnel that would be feasible at both Gallions Reach and Belvedere – an immersed tube tunnel and a bored tunnel. In addition, there are two different types of bridges being assessed. At Gallions Reach a box girder bridge is considered feasible, whilst at Belvedere a cable-stayed bridge is being considered foremost. A highway-only (to include buses) and a fixed public transport option are being considered for each type of crossing at each location. For the fixed public transport options, the option of Docklands Light Railway (DLR) has been used as it requires the largest area for the construction footprint. Visualisations of the bus and DLR bridge options are presented in the consultation leaflet.

0.3 Aims of the study

0.3.1.1 This Environmental Options Study compares the proposed river crossing options in terms of environmental impact and identifies the need for any further work that may be required once a preferred option or a range of options is selected. The study is an initial assessment to assist TfL in their options selection process, and does not comprise either a statutory or non-statutory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The purpose of the study is a comparison between the options, rather than identifying the significance of effects upon environmental receptors.

0.4 Community and Private Assets

0.4.1.1 This topic discusses the potential impacts of both the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings on the key community facilities and private assets within the study area. Both locations are surrounded by predominantly industrial land, as well as some residential areas near the Gallions Reach alignment. At both locations, connecting the north and south banks would improve access to community facilities for local residents. The addition of a fixed public transport option would further enhance connectivity to surrounding areas. Whilst there are potential issues of noise and vibration for both locations, these are not expected to impact on the surrounding community facilities or private assets.

0.4.1.2 The addition of either a tunnel or bridge at Gallions Reach would have no adverse impacts from land take because it would occupy vacant, previously developed land. The

1 East of Silvertown addition of either a tunnel or bridge at Belvedere would have an adverse effect as commercial land take would be needed on both the north and south banks. However, no community facilities or residential properties are within the area of likely permanent or temporary land take.

0.5 Cultural Heritage

0.5.1.1 This topic discusses the potential impacts of the river crossings on the heritage features (archaeology, listed buildings and Conservation Areas) within the study area. Both locations are surrounded by predominantly industrial land. There are no listed buildings or Conservation Areas within the vicinity of Gallions Reach or Belvedere.

0.5.1.2 The potential to disturb archaeological remains within areas of archaeological potential (as designated by the London Boroughs of Greenwich and Newham) is present for either a bridge or tunnel at Gallions Reach. Possible construction impacts upon cultural heritage include the north and south cut-and-cover tunnels and their approaches, and construction compounds. The immersed tunnel option has increased potential for adverse impacts, as it would need the largest area of excavation both with and without fixed public transport options included.

0.5.1.3 The Havering Archaeological Priority Zone creates the potential to unearth a number of archaeological remains within the footprint of any river crossing option at Belvedere. The immersed tube tunnel would also potentially remove any archaeological remains found within the river channel at the option location.

0.6 Ecology and Nature Conservation

0.6.1.1 This topic assesses the effects of the river crossings on terrestrial and marine ecology and nature conservation. Both locations potentially affect a section of the River Thames that lies within the Thames Estuary and Marshes Important Bird Area (IBA), a designated site of international importance for birds.

0.6.1.2 Due to the mobility of ecological species and time since the surveys were undertaken, the species found at each location may or may not still be present. Updated surveys would be undertaken at the next stage of the project. Terrestrial surveys (on land) undertaken at Gallions Reach found habitats suitable for important insect species, a wide range of waterfowl and wintering birds, as well as having the potential to support some protected bird species. Marine surveys (in water) undertaken found a protected species of crustacean. The banks surrounding the Belvedere options comprise of mudflats. A number of invasive plant species, including Japanese Knotweed, have been found in the area. The area has a number of waterbodies in close proximity to the crossing location that support water voles.

0.6.1.3 During construction at both locations there could be some temporary habitat loss, but once operational the habitat would be returned to its previous state. Construction could also affect the water quality and change potential marine habitats. The effects on other areas surrounding the crossing locations would vary, depending on the type of crossing that is implemented, with tunnels likely to have more construction-related impacts on marine and terrestrial ecology than bridges. However, suitable mitigation measures developed at the next stage could manage this risk to reduce adverse impacts.

0.7 Effects on All Travellers

0.7.1.1 This topic discusses a number of effects that travellers using all transport modes could experience as a result of the river crossings, both during construction and once the crossing is operational. The topic is defined very specifically to include the view from the road, driver stress, severance, and effects on pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.

0.7.1.2 The choice of a bridge or tunnel would have an impact on driver views from the road, the driver experience, as well as the type of facilities that can be provided for non- motorised users. During construction, all river crossing options would result in temporary impacts to cycle routes and footpaths, as well as potentially increase driver stress due to construction traffic, diversions, increased journey times and some severance. However, these are not predicted during the operational phase. Bridge options would allow for views.

0.7.1.3 Severance refers to the separation of residents from facilities and services they use within their community. Some communities at both locations currently experience severance, and all crossing options would result in some temporary severance during construction but improved connectivity between communities once operational. All options would have a beneficial effect on all travellers once the river crossing is operational.

0.8 Ground Conditions

0.8.1.1 This topic discusses the potential ground conditions within the study areas of Gallions Reach and Belvedere. Current and historic land use studies assess the potential contamination of the land during construction and historic contaminated land within the sites. The likelihood of discovering unexploded ordnance and geological makeup around the locations is also assessed.

0.8.1.2 Landfill sites near to the Gallions Reach options would be potential sources of contamination. In Belvedere, there are likely to be areas of contaminated soil (in Made Ground, historic landfill sites and river sediment) due to existing and historic industrial activity. For both bridge and tunnel options, excavation of the river bed and construction work in the river channel might open up pollution pathways or increase the contaminated land in the area. Disturbance might cause sediment to move up and downstream. These deep excavations would also increase the risk from unexploded ordnance, particularly at Gallions Reach due to its proximity to the Royal Arsenal. As with other topics, the addition of fixed public transport options would increase the footprint of the river crossings and the potential impacts on the surrounding environments.

0.9 Materials

0.9.1.1 This topic discusses the volume of construction material and construction waste arising from the river crossing proposals.

0.9.1.2 At the time of writing there was no detailed information regarding key materials and key waste for the bored tunnel options at either Gallions Reach or Belvedere. However, it is likely that there would be more waste arising from these options than for the immersed tube tunnel. For bored tunnels, at both locations it may be difficult to reuse material from boring activity due to the high chalk and water content of the river bed.

0.9.1.3 At both locations the immersed tube tunnel would generate a large amount of material from dredging activities and land-based operations. A large volume of material

3 East of Silvertown would also be needed for backfilling. As mentioned above, material excavated from the banks and river bed could not be reused for this backfilling.

0.9.1.4 The addition of the DLR and pedestrian and cycle tunnels would increase the land take required for all tunnel options. The bored tunnel would have the largest footprint and therefore would excavate the most material from the bed and banks, and would need the most material brought to site.

0.9.1.5 The bridge option at both locations would have the lowest impact as it would not need to excavate as much material from the banks and river bed. However, a wider variety of materials would be needed for the bridge options due to the likely addition of a weather screening for the pedestrian and cycle gallery and weather proof materials.

0.10 Water Environment

0.10.1.1 This topic discusses the impact of potential contamination from construction works on the water environment and the flood risk at both locations.

0.10.1.2 All options at both locations have the potential to pollute the Thames and other waterbodies due to ground-breaking works when constructing tunnel entrances and bridge ramps and accidental spills during construction. The risk is slightly higher at Belvedere due to potential contaminated soils. The disposal of tunnel drainage and surface water runoff from the bridge option could lead to further contamination of the surrounding water bodies.

0.10.1.3 All options would temporarily increase third party flood risk due to construction removing some areas of the River Thames flood defence wall.

0.11 Townscape and Visual Impact

0.11.1.1 This topic discusses the potential impacts of the river crossings on local views within the study area. As both locations are surrounded by predominantly industrial land, and the majority of bored and immersed tube tunnels would be below the ground, there are not expected to be any adverse effects on townscape or visual impact.

0.11.1.2 Tunnel entrances and exits could be seen from national recreational trails/ routes and residential areas so their design should complement the surrounding area. Belvedere has no sensitive residential areas nearby so has a lower impact on visual amenity. The bridge options would interfere more with views from the national recreational trail/ routes and residential areas, but high quality design may improve views within the area due to the surrounding industrial land use. Pedestrian and cycle routes over the bridges would provide new views up and down the river.

0.12 Energy

0.12.1.1 This topic discusses the potential impacts of energy used during construction and operation of the river crossings. The assessment has not included ‘modal shift’ to determine whether the inclusion of public transport and pedestrian and cycle options would encourage fewer people to use private vehicles.

0.12.1.2 The choice of a bridge or tunnel would impact the amount of energy needed during construction and operation. Bridge options would have the lowest operational energy of the options, as lighting would only be needed during night time hours, although

the addition of the DLR would mean a constant source of energy would be needed. During construction, the energy required would be less than that of the tunnel options.

0.12.1.3 There would be no difference in energy requirement between Gallions Reach and Belvedere locations during both construction and operational phases. The DLR options would have the highest energy demands during both construction and operation due to longer construction duration and the need for lighting, signalling and running of the DLR during operation. Tunnel options would also have high energy demands for ventilation. Lighting and ventilation would also be required in pedestrian and cycle tunnels to ensure the users feel safe within the surrounding environment. Bored tunnels would require the most energy during construction.

0.12.1.4 There is scope to consider renewable energy generation as part of all options, such as solar panels. Belvedere bridge options would also have potential for wind energy generation whereas at a bridge at Gallions Reach this would be constrained due to the airport flight path.

0.13 Noise and Vibration

0.13.1.1 This topic discusses the potential impacts of noise and vibration resulting from the river crossings. The assessment compares the ‘Reference Case’, which assumes no new river crossings are in place, with the potential noise and vibration impacts of both crossings together. In response to questions arising from the previous consultation, this assessment also considers the impact of each crossing separately. . This has involved a high level assessment of noise impacts generated by traffic at a number of locations surrounding the crossings based on traffic forecasts for the year 2031.

0.13.1.2 The noise methodology identifies road ‘links’ (a stretch of road between two defined points) where there is either an increase or decrease of more than 3.0 decibels (dBA). A direct comparison between the traffic scenarios suggests that the Belvedere crossing may cause the least impact on the noise environment compared with Gallions Reach and the combined option of both river crossings being operational at the same time. The results are, however, based on a high level assessment rather than detailed noise modelling for comparison purposes only. A detailed noise assessment would be undertaken at the next stage of the project.

0.14 Air Quality

0.14.1.1 This topic discusses the potential impacts on air quality resulting from four different traffic scenarios. These are outlined above in the noise and vibration introductory text. This has involved a high level assessment of the change in air quality concentrations as a result of vehicle emissions at a number of locations surrounding the crossings based on traffic forecasts for 2021, making use of a Highways England screening tool.

0.14.1.2 As would be expected, the results of the assessment indicate that NO2 concentrations would be likely to increase in areas with increased traffic, and decrease where roads become less busy. The assessment has illustrated that the air quality impacts are likely to be very similar for each of the traffic scenarios.

0.14.1.3 Overall, the assessment indicated that there would be breaches of the legal limits, both with and without the scheme, but there would be no additional locations where air quality would breach legal limits as a result of the scheme. There are indications of one

5 East of Silvertown small increase and one small decrease at two locations estimated to be above these limits in the reference case.

0.14.1.4 Further detailed dispersion modelling and specific investigations will be undertaken at the next stage as the design of the scheme progresses and results at that stage could differ from those presented above. Any proposal taken forward will be subject to rigorous assessment to ensure they comply with air quality standards set out in policy and legislation.

0.15 Mitigation

0.15.1.1 As the project is at an early stage in the process, mitigation still needs to be incorporated for all environmental topics. Some mitigation measures are identified in the assessment, but these would be developed further at the next stage of the project. This may reduce potential impacts on a number of topics.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background information

1.1.1.1 Transport for London (TfL) is proposing to construct two new fixed crossings of the River Thames between the proposed Silvertown Tunnel (Greenwich Peninsula – Silvertown) and the Dartford Crossing. These crossings are being referred to as ‘Gallions Reach’, connecting Beckton and Thamesmead, and ‘Belvedere’, connecting Belvedere and Rainham.

1.1.1.2 This project sits within a wider river crossings programme which seeks to transform cross-river connectivity between east and southeast London. This programme proposes a number of public transport, highway, pedestrian and cycle links to improve people’s access to jobs, support housing development, enhance the resilience of the transport network and encourage more sustainable travel.

1.1.1.3 TfL undertook public consultation from 7 July to 18 September 2014, seeking feedback on and preferences for four options for river crossings east of Silvertown: replacing the Woolwich Ferry, a new ferry at Gallions Reach, a bridge at Gallions Reach and a bridge at Belvedere. An Environmental Options Study was prepared to support this consultation, which assessed the potential environmental impacts of 26 options for each of the above locations to the east of Silvertown.

1.1.1.4 Almost 7,500 responses to the consultation were received, with over 90% of respondents expressing support for new crossings. The majority of feedback supported fixed crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere rather than new or replacement ferry crossings. The Mayor subsequently announced that TfL would be progressing investigations into new crossings (as bridges or tunnels) at Gallions Reach and Belvedere.

1.1.1.5 TfL has since undertaken further work to integrate public transport, pedestrian and cycle provision on both the crossings, and to assess the impacts of the proposed crossings. Of the initial 26 options included in the 2014 Environmental Options Study, seven options have been carried forward into this assessment. A further six options are assessed that integrate fixed public transport and pedestrian and cycle provision. Further assessment of noise and emissions has also been carried out. This report has been prepared to describe and compare the environmental impacts of the 12 options.

1.2 Site Locations

1.2.1.1 The locations of the Gallions Reach options are highlighted in Drawing 1-1. The northern side of the study area is located within the London Borough of Newham and the southern side is located within the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

1.2.1.2 On the north side of the River Thames the site is located within an area known as Gallions Reach. The study area is bounded to the north by the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works (STW), to the south by Gallions Point Marina and to the west by Woolwich Manor Way (A117) and Royal Docks Road (A1020).

1.2.1.3 On the south side of the River Thames the study area includes an area of Thamesmead which is largely undeveloped. The study area is bounded to the south by Western Way (A2016) and by two large residential areas to the east and west.

7 East of Silvertown

1.2.1.4 Additional options are being considered between Belvedere and Rainham, further downstream along the Thames. The location of these options (referred to hereafter as the “Belvedere Options”) are indicated in Drawing 1-1. On the northern side of the River Thames, the study area is located in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (the northwest part) and London Borough of Havering (the central and northeast part). On the southern side of the River Thames, the study area is located within the London Borough of Bexley.

1.2.1.5 Both banks of the River Thames at the location of the Belvedere Options are currently industrial land, and are densely populated by business premises and factories.

1.3 Aims of the Study

1.3.1.1 This Options Study aims to present an optioneering exercise to compare the proposed options in terms of environmental impact and identify the need for any further work that may be required once a preferred option or a range of options is selected. The study builds upon previous work published in 2014 by incorporating fixed public transport options, in response to consultation feedback. The study is an initial assessment to assist TfL in their options selection process, and does not comprise either a statutory or non- statutory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The purpose of the study is a comparison between the options, rather than identifying the significance of effects upon environmental receptors. The aims of the study are:  Review the new options identified by TfL and collate any additional information required to allow a balanced assessment of each of the options to similar level of detail. The review of each option is presented within their own Technical Note, from Chapter 5 onwards from this report  Identify any key issues within each option  Where impacts are identified, to comment on availability and viability of mitigation options. Mitigation measures for any significant adverse impacts are suggested within Chapters 5 to 19  To summarise the environmental benefits and dis-benefits of each option, in a comparative manner, to inform TfL of their consolidated options list.

1.3.1.2 The 2014 Options Study was completed by Hyder Consulting Ltd, who become Arcadis Consulting Ltd in September 2015. All references to historic work undertaken have been retained as Hyder Consulting Ltd, whereas work since September 2015 is attributed to Arcadis Consulting Ltd.

2 THE OPTIONS

2.1.1.1 The location of the various proposed and existing crossing points in East London are illustrated on Figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2-1: Location of Crossing Points for East of Silvertown

2.1.1.2 As part of this Options Study there are 12 options to be assessed, summarised in Table 2- 1 below, 6 of which are located at Gallions Reach and 6 located at Belvedere. There are two different types of tunnel being assessed at both Gallions Reach and Belvedere locations. These comprise an immersed tube tunnel and a bored tunnel. In addition, there are two different types of bridges being assessed. At Gallions Reach a box girder bridge is being considered, whilst at Belvedere a cable-stayed bridge is being considered. A highway only (to include buses on the shared carriageway) and fixed public transport option is being considered for each type of crossing at each location. For the fixed public transport options, the worst case scenario option of Docklands Light Railway (DLR) has been used as it requires the largest area for the construction footprint.

2.1.1.3 The option numbering for ‘highways only’ options has been carried forward from the 2014 Options Study to enable cross referencing with the previous study. The corresponding fixed public transport option has been numbered with ‘A’ afterwards to avoid confusion with dismissed options from the 2014 study.

2.1.1.4 Due to a better understanding of potential cross-river bus provision (not available previously), all ’highway’ crossings are assumed to include the provision of buses. This was not presumed within the 2014 ‘highways only’ options.

2.1.1.5 Engineering studies undertaken to assess the feasibility of different forms of pedestrian/cycling provision mean all bridges within this option study are assumed to have pedestrian/cycle provision.

9 East of Silvertown

Table 2-1 Description of Options considered in this Options Study

Option No. Location Crossing Type Number of lanes Details description

Gallions Reach

Option 1 Gallions Reach – Immersed tube 2 + 2 highway lanes (dual 3 forms of structure (open approach ramps, cut and cover tunnel, and safeguarded Thames tunnel carriageway, 1 general and 1 immersed tunnel section). Total width of 25.4m and height of 10m would Gateway Bridge (TGB) bus/HGV in each direction) be required for the proposed carriageway and tunnel equipment. The Alignment tunnel would likely be a three cell reinforced concrete box, with a central cell to allow access to the adjacent cell in emergency conditions and also to allow maintenance access. Jacobs (2015) Drawing B1987502/ITT/002

Option 1A Gallions Reach – Immersed tube 2 + 2 highway lanes (dual 3 forms of structure (open approach ramps, cut and cover tunnel, and safeguarded Thames tunnel carriageway, 1 general and 1 immersed tunnel section). A total width of 40.1m and height of 10m, likely Gateway Bridge (TGB) bus/HGV in each direction), to comprise a five cell reinforced concrete box including a central cell in Alignment twin DLR tracks and 1 emergency conditions and also to allow maintenance access. . . pedestrian / cycle shared path Jacobs (2015) Drawing B1987502/ITT/005 (Pedestrian and cycle tunnel shown as split level but could also be shared)

Option 2 Gallions Reach – Bored tunnel 2 + 2 lanes (dual 3 forms of structure (open approach ramps, cut and cover tunnel, and Safeguarded carriageway), 1 general and 1 bored tunnel section). A twin bore tunnel with an external diameter of alignment bus/HGV in each direction 12.1m. Each bore would carry a 2 lane carriageway with a 1.2 metre verge on each side to allow for emergency access wide enough for wheelchairs. The two bores would be separated by 24 metres centre to centre with cross-passages provided to allow access. Jacobs (2015) Drawing B1987502/BT/003

Option 2A Gallions Reach – Bored tunnel 2 + 2 lanes (dual 3 forms of structure (open approach ramps, cut and cover tunnel, and Safeguarded carriageway), 1 general and 1 bored tunnel section) with a total width of approximately 90m for the 5 alignment bus/HGV in each direction, 2 bores. Two bores with an external diameter of 12.1m would carry a 2 lane DLR tracks and 1 pedestrian / carriageway with a 1.2m verge on each side to allow for emergency cycle shared path access wide enough for wheelchairs. Two DLR bores (external diameter of 6.9m) would comprise one track and the pedestrian/cycle bore would be just under 7m wide. The highway bores would be separated by 24m

Option No. Location Crossing Type Number of lanes Details description centre to centre and DLR bores separated by 18m centre to centre with cross-passages provided to allow access. Jacobs (2015) Drawings B1987502/BT/002, 003 and 005

Option 5 Gallions Reach – Concrete box bridge 2 + 2 lanes (dual carriageway, 560m balanced cantilever bridge with a main span of 256m and two side Safeguarded 1 general and 1 bus/HGV in spans of 152m each. The main span height is in the region of 50m above alignment each direction) and 1 mean high water springs. A total width of 21.5m. pedestrian / cycle shared path Atkins (2013) Drawing 5118859-DR-SO1-011

Option 5A Gallions Reach – Concrete box bridge 1+1 lanes (single carriageway 560m balanced cantilever bridge with a main span of 256m and two side Safeguarded with hatched median), twin spans of 152m each. The main span height is in the region of 50m above alignment DLR tracks and 1 pedestrian / mean high water springs. A total width of 24.6m. cycle shared path Jacobs (2015) Drawing B1987502/BRI/004

Belvedere

Option 20 Belvedere Immersed tube 2 + 2 highway lanes (dual 3 forms of structure (open approach ramps, cut and cover tunnel and tunnel carriageway, 1 general and 1 immersed tunnel section). Total width of 25.4m and height of 10m would bus/HGV in each direction) be required for the proposed carriageway and tunnel equipment. The tunnel would likely be a three cell reinforced concrete box, with a central cell to allow access to the adjacent cell in emergency conditions and also to allow maintenance access. Jacobs (2015) Drawing B1987502/ITT/002

Option 20A Belvedere Immersed tube 2 + 2 highway lanes (dual 3 forms of structure (open approach ramps, cut and cover tunnel, and tunnel carriageway, 1 general and 1 immersed tunnel section). A total width of 40.1m and height of 10m, likely bus/HGV in each direction), to comprise a five cell reinforced concrete box including a central cell in twin DLR tracks and 1 emergency conditions and also to allow maintenance access. pedestrian / cycle shared path Jacobs (2015) Drawing B1987502/ITT/005 (Pedestrian and cycle tunnel shown as split level but could also be shared)

Option 21 Belvedere Bored tunnel 2 + 2 lanes (dual 3 forms of structure (open approach ramps, cut and cover tunnel, and carriageway), 1 general and 1 bored tunnel section). A twin bore tunnel with an external diameter of bus/HGV in each direction 12.1m. Each bore would carry a 2 lane carriageway with a 1.2 metre verge on each side to allow for emergency access wide enough for

11 East of Silvertown

Option No. Location Crossing Type Number of lanes Details description wheelchairs. The two bores would be separated by 24 metres centre to centre with cross-passages provided to allow access. Jacobs (2015) Drawing B1987502/BT/003

Option 21A Belvedere Bored tunnel 2 + 2 lanes (dual 3 forms of structure (open approach ramps, cut and cover tunnel, and carriageway), 1 general and 1 bored tunnel section) with a total width of approximately 90m for the 5 bus/HGV in each direction, 2 bores. Two bores with an external diameter of 12.1m would carry a 2 lane DLR tracks and 1 pedestrian / carriageway with a 1.2m verge on each side to allow for emergency cycle shared path access wide enough for wheelchairs. Two DLR bores (external diameter of 6.9m) would comprise one track and the pedestrian/cycle bore would be just under 7m wide. The highway bores would be separated by 24m centre to centre and DLR bores separated by 18m centre to centre with cross-passages provided to allow access. Jacobs (2015) Drawings B1987502/BT/002, 003 and 005

Option 22 Belvedere Cable stayed bridge 2 + 2 lanes (dual carriageway, Two mono-pylon supports in the region of 300m apart over the main river 1 general and 1 bus/HGV in channel. The bridge deck comprises a steel concrete composite deck each direction) and 1 supported at the outer edge by stay cables passing over saddles located pedestrian / cycle shared path in the pylons. The main span height is in the region of 54m above mean high water springs. The height of the pylons is approximately 105m above the bridge deck, giving an overall height of 158m. Cross-section assumed to be the same as option 5.

Option 22A Belvedere Cable stayed bridge 1+1 lanes (single carriageway Two mono-pylon supports in the region of 300m apart over the main river with hatched median), twin channel. The bridge deck comprises a steel concrete composite deck DLR tracks and 1 pedestrian / supported at the outer edge by stay cables passing over saddles located cycle shared path in the pylons. The main span height is in the region of 54m above mean high water springs. The height of the pylons is approximately 105m above the bridge deck, giving an overall height of 158m. Cross-section assumed to be the same as option 5A.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Baseline Data Collection

3.1.1.1 A high-level baseline data-study has been undertaken based on publically available (e.g. web-based) data sources and observations from aerial photographs and site visits. These are described in each topic as appropriate.

3.1.1.2 A number of other data sources have been made available:  Ecological surveys undertaken by Mott MacDonald at Gallions Reach  Engineering studies for the various options  The Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken for the previously proposed Thames Gateway Bridge (TGB)

3.1.1.3 Where these data sources have been used, they have been referenced as appropriate, and comments on the adequacy of the data have been made. Further data collection would be undertaken prior to any formal Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken for the selected option, but it is not appropriate to undertake a detailed level of study at this stage.

3.1.1.4 For the purpose of this report, the study area extends to 1km from the crossings unless stated otherwise in the individual option assessment methodologies.

3.2 Assessment Methodology 3.2.1 Introduction

3.2.1.1 A high-level assessment has been undertaken appropriate to the stage of this study and the level of baseline data available. Where appropriate, methodologies have been based on WebTAG approaches and other accepted methodologies for each specialist topic. Where necessary, methodologies have been adapted to suit the stage of study and level of data available. Details of the methodologies for each topic have been discussed in this chapter.

3.2.1.2 The significance of the impacts is formulated as a function of the receptor or resource environmental value (or sensitivity) and the magnitude of impact. The sensitivity of receptors is determined in accordance with Volume 11: Section 2 Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and is presented in Table 3-1 Sensitivity of receptors below:

Table 3-1 Sensitivity of receptors

Value (sensitivity) Typical descriptors

Very high importance and rarity, international scale and very limited potential for Very High substitution.

High High importance and rarity, national scale, and limited potential for substitution.

High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for Medium substitution.

Low (or Lower) Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale.

Negligible Very low importance and rarity, local scale.

13 East of Silvertown

3.2.1.3 The magnitude of the impacts during construction and operation is assessed using the criteria of DMRB’s Guidance for Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects and is presented in Table 3-2. Where relevant, additional topic-specific criteria are provided within each Chapter, using this same scale.

Table 3-2 Magnitude of impact

Magnitude of Criteria impact

Considerable impact that cannot be managed or mitigated and is of more than Major local significance in relation to relevant legislation, policy and/or standards.

Limited impact that cannot be managed or mitigated and is of more than local Moderate significance in relation to relevant legislation, policy and/or standards.

Slight impact that cannot be managed or mitigated and is of more than local Minor significance in relation to relevant legislation, policy and/or standards.

Neutral change of local significance in relation to relevant legislation, policy Negligible and/or standards.

No Change No change.

3.2.1.4 Residual impacts are defined as those impacts which remain following the implementation of mitigation measures. Residual Impact Significance has been assessed using the Department for Transport’s WebTAG Appraisal Summary Table standard seven point scale (Slight, Moderate or Large Beneficial or Adverse, plus Neutral). In addition, a means of identifying exceptionally severe adverse impacts is provided for by the rating 'Very Large Adverse'. The significance of an impact reflects the importance or value of the affected resource or receptor, its sensitivity to change, and the magnitude of the predicted impact. Where the residual impacts range from slight to moderate depending on the receptor, a professional judgement is used to determine the overall residual impact score of each option.

3.2.1.5 Table 3-3 presents the assessment matrix used to determine impact significance.

Table 3-3 Significance of impacts

Importance/sensitivity of resource or receptor

Magnitude of potential Very High High Medium Low Negligible impact

Major Very Large Large Moderate Slight Slight

Moderate Large Moderate Moderate Slight Neutral

Minor Moderate Moderate Slight Neutral Neutral

Negligible Slight Slight Slight Neutral Neutral

No Change Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral

3.2.1.6 Typical descriptors of the significance of the impact categories are presented in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Descriptors of the significance of impact categories (DMRB, Volume 11, Section 2)

Significance Typical Descriptor of impact Category

Very Large Only adverse, as opposed to beneficial, impacts are normally assigned at the ‘very large’ level of significance. They represent key factors in the decision- making process. These impacts are generally, but not exclusively, associated with sites or features of international, national or regional importance that are likely to suffer a most damaging impact and loss of resource integrity. However, a major change in a site or feature of local importance may also enter this category.

Large These beneficial or adverse impacts are considered to be very important considerations and are likely to be material in the decision making process.

Moderate These beneficial or adverse impacts may be important, but are not likely to be key decision-making factors. The cumulative impacts of such factors may influence decision-making if they lead to an increase of the overall adverse impact on a particular resource or receptor.

Slight These beneficial or adverse impacts may be raised as local factors. They are unlikely to be critical in the decision-making process, but are important in enhancing the subsequent design of the project.

Neutral No impacts or those that re beneath the level of perception, within normal bounds of variation or with the margin of forecasting error.

3.2.1.7 It should be noted that at this stage the noise and vibration assessment describes only the indicative magnitude of noise change rather than overall residual impact. This magnitude of noise changes calculated for this assessment refers to a change in basic noise level (BNL) along affected routes in the study area and does not necessarily reflect the change in noise level at respective receptor locations. Further assessment would need to be carried out to predict noise change at individual receptor locations whereby consideration is given to change in height and alignment of roads and the effects of topography and screening from buildings and other structures. The assessment has been carried out on four traffic scenarios rather than the crossing options.

3.2.1.8 The emissions assessment is not a formal environmental impact assessment as it is being carried out, along with the noise and vibration assessment, on four traffic scenarios. Assessment of overall residual impacts is not included at this optioneering stage due to the high level assessment of emissions impacts. It is expected that a detailed modelling and a full DMRB and WebTag compliant air quality assessment will be undertaken at the next stage.

3.2.1.9 The residual impact scores for the rest of the environmental topics are provided to allow the effects of each option to be compared, but the scale of impacts is not comparable between topics due to uncertainties and data gaps, and no weighting to different topics has been given either. Further explanation of the interpretation of scores is provided in each topic chapter. 3.2.2 Study Scope

3.2.2.1 The scope of this study comprises:  Community and Private Assets  Cultural Heritage

15 East of Silvertown

 Ecology and Nature Conservation  Effects on all Travellers  Ground Conditions  Materials  Water Environment  Townscape and Visual Impact  Energy  Noise and Vibration  Emissions Impact

3.2.2.2 Once an option or final range of options has been selected for progression, further environmental studies and consultation would be undertaken to refine and select a final scheme. This would lead to the preparation of an Environmental Statement (ES) in accordance with the relevant EIA Regulations. 3.2.3 Limitations and Data Gaps

3.2.3.1 During the options comparison it was recognised that uncertainty exists with regards to the prediction of residual impacts. This is due to the level of baseline data available at this stage of options appraisal as well as the high level assessment of impacts. The overall summary score is based on the information available at the time. In some cases this information varies between options (e.g. marine surveys have been carried out for Gallions Reach but not for Belvedere). In other cases the overall score is based on a worst case scenario where mitigation may be achievable but complex or potentially costly (e.g. ground conditions where a risk to an important receptor (e.g. the Thames due to migration of contaminants) could be significant if mitigation doesn't work).

3.2.3.2 Limitations associated with traffic forecasts have been described in the traffic forecasts methodology, presented in section 3.3 below.

3.2.3.3 In response to comments received during the 2014 consultation exercise, TfL has presented two river crossing options (Gallions Reach and Belvedere) being operational at the same time. This is captured within the traffic Scenarios 200 and 201. Using these traffic scenarios, a cumulative assessment has been completed for Noise and Vibration and Emissions impacts. The cumulative effects have not been assessed for all other environmental topics, as predicted impacts are localised around each river crossing location. To identify the ‘in-combination’ effects of more than one crossing being implemented at the same time, the environmental effects associated with each individual crossing option would be combined together.

3.3 Traffic Forecasts Methodology

3.3.1.1 Traffic forecasts have been used to undertake the Noise and Vibration and Emissions Impact assessments in this report. Details of the traffic impacts of the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings individually were presented in the East of Silvertown Crossings Traffic Impact Report prepared by TfL for the 2014 consultation. Equivalent traffic impacts for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings combined are presented in the accompanying East of Silvertown Traffic Impact Report (TfL, November 2015).

3.3.1.2 The traffic forecasts are accompanied by an Appraisal Specification Report (ASR), which outlines all of the modelling and appraisal assumptions used. It should be noted that

the highway models were undertaken using a version of TfL’s LoRDM model, which has not yet been updated in line with the Further Alterations of the London Plan (FALP) population and employment projections. The results from this version of the model have lower population/employment growth overall and a higher car mode share in central and inner London. Furthermore the model outputs are not based on the latest user charging assumptions, nor do they include improvements to cross-river public transport. Consequently, the modelled impacts are likely to over-estimate demand for the two crossings and can be considered a worst-case scenario.

3.3.1.3 Three time periods (AM peak, inter-peak and PM peak) have been modelled. At this stage of the project the opening year and design year results are extrapolated from 2021 and 2031 models. Updated versions of the 2021, 2031 and 2041 models will, however, be available for future stages of analysis.

3.3.1.4 The Noise and Vibration assessment has used traffic forecasts from the year 2031, as this will represent the worst case scenario following the construction of various developments that have been granted planning permission or are under consideration at present in the surrounding area. This assessment is presented in chapter 18.

3.3.1.5 The Air Quality Assessment has used traffic forecasts from the year 2021, as this is expected to represent the worst case scenario with the predicted downward trend in pollutant emissions. This assessment is presented in chapter 19.

3.3.1.6 Table 3-5 provides a description of the traffic scenarios used in this Options Study to assess the differences between various combinations of river crossings being operational. Scenarios 4a and 4b represent the ‘reference case’ in 2021 and 2031, which identifies the traffic forecasts if no East of Silvertown crossings are operational. The Blackwall Tunnel and Silvertown Tunnel crossings are included within all traffic scenarios, including the reference case. In Scenarios 7a and 114 the Gallions Reach crossing replaces Woolwich Ferry. Belvedere crossing is only included in Scenarios 13a and 115. Scenarios 200 and 201 include both new crossings being operational at the same time. Table 3-5 Traffic Scenarios applied in this Options Study

Traffic Scenario No. Year Description

2021 Reference Case. Silvertown and Blackwall Scenario 4a Crossings both charged. Woolwich Ferry no capacity to increase and is not charged.

2031 Reference Case. Silvertown and Blackwall Scenario 4b Crossings both charged. Woolwich Ferry no capacity to increase and is not charged.

2021 Do Something. Silvertown, Blackwall and Scenario 7a Gallions Crossings all charged. Woolwich Ferry removed.

2031 Do Something. Silvertown, Blackwall and Scenario 114 Gallions Crossings all charged. Woolwich Ferry removed.

2021 Do Something. Silvertown, Blackwall and Belvedere Crossings all charged. Woolwich Scenario 13a Ferry updated with 30% additional capacity and charged.

17 East of Silvertown

2031 Do Something. Silvertown, Blackwall and Belvedere Crossings all charged. Woolwich Scenario 115 Ferry updated with 30% additional capacity and charged.

2021 Do Something. Silvertown, Blackwall, Gallions Scenario 200 and Belvedere Crossings all charged. Woolwich Ferry removed.

2031 Do Something. Silvertown, Blackwall, Gallions Scenario 201 and Belvedere Crossings all charged. Woolwich Ferry removed.

Sources: East of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report July 2014 (Transport for London) for Scenarios 4a, 4b, 7a, 114, 13a and 115. East of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report 2015 (Transport for London) for Scenarios 200 and 201. 3.4 Community and Private Assets

3.4.1.1 This chapter relates to potential impacts of the scheme on the key community facilities and the private assets within the study areas. Baseline data have been collected for the following areas of assessment:  Population characteristics for London Borough of Newham and Royal Borough of Greenwich, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, London Borough of Havering and London Borough of Bexley  Main land-uses in the study areas  Main community facilities  Land use planning designations for sites and current planning applications

3.4.1.2 This assessment has been carried out in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 6: Land Use.

3.4.1.3 Regional and local polices and plans which are relevant to the Scheme and Community and Private Assets are considered in this chapter. The planning documents, maps and reports which have been reviewed comprise:  Census first results: London boroughs’ populations by age and sex, Office for National Statistics. 2011  Submission Core Strategy with Development Management policies, Royal Borough of Greenwich, 2013  Newham 2027 – The Core Strategy, London Borough of Newham, January 2012  Newham Community Infrastructure Study Baseline Report, London Borough of Newham, 2010  Thamesmead and Abbeywood Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), Greenwich council and London Borough of Bexley 2009  The Royal Docks Vision, London Borough of Newham, 2010  Travel to work’ Census Data, Office for National Statistics, 2011  Neighbourhood Statistics, 2011  Planning for the future of Barking and Dagenham, Core strategy, 2010  Site Specific Allocations Development Planning Document, Havering, 2010

 Review of Beam Park Development Opportunity, Havering London Borough, March 2013  Bexley Core Strategy, London Borough of Bexley, February 2012  Bexley Detailed Policies and Sites Local Plan, Preferred Approached Paper, London Borough of Bexley, August 2013  Invest Bexley, Regeneration Framework 2007 – 2016, London Borough of Bexley  Open Communities Data, 2014  http://www.getamap.ordnancesurveyleisure.co.uk/

3.5 Cultural Heritage

3.5.1.1 The baseline information has been obtained from several online sources including The National Heritage List for England (English Heritage) and the London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC). The National Heritage List for England identified non-designated and designated heritage assets within the area. The former included records held on the Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER), whilst the latter included listed buildings, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, and protected wrecks. LAARC identified previous archaeological fieldwork carried out within the area.

3.5.1.2 Site visits were undertaken as part of this assessment. The Gallions Reach options areas were visited on the 8th of August 2013, which included a visit to the Greenwich Historic Centre. The Belvedere options area was visited on the 23rd of February 2014 and this included visits to Bexley and Havering local studies and archives libraries.

3.5.1.3 Baseline information was also obtained from the following sources:  The Thames Gateway Bridge EIA (Halcrow 2008)  The River Crossings Ground Investigation Desk Study (Mott MacDonald 2013)  The Gallions Reach River Crossings (Task 102) Marine Aspects (TfL 2013  Task 102 Variation 2 Woolwich Ferry Replacement Study (TfL 2013)  Task 102 Variation 4 Belvedere Ferry Crossing Study (TfL 2013)  Gallions Reach Fixed Link Bridge: Belvedere Crossing Options Report (TfL 2014)  ‘The Heritage of Historic Resources Sub-Objective, TAG Unit 3.3.9’ (June 2003)  Archaeology of Greater London. Museum of London, MoLAS (2000a)  Locating and evaluating archaeology below the alluvium: the role of subsurface stratigraphic modelling. Bates, M.R. 1998  Coastal and Estuarine Environments: sedimentology, geomorphology and geoarchaeology. Geological Society, London Special Publication 2000  Holocene sea level change and archaeology in the inner Thames estuary, London, UK. Unpublished PhD. Thesis. 2003

19 East of Silvertown

 Landscape evolution in the lower Thames Valley: implications for the archaeology of the earlier Holocene period. Bates, M.R. and Whittaker, K. 2004

3.5.1.4 The study area for the Thames Gateway Bridge EIA (Halcrow 2008) covered the whole of the Gallions Reach options area. It did not however extend into any of the Belvedere options area. The baseline for Chapter 12 Cultural Heritage of the Environmental Statement included information obtained from the Essex Record Office and the Kent County Records Office, and cartographic analysis of historic maps from these locations.

3.5.1.5 The sites identified by the research have been numbered, and are referenced in bold type in the text; they are catalogued in Appendix 4B and 4C, and their locations are illustrated on Drawings 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9. Archaeological heritage assets are prefixed by HN and built heritage assets are prefixed by a BH.

3.5.1.6 The assessment of impacts has been carried out in accordance with ‘The Heritage of Historic Resources Sub-Objective, TAG Unit 3.3.9’ (June 2003).

3.6 Ecology and Nature Conservation

3.6.1.1 A number of ecological studies have been undertaken in the vicinity of the options in the recent past in order to inform various options for crossing the River Thames. The results of these studies are presented in reports which have been reviewed to inform this options appraisal. The reports which have been reviewed comprise:  Thames Gateway Bridge. EIA, 2004  Thames Gateway Bridge. EIA, 2008  Thames Ferry Crossings, Marine Benthic Survey, February 2011  New Thames River Crossing, Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment, August 2011 (Gallions Reach area only)  New Thames River Crossing, Wintering Wildfowl Surveys, September 2011 (Gallions Reach area only)  Thames Ferry Crossings, Marine Benthic Survey, October 2011  New Thames River Crossing, Wintering Waterbird Survey, April 2013  TfL River Crossing. Environmental impacts associated with River Crossing options, March 2013  Ecological survey at Gallions Reach and Woolwich Ferry Terminal, March 2013  Gallions Reach Fixed Link Bridge. Belvedere Crossing Options Report. TfL. January 2014  Task 102 Variation 4 Belvedere Ferry Crossing Study. November 2013

3.6.1.2 Other sources of information that are freely available on the web including aerial photographs, the National Biodiversity Network (NBN), the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website, Natural England’s Nature on the map; habitats and species listed in Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006; and species and habitats listed in the London Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) have also been used to obtain existing information relating to habitats

and features of ecological importance within the study area. Biological data from Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) have also been obtained for the Belvedere route options (Options 15 to 20) as no ecological surveys have been undertaken in this location. Records of non-statutory designated sites and protected species records from 200m from the route options were requested.

3.6.1.3 The study area comprised the land potentially affected by the options and a 500 metre buffer which was widened to 2km to identify designated sites of National and Local importance to nature conservation, and to 15km to identify statutory designated sites of International importance to nature conservation. The 26 options considered in this options appraisal and designated sites within 2km of the options are shown on Drawings 4.11 (Gallions Reach) and 4.12 (both Belvedere).

3.6.1.4 The impact assessment has been based on guidance set out in the Highways Agency’s Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment (September 2010).

3.7 Effects on Travellers

3.7.1.1 This chapter relates to the potential impacts of the scheme on all travellers, which include Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) and road users. The chapter covers the following areas of assessment:  View from the Road - takes into consideration the landscapes and the different types of scenery through which a route passes  Severance - the separation of residents from facilities and services they use within their community  Effects on Pedestrians, Cyclists and Equestrians – considers how a scheme might affect the duration or length of journeys and amenity (pleasantness of a journey)  Driver Stress – is defined as the adverse mental and physiological effects experienced by a driver traversing the road network. This consists of three main components: frustration, fear of potential accidents, and uncertainty relating to the route being followed

3.7.1.2 This assessment has been carried out in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 8: Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrian and Community Effects and Part 9: Vehicle Travellers.

3.7.1.3 The following sources of baseline data are used to support the impact assessment:  Cycling route mapping. Sustrans. accessed August 2013  Google maps. Street view. accessed August 2013/February 2014  Travel to work’ Census Data, Office for National Statistics, 2011  Newham 2027 – The Core Strategy, London Borough of Newham, January 2012  Draft Core Strategy with Development Management policies, Royal Borough of Greenwich, 2010  Gallions Reach River Crossing Study, Tunnel Engineering, Mott MacDonald, May 2012

21 East of Silvertown

 Gallions Reach Fixed Link Bridge, Concept Engineering, Options Study Report, Atkins, 14th June 2013  Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD, 2008  Havering Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, 2010  Belvedere Ferry Crossing Study, Study Report, Transport for London/Halcrow, November 2013  Belvedere Crossings Option Report, Transport for London/Atkins, January 2014  London Outer Orbital Path (LOOP), walklondon.co.uk, accessed February 2014  Bexley Core Strategy, London Borough of Bexley, February 2012

3.8 Ground Conditions Desk Study

3.8.1.1 As part of the assessment, a contaminated land desk study was undertaken for the Gallions Reach, and Belvedere Crossing options. Geotechnical advice is outside the scope of this work and is therefore not included in this chapter.

3.8.1.2 The desk study utilises publically available information from sources including information held by regulators and other organisations. These include the following sources:  Environment Agency (EA) ‘What’s in your backyard’ website, www.environment-agency.gov.uk accessed August 2013  British Geological Survey (BGS) ‘GeoIndex’ website, www.bgs.ac.uk accessed August 2013

3.8.1.3 Additionally, several previous reports for the Gallions Reach Crossing (Thames Gateway Bridge (TGB)) area were made available and have been used in the compilation of the desk study section of the baseline assessment. These are listed below:  Thames Gateway Bridge EIA, Main report, Halcrow/Scott Wilson July 2004 (Partially updated October 2008)  TfL River Crossings – Ground Investigation Desk Study, Preliminary Sources Study Report, Mott MacDonald, May 2013  Gallions Reach Fixed Link Bridge, Concept Engineering, Options Study Report, Atkins, 14th June 2013  Gallions Reach River Crossings (Task 102) Marine Aspects Preliminary Design Report, Halcrow, May 2013  Gallions Reach River Crossing Study, Tunnel Engineering, Mott MacDonald, May 2012 Site Walkover

3.8.1.4 On 08 August 2013, Hyder completed a site walkover for the purposes of gaining information on the geo-environmental constraints for the Gallions Reach Crossing sites. The findings of each site are summarised in the relevant options below.

3.8.1.5 A site walkover was completed at the Gallions Reach site in May 2013 by Mott MacDonald and the findings are incorporated in the options below.

3.8.1.6 A site walkover was additionally completed by Hyder at the Belvedere site in February 2014. Determination of Impact Significance

3.8.1.7 The significance of the identified impacts were determined based on the value (importance) of generic receptors taking into account the magnitude of the potential impacts, in line with current best practice guidelines and water environment impact assessment criteria.

3.8.1.8 The value (importance) of the resource has been described using the guidance outlined in Table 3-6 below. Receptors considered within this assessment form the headings.

Table 3-6 Describing the Value of Resources (Receptor)

Very High Public users Residential properties High water quality and rare resource. and nearby Important at a regional or national scale, residents with limited potential for substitution, e.g. Supply of high quality potable water to a large population Groundwater: Principal aquifer Within Source Protection Zone 1 or 2 Surface water: Attributed with a high quality and rarity resource. Important at a regional or national scale, with limited potential for substitution.

High Site staff/ Public buildings e.g. High water quality and rare resource. maintenance managed apartments, Important at a local scale with limited workers post schools and hospitals potential for substitution, e.g. construction Supply of a small volume of potable water for local use Groundwater: Secondary A aquifer Within Source Protection Zone 3 Surface water: Attributed with a high quality and rarity, important at a local scale with limited potential for substitution.

Medium Construction Commercial buildings Moderate water quality and low rarity. workers† Important at a local scale e.g.

23 East of Silvertown

Importance Receptor: Receptor: Human Health Receptor: Controlled Waters combined with Human /Buildings ** (Ground Gas) (groundwater and surface water bodies) sensitivity of Health * resource or (Soils) receptor Supply of a small volume of water for agricultural or industrial use or limited potential for potable supply Groundwater: Secondary B aquifer Not within Source Protection Zone Surface water: Attributed with a medium quality and rarity, important at the local scale with limited potential for substitution or high quality with medium rarity, important at the local scale and medium potential for substitution.

Low Industrial buildings (where Poor or bad water quality and low rarity. open and well ventilated; Important at a local scale e.g. office pods might require No or very limited potential to supply water separate assessment as for agricultural or industrial use classified as commercial) Groundwater: Non designated aquifer or unproductive strata Not within Source Protection Zone Surface water: Poor or bad water quality and low rarity, non-classified water body. Notes *Duration of exposure to contamination and number of pathways of exposure to contamination increases from commercial/industrial (minimum) to residential (maximum) land uses. ** Duration of occupancy and perception of risk increases from industrial buildings (minimum) to low rise residential properties (maximum). Amount of ventilation and management increases from low rise residential properties (minimum) to industrial buildings (maximum). †Construction workers would only be exposed to contamination for a short duration, however, they may enter enclosed spaces and would be directly handling the soils.

3.8.1.9 Contamination impact is based upon the source-pathway-receptor relationship (all three must exist for an impact to constitute a complete pollutant linkage) within this assessment. The magnitude of each impact is assessed using the criteria provided in Table 3-7 below.

Table 3-7 Assessing Magnitude of Impact

Magnitude of Human Health Building/Structure Controlled Waters Impact (Construction workers and future site users)

Major Acute risk to human Catastrophic damage Short term or immediate risk of health likely to result in to buildings/property. significant pollution of sensitive ‘significant harm’ as e.g. explosion water resource. Significant defined by the detrimental impact on water

Magnitude of Human Health Building/Structure Controlled Waters Impact (Construction workers and future site users) Environmental resulting in building quality which permanently affects Protection Act 1990, collapse. its use to or potential to supply Part IIA. water.

Moderate Chronic damage to Significant damage to Longer term risk of significant human health as sensitive buildings, pollution of sensitive water defined by the structures and resources. Significant temporary Environmental services. detrimental impact on water Protection Act 1990, quality, which affects its use for Part IIA. supply purposes.

Minor Illness and damage Significant damage to Pollution of non-sensitive water not defined as buildings, structures resource, temporary detrimental significant/ potentially and services. impact on water quality which may life threatening affect its use.

Negligible Non-permanent health Easily repairable Minor temporary detrimental impacts to human impacts of damage to impact on water quality, which health (easily buildings, structures does not impact its use. prevented by means and services. such as personal protective clothing).

No change No discernible impact No discernible impact No discernible impact

3.8.1.10 In general, the significance of an impact reflects the importance or value of the affected resource or receptor, its sensitivity to change, and the magnitude of the predicted impact. Table 3-3 is used to determine impact significance for this Chapter. Gap Analysis

3.8.1.11 There have been several intrusive site investigations covering the Gallions Reach Crossing study area dating back to 1987 and these are summarised in the reports listed in Section 3.9.1.3. These include extracts from Landmark Envirocheck® Reports, the findings of which have been reviewed and incorporated into the baseline assessment although Hyder was not able to review the Envirocheck reports in their entirety.

3.8.1.12 There is currently no ground investigation information available for the Belvedere options, and therefore the assessment has been based on publically available sources of information.

3.8.1.13 The Structural Options Report indicates that outline remediation plans were developed for some locations within the study area, particularly the former Beckton gasworks. However, it is not known whether these were carried out or properly verified.

3.8.1.14 Further site investigation is recommended for the site of the chosen option to better delineate the extent and type of contaminated soils and to mitigate the risks to the project of underestimating the amount of contaminated soils to be disposed of or remediated.

25 East of Silvertown

3.8.1.15 Following a review of the available information the following potential current and historical contamination sources have been identified on-site and associated with surrounding land-uses.

3.9 Materials

3.9.1.1 The adopted methodology is in line with the principals of the Simple Assessment detailed in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Section 1, HA 200/08 and the Interim Advice Note (IAN) 153/11 - Guidance on the Environmental Impact Assessment of Materials. Each of the options has been assessed in terms of the key materials that are likely to be utilised and the key waste materials that are likely to arise during construction.

3.9.1.2 The following documents and websites have been reviewed:  Future Waste arisings in London 2010-2031, Summary Note, Greater London Authority, 2010  London Plan, Greater London Authority, 2011  The Mayor’s Business Waste Strategy for London, November 2011  ‘What’s in your backyard’ website, Environment Agency, www.environment- agency.gov.uk accessed August 2013

3.9.1.3 In order to review each option to the same level of detail, only estimations of key materials forecast to be used and key wastes forecast to arise during construction have been made. Packaging wastes, finishes, ancillary items and operational wastes have not been included in the assessment.

3.9.1.4 Where available, preliminary Bills of Quantities have been used as a basis of these estimations. Where not available, quantities have been estimated from information contained within the engineering options study reports, associated drawings and from calculations extrapolated from similar structures where sufficient information was available to make estimations.

3.9.1.5

3.9.1.6 Different data sources report materials and waste forecasts in different units of measurement (for example tonnes or m3). As different levels of detail are available for different options, this assessment has converted approximate volumes into tonnes thereby allowing for comparison between each river crossing option. However, the conversion rates between volumes (m3) and weights (tonnes) differs depending on the material identified. For example 1m3 of concrete would be heavier than 1m3 of water. To allow for comparisons conversion factors from the Waste Resources Action Programme's (‘WRAP's‘) NetWaste Tool (for material resources) and the Environment Agency (for waste) have been used when necessary. Further assessment will be undertaken at the next stage of assessment.

3.9.1.7 It is recognised that demolition activities would be necessary to enable a number of options. These demolition materials have not been considered at this stage of option development.

3.9.1.8 It is recognised that within the footprint of a number of the options there is likely to be historic man-made, and potentially hazardous, wastes. The extent of these wastes has not been considered at this stage of option development.

3.9.1.9 The assessment focuses on material usage, potential availability and potential waste arisings taking into consideration potential mitigation measures. The assessment of effects from the construction waste has focused on the potential direct impact of waste arisings on the existing local, regional, and national waste management infrastructure. The waste management infrastructure is therefore the resource or receptor on which impacts are assessed, and its importance / sensitivity is dependent on its capacity to absorb additional waste, using the criteria provided in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8 Environmental Value (or Sensitivity) and Typical Descriptors

Value (sensitivity) Typical descriptors

Very High Very high importance and rarity, international scale and very limited potential for material substitution – no materials reuse, recycling and/or recovery. No regional waste capacity expected.

High High importance and rarity, national scale, and limited potential for material substitution – limited materials reuse, recycling and/or recovery. Limited regional waste capacity expected.

Medium High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for material substitution – moderate materials reuse, recycling and/or recovery. Moderate regional waste capacity expected.

Low (or Lower) Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale – high materials reuse, recycling and/or recovery. High regional waste capacity expected.

Negligible Very low importance and rarity, local scale – very high materials reuse, recycling and/or recovery. Very high regional waste capacity expected.

*Source: Professional judgement

3.9.1.10 The assessment addresses potential impacts resulting from waste management and the use of resources associated with the works in the construction phases of the options.

3.9.1.11 The magnitude of each impact is determined by the residual effect that the key waste arisings from the construction of the various options would have on the existing local waste management strategy.

3.9.1.12 The magnitude of the impact of construction and operational waste arisings is assessed using the criteria provided in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9 Assessing Magnitude of Impact

Magnitude of Criteria impact

Considerable impact (by duration and type and amount of materials used and waste generated that cannot be managed by the local (London and South East) Major waste management infrastructure and requires transport outside of the region) of more than local significance in relation to relevant legislation, policy and/or standards.

Limited impact (by duration and type and amount of materials used and waste generated that cannot be managed by the local (London and South East) waste Moderate management infrastructure and requires transport outside of the region) of more than local significance in relation to relevant legislation, policy and/or standards.

Slight impact (by duration and type and amount of materials used and waste Minor generated that cannot be managed by the local (London and South East) waste

27 East of Silvertown

Magnitude of Criteria impact management infrastructure and requires transport outside of the region) of more than local significance in relation to relevant legislation, policy and/or standards.

Neutral change (by duration and type and amount of materials used and waste generated that cannot be managed by the local (London and South East) waste Negligible management infrastructure and requires transport outside of the region) of more than local significance in relation to relevant legislation, policy and/or standards.

No change (by duration and type and amount of materials used and waste generated that cannot be managed by the local waste management infrastructure No Change and requires transport outside of the region) of more than local significance in relation to relevant legislation, policy and/or standards.

3.9.1.13 The significance of an impact reflects the importance or value of the affected resource or receptor, its sensitivity to change, and the magnitude of the predicted impact. Table 3-3 presents the assessment matrix used to determine impact significance.

3.10 Water Environment 3.10.1 Study Area

3.10.1.1 The study area has been defined to include the area of land take associated with each of the options, in addition to the downstream reaches of any surface or groundwater receptors identified within a 500m radius. The study area has been defined to reflect the surrounding water environment and following consideration of the distance over which significant impacts can reasonably be thought to have the potential to occur. 3.10.2 Approach

3.10.2.1 The existing water environment within the study area has been characterised using a desk study approach. The desk study has been informed by the following baseline data sets and reports:  Environment Agency (EA) website accessed August 2013  The London Boroughs of Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Bexley and Royal Borough of Greenwich websites accessed August 2013 and February 2014  River Crossings Engineering and Environmental Reports, commissioned by TfL  The Thames Gateway Bridge Environmental Impact Assessment (Scott Wilson/Halcrow, 2008)

3.10.2.2 These baseline data have been used to evaluate the importance (value) of surface and groundwater receptors in each study area. Options have then been appraised in accordance with the methodology set out in the Water Environment Sub-Objective (Unit 3.3.11) of the Transport Analysis Guidelines.

3.10.2.3 In accordance with these guidelines the value of the water environment within the study area is assessed in terms of the services it provides, also considering factors such as existing quality, scale, rarity and substitutability, examples of which are provided in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10 Guidance for Estimating the Importance of Environmental Attributes

Importance Criteria Examples

Very High Attribute with a high quality and rarity, River or reach achieving WFD High regional or national scale and limited status; Aquifer providing potable water to potential for substitution a large population; EC designated Salmonid fishery, river or still water serving recreational or competitive sporting uses with importance at a national scale, a strategic riverside access route

High Attribute with a high quality and rarity, River or reach achieving WFD Good local scale and limited potential for status; Aquifer providing potable water to substitution. Attribute with a medium a small population; EC designated quality and rarity, regional or national Cyprinid fishery, river or still water scale and limited potential for substitution providing recreational amenity use at the regional scale.

Medium Attribute with a medium quality and rarity, River or reach achieving WFD Moderate local scale and limited potential for status; Aquifer providing abstraction substitution. Attribute with a low quality water for agricultural or industrial use. and rarity, regional or national scale and River or still water providing recreational limited potential for substitution amenity use at the local scale.

Low Attribute with a low quality and rarity, local River or reach achieving WFD Bad status scale and limited potential for substitution Floodplain with limited existing development, river or still water with no facilities for amenity and no access to recreational users

3.10.2.4 The magnitude of the potential impacts of each of the options is then considered for the receptors and attributes identified, and the overall significance of each potential impact is estimated according to its magnitude and the importance of the affected attribute.

3.10.2.5 Table 3-11 below provides examples of impact magnitude.

Table 3-11 Criteria for Determining Impact Magnitude

Magnitude Criteria Examples

Major Results in loss of attribute Loss of EC designated Salmonid fishery; change in WFD status of river reach; compromise employment source; loss of flood storage/increased flood risk; pollution of potable source of abstraction

Moderate Results in impact on integrity of attribute Loss in productivity of a fishery; or loss of part of attribute contribution of a significant proportion of the effluent in the receiving river, but insufficient to change its WFD status; reduction in the economic value of the feature

Minor Results in minor impact on attribute Measurable changes in attribute, but of limited size and/or proportion

29 East of Silvertown

Negligible Results in an impact on attribute but of Discharges to watercourse but no insufficient magnitude to affect the significant loss in quality, fishery use/integrity productivity or biodiversity; no significant impact on the economic value of the feature; no increase in flood risk

3.11 Townscape and Visual

3.11.1.1 The options have been assessed using the WebTAG Unit 3.3.8 (Townscape) definitions of overall assessment scores. Individual townscape worksheets have not been prepared (the contents of which would not be consistent with recent Highways Agency Interim Advice Notes and wider industry guidance published by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and Landscape Institute); rather the options assessment is set out in the format below. Desk-based review was based on information provided in previous scheme assessment work as follows:  The London Plan (2011)  Newham Core Strategy (2012)  Greenwich Unitary Development Plan (2006)  Bexley Core Strategy  Saved Policies of Bexley Unitary Development Plan  Bexley’s Local Distinctiveness: A Characterisation Study of the London Borough of Bexley  Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document

3.11.1.2 A preliminary site visit was undertaken during August 2013 at Gallions and during February 2014 at Belvedere.

3.12 Energy

3.12.1.1 This chapter includes an assessment of the energy and carbon impacts during construction and operation of the options at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. 3.12.2 Embodied Energy (Construction phase Carbon)

3.12.2.1 Embodied energy is an accounting method to investigate and minimise the sum of total energy associated with an entire product life cycle. This includes assessing the relevance and extent of energy use in raw material extraction, transport, manufacture, assembly, installation, dis-assembly, deconstruction and /or decomposition of key materials used within the construction process.

3.12.2.2 The embodied energy analysis in this Options Study Report is qualitative, based upon the principal construction materials of the options and construction approach in relation to other options (comparatively); rather than quantitative as in most instances specific information regarding the types and volumes of materials to be used is not available (Note: embodied carbon emissions for the bridge options at Gallions Reach were provided and have been used to inform this high level assessment).

3.12.3 Regulated & Unregulated Energy (Operational phase Carbon)

3.12.3.1 The adopted methodology is mainly based upon relevant national and local policies and more specifically upon the policies included in the London Plan 2011. The London Plan is a strategic planning document for London produced by the Greater London Authority (GLA) to provide strategic city planning guidance in line with Mayor of London’s vision. The plan sets out an integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of London over the next 20 to 25 years.

3.12.3.2 In the following sections of this chapter the assessment of the impacts of the options will take into consideration the London Plan by the virtue of Energy and Carbon dioxide minimisation. The London Plan adopted the following hierarchy approach to minimise any likely carbon dioxide emissions arising from various development activities (Policy 5.2A):  Priority 1 – Be Lean – Minimise the energy use – This can be achieved through efficient building design and efficient building services, i.e., lighting, small power, etc.  Priority 2 – Be Clean – Supply Energy Efficiently – Source the energy supply to the building through the use of decentralised energy, utilise the Combine Heat and Power (CHP) system to meet the heating and power requirements of buildings.  Priority 3 – Be Green – Use Renewable Energy – Encourages the utilisation of feasible renewable energy technology where practical after priority 1 & 2.

3.12.3.3 Priorities 1 & 2 are generally linked to the building energy requirement i.e., the buildings should be designed in line with above priorities to minimise the overall energy requirements. Priority 3 considers the utilisation of renewable energy technology to meet the energy requirements of the proposed development. Within this options study all the options have been assessed to highlight the likely impacts (in terms of energy and carbon) of each option and also the mitigation measures to minimise the overall energy demands.

3.12.3.4 The London Plan requires that the major developments should include a detailed energy assessment to demonstrate how the targets for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction outlined above are to be met within the framework of the energy hierarchy. The CO2 emissions are divided into two parts:  Regulated Emissions –the emissions produced to meet the general building operational demands, i.e. heating, cooling, lighting and hot water.  Unregulated Emissions –the emissions produced to meet other energy demands i.e., electrical equipment / appliances and plant.

3.12.3.5 The London Plan requires buildings to demonstrate that regulated emissions can be mitigated to achieve the required target. Policy 5.2d also requires new developments to include separate details of unregulated emissions:

3.12.3.6 ‘Some developments (such as offices, industrial units and hospitals) have significant CO2 emissions related to energy consumption from electrical equipment and portable appliances that are not accounted for in Building Regulations, and therefore are not included within the calculations for the Target Emissions Rate. The strategic aim is to reduce CO2 emissions overall, so that while planning decisions and monitoring requirements would be underpinned by the targets in Policy 5.2B, the requirement in Policy 5.2Da for energy assessments to include separate details of unregulated emissions

31 East of Silvertown is to recognise explicitly the additional contribution that can be made through use of efficient equipment, building controls and good management practices, including green leases.’

3.12.3.7 The above policies are addressed for each of the options at Gallions Reach and Belvedere and the likely emissions will be reported in accordance with the London Plan’s requirements. The likely regulated emissions would occur from any service buildings / offices and therefore would undergo the building regulations assessment. The unregulated emissions would be reported on the basis of emissions arising from other operations. The energy requirements for each option include embodied energy and operational energy, and the likely impacts are presented in each options assessment of this report.

3.13 Noise and Vibration

3.13.1.1 A high level review of potential impacts associated with noise and vibration has been undertaken to determine any adverse or beneficial impacts with each of the proposed options. The review has been carried out in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part (HD213/11) (Highways Agency, 2011) guidance on the assessment of noise and vibration associated with construction, improvement, operation and maintenance of roads, and road traffic noise predictions have been undertaken in accordance with The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) in order to calculate a basic noise level for each road in each scenario. It is anticipated that any detailed design of a new river crossing would include a more in‐depth environmental appraisal of the noise impact.

3.13.1.2 CRTN takes into account the following data to predict traffic noise levels:  Traffic Composition: daytime 18-hour Annual Average Weekly Traffic (AAWT) flows, percentage of heavy goods vehicles (%HDV) and traffic speeds  Road Configuration in terms of vertical and horizontal alignment.

3.13.1.3 The assessment is based upon changes in predicted noise levels associated with traffic forecasts between two ends (referred to as ‘nodes’) of a road. The stretch of road between the two nodes is referred to as a ‘link’.

3.13.1.4 Whilst the anticipated opening year is 2025, the year 2031 has been used as a worst case, as future developments will be reflected as well as higher traffic flows.

3.13.1.5 The traffic scenarios considered in the noise assessment are shown in Table 3- 12: Table 3-12: Traffic Scenarios used in the Noise Assessment

Traffic Scenario No. Year Description

Silvertown and Blackwall crossings are both charged. The Woolwich ferry has no capacity to increase and is not charged (assumed for the Scenario 4b (Reference Case) 2031 purpose of this assessment). This scenario is future year 2031, without any of the proposed schemes in operation

Silvertown, Blackwall and Gallions Crossings are all charged. The Woolwich Ferry is removed in future Scenario 114 2031 year 2031 (assumed for the purpose of this assessment)

Silvertown, Blackwall and Belvedere Crossings are all charged. The Woolwich Ferry is updated with Scenario 115 2031 30% additional capacity for future year 2031 (assumed for the purpose of this assessment)

Silvertown, Blackwall, Gallions and Belvedere Crossings are all charged. The Woolwich Ferry is Scenario 201 2031 removed in future year 2031 (assumed for the purpose of this assessment).

3.13.1.6 To assess the potential noise impacts of traffic Scenarios 114, 115, and 201 (Do- Something scenarios), an assessment was undertaken in accordance with the DMRB. Potential noise impacts were evaluated by looking at projected changes in traffic flow forecasts across the three Do Something scenarios in a future year (Year 2031), comparing each to the Reference Case (Scenario 4b). In DMRB the Reference Case is referred to as the ‘do minimum’. The purpose of the assessment is a comparative tool to determine whether there are any significant differences between the Scenarios in terms of noise. Details of the assessment are outlined in the following sections.

3.13.1.7 Significance criteria have been used to assign affected links with a qualitative result ranging from Major Adverse to Major Beneficial, shown in Table 3-13. The criteria used are in accordance with the DMRB. Table 3-13 Classification of noise impacts in the long term.

Noise change, LA10,18h Magnitude of Impact

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible

3.0 – 4.9 Minor

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate

>10 Major

3.13.2 Potential Noise sources

3.13.2.1 Potential sources of noise during construction include:  Traffic noise due to transportation of materials  Noise from construction works  Airborne vibration from traffic (produced by engines or exhaust of road vehicles)  Ground borne vibration produced by the interaction of rolling wheels and the road surface  Temporary noise and vibration impacts from the demolition of buildings.

3.13.2.2 Potential sources of noise during operation considered in this assessment include:

3.13.2.3 Traffic noise from traffic using the new crossings (all options) - the level of traffic noise will be determined by the increase in traffic generated by the scheme, and the types of vehicles as they have their own individual noise sources

3.13.2.4 Traffic congestion at Woolwich Ferry, alignment and boarding activity at Woolwich Ferry, and noise from the ventilation systems within all tunnel options may also be

33 East of Silvertown sources. At this early stage of comparative assessment these additional sources of noise have not been considered because the details of the operational running requirements of each tunnel are not clear at this stage. As a result it is not possible to predict the operational noise output from features, such as ventilation. The Woolwich Ferry is not a new noise source, as it is an existing transport service, therefore operational noise, such as alignment and boarding, has not been taken into account at this stage of the assessment.

3.13.2.5 The magnitude of impact will be considered in the short term and long term and is usually based on the calculation of change in absolute noise levels.

3.14 Air Quality 3.14.1 DMRB Air Quality Screening Model

1. Prior to initiating the assessment, the method for the assessment of each of the options was agreed with Transport for London (TfL). It was agreed at this stage that detailed air quality modelling (using a dispersion model) would not be undertaken and Highways England (HE) DMRB air quality screening model (Version 4.1) would be utilised (the model was obtained from Highways England, prior to formal publication). The assessment of each option included the following tasks: The area of the Affected Road Network (ARN) has been determined for each option in accordance with Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 of DMRB HA207/07. The criteria defined below (as set out in DMRB) were used to identify which roads were likely to be affected by each option:  Road alignment will change by 5m or more; or  Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows will change by 1,000 AADT or more; or  Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) flows will change by 200 AADT or more; or  Daily average speeds will change by 10 km/hour or more; or  Peak hour speed will change by 20 km/hour or more. The road links that triggered the criteria for each option of the proposed scheme are presented in Figures 6.1 to 6.3.

The traffic data used in the analysis were provided by TfL for the Base Year (2012) and the Reference Case and Do-Something scenarios in the Opening Year (2021) and contained the following information:

 Total Vehicle Flow for the AM peak (0600 to 1000), Inter-Peak (1000 to 1600), PM peak (1600 to 1900) and Off Peak (1900 to 0600);  AADT flows;  Percentage HDVs; and  Speeds (kilometres per hour (kph)). Whilst the anticipated opening year is 2025, the year 2021 has been used as a worst case as air quality concentrations are predicted to improve in future years.

2. Air quality concentrations were predicted for the Base Year of 2012, and for the Reference Case scenario (Option 4a) and Do-Something scenarios for the Opening Year

of the scheme (2021). Predicted concentrations were compared against the UK Air Quality Strategy (AQS) objectives as presented in Section 2, using the latest version of the DMRB air quality screening model issued by HE. Worst case receptor locations have been selected, which are receptors (such as residential properties, schools and hospitals) closest to the ARN and junctions to ensure that the highest concentrations and changes in pollutants are considered in the assessment.

3. Predicted concentrations have been compared with AQS Objectives/EU Limit Values. It should be noted that AQS Objectives and EU Limit Values are the same for annual NO2 (40µg/m³). The 2008 ambient air quality directive (2008/50/EC) sets legally binding limits for concentrations of specific air pollutants (EU Limit Values) and the Air Quality (Standards) Regulations 2010 transpose into English law the requirements of Directives 2008/50/EC. Commentary has been provided on the various options in relation to their potential impacts and to determine whether the options are likely to lead to a significant impact on air quality, in accordance with the advice in Interim Advice Note (IAN) 174/13 Updated advice for evaluating significant local air quality effects for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality (HA207/07) (Highways Agency, 2013).. 3.14.2 NOx to NO2 Conversion

3.14.2.1 In accordance with Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance 2009 (LAQM.TG (09)) (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) 2009), all modelled road-based concentrations of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) (which is the modelled output) were converted to annual mean NO2 using the Defra ‘NOx to NO2’ calculator (Version 4.1) to enable comparison with the AQS objectives. The traffic mix and local authority data used for the conversion of NO2 from NOx were selected depending on the receptor locations. In the majority of cases, the traffic mix selected was “All London Traffic” and “all non-urban UK traffic”, which is suitable for areas near any motorway, in rural or urban areas. For locations not in close proximity to a motorway, the “all other urban UK traffic” mix was used; in accordance with Defra guidance.

3.14.2.2 3.14.2.2 The assessment predicted concentrations of NO2 at sensitive receptors, such as schools, hospitals, residential properties, for the Base Year (2012), Reference Case and Do-Something scenarios in the Opening Year (2021). The Defra website provided estimated background pollutant concentrations for each 1km x1km grid square in the UK. 3.14.3 Model Verification

3.14.3.1 As per guidance provided in Annex 3 of the LAQM.TG (09) document (Defra, 2009), modelled pollutant concentrations were verified against the baseline air quality monitoring results collected for the project. The air quality monitoring data collected as part of the assessment used for the model verification were selected using the criteria listed below:

3.14.3.2 1. Monitoring sites were within 200 metres of roads within the air quality modelled area; 2. Automatic monitoring data was used for sites with a data capture of 90% or more; and 3. Monitoring data was excluded from verification if major sources were missing from the traffic model that may have influenced monitored concentrations and therefore could not be included in the air quality modelling (such as large car

35 East of Silvertown

parks, industrial stacks in close proximity etc.). Also, sites where the location of the monitoring could not be confirmed to a satisfactory standard were omitted from the verification.

3.14.3.3 For the purpose of the screening assessment only automatic monitoring data were used to verify the DMRB air quality screening model.

3.14.3.4 Following the removal of the monitoring locations with low data capture and locations which could not be described in the model, a total of 10 sites were used in the verification. The automatic monitoring sites used in the verification are shown in Figure 6.8. The majority of modelled results were within 25% of monitored concentrations and did now show any systematic under or over prediction; therefore, no adjustments were made to the model based on the results of the verification process. 3.14.4 Long Term Trend Analysis

3.14.4.1 A report produced on behalf of Defra (Defra, 2011) considered NO2 monitoring data from across the UK and suggests that reductions in concentrations have slowed in recent years; therefore, it is now agreed among many air quality professionals that future predictions of NO2 concentrations may be underestimated. Defra updated the air quality tools in 2012 (including the new emission factor toolkit, background maps and NOx/NO2 converter) which aimed to close this “gap” between forecast and monitored NO2 trends. However, it is considered that future NO2 levels based on these updated tools are still likely to be underestimated. Therefore, a long-term trend (LTT) gap analysis was carried out for NO2, in accordance with IAN 170/12v3 Updated air quality advice on the assessment of future NOx and NO2 projections for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, and Part 1 ‘Air Quality (Highways Agency, 2013).

3.14.4.2 This LTT NO2 gap analysis was based on adjustment of 2021 NO2 modelled concentrations for both the Reference Case and Do-Something scenarios using 2012 modelled baseline NO2 concentrations and an alternative projection factor (based on a projected Base Year, which is the Base Year traffic data with opening year emissions and backgrounds) as outlined in IAN 170/12v3. HE has provided a gap analysis tool to assist with the calculation which was used in the assessment.

3.14.5 Significance

3.14.5.1 To determine whether a road scheme gives rise to significant air quality impact, IAN 174/13 has been published, which users of DMRB should apply when undertaking a detailed air quality assessment. The advice provides a means of evaluating the significance of local air quality effects in line with the requirements of the existing EIA Directive for road schemes. Whilst the guidance is not directly applicable, as a detailed assessment has not been undertaken at this stage, it has been used as a guide to provide an indication of possible significant effects.

3.14.5.2 The results from the air quality modelling at receptors are used to inform the overall significance of the scheme; the larger the change in concentrations, the more certainty there is that there will be an impact as a result of the scheme. Only receptors which exceed the EU Limit Value (annual mean of 40µg/m³) in either the Reference Case or Do-Something scenarios are used to inform significance. Where the differences in concentrations are less than 1% of the air quality threshold (e.g. less than 0.4µg/m³ for annual average NO2), then the change at these receptors is considered to be

imperceptible, and they are scoped out of the judgement on significance. The guidelines to inform significance are presented in Table 6.7.

3.14.5.3 It must be noted that to determine the significance of an option, all receptors which exceed the EU Limit Value should be modelled using detailed dispersion modelling. However, the DMRB air quality screening model is used to assess only a selection of worst case receptors and does not include as much detail as dispersion modelling. The significance of the options cannot therefore be determined in this assessment, however, the guidelines to inform the significance have been included to provide an indication as to whether the options could potentially result in significant air quality impacts.

Table 3-14 – Guidelines to Inform Significance

Total Number of Receptors with: Magnitude of Change in

Annual Average NO2 or Worsening of air quality objective Improvement of an air quality objective

PM10 (µg/m³) already above objective or creation already above objective or the removal of a new exceedence of an existing exceedence

Large (>4) 1 to 10 1 to 10

Medium (>2) 10 to 30 10 to 30

Small (>0.4) 30 to 60 30 to 60

3.14.5.4 Where the number of receptors fall below the guideline bands to inform significance, the scheme is deemed not to have a significant impact e.g. 20 small worsenings would not be classed as significant. If the number of receptors affected is greater than the upper guideline bands (60 for small, 30 for medium and 10 for large), then the scheme would be considered to have a significant impact on air quality. Schemes which affect receptors within the guideline bands require justification to determine whether the scheme is significant.

4 BASELINE CONDITIONS

4.1 Gallions Reach 4.1.1 Community and Private Assets Population Characteristics Gallions Reach

4.1.1.1 The options at Gallions Reach would predominantly affect the population of two Local Authorities: London Borough of Newham on the north side of the river Thames and Royal Borough of Greenwich on the south side of the river. This section includes characteristics of the population in these two Boroughs.

4.1.1.2 The London Borough of Newham has the youngest population in the country and one of the most diverse places in the UK. Approximately 30% of the people living in Newham are aged under 19 and 70% of the population come from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups. Newham also has one of the highest birth rates in the country. This, together with people choosing to live in Newham, has led to a steady increase in the Borough’s population in recent years. The London Borough of Newham recorded a population of over 308,000 in the 2011 Census (Table 4-1). One of the biggest increases over 2001 to 2011 for London Boroughs was in Newham - up 26%. This results in a ‘demographic dividend’ – an increase in the working age population relative to the rest of the UK.

Table 4-1 Population Characteristics Gallions Reach, Total Population (Census 2011)

Local Authority Census 2001 Census 2011

London Borough of Newham 243,905 308,000

Royal Borough of Greenwich 214,378 254,600

4.1.1.3 As outlined in the Local Plan, Newham is the third most deprived Borough in London and deprivation has worsened overall since 2004. Life expectancy amongst residents is lower than the London average. Among residents who work, incomes are on average £12,500 less per annum than London as a whole.

4.1.1.4 There is a high level of unemployment and low skills amongst the working age population, which are significant causes of economic underperformance. The Borough seeks opportunities for economic development and growth by providing London with a large supply of brownfield development land over until 2027.

4.1.1.5 Regarding transport in the area, Part F of the Strategic Outline Business Case summarises current and forecast trends in travel behaviour and commuting patterns for these boroughs.

4.1.1.6 Greenwich has had a 20% increase in population numbers from 214,378 in 2001 to 254,600 in 2011 (see Table 4-1). By 2027 the population of the Borough is expected to have grown to 288,000. The population of Greenwich is relatively young with over 25% of the Borough’s residents aged under 19. The age of the population in the Borough is expected to change in the next 15 years, with a higher proportion

39 East of Silvertown of people of school age and of over 50s. There is particular diversity within this age group, with 35% of under-16s being Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups. The proportion of residents aged over 65 years old is lower than the England average. Yet there remains an issue of under-occupation, with 73% of older people households being under-occupied.

4.1.1.7 Greenwich has below average income levels and a lower employment rate (63%) compared to the London average of 68%. The average household income in the Borough is £36,876, which is 7.5% lower than the Greater London average of £39,892. Land Use

4.1.1.8 The objective of the baseline is to identify the existing land use within the study area and any future changes in land use for which planning permission has been granted to identify development constraints. These are shown on Drawing 4-1. Two main residential areas are located to the north of the River Thames: Beckton and Royal Docks. The eastern part of the land on that side of the river is an industrial area which includes sewage management, coal gas production and commercial buildings of Gallions Reach Retail Park.

4.1.1.9 An area of Metropolitan Open Land as well as vacant undeveloped land (part of it previously a landfill site) is located between Thamesmead and Woolwich on the south side of the river. Residential areas of Woolwich, Plumstead, Thamesmead, and Abbey Wood are immediately adjacent including some community facilities by the riverside in the Royal Arsenal residential area. Community Facilities

4.1.1.10 Given the industrial and commercial use of the north bank in the north-east area, the community facilities are located in the western part and comprise schools, community centres, parks and gardens. Higher education in Newham is provided by the University of East London (UEL). The university caters for around 20,000 students and the Docklands Campus is located in London’s redeveloped Docklands area (see Drawing 4-3).

4.1.1.11 There are 31 community centres in Newham, evenly spread across the Borough. The community centres are mainly owned by Housing Associations and operated by the Council. There are 10 or so community facilities owned by organisations such as Saint Marks Church, West Ham United Community Sports Trust etc. The existing community centres are sufficient to meet demand; a number of them are in need of improvement in order to comply with standards of the Council and needs of their users. Approximately a third of the community centres in Newham are highly utilised.

4.1.1.12 The Cygnet Hospital at Beckton is the main healthcare facility located within the study area. Other medical centres within the study area include:  Royal Dock Medical Centre  London Medical Clinic  Evolution Health Thamesmead Medical Centre

 Gallions Reach Health Centre and Dental Clinic

4.1.1.13 On the south side of the River Thames there are five schools and one training centre as shown on Drawing 4-3. Leisure centres in the southern part of the study area include Thamesmere Leisure Centre and Waterfront Leisure Centre. Parks and playgrounds include the Royal Victoria Gardens and Beckton District Park to the north, and Gallions Hill and Birchmere Park to the south of the river bank. Planning Designations for Sites

4.1.1.14 Strategic sites for development on both sides of the river are shown in Drawing 4-5.

North Side

4.1.1.15 Newham’s Core Strategy (January 2012) identifies development opportunity sites within the study area as the Royal Docks area (reference number S31) and the Albert Basin (S19). The main objective is to achieve a major shift from traditional industrial activity along the Lower Lea Valley and Royal Docks towards higher value employment uses in emerging growth sectors such as high technology and green industries, visitor economy, business and financial services and retail, making best use of heritage and other assets in the area. There will also be residential developments within the Albert Basin strategic site.

4.1.1.16 ‘The Royal Docks Vision’ document (July 2010) redefines the Royal Docks as a place with “its own centre of gravity and identity, with clusters of activity blending educational centres of excellence, hi-technology and first class office accommodation, and the global market place of ExCeL and London City Airport, linked into the City and Canary Wharf, and Stratford Metropolitan”.

4.1.1.17 The Vision document also states “the Royal Docks will be developed as a World Class business destination within the knowledge economy, and a focus for investment on a world stage, building on opportunities presented by the 2012 Olympics. The area will develop a nationally significant niche in low carbon and high technology industries, and will have a significantly expanded visitor and tourist economy, and cross-river and local connectivity can be improved to enhance the links between the Royal Docks and the surrounding areas. The objective is to change the predominantly industrial nature of the docks and shift to a more balanced and higher value employment offer, well-integrated with the existing and emerging neighbourhoods, which opens up the waterfront with increased access to the River Thames and dock water spaces.” (The Royal Docks Vision’ document, July 2010) 1. S31 Royal Albert North

4.1.1.18 This site straddles both Canning Town and Custom House and Beckton Community Forum Areas. These are districts based on electoral wards, which are used for community engagement and monitoring characteristic data within the borough. This strategic site is allocated mainly for business and education uses, building on the strengths of the UEL and land availability for innovative high-tech manufacturing and research and development. A link will be created from Beckton Park, bringing the park into the dock and enhancing access for local residents to new employment and training opportunities.

41 East of Silvertown

2. S19 Albert Basin

4.1.1.19 New housing around Albert Basin will consolidate existing residential development, with a new local centre focused around Gallions Reach DLR station, providing day-to-day shopping, health, education and community uses. North of Armada Way new development will be employment -led and consistent with Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL). Residential development will be focused around the southern end of the site, and includes B1 business space, building on links with UEL and Royal Albert North.

4.1.1.20 An outline application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the whole site following the demolition of existing buildings and structures to provide up to 819 residential units (including affordable housing) is currently pending decision.

South Side

4.1.1.21 The Thamesmead and Abbeywood Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted in December 2009 (Greenwich Council and London Borough of Bexley), identifies the following future strategic developments in the study area: 1. OA9 Tamesis Point

4.1.1.22 There is an outline planning consent for the delivery of 2,000 new homes to the west of Thamesmead town centre. The area of Tamesis Point at the northwestern end of Thamesmead now forms part of the Peabody landholding and could be redevelopment to include a range of new homes and other facilities, but would require improved public transport infrastructure. In addition to the arrival of 2,000 new units at Tamesis Point, potential renewal of the Moorings Estate (OA4) is also considered within the SPD. 2. OA1 Thamesmead town centre

4.1.1.23 Thamesmead town centre is a District Centre and is recognised as the primary retail centre in the Thamesmead and Abbey Wood SPD area. A joint retail study (Thamesmead and Abbey Wood SPD, 2009) has been undertaken which indicates that Thamesmead town centre is a viable retail destination and has scope for a degree of expansion. The centre comprises a large Morrison’s supermarket as its anchor, along with some unit shops and the Cannon Retail Park. The Experian Goad Category Report identifies a total of 23,198m2 gross of ground floor floorspace for retail services, comprising 35 units. The convenience offer represents 11.4% of total retail units in the centre which is above the national average of 8.54%. The comparison retail offer in Thamesmead is below average. Key opportunities include integration with the Tamesis Point development and improved transport connections including a new riverbus terminus and future public transport improvements in the waterfront corridor. 3. OA3 the Ridgeway

4.1.1.24 The Ridgeway is already used as a walking route, and further use will be encouraged by upgrading the route for cycle use and making improvements to surfacing and landscaping and improved connections at Plumstead gyratory system and Eastern Way/Harrow Manor Way.

4.1.2 Cultural Heritage

4.1.2.1 Appendix 4C provides a detailed description of the existing baseline related to topology, geology, archaeology, and listed building within the study area. The following section summarises the findings from the baseline data collection at Gallions Reach. Archaeology

4.1.2.2 The heritage features in the immediate area include evidence of a prehistoric landscape in North Woolwich and Thamesmead and historical ordnance testing ground area, where foundry cannon balls have been found at Gallions Reach Urban Village.

4.1.2.3 The archaeology and history of the Thames foreshore is both varied and complex, the physical landscape having been subject to considerable change since the end of the last Ice Age. Archaeological investigations of the Lower Thames Valley since the end of the last century have revealed fairly constant human exploitation of the estuary and foreshore zones (Halcrow 2008).

4.1.2.4 Evidence suggests that there is a high potential for post-medieval industrial remains, of local (or little surviving) archaeological significance, to be located on the northern and southern bank of the Thames in this area. Remains associated with the Beckton Gas Works (HN37) on the northern bank of the River, and remains associated with the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich (HN11, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28) on the southern bank of the River Thames, see Appendix 4B.

4.1.2.5 It can be concluded that in addition to the known resources within the area of proposed land take (which are, with the exception of the Roding/Thames tributary site, generally of local significance – refer Appendices 4A, 4B and 4C) its location on the floodplain of the River Thames means that it has the potential to contain further buried, and undiscovered, archaeological deposits and palaeoenvironmental remains dating from the prehistoric to postmedieval periods. The most likely focus for significant resources of both types (i.e. archaeological deposits and palaeoenvironmental remains) is the former palaeochannel/tributary (HN31) with evidence of associated activity likely to be located in the vicinity of (rather than simply within) the channel; such resources have potential to be of national significance. In addition the presence of archaeological deposits and palaeoenvironmental remains away from this feature cannot be entirely discounted. The made ground and/or relatively late alluviums which overly most of the study area offer a degree of protection to the underlying earlier prehistoric deposits which are of medium value. The later alluvium deposits themselves are considered to be of low- medium value. The peats underlying most of the study area are considered to be of high value owing to their potential to contain important palaeoenvironmental remains.

4.1.2.6 There is limited potential for archaeological deposits/ remains to be present within the Thames channel; it appears to have been dredged away down to the bedrock. The channel edges, however, may have the potential to contain debris of maritime archaeological interest buried within the alluvial silts.

43 East of Silvertown

Listed Buildings

4.1.2.7 There are no listed buildings that would be physically impacted by any of the options but there are three which are located within the general vicinity of the proposed works which would require careful consideration during future assessments. These listed buildings are Gallions Hotel (BH1), Chimney at Beckton Sewage Works (BH2) the Lock and swing bridge (BH3). BH1 is a Grade II* listed building and the remaining two are Grade II Listed, see Appendix 4C. They are all of national significance.

4.1.2.8 The closest listed building to the Options is the Gallions Hotel (BH1), a Grade II* listed building located c. 200 m to the south-west of Options 1, 1A, 2 and 2A. 4.1.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation Terrestrial Ecology Designated sites

4.1.3.1 The locations of the designated sites - areas with special status or that are protected because of their natural environment - within 2km of the options are illustrated on Drawing 4.12.

4.1.3.2 The options potentially affect a section of the River Thames that lies within the Thames Estuary and Marshes Important Bird Area (IBA), a designated site of International importance for birds. Lee Valley Special Protection Area (SPA), a statutory designated site of international importance to wintering birds is located 12km to the north of the options.

4.1.3.3 The Thames Estuary and Marshes IBA extend for approximately 15km from the Kent coast on the south side of the Thames, and include areas of the inner Thames up to the Thames barrier (including the area affected by the options). Habitat-types include extensive grazing-marshes, saltmarshes, mudflats and pits. Common Reed (Phragmites australis) and duckweed (Lemna sp.) dominate the freshwater dykes, with hornwort (Ceratophyllum spp.) in the more brackish dykes. Waders and wildfowl breed on the grazing-marshes. The IBA supports a wide range of wintering and passage estuarine and wetland birds.

4.1.3.4 Lee Valley SPA and Regional Park is designated on the basis that it supports the following: six bittern (Botaurus stellaris) representing at least 6% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean, 1992/3-1995/6); 515 gadwall (Anas strepera) representing at least 1.7% of the wintering northwestern Europe population (5 year peak mean, 1991/2-1995/6); and 748 shoveler (Anas clypeata) representing at least 1.9% of the wintering northwestern / Central Europe population (5 year peak mean 1991/2-1995/6).

4.1.3.5 One statutory designated site of nature conservation importance was also identified within 2km of the options. This comprised Lesnes Abbey Woods Pit Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and is also designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI), which is located 1.5km to the south of the options. Lesnes Abbey Woods Pit LNR and SMI are designated on the basis that they support ancient woodland and coppice with one of the most important populations of wild daffodils (Narcissus

pseudonarcissus) in the southeast. Other habitats within the site include parks and open spaces, heathland, wetlands and hedgerows.

4.1.3.6 There are also a number of non-statutory designated sites of Metropolitan importance within 2km of the options including SMI, Sites of Borough Importance (SBI), and Sites of Local Importance (SLI). These are shown on Drawing 4.12.

4.1.3.7 Of these, the options are within the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI, and directly adjacent to Thamesmead Historic Area and Wetlands SBI (on the south side of the river). In addition, Twin Tumps Thamesmere SBI, Birchmere SBI and Gallions Canal SBI lie within 500m of the options (on the south side of the river); and Beckton Meadows South SBI and Royal Docks SBI lies within 500m of the options, on the north side of the river.

4.1.3.8 The River Thames SMI supports a diverse mix of habitats, including open water, intertidal mud, sand, shingle and small areas of relatively poor grade saltmarsh. The SMI is particularly important for a range of bird and fish species, including common tern (Sterna hirundo), reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus), grey heron (Ardea cinerea) and teal (Anas crecca); and bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), European eel (Anguilla anguilla) and flounder (Platichthys flesus). In the vicinity of the options, the Thames supports intertidal and marginal habitats. Relatively undisturbed shingle habitats on the south bank support small areas of salt marsh vegetation, although the ecological value of this habitat is limited by the small extent, low structural diversity (e.g. an absence of creeks/pans and discrete zones), sparse, very open nature of the vegetation and small number of halophytic species present.

4.1.3.9 Thamesmead Historic Area and Wetlands SBI (also known as the Wetland Treatment Centre), consists of a series of ponds created for the dual purpose of treating leachate from the adjacent licensed waste facility and to support a population of water vole (Arvicola amphibius): see the text regarding water voles (below). The ponds support a range of wetland habitats from reedbeds to deep water. The surrounding area contains scrub and tall herbs with a steep south-facing bank that has been re-profiled to encourage burrowing Hymenoptera (wasps, bees and ants). The site also contains a brackish ditch that supports several plant species that are rare in London, including Horned Pondweed (Zanichellia palustris) and Brackish Watercrowfoot (Ranunculus baudotii).

4.1.3.10 Birchmere SBI comprises a man-made lake with planted marginal vegetation. The site has been naturally colonised by Lesser Water-parsnip (Berula erecta) and Round-fruited Rush (Juncus compressus), both rare in London. The lake supports breeding mute swan (Cygnus olor), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and moorhen (Gallinula chloropus). Common tern regularly feed at the site and reed warbler nest in the reeds.

4.1.3.11 Gallions Canal SBI supports open water and marginal habitat, and forms a connection between two important wetland areas within Thamesmead; Tripcock Wetlands and the Twin Tumps and Thamesmere SBI.

4.1.3.12 Beckton Ditches and Grassland SBI comprisesof a series of ditches and areas of rough grassland fragmented by major roads and development. It extends from the A13 roundabout, southwards to the Greenway. The largest area of

45 East of Silvertown grassland within the SBI comprises Beckton Meadows, which lies to the east of Royal Docks Road between Eric Clarke Lane and the Greenway. A number of ditches cross the area and it supports several small ponds containing the London scarce plant Brackish Watercrowfoot. The southern half of Beckton Meadows is rough, ungrazed grassland with several ditches and an area of reedbed which has developed within a former sludge lagoon. The reedbed supports breeding reed warbler and reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) as well as amphibians and grass snake (Natrix natrix). Invertebrates associated with the ditches include several species of dragonflies and damselflies. The grassland support stonechat (Saxicola torquata), red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa) and yellow wagtail (Motacilla flava). Habitats

4.1.3.13 A review of aerial photographs from the Thames Gateway Bridge EIA and the Phase 1 habitat data collected for previous schemes has revealed that the southern side of the river supports blocks of broad-leaved woodland, areas of continuous and scattered scrub, ruderal herbs, relatively large stands of Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica), areas of hard standing, bare ground, open standing water, small areas of amenity grassland and semi-improved grassland, and areas of ephemeral/short perennial herbs. The options also cross Tripcock Park and Thamesmead Historic Area and Wetlands SBI.

4.1.3.14 The northern side of the river supports numerous buildings and areas of hard standing, bare ground, small areas of broad-leaved plantation, scattered and continuous scrub, semi-improved grassland, amenity grassland, ruderal herbs, and areas of ephemeral/short perennial herbs, an area of swamp habitat, standing and running water.

4.1.3.15 The banks of the Thames largely comprise of mudflats that are exposed at low-tide. From a review of aerial photographs it would appear that the mudflats do not support saltmarsh.

4.1.3.16 Three habitats within the options are listed as Section 41 habitats of Principal importance in England. These include: intertidal mudflats; ponds; and eutrophic standing waters. In addition, five habitats within the study area are listed as London BAP habitats. These include river and stream, standing water, tidal Thames, wasteland and woodland. Protected species

4.1.3.17 The ecological environment is subject to change over time. The majority of surveys are over 3 years old therefore the next stage of work on East of Silvertown would include undertaking new surveys to update the ecological baseline conditions.

Terrestrial invertebrates

4.1.3.18 Terrestrial invertebrate surveys were undertaken in 2003 within four targeted areas as part of the Thames Gateway Bridge Environmental Impact Assessment. The results of the surveys found that the areas of bare ground were considered important habitats for species groups such as Coleoptera (beetles), Hymenoptera (bees, wasps and ants) and Arachnida (spiders). Further surveys for terrestrial invertebrates were not undertaken as part of the extended Phase 1 habitat

and protected survey undertaken by Mott MacDonald in 2011; however areas of suitable habitat described previously were still found to be present within the options during the 2011 survey.

Great crested newts

4.1.3.19 Thirteen water bodies potentially suitable for breeding great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) were identified as part of the Thames Gateway Bridge Environmental Impact Assessment. Six were located to the north side of the river and seven to the south. Great crested newt surveys undertaken by Halcrow in 2004 and 2008 found no evidence of great crested newts within any of the waterbodies surveyed.

4.1.3.20 Mott MacDonald repeated the surveys in 2011; however, no access was possible to the waterbodies on the north side of the river. Six waterbodies on the south side of the river (located on Tilfen Land, also known as Tripcock Park) were identified as potentially suitable for breeding amphibians; however, no great crested newts were recorded during the 2011 surveys.

4.1.3.21 Great crested newts are listed as Section 41 species of Principal importance in England; they are also fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012.

Reptiles

4.1.3.22 The Thames Gateway Bridge Environmental Impact Assessment identified several habitats with the potential to support common reptile species such as common lizard (Zootoca vivipara), grass snake and slow-worm (Anguis fragilis). These habitats included scrub, woodland edges, tall ruderal herbs, and swamp. Areas with potential to support reptile species are identified on the plans provided in the Halcrow reports (Drawings MMD-289622-Env-GIS-00-XX-0001 to 0003 in Appendix A).

4.1.3.23 Surveys for reptiles were undertaken at various locations in 2003, 2006 and 2008 as part of the Thames Gateway Bridge Environmental Impact Assessment. A small population of grass snake was found within the Beckton Meadows SBI and small population of common lizard was found within the Thamesmead Historical Area & Wetlands SBI. No further reptile surveys were undertaken in 2011 by Mott MacDonald.

4.1.3.24 Grass snakes and common lizard are listed as Section 41 species of Principal importance in England and are included within the LBAP as priority species. They are also protected from killing and injury under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended).

Breeding birds

4.1.3.25 A breeding bird survey was undertaken in 2003 and a targeted survey for breeding black redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros) was undertaken at Beckon Gas Works in 2008. Both surveys were undertaken to inform the Thames Gateway Bridge Environmental Impact Assessment. Black redstarts are specially protected whilst

47 East of Silvertown breeding under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended). They are also a priority species within the LBAP.

4.1.3.26 The breeding bird survey recorded a total of 34 species as probably breeding in the survey area; this including red and amber Royal Society for the Protection of Birds(RSPB) Birds of Conservation Concern species, such as tree sparrow (Passer domesticus) and reed bunting. Both species are listed as Section 41 species of Principal importance in England.

4.1.3.27 No evidence of breeding black redstart was recorded during the 2008 survey and no additional areas of suitable habitat were recorded as potentially suitable for black redstart during the walkover surveys undertaken in 2011 by Mott MacDonald. Black Redstarts will be included as receptors due to the suitability of the habitat and Gallions Reach.

Wintering birds

4.1.3.28 A survey of the proposed crossing location at Gallions Reach and the surrounding estuarine area (up to a distance of 600m) was undertaken during the winter months of 2012/13, during low and high tides by Mott MacDonald. This updates a previous survey undertaken in 2011 by Mott MacDonald.

4.1.3.29 A total of twenty regularly occurring species were recorded during the survey. Six species were present in numbers considered to be of Regional importance. These were gadwall, shoveler, teal, black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa), redshank (Tringa totanus) and black-headed gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus).

4.1.3.30 In addition, 19 gadwall and 46 shoveler were recorded within the survey area. This potentially represents 3.6% of the wintering population of gadwall and 6.1% of the wintering population of shoveler within the Lee Valley SPA. However, it is not known whether the birds using the river in the vicinity of the options form part of the SPA population and further study would be required to ascertain whether the populations are linked.

4.1.3.31 The north bank of the Thames was considered to be an important area for birds and a significant roost for teal and redshank was recorded in the north-eastern section of the study area. This is likely due to the larger area of intertidal mudflats and reduced disturbance from human activity as access is currently restricted on the northern bank in comparison to the southern bank.

Bats

4.1.3.32 No buildings with the potential to support roosting bats were identified within the corridor of the Thames Gateway Bridge project. Several areas of broad-leaved plantation woodland and scattered trees were identified which may have the potential to support roosting bats; however, the majority of the trees, for example those located to the north of the site adjacent to the A1020, are semi-mature and are not considered suitable. The locations of potential roost sites were identified during the walkover survey, undertaken in 2011, and shown on plans provided in the Halcrow reports (Drawings MMD-289622-Env-GIS-00-XX-0001 to 0003 in Appendix A). However, a full tree inspection survey was not undertaken in 2011.

4.1.3.33 Surveys for roosting bats and activity surveys were undertaken in 2003 and 2008 as part of the Thames Gateway Bridge Environmental Impact Assessment. In addition, surveys of the Beckton Grassland and Ditches SBI were also undertaken in 2006 as part of the Lee Tunnel and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Extension Environmental Statement. Though bats are highly adaptable and can use urban sites for roosting, all trees and built structures to the north of the River Thames were assessed as having Low to Negligible roosting potential . However, some mature willow (Salix sp.) trees on the south side of the river were assessed as having medium potential. Since this assessment was undertaken a significant area of the Tilfen Land (Triptock Park) has been cleared as part of a Section 106 agreement, therefore the extent of potential roosting and foraging habitat has been significantly reduced.

4.1.3.34 Bats follow linear features such as the River Thames for foraging and commuting. Though the surrounding townscape is not suitable for nesting bats, the Gallions Reach site may still have importance for bats moving back and forth following the river.

4.1.3.35 All bat species and their roosts are fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012. They are also included within the LBAP as priority species. Several bat species are listed as Section 41 species of Principal importance in England; of these species only soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) and brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus) would be expected to occur in proximity to Gallions Reach.

Water voles

4.1.3.36 Two areas with the potential to support water voles were identified within the footprint of the Thames Gateway Bridge project. These are within the ditches in the vicinity of Eric Clarke Lane to the north of the site and within the Thamesmead Historic Area & Wetlands SBI and nearby ditches to the south.

4.1.3.37 Surveys for water voles were undertaken in these areas in 2003 and 2008 as part of the Thames Gateway Bridge project. No evidence of the species was found at either site. Water voles were introduced in the Thamesmead Historic Area & Wetlands SBI in 2002 as part of a re-location exercise; however, it is understood that the translocation has failed. Signs of American mink (Mustela vision) were recorded during the previous surveys which suggest that the likely cause for their absence is through predation.

4.1.3.38 Water voles are included within the London BAP as a priority species, they are also listed as Section 41 species of Principal importance in England and fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended).

Badgers

4.1.3.39 One badger (Meles meles) sett was found on the Tilfen Land (Triptock Park) to the east of the Thamesmead Historic Area and Wetlands SBI during a survey of the area in 2008 as part of the Thames Gateway Bridge project; however, no badger setts, or evidence of badgers, were recorded during the walkover survey undertaken

49 East of Silvertown in 2011 by Mott MacDonald. It is therefore possible that badgers may not be present within the survey area.

4.1.3.40 Badgers and their setts are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and the Protection of Badgers Act (1992). Marine Ecology

4.1.3.41 A marine ecological site survey was undertaken at Gallions Reach in March 2013 (Marine Ecological surveys, Gallions Bridge) in order to describe the characteristics of the benthic environment and provide information on the extent of any protected species at the two sites. This follows initial marine ecological surveys which were undertaken in February, June and August 2011. As the marine environment is subject to change, new marine ecology surveys would be undertaken at the next stage of works.

Marine surveys

4.1.3.42 The surveys revealed that a species of Victorella was recorded at Gallions Reach. There are potentially two species of the genus Victorella (although this is debated); Victorella muelleri and Victorella pavida. Only V. pavida is protected under UK legislation (under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and listed as a Species of Principle Importance in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006). It was not possible to determine whether the colonies found at Gallions Reach were that of the protected V. pavida, because the internal organs needed to determine the species had degenerated.

4.1.3.43 High numbers of the protected amphipod crustacean (Apocorophium lacustre) were also found at Gallions Reach. A. lacustre is listed as 'Nationally Rare' by Sanderson (1996) and ‘rare’ in the British Red Data Book (Bratton, 1991), though its status has since been revised to ‘Nationally Scarce’ by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). It is also a London BAP species.

4.1.3.44 The lagoon sea slug, (Tenellia adspersa), protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, was not found at any of the stations sampled in the 2013 survey. However, it was recorded in the 2011 survey.

4.1.3.45 The 2011 survey recorded a rare biotope containing the freshwater hydroid (Cordylophora caspia) and the sea mat (Electra crustulenta) at the Woolwich ferry terminal. These species were not found in the 2013 survey. The fauna of the survey area was poor but otherwise typical of sediments with low and variable salinity; similar communities have been found in many nearby areas (e.g. Dyer, 1998b; Dyer et al, 1999; Worsfold & Dyer, 2003) with the exception of the presence of Victorella sp. at the Gallions Reach sites.

4.1.3.46 Chemical analyses found high contaminant levels at the Gallions Reach site, but overall they do not exceed the Probably Effects Level (PEL). 4.1.4 Effects on All Travellers

4.1.4.1 At present there are no crossing facilities between the north and south part of the river Thames. The views from the existing road network on the north side of the

river to the surrounding environment vary for the vehicle traveller. The urban and industrialised area, generally located on the northern side of the options, prevents far reaching views to the north, with open views more frequent to the less developed southern side of the corridor.

4.1.4.2 At present community severance is caused by the lack of river crossing facilities that would connect residents of Beckton with available community facilities in Thamesmead and vice versa.

4.1.4.3 Most of the important community facilities are located outside the study area due to the predominantly industrial land use on the north side of the river, and Woolwich and Thamesmead Town centres being located further west and east of the options. The Strategic Outline Business Case discusses the connectivity between communities at Thamesmead and Beckton.

4.1.4.4 The key cycling and pedestrian routes shown on Drawing 4.15 are adjacent to residential areas, by the River Thames, and in the vicinity of the UEL/Gallions Reach Retail Park. 4.1.5 Ground Conditions Current Land Use and Topography

North bank

4.1.5.1 The options’ site on the north side of the River Thames is dominated by the former Beckton gasworks and the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) maintenance depot. The former gasworks were operational between 1870 and 1969. A DLR line runs north to south on the western side of the site between Gallions Reach and Beckton DLR stations. Roads currently present near the north section of the options comprise Armada Way, Atlantis Avenue, and Gallions Road. Several industrial and commercial units are also present in the south around Atlantis Avenue and Gallions Road and a petrol filling station is present on Armada Way.

4.1.5.2 A site reconnaissance visit, carried out in May 2013 by Mott MacDonald, identified a communications mast, electricity substation, a large concrete works and areas of scrubland on the north side of the river. Evidence of ground consolidation/subsidence was also noted.

4.1.5.3 Ground levels in the northern section of the site are generally between 5m and 15m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) falling towards the River Thames to the southeast.

River Channel

4.1.5.4 The river walls were described as reinforced concrete, timber and steel sheet piles in the Ground Investigation Desk Study Report (2013). A sewer outfall was identified within the area of the options on the north side of the river.

4.1.5.5 Several disused piers are located downstream of the options on the north bank of the Thames.

51 East of Silvertown

South Bank

4.1.5.6 The south bank section of the options comprises of the Tripcock Point Landfill Site and the protected corridor for the crossing. Adjacent to the south are residential properties and Gallions Reach Park; a public park. Further residential development is present to the east of the site. The protected TGB alignment corridor is currently undeveloped and bordered to the south by the Gallions Park public space and the Defence Close industrial area and Hill View Drive residential development.

4.1.5.7 No access was available to the protected TGB corridor at the time of the Hyder site visit. Geology

4.1.5.8 A review of BGS geological maps and existing ground investigation data was undertaken and a summary of the geological units underlying the Gallions Reach options is presented in Table 4-2.

4.1.5.9 Bedrock geology on the north bank comprises Upper Chalk (Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation and Seaford Chalk Formation and Newhaven Chalk Formation (undifferentiated)) at the north bank of the Thames, which is overlain by the Thanet Sand Formation and subsequently the Lambeth Group to the north. North of the DLR depot the London Clay is present, overlying the Lambeth Group. South of the Thames the chalk directly underlies the superficial deposits on the south bank while the Thanet Sand Formation is present beneath the Thamesmead residential areas to the south. Scour hollow features are known to exist in the chalk surface in the area of the Docklands where the chalk surface would deepen substantially.

4.1.5.10 Superficial geology at the Gallions Reach options comprises River Terrace Gravels underlying Alluvium deposits and recent river sediments. Peat has been encountered in exploratory holes within the Alluvium. Information from previous Landmark Envirocheck reports indicates that both the north and south bank sections of the options encompass extensive areas of Made Ground.

4.1.5.11 At the former Beckton Gas Plant, north of the Thames, a possible fault was encountered by ground investigations in the 1980s and reported in the Ground Investigation Desk Study Report (2013) as crossing the options on the north bank section.

Table 4-2 Summary of Anticipated Ground Conditions at Gallions Reach

Stratum Spatial Extent Typical Description Thickness

Made Ground Likely to be present 4.0m to 8.5m on Described as a mixture of natural soils across all of the the north bank (clay, silt, sand and gravel) and man- options, excluding 1.0m to 7.0m on made waste (mainly brick, clinker, the river channel. the south bank plastic, concrete, wire, wood, ash and pottery).

Alluvium Present across the Typically 5.0m to Described as soft silty clays, peat and entirety of the study 6.0m thick but medium dense silty fine sands. area. Interbedded peat layers and pockets up

Stratum Spatial Extent Typical Description Thickness locally 4.0m to to 1m thick have been encountered on 10.0m thick both the north and south banks.

River Terrace Present across the 1.0m to 10.0m Described as medium dense to dense Deposits entirety of the study thick sandy gravel (Taplow area. Gravel Formation)

London Clay Present only at the Up to 15m Described by the BGS as fine, sandy, northwest end of the thinning out to silty clay/silty clay. Glauconitic at base. Options 5a/b and 6 the southeast. alignment.

Lambeth Present only at the Varies in Described as clays with sands Group north-western end of thickness up to the study area, 14m absent south of the former gasworks.

Thanet Sand Present in the north varies in Described as glauconite-coated, nodular Formation except in areas thickness up to flint at base, overlain by pale yellow- adjacent to the river, 20m brown, fine-grained sand that can be and present directly clayey and glauconitic. Rare calcareous underlying the River or siliceous sandstones. Terrace Deposits to the south of the Tripcock Point landfill on the south bank.

Upper Chalk Present across the Approximately The upper section (approximately the (Lewes site directly 60m thick top 5m (banks) and 10-12m (river Nodular Chalk underlying the channel) of the chalk is generally Formation and Alluvium or River classed as weathered to Grade Dc/Dm. Seaford Chalk Terrace Deposits in The chalk becomes more competent Formation and and close to the river with depth at Grade B or C chalk. Newhaven and elsewhere Chalk underlying the Formation Thanet Sand (undifferentiate Formation where d)) present.

Hydrogeology

General

4.1.5.12 The Environment Agency classifies geological units into Principal, Secondary and non-aquifers depending on their hydrogeological properties and importance for water supplies, in line with the UK Groundwater Protection Policy (GP3) and the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD).

53 East of Silvertown

4.1.5.13 Groundwater beneath the area of London under consideration for the TfL Thames Crossing Options Appraisal is generally confined to an upper aquifer, comprising the River Terrace Deposits (Taplow Gravel Formation) in the Gallions Reach area and perched water within the Alluvium; plus a lower aquifer, comprising the Upper Chalk, Thanet Sand Formation and granular layers of the Lambeth Group. The two water bodies are separated by the lower permeability London Clay and more cohesive layers within the Lambeth Group, which act as a confining unit in areas where they are present. Perched water may locally be present in granular material within the Made Ground.

4.1.5.14 At the Gallions Reach study area, the superficial deposits are known to directly overly the Chalk in the River Thames, and Thanet Sands and Lambeth Group to the north and south. The absence of the London Clay across much of the route indicates that the River Thames and upper aquifer are likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the groundwater in the Lower aquifer, reducing the protection against contaminant migration to the lower (principal) aquifer.

4.1.5.15 Groundwater levels in the upper aquifer in areas in close proximity to the River Thames are likely to be tidally influenced. No information on groundwater abstractions or discharge consents was available at the time of writing this report.

Statutory Aquifer Designations

4.1.5.16 The Environmental Agency classifies the superficial deposits at the Gallions Reach site as a Secondary (undifferentiated) Aquifer. These are units with variable permeability and storage characteristics which may in some places be capable of supporting water supplies at a local level or are an important source of base flow to rivers. The River Thames is a designated Marine Conservation Zone.

4.1.5.17 The bedrock underlying the Site is variously classified by the Environment Agency as a Principal Aquifer (Chalk), Secondary ‘A’ Aquifer (Thanet Sand Formation and Lambeth Group) and non-aquifer (London Clay). Principal aquifers are defined as having high intergranular and/or fracture permeability and usually provide a significant water storage resource. They may support water supply or river base flow on a strategic scale. Secondary ‘A’ Aquifers may support water abstraction or river base flow on a local scale.

4.1.5.18 The proposed Gallions Reach Crossing is not located within 500m of a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ).

Measured groundwater levels

4.1.5.19 Groundwater levels are reported to be around 2mAOD although the water levels in the upper aquifer are likely to fluctuate under tidal influences. Hydrology

4.1.5.20 The nearest surface water features to the options, excluding the River Thames, are the Royal Docks on the north side of the river to the west of the site.

4.1.5.21 Water bodies on the north bank (east of the former gas works) and south bank (north of Gallions Hill) have been identified on OS maps of the area. From

inspection of aerial imagery, the water body on the south bank appears to be partially dry or infilled although this area is marked on some plans as ‘wetland’.

4.1.5.22 No information on surface water abstractions or discharge consents was available at the time of writing this report. Historical Land Use Information

North bank

4.1.5.23 The area north of the river, was undeveloped marshland and minor agricultural areas until 1896, when the Beckton gasworks were built. These were the largest town gasworks in the world. Beckton Sewage works was also first developed around this time. The northern outfall sewer was constructed around 1896. Other land uses identified in this area between 1916 and 1920 include the railway, a rifle range, Beckton Station, oil storage tanks, Beckton Paint works, coal storage sheds, cooling beds, gas and oil tanks and pitch beds, associated with the gas works.

4.1.5.24 Sludge lagoons and treatment ponds associated with the sewage works have been repositioned at least once.

4.1.5.25 The Beckton gasworks closed in 1970 and were shown to be partially cleared around 1996.

South bank

4.1.5.26 Information from historical mapping, indicates that pre-1880, the area of the proposed crossing was predominantly undeveloped marshland (Plumstead and Erith Marshes) and agricultural land. The marshland is presumed to have been gradually drained and infilled as development occurred.

4.1.5.27 The former Royal Arsenal was the dominant feature on the south bank of the Thames from 1869. The study area included some buildings used to manufacture explosives. The historical maps indicate that the ‘Danger Buildings’ were moved near to Tripcock Point in 1894, and the proof butts re-sited in the marshes between 1897 and 1901. A number of bunded magazines and artillery ranges were also shown.

4.1.5.28 The Arsenal closed in 1967 and since then a number of industrial and residential redevelopment schemes have been completed around the area of the option(s).

4.1.5.29 Historical mapping covering the period 1916-1950 shows areas of landfilling near the south river bank and Arsenal buildings near Tripcock Point; other industrial land uses are evident to the south of the options including ammunition manufacturing and several depots and warehouses. The landfill was shown to be expanded in 1984. The Thamesmead residential areas were completed by 1996 to 2000 to the south of the landfill.

55 East of Silvertown

Existing Chemical Data

4.1.5.30 Several ground investigations have been completed along the options (original Safeguarded alignment alignment) and are summarised below. Extensive areas of soil and groundwater contamination were encountered in the above investigations as would be expected for an area with a long industrial history.

4.1.5.31 River basal sediments and tidal silt deposits below the high-water level along the banks are likely to be contaminated by heavy metals from diffuse pollution via urban runoff and historic and current point sources such as Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) and industrial discharges, as well as the use of boats on the river. Although recent environmental regulations mean these sources are less active than previously, contaminants such as heavy metals and organo-metals such as tributyltin (TBT) (used on boat keels) are known to persist in surface sediments in the Thames.

4.1.5.32 Several investigations have been carried out in the area of the Gallions Reach river channel to sample the surface sediments. These have primarily focused on the original planned alignment (Options 1, 2, and 5). The ES, prepared by Halcrow, indicated that recorded concentrations of heavy metals, specifically silver, cadmium, nickel, lead and zinc, were elevated when compared with similar estuary sites. No chemical data for organic contaminants appears to be available.

4.1.5.33 Several trial pits to a maximum depth of 3.85m were completed by Halcrow in 2004 along the protected corridor on the south bank. All the trial pits were completed in Made Ground, and samples of this material were found to be elevated in heavy metals, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and hydrocarbon contaminants. A section of an ammunition shell was discovered in one location, consistent with the historical use of the land as part of the Royal Arsenal. Hydrocarbon odours were also noted.

4.1.5.34 No groundwater data is available for review although it is likely that perched water in the Made Ground and upper aquifer is locally contaminated. The Structural Options Report indicates that the Thanet Sands/Chalk aquifer is known to be contaminated by organic contaminants in the area of the former Beckton gasworks. An update to the ES in 2008 reported on a site investigation that found that groundwater at the former Beckton gasworks was contaminated with hydrocarbons, cyanides, ammonia and heavy metals. The testing also indicated that tar and LNAPL (Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid) were resting on low permeability clay/sand horizons beneath the former gas holders.

4.1.5.35 Oxidisable pyrite in the London Clay or chloride in the superficial soils may cause aggressive sulphate attack on concrete. Limited geotechnical data is available to assess this risk at the present time. Pollution Incidents

4.1.5.36 One pollution incident with a major (category 1) impact to water was recorded by the Environment Agency at the Beckton Sewage Treatment works in April 2005. Major impacts are defined as causing persistent and extensive effects on the quality of the environment, major damage to the ecosystem, agriculture and/or commerce. Five pollution incidents with a significant (category 2) impact to water

were recorded in the River Thames within the study area between 2004 and 2008. All six were sewage release incidents. Ground Gas

4.1.5.37 No information on ground gas concentrations was available at the time of writing, however, it is likely that ground gas generation and migration is occurring locally where the organic content of the Made Ground, Peat and Alluvium deposits is high, as well as in areas of organic contamination.

4.1.5.38 Several possible gas monitoring wells were noted in the Ground Investigation Desk Study Report (2013) within the former gasworks site.

4.1.5.39 As an active hazardous waste landfill, the Tripcock Point Landfill site is likely to be a source of ground gas, although the landfill is believed to be lined. Known Underground structures

4.1.5.40 No detailed information is available for in-situ underground structures, although it is likely that some foundations relating to the former gasworks buildings and tank holders on the north bank and former Royal Arsenal buildings on the south bank are still in place. Natural Ground Hazards

4.1.5.41 Evidence of ground movement near the former gasworks has been reported by the site walkover undertaken in May 2013, possibly attributable to compression of the Alluvium and peat deposits underlying the route.

4.1.5.42 No other information on natural ground hazards was available at the time of writing. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)

4.1.5.43 The study area is considered a high risk for UXO due to the presence of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, which has been involved in explosives testing and ammunition manufacture since the late 1600s, and was particularly active during World War I (WWI) and World War II (WWII). The Arsenal, and the Beckton Gas works on the north bank, made the area around the options a significant target for Luftwaffe bombers in WWII.

4.1.5.44 Consequently, a Stage 2/3 Detailed UXO Threat Assessment for the Gallions Reach site was carried out by 6 Alpha Associates, a specialist contractor, and the results were summarised in the GIDS Report by Mott MacDonald. The Threat Assessment was based on UK air raid records and Luftwaffe target records.

4.1.5.45 The threat assessment concluded that the risk of encountering UXO on both the north and south banks of the Thames was medium/high, and high in the river channel itself due to the higher probability of unrecorded bomb strikes.

4.1.5.46 The maximum Bomb Penetration Depth (BPD) as stated in the Structural Options Report (Atkins 2013), for the geology in this location, is 21.95m. Therefore previous low-rise development founded in shallower strata may not have

57 East of Silvertown encountered possible UXO and should not be assumed to have removed the risk of UXO in these areas. The maximum BPD in the river is stated as 1m below the river terrace deposits. The tunnel options, as well as the fixed bridge options requiring deep piled foundations are at high risk from UXO.

4.1.5.47 6 Alpha has recommended that a mitigation strategy is put in place to ensure that the risk from UXO is controlled before construction work commences. This should include intrusive surveys, the provision of specialist UXO banksmen and awareness briefings for site staff. Landfill and Waste Facilities

4.1.5.48 The only known landfill in the vicinity of the site is the Tripcock Point Landfill, operated by Tilfen, which is within the study area in the southern section of the options. Areas to the north and east of the landfill are completed and have been landscaped at the finish level however the area to the west (where the new alignment options are shown) is currently accepting waste.

4.1.5.49 The Tripcock Point Landfill site is a hazardous waste landfill and has an active Environment Agency permit to accept contaminated soils and similar hazardous material from development sites in the south-east.

4.1.5.50 The design of the bridge foundations would have to take into consideration the potential risks of founding large structures through a significant depth of contaminated fill, which is unlikely to be chemically or geotechnically suitable for use in this regard. Ground gases emanating from the landfill are unlikely to pose a risk to the operational phase assuming an absence of confined spaces in the bridge design; although depending on gas generation rates the potential for health and safety issues for construction workers, and the potential for increased material deterioration rates should be considered.

4.1.5.51 North of the Thames, an historic landfill is identified on the Environment Agency website between the current DLR depot and the former Beckton gasworks, between the old and new route alignments. Known as ‘Windsor Terrace’ this landfill was reported to be active between 1992 and 1994 although no information on waste composition is given. Another historic landfill is shown within Beckton Sewage Treatment Works approximately 500m north-east of the new alignment. Landfilled waste included inert material and liquids/sludge, and this is likely to be sourced from within the STW. Conceptual Site Model

4.1.5.52 The aim of this initial conceptual model is to provide a preliminary identification of the risks to controlled waters, proposed future site users and the surrounding area posed by any contamination present on site. The assessment is based on identification of ‘contaminant linkages’, i.e. contamination-pathway- receptor relationships.

Potential Sources of Contamination

4.1.5.53 Following a review of the available information the following potential current and historical contamination sources have been identified on-site and associated with surrounding land-uses.

4.1.5.54 The likely contaminant sources are given below in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Potential Sources of Contamination at Gallions Reach

Ref Primary source Expected distribution Likely contaminants

S1 Made ground (on site) Site wide Metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc), asbestos, organic compounds (oil/fuel hydrocarbons) & PAHs. Ground gas (methane and carbon dioxide)

S2 Former Beckton North bank. Primarily Sulphates, cyanides, heavy gasworks Options 6, 7, 9, and 10 in metals, coal tars, ammonia, the new alignment. phenols, hydrocarbons and PAHs & BTEX compounds. pH extremes

S3 Beckton Sewage North bank. Primarily Metals (cadmium, chromium, works and associated Options 6/9 and 7 in the new copper, lead, nickel, zinc), organic sewers alignment. compounds (oil/fuel hydrocarbons) & PAHs.

S3 Former Royal South bank study area. Phosphorous, Nitrocellulose, Woolwich Arsenal Nitroglycerine, , Picrates, Cordite, buildings, ranges, Cyclotrimethylenetrinnitramine magazines depots (RDX), Trinitrotoluene (TNT), and butts. Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine (HMX), Triethyleneglycol Dinitrate (TEGN), Pentaerrythritol Tetranitrate (PETN), Nitroglycol (EGDN), Heavy Metals (including Ba, Ag, Mo), Hydrocarbons, phenols, Solvents, & Asbestos.

S4 Tripcock Point South bank, whole study Metals (arsenic, cadmium, Hazardous Waste area especially Options 6, 7, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, Landfill 9 and 10 in the new zinc), organic compounds (oil/fuel alignment. hydrocarbons) & PAHs. Ground gases (methane and carbon dioxide).

S5 DLR Railway line and North bank. Railway line is Metals (cadmium, chromium, Depot in the vicinity of all options copper, lead, nickel, zinc), organic but Options 5 and 8 are compounds (oil/fuel most affected by DLR depot. hydrocarbons) & PAHs. Asbestos.

S6 Contaminated river Along river channel for all Metals (cadmium, chromium, sediment options copper, lead, nickel, zinc), organic compounds (oil/fuel

59 East of Silvertown

Ref Primary source Expected distribution Likely contaminants hydrocarbons) & PAHs. Organotins (TBT).

S7 Other industrial land Industrial areas south of Metals (cadmium, chromium, uses (warehousing, options on north bank and copper, lead, nickel, zinc), organic paint works, pumping west of Gallions Hill on compounds (oil/fuel station, electrical south bank. hydrocarbons) & PAHs, PCBs, substation, tar and phenols, coal tars, ammonium. liquor works)

Potential Receptors

4.1.5.55 The most sensitive receptors identified, using the conceptual site model, are considered to be adjacent land users, and controlled waters (shallow and deep aquifers and the River Thames). These are most likely to be affected by made ground/the adjacent landfill and any associated contaminants. Table 4-4 details the potential receptors.

Table 4-4 Potential Receptors at Gallions Reach

Ref Receptor Description

R1 Future site users Members of the public and Crossing staff (if present)

R2 Construction Workers Contractors working on the crossing development.

R3 Controlled Waters Principal Aquifer (Chalk) and Secondary Aquifer (Alluvium/River Terrace Deposits/Thanet Sands). River Thames

R4 Adjacent Site Users Adjacent site users (residents and users of public space)

R5 Infrastructure / Buried services /bridge structures & existing buildings and services

R6 Ecological Receptors River ecology and public space biodiversity

Potential Pathways

4.1.5.56 Potential pathways of any contamination from the above sources to the identified receptors along the options are identified below:

Table 4-5 Potential Contaminant Pathways at Gallions Reach

Ref Pathway Description

P1 Direct contact with Dermal absorption of contaminants via direct contact and soil ingestion. potential Due to the former land uses it is likely that contaminants will exist contaminants across the study area.

Ref Pathway Description

P2 Ingestion of potential Construction workers may come into contact during the site works, contaminants however this would be for a short time and therefore limited exposure would occur. PPE can be used and worn as a precaution to reduce the risk.

P3 Inhalation of potential Extensive Made Ground is present across the study area, which could contaminants generate vapours, and dust may be a problem if work commences in dry weather.

P4 Leaching and Leaching of possible contaminants which could migrate into the migration of underlying aquifer. Drift material is absent or limited in thickness in contaminants some areas and is unlikely to significantly mitigate this.

P5 Groundwater Any groundwater contamination could migrate to the River Thames. migration to surface water

P7 Direct contact of There is potential for phenols if present to permeate water pipes and contaminants with cause degradation of concrete, as well as acidic conditions. structures

P8 Surface and shallow The redevelopment works are adjacent to the River Thames. Soil groundwater runoff to movement could allow runoff of contaminated particulates to enter the surface waters river

P9 Vertical and lateral Made ground material is known to be present on the site, which is likely migration of ground to generate gas on site. The adjacent landfill is likely to be a significant gases source of ground gas.

4.1.6 Materials

4.1.6.1 Gallions Reach study areas are located within the London Borough of Newham and Royal Borough of Greenwich.

4.1.6.2 According to The Mayor’s Business Waste Strategy for London (November 2011), London produced an estimated 9.75 million tonnes of Construction Demolition and Excavation waste in 2010. Of this total amount, 85% was recycled. Although this is a high percentage, it is still a considerable way from the target set in Policy 5.16 of exceeding 95% by 2020.

4.1.6.3 Using figures derived from the March 2010 ‘Future Waste Arisings in London 2010-2031’ Summary Note Construction, Demolition and Excavation waste for the Royal Borough of Greenwich for 2013 was forecast to be 327,000 tonnes. Construction, Demolition and Excavation waste was forecast to be 388,000 tonnes for the London Borough of Newham.

4.1.6.4 According to Environment Agency data published in 2010, the total non- hazardous and hazardous waste landfill capacity for London and the South-East was approximately 624,000 tonnes and 52 million tonnes respectively This provides the assessment baseline against which the potential impacts resulting from waste management and the use of resources associated with the works in the construction phases of each of the options as detailed in the methodology are assessed.

61 East of Silvertown

4.1.7 Water Environment Surface Water Receptors & Existing Hydrology

4.1.7.1 The Gallions Reach study area is characterised by highly urbanised land use and a gently undulating topography, with ground levels varying between approximately 3m and 7m above ordnance datum. The study area receives an average annual rainfall of approximately 570mm and its hydrology is dominated by the tidal River Thames which, along the Gallions Reach, drains a catchment area exceeding 10,000km2. Within the study area the Thames serves and supports numerous functions, for example, the transport and dilution of waste water discharges, commercial and recreational navigation and diverse fisheries.

4.1.7.2 Other surface water features in the study area are:  The Royal Albert and King George V Docks. The docks were completed between 1855 and 1921 and were closed to commercial shipping in 1981. They are now used mainly for recreational water sports, with occasional visits by naval and merchant vessels  Birchmere Lake, an artificial lake situated within a park setting which supports a course fishery that is used by the Thamesmead Town Angling Club. The lake is located in the east of the study area  Gallions Canal, a new water feature that has been created in Thamesmead  Twin Tumps, two lakes located in the east of the study area on the former Woolwich Arsenal site  Marsh Dykes, a number of interlinked artificial channels and lakes that drain Thamesmead, with a catchment area of approximately 3.5km2, discharging into the tidal Thames along the Barking Reach to the east. This system forms an integral part of the flood defences for the immediate area and a more sympathetic management regime, adopted in recent years, has meant an increase in ecological and local amenity value  Wylees Sewer, a largely culverted ordinary watercourse that discharges into the Royal Albert Dock, having a drainage catchment of approximately 3km2

4.1.7.3 Surface water features are illustrated in Drawing 4.16. Existing Hydrogeology & Groundwater Receptors

4.1.7.4 The study area is underlain by bedrock geology of the Lewes Nodular, Seaford and Newhaven Chalk, the Thanet Sand and the Lambeth Group. These deposits are classified as Principal and Secondary A aquifers respectively. The Chalk Principal aquifer comprises layers of rock that have high permeability, usually providing a high level of groundwater storage that may be supportive of water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Secondary A aquifers are typically significant at a local rather than strategic scale.

4.1.7.5 Overlying the bedrock there are superficial deposits of alluvium, comprising of silty, sandy, clays of the quaternary period. These deposits support Secondary

aquifers that are classified as ‘Undifferentiated’ due to the variability in the characteristics of this rock type.

4.1.7.6 Groundwater levels in the Chalk aquifer are around 0m OD but show considerable fluctuation from year to year, with no apparent trends. The general groundwater flow direction is to the north, towards a groundwater depression of – 20m OD.

4.1.7.7 There are no Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs) within the study area. Surface Water Quality

4.1.7.8 Several of the surface waterbodies within the study area are monitored by the EA in line with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

4.1.7.9 The Thames is classified as a heavily modified waterbody (HMW), serving flood protection and navigation functions. Its current ecological potential is defined as Moderate, limited by the status of the benthic invertebrate community and hydro- morphological quality, and its current chemical quality fails WFD objectives, though there has been an improvement in quality in recent years. Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for a number of priority hazardous substances are exceeded, namely Tributyltin Compounds, Diuron and Benzo perelyene & indeno pyrene. This waterbody has a target of achieving Good Ecological Potential and Chemical Status by 2027 and a number of mitigation measures have been set out to achieve this goal.

4.1.7.10 The Marsh Dykes system is also classified as a HMW, as a result of urbanisation and due to its flood protection function. The waterbody is considered to support Good quantity and dynamics of flow and achieves Moderate Ecological Potential, with a target to achieve Good Ecological Potential by 2027. The chemical status of this waterbody does not require assessment under the WFD.

4.1.7.11 The final waterbody in the study area that is monitored under the WFD is the Wylees Sewer, a HMW as a result of urbanisation and due to its flood protection function. The waterbody achieves Moderate Ecological Potential, with a target to achieve Good Ecological Potential by 2027. The chemical status of this waterbody does not require assessment under the WFD.

4.1.7.12 The EA holds records of numerous past pollution incidents affecting surface waterbodies within the study area. These incidents have largely involved sewage materials and several have resulted in significant or major impacts on the water environment.

4.1.7.13 Water in the Royal Albert and King George V Docks is tested regularly against rigorous standards applicable to recreational waters, which include compliance with physical and bacteriological limits. Although failures periodically occur, usually because of algae growths in the summer months, generally, the water quality is good and meets Bathing Water Directive standards (www.lddc- history.org.uk/water/#Policies).

63 East of Silvertown

Groundwater Quality

4.1.7.14 The WFD groundwater unit underlying the study area is named the Greenwich Tertiaries. It is mostly comprised of 3 Secondary Aquifer units (the Harwich Formation, Lambeth Group and Thanet Sands) all of which contain a mixture of sands and silt. Its current chemical quality is classified as Poor, failing its WFD status objective of Good, with an upward chemical trend. Concentrations of dissolved cadmium exceed threshold values and saline intrusion is also identified as a contributing factor. The quantitative quality of this groundwater body, which considers factors such as the impacts of abstraction and the water balance, is also classified as Poor.

4.1.7.15 Historic land uses within the study area are such that the risk of groundwater contamination is relatively high. Data is available from a number of site investigations that have been carried out within the study area, including investigations in the vicinity of the former Beckton gas works and Beckton Sewage Treatment works. Samples of groundwater from the made ground at these sites was found to be contaminated with hydrocarbons, cyanides, ammonia and heavy metals, including arsenic, chromium, copper and nickel. Inorganic and organic contamination was also detected in groundwater within the superficial deposits. In the Beckton Sewage Treatment works area contamination, in terms of faecal streptococci and coliforms, in shallow groundwater was identified. Existing Flood Risk and Drainage

The study area comprises Flood Zones 3 (High Risk), 2 (Medium Risk) and 1 (Low Risk), with the predominant source of flood risk being the tidally dominated River Thames, as illustrated in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4-1 EA Flood Mapping (indicative study area in red)

4.1.7.16 However, the Flood Zones are defined without accounting for the protection provided by existing flood defences. These defences comprise of the Thames Barrier, in addition to flood gates and river walls, with a statutory defence level of 7.2m AOD downstream of the barrier. This defence level is sufficient to provide protection during a tidal flood event with an annual chance of occurring of 0.1% (1 in 1000). However, there is a residual risk of flooding in the event of failure or breach of the defence system. The Newham Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) presents the results of hydraulic modelling of a number of breach scenarios, including a breach at the inlet to the King George V Dock and a breach of the Thames river wall at Beckton STW. In both of these scenarios there is predicted to be an increased likelihood of rapid onset flooding, with significant floodwater depths and a Flood Hazard rating of ‘Significant’ in parts of the study area.

4.1.7.17 In addition to the risk of flooding from the River Thames the EA also indicate that a small region at the north west boundary of the study area is within the maximum extent of risk of flooding from the King George V and William Girling Reservoirs, that form part of the Lea Valley Reservoir Chain. However, there is an extremely low likelihood of occurrence attached to the reservoir inundation extents produced. Water Resources

4.1.7.18 There is one known groundwater abstraction point, located on the southern boundary of the study area near Bellmarsh Prison, Thamesmead. Groundwater is abstracted for industrial/commercial use. Outside of the study area boundary, the Chalk aquifer supports abstractions for a range of water supply purposes, including a public water supply source at East Ham (NGR 543700 184200). Surface water resources also support a number of licensed abstractions. Within the study area there is a medium sized abstraction from the southern side of the King George V Dock, with water used for construction and general purposes, and an abstraction from the River Thames that supplies the Thames Water desalination plant at Beckton.

4.1.7.19 There are also a number of consented discharges to surface waters within the study area, including final treated sewage effluents, treated trade effluent, cooling water and surface drainage. 4.1.8 Townscape and Visual Impact

4.1.8.1 Townscape and visual considerations are shown on Drawing 4.18.

4.1.8.2 The options fall within Thames Policy Areas as part of the London Blue Ribbon Network; the London Plan requires Thames-side boroughs to identify these policy areas and formulate corresponding policy that is consistent with the London Plan. As a result the options would need to be considered in the context of Greenwich Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy W2 (Thames Policy Area) and Newham Core Strategy Policy INF7 (Blue Ribbon Network) which set out local planning policy for protection and enhancement of townscape and views within respective areas. Newham Character Study (undertaken to inform Newham Core

65 East of Silvertown

Strategy) identifies that the options study area falls within the ‘Southern part of the Borough, including the Royal Docks, (Silvertown, North Woolwich) and Beckton’, key features of which are identified as ‘the Royal Dock basins (from c.1885), London City Airport and River Thames, industrial development around the Tate and Lyle factory and Thames Wharves and modern service industry development at ExCeL (hotels, exhibition centre); ex-railway lands (some incorporated as the modern road network); the DLR and emerging Crossrail route.’ The area includes Areas of Townscape Value, protected by Policy SP5 (Heritage and other successful place-making assets) of Newham Core Strategy; whilst the options do not interact directly with these areas, their respective settings may require consideration. A character study has not been prepared for the Royal Borough of Greenwich, however the areas of townscape within the study area range from the urban centre and waterfront at Woolwich to the Metropolitan Open Land (refer to Policy O1-4 of Greenwich UDP) at Thamesmead, to the east. The Gallions options would need to be considered in the context of views from National Cycle Route 13 (north of the River Thames), together with those from Conservation Areas and listed buildings identified in Section 5 of this report.

4.1.8.3 Local Views identified in Greenwich UDP Policy D27 would need to be considered. Views from sensitive visual receptors such as national recreational trails/routes, including the Thames Path (south of the River Thames), Capital Ring (north and south of the River Thames) and National Cycle Route 1 (south of the River Thames) would also need to be taken into account. These strategic routes are protected by Policies O15-16 of Greenwich UDP and Policy INF1 of Newham Core Strategy. Although distant, views of the options may be available from the new Emirates Air-Line, which could also require consideration. 4.1.9 Energy

4.1.9.1 No information in the original options study about Gallions Reach energy baseline conditions 4.1.10 Noise and Vibration

4.1.10.1 The Gallions Reach study area contains fewer residential properties on both the north bank and south bank of the river in comparison to the existing Woolwich Ferry area. Residents at Thamesmead on the south side for the river and on the north in Beckton are likely to be affected by an increase in noise levels. Potentially sensitive receptors comprising three schools and a hospital have been identified and marked on Drawing 18.3. One school (Gallions primary school), identified in the Beckton area, is within 100m of the worst affected link highlighted in this study. Residents in the new Tripcock development are likely to be affected as the proposed option would be within 200m of their properties. 4.1.11 Air Quality Air Quality Management Areas

4.1.11.1 Local authorities are responsible for carrying out a review and assessment of air quality in their area. The aim of the review is to make sure that the national air quality objectives (based on the EU limit values) will be achieved throughout the UK by the relevant deadlines. If a local authority finds any area where the objectives are

not likely to be achieved, it must declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) there.

4.1.11.2 The study area comprises the following local authorities:  Sevenoaks District Council  Dartford Borough Council  Thurrock Council  Brentwood Borough Council  London Borough of Havering  Epping Forest District Council  London Borough of Bexley  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham  Royal Borough of Greenwich  London Borough of Newham  London Borough of Tower Hamlets  London Borough of Waltham Forest  London Borough of Redbridge  Basildon District Council  London Borough of Bromley  London Borough of Lewisham  London Borough of Hackney

4.1.11.3 Of these 17 local authorities, all except Basildon District Council have declared AQMAs. Drawings 3-1 to 3-3 present the AQMAs covering the study area.

4.1.11.4 Sevenoaks District Council has declared 11 AQMAs (10 due to exceedances of annual nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations and one due to particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) 24 hour mean exceedances) encompassing major roads, town centres and high streets. Extensions to the existing AQMA’s along the A25 have been identified. The existing AQMAs all arise from the heavy and at times, congested traffic that uses the road. To obtain continuity, it is proposed to join all the relevant AQMAs to form a single corridor along the length of the A25 in the District’s boundaries.

4.1.11.5 Dartford Borough Council has declared four AQMAs; these areas are the A282 Dartford Tunnel Approach Road, Dartford Town Centre and approach roads, London Road and Bean Interchange. These four AQMAs were declared for annual NO2 exceedances (the Dartford Tunnel approach road AQMA has also been declared for PM10 24 hour mean exceedances).

4.1.11.6 Thurrock AQMA, declared by Thurrock Council, consists of 15 separate areas comprising several ribbons, clusters and isolated properties which are close to the busiest roads in Thurrock. All 15 areas are declared with respect to NO2; four of these are also declared with respect to particles. An additional AQMA has been declared by Thurrock Council for annual NO2 exceedances, AQMA 24, encompassing Tilbury Dock Road, Calcutta Road part of St Chads Road, Tilbury.

67 East of Silvertown

4.1.11.7 There are seven AQMAs declared by Brentwood Borough Council in the vicinity of the Army and Navy roundabout, all for exceedances of annual NO2 concentrations.

4.1.11.8 There are two AQMAs declared by Epping Forest District Council for annual NO2 exceedances, which are areas encompassing properties on High Street and High Road.

4.1.11.9 The London Borough of Newham has declared an AQMA, based on exceedances of both NO2 and PM10 concentrations, covering all main roads within the Borough.

4.1.11.10 The London Borough of Bromley Council has declared an AQMA encompassing the whole of the northwest corner of the Borough for annual NO2 exceedances.

4.1.11.11 The AQMA for the London Borough of Lewisham consist of four large AQMA’s and a series of ribbon roads, declared for exceedances of both NO2 and PM10 concentrations.

4.1.11.12 The London Borough of Havering, London Borough of Hackney, London Borough of Bexley, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Royal Borough of Greenwich, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, London Borough of Waltham Forest and the London Borough of Redbridge have all declared AQMA’s encompassing the whole of their respective Boroughs, based on exceedances of both NO2 and PM10 concentrations. Sub-Regional Focus Areas

4.1.11.13 In 2010, TfL identified 187 focus areas as part of the air quality work carried out for the Sub-Regional Transport Plans. These locations were identified because of the high human exposure (residential areas, high streets etc.) and the modelled concentrations of NO2 were above limit value levels (based on 2015 estimates in the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (LAEI) 2008). The 187 locations are not meant to cover all areas with these characteristics but have been used as a starting point by GLA, TfL and the boroughs to target local measures and have become a good benchmark when assessing local changes in emissions at hotspot locations. Drawings 3-1 to 3-3 show the TfL Focus Areas within the study area.

4.2 Belvedere 4.2.1 Community and Private Assets Population Characteristics Belvedere

4.2.1.1 The northern side of the options is located within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (the northwest part) and London Borough of Havering (the central and northeast part). The southern side is located within the London Borough of Bexley. This section includes characteristics of the population in these three Boroughs which are considered most likely to be affected by the options at Belvedere.

4.2.1.2 Table 4-11 presents the population data for the Boroughs on both sides of the river in the vicinity of the options location.

Table 4-11 Population Characteristics Belvedere, Total population (Census 2011)

Local Authority Census 2001 Census 2011

London Borough of Barking and 163,929 185,900 Dagenham

London Borough of Havering 224,247 237,200

London Borough of Bexley 218,310 232,000

4.2.1.3 The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham recorded population of over 185,000 (Census 2011). The population data show an increase up 13.4% from 2001. Historically the Borough has had a relatively stable predominately white population of 85% (Census 2001). The Census data from 2011 show a significant change in the proportions of ethnic groups in the Borough with 58.3% white population and an increase of Asian and Black minority groups. The Borough has the highest population percentage of those aged 0 to 19 at 31% in England and Wales. Currently there are growing proportions of under 16 year olds and 85+ year olds, and a rapid increase in the proportion of ethnic minority residents.

4.2.1.4 The Borough is the 9th most deprived of the 33 in London and the 21st of the 354 nationally. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (2004) shows that six of the Borough’s 17 wards have areas within them that are amongst the 10% most deprived in England. Over 10% of the Borough’s population lives within these areas. This has resulted in the Borough having many unique characteristics. The Borough has the lowest average house prices in London. The average local house price in 2005 was £173,777 against the London average of £289,247 (Land Registry 2005).

4.2.1.5 Havering is the third largest London Borough and is located in north east London. It covers 1,227 hectares. The London Borough of Havering recorded population of over 237,000 in 2011 (see Table 4-2), of which 22.7% is under 19 years old. The 2033 population is expected to be around 281,000, an increase of 19.26% from 2011. In 2011, 87.6% of the population was from White ethnic group. It is a mainly prosperous borough with a diverse and successful economy although there are local pockets of social deprivation.

69 East of Silvertown

4.2.1.6 Regarding transport in the area, Part F of the Strategic Outline Business Case summarises current and forecast trends in travel behaviour and commuting patterns for these boroughs.

4.2.1.7 Approximately 221,600 people lived in the London Borough of Bexley in 2006 and the population recorded in 2011 was 232,000. The population in the Borough is relatively young (26% is under 19 years old) and predominantly from the White ethnic group (86.4% in 2011). The Borough shows lower levels of deprivation when compared to the Boroughs on the north side of the River Thames, with less deprived areas in the southern parts (Open Data Communities 2014).

4.2.1.8 Land Use

4.2.1.9 Both banks of the River Thames at the proposed location are currently industrial land, and are densely populated by business premises and factories. Notable of these is the Ford Dagenham automotive plant, which has been located in its existing location since 1931 and represents an iconic symbol of the British manufacturing industry.

4.2.1.10 On the north bank of the Thames, the area is dominated by the Ford car assembly plant and associated vehicle storage hardstanding areas to the east of the assembly plant. The proposed approach road between the junction with the A13 and the river would traverse the hardstanding areas and a vegetated strip of land through which the Beam River runs. To the east of the hardstanding areas is the Fairview Industrial estate, accessed by Marsh Way. Marsh Way also serves the Centre of Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence (CEME) campus of the Thames Gateway College on a parcel of land between the A13, Fairview Industrial Estate and the Ford Estate hardstanding areas. Rainham Marshes RSPB Nature Reserve is located southeast of the options (see Drawing 4-11). Residential areas are located further north and south of the options. Barking Reach Power Station lies west of the proposed approach road, south of Dagenham Dock railway station.

4.2.1.11 Situated on the south bank is the newly completed Riverside Resource Recovery (RRR) Energy from Waste Facility, colloquially known as the Belvedere Incinerator, as well as the Crossness Sewage Treatment Works (including the preserved Victorian pumping station, now a tourist attraction). Crossness Nature Reserve is located west of the options.

4.2.1.12 The land on the south bank of the Thames adjacent to the preferred options is dominated by industrial estates, comprising several large warehouses as well as smaller commercial premises and large plots of undeveloped land. The options are bordered on the west side by the Isis Reach Industrial estate, and on the east side by the Belvedere Industrial estate. The Isis Industrial Estate comprises three large warehouses/factories, which takes up the entire length from A2016 to the banks of the Thames. Belvedere is less heavily developed: apart from the Jablite warehouse opposite the A2016 roundabout, the remainder of the estate at its western extremity comprises vacant plots of undeveloped land or hardstanding areas used for storage.

Community Facilities

4.2.1.13 Given the industrial land use of the area, the community facilities are located further to the north of A13 on the north bank of the River Thames and south of A2016 on the south bank of the River Thames. Community facilities comprise of schools, community centres, health centres, parks and gardens, etc. (see Drawing 4- 4). The nearest schools on the north side of the river are Newtons Primary School and Beam County Primary School. The following primary and secondary schools are located to the west and south of the Belvedere Industrial Area on the south bank:  Northwood Primary School  The Business Academy Bexley  The Business Academy Primary Section  Saint John Fisher Catholic Primary School  Parkway Primary School  Belvedere Junior School  Willow Bank Primary School

4.2.1.14 The nearest health centre on the north bank of the river is Orchard Village Health Centre and is shown on Drawing 4-4. Health facilities on the south bank are located south of the options: dental practice on Lower Road and Cairnhall Medical Practice on Woolwich Road.

4.2.1.15 The following parks and playground areas are located in the far north and southwest parts of the study area:  Beam Valley Country Park  Rainham Recreation Ground  Frank’s Park  Lesnes Abbey Park  Southmere Park

4.2.1.16 The nearest community centre to the north of the River Thames is Mardyke Community Centre located in close proximity of Beam Valley Country Park. On the south bank, there is one community centre in the vicinity of the options located south of the Belvedere Industrial Area (see Drawing 4-4). Bexley Allotments (Gilbert Road) are located to the north of Abbey Road and southwest of the options. Other community facilities such as playing grounds, libraries, leisure/sport centres, etc. are located at a significant distance from the options. Planning Designations for Sites

North Side

4.2.1.17 East London and the Thames Gateway is described as ‘the priority area’ for development in the London Plan, and Barking and Dagenham lies at the heart of this region. The Borough is located within the Thames Gateway, which is the largest regeneration area in Europe. Much of the planned development will involve the

71 East of Silvertown conversion of existing brownfield sites, previously home to industrial activity, to housing land (Barking and Dagenham Core Strategy 2010).

4.2.1.18 Within the study area, the Key Regeneration Site identified in Barking and Dagenham’s Core Strategy is Beam Park (RS1 on Drawing 4-6) - a site of 29 hectares on the south side of the A1306 in Rainham and South Dagenham, crossing the boundary between London Borough of Havering and London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. The site is vacant industrial land apart from a small area in temporary use for road salt storage. The application site is known as South Dagenham East or Beam Park and forms part of the wider South Dagenham site which the Council is promoting as one of the broad locations for future development within the Borough and has the potential for a range of uses including housing, community, leisure, recreation, retail, health centre, primary school and some employment generating uses. Policy SSA SM4 of the Site Specific Allocations DPD advises that the South Dagenham East site has the potential for housing, health, education, car parking and light industrial uses. However, the anticipated timescales for any redevelopment are long term (2015-2025).

South Side

4.2.1.19 The Regeneration Framework for Bexley 2007-2016 identifies several potential sites for development within the study area, as shown on Drawing 4-6 and described in the following sections.

1. Veridion Park RS2

4.2.1.20 Veridion Park is a new 67 acre business park with planning permission for over 600,000 sq ft of offices, light industrial, warehousing and distribution space. The amount of warehousing and distribution is limited to 50% and can only be created after the office/light industrial space has been developed. The first phase of Veridion Park’s development included the opening of the Thames Innovation Centre, which aims to bring innovative and higher skilled businesses to Bexley Borough, and the completion of the Horizon Business Centre.

2. Imperial Gateway RS3

4.2.1.21 The London Borough of Bexley granted planning permission for a major mixed-use scheme in Belvedere shown as on Drawing 4-6. The development has now been constructed and includes 400 new homes, 750 jobs, a hotel, new retail space, designated play areas, a health and fitness centre and community enterprise facilities. The new mixed development at Imperial Gateway is a result of the recent redesignation of industrial land.

3. Belvedere Wetlands RS4

4.2.1.22 The Belvedere Wetlands project aims to improve the existing system of dykes in order to reduce flood risk and make the area more attractive. Work includes new linkages and public realm improvements to connect the employment sites and local housing with the marshes as well as an improved network of cycle routes, footpaths and better links to Belvedere Station and the River Thames.

4. Alchemy Park RS5

4.2.1.23 Alchemy Park fronts Crabtree Manorway North within the established Belvedere Industrial Estate. Alchemy Park is a brownfield site which extends to 13 acres (5.26 ha). The site has its own separate entrance off Crabtree Manorway North. Alchemy Park has been granted Outline planning consent by London Borough of Bexley for B1C (Light Industrial) B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Warehouse and Distribution) Uses. The Outline Planning Permission 11/01932/OUTM was granted 28 March 2012 for a period of 5 years pre-dating the Mayoral CIL (Crossrail Levy).

5. Base M25 RS 6

4.2.1.24 Planning permission has been granted for the creation of over 600,000sq ft of mixed employment development on the site (50 acres), formerly a manufacturing facility for Pirelli cables. Its redevelopment has the potential for 1,200 to 1,500 additional jobs.

Transport improvements

4.2.1.25 The Regeneration Framework for Bexley 2007-2016 envisages the development of major transport links to Belvedere, proposing the North Bexley Transit to serve the area and a Crossrail station. A new link road from Mulberry Way to Church Manor way creating a loop road around the site is proposed as part of the Transit route. Improvements to pedestrian and cycle routes are also considered vital in the Regeneration Framework.

4.2.1.26 The proposed route is likely to have an impact on one planning application which has been submitted. The outline planning application (Ref: 11/01932/OUTM) is for 6 industrial units on the land adjacent to Burt’s Wharf Resource Park (former Nufarm UK Ltd), which is on the Southern bank adjacent to the route corridor between the industrial estate and distribution warehouses. 4.2.2 Cultural Heritage

4.2.2.1 Appendix 4C provides a detailed description of existing baseline related to topology, geology, and archaeology within the study area. The following section summarises the findings from the baseline collection at Belvedere. Archaeology

4.2.2.2 Evidence suggests that there is high potential for archaeological remains dating from the prehistoric to post-medieval periods to be present on the southern side of the river within the Belvedere options area. A number of archaeological investigations have identified evidence of prehistoric and Roman period occupation associated with deposits of peat. Peat forms an excellent preservational environment and as such there is a high potential for the presence of preserved organic remains such as timber trackways and waterside structures. These archaeological remains, if present, are considered to be of local to regional significance.

4.2.2.3 There is also potential for archaeological remains dating from the prehistoric to post-medieval periods to be present on the northern side of the river. The relative

73 East of Silvertown potential and significance of any archaeological remains is difficult to assess has there have been fewer previous archaeological investigation than on the southern side of the river. Listed Buildings

4.2.2.4 There are no listed buildings or conservation area buildings within the Belvedere options area or its immediate vicinity. 4.2.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation Terrestrial Ecology Designated Sites

4.2.3.1 The locations of the designated sites - areas with special status or that are protected because of their natural environment - within 2km of the options are illustrated on Drawings 4-12.

4.2.3.2 The options lie within the Thames Estuary and Marshes IBA; with Lee Valley SPA located approximately 13km to the northwest of the proposed route options.

4.2.3.3 Three statutory designated sites of National nature conservation importance were identified within 2km of the options. This comprised: Abbey Wood SSSI (which forms a small part of Lesnes Abbey Woods Pit LNR/Lesnes Abbey Woods and Bostall Woods SMI) which is located 1.5km to the southwest of the options; Inner Thames Marshes SSSI which is located approximately 0.9km to the east of the options; and Ingrebourne Marshes SSSI located 1.4km to the north of the options.

4.2.3.4 Inner Thames Marshes SSSI is designated as a site of National importance on the basis that it supports the largest remaining area of wetland within the upper reaches of the Thames Estuary. The site is particularly important for its diverse bird interest during both the breeding and wintering season, with wintering teal populations reaching levels of International importance. The Marshes also support a wide range of wetland plants and invertebrates with a restricted distribution in London, including some that are Nationally Rare or Scarce. The eastern end of the SSSI is also designated as a Local Nature Reserve (known as Rainham Marshes LNR). Rainham Marshes LNR and RSPB reserve is designated on that basis that it comprises habitats such as grassland, reedbeds and a network of ditches, which support a number of rare plants, invertebrates, breeding and wintering birds and a large population of water voles.

4.2.3.5 Ingrebourne Marshes SSSI is designated as a site of National importance on the basis that it supports the largest, and one of the most diverse, areas of freshwater marshland in Greater London. The site supports extensive areas of Reed Sweet-grass (Glyceria maxima) and Common Reed swamp; wet neutral grassland, and tall fen. These habitats also support a diverse assemblage of invertebrates and breeding birds. The eastern side of the SSSI also forms part of the Ingrebourne Valley LNR. Ingrebourne Valley LNR supports a range of habitats including secondary woodland, rough grassland, acid grassland, the River Ingrebourne, marshes, wetland grazing, and reedbeds. These habitats are important for a diverse range of plants, birds (including a heronry), invertebrates, reptile and amphibians.

Species present include great crested newt, slow-worm, harvest mouse (Micromys minutus), and water vole. Both Ingrebourne Marshes SSSI and Ingrebourne Valley LNR lie within Ingrebourne Valley SMI which extends downstream to the point where the Ingrebourne River enters the River Thames. The nearest point of the Ingrebourne Valley SMI lies within 250m of the options (see Drawing 4.13).

4.2.3.6 Two other statutory designated sites of Local nature conservation importance were identified within 2km of the options, including Crossness LNR and Beam Valley LNR.

4.2.3.7 Crossness LNR lies within the larger Erith Marshes SMI which comprises an extensive area of grazing marsh. Crossness LNR and Erith Marshes SMI lie within 250m of the route options. Crossness LNR and Erith Marshes SMI is a stronghold for water voles, and an important site for both breeding and wintering birds (over 130 bird species have been recorded at the sites). In addition, a number of rare aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, and rare, or scarce plant species have been recorded at Crossness LNR.

4.2.3.8 Beam Valley LNR is located 0.9km to the north of the options. The reserve includes the River Beam and associated habitats including neutral grassland, scrub and the former Romford Canal. These habitats are important for a diverse range of plants, birds, invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians.

4.2.3.9 There are also an additional 28 non-statutory designated sites of Metropolitan, Borough and/or Local Importance within 2km of the options. Those designated sites within 500m of the proposed route options are shown on Drawing 4.13. Of the 28 non-statutory designated sites, the options are within the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI (see Section 1.2.1 above), Dagenham Breach and the Lower Beam River SBI, Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI, and within 250m of Mudlands SBI, Ingrebourne Valley SMI and Riverside Sewage Treatment Works SBI (on the north side of the river). On the south side of the river, the options are within the Belvedere Dykes SBI and within 250m of Erith Marshes SMI (as described above).

4.2.3.10 Dagenham Breach and the Lower Beam River SBI comprise a lake and short stretch of the River Beam. The site is important for fish populations including European eel, breeding birds including black redstart, and over-wintering waders and wildfowl. This site is linked with Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI.

4.2.3.11 Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI comprises the lower stretches of the River Beam where it joins with the River Thames. This site supports water voles and breeding birds. The base of the river wall supports fragments of saltmarsh; a very rare habitat in London. This site is linked with Dagenham Breach and the lower Beam River SBI.

4.2.3.12 Mudlands SBI comprises a series of wetland habitats. Species present include water vole, great crested newt, reptile species including common lizard, grass snake, slow-worm (from a translocation exercise undertaken for an adjacent development in 2001) and the Nationally Rare scarce emerald damselfly (Lestes dryas); as well as being of importance to a number of migratory bird species.

75 East of Silvertown

4.2.3.13 Riverside Sewage Treatment Works SBI comprises a pond surrounded by an area of secondary woodland. The site is likely to be of value to amphibians, water voles and breeding and wintering birds.

4.2.3.14 Belvedere Dykes SBI comprises a network of drainage ditches. Some ditches comprise Nationally Scarce Marsh Dock (Rumex palustris). Water voles, breeding birds, important populations of fish and invertebrate species are also present within the ditch network. Habitats

4.2.3.15 A review of aerial photographs from the Thames Gateway Bridge EIA has revealed that the southern side of the river is predominantly urban with areas of trees, scrub, bare ground and hard standing. A number of drainage ditches are present in between the buildings and adjacent to a number of the roads (these ditches are designated as an SBI, known as Belvedere Dykes SBI). The ditches are dominated by Common Reed and Bulrush (Typha latifolia); and the Nationally Scarce Marsh Dock has also been recorded within this ditch network.

4.2.3.16 The northern side of the river is also predominantly urban, with areas of hard standing, bare ground, scrub and scattered trees. The Ingrebourne River flows into the River Thames east of the proposed route options; and the River Beam flows into the River Thames west of the options. The Ingrebourne River is designated as part of the non-statutory designated site known as Ingrebourne Valley SMI (see above). The River Beam is also designated as part of the non-statutory designated site known as Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI. A large proportion of the Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI lies within or directly adjacent to the proposed route options.

4.2.3.17 The banks of the Thames largely comprise mudflats that are exposed at low-tide. From a review of aerial photographs it would appear that the mudflats do not support saltmarsh. However, the citation for the Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI suggests that the river wall on the north side of the River Thames supports some small areas of saltmarsh habitat.

4.2.3.18 GIGL have also provided records of a number of invasive plant species, listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended), within 2km of the options, including Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) and Indian Balsam (Impatiens glandulifera). Further surveys should be undertaken to identify areas of invasive plant species within the footprint of the proposed route options.

4.2.3.19 Seven habitats within the footprint/vicinity of options are listed as Section 41 habitats of Principal importance in England. These include: intertidal mudflats; coastal and floodplain grazing marsh; reedbeds; ponds; saltmarsh; rivers; and eutrophic standing water. In addition, five habitats within the options are listed as a Priority Habitat in the London LBAP. These include: reedbeds; rivers and streams; standing water; tidal Thames; and wasteland.

Protected species

4.2.3.20 The ecological environment is subject to change over time. The majority of surveys are over 3 years old therefore the next stage of work on East of Silvertown would include undertaking new surveys to update the ecological baseline conditions.

Terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates

4.2.3.21 The habitats within Crossness LNR/ Erith Marshes SMI, Belvedere Dykes SBI, Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI and Ingrebourne Valley SMI are known to support a range of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate species, some of which are rare or scarce in London. For example, the Nationally Rare scarce emerald damselfly has been recorded within Mudlands SBI, which lies within 250m of the proposed route options; and records received from GIGL indicate that a range of important invertebrate species, such as stage beetle (Lucanus cervus) have been recorded within 2km of the proposed route options. Stag beetle is listed as a Priority Species in the London LBAP. Further surveys would be required, particularly along the watercourses and ditch networks to confirm the aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate assemblages present within and adjacent to the proposed route options.

Great crested newts

4.2.3.22 From a review of aerial photographs, it is possible that the pond and ditch network associated with Crossness LNR/ Erith Marshes SMI, Belvedere Dykes SBI, Mudlands SBI, Riverside Sewage Treatment Works SBI, Dagenham Breach and the lower Beam River SBI and Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI could be potentially suitable for breeding great crested newts.

4.2.3.23 Great crested newts have previously been recorded within the Ingrebourne Valley LNR and Beam Valley LNR to the north of the options, and records received from GiGL reveal that great crested newts have been recorded within 2km of the route options.

4.2.3.24 Further surveys would be required to confirm the absence of further ponds and the suitability of the pond and ditch networks within 500m of the proposed route options to support breeding great crested newts. As identified previously, great crested newts are listed as Section 41 species of Principal importance in England; they are also fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012. Great crested newts are also listed as a Priority Species in the London BAP.

Reptiles

4.2.3.25 A review of aerial photographs has revealed that several habitats with the potential to support common reptile species are likely to be present in the vicinity of the proposed route options. These include areas of bare ground and scrub, and the edges of the watercourses and ditches. Slow-worms have previously been recorded within the Ingrebourne Valley LNR to the north of the options, and a number of

77 East of Silvertown reptile species including grass snake, common lizard and slow-worm where translocated to Mudlands SBI in 2001 as part of an adjacent development. GiGL have also confirmed sightings of grass snake, common lizard and slow-worm within 2km of the options.

4.2.3.26 Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence/absence of suitable reptile habitat within and adjacent to the proposed route options. As identified previously, our commoner species of reptile are listed as Section 41 species of Principal importance in England and included within the London BAP as priority species. They are also protected from killing and injury under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended).

Breeding birds

4.2.3.27 Habitat suitable for a range of breeding bird species is present within and adjacent to the route options. It is likely that the habitats directly affected by the options support a suite of breeding bird species typical of an urban environment, potentially including Section 41 species of Principal importance. However, this would need to be confirmed by a breeding bird survey.

4.2.3.28 Habitat suitable for black redstart is present within the vicinity of the options, particularly on the northern side of the river within the areas of scrub, bare ground and industrial buildings, further surveys would be required to confirm the presence of this species. As identified previously, black redstarts are specially protected whilst breeding under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended). They are also a priority species within the London BAP.

4.2.3.29 Black Redstarts will be included as receptors due to the suitability of the habitat and Gallions Reach.

Wintering birds

4.2.3.30 It is likely a suite of wintering bird species similar to that recorded during the 2013 wintering bird surveys undertaken by Mott MacDonald for the Gallions Reach route option would be present in the area affected by the route options.

4.2.3.31 Both the northern and southern banks of the river appear to support areas of mudflat suitable for foraging and roosting birds. Given the proximity of the options to a number of important sites designated for their wintering bird assemblages, such as Inner Thames Marshes SSSI and Erith Marshes SMI/Crossness LNR; further surveys would be required to confirm the use of the habitats within and adjacent to the options by wintering waterfowl and waders.

Bats

4.2.3.32 There are numerous buildings and trees in the vicinity of the options. Further surveys would be required to confirm their suitability for roosting bats. The areas of scrub and bare ground, areas of grazing marsh, river corridors and ditch networks provide potentially suitable foraging opportunities for bats; however, further surveys would be required to confirm this. Records received from GiGL indicate that a number of bat species are present within 2km of the proposed route options.

These include: pipistrelle species, Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii), leisler bat (Nyctalus leisleri), and noctule (Nyctalus noctula).

4.2.3.33 As identified previously, with respect to Gallions Reach, in England all bat species and their roosts are fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012. They are also included within the London BAP as priority species. Several bat species are listed as Section 41 species of Principal importance in England.

Water voles

4.2.3.34 Water voles are known to be present on both the north and south side of the river. In particular, large populations of water voles are known to be present in the waterbodies and marshes on the northern side of the River Thames. Records received from GiGL confirm that large water vole populations are present within 2km of the options. Further surveys would be required to confirm the size of the water vole population within and adjacent to the options.

4.2.3.35 As identified previously, with respect to Gallions Reach, water voles are included within the London BAP as a priority species; they are also listed as Section 41 species of Principal importance in England and fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended).

Badgers

4.2.3.36 Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence/absence of badgers from within the area affected by the options; however, given the urban setting and the damp nature of the semi-natural habitats within and adjacent to the route options, it is considered unlikely that badgers would be present. According to the NBN website; the nearest badger sett record is more than 2km away to the north of the options.

4.2.3.37 As identified previously, with respect to Gallions Reach, badgers and their setts are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and the Protection of Badgers Act (1992). Marine Ecology

4.2.3.38 Marine surveys would be required to confirm the presence/ absence of protected marine species and habitats if the preferred option is at the Belvedere location. In particular, surveys would be required to confirm the presence/ absence of Victorella sp. and Apocorophium lacustre, both of which were found to be present in the vicinity of the Gallions Reach options. V. pavida is protected under UK legislation (under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and listed as a Species of Principle Importance in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006). A. lacustre is listed as 'Nationally Rare' by Sanderson (1996) and ‘rare’ in the British Red Data Book (Bratton, 1991), though its status has since been revised to ‘Nationally Scarce’ by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). It is also a London BAP species.

79 East of Silvertown

4.2.4 Effects on All Travellers

4.2.4.1 At present there are no crossing facilities between the north and south part of the river Thames at this location. The views from the existing industrial buildings on both sides of the river to the surrounding environment are predominantly urban and industrialised areas with strips of vegetation and shrubs.

4.2.4.2 Community severance is caused by the lack of river crossing facilities that would connect residents on both sides of the river. Most of the important community facilities are located outside the study area due to the predominantly industrial land use, and the residential areas being located further north and south of the options. The transport links and connectivity are likely to be significantly improved particularly for commuters from Bexley to the north side of the river and vice versa.

4.2.4.3 Within Bexley there are transport routes that are heavily used by commuters who work in other parts of London, resulting in congestion on both roads and railways. The overall poor north-south transport links in and around the borough, in conjunction with high levels of commuting to areas around Bexley, has increased congestion on existing, orbital routes. As identified above, congestion on the main roads may lead to increased drivers stress.

4.2.4.4 Additionally, there is a lack of diversity and integration of transport types, with movements being dominated by the car. Continued reliance on the car creates barriers that restrict other transport modes such as cycling and walking.

4.2.4.5 The Strategic Outline Business Case discusses policies and data relating to transport use, including car ownership and levels of use for various modes of transport.

4.2.4.6 There are no key cycle/pedestrian routes within the study area on the north side of the river. The key cycling/pedestrian routes and footpaths on the south side of the river are shown on Drawing 4.15. The cycle/pedestrian routes are adjacent to residential areas, by the River Thames, and in the vicinity of the Crossworks Nature Reserve. 4.2.5 Ground Conditions Current Land Use and Topography

North Bank

4.2.5.1 The options’ site on the north side of the River Thames is dominated by the Fairview Industrial Park and Car Compounds. Roads currently present near the north section of the options comprise the A13, Courier Road, Marsh Way, Frog Lane, and Creek Way. Several industrial and commercial units are also present on the land surrounding Marsh Way and Creek Way. To the east of the proposed site there is Rainham Marshes.

4.2.5.2 The Ford plant and associated Wharf to the west of site were constructed in the 1930s and are currently operational.

River Channel

4.2.5.3 The composition of the river walls at Belvedere is unknown; however the river walls at Gallions Reach were described as “reinforced concrete, timber and steel sheet piles” in the Ground Investigation Desk Study Report (2013)

4.2.5.4 A pier and Wharf are located upstream of the proposed route of Options 21, 21A, 22 and 22Aon the north bank of the Thames.

4.2.5.5 Several piers are located on the south bank of the Thames, upstream and underneath the proposed route of Options 21, 21A, 22 and 22A.

South Bank

4.2.5.6 The south bank section of the options comprises the Crossness Nature Reserve and Erith Marshes, Belvedere Incinerator Generating Plant, and Belvedere Industrial Estate. Roads currently present near the south section of the option comprise Picardy Manorway, Bronze Age Way, and Anderson Way. To the south of Picardy Manorway there are residential properties. Geology

4.2.5.7 Bedrock geology on the north bank comprises the Thanet Formation, which is overlain by the Lambeth Group and subsequently the London Clay Formation. The Lambeth Group directly underlies the superficial deposits at Courier Road and the junction with the A13. South of the Thames, the Lambeth Group directly underlies the superficial deposits at the site of Options 21, 21A, 22 and 22A,. Approximately 0.75km south of the site of Options 21, 21A, 22 and 22A, the Seaford Chalk Formation and Newhaven Chalk Formation (undifferentiated) directly underlie the superficial deposits.

4.2.5.8 Superficial geology at the Belvedere Option comprises Alluvium deposits, underlain by Head deposits. Hydrogeology

General

4.2.5.9 The Environment Agency classifies geological units into Principal, Secondary and non-aquifers depending on their hydrogeological properties and importance for water supplies, in line with the UK Groundwater Protection Policy (GP3) and the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD).

4.2.5.10 Groundwater beneath the area of London under consideration for the TfL Thames Crossing Options Appraisal is generally confined to perched water within the Alluvium deposits in the Belvedere area, and a lower aquifer comprising the Upper Chalk, Thanet Sand Formation and granular layers of the Lambeth Group. The two water bodies are separated by the lower permeability London Clay and more cohesive layers within the Lambeth Group, which act as a confining unit in areas where they are present. Perched water may locally be present in granular material within Made Ground.

81 East of Silvertown

4.2.5.11 Multiple discharge consents are present within 500m of the site on both the north and south banks of the River Thames. These include trade effluent discharges (site drainage) and sewage discharges (final/treated effluent, pumping station).

Statutory Aquifer Designations

4.2.5.12 The Environment Agency classifies the superficial deposits at Belvedere as a Secondary (undifferentiated) Aquifer. These are units with variable permeability and storage characteristics which may in some places be capable of supporting water supplies at a local level or are an important source of base flow to rivers.

4.2.5.13 The bedrock underlying the Site is variously classified as Principal Aquifer (Chalk), Secondary ‘A’ Aquifer (Thanet Sand Formation, Lambeth Group) and non- aquifer (London Clay). Principal aquifers are defined as having high intergranular and/or fracture permeability and usually provide a significant water storage resource. They may support water supply or river base flow on a strategic scale. Secondary ‘A’ Aquifers may support water abstraction or river base flow on a local scale.

4.2.5.14 The proposed Belvedere Crossing is not located within 500m of a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ). The nearest SPZ is over 1km to the north of site (SPZ II)

4.2.5.15 Nearby Rainham Marshes is a designated Surface Water Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. Hydrology

4.2.5.16 The nearest surface water features to the options, excluding the River Thames, are Ingrebourne River on the north side of the river to the east of site, and Dagenham Breach on the north side of the river to the west of site. On the south side of the river, an unnamed river flows along the proposed route of options 20-24, while multiple rivers are shown to cross Crossness Nature Reserve to the west of site. Historical Land Use Information

4.2.5.17 A brief summary of information from historical maps of the area is given below; the maps date from 1864 to 2013.

North Bank

4.2.5.18 The area north of the river was undeveloped marshland until 1897 when a Candle Works, Cement Works, and Chemical Works were constructed. By the 1920s the Candle Works were no longer present, and the Cement Works and Chemical Works were listed as Rainham Caves. Other land uses identified in this area between 1920 and 1996 include Rainham and Hornchurch Shoot, a Wharf and travelling crane, car compounds, timber yards, refuse tips, and Sewage Works.

4.2.5.19 The Ford Motor Company has been present to the west of site from the 1930s onwards.

4.2.5.20 A coal tip is noted approximately 250m to the north east of site from 1993 to present.

4.2.5.21 London, Tilbury & Southend railway ran east to west at the northern extent of the site from pre-1873 to present.

South Bank

4.2.5.22 Prior to the 1870s the area south of the river was undeveloped marshland. In the early 1890s a manure works and powder magazines are noted to be present at the bank of the River Thames. From 1897 onwards the manure works is listed as Belvedere Mills and Thames Fish Guano & Oil Works and a jetty is present.

4.2.5.23 Belvedere industrial estate was developed during the 1950s and is still present on site.

4.2.5.24 During the 1960s the land west of the proposed route of Options 21, 21A, 22 and 22Awas further developed and is listed as works and chimneys Existing Chemical Data

4.2.5.25 No existing chemical data for soil or groundwater was available for the Belvedere option area at the time of writing. However, given the long industrial history of the area as identified by historical mapping, it is likely that localised areas of contaminated soils are present along all the options.

4.2.5.26 Surface sediments in the River Thames are also likely to show elevated levels of heavy metals and organic contaminant due to contaminant runoff from drains, sewer outfalls and heavy boat traffic.

4.2.5.27 Oxidisable pyrite in the London Clay or chloride in the superficial soils may cause aggressive sulphate attack on concrete. Limited geotechnical data is available to assess this risk at the present time. Pollution Incidents

4.2.5.28 One pollution incident to controlled waters was recorded on site on the northern bank in 1994. It relates to Dagenham Motor Works and a release of unknown pollutants and was classed as a Category 3 incident (Minor Incident). Surrounding the site on both the north and south bank of the River Thames there are 52 recorded pollution incidents to controlled waters. Ground Gas

4.2.5.29 No ground gas monitoring data was available for the study area; however it is likely that that ground gas generation and migration is occurring locally where the organic content of the Made Ground and Alluvium deposits is high, as well as in areas of organic contamination.

4.2.5.30 Multiple historic landfills are located on the north bank of the River Thames. These include the Ex-City of London site which accepted inert, commercial, and household waste, the Manor Way site which accepted inert waste, the Ford Motor Company Mudlands and Settling Lagoons, and the Thames Cooling Ponds.

4.2.5.31 These have since been infilled and covered and therefore could represent a source of ground gas.

83 East of Silvertown

Known Underground Structures

4.2.5.32 No detailed information is available for in-situ underground structures.

4.2.5.33 In the river channel, minor obstructions may be encountered if remnants of old piers or jetty structures remain in the bed of the channel. Natural Ground Hazards

4.2.5.34 No detailed information on natural ground hazards was available at the time of writing. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)

4.2.5.35 No detailed information on the UXO risk at the Belvedere options was available at the time of writing. However, due to the presence of Rainham and Hornchurch shoot on the north bank, powder magazines on the south bank, and its location in central London, near major infrastructure and industrial areas, it is likely that the UXO risk is similar to the Gallions Reach site, at medium to high. Landfill and Waste Facilities

4.2.5.36 There are six recorded historic landfill sites on the northern bank of the River Thames in the immediate vicinity of the site identified by the Environment Agency website. These are Ex-City of London Site, Manor Way, Ford Motor Company Mudlands, Ford Motor Company Settling Lagoons, Thames Cooling Ponds, Salamons Way Industrial Area. These are a mixture of sites which in the past have accepted Inert, Commercial, and Household waste.

4.2.5.37 The proposed route of Options 21, 21A, 22 and 22A would directly traverse Manor Way, Ex-City of London Site and the Ford Motor Company Mudlands. As a result of this, discussions regarding land ownership and post-closure landfill management liabilities with the landfill licence holders (Ford Motor Company Limited) and the Environment Agency would be required.

4.2.5.38 The design of bridge foundations would have to take into consideration the potential risk of founding large structures through a significant depth of contaminated fill, which is unlikely to be chemically or geotechnically suitable for use in this regard. Ground gases emanating from the landfill are unlikely to pose a risk to the operational phase assuming an absence of confined spaces in the bridge design; although depending on gas generation rates the potential for health and safety issues for construction workers, and the potential for increased material deterioration rates should be considered. Conceptual Site Model

4.2.5.39 The aim of this initial conceptual model is to provide a preliminary identification of the risks to controlled waters, proposed future site users and the surrounding area posed by any contamination present on site. The assessment is based on identification of ‘contaminant linkages’, i.e. contamination-pathway- receptor relationships.

Potential Sources of Contamination

4.2.5.40 Following a review of the available information the following potential current and historical contamination sources have been identified on-site and associated with surrounding land-uses.

4.2.5.41 The likely contaminants are shown below in Table 4-12.

Table 4-12 Potential Sources of Contamination at Belvedere

Ref Primary source Expected distribution Likely contaminants

S1 Made ground (on site) Site wide Metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc), asbestos, organic compounds (oil/fuel hydrocarbons) & PAHs. Ground gas (methane and carbon dioxide)

S2 Riverside Sewage North and South bank study Metals (cadmium, chromium, Works, Crossness areas copper, lead, nickel, zinc), organic Pumping Station and compounds (oil/fuel Sewage Treatment hydrocarbons) & PAHs. Works

S3 Former Hornchurch North and south bank study Phosphorous, Nitrocellulose, and Rainham Shoot, area Nitroglycerine, , Picrates, Cordite, powder magazines. Cyclotrimethylenetrinnitramine (RDX), Trinitrotoluene (TNT), Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine (HMX), Triethyleneglycol Dinitrate (TEGN), Pentaerrythritol Tetranitrate (PETN), Nitroglycol (EGDN), Heavy Metals (including Ba, Ag, Mo), Hydrocarbons, phenols, Solvents, & Asbestos.

S4 Historic landfill sites North bank, whole study Metals (arsenic, cadmium, which have accepted area especially Options 21, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, a mix of inert, 21A, 22 and 22A zinc), organic compounds (oil/fuel commercial, and hydrocarbons) & PAHs. Ground industrial waste gases (methane and carbon dioxide).

S5 London, Tilbury & North bank. Railway line is Metals (cadmium, chromium, Southend railway north of all options but copper, lead, nickel, zinc), organic Options 21, 21A, 22 and compounds (oil/fuel 22Aare in closest proximity hydrocarbons) & PAHs. Asbestos.

S6 Contaminated river Along river channel for all Metals (cadmium, chromium, sediment options copper, lead, nickel, zinc), organic compounds (oil/fuel hydrocarbons) & PAHs. Organotins (TBT).

S7 Other industrial land Industrial areas surrounding Metals (cadmium, chromium, uses (warehousing, options on north bank and copper, lead, nickel, zinc), organic

85 East of Silvertown

Ref Primary source Expected distribution Likely contaminants electrical substation, east and south of options on compounds (oil/fuel cement works, south bank. hydrocarbons) & PAHs, PCBs, chemical works, oil phenols, coal tars, ammonium. works)

Potential Receptors

4.2.5.42 The most sensitive receptors identified, using the conceptual site model, are considered to be adjacent land users, and controlled waters (shallow and deep aquifers and the River Thames). These are most likely to be affected by made ground/adjacent landfills and any associated contaminants. Table 4-13 details the potential receptors.

Table 4-13 Potential Receptors at Belvedere

Ref Receptor Description

R1 Future site users Members of the public and Crossing staff (if present)

R2 Construction Workers Contractors working on the crossing development.

R3 Controlled Waters Principal Aquifer (Chalk) and Secondary A Aquifer (Alluvium/River Terrace Deposits/Thanet Sands). River Thames

R4 Adjacent Site Users Adjacent site users (residents and users of public space)

R5 Infrastructure / Buried services bridge structures & existing buildings and services

R6 Ecological Receptors River ecology and public space biodiversity

Potential Pathways

4.2.5.43 Potential pathways of any contamination from the above sources to the identified receptors along the options are identified in Table 14-4 below:

Table 4-14 Potential Contaminant Pathways at Belvedere

Ref Pathway Description

P3 Inhalation of potential Extensive Made Ground is present across the study area, which could contaminants generate vapours, and dust may be a problem if work commences in dry weather.

P5 Groundwater Any groundwater contamination could migrate to the River Thames. migration to surface water

P7 Direct contact of There is potential for phenols if present to permeate water pipes and contaminants with cause degradation of concrete, as well as acidic conditions. structures

P8 Surface and shallow The redevelopment works are adjacent to the River Thames. Soil groundwater runoff to movement could allow runoff of contaminated particulates to enter the surface waters river

P9 Vertical and lateral Made ground material is known to be present on the site, which is likely migration of ground to generate gas on site. The adjacent landfills are likely to be a gases significant source of ground gas.

4.2.6 Materials

4.2.6.1 The Belvedere study area is located in the London Borough of Bexley and Havering.

4.2.6.2 According to The Mayor’s Business Waste Strategy for London (November 2011), London produced an estimated 9.75 million tonnes of Construction Demolition and Excavation waste in 2010. Of this total amount, 85% was recycled. Although this is a high percentage, it is still a considerable way from the target set in Policy 5.16 of exceeding 95% by 2020.

4.2.6.3 Using figures derived from the March 2010 ‘Future Waste Arisings in London 2010-2031’ Summary Note Construction, Demolition and Excavation waste for the London Borough of Bexley for 2013 was forecast to be 273,000 and 296,000 for the London Borough of Havering.

4.2.6.4 According to Environment Agency data published in 2010, the total non- hazardous and hazardous waste landfill capacity for London and the South-East was approximately 624,000 tonnes and 52 million tonnes respectively This provides the assessment baseline against which the potential impacts resulting from waste management and the use of resources associated with the works in the construction phases of each of the options as detailed in the methodology are assessed. 4.2.7 Water Environment Surface Water Receptors & Existing Hydrology

4.2.7.1 The Belvedere study area is characterised by industrial estates including the Ford car assembly plant at Dagenham and associated vehicle storage hardstanding areas, smaller commercial premises and large plots of undeveloped land. Topography is generally flat with the land rising on the approach to the River Thames, grading to the river wall and Thames Path. The study area receives an average annual rainfall of approximately 540mm and its hydrology is dominated by

87 East of Silvertown the tidal River Thames which, along the Belvedere reach, drains a catchment area exceeding 10,000km2. Within the study area the Thames serves and supports numerous functions, for example, the transport and dilution of waste water discharges, commercial and recreational navigation and diverse fisheries.

4.2.7.2 Other surface water features in the study area are:  The Beam River, a tributary that flows into the Thames at the north east boundary of the study area. This river forms the boundary between the London Boroughs of Barking & Dagenham and Havering and has a total catchment area of 64km2. The river is culverted in sections and upstream of the study area flows through the Beam Valley Country Park,  The Ingrebourne River, which in its downstream most reach is known as the Rainham Creek, a tributary that flows into the Thames at the north western boundary of the study area. This river is considered a strategic waterway, forming part of the Blue Ribbon Network. It rises near Brentwood in Essex and flows into the Thames at Old Mans Head, draining a total catchment area of approximately 62km2.  A tributary of the Thames that drains a small catchment (approximately 1km2) between the Beam and Ingrebourne catchments in the northern study area. This watercourse is not named on OS mapping.  A network of drainage ditches in the southern study area.

4.2.7.3 Surface water features are illustrated in Drawing 4-17. Existing Hydrogeology & Groundwater Receptors

4.2.7.4 The study area is underlain by bedrock geology that comprises the London Clay, the Thanet Sand and the Lambeth Group. These deposits are classified as Unproductive Strata and Secondary A aquifers respectively. The Secondary A aquifers yield and store groundwater in quantities that are typically significant at a local rather than strategic scale.

4.2.7.5 Overlying the bedrock there are superficial deposits of alluvium to the north and south of the Thames, comprising silty, sandy, clays of the quaternary period. These deposits support Secondary aquifers that are classified as ‘Undifferentiated’ due to the variability in the characteristics of this rock type. They are overlain by Made Ground (brick, rubble and ash).

4.2.7.6 There are no designated groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZ) within the study area. Surface Water Quality

4.2.7.7 Several of the surface waterbodies within the study area are monitored by the EA in line with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

4.2.7.8 The Thames is classified as a heavily modified waterbody (HMW), serving flood protection and navigation functions. Its current ecological potential is defined as Moderate, limited by the status of the benthic invertebrate community and hydro- morphological quality, and its current chemical quality fails WFD objectives, though

there has been an improvement in quality in recent years. EQS for a number of priority hazardous substances are exceeded, namely Tributyltin Compounds, Diuron and Benzo perelyene & indeno pyrene. This waterbody has a target of achieving Good Ecological Potential and Chemical Status by 2027 and a number of mitigation measures have been set out to achieve this goal.

4.2.7.9 The River Beam, along the reach within the study area, is also classified as a HMW, with urbanisation sited as the reason for this designation. Its current ecological potential is defined as Moderate, limited by the status of its fish community and the supporting elements of dissolved oxygen, ammonia and phosphate. The river supports a Good quantity and dynamics of flow and its current chemical quality achieves WFD objectives. This waterbody has a target of achieving Good Ecological Potential by 2027 and a number of mitigation measures have been set out to achieve this goal.

4.2.7.10 The River Ingrebourne (Rainham Creek) is not a HMW and currently achieves Poor ecological status, limited by the quality of the invertebrate and macrophyte communities and the supporting element phosphate. The river supports a Good quantity and dynamics of flow and its current chemical quality achieves WFD objectives.

4.2.7.11 The small stream and drains within the study area are not monitored under the WFD for ecological or chemical water quality. Groundwater Quality

4.2.7.12 The WFD groundwater unit underlying the study area is named the Greenwich Tertiaries. It is mostly comprised of 3 Secondary Aquifer units (the Harwich Formation, Lambeth Group and Thanet Sands) all of which contain a mixture of sands and silt. Its current chemical quality is classified as Poor, failing its WFD status objective of Good, with an upward chemical trend. Concentrations of dissolved cadmium exceed threshold values and saline intrusion is also identified as a contributing factor. The quantitative quality of this groundwater body, which considers factors such as the impacts of abstraction and the water balance, is also classified as Poor.

4.2.7.13 Historic land uses within the study area are such that the risk of groundwater contamination is relatively high. Existing Flood Risk and Drainage

4.2.7.14 The study area comprises Flood Zones 3 (High Risk), 2 (Medium Risk) and 1 (Low Risk), with the predominant source of flood risk being the tidally dominated River Thames, as illustrated in Figure 4-3 below.

89 East of Silvertown

Figure 4-3 EA Flood Mapping (indicative study area in red)

4.2.7.15 As illustrated, to the south of the River Thames, land within the study area is located in Flood Zone 3 (high risk). However, the map also shows that this area of land benefits from protection by flood defences, comprising the Thames Barrier, in addition to flood gates and river walls, with a statutory defence level of 7.2m AOD downstream of the barrier.

4.2.7.16 When the effect of these defences is taken into account, the actual risk of flooding is defined by the EA as low, with an annual chance of between 0.1% (1 in 1000) and 1% (1 in 100). However, there is a residual risk of flooding in the event of failure or breach of the defence system, when there is a predicted to be an increased likelihood of rapid onset inundation, with significant depths of floodwater and a Flood Hazard rating of ‘Significant’ in some areas.

4.2.7.17 To the north of the river the study area largely comprises land within Flood Zone 1, defined as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding (<0.1%), with some smaller areas encroaching into the defended floodplain of the Thames (Flood Zone 3).

Receptor Value

4.2.7.18 A summary of the value assigned to each of the surface and groundwater receptors within the defined study areas is provided in Table 4-15.

Table 4-15 Summary of Receptor Value

Receptor Value Justification

River Thames – Gallions High Supports a large public water supply Reach abstraction and receives treated and storm sewage discharges. Achieves WFD Moderate Ecological potential, however fails to meet WFD standards regarding chemical water quality. Significant flood defences provide protection to a large, highly urbanised floodplain.

Birchmere Lake Medium Supports a course fishery and is fished by a local angling club.

Royal Albert and King High Support a wide range of water sports and George V Docks amenity uses including the London Regatta Centre. Water quality achieves compliance with Bathing Waters Directive standards. Also the Albert Dock supplies 1 licensed abstraction for industrial use.

Gallions Canal Medium/Low Provides amenity value at the local scale

Twin Tumps Medium/Low Provide amenity value at the local scale

Marsh Dykes Medium Serves amenity and flood risk management functions at the local scale and achieves WFD Moderate ecological potential

Wylees Sewer Medium Serves local flood risk management function and achieves WFD Moderate ecological potential

Chalk, Thanet Sand & High/Medium Principal and Secondary A aquifers, that Lambeth Group bedrock support licenced abstractions for industrial aquifers use, and potable water supply (beyond the study area boundary), however achieve WFD Poor chemical quality.

Alluvium superficial aquifer Medium/Low Secondary undifferentiated aquifer, with a high risk of contamination due to land use legacy

River Thames – Woolwich High/Medium Achieves WFD Moderate Ecological Reach potential, however fails to meet WFD standards regarding chemical water quality. Significant flood defences provide protection to a large, highly urbanised floodplain.

Royal Victoria Docks High Support a wide range of water sports and amenity uses. Water quality achieves compliance with Bathing Waters Directive standards.

91 East of Silvertown

Receptor Value Justification

Mulgrave Pond Low Waterbody within grounds of a private house, serving no know function/service

River Thames – Belvedere High/Medium Achieves WFD Moderate Ecological Reach potential, however fails to meet WFD standards regarding chemical water quality. Significant flood defences provide protection to a large, highly urbanised floodplain

Beam River High/Medium Achieves WFD Moderate Ecological potential and WFD Good Chemical water quality. A source of flood risk to properties and infrastructure in Havering, Barking & Dagenham

River Ingrebourne (Rainham High/Medium Achieves WFD Poor Ecological potential Creek) but WFD Good chemical water quality and is also a strategic waterway, part of the Blue Ribbon Network. A source of flood risk to properties and infrastructure in Rainham

Small tributary of Thames Medium Serves a local land drainage/flood risk (Belvedere northern study management function area)

Drainage ditches (Belvedere Medium/Low Serve a local land drainage/flood risk southern study area) management function

4.2.8 Townscape and Visual Impact

4.2.8.1 Townscape and visual considerations are shown on Drawing 4-19.

4.2.8.2 The options at Belvedere fall within Thames Policy Areas as part of the London Blue Ribbon Network; the London Plan requires Thames-side boroughs to identify these policy areas and formulate corresponding policy that is consistent with the London Plan in respect of protection and enhancement of townscape and views. As a result, the options will need to be considered in the context of such policies, namely comprising Policy CS17 (Green Infrastructure) of Bexley Core Strategy, Saved Policies TS13 &14 (Thames-side Environment) of Bexley Unitary Development Plan, together with Havering Core Strategy Policy CP7 (Recreation and Leisure) and Development Control Policy DC61 (Urban Design).

4.2.8.3 Bexley Characterisation Study (undertaken to inform Bexley Core Strategy) identifies that the options fall within the ‘Belvedere Geographic Region’, which is described as containing clusters of residential neighbourhoods and specialist industrial uses, with open areas, such as Erith Marshes, also present. The area within which the options lie is dominated by industrial uses, including large-scale infrastructure such as tall stacks and wind turbines. This pattern extends north of the River Thames, within Havering.

4.2.8.4 Views from sensitive visual receptors such as residential properties and national recreational trails/routes will need to be considered. The latter including the Thames Path and National Cycle Route 1, south of the River Thames, together with the London Loop and National Cycle Route 13, north of the river. Views of the proposals will also need to be considered in relation to heritage features identified in Chapter 5 of this report. Bexley Unitary Development Plan identifies that a number of strategic views cross the area in which the options lie, including those from Beckton Alps (Newham) over East London, and from Eaglesfield Recreational Ground (Greenwich) to Bexley and the lower Thames. However, these viewpoints are in excess of 5km away such that the proposals would appear as distant elements in corresponding views. 4.2.9 Energy

4.2.9.1 No information in the original options study about Belvedere energy baseline conditions 4.2.10 Noise and Vibration

4.2.10.1 The Belvedere study area contains fewer residential properties on both banks of the river in comparison to the areas of Gallions Reach, as both banks of the River Thames at the proposed crossing location are currently industrial land, and are densely populated by business premises and factories. Industrial and commercial locations are not considered to be sensitive receptors due to them not being inhabited at the quietest times of the day.

4.2.10.2 Any sensitive receptors that could be affected by the proposed options at Belvedere are located to the north of the A13, at least 900m from the proposed crossing, on the north bank of the River Thames and at least 800m from the proposed crossing, south of the A2016, on the south bank of the River Thames. There are three potentially sensitive receptors within 1km of the Belvedere option; Woodside School, St John Fisher Catholic school and Beam County primary school. These are marked on Drawings 18-2 and 18-3. 4.2.11 Air Quality Air Quality Management Areas

4.2.11.1 Local authorities are responsible for carrying out a review and assessment of air quality in their area. The aim of the review is to make sure that the national air quality objectives (based on the EU limit values) will be achieved throughout the UK by the relevant deadlines. If a local authority finds any area where the objectives are not likely to be achieved, it must declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) there.

4.2.11.2 The study area comprises the following local authorities:  Sevenoaks District Council  Dartford Borough Council  Thurrock Council  Brentwood Borough Council  London Borough of Havering

93 East of Silvertown

 Epping Forest District Council  London Borough of Bexley  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham  Royal Borough of Greenwich  London Borough of Newham  London Borough of Tower Hamlets  London Borough of Waltham Forest  London Borough of Redbridge  Basildon District Council  London Borough of Bromley  London Borough of Lewisham  London Borough of Hackney

4.2.11.3 Of these 17 local authorities, all except Basildon District Council have declared AQMAs. Drawings 3-1 to 3-3 presents the AQMAs covering the study area.

4.2.11.4 Sevenoaks District Council has declared 11 AQMAs (10 due to exceedances of annual nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations and one due to particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) 24 hour mean exceedances) encompassing major roads, town centres and high streets. Extensions to the existing AQMA’s along the A25 have been identified. The existing AQMAs all arise from the heavy and at times, congested traffic that uses the road. To obtain continuity, it is proposed to join all the relevant AQMAs to form a single corridor along the length of the A25 in the District’s boundaries.

4.2.11.5 Dartford Borough Council has declared four AQMAs; these areas are the A282 Dartford Tunnel Approach Road, Dartford Town Centre and approach roads, London Road and Bean Interchange. These four AQMAs were declared for annual NO2 exceedances (the Dartford Tunnel approach road AQMA has also been declared for PM10 24 hour mean exceedances).

4.2.11.6 Thurrock AQMA, declared by Thurrock Council, consists of 15 separate areas comprising several ribbons, clusters and isolated properties which are close to the busiest roads in Thurrock. All 15 areas are declared with respect to NO2; four of these are also declared with respect to particles. An additional AQMA has been declared by Thurrock Council for annual NO2 exceedances, AQMA 24, encompassing Tilbury Dock Road, Calcutta Road part of St Chads Road, Tilbury.

4.2.11.7 There are seven AQMAs declared by Brentwood Borough Council in the vicinity of the Army and Navy roundabout, all for exceedances of annual NO2 concentrations.

4.2.11.8 There are two AQMAs declared by Epping Forest District Council for annual NO2 exceedances, which are areas encompassing properties on High Street and High Road.

4.2.11.9 The London Borough of Newham has declared an AQMA, based on exceedances of both NO2 and PM10 concentrations, covering all main roads within the Borough.

4.2.11.10 The London Borough of Bromley Council has declared an AQMA encompassing the whole of the northwest corner of the Borough for annual NO2 exceedances.

4.2.11.11 The AQMA for the London Borough of Lewisham consist of four large AQMA’s and a series of ribbon roads, declared for exceedances of both NO2 and PM10 concentrations.

4.2.11.12 The London Borough of Havering, London Borough of Hackney, London Borough of Bexley, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Royal Borough of Greenwich, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, London Borough of Waltham Forest and the London Borough of Redbridge have all declared AQMA’s encompassing the whole of their respective Boroughs, based on exceedances of both NO2 and PM10 concentrations. Sub-Regional Focus Areas

4.2.11.13 In 2010, TfL identified 187 focus areas as part of the air quality work carried out for the Sub-Regional Transport Plans. These locations were identified because of the high human exposure (residential areas, high streets etc.) and the modelled concentrations of NO2 were above limit value levels (based on 2015 estimates in the LAEI 2008). The 187 locations are not meant to cover all areas with these characteristics but have been used as a starting point by GLA, TfL and the boroughs to target local measures and have become a good benchmark when assessing local changes in emissions at hotspot locations. Figure 19.1 shows the TfL Focus areas present within the study area.

95 East of Silvertown

OPTION 1: GALLIONS REACH IMMERSED TUNNEL

5 OPTION 1: GALLIONS REACH IMMERSED TUNNEL

5.1 Community and Private Assets 5.1.1 Highway

5.1.1.1 No adverse impacts are likely to occur with regards to land-take or planned developments at Gallions Reach as currently the options fall within an area of vacant previously developed land. The main impacts associated with the immersed tube tunnel relate to noise, vibration, visual intrusion and dust. The presence of the tunnel would result in improved connectivity between the residents and communities of Thamesmead and Beckton, improving links to community facilities. Although there are environmental risks associated with land take, they would be temporary.

5.1.2 Mitigation

5.1.2.1 If compulsory powers are required, compensation will be assessed in accordance with the Compensation Code Summary. 5.1.3 Summary

5.1.3.1 There is likely to be a slight beneficial impact on community and private assets surrounding Option 1.

5.2 Cultural Heritage 5.2.1 Highway

5.2.1.1 Possible construction impacts upon cultural heritage include the north and south cut-and-cover tunnels and their approaches. Work sites will be needed on either bank of the tunnel. To immerse the tunnel trench dredges will need to be dug in the bed of the waterway, causing a slight adverse impact on the cultural heritage resources surrounding the works.

5.2.1.2 There is a high potential for archaeological remains dating from the prehistoric period until the post-medieval period to be located on the northern and southern banks of the Thames in the study areas. It should be noted that construction of the north and south cut-and-cover tunnel would have a larger footprint of excavation than a bored tunnel. There is an increased risk of significant effect due to the larger area of excavation needed for an immersed tunnel, and the potential to disturb archaeological remains within areas of archaeological potential as designated by the London Boroughs of Greenwich and Newham. The immersed tunnel would require a channel to be dredged in the River Thames. This is likely to remove any archaeological resources located within the Archaeological Priority Area designated by the London Borough of Newham which extends to the centre of the River Thames. Due to the scale of development, there is also an increased risk of discovering archaeological remains.

5.2.2 Mitigation

5.2.2.1 Extant WWII pillboxes (HN20 and 23) could be fully mitigated by preservation through a combination of design modification and construction methods for example

97 East of Silvertown the relocation of construction elements and fencing off the sites from construction activities. Where this is not possible, the effect could be mitigated through a programme of detailed recording of the structures prior to their loss.

5.2.2.2 The precise location of feature HN8 (possible medieval river walls) is uncertain and it would appear likely that if these features are to be affected they would be encountered during the construction process on the south side of the river. This effect could be mitigated through the implementation of an archaeological Watching Brief during the construction process, which includes recording of findings.

5.2.2.3 To determine the presence of the paleochannel (HN31), borehole transects and core analysis could be carried out to gauge age dates of deposits. The results of this survey could inform the need for further evaluation, which would be determined in consultation with Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLASS). Mitigation measures would be determined following all such evaluation.

5.2.2.4 A Watching Brief Recording should be maintained on all other ground breaking activities which would produce an observable archaeological face. This will ensure features associated with the former Royal Arsenal (HN24 and 28) would be recorded as well as any unknown features which are observed.

5.2.2.5 If the construction technique used in the areas of potential regionally significant archaeological remains (i.e. along the banks of the Thames), does not allow for an observable archaeological face, then archaeological evaluation may be required prior to construction. This would inform an appropriate programme of mitigation, if necessary. 5.2.3 Summary

5.2.3.1 Overall it is predicted there will be a slight adverse impact on cultural heritage in regards to Option 1.

5.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation

5.3.1.1 The impact assessment has been based on guidance set out in the Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment (September 2010). 5.3.2 Highway

Designated Sites

5.3.2.1 No direct impacts on Lee Valley SPA are likely as a result of these options. However, there is potential for temporary disturbance and displacement of roosting and foraging birds in the winter months (October – March) during the construction and operational phases of the option. Loss of small areas of intertidal habitat (used by foraging and roosting birds during the winter months) during the construction and operational phases of the immersed tube option is possible. Given the amount of other suitable foraging and roosting opportunities in the vicinity of the option, it is unlikely that the small loss of intertidal habitat during construction in this area would have a significant impact on the wintering waders and waterfowl associated with the site in the vicinity of the options. The same is true for the River Thames Tidal

Tributaries SMI, though there is potential for impacts on fish species including eel, bass and flounder (for which the site is designated) during the installation of the immersed tube tunnel.

5.3.2.2 No direct or indirect impacts are anticipated as a result of this option within the following designated sites:  Lesnes Abbey Woods LNR  Twin Tumps Thamesmere SBI  Birchmere SBI  Gallions Canal SBI  Beckton Meadows South SBIT  Royal Docks SBI

5.3.2.3 It is likely that a proportion of the southern end of the designated Thamesmead Historic Area and Wetlands SBI will be lost during the construction phase of these options. Adequate measures will be put in place to avoid adverse impacts as much as possible.

Habitats

5.3.2.4 The option would lead to the temporary loss of areas of intertidal habitat, bare ground, ephemeral/short perennial herbs, scrub, and tall ruderal herbs, amenity grassland, stands of Japanese Knotweed and areas of hardstanding on the northern side of the river. The loss of invasive Japanese Knotweed would be a benefit to the area, though this would be temporary.

5.3.2.5 The option would lead to the temporary loss of areas of intertidal habitat, bare ground, scrub, ephemeral/short perennial herbs, tall ruderal herbs, broad- leaved woodland, areas of hardstanding, and stands of Japanese Knotweed on the southern side of the river.

5.3.2.6 Areas of bare ground considered potentially important habitats for terrestrial invertebrates may be temporarily lost as a result of the construction phase of the immersed tunnel.

Protected Species

5.3.2.7 No records of great crested newts were recorded in the vicinity of the proposed option; therefore no impacts on great crested newts are anticipated as a result of the option.

5.3.2.8 Areas of habitat potentially suitable for reptiles, including scrubs, woodland edges, and tall ruderal herbs would be temporarily lost as a result of the construction of the immersed tube tunnel.

5.3.2.9 Areas of habitat suitable for nesting and foraging birds, during the breeding season, including scrub, ruderal herbs, ephemeral/short perennial herbs and woodland would be temporarily lost as a result of the construction of the immersed tube tunnel option. In particular, areas of habitat suitable for foraging black redstart would be temporarily lost. The habitat at Gallions Reach is suitable for Black

99 East of Silvertown

Redstarts though none were recorded in September 2015 surveys of the Silvertown tunnel, located 5km to the West.

5.3.2.10 A number of trees (within the broad-leaved woodland on the south and north sides of the river), and buildings with the potential to support roosting bats may be present within the route of the option. In addition, there is the potential for fragmentation of commuting routes and foraging habitat for bats as a result of the option.

5.3.2.11 No waterbodies used by water voles would be lost as a result of the option.

5.3.2.12 No badger setts were recorded during and of the previous surveys undertaken in recent years.

5.3.2.13 There is the potential for morality to, or disturbance of protected marine species, including those protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) in regards to this option. A review of detailed alignments and footprints will be necessary to see if direct impact on protected marine species can be avoided. Design measures and construction techniques will also need to be considered to minimise disturbance to surrounding protected species colonies and avoid changes in river flows that would indirectly affect them. Where appropriate, a mitigation strategy involving translocation and/or provision of compensatory habitat will need to be considered. 5.3.3 Mitigation

5.3.3.1 Where possible, construction works would be carried out within and adjacent to the estuary outside of the winter period to minimise disturbance/ displacement of foraging and wintering birds.

5.3.3.2 Further investigation would be required to confirm the presence/absence of important spawning/ nursery grounds for bass and flounder in the vicinity of the option.

5.3.3.3 Where possible, minimise the loss or re-instate valuable habitats associated with the designated site lost during the construction phase. If this is not possible, new habitat would need to be created to compensate for the habitat loss.

5.3.3.4 Where possible, ensure adequate measures are put in place to avoid adverse hydrological effects during the construction phase of the option.

5.3.3.5 Should great crested newts be found within 500m of the footprint of the option, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be put in place (in consultation with Natural England). Similarly, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be out in place (in consultation with the Local Planning Authority and/or Natural England) should reptiles be found within the footprint of the option.

5.3.3.6 Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence/absence of protected species within the habitats affected by the option.

5.3.3.7 A review of the footprint should be undertaken to see if adjustments are possible to avoid direct impacts on habitats which support protected species.

100

5.3.4 Summary

5.3.4.1 Overall there will be a major adverse impact upon marine ecology from Option 1, and a slight adverse/neutral impact on terrestrial ecology.

5.4 Effects on All Travellers 5.4.1 Highway

5.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers. Views from the road cannot be assessed for the proposed alignment due to the lack of road prior to construction.

5.4.1.2 During construction the National Cycle Network Route 1 and footways are likely to be diverted or temporarily closed during works on the south side of the river. Once the tunnel is operational these effects will cease.

5.4.1.3 Whilst driver stress may be increased due to construction traffic and related activities because of diversions, longer journey times and an increase of construction traffic on local roads, once operational driver stress is predicted to fall. This is compared with the Reference Case scenario, due to increased connectivity and a reduction in journey time for journeys between the north and south banks of the River Thames. Although potential accidents and the lack of view for extended periods of time may affect some road users, overall it is predicted there would be a beneficial impact.

5.4.1.4 Currently the community on the south side of the river is severed by the existing safeguarded area for the river crossing at Gallions Reach. As such, non- motorised users are currently unable to travel in an east-west direction across the Thamesmead study area. Existing severance between communities on the south side of the river would continue during construction as there would be no public access to the construction site and construction compounds.

5.4.1.5 However, once operational it is proposed that a link road would be delivered as part of any crossing at Gallions Reach to connect the two areas of Thamesmead. This would result in a beneficial effect on community severance compared with the existing situation. Once operational the extended journey times and severance of communities and facilities north and south of the river would be removed, resulting in a beneficial impact for all travellers. The addition of bus services to the shared highway space would also increase connectivity between communities north and south of the river. There is the potential for increased or decreased traffic flows on the approach roads to affect non-motorised traffic in relation to safe at-grade road crossings in the area. The increase and decrease of traffic flows on approach roads is yet to be quantified in detail, therefore this does not form part of this report. The Traffic Impact Report (East of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report) will have a high level overview of the approach roads that would be affected.

101 East of Silvertown

5.4.2 Mitigation

5.4.2.1 Provide a safe and clear diversion for pedestrians and cyclists during the construction period, in consultation with relevant authorities, together with appropriate signage.

5.4.2.2 Ensure that procedures are implemented to minimise the impact of construction, such as a Construction Workers Travel Plan, a Construction Traffic Management Plan and diversions to minimise conflicts with road users.

5.4.2.3 Provide alternative pedestrian linkages with signage to community facilities.

5.4.2.4 A detailed Transport Assessment would be required for the proposals. There is potential for either the road or water network to be used for transportation of materials and wastes to and from the construction site. If water transport is used it could maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion. It could also reduce driver stress and a fear of accidents for motorists and non- motorised users, as fewer heavy construction vehicles would be travelling on the road network. 5.4.3 Summary

5.4.3.1 Overall the likely impacts upon travellers during construction are expected to be slightly adverse, but would be moderate beneficial once the tunnel becomes operational.

5.5 Ground Conditions 5.5.1 Highway

5.5.1.1 Details of proposed site compounds (location and surfacing) were not available at the time of writing but are not expected to significantly alter the conclusions of the impact assessment.

5.5.1.2 Detailed method statements should be prepared to include procedures to avoid the release of contaminated perched groundwater to the river and aquifer based on excavation and stockpiling of soils. Aquifer protection measures should be discussed depending on the outcome of the piling risk assessment.

5.5.1.3 Areas of contaminated soils are likely to be encountered along the route alignment on the north and south banks, passing through Beckton Gasworks and other industry to the north, and the former Royal Arsenal to the south. Arising from onshore piling and drilling work, and sediment dredgings, may pose a risk to human health especially if allowed to become airborne as dust. Contamination may include metals, hydrocarbons or asbestos. The potential for direct contact or inhalation of contaminated soil to members of the public and site workers may exist if soil cover is not maintained or dust is allowed to blow off site. If the casting basin is located at the Tripcock Point landfill, the possibility of excavating hazardous material is likely to be high. There is a risk to construction workers from direct contact and inhalation whilst developing the site at Option 1.

102

5.5.1.4 Made Ground and river sediment in the vicinity of the crossing are all likely to have elevated levels of heavy metals and other contaminants. The construction of the cut-and-cover sections and associated construction activities on the north and south banks would cause ground disturbance with the potential for contaminated soils to enter the river via runoff or contamination to leech into the water. Should piling be required for the open access ramp foundations either side of the tunnel, a potential pathway may be created for leaching of contaminated soils to the underlying chalk aquifer.

5.5.1.5 Similarly, the dredging of the trench in the river bed along the line of the tunnel would cause disturbance of potentially contaminated base sediment and create a contamination pathway to the underlying chalk aquifer and to the river. If the casting basin is formed in the vicinity of the site the potential for contaminated soil, alluvial material or Made Ground entering the watercourse is high without appropriate mitigation measures.

5.5.1.6 Dredging the channel in the river bed and any piling work in the channel or at the river bank has the potential to create a pathway for mitigation via contaminated perched groundwater to the chalk aquifer. It is also likely to lead to saline intrusion by penetrating the Alluvium deposits, separating the chalk and the surface waters. Other on-shore deep excavations, if required, would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer. The disturbed sediment could migrate and impact down river. Dewatering works are likely to be required in the alluvium/head deposits and the shallow groundwater may be contaminated. Contamination could migrate horizontally and vertically along newly created preferential pathways such as drainage runs, piles and site investigation boreholes.

5.5.1.7 Temporary piling is expected to be necessary at the river banks to enable excavation and tunnel connection which would create a potential contamination pathway if it penetrates the superficial deposits and chalk.

5.5.1.8 The organic material in the Alluvium deposits as well as areas of organic contamination present a potential source of ground gas. Gas may build up in excavations for the cut-and-cover ramps and may also build up in the tunnel itself or in any granular fill materials around it. These may act as a gas migration pathway. The landfill is likely to be a major source of ground gas and any intrusive works in the vicinity of the landfill may potentially be impacted.

5.5.1.9 Based on the route alignment, the potential for UXO to impact on the project is considered to be medium/high to high.

5.5.1.10 Deterioration of buildings and structures within the vicinity would be due to the aggressive ground conditions, concrete attack and metal corrosion due to corrosive ground gases and soils. 5.5.2 Mitigation

5.5.2.1 Potential risks to construction workers can be mitigated by adoption of appropriate health and safety practices outlined in the Code of Construction Practice including the completion of a Health & Safety Risk Assessment by the engaged Contractor, implementation of the appropriate training for all site workers and

103 East of Silvertown provision of suitable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE) and welfare facilities. Works should be conducted in accordance with the Health and Safety Executive publication entitled “Protection of Workers and the General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land”, 1991.

5.5.2.2 Contaminated soils should be identified and measures taken to avoid migration off site as dust by the use of damping down during construction and clean cover post construction.

5.5.2.3 An investigation into the type and characteristics of the landfill waste is recommended if the casting basin is likely to be located in or near to the landfill. A mitigation strategy would be required to ensure risks to construction workers and other human receptors are mitigated.

5.5.2.4 A piling risk assessment should be carried out in advance of any piling works in the channel or on the north or south banks to assess the potential risk to groundwater resources from contaminated soils or sediment.

5.5.2.5 Detailed method statements should be prepared to include measures to avoid releases of contaminants to the river, and also aquifer protection measures depending on the outcome of the piling risk assessment.

5.5.2.6 Arisings from piling works and construction of access roads and cut-and- cover ramps should be managed to ensure that any surface runoff is collected and prevented from impacting the river. Surface water should be prevented from entering excavations, where possible.

5.5.2.7 A detailed risk assessment should be carried out in advance of any dredging or piling works in the channel or on the north or south banks to assess the potential risk to groundwater resources from river sediments or contaminated surface water or perched groundwater.

5.5.2.8 Detailed method statements should be prepared to include methods to avoid releases of contaminated perched groundwater to the river, and also aquifer protection measures depending on the outcome of the detailed risk assessments.

5.5.2.9 If dewatering of excavations is required, treatment of contaminated water may be required before discharge. A discharge consent would be required prior to operations.

5.5.2.10 A capping layer of clay or a synthetic membrane should be installed after the installation of the tunnel sections to prevent long-term saline intrusion into the chalk aquifer.

5.5.2.11 A ground gas investigation is recommended as part of a future site investigation focusing on the final route. This should focus in particular on the area around the landfill.

5.5.2.12 Gas alarms are considered necessary if construction workers enter excavations within the landfill or in Alluvium, peat or contaminated Made Ground and during piling or drilling works in these areas.

104

5.5.2.13 Gas protection measures may be required within the tunnel.

5.5.2.14 A detailed UXO mitigation strategy should be prepared utilising all existing information and including provision for specialist banksmen and awareness briefings, Intrusive UXO clearance in piling locations (magnetometer surveys), and river sediments excavated for founding immersed tunnel.

5.5.2.15 Intrusive ground investigation and laboratory testing for aggressive chemical conditions and corrosive gases should be undertaken with specifications of resistant materials suggested in final design. 5.5.3 Summary

5.5.3.1 Overall there is a moderate adverse impact on ground conditions from this twin compartment immersed tube tunnel.

5.6 Materials 5.6.1 Highway

5.6.1.1 The volumes of waste arising from construction would depend on how the site of the selected option is managed and the implementation of a Site Waste Management Plan. It is noted that man-made waste materials (potentially hazardous) have been recorded following trial-pits dug within the footprint of this option.

5.6.1.2 Waste figures were estimated using preliminary Bill of Quantities (BOQ) in the first instance and engineering options study reports, drawings and calculations extrapolated from similar structures where BOQs were not available.

5.6.1.3 The waste figures include excavated wastes, as we cannot provide assurance that this material could be or would definitely be reused at this stage.

5.6.1.4 Current approximate predictions of the total key materials forecast and key waste forecast for Option 1 are listed below:

Key materials forecast to be used:

Concrete: 12,222 tonnes

Soils and stone: 71,648 tonnes

Total key materials forecast: 83,871 tonnes

Key waste materials forecast and likely waste destination:

Concrete: (Recycled off-site): 489 tonnes

Soils and stone: (Re-used off-site): 422,709 tonnes

Total key wastes forecast: 423,198 tonnes

105 East of Silvertown

5.6.1.5 It is predicted there would be a moderate adverse impact with regards to materials at Option 1. It is suggested that a pre-demolition audit is carried out prior to demolition to identify key waste materials and support the beneficial re-use and recycling of these materials. A large amount of material would arise from the dredging activities and the land- based operations needed for an immersed tube tunnel. 5.6.2 Mitigation

5.6.2.1 With appropriate planning, the majority of key wastes would have the potential to be re-used or recycled off-site, minimising the need for any waste arisings to be sent to landfill. Transportation of wastes to and from the construction site can maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion.

5.6.2.2 Optimise the construction programme to reduce double handling of materials (with associated emissions).

5.6.2.3 The potential to use either road or river transport for removing excavated material and waste, along with the potential to use Wallesea Island and other destinations, should be explored.

5.6.2.4 It is noted that man-made waste materials (potentially hazardous) have been recorded following trial-pits dug within the footprint of the footprint of this option. This waste would need to have a mitigation strategy put in place to ensure these materials are managed appropriately. 5.6.3 Summary

5.6.3.1 The impact would arise from earthworks excavations of the casting basin and excavation of the open cut and cover passages at the entrance and exits from the tunnel. Waste material would also arise from the dredged channel in which the immersed tunnel would be constructed within the River Thames. For an immersed tunnel there are large volumes of material arising and large volumes required for backfilling.

5.6.3.2 The spoil disposal quantity is significantly larger for an immersed tube tunnel. The dredged cohesive material would not be suitable for re-use as backfill to the tunnel elements and would need to be disposed of. Terrace gravels may be re- usable but the volumes are small and the cost of storage on site and re-handling to place the material as backfill may be prohibitive. It is therefore unlikely these materials would be re-used.

5.6.3.3 Overall, it is expected there would be a moderate adverse impact on materials from Option 1.

106

5.7 Water Environment 5.7.1 Highway

5.7.1.1 Construction phase dredging of the Thames and the temporary piling at river banks may result in mobilisation of contaminants in the river bed sediment, and release the sediment into the water column.

5.7.1.2 Ground breaking to construct the tunnel entrances has the potential to disturb contaminated soils and producing contaminated runoff at the risk of polluting the Thames, and any underlying aquifers or other waterbodies nearby. There is the risk of pollution to the surrounding water environment during the general construction phase on both sides of the Thames. Risks are associated with accidental spills (fuels/oils), use of concrete, earthworks and the management of the large volumes of material arising. There will also be associated risks with the disposal of tunnel drainage. Pollution risks associated with the construction phase arise from the dewatering process to excavate the cut-and-cover approach, the tunnels, and the creation of the casting basin. Piling into the chalk aquifer is also a pollution risk, increasing the risk of saline intrusion.

5.7.1.3 Operation phase water quality risks are associated with the disposal of tunnel drainage. The will be a temporary increase in third party flood risk due to the construction phase removal of parts of the existing Thames river wall flood defence. Tunnel approaches to the south side lie within Flood Zone 3 and are at risk of flooding during a defence failure/breach event. 5.7.2 Mitigation

5.7.2.1 The use of silt curtains and controlled dredging methods to limit sedimentation should be considered. Works undertaken should be in accordance with PLA* dredging licence. A programme of monitoring should be put in place to ensure compliance. A consideration of onsite treatment of contaminated soils and the use of cover systems or removal to reduce pollution risk.

5.7.2.2 Construction works and waste management should be undertaken in accordance with EA best practice pollution prevention guidelines.

5.7.2.3 The drainage system should be designed to incorporate appropriate treatment or removal of drainage effluents.

5.7.2.4 Construction works and waste management techniques should be undertaken in accordance with EA best practice pollution prevention guidelines.

5.7.2.5 Suggestions on how to limit the potential for saline intrusion and contamination include the use of selectively placed cohesive backfill material or by use of ground membranes.

5.7.2.6 Compliance with EA Flood Defence Consent conditions should be undertaken to ensure that flood defence provisions are not compromised.

5.7.2.7 Incorporate flood protection measures at tunnel approaches e.g. a moveable flood barrier or flood gates.

107 East of Silvertown

5.7.2.8 Incorporate buffer zones to facilitate access to existing flood defences.

5.7.2.9 No mitigation is required in the operational phase. 5.7.3 Summary

5.7.3.1 Overall there is expected to be a neutral to moderate adverse impact on the surrounding water environment at Option 1.

5.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 5.8.1 Highway

5.8.1.1 Given the surrounding landscape and that the majority of the immersed tube tunnel option would be below the ground, it is not anticipated to have any major landscape impacts outside the areas of the portals. However, views from sensitive visual receptors, such as national recreational trails/routes and residential areas should be taken in to account. There is potential for a moderate adverse impact on the surrounding townscape and visual due to the infrastructure of the immersed tunnel construction conflicting with regional level policy for the protection of townscape and views, notably the Blue Ribbon Network and Thames Policy Areas, though this is predicted to be temporary. The portal design should try and complement or potentially enhance local townscape and views. 5.8.2 Mitigation

5.8.2.1 The design should be able to complement/potentially enhance local townscape and views. 5.8.3 Summary

5.8.3.1 If mitigation is followed there is expected to be a neutral to slight beneficial impact on the surrounding townscape and visual of Option 1.

5.9 Energy 5.9.1 Highway

5.9.1.1 The embodied energy analysis in this Options Study Report is qualitative, based upon the principle construction materials of the options and construction approach in relation to other options (comparatively). The change in energy use from vehicles using the crossing is not included within this assessment.

5.9.1.2 The adopted methodology for related and unrelated energy is mainly based upon relevant national and local policies and more specifically upon the policies included in the London Plan 2011.

5.9.1.3 The implementation of the immersed tube tunnel would involve a large amount of energy during construction to create both a safe and efficient working environment. Once operational there would also be energy demands to create a safe and efficient environment for road users.

108

5.9.1.4 Construction impacts associated with the immersed tunnel derive from the significant amount of concrete needed to form the tunnel and the ballast needed to prevent uplift. The need for worksites on both sides of the will increase the overall embodied emissions and energy during the construction phase.

5.9.1.5 Operationally in addition to surveillance and traffic control systems the immersed tunnel option would require energy for running the ventilation systems and the constant use of artificial lighting; therefore these options would have an extensive energy demand during operation. Careful design of the option will help reduce the likely energy demands and associated carbon emissions. 5.9.2 Mitigation

5.9.2.1 Mitigation during construction could comprise:  Sizing plant and machinery to minimise use and no idling policy to reduce carbon emissions.  Develop a construction stage travel plan to minimise transport movements.  Construct as much as possible offsite and utilise the pre-fabricated materials.  Where possible re-use the demolished or existing construction material to minimise the embodied carbon and energy.  Use of Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) in concrete mixes where appropriate.  Pre-fabricated materials should be used during construction.  Local sourcing of construction material where possible.  Sustainable sourcing of construction material, i.e. materials which have chain of custody and environmental procurement certificates such as BRE Green Book.  Utilise low energy/ energy efficient construction machinery where appropriate to minimise the energy and CO2 emissions during construction.

5.9.2.2 It is reported that a large portion of the dredge material would not be able to be reused (the alluvium and chalk strata are not anticipated to be reused but the terrace gravel may be). See section 5.6 for more details on the potential reuse of materials.

5.9.2.3 Mitigation during operation could comprise:  Energy efficient low energy lighting should be proposed for the tunnel to mitigate the high energy demand.  The development of energy efficient ventilation system for tunnels should consider the fan efficiency (the proportion of electrical power that is used to accelerate a mass of air via an axial thrust) and installation efficiency (the proportion of the fan thrust that is actually delivered the tunnel air rather than wasted via friction with the tunnel walls and soffit) to minimise the ventilation energy and associated CO2 emissions.

109 East of Silvertown

 An approach to mitigate any potential adverse impact, which would also have knock-on benefits across London, is to consider varying planned user charges for the new links according to vehicle emissions. For example, the standards being considered for the potential Ultra Low Emission Zone in central London could be used to vary the charge level for vehicles using the new link. Any increase in traffic in the areas of the new crossing would therefore be encouraged to be as clean as possible.

5.9.2.4 The above approaches can help to minimise the overall construction embodied energy demands. In addition, energy saving techniques, such as insulating site offices and installing thermostat heating controls and timers, should be adopted during construction to minimise the carbon footprint of construction.

5.9.2.5 To meet the London Plan requirements and to achieve the energy efficient design, Renewable Energy technology also needs to be considered, such as solar panels. The street lighting should also be energy efficient low energy lighting and where possible solar driven lighting should be proposed. The utilisation of automatic sensors and timers should also reduce the overall energy demand of the preferred option.

5.9.2.6 The likely energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions should be estimated at the design stage and further advice would be provided with regards to the mitigation of energy demand and carbon emissions. 5.9.3 Summary

5.9.3.1 Overall, it is expected there would be a moderate adverse impact on energy from Option 1.

110

OPTION 1A: GALLIONS REACH IMMERSED TUNNEL WITH FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION

111 East of Silvertown

6 OPTION 1A: GALLIONS REACH IMMERSED TUNNEL (FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT)

6.1 Community and Private Assets 6.1.1 Highway

6.1.1.1 Please refer to Option 1 (section 5.1) for the potential impacts on Community and Private Assets associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 1A. 6.1.2 DLR addition

6.1.2.1 The addition of the DLR would benefit the area as it would offer an alternative fixed public transport crossing to residents and access to community and private assets both north and south of the river. The addition of the DLR would be a catalyst to attract further investment in the area. Travel out of the borough for work could increase private wealth and assets, and could attract new residents to the area.

6.1.2.2 The addition of DLR would increase noise, vibration and dust within the surrounding community during construction. It is not envisaged that there would be a highly adverse impact on the community and private assets in the area due to the industrial nature of the surroundings. 6.1.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

6.1.3.1 Pedestrian and cycle paths could improve private assets by creating new communities with an enhanced walking and cycling provision. Active travel options make the area more attractive to a wider range of potential residents. 6.1.4 Mitigation

6.1.4.1 Please refer to Option 1 (Section 5.1) for mitigation relating to Community and Private Assets for the immersed tube tunnel. 6.1.5 Summary

6.1.5.1 There are no predicted impacts on community and private assets with the addition of the public transport and pedestrians and cycle options within the immersed tunnel. Overall it is predicted the impact would be moderate beneficial.

6.2 Cultural Heritage 6.2.1 Highway

6.2.1.1 Please refer to Option 1 (section 5.2) for the potential impacts on Cultural Heritage associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 1A. 6.2.2 DLR addition

6.2.2.1 The larger footprint associated with the addition of the DLR would increase the risk of discovering archaeological remains. The portal would have the largest potential impact upon cultural heritage, and would nearly double in size with the addition of the DLR. .

112

6.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

6.2.3.1 The larger footprint associated with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths may cause an adverse impact due to the increased risk of discovering archaeological remains. It is not expected to have any other adverse impacts. 6.2.4 Mitigation

6.2.4.1 Please refer to Option 1 (Section 5.2) for mitigation relating to Cultural Heritage for the immersed tube tunnel. 6.2.5 Summary

6.2.5.1 Overall the addition of public transport would have a slight adverse impact on cultural heritage. The portal, though increasing in size, would be smaller than that of a bored tunnel and ramps for a box girder bridge considered at Gallions Reach.

6.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation 6.3.1 Highway

6.3.1.1 Please refer to Option 1 (section 5.3) for the potential impacts on Ecology and Nature Conservation associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 1A. 6.3.2 DLR addition

6.3.2.1 The addition of the DLR would not affect the terrestrial ecology of the area. However the option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The land take for cut-and-cover portals would have a slight adverse impact. The majority of land take will be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted. 6.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

6.3.3.1 The addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths would not affect the terrestrial ecology of the area. However the option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The majority of land take will be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted.

6.3.3.2 The area surrounding Option 1A at Gallions reach is mainly previously developed, vacant land so the addition of public transport options is likely to have a slight/moderate adverse impact during construction but a neutral impact during operation. 6.3.4 Mitigation

6.3.4.1 Please refer to Option 1 (Section 5.3) for mitigation relating to Ecology and Nature Conservation for the immersed tube tunnel. With the inclusion of public transport the additional mitigation below will need to be considered.

113 East of Silvertown

6.3.4.2 Fixed public transport links create wildlife corridors that would remain relatively undisturbed due to limited access. It might be possible to create corridors on the banks of the river near the portals. This is a biodiversity enhancement opportunity that could be considered at the detailed design stage. 6.3.5 Summary

6.3.5.1 Overall land take for construction of the tunnel would be significant, but would not all be in the local area which would benefit the intertidal habitat with the increase in work seen off-site. Extended dredging and immersion would have the most adverse impact on ecology and nature conservation.

6.3.5.2 There will be a major adverse impact upon marine ecology from Option 1A, and a slight adverse/neutral impact on terrestrial ecology.

6.4 Effects on All Travellers

6.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers. 6.4.2 Highway

6.4.2.1 Please refer to Option 1 (section 5.4) for the potential impacts on Effects on All Travellers associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 1A. 6.4.3 DLR addition

6.4.3.1 The addition of the DLR is likely to have a significant benefit for travellers within the area. It would provide an efficient link from Thamesmead to the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and central London, creating job prospects for the area. It would have a significant benefit on dependents within the community, creating a viable travel option and supporting the creation of a mixed use town centre hub that is safe and accessible to all users.

6.4.3.2 Public transport may well be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time. Improvements of traffic in the areas surrounding the tunnel would benefit both the local community and the travellers.

6.4.3.3 Driver stress may increase during the construction of Option 1A due to the longer construction period needed to add public transport options. 6.4.4 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

6.4.4.1 A beneficial effect would be felt by non-motorised users with any crossing that includes the pedestrian-cycle provision. Previous suitable crossings at Woolwich will remain in place but there would be a significant reduction in journey time for locals using the Gallions Reach crossing.

6.4.4.2 Cyclists and pedestrians within the community would now have a convenient route across the river. As with the DLR, public transport may well be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time. Improvements

114

of traffic in the areas surrounding the tunnel would benefit both the local community and the travellers.

6.4.4.3 Driver stress may increase during the construction of Option 1A due to the longer construction period needed to add the fixed public transport option. However it is predicted than once operational driver stress will decrease. 6.4.5 Mitigation

6.4.5.1 Please refer to Option 1 (Section 5.4) for mitigation relating to Effects on All Travellers for the immersed tube tunnel. 6.4.6 Summary

6.4.6.1 The multi-modal transport solution provided by Option 1A (comprising highway, fixed public transport and pedestrian and cycle provision) would have a beneficial impact for all travellers using the immersed tube tunnel. From a driver stress perspective, highways users would benefit from multi modal transport due to the potential reduction in traffic flows within the highways tunnel. Public transport users would benefit from having a more reliable mode of transport with the fixed public transport provision, compared with a bus network using the shared highway space.

6.4.6.2 Overall there would be a major beneficial impact on the effects of all travellers with the addition of fixed public transport and pedestrian and cycle facilities to Option 1A.

6.5 Ground Conditions 6.5.1 Highway

6.5.1.1 Please refer to Option 1 (section 5.5) for the potential impacts on Ground Conditions associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 1A. 6.5.2 DLR addition

6.5.2.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer with moderate adverse impact significance. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the DLR creates the potential for contaminated soils to leech into the water body or enter the river via runoff. Due to the industrial nature of the surrounding environment, it is likely the construction would include the removal of contaminated land from the area. This would benefit the local environment, but would add to the need for construction traffic as the material would need to be taken to a licensed disposal facility.

6.5.2.2 If the casting basin for the DLR tunnel occurs on site there is an increased risk for soil contamination.

6.5.2.3 Due to the larger footprint of the scheme there is a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance.

115 East of Silvertown

6.5.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

6.5.3.1 On-shore deep excavations under all of the options (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer with moderate adverse impact significance. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path creates the potential for contaminated soils to leech into the water body or enter the river via runoff.

6.5.3.2 If the casting basin for the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel occurs on-site there is an increased risk for soil contamination.

6.5.3.3 This footprint is notably smaller than those for a DLR public transport, but would still increase the risk of discovering unexploded ordnance. 6.5.4 Mitigation

6.5.4.1 Please refer to Option 1 (Section 5.5) for mitigation relating to Ground Conditions for the immersed tube tunnel. 6.5.5 Summary

6.5.5.1 . The majority of impacts will be during or will be identified and potentially mitigated against during the construction period. As for the highway-only option the impacts ranged from neutral to moderate adverse, with neutral experienced for demolition and deterioration of buildings, slight adverse in relation to harm to human health from UXO strikes, contaminated soil, hazardous landfill or sediment and leaching and migration of contamination. A moderate adverse impact is seen for the migration and build-up of Ground gas. Overall the impact on ground conditions would be moderate adverse.

6.6 Materials 6.6.1 Highway

6.6.1.1 Please refer to Option 1 (section 5.6) for the potential impacts of Materials associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 1A. 6.6.2 DLR addition

6.6.2.1 Predictions for the total key materials and waste are unavailable for public transport options at the time of writing.

6.6.2.2 The DLR option would require approximately 11.5 metres of additional tunnel width, which is approximately 29% larger than the highway-only option. This is anticipated to require approximately 29% of additional material, therefore there would be a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the DLR tunnel and excavated material from the bed of the River Thames. Such an increase would have scheme and community wide effects with more construction traffic to transport materials to and from the site. Though much of the additional work would be undertaken off-site, a greater volume of material and excavation would take place.

116

6.6.2.3 A larger footprint would remove and treat a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 1A would be built. 6.6.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

6.6.3.1 There would be approximately 4.5 metres additional width of tunnel with the pedestrian and cycle provision, which is approximately 11% larger than the highway- only option. This is anticipated to require approximately 11% of additional material for the pedestrian therefore there would be a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the Pedestrian and Cycle tunnel. With the addition of approximately 4.5 metres width of tunnel there would be a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the DLR tunnel.

6.6.3.2 A larger footprint would remove and treat a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 1A would be built. 6.6.4 Mitigation

6.6.4.1 Please refer to Option 1 (Section 5.6) for mitigation relating to Materials for the immersed tube tunnel. 6.6.5 Summary

6.6.5.1 Incorporating both the DLR and the pedestrian and cycle paths would have the most adverse effect on the materials associated with Option 1A, compared with only one or other of these elements being included. This is due to the increase in materials used, excavated materials and the waste created from the scheme. Appropriate planning would be key to minimise the impact of materials.

6.6.5.2 Overall there would be a moderate adverse impacts during the construction of the public transport options when considering the volumes of material needed for Option 1A.

6.7 Water Environment 6.7.1 Highway

6.7.1.1 Please refer to Option 1 (section 5.7) for the potential impacts on the Water Environment associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 1A. 6.7.2 DLR addition

6.7.2.1 Increased ground breaking for the cut-and-cover sections and the removal of extra flood defences would have an indirect impact on the water environment, which could be escalated with the addition of the DLR. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column.

6.7.2.2 As set out in section 6.5 Ground Conditions, removal of contaminated land would have a beneficial impact although the risk to the water environment remains during the construction period.

117 East of Silvertown

6.7.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

6.7.3.1 As with ground conditions, the water environment may be adversely impacted with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel due to increased ground breaking for the cut-and-cover sections and the removal of extra flood defences. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column. 6.7.4 Mitigation

6.7.4.1 Please refer to Option 1 (Section 5.7) for mitigation relating to Water Environment for the immersed tube tunnel. 6.7.5 Summary

6.7.5.1 The addition of both the DLR and pedestrian and cycle transport options within the scheme would have the most detrimental effect on the surrounding water environment of all schemes based within the Gallions Reach area due to the size of tunnel and its associated impacts on surrounding environments. Overall there would be a moderate adverse impact on the water environment with the addition of public transport during dredging activities, but once operational no further impact is predicted.

6.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 6.8.1 Highway

6.8.1.1 Please refer to Option 1 (section 5.8) for the potential impacts on Townscape and Visual Impact associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 1A. 6.8.2 DLR addition

6.8.2.1 The inclusion of public transport would increase the overall footprint of the immersed tube tunnel, but would have little to no effect on the predicted effects identified above for the Highways section of the crossing. DLR tie-ins connecting each end of the crossing to existing or proposed DLR infrastructure are not predicted to have an effect on Townscape and Visual Impact. Though they would be visible from sensitive visual receptors, the portal design should try to complement or potentially enhance local townscape and views, as noted in the Highways option. High quality infrastructure may provide the opportunity to improve the views in the area. 6.8.3 Pedestrians and Cycle Path

6.8.3.1 The inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle path would increase the overall footprint of the immersed tube tunnel, but would have little to no effect on the predicted effects identified above for the Highways section of the scheme.

118

6.8.4 Mitigation

6.8.4.1 Please refer to Option 1 (Section 5.8) for mitigation relating to Townscape and Visual for the immersed tube tunnel. . 6.8.5 Summary

6.8.5.1 Overall there would be a neutral impact on visual and townscape receptors.

6.9 Energy 6.9.1 Highway

6.9.1.1 Please refer to Option 1 (section 5.9) for the potential impacts on Energy associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 1A. 6.9.2 DLR addition

6.9.2.1 The addition of the DLR would greatly increase energy consumed during construction– both in terms of the energy consumption on site and embodied carbon of the materials used. During the operational phase there would be constant use of energy for signalling, lighting, ventilation and the consumption of the DLR itself. The energy needed for this DLR tunnel during operation is likely to be greater than that of the vehicle tunnel.

6.9.2.2 However, this may be mitigated to a degree by the modal shift from private vehicle use to the DLR, resulting in a beneficial impact on energy use. 6.9.3 Pedestrians and Cycle path

6.9.3.1 As with the DLR tunnel the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel would see an increase in energy needed during both construction and operation. Energy used for lighting and ventilation in the tunnel must be enough to make a safe environment for the users. Due to its smaller size the amount of energy needed would not be as adverse as that of the DLR. The addition of a pedestrian and cycle path allows the use of sustainable methods of transport. 6.9.4 Mitigation

6.9.4.1 Please refer to Option 1 (Section 5.9) for mitigation relating to Energy for the immersed tube tunnel. 6.9.5 Summary

6.9.5.1 Overall there would be a major adverse impact on energy for the scheme. There would be a notable increase in the amount of energy needed but with successful mitigation as discussed above, the impact could be reduced to moderate adverse. It is reported that a large portion of the dredge material would not be able to be reused (the alluvium and chalk strata are not anticipated to be reused but the terrace gravel may be), as set out in section 6.6 Materials above.

119 East of Silvertown

OPTION 2: GALLIONS REACH BORED TUNNEL

120

7 OPTION 2: GALLIONS REACH BORED TUNNEL

7.1 Community and Private Assets 7.1.1 Highway

7.1.1.1 No adverse impacts are likely to occur in regards to land-take or planned developments at Gallions Reach as currently the options fall within an area of vacant, previously undeveloped land. The main impacts associated with the twin bored tunnels are related to noise, vibration, visual intrusion and dust. The presence of the tunnel would result in improved connectivity between the residents and communities of Thamesmead and Beckton, improving their links to community facilities. 7.1.2 Mitigation

7.1.2.1 Financial compensation is likely to be required for the disruption to the Tilfen proposal named ‘Tamesis Development’. 7.1.3 Summary

7.1.3.1 Overall there is likely to be a slight beneficial impact on community and private assets surrounding Option 2.

7.2 Cultural Heritage 7.2.1 Highway

7.2.1.1 There is a high potential for archaeological remains dating from the prehistoric period until the post-medieval period to be located on the northern and southern banks of the Thames in the study areas. Option 2 would involve some risk of disturbance of archaeological remains. The proposed bored tunnelling works are anticipated to be at sufficient depths to avoid impacting on marine archaeological remains. Possible construction impacts upon cultural heritage include the north and south cut-and-cover tunnels and their approaches and from the work sites needed on either bank of the tunnel.

7.2.1.2 No scheduled ancient monuments or World Heritage Sites were located on or adjacent to the option. 7.2.2 Mitigation

7.2.2.1 Consultation with Heritage England and further archaeological work will be required to assess the potential impact the option will have on archaeological resources prior to the commencement of construction. Required mitigation measures such as archaeological watching briefs would be undertaken during the construction of the scheme. 7.2.3 Summary

7.2.3.1 Overall there is likely to be a neutral impact on cultural heritage surrounding Option 2.

121 East of Silvertown

7.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation

7.3.1.1 The impact assessment has been based on guidance set out in the Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment (September 2010). 7.3.2 Highway Designated Sites

7.3.2.1 Option 2 is not likely to have any direct impacts on marine ecology as boring works are anticipated to be at sufficient depths under the River Thames. There is not expected to be any significant impact to terrestrial ecology in relation to Option 2’s bored tunnel.

7.3.2.2 There are no direct or indirect impacts on the following designated sites:

 Lesnes Abbey Woods LNR

 River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI

 Twin Tumps Thamesmere SBI

 Birchmere SBI

 Gallions Canal SBI

 Beckton Meadows South SBI

 Royal Docks SBI

7.3.2.3 No direct impacts are predicted at Lee Valley SPA. However, the Thames Estuary and Marshes IBA and the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI may experience some potential temporary disturbance and displacement of roosting and foraging birds in the winter months (October – March) during construction of the bored tunnel.

Habitats

7.3.2.4 The option of two bored tunnels would lead to the temporary loss of areas of bare ground, ephemeral/ short perennial herbs, scrub, and tall ruderal herbs, amenity grassland, stands of Japanese Knotweed and areas of hardstanding on the northern side of the river during the construction phase of these options. The loss of invasive Japanese Knotweed would be a benefit to the area, though this would be temporary.

7.3.2.5 The option would lead to the temporary loss of areas of bare ground, ephemeral/ short perennial herbs, scrub, tall ruderal herbs, broadleaved woodland, areas of hardstanding, and stands of Japanese Knotweed on the southern side of the river during construction phase of these options.

122

7.3.2.6 Areas of bare ground considered potentially important habitats for terrestrial invertebrates may be temporarily lost as a result of construction phase of these options.

Protected species

7.3.2.7 No records of great crested newts were recorded in the vicinity of the option; therefore no impacts on great crested newts are anticipated as a result of these options.

7.3.2.8 Areas of habitat potentially suitable for reptiles, including scrub, woodland edges, and tall ruderal herbs would be temporarily lost as a result of the construction of these options.

7.3.2.9 Areas of habitat suitable for nesting, foraging bids, during the breeding season, including scrub, ruderal herbs, ephemeral/ short perennials herbs and woodland would be temporarily lost as a result of the construction of this option, in particular areas of habitat suitable for foraging black redstart would be temporarily lost. The habitat at Gallions Reach is suitable for Black Redstarts though none were recorded in September 2015 surveys of the Silvertown tunnel, located 5km to the west.

7.3.2.10 A number of trees (within the broad-leaved woodland on the south and north side of the river) and buildings with the potential to support roosting bats may be present within the route of these options. In addition, there is the potential for fragmentation of commuting routes and foraging habitat for bats as a result of the options.

7.3.2.11 No waterbodies used by water voles would be lost as a result of the options.

7.3.2.12 No badger setts were recorded during any of the previous surveys undertaken in recent years.

7.3.2.13 No direct or indirect impacts on the marine environment are anticipated as a result of the bored tunnel options. 7.3.3 Mitigation

7.3.3.1 Design measures and construction techniques would need to be considered to minimise disturbance to surrounding protected species colonies and habitat (in particular broad-leaved woodland) and avoid changes in river flows that would indirectly affect them. Where appropriate, a mitigation strategy involving translocation and/or provision of compensatory habitat would need to be considered.

7.3.3.2 Where possible, carry out construction works adjacent to the estuary outside of the winter period to minimise disturbance/ displacement of foraging and wintering birds. If possible, valuable habitats should be re-instated if lost during the construction phase. It this is not achievable, new habitat would need to be created to compensate for the habitat loss.

7.3.3.3 Ensure appropriate measures are put in place to control contaminant release from the sediment.

123 East of Silvertown

7.3.3.4 Should great crested newts be found within 500m of the footprint of the option, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be put in place (in consultation with Natural England). Similarly, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be out in place (in consultation with the Local Planning Authority and/or Natural England) should reptiles be found within the footprint of the option.

7.3.3.5 Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence/absence of roosting bats from within the habitats affected by the option. 7.3.4 Summary

7.3.4.1 Overall it is predicted there would be a neutral impact on both marine and terrestrial ecology at Option 2.

7.4 Effects on All Travellers 7.4.1 Highway

7.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers.

7.4.1.2 During construction the National Cycle Network Route 1 and footways are likely to be diverted or temporarily closed during construction on the south side of the river. However once the tunnel is operation these effects would cease.

7.4.1.3 Whilst driver stress may be increased due to construction traffic and related activities because of diversions, longer journey times and an increase of construction traffic on local roads, once operational driver stress is predicted to fall. This is compared with the Reference Case scenario, due to increased connectivity and a reduction in journey time for journeys between the north and south banks of the River Thames. Although potential accidents and the lack of view for extended periods of time may affect some road users, overall it is predicted there would be a beneficial impact.

7.4.1.4 Currently the community on the south side of the river is severed by the existing safeguarded area for the river crossing at Gallions Reach. As such, non- motorised users are currently unable to travel in an east-west direction across the Thamesmead study area. Existing severance between communities on the south side of the river would continue during construction as there would be no public access to the construction site and construction compounds. However, once operational it is proposed that a link road would be delivered as part of any crossing at Gallions Reach to connect the two areas of Thamesmead. This would result in a beneficial effect on community severance compared with the existing situation. Once operational the extended journey times and severance of communities and facilities north and south of the river would be removed, resulting in a beneficial impact for all travellers. The addition of bus services to the shared highway space would also increase connectivity between communities north and south of the river. There is the potential for increased or decreased traffic flows on the approach roads to affect non-motorised traffic in relation to safe at-grade road crossings in the area. The increase and decrease of traffic flows on approach roads is yet to be quantified in detail, therefore this does not form part of this report. The Traffic Impact Report (East

124

of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report) will have a high level overview of the approach roads that would be affected. 7.4.2 Mitigation

7.4.2.1 Provide a safe and clear diversion for pedestrians and cyclists in consultation with relevant authorities, together with appropriate signage.

7.4.2.2 A detailed Transport Assessment would be required for the proposals. There is potential for either the road or water network to be used for transportation of materials and wastes to and from the construction site. If water transport is used it could maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion. It could also reduce driver stress and a fear of accidents for motorists and non- motorised users, as fewer heavy construction vehicles would be travelling on the road network.

7.4.2.3 Provide alternative pedestrian linkages with signage to community facilities. 7.4.3 Summary

7.4.3.1 Overall the likely impacts upon travellers during construction are expected to be slightly adverse, but would be slight beneficial once the tunnel becomes operational.

7.5 Ground Conditions 7.5.1 Highway

7.5.1.1 Details of proposed site compounds (location and surfacing) were not available at the time of writing but are not expected to significantly alter the conclusions of the impact assessment.

7.5.1.2 Due to the proximity of Tripcock Point Landfill site immediately adjacent to the north/northeast of the alignment on the southern bank of the River Thames there will be a slight adverse impact upon ground conditions. The Environment Agency (EA) indicates that hazardous waste sites such as this may contain substances that are harmful to human health or the environment (e.g. asbestos, chemicals, healthcare waste, electrical equipment, lead-acid batteries, oily sludges and pesticides).

7.5.1.3 The construction of the cut-and-cover sections and associated construction activities on the north and south banks would cause ground disturbance with the potential for contaminated soils to enter the river via runoff or contamination to leach into water. All surplus spoil would be disposed to licensed landfills. No sea disposal would be required for the bored tunnels as no river dredging would be undertaken.

7.5.1.4 The proposed ground break required to construct the tunnel portals and tunnel on both the north and south side of the river has the potential to lead to the disturbance of the underlying contaminated soils which could result in the contamination of controlled waters such as groundwater within the underlying aquifer and the River Thames. Contamination could migrate horizontally and vertically along newly created preferential pathways such as drainage runs, piles and site

125 East of Silvertown investigation boreholes. The proximity of the option to the Tripcock Point Landfill should also be taken into account and further investigations made to identify the hazardous material contained in the site. The tunnel design should avoid tunnelling directly under or placing structures on the landfill site. Detailed method statements should be prepared to include methods to avoid releases of contaminated perched groundwater to the river and aquifer based on excavation and stockpiling of soils, and aquifer protection measures depending on the outcome of the piling risk assessment.

7.5.1.5 The organic material and peat in the Alluvium deposits as well as areas of organic contamination presents a potential source of ground gas. Gas may build up in excavations for the cut-and-cover ramps and may also build up in the tunnel itself or in any granular fill materials around it; these may act as a gas migration pathway. The landfill is likely to be a major source of ground gas and any intrusive works in the vicinity of the landfill may potentially be impacted.

7.5.1.6 Based on the route alignment, the potential for UXO to impact the project is considered to be medium/high to high. A detailed UXO mitigation strategy should be prepared utilising all existing information and including provision for specialist banksmen and awareness briefings. 7.5.2 Mitigation

7.5.2.1 Potential risks to construction workers can be mitigated by adoption of appropriate health and safety practices outlined in the Code of Construction Practice including the completion of a Health & Safety Risk Assessment by the engaged Contractor, implementation of the appropriate training for all site workers and provision of suitable PPE, RPE and welfare facilities. Works should be conducted in accordance with the Health and Safety Executive publication entitled “Protection of Workers and the General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land”, 1991.

7.5.2.2 Contaminated soils should be identified and measures taken to avoid migration off site as dust by the use of damping down during construction and clean cover post construction.

7.5.2.3 An investigation into the type and characteristics of the landfill waste is recommended. A mitigation strategy would be required so risks to construction workers and other human receptors are mitigated.

7.5.2.4 Material identified as being contaminated would need to be carefully managed in accordance with environmental and health and safety requirements.

7.5.2.5 Arisings from piling works and construction of access roads and cut-and- cover ramps should be managed to ensure that any surface runoff is collected and prevented from impacting the river. Surface water should be prevented from entering excavations, where possible.

7.5.2.6 Any surplus material disposed of on site should be deposited within carefully designed and constructed ‘cells’ that would not allow pollutants to escape.

126

7.5.2.7 Ground Investigations will be required to assess the risk and mitigation measures required.

7.5.2.8 A ground gas investigation is recommended as part of a future site investigation focusing on the final route. This should focus in particular on the area around the landfill.

7.5.2.9 Gas alarms are considered necessary if construction workers enter excavations within the landfill or in Alluvium, peat or contaminated Made Ground and during piling or drilling works in these areas.

7.5.2.10 Gas protection measures may be required within the tunnel.

7.5.2.11 A detailed UXO mitigation strategy should be prepared utilising all existing information and including provision for specialist banksmen and awareness briefings.

7.5.2.12 Intrusive UXO clearance should be undertaken in piling locations (magnetometer surveys), and river sediments excavated for bored tunnel. 7.5.3 Summary

7.5.3.1 Overall the likely residual impact on ground conditions is moderate adverse.

7.6 Materials 7.6.1 Highway

7.6.1.1 The volumes of waste arising from construction would depend on how the site of the selected option is managed and the implementation of a Site Waste Management Plan. It is noted that man-made waste materials (potentially hazardous) have been recorded following trial-pits dug within the footprint of this option.

7.6.1.2 Waste figures were estimated using preliminary Bill of Quantities in the first instance and engineering options study reports, drawings and calculations extrapolated from similar structures where BOQs were not available.

7.6.1.3 The waste figures include excavated wastes, as we cannot provide assurance that this material could be or would definitely be reused at this stage.

7.6.1.4 There is no breakdown of key materials and waste for bored tunnels at the time of writing.

7.6.1.5 Excavated material from tunnelling activity, the construction of portals and general construction work waste would be produced during the construction period. Excavated material from bored tunnelling activity would predominately be removed from the site at which the tunnel boring machine (TBM) enters the ground and from the area of the cut and cover and open cut portals located at the northern and southern ends of the tunnel at Gallions Reach and Thamesmead respectively. It is anticipated that the bored tunnel would result in excavation of approximately 444,500 tonnes of waste material. The close proximity of the site to the River Thames and the local road network provides the opportunity to remove waste by either road or barge.

127 East of Silvertown

It may be difficult to reuse the chalk from the boring activity due to its texture which may be slurry with a high water content.

7.6.1.6 It is suggested that a pre-demolition audit is carried out prior to demolition to identify key waste materials and support the beneficial re-use and recycling of these materials. 7.6.2 Mitigation

7.6.2.1 The project should examine the potential re-use and disposal options for excavated material, in particular the re-use options for chalk which is anticipated to be encountered during the tunnel drive. Where re-use is not possible there will be a requirement to dispose of excavated material, by licensed carriers, to licensed landfill sites and handled in accordance with the Waste Management Regulations.

7.6.2.2 Optimise construction programme to reduce double handling of materials (with associated emissions).

7.6.2.3 It is noted that man-made waste materials (potentially hazardous) have been recorded following trial-pits dug within the footprint of this option. This waste would need to have a mitigation strategy put in place to ensure these materials are managed appropriately.

7.6.2.4 Transportation of wastes to and from the construction site can maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion. 7.6.3 Summary

7.6.3.1 The impact will would arise from excavation of the open cut and cover passages at the entrance and exits from the tunnel. Waste material would also arise from the tunnel boring activities.

7.6.3.2 The bored material would not be suitable for re-use and would need to be disposed of. Terrace gravels may be re-usable but the volumes are small and the cost of storage on site and re-handling to place the material as backfill may be prohibitive. It is therefore unlikely these materials would be re-used.

7.6.3.3 Overall it is assumed that there would be a slight adverse risk from Option 2 at Gallions Reach.

7.7 Water Environment 7.7.1 Highway

7.7.1.1 Given the nature of the works it is unlikely that the bored tunnels would have a direct adverse effect on the River Thames as no works are proposed within the river itself.

7.7.1.2 Ground breaking to construct the tunnel entrances has the potential to disturb contaminated soils and producing contaminated runoff at the risk of polluting the Thames, any underlying aquifers or other waterbodies nearby.

128

7.7.1.3 There is the risk of pollution to the surrounding water environment during the general construction phase on both sides of the Thames. Risks are associated with accidental spills (fuels/oils), use of concrete, earthworks and the management of the large volumes of material arising. There would also be associated risks with the disposal of tunnel drainage.

7.7.1.4 The location of the bored tunnel lies predominantly within Flood Zone 3. However the site benefits from defences along the banks of the River Thames which effectively remove it from the Flood Risk Zone and locate it within the residual risk floodplain. The exception is an area adjacent to the River Thames on the southern side of the river which is not regarded by the EA as being at risk from flooding.

7.7.1.5 The proposed safeguarded area for Option 2 is located outside of the area protected by the Thames Barrier. It is assumed that reliance is placed on the existing flood protection and no tunnel-specific protection works are required or would be provided as part of the scheme. Normal tunnel design good practice for intercepting water flows at the cut and cover tunnel portals would be followed. The bored tunnel option is not expected to have any impacts on flow dynamics. 7.7.2 Mitigation

7.7.2.1 On site treatment of contaminated soils, use of cover systems or removal to reduce pollution risk should be considered as potential mitigation options.

7.7.2.2 Construction works and waste management should be undertaken in accordance with EA best practice pollution prevention guidelines.

7.7.2.3 Drainage systems should be designed to incorporate appropriate treatment or removal of drainage effluents.

7.7.2.4 Compliance with EA Flood Defence Consent conditions to ensure that flood defence provisions are not compromised.

7.7.2.5 The potential to incorporate flood protection measures at tunnel approaches e.g. moveable flood barrier or flood gates should be considered.

7.7.2.6 Buffer zones should be incorporated to facilitate access to existing flood defences. 7.7.3 Summary

7.7.3.1 Overall there would be a slight adverse impact on water environment from Option 2 at Gallions Reach.

7.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 7.8.1 Highway

7.8.1.1 Given the surrounding landscape and that the majority of the bored tunnel option would be below the ground, it is not anticipated to have any major landscape impacts outside the areas of the portals. However, views from sensitive visual receptors, such as national recreational trails/routes and residential areas should be taken into account. There is potential for a moderate adverse impact on the

129 East of Silvertown surrounding townscape and visual due to the infrastructure of the bored tunnel construction conflicting with regional level policy for the protection of townscape and views, notably the Blue Ribbon Network and Thames Policy Areas, though this is predicted to be temporary. The portal design should try and complement or potentially enhance local townscape and views. 7.8.2 Mitigation

7.8.2.1 Design guidelines which operate for the Thames Policy Area would need to be considered. The height and scale of ventilation shafts, in the context of current and future developments in the area, would also need to be considered. 7.8.3 Summary

7.8.3.1 The bored twin tunnels at Gallions Reach Option 2 would have a slight beneficial impact upon the local townscape.

7.9 Energy 7.9.1 Highway

7.9.1.1 The embodied energy analysis in this Options Study Report is qualitative, based upon the principle construction materials of the options and construction approach in relation to other options (comparatively). The change in energy use from vehicles using the crossing is not included within this assessment.

7.9.1.2 The adopted methodology for related and unrelated energy is mainly based upon relevant national and local policies and more specifically upon the policies included in the London Plan 2011.

7.9.1.3 During construction the tunnel boring activities within Option 2 would require an extensive amount of energy to operate. It is anticipated that the bored tunnel would result in excavation of approximately 650,000 tonnes of waste material. The removal and delivery of material from and to the site may result in carbon emissions depending on the method of transport utilised.

7.9.1.4 In addition to surveillance and traffic control systems during operation of the Scheme, the tunnel would be constantly lit and therefore the street lighting is in constant use. The energy use in any ancillary buildings would also results in carbon emissions. The tunnel also requires ventilation systems which absorbs very significant energy during operation. 7.9.2 Mitigation

7.9.2.1 Mitigation during construction would comprise:  High energy demand could be mitigated through offsetting and the use of Green Tariff schemes.  Materials should be reused and recycled wherever possible to minimise the embodied carbon and energy.  River facilities should be considered as a method of transport.

7.9.2.2 Mitigation during operation would comprise:

130

 Energy efficient low energy lighting should be proposed for the tunnel to mitigate the high energy demand.  The development of an energy efficient ventilation system for tunnels should consider the fan efficiency (the proportion of electrical power that is used to accelerate a mass of air via an axial thrust) and installation efficiency (the proportion of the fan thrust that is actually delivered the tunnel air rather than wasted via friction with the tunnel walls and soffit) to minimise the ventilation energy and associated CO2 emissions.  An approach to mitigate any potential adverse impact, which would also have knock-on benefits across London, is to consider varying planned user charges for the new links according to vehicle emissions. For example, the standards being considered for the potential Ultra Low Emission Zone in central London could be used to vary the charge level for vehicles using the new link. Any increase in traffic in the areas of the new crossing would therefore be encouraged to be as clean as possible.

7.9.2.3 The above approaches can help to minimise the overall construction embodied energy demands. In addition, energy saving techniques, such as insulating site offices and installing thermostat heating controls and timers, should be adopted during construction to minimise the carbon footprint of construction.

7.9.2.4 To meet the London Plan requirements and to achieve the energy efficient design, Renewable Energy technology also needs to be considered, such as solar panels. The street lighting should also be energy efficient low energy lighting and where possible solar driven lighting should be proposed. The utilisation of automatic sensors and timers should also reduce the overall energy demand of the preferred option.

7.9.2.5 The likely energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions should be estimated at the design stage and further advice would be provided with regards to the mitigation of energy demand and carbon emissions. 7.9.3 Summary

7.9.3.1 Overall, it is expected there would be a moderate adverse impact on energy from Option 2.

131 East of Silvertown

OPTION 2A: GALLIONS REACH BORED TUNNEL WITH FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION

132

8 OPTION 2A: GALLIONS REACH BORED TUNNEL (FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT)

8.1 Community and Private Assets 8.1.1 Highway

8.1.1.1 Please refer to Option 1 (section 7.1) for the potential impacts on Community and Private Assets associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 2A. 8.1.2 DLR addition

8.1.2.1 The addition of the DLR would benefit the area as it would offer an alternative fixed public transport crossing to residents and access to community and private assets both north and south of the river. The addition of the DLR would be a catalyst to attract further investment in the area. Travel out of the borough for work could increase private wealth and assets, and could attract new residents to the area.

8.1.2.2 The addition of two separate DLR tunnels would increase noise, vibration and dust within the surrounding community during construction. It is not envisaged that there would be a highly adverse impact on the community and private assets in the area due to the industrial nature of the surroundings. 8.1.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

8.1.3.1 Pedestrian and cycle paths could improve private assets by creating new communities with an enhanced walking and cycling provision. Active travel options make the area more attractive to a wider range of potential residents. 8.1.4 Mitigation

8.1.4.1 Please refer to Option 2 (Section 6.1) for mitigation relating to Community and Private Assets for the bored tunnel. 8.1.5 Summary

8.1.5.1 There are no predicted impacts on community and private assets with the addition of the public transport and pedestrians and cycle options within the bored tunnel. Overall it is predicted the impact would be moderate beneficial.

8.2 Cultural Heritage 8.2.1 Highway

8.2.1.1 Please refer to Option 2 (section 7.2) for the potential impacts on Cultural Heritage associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 2A. 8.2.2 DLR addition

8.2.2.1 The portal would have the largest potential impact upon cultural heritage, and would nearly double in size with the addition of the DLR. .

133 East of Silvertown

8.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

8.2.3.1 The larger footprint associated with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths is not expected to be an adverse impact on any other aspects of cultural heritage. 8.2.4 Mitigation

8.2.4.1 Please refer to Option 2 (Section 7.2) for mitigation relating to Cultural Heritage for the bored tunnel. 8.2.5 Summary

8.2.5.1 Overall the addition of public transport would have a neutral impact on cultural heritage

8.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation 8.3.1 Highway

8.3.1.1 Please refer to Option 2 (section 7.3) for the potential impacts on Ecology and Nature Conservation associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 2A. 8.3.2 DLR addition

8.3.2.1 The addition of the DLR would not affect the terrestrial ecology of the area. However the option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The land take for cut-and-cover portals would have a slight adverse impact. The majority of land take would be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted. 8.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

8.3.3.1 The addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths would not affect the terrestrial ecology of the area. However the option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The majority of land take would be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted. As with the DLR the land take for cut-and-cover sections would have a slight adverse impact. 8.3.4 Mitigation

8.3.4.1 Please refer to Option 2 (Section 7.3) for mitigation relating to Ecology and Nature Conservation for the bored tunnel. With the inclusion of public transport the additional mitigation below will need to be considered.

8.3.4.2 Fixed public transport links create wildlife corridors that would remain relatively undisturbed due to limited access. It might be possible to create corridors on the banks of the river near the portals. This is a biodiversity enhancement opportunity that could be considered at the detailed design stage.

134

8.3.5 Summary

8.3.5.1 The area surrounding Option 2A at Gallions reach is mainly previously developed, vacant land so the addition of public transport options is likely to have a slight adverse impact on terrestrial ecology and a neutral impact on marine ecology.

8.4 Effects on All Travellers

8.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers. 8.4.2 Highway

8.4.2.1 Please refer to Option 2 (Section 7.4) for the potential impacts on Effects on All Travellers associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 2A. 8.4.3 DLR addition

8.4.3.1 The addition of the DLR is likely to have a significant benefit for travellers within the area. It would provide an efficient link from Thamesmead to the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and central London, creating job prospects for the area. It would have a significant benefit on dependents within the community, creating a viable travel option and supporting the creation of a mixed use town centre hub that is safe and accessible to all users.

8.4.3.2 Public transport may be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time. Improvements of traffic in the areas surrounding the tunnel would benefit both the local community and the travellers.

8.4.3.3 Driver stress may increase during the construction of Option 2A due to the longer construction period needed to add public transport options. In comparison to Option 1A in the same area, construction would be more disruptive as all tunnel boring would be done on-site, unlike the immersed tunnel which can be built in off- site locations. 8.4.4 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

8.4.4.1 A beneficial effect would be felt by non-motorised users with any crossing that includes the pedestrian-cycle provision. Previous suitable crossings at Woolwich will remain in place but there would be a significant reduction in journey time for locals using the Gallions Reach crossing.

8.4.4.2 Cyclists and pedestrians within the community would now have a convenient route across the river. As with the DLR, pedestrian and cycle access may be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time. Improvements of traffic in the areas surrounding the tunnel would benefit both the local community and the travellers.

8.4.4.3 Driver stress may increase during the construction of Option 2A due to the longer construction period needed to add public transport options. Construction

135 East of Silvertown would be more disruptive as all tunnel boring would be done on-site, unlike the immersed tunnel which can be built in off-site locations. 8.4.5 Mitigation

8.4.5.1 Please refer to Option 2 (Section 7.4) for mitigation relating to Effects on All Travellers for the bored tunnel. 8.4.6 Summary

8.4.6.1 Overall there would be a major beneficial impact on the effects of all travellers with the addition of fixed public transport and pedestrian and cycle facilities to Option 2A.

8.5 Ground Conditions 8.5.1 Highway

8.5.1.1 Please refer to Option 2 (section 7.5) for the potential impacts on Ground Conditions associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 2A. 8.5.2 DLR addition

8.5.2.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer with moderate adverse impact significance. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the DLR creates the potential for contaminated soils to leech into the water body or enter the river via runoff. Due to the industrial nature of the surrounding environment, it is likely the construction would include the removal of contaminated land from the area. This would benefit the local environment, but would add to the need for construction traffic as the material would need to be taken to a licensed disposal facility.

8.5.2.2 There is an increased risk for soil contamination from the tunnel boring machine activity versus the immersed tube tunnel due the amount of activity taking place on site. The boring tunnel machine may dig into areas of unknown contaminated land, causing potential leaching and environmental impact.

8.5.2.3 Due to the larger footprint of the scheme there is a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance. 8.5.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

8.5.3.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer with moderate adverse impact significance. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle creates the potential for contaminated soils to leech into the water body or enter the river via runoff.

8.5.3.2 There is an increased risk for soil contamination from the tunnel boring machine activity versus the immersed tube tunnel due the amount of activity taking place on site. The boring tunnel machine may well dig into areas of unknown contaminated land, causing potential leeching and environmental upset.

136

8.5.3.3 The footprint of a pedestrian and cycle path is smaller than that of the DLR, but still presents a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance.

8.5.3.4 The most adverse effects would occur when both the DLR and pedestrian and cyclist path are incorporated into the design. 8.5.4 Mitigation

8.5.4.1 Please refer to Option 2 (Section 7.5) for mitigation relating to Ground Conditions for the bored tunnel. 8.5.5 Summary

8.5.5.1 The majority of impacts will be during or will be identified and potentially mitigated against during the construction period. As for the highway-only option the impacts ranged from neutral to moderate adverse, with neutral experienced for damage and deterioration of buildings, slight adverse in relation to hazardous landfill waste, sediment and contaminated soils and moderate adverse for the migrations of ground water and ground gases. Overall the impact on ground conditions would be moderate adverse.

8.6 Materials 8.6.1 Highway

8.6.1.1 Please refer to Option 2 (section 7.6) for the potential impacts of Materials associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 2A. 8.6.2 DLR addition

8.6.2.1 Predictions for the total key materials and waste are unavailable for public transport options at the time of writing.

8.6.2.2 The DLR option would require approximately 30 metres of additional tunnel width, which is approximately 33% larger than the highway-only option. This is anticipated to require approximately 33% of additional material therefore, there would be a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the DLR tunnel and excavated material from the bed of the River Thames. Such an increase would have scheme and community wide effects with more construction traffic to transport materials to and from the site.

8.6.2.3 A larger footprint would remove and treat a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 2A would be built. 8.6.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

8.6.3.1 There would be approximately 12 metres additional width of tunnel with the pedestrian and cycle provision, which is approximately 13% larger than the highway- only option. This is anticipated to require approximately 13% of additional material for the pedestrian and cycle tunnel. Therefore there would be a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the DLR tunnel.

137 East of Silvertown

8.6.3.2 A larger footprint would remove and treat a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 2A would be built. 8.6.4 Mitigation

8.6.4.1 Please refer to Option 2 (Section 7.6) for mitigation relating to Materials for the bored tunnel. 8.6.5 Summary

8.6.5.1 Incorporating both the DLR and the pedestrian and cycle paths would have the most adverse effect on the materials associated with Option 1A, compared with only one or other of these elements being included. This is due to the increase in materials used, excavated materials and the waste created from the scheme. Appropriate planning would be key to minimise the impact of materials.

8.6.5.2 Overall there would be a moderate adverse impacts during the construction of the public transport options when considering the volumes of material needed for Option 2A.

8.7 Water Environment 8.7.1 Highway

8.7.1.1 Please refer to Option 2 (section 7.7) for the potential impacts on the Water Environment associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 2A. 8.7.2 DLR addition

8.7.2.1 Increased ground breaking for the cut-and-cover sections and the removal of extra flood defences have an indirect impact on the water environment which could be escalated with the addition of the DLR. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column.

8.7.2.2 As set out in section 8.5 Ground Conditions, removal of contaminated land would have a beneficial impact although the risk to the water environment remains during the construction period. 8.7.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

8.7.3.1 As with ground conditions, the water environment may be adversely impacted with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel due to increased ground breaking for the cut-and-cover sections and the removal of extra flood defences. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column.

8.7.3.2 The impact from pedestrians and cyclists would be less than other options suggested due to the shared tunnel having a smaller footprint.

8.7.3.3 Both public transport options included within the scheme would have the most detrimental effect on the surrounding water environment of all schemes based

138

within the Gallions Reach area. Looking at all the options within this Options Study, Option 2A would have one of the most, if not the most, significant impact upon the water environment. 8.7.4 Mitigation

8.7.4.1 Please refer to Option 2 (Section 7.7) for mitigation relating to Water Environment for the bored tunnel. 8.7.5 Summary

8.7.5.1 Overall there will be a slight/moderate adverse impact on the water environment with the addition of public transport, due to the likelihood of spills and contamination from construction activities of a larger bored tunnel. With appropriate mitigation the impacts could be reduced to slight adverse.

8.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 8.8.1 Highway

8.8.1.1 Please refer to Option 2 (section 7.8) for the potential impacts on Townscape and Visual Impact associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 2A. 8.8.2 DLR addition

8.8.2.1 The public transport option is likely to have little to no effect on the predicted effects of the bored tunnel. DLR extension tie-ins connecting each end of the crossing to existing or proposed DLR infrastructure are not predicted to have an effect on Townscape and Visual Impact. Although they would be visible from sensitive visual receptors, the portal design should try to complement or potentially enhance local townscape and views, as noted in the highways option. High quality infrastructure may provide the opportunity to improve the views in the area. 8.8.3 Pedestrians and Cycle Path

8.8.3.1 The pedestrian and cycle path option is likely to have little to no effect on the predicted effects of the bored tunnel. The majority of the crossing infrastructure would be below the ground, and as such it is not anticipated any significant impact would occur outside the areas of the portals. 8.8.4 Mitigation

8.8.4.1 Please refer to Option 2 (Section 7.8) for mitigation relating to Townscape and Visual for the bored tunnel. 8.8.5 Summary

8.8.5.1 Overall the bored tunnels at Gallions Reach Option 2A would have a neutral impact during construction, and a slight beneficial impact upon the local townscape.

139 East of Silvertown

8.9 Energy 8.9.1 Highway

8.9.1.1 Please refer to Option 2 (section 7.9) for the potential impacts on Energy associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 2A. 8.9.2 DLR addition

8.9.2.1 The addition of the DLR would greatly increase energy consumed during construction– both in terms of the energy consumption on site and embodied carbon of the materials used. During the operational phase there would be constant use of energy for signalling, lighting, ventilation and the consumption of the DLR itself. The energy needed for this DLR tunnel during operation is likely to be greater than that of the vehicle tunnel.

8.9.2.2 However, this may be mitigated to a degree by the modal shift from private vehicle use to the DLR, resulting in a beneficial impact on energy use. This is difficult to quantify at the current stage. 8.9.3 Pedestrians and Cycle path

8.9.3.1 As with the DLR tunnel the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel would see an increase in energy needed during both construction and operation. Energy used for lighting and ventilation in the tunnel must be enough to make a safe environment for the users. Due to its smaller size the amount of energy needed would likely be smaller than the DLR. The shared pedestrian and cyclist tunnel means that the bored tunnel options are favourable in comparison to the immersed tunnel options. The addition of a pedestrian and cycle path allows the use of sustainable methods of transport. 8.9.4 Mitigation

8.9.4.1 Please refer to Option 2 (Section 7.9) for mitigation relating to Energy for the bored tunnel. 8.9.5 Summary

8.9.5.1 Overall there would be a major adverse impact on energy for the bored tunnel scheme. There would be a notable increase in the amount of energy needed but with successful mitigation as discussed above, the impact could be reduced to moderate adverse.

140

OPTION 5: GALLIONS REACH HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE

141 East of Silvertown

9 OPTION 5: GALLIONS REACH HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE

9.1 Community and Private Assets 9.1.1 Highway

9.1.1.1 No adverse impacts are likely to occur in regards to land-take or planned developments at Gallions Reach as currently the options fall within an area of vacant previously developed land.

9.1.1.2 The box girder bridge is located within an area that has already experienced substantial redevelopment on both side of the river Thames. No residential properties are located within the areas of temporary or permanent land take required for the Scheme. A road crossing would improve the transport links between the residents of Thamesmead and Beckton allowing them to use the community facilities on both sides of the river. 9.1.2 Pedestrian and cycle paths

9.1.2.1 Pedestrian and cycle paths could improve private assets by creating new communities with an enhanced walking and cycling provision. Active travel options make the area more attractive to a wider range of potential residents 9.1.3 Mitigation

9.1.3.1 No mitigation would be required for Option 5. 9.1.4 Summary

9.1.4.1 Overall there would be a moderate beneficial impact to the surrounding area from the bridge option at Gallions Reach.

9.2 Cultural Heritage 9.2.1 Highway

9.2.1.1 There is a high potential for archaeological remains dating from the prehistoric period until the post-medieval period to be located on the northern and southern banks of the Thames in the study areas. Most of the options would involve some risk of disturbance of archaeological remains.

9.2.1.2 Potential construction impacts arising from the box girder bridge include the span of the bridge across the Thames and its associated structure, piles and site compounds. Though no scheduled ancient monuments are found within the vicinity of the site, the Option has the potential to impact the below ground remains of Beckton Gas Works (HN37) and the setting of the Grade II* listed Gallions Hotel (BH1). The northern approach road, to the north of Armada Way crosses the area of the formed Beckton Gas Works. These remains are of little surviving archaeological interest, and at most this option would have a slight adverse effect upon them. The listed Gallions Hotel is located on the northern bank of the Thames. The slight adverse impact is upon the setting of this listed building, due to the construction of a substantial structure resulting in townscape and visual disruption across the Thames.

142

9.2.2 Pedestrian and cycle paths

9.2.2.1 The larger footprint associated with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths may cause an adverse impact due to the increased risk of discovering archaeological remains. The below ground remains of Beckton Gas Works and the Grade II* listed Gallions Hotel are more at risk with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths though neither are of significant archaeological interest. It is not predicted that the pedestrian and cycle paths alone will significantly decrease the volume of traffic. There would be a slight adverse impact. 9.2.3 Mitigation

9.2.3.1 Extant WWII pillboxes (HN20 and 23) could be fully mitigated by preservation through a combination of design modification and construction methods for example the relocation of construction elements and fencing off the sites from construction activities. Where this is not possible, the effect could be mitigated through a programme of detailed recording of the structures prior to their loss.

9.2.3.2 The precise location of feature HN8 (possible medieval river walls) is uncertain and it would appear likely that if these features are to be affected they would be encountered during the construction process on the south side of the river. This effect could be mitigated through the implementation of an archaeological Watching Brief during the construction process, which includes recording of findings.

9.2.3.3 To determine the presence of the paleochannel (HN31), borehole transects and core analysis could be carried out to gauge age dates of deposits. The results of this survey could inform the need for further evaluation, which would be determined in consultation with GLAAS. Mitigation measures would be determined following all such evaluation.

9.2.3.4 A Watching Brief Recording should be maintained on all other ground breaking activities which would produce an observable archaeological face. This will ensure features associated with the former Royal Arsenal (HN24 and 28) would be recorded as well as any unknown features which are observed.

9.2.3.5 If the construction technique used in the areas of potential regionally significant archaeological remains (i.e. along the banks of the Thames), does not allow for an observable archaeological face, then archaeological evaluation may be required prior to construction. This would inform an appropriate programme of mitigation, if necessary.

9.2.3.6 Potential impact to the setting of the Grade II* Listed Structure (BH1) could be mitigated through high quality bridge/infrastructure design to enhance local townscape. 9.2.4 Summary

9.2.4.1 Overall there is potential for a slight adverse effect to the cultural heritage resource.

143 East of Silvertown

9.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation

9.3.1.1 The impact assessment has been based on guidance set out in the Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment (September 2010). 9.3.2 Highway

Designated Sites

9.3.2.1 There are no direct impacts on the Lee Valley SPA and the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI as a result of the Option. However, potential temporary disturbance and displacement of roosting and foraging birds could occur in the winter months (October – March) during both the construction and operational phases of the option. There is potential for loss of small areas of intertidal habitat (used for foraging and roosting birds during the winter months) around the bridge support structures. Given the amount of other suitable foraging and roosting opportunities in the vicinity of this option it is unlikely this loss would have a significant impact on the wintering waders and waterfowl associated with the site. There is potential for impacts on fish species within the SMI including eel, bass and flounder (for which the site is designated) during the installation of the bridge support structures.

9.3.2.2 There are no direct or indirect impacts within the Lesnes Abbey Woods LNR as a result of this option.

9.3.2.3 It is likely that a proportion of the southern end of Thamesmead Historic Area and Wetlands SBI would be lost as a result of the option.

Habitats

9.3.2.4 The Option would lead to the loss of areas of intertidal habitat, bare ground, ephemeral/ short perennial herbs, scrub, and tall ruderal herbs, amenity grassland, stands of Japanese Knotweed and areas of hardstanding on the northern side of the river. The same loss of area would be seen on the southern side of the river alongside a loss of broad-leaved woodland and semi-improved grassland.

Protected Species

9.3.2.5 Areas of bare ground considered potentially important habitats for terrestrial invertebrates may be lost as a result of this option. No records of great crested newts were found within the vicinity of the option, therefore no impacts are anticipated on the species as a result of the option.

9.3.2.6 Areas of habitat potentially suitable for reptiles, including scrub, woodland edges and tall ruderal herbs would be lost as a result of the option.

9.3.2.7 Areas of habitat suitable for nesting and foraging birds, during the breeding season, including scrub, ruderal herbs, ephemeral/short perennials and woodland would be lost as a result of this option. In particular, areas of habitat suitable for foraging black redstart would be lost.

144

9.3.2.8 A number of tress with the potential to support roosting bats may be present within the broad-leaved woodland on the south side of the river, which could be affected by the option. In addition there is the potential for fragmentation of commuting routes and foraging habitats for the bats.

9.3.2.9 Potential temporary disturbance or mortality of protected marine species – including those protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) - during construction has been identified at this Option. The footprint of the work area required for the bridge construction is likely to cover an area known to support Victorella sp. and would therefore result in direct loss of habitat and probable mortality. In addition, the construction of the new bridge could result in potential temporary disturbance to marine species due to disturbed water movement from the new structures in the water. 9.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

9.3.3.1 The option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration due to fragmentation. The addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths would not affect the terrestrial ecology of the area except in areas where the paths are linked to the local road network. The increase of marine traffic and construction within the Thames watercourse would have an adverse impact on marine ecology, as will the piling and bridge piers once they are placed in the river. 9.3.4 Mitigation

9.3.4.1 A review of detailed alignments and footprints would be necessary to see if direct impact on protected marine species can be avoided. Design measures and construction techniques would need to be considered to minimise disturbance to surrounding protected species colonies and habitat (in particular spawning/nursery grounds for bass and flounder) and avoid changes in river flows that would indirectly affect them. Where appropriate, a mitigation strategy involving translocation and/or provision of compensatory habitat would need to be considered.

9.3.4.2 Where possible, construction works would be carried out adjacent to the estuary outside of the winter period to minimise disturbance/ displacement of foraging and wintering birds. If possible, valuable habitats should be re-instated if lost during the construction phase. It this is not achievable, new habitat would need to be created to compensate for the habitat loss.

9.3.4.3 Ensure appropriate measures are put in place to control contaminant release from the sediment.

9.3.4.4 Should great crested newts be found within 500m of the footprint of the option, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be put in place (in consultation with Natural England). Similarly, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be out in place (in consultation with the Local Planning Authority and/or Natural England) should reptiles be found within the footprint of the option.

9.3.4.5 Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence/absence of roosting bats from within the habitats affected by the option.

145 East of Silvertown

9.3.5 Summary

9.3.5.1 Overall, it is expected there would be a slight adverse/neutral impact on terrestrial ecology, but a large/moderate adverse impact on marine ecology.

9.4 Effects on All Travellers

9.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers. Views from the road cannot be assessed for the proposed alignment due to the lack of road prior to construction. 9.4.2 Highway

9.4.2.1 During construction the National Cycle Network Route 1 and footways are likely to be diverted or temporarily closed on the south side of the river. Whilst driver stress may be increased due to construction traffic and related activities because of diversions, longer journey times and an increase of construction traffic on local roads. Once operational driver stress is predicted to fall. This is compared with the Reference Case scenario, due to increased connectivity and a reduction in journey time for journeys between the north and south banks of the River Thames. Although potential accidents and the lack of view for extended periods of time may affect some road users, overall it is predicted there would be a beneficial impact.

9.4.2.2 Currently the community on the south side of the river is severed by the existing safeguarded area for the river crossing at Gallions Reach. As such, non- motorised users are currently unable to travel in an east-west direction across the Thamesmead study area. Existing severance between communities on the south side of the river would continue during construction as there would be no public access to the construction site and construction compounds, However, once operational it is proposed that a link road would be delivered as part of any crossing at Gallions Reach to connect the two areas of Thamesmead. This would result in a beneficial effect on community severance compared with the existing situation. Extended journey times and severance of communities and facilities north and south of the river would be removed, resulting in a beneficial impact for all travellers. The addition of bus services to the shared highway space would also increase connectivity between communities north and south of the river. There is the potential for increased or decreased traffic flows on the approach roads to affect non- motorised traffic in relation to safe at-grade road crossings in the area. The increase and decrease of traffic flows on approach roads is yet to be quantified in detail, therefore this does not form part of this report. The Traffic Impact Report (East of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report) will have a high level overview of the approach roads that would be affected.

9.4.2.3 During operation the open view from the bridge to industrialised and visually unattractive areas, notably Beckton Gas Works, would be seen on the north section, and views of residential areas will be seen to the south. The environment for pedestrians and cyclists would be improved by providing a river crossing linking routes on both sides of the river. Connectivity between the communities on both sides of the river would be improved, creating greater access to community facilities.

146

9.4.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

9.4.3.1 The Pedestrian and cycle paths could improve private assets by creating new communities with an enhanced walking and cycling provision. Active travel options make the area more attractive to a wider range of potential residents 9.4.4 Mitigation

9.4.4.1 Provide a safe and clear diversion for pedestrians and cyclists during construction in consultation with relevant authorities, together with appropriate signage, and linkages once operational with a particular focus on journeys to school.

9.4.4.2 Ensure that procedures are implemented to minimise the impact of construction, such as a Construction Workers Travel Plan, a Construction Traffic Management Plan and diversions to minimise conflicts with road users.

9.4.4.3 A detailed Transport Assessment would be required for the proposals. There is potential for either the road or water network to be used for transportation of materials and wastes to and from the construction site. If water transport is used it could maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion. It could also reduce driver stress and a fear of accidents for motorists and non- motorised users, as fewer heavy construction vehicles would be travelling on the road network. 9.4.5 Summary

9.4.5.1 Overall the likely impacts upon travellers during construction are expected to be slightly adverse, but will would be moderate beneficial once the tunnel becomes operational.

9.5 Ground Conditions 9.5.1 Highway

9.5.1.1 Details of proposed site compounds (location and surfacing) were not available at the time of writing but are not expected to significantly alter the conclusions of the impact assessment.

9.5.1.2 Areas of contaminated soil are likely to be encountered along the Thames Gateway Bridge (TGB) protected corridor on the south bank (the former Royal Arsenal) and the area south of the DLR depot (Beckton Gas Works) on the north bank. Contamination may include metals, hydrocarbons or asbestos. The potential for direct contact or inhalation of contaminated soil to members of the public and site works may exist if soil cover is not maintained or dust is allowed to blow off site. There is further risk to construction workers from direct contact and inhalation.

9.5.1.3 Made ground and river sediment are likely to have elevated levels of heavy metals and other contaminant. Construction of the bridge’s pier foundations may create contamination pathways to the underlying chalk aquifer. Disturbance of contaminated spoils on the north and south banks may cause leaching and migration of contamination to surface water during construction.

147 East of Silvertown

9.5.1.4 Piling work in the channel or at the river bank has the potential to create a pathway for migration via contaminated perched groundwater to the chalk aquifer. It may led to saline intrusion by penetrating the Alluvium deposits that separate the chalk and the surface waters. Other on-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer. A piling risk assessment should be carried out in advance of any piling works in the channel or on the north or south banks to assess the potential risk to groundwater resources from contaminated perched groundwater. Detailed method statements should be prepared to include methods to avoid releases of contaminated perched groundwater to the river and aquifer based on excavation and stockpiling of soils, and aquifer protection measures depending on the outcome of the piling risk assessment.

9.5.1.5 Alluvium presents a potential source of ground gas, though the impact on final users of the scheme is expected to be mild as confined spaces are not likely to be present in the final design. The route alignment runs adjacent to the Tripcock Point landfill on the south bank which is a likely source of ground gas. There is potential for gas to build up in any excavations during construction and potential for the bridge foundations and access roads to alter existing gas migration pathways.

9.5.1.6 Due to the alignment via Royal Arsenal to the south and the historic railway and Beckton Gas Works to the north there is a high risk of encountering UXO.

9.5.1.7 Deterioration through aggressive ground conditions, concrete attack and metal corrosion due to corrosive ground gases and soils has meant damage and deterioration has happened to other structures in the vicinity of the option. 9.5.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

9.5.2.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer with moderate adverse impact significance. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle route creates the potential for contaminated soils to leach into the water body or enter the river via runoff.

9.5.2.2 There is an increased risk for soil contamination from the bridge structures directly within the watercourse. The bridge foundations have the potential to dig into areas of unknown contaminated land, causing potential leaching and environmental impact.

9.5.2.3 Due to the larger footprint of the scheme there is a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance. 9.5.3 Mitigation

9.5.3.1 Potential risks to construction workers can be mitigated by adoption of appropriate health and safety practices outlined in the Code of Construction Practice. These include the completion of a Health & Safety Risk Assessment by the engaged Contractor, implementation of the appropriate training for all site workers and provision of suitable PPE, RPE and welfare facilities. Works should be conducted in accordance with the Health and Safety Executive publication entitled “Protection of

148

Workers and the General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land”, 1991.

9.5.3.2 Contaminated soils should be identified and measures taken to avoid migration off site as dust by damping down during construction and clean cover after construction.

9.5.3.3 Areas of gross contamination if identified by additional site investigation may require remediation before construction work commences.

9.5.3.4 A piling risk assessment should be carried out in advance of any piling works in the channel or on the north or south banks to assess the potential risk to groundwater resources from contaminated soils or sediment.

9.5.3.5 Detailed method statements should be prepared to include measures to avoid releases of contaminants to the river, and aquifer protection measures depending on the outcome of the piling risk assessment.

9.5.3.6 Arisings from piling works and construction of access roads should be managed to ensure that any surface runoff from excavations and stockpiles is collected and prevented from impacting a Controlled Water receptor. Surface water should be prevented from entering excavations, where possible.

9.5.3.7 If dewatering of excavations is required, treatment of contaminated water may be required before discharge. A discharge consent may be required.

9.5.3.8 A piling risk assessment should be carried out in advance of any piling works in the channel or on the north or south banks to assess the potential risk to groundwater resources from contaminated perched groundwater.

9.5.3.9 Detailed method statements should be prepared to include methods to avoid releases of contaminated perched groundwater to the river and aquifer based on excavation and stockpiling of soils, and aquifer protection measures depending on the outcome of the piling risk assessment

9.5.3.10 If dewatering of excavations is required, treatment of contaminated water may be required before discharge. A discharge consent may be required.

9.5.3.11 An intrusive ground gas investigation is recommended as part of a future site investigation focusing on the final route in particular the boundary with the landfill.

9.5.3.12 Gas alarms should be considered necessary if construction workers enter excavations within Alluvium, peat or Made Ground or near the landfill and during piling or drilling works in these areas.

9.5.3.13 Detailed UXO mitigation strategy to be prepared utilising all existing information and including provision for specialist banksmen and awareness briefings. Intrusive UXO clearance in piling locations (magnetometer surveys) should be considered.

149 East of Silvertown

9.5.3.14 Intrusive ground investigation and laboratory testing for aggressive chemical conditions and corrosive gases should be considered. A Specification of resistant materials should be included in the final design. 9.5.4 Summary

9.5.4.1 Overall there is a moderate adverse impact on ground conditions from the bridge option. With suitable mitigation the impact could be reduced to a neutral level.

9.6 Materials 9.6.1 Highway

9.6.1.1 The volumes of waste arising from construction would depend on how the site of the selected option is managed and the implementation of a Site Waste Management Plan. It is noted that man-made waste materials (potentially hazardous) have been recorded following trial-pits dug within the footprint of this option.

9.6.1.2 Waste figures were estimated using preliminary Bill of Quantities in the first instance and engineering options study reports, drawings and calculations extrapolated from similar structures where BOQs were not available.

9.6.1.3 The waste figures include excavated wastes, as we cannot provide assurance that this material could be or would definitely be reused at this stage.

9.6.1.4 The footprint of Option 5 at Gallions Reach encompasses Made Ground including some historic hazardous waste from previous landfill uses. This waste would need to have a mitigation strategy put in place to ensure these materials are managed appropriately.

9.6.1.5 Current approximate predictions of the total key materials forecast and key waste forecast for Option 5 are listed below:

Key materials forecast to be used: Concrete: 1,249,378 tonnes Soils and stone: 40,773 tonnes Metals: 36,704 tonnes Bituminous mixtures: 3,339 tonnes Total key materials forecast: 1,330,193 tonnes

Key waste materials forecast and likely waste destination: Concrete: (Recycled off-site): 49,975 tonnes Soils and stone: (Re-used off-site): 53,963 tonnes Metals: (Recycled off-site): 1,101 tonnes Bituminous mixtures: (Disposal at landfill): 167 tonnes

Total key wastes forecast: 105,206 tonnes

150

9.6.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

9.6.2.1 The pedestrian and cycle deck would add width 3.5m to the box girder bridge, creating a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the combined gallery and protective windshield. Such an increase would have scheme and community wide effects with more construction traffic to transport materials to and from the site and more river traffic.

9.6.2.2 Materials needed to link the pedestrian and cycle path to the road network would create an adverse effect during the construction period of the bridge.

9.6.2.3 A larger footprint would require removal and treatment of a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 5A would be built. 9.6.3 Mitigation

9.6.3.1 With appropriate planning, the majority of key wastes would have the potential to be re-used or recycled off-site, minimising the need for any waste arisings to be sent to landfill.

9.6.3.2 It is noted that the footprint for this option encompasses made ground including some historic hazardous waste. This waste would need to have a mitigation strategy put in place to ensure these materials are managed appropriately.

9.6.3.3 Optimise construction programme to reduce double handling of materials (with associated emissions).

9.6.3.4 Transportation of wastes to and from the construction site can maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion. 9.6.4 Summary

9.6.4.1 The impact will would arise from earthworks excavations of the casting basin and excavation of the entrance and exits ramps from the bridge. Waste material will also arise from piling construction within the River Thames.

9.6.4.2 Overall there would be a moderate adverse impact from the materials of Option 5.

9.7 Water Environment 9.7.1 Highway

9.7.1.1 The construction phase piling would result in mobilisation of contaminants in the river bed sediments and would release the sediments into the water column. Earthworks to create the embankments at the bridge approaches could disturb contaminated soils, producing contaminated runoff with risk of pollution to the River Thames and other nearby waterbodies. General construction phase pollution risk at work sites on both sides of the Thames would arise from associated accident spills (fuels/oils), use of concrete, earthworks and the management of the large volumes of material arising from piling activity. Operational phase water quality risks are

151 East of Silvertown associated with the disposal of highway drainage from the bridge deck and approaches.

9.7.1.2 Pollution risks associated with construction phase dewatering and disturbance of underlying contaminated soils at bridge approaches result in the contamination of the underlying aquifer. Piling into the chalk for bridge piers creates a potential pollution pathway to the aquifer and increases the risk of saline intrusion.

9.7.1.3 The northern bridge approach is located in Flood Zone 3 and is at risk of flooding during a defence breach or failure. The southern bridge approach lies within Flood Zones 1 and 3.

9.7.1.4 Access to the jetties built out into the river from north and south banks can temporarily impact on flow dynamics and permanent bridge piers causing localised changes to water levels and flow velocities, with increased risk of scour. 9.7.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

9.7.2.1 As with ground conditions, the water environment may be adversely impacted with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path gallery due to increased ground breaking for bridge piers and the removal of extra flood defences. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column.

9.7.2.2 Linking the pedestrian and cycle paths to the local road network could cause potential leeching from associated accident spills (fuels/oils), use of concrete, earthworks and the management of the large volumes of material arising from piling activity on the river banks. The impact from pedestrians and cyclists would be less than the DLR due to the smaller footprint. 9.7.3 Mitigation

9.7.3.1 Silt curtains should be used to limit mobilisation of sedimentation.

9.7.3.2 Environmental management protocols should be implemented. Remedial works, guided by results of further site investigations and risk assessments should be undertaken, for example, for onsite treatment of contaminated soils, cover systems and removal of contaminated materials.

9.7.3.3 Incorporate adequate spillage containment and treatment of highway runoff prior to discharge to the water environment within the drainage design.

9.7.3.4 Construction works and waste management should be undertaken in accordance with EA best practice pollution prevention guidelines.

9.7.3.5 Limit the potential for creation of pollution pathways through the use of selectively placed cohesive backfill material or by use of ground membranes.

9.7.3.6 Flood defences should provide a high standard of protection. Management of residual risk should be undertaken through emergency planning.

152

9.7.3.7 Detailed hydraulic assessments to inform design of scour protection measures. 9.7.4 Summary

9.7.4.1 Overall the box girder bridge would have a slight adverse impact on the water environment.

9.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 9.8.1 Highway

9.8.1.1 There is potential for the box girder bridge to have a slight adverse impact due to the structure resulting in townscape and visual disruption that may conflict with regional level policy for the protection of townscape and views, namely the Blue Ribbon Network/ Thames Policy Area.

9.8.1.2 High quality bridge/infrastructure design to enhance local townscape and views would not entirely offset land take within public open space and the loss of other valued townscape assets (including listed buildings). However, beneficial townscape and visual impacts are identified at Gallions Reach due to the fact local townscape and views in this predominantly industrial area would be enhanced by a high quality infrastructure scheme. 9.8.2 Pedestrians and Cycle Path

9.8.2.1 The addition of the pedestrian and cycle gallery would have a neutral impact on townscape and visual impact. As with the addition of the DLR, although there would be a prolonged construction period with more construction traffic, it is not predicted that once operational there would be adverse impacts.

9.8.2.2 Once operational there would be a beneficial impact with the addition of views that were not previously accessible to the public. Views of the local area and metropolitan open land both north and south of the area would reduce the adverse effects of the bridge. The public transport galleries would allow safe, free access to these views. If mitigation is adhered to it is predicted there will be negligible effect on views from local and metropolitan land of the bridge structure. 9.8.3 Mitigation

9.8.3.1 A high quality bridge/infrastructure design could help to enhance local townscape and views. 9.8.4 Summary

9.8.4.1 Overall there would be a moderate beneficial impact upon the townscape of Option 5.

153 East of Silvertown

9.9 Energy 9.9.1 Highways

9.9.1.1 The embodied energy analysis in this Options Study Report is qualitative, based upon the principle construction materials of the options and construction approach in relation to other options (comparatively). The change in energy use from vehicles using the crossing is not included within this assessment.

9.9.1.2 The adopted methodology for related and unrelated energy is mainly based upon relevant national and local policies and more specifically upon the policies included in the London Plan 2011.

9.9.1.3 The impacts of energy associated with this option derive from the high level of construction needed for the box girder bridge, including the site compounds at both banks. The construction of overhead bridge utilities and the use, transport and on site handling of construction materials will need a notable amount of energy; the carbon footprint of Option 5 is estimated to be 107,066 tonnes. This option is considered to represent a medium embodied carbon impact. 9.9.2 Pedestrians and Cycle path

9.9.2.1 As with the DLR, the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path would see an increase in energy needed during both construction and operation. Energy used for lighting on the non-motorised gallery must be enough to create a safe environment for the users. Due to its smaller size the amount of energy needed would not be as adverse as that of the DLR.

9.9.2.2 The box girder bridge would only need lighting during night time hours for the pedestrian and cycle path, therefore being the most energy efficient public transport option considered. 9.9.3 Mitigation

9.9.3.1 Mitigation during construction would comprise:  The use of pre-fabricated recyclable and locally sourced materials would help to minimise the construction energy impact of this option. This would minimise the overall energy demand associated with extensive construction.  Selection of construction materials with low embodied carbon should occur where possible. Locally and sustainable sourced materials wherever practical would reduce impact. Use of recyclable materials would also be beneficial.

9.9.3.2 Mitigation during operation would comprise:  The street lighting has the potential to increase the likely energy demands of this option, therefore the implementation of energy efficient lighting would be beneficial for this option and also the day time sensors to control the energy waste would minimise the likely CO2 emissions arises from this option.

154

 It should be ensured that service buildings are built to energy efficient standards.  Consider varying planned user charges for the new links according to vehicle emissions. For example, the standards being considered for the potential Ultra Low Emission Zone in central London could be used to vary the charge level for vehicles using the new link. Any increase in traffic in the areas of the new crossing would therefore be encouraged to be as clean as possible.

9.9.3.3 The above approaches can help to minimise the overall construction embodied energy demands. In addition, energy saving techniques, such as insulating site offices and installing thermostat heating controls and timers, should be adopted during construction to minimise the carbon footprint of construction.

9.9.3.4 To meet the London Plan requirements and to achieve the energy efficient design, Renewable Energy technology also needs to be considered. Renewable energy generation for Option 5 could include solar panels, but due to its proximity to airport flight path there is no scope for wind energy at Gallions Reach. The street lighting should also be energy efficient low energy lighting and where possible solar driven lighting should be proposed. The utilisation of automatic sensors and timers should also reduce the overall energy demand of the preferred option.

9.9.3.5 The likely energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions should be estimated at the design stage and further advice would be provided with regards to the mitigation of energy demand and carbon emissions. 9.9.4 Summary

9.9.4.1 Overall, it is expected there would be a slight adverse impact on energy from Option 5.

155 East of Silvertown

OPTION 5A: GALLIONS REACH HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE WITH FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION

156

10 OPTION 5A: GALLIONS REACH HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT)

10.1 Community and Private Assets 10.1.1 Highway

10.1.1.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.1) for the potential impacts on Community and Private Assets associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 5A. 10.1.2 DLR addition

10.1.2.1 The addition of the DLR would benefit the area as it would offer an alternative fixed public transport crossing to residents and access to community and private assets both north and south of the river. The DLR would be a catalyst to attract further investment in the area. Travel out of the borough for work could increase private wealth and assets, and could attract new residents to the area.

10.1.2.2 The addition of DLR would increase noise, vibration and dust within the surrounding community during construction. It is not envisaged that there would be a highly adverse impact on the community and private assets in the area due to the industrial nature of the surroundings. 10.1.3 Mitigation

10.1.3.1 Please refer to Option 5 (Section 9.1) for mitigation relating to Community and Private Assets for the high level bridge. 10.1.4 Summary

10.1.4.1 There are no predicted impacts on community and private assets with the addition of the public transport and pedestrians and cycle options within the immersed tunnel. Overall it is predicted the impact would be moderate beneficial.

10.2 Cultural Heritage 10.2.1 Highway

10.2.1.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.2) for the potential impacts on Cultural Heritage associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 5A. 10.2.2 DLR addition

10.2.2.1 The larger footprint associated with the addition of the DLR would increase the risk of discovering archaeological remains. The below ground remains of Beckton Gas Works and the Grade II* listed Gallions Hotel are more at risk with the addition of the DLR though neither are of significant archaeological interest. 10.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

10.2.3.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.2) for the potential impacts on Cultural Heritage associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 5A.

157 East of Silvertown

10.2.4 Mitigation

10.2.4.1 Please refer to Option 5 (Section 9.2) for mitigation relating to Cultural Heritage for the high level bridge. 10.2.5 Summary

10.2.5.1 Overall the addition of public transport and pedestrian and cycle facilities would have a slight adverse impact on cultural heritage.

10.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation 10.3.1 Highway

10.3.1.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.3) for the potential impacts on Ecology and Nature Conservation associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 5A. 10.3.2 DLR addition

10.3.2.1 The addition of the DLR would not affect the terrestrial ecology of the area. However the option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The majority of land take would be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted. The increase of marine traffic and construction within the Thames watercourse would have an adverse impact on marine ecology, as would the piling and bridge piers once they are placed in the river. 10.3.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

10.3.3.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.3) for the potential impacts on Ecology and Nature Conservation associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 5A. 10.3.4 Mitigation

10.3.4.1 Please refer to Option 5 (Section 9.3) for mitigation relating to Ecology and Nature Conservation for the high level bridge. With the inclusion of public transport the additional mitigation below will need to be considered.

10.3.4.2 Fixed public transport links create wildlife corridors that would remain relatively undisturbed due to limited access. It might be possible to create corridors on the banks of the river near the portals. This is a biodiversity enhancement opportunity that could be considered at the detailed design stage. 10.3.5 Summary

10.3.5.1 The vacant, industrial nature of the surrounding land means the adverse impacts would not be so pronounced. Mitigation would be needed to reduce the potential impacts within the water environment, predominantly during the construction phase of the bridge. Overall it is predicted that there would be a large/moderate adverse impact on marine ecology, but a slight adverse/neutral impact on terrestrial ecology.

158

10.4 Effects on All Travellers 10.4.1 Highway

10.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers.

10.4.1.2 10.3.1.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.4) for the potential impacts on Effects on Travellers associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 5A. 10.4.2 DLR addition

10.4.2.1 The addition of the DLR is likely to have a significant benefit for travellers within the area. It would provide an efficient link from Thamesmead to the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and central London, creating job prospects for the area. It would have a significant benefit on dependents within the community, creating a viable travel option and supporting the creation of a mixed use town centre hub that is safe and accessible to all users.

10.4.2.2 Public transport may well be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time. Improvements of traffic in the areas surrounding the bridge would benefit both the local community and the travellers.

10.4.2.3 Driver stress may increase during the construction of Option 5A due to the longer construction period needed to add public transport options. In comparison to other options in the same area, construction would be more disruptive as all bridge construction would be done on site. 10.4.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

10.4.3.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.4) for the potential impacts on Effects on all Travellers associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 5A. 10.4.4 Mitigation

10.4.4.1 Please refer to Option 5 (Section 9.4) for mitigation relating to Effects on All Travellers for the high level bridge. 10.4.5 Summary

10.4.5.1 Overall there would be a major beneficial impact on the effects of travellers with the addition of public transport and pedestrian and cycle facilities to Option 5A, but slight adverse impacts would be found during construction.

10.5 Ground Conditions 10.5.1 Highway

10.5.1.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.5) for the potential impacts on Ground Conditions associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 5A.

159 East of Silvertown

10.5.2 DLR addition

10.5.2.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer with moderate adverse impact significance. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the DLR creates the potential for contaminated soils to leach into the water body or enter the river via runoff.

10.5.2.2 There is an increased risk for soil contamination from the bridge structures directly within the watercourse. The bridge foundations have the potential to dig into areas of unknown contaminated land, causing potential leaching and environmental impact. Due to the industrial nature of the surrounding environment, it is likely the construction would include the removal of contaminated land from the area. This would benefit the local environment, but would add to the need for construction traffic as the material would need to be taken to a licensed disposal facility.

10.5.2.3 Due to the larger footprint of the scheme there is a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance. 10.5.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

10.5.3.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.5) for the potential impacts on Ground Conditions associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 5A. 10.5.4 Mitigation

10.5.4.1 Please refer to Option 5 (Section 9.5) for mitigation relating to Ground Conditions for the high level bridge. 10.5.5 Summary

10.5.5.1 The most adverse effects would occur when both the DLR and pedestrian and cyclist path are incorporated into the design.

10.5.5.2 The majority of impacts would be during, or would identified and potentially mitigated against, during the construction period. For the highway-only option the impacts ranged from neutral to moderate adverse, with neutral experienced for demolition and deterioration of buildings and slight adverse in relation to harm to human health from UXO strikes, contaminated soil, hazardous landfill or sediment and leaching and migration of contamination.

Overall the impact on ground conditions would be moderate adverse due to the number of potential adverse impacts from the box girder bridge.

10.6 Materials 10.6.1 Highway

10.6.1.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.6) for the potential impacts of Materials associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 5A.

160

10.6.2 DLR addition

10.6.2.1 The DLR deck would increase the width of the box girder bridge. Such an increase would have scheme and community wide effects with more construction traffic to transport materials to and from the site due to the extra volume of material needed and addition waste arising from the option.

10.6.2.2 A larger footprint would require removal and treatment of a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 5A would be built. 10.6.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

10.6.3.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.6) for the potential impacts on Materials associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 5A. 10.6.4 Mitigation

10.6.4.1 Please refer to Option 5 (Section 9.6) for mitigation relating to Materials for the high level bridge. 10.6.5 Summary

10.6.5.1 . Incorporating the DLR would have the most adverse effect. The effects can be minimalised by using the excavated material for environmental projects within the area, similar to the ongoing works at Wallesea Island.

10.6.5.2 Overall there would be moderate adverse impacts during the construction of the public transport options when considering the volumes of material needed for Option 5A.

10.7 Water Environment 10.7.1 Highway

10.7.1.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.7) for the potential impacts on the Water Environment associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 5A. 10.7.2 DLR addition

10.7.2.1 As with ground conditions, the water environment may be adversely impacted with the addition of the DLR gallery due to increased ground breaking and disturbance within the watercourse from bridge piers and the removal of extra flood defences. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column.

10.7.2.2 As set out in section 10.5 Ground Conditions, removal of contaminated land would have a beneficial impact although the risk to the water environment remains during the construction period. 10.7.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

10.7.3.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.7) for the potential impacts on Water Environment associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 5A.

161 East of Silvertown

10.7.4 Mitigation

10.7.4.1 Please refer to Option 5 (Section 9.7) for mitigation relating to Water Environment for the high level bridge. 10.7.5 Summary

10.7.5.1 If both public transport options were included it would see the most detrimental effect on the surrounding water environment. There would be an increase in river traffic when building both public transport options, increasing the risk of polluting the watercourse. Overall there would be a slight adverse impact on the water environment with the addition of public transport due to the likelihood of spills and contamination from construction activities within the watercourse for the box girder bridge.

10.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 10.8.1 Highway

10.8.1.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.8) for the potential impacts on Townscape and Visual Impact associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 5A. 10.8.2 DLR addition

10.8.2.1 The addition of the DLR would have a slight adverse townscape and visual impact. Though no adverse impacts are predicted with the construction of the cable stayed bridge, there would be additional and prolonged disturbance to the area during the construction phase. Once operational there would be a neutral/ slight beneficial impact on the surrounding townscape and visual intrusion. 10.8.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

10.8.3.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.8) for the potential impacts on Townscape and Visual associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 5A. 10.8.4 Mitigation

10.8.4.1 Please refer to Option 5 (Section 9.8) for mitigation relating to Townscape and Visual for the high level bridge. 10.8.5 Summary

10.8.5.1 Overall the bridge would have a moderate beneficial impact on townscape and visual at Gallions Reach and into the surrounding Metropolitan Open Land adjacent to the water on the south bank. With effective design in a predominantly industrial area the bridge could have a minimal impact, and would be beneficial to area once operational.

162

10.9 Energy 10.9.1 Highway

10.9.1.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.9) for the potential impacts on Energy associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 5A. 10.9.2 DLR addition

10.9.2.1 The addition of the DLR would greatly increase the energy needed - both in terms of the energy consumption on site and embodied carbon of the materials used- during construction and operation of the box girder bridge. Construction impacts would include the extra construction traffic, dredging and the energy needed for works to be undertaken within the watercourse for bridge piers. During operation there will need to be constant use of energy for signalling, lighting and trains running across the bridge. The energy needed for this DLR tunnel during operation is likely to be greater than that needed for the private motorised highway 10.9.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

10.9.3.1 Please refer to Option 5 (section 9.9) for the potential impacts on Energy associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 5A. 10.9.4 Mitigation

10.9.4.1 Please refer to Option 5 (Section 9.9) for mitigation relating to Energy for the high level bridge. 10.9.5 Summary

10.9.5.1 Overall there would be a moderate adverse impact on energy for the box girder bridge. There would be a notable increase in the amount of energy needed but with successful mitigation as discussed above, the impact could be reduced to slight adverse/neutral.

163 East of Silvertown

10.9.5.3

OPTION 20: BELVEDERE IMMERSED TUNNEL

164

11 OPTION 20: BELVEDERE IMMERSED TUNNEL

11.1 Community and Private Assets 11.1.1 Highway

11.1.1.1 Due to the shallower nature of the tunnel, the cut-and-cover tunnels and approach ramps are relatively short. The worksite required would also be smaller, requiring less land for construction. The permanent land-take and during construction is fairly minimal due to the width of the cut and cover tunnel sections.

11.1.1.2 An off-site casting basin is proposed as it would reduce the land-take required on the local site.

11.1.1.3 The option would have the following impacts:

North bank:  The south-east corner of the Ford Motors car compound (to the west of Courier Road) would be required for permanent works  Possible demolition of one of the wind turbines on the Ford Motors Estate

South bank:  A section of the Burt’s Wharf industrial estate - larger site during construction and a smaller site for permanent works  Demolition of Infinity House on Anderson Way currently occupied by Jablite

11.1.1.4 No community facilities or residential properties are within the areas of temporary or permanent land take. However, demolition of industrial buildings on the south side of the river would be required at Belvedere if Option 20 is taken forward.

11.1.1.5 The option would improve the connectivity between the residents/commuters on both sides of the river, whilst improving links to community facilities. 11.1.2 Mitigation

11.1.2.1 Compensation measures, either financial or relocation, are likely to be required for the demolition of buildings and/or private assets on both sides of the River Thames. 11.1.3 Summary

11.1.3.1 Overall there would be a slight adverse impact on community and private assets from this option.

165 East of Silvertown

11.2 Cultural Heritage 11.2.1 Highway

11.2.1.1 There is a high potential for archaeological remains dating from the prehistoric period until the post-medieval period to be located on the northern and southern banks of the Thames in the study areas. It is more than likely the option would involve some risk of disturbance of archaeological remains. Excavations on the northern and southern sides of the river have the potential to impact locally or regionally significant archaeological remains located within sub-surface deposits, particularly within the peat identified on the southern side of the river. This could potentially lead to a slight or moderate adverse effect on the surrounding cultural heritage. Areas of land would need to be acquired for temporary construction work sites and there may be additional associated impacts with these temporary works. The immersed tunnel would require a channel to be dredged in the River Thames. This is likely to remove any archaeological resources located within the Archaeological Priority Area designated by the London Borough of Havering which extends to the centre of the River Thames. 11.2.2 Mitigation

11.2.2.1 Further archaeological investigations would be required to assess the potential impact the option will have on archaeological resources prior to the commencement of construction. This would allow the formulation of any required mitigation measures such as archaeological excavation in advance of construction works and the maintenance of archaeological watching briefs during construction works. 11.2.3 Summary

11.2.3.1 Overall it is considered there would be a slight adverse impact upon cultural heritage.

11.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation

11.3.1.1 The impact assessment has been based on guidance set out in the Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment (September 2010). 11.3.2 Highway

Designated Sites

11.3.2.1 No direct impacts on Lee Valley SPA are likely as a result of these options. However, potential temporary disturbance and displacement of roosting and foraging birds in the winter months (October – March) during the construction and operational phases of the options. There could be a loss of small areas of intertidal habitat (used by foraging and roosting birds during the winter months) during the construction and operational phases of the immersed tube option. The immersed tube tunnel may not affect intertidal habitats dependant on the locations of the entrance holes. Given the amount of other suitable foraging and roosting opportunities in the vicinity of the option, it is unlikely that the small loss of intertidal habitat in this area would have a

166

significant impact on the wintering waders and waterfowl associated with the site in the vicinity of the options. The same is true for the River Thames Tidal Tributaries SMI, though there is potential for impacts on fish species including eel, bass and flounder (for which the site is designated) during the installation of the immersed tube tunnel.

11.3.2.2 No direct or indirect impacts are anticipated as a result of this option within the following designated sites:  Abbey Wood SSSI  Ingrebourne Marshes SSSI/Ingrebourne Valley LNR  Inner Thames Marshes SSSI/Rainham Marshes LNR  Beam Valley LNR  Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI  Dagenham Breach and the lower Beam River SBI  Ingrebourne Valley SMI  Mudlands SBI  Riverside Sewage Treatment Works SBI  Crossness LNR  Erith Marshes SMI

11.3.2.3 Belvedere Dykes SBI would experience both direct and indirect impacts on a number of ditches associated with the SBI with the potential direct loss of one or more of the ditches within the network, which may impact on water voles.

Habitats

11.3.2.4 The option would lead to the loss of areas of intertidal habitat, bare ground, scrub, and a ditch (part of Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI) on the northern side of the river.

11.3.2.5 The option would lead to the loss of areas of intertidal habitat, bare ground, scrub and potentially part of a ditch network (part of Belvedere Dykes SBI) on the southern side of the river.

Species

11.3.2.6 No impacts on habitats suitable for terrestrial invertebrates are anticipated as a result of these options. Habitats considered potentially important for aquatic invertebrates may be affected or lost as a result of these options, including part of the ditch network associated with Belvedere Dykes SBI, and a ditch which forms part of Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI.

11.3.2.7 Great crested newts could be present in ponded sections of the ditches both north and south of the River Thames, if they support freshwater. In particular, those associated with the Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI and the ditch network which forms Belvedere Dykes SBI.

167 East of Silvertown

11.3.2.8 Three species of reptile (including grass snake, common lizard and slow- worm) are known to be present within 2km of the option. Areas of habitat potentially suitable for reptiles, including areas of bare ground and scrub, and the edges of the ditches would be lost as a result of the options.

11.3.2.9 Areas of habitat suitable for nesting and foraging birds, during the breeding season, including scrub and the edges of the watercourse and ditch network would be lost a result of these options. This includes habitats suitable for black redstart.

11.3.2.10 A number of trees and buildings with the potential to support roosting bats may be present within the route of these options. In addition, there is the potential for fragmentation of commuting routes and foraging habitat for bats as a result of the options.

11.3.2.11 Water voles are known to be present on both the north and south side of the river. Areas of habitat potentially suitable for water voles, including the Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI and part of the ditch network with forms Belvedere Dykes SBI would be lost as a result of the options.

11.3.2.12 There is the potential for the loss of badger setts, although unlikely given the nature of the terrestrial habitats.

11.3.2.13 There is potential for mortality to, or disturbance of protected marine species during the installation of the immersed tube tunnel.

11.3.2.14 A review of detailed alignments and footprints will be necessary to see if direct impact on protected marine species can be avoided. Design measures and construction techniques would also need to be considered to minimise disturbance to surrounding protected species colonies and avoid changes in river flows that would indirectly affect them. 11.3.3 Mitigation

11.3.3.1 Where possible, construction works should be carried out within and adjacent to the estuary outside of the winter period to minimise disturbance/ displacement of foraging and wintering birds and adjacent to the estuary outside of the winter period to minimise disturbance/displacement of foraging and wintering birds.

11.3.3.2 A mitigation strategy involving translocation and/or provision of compensatory habitat will need to be considered to compensate for habitat loss.

11.3.3.3 Where possible, ensure adequate measures are put in place to avoid adverse hydrological effects on retained ditches during the construction and operational phases of the option.

11.3.3.4 Further investigation and surveys would need to be undertaken to confirm the presence/absence of important spawning/nursery grounds for bass and flounder in the vicinity of the option and the presence/absence of great crested newts, black redstart, bat, badgers, water voles and protected marine species. Should great crested newts be found within 500m of the footprint of these options, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be put in place (in consultation with Natural England).

168

11.3.3.5 An appropriate mitigation strategy would be put in place (in consultation with the Local Planning Authority) should reptiles be found within the footprint of the option. Further surveys would be required to confirm this. 11.3.4 Summary

11.3.4.1 Overall the option would have a slight adverse/neutral impact on the surrounding terrestrial ecology, and a major/moderate adverse impact on marine ecology.

11.4 Effects on All Travellers 11.4.1 Highway

11.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers. Views from the road cannot be assessed for the proposed alignment due to the lack of road prior to construction.

11.4.1.2 During construction no pedestrian or cycle routes are likely to be affected on the north bank of the river. National Cycle Network Route 1 and footways are likely to be affected during construction on the south side of the river. However, due to the predominantly industrial area and relatively high percentage of residents using private cars as their main mode of transport, it is anticipated that the number of potential receptors affected during construction is negligible.

11.4.1.3 Driver stress may be increased due to construction traffic and related activities because of diversions, longer journey times and an increase of construction traffic on local roads. Once operational driver stress is predicted to fall. This is compared with the Reference Case scenario, due to increased connectivity and a reduction in journey time for journeys between the north and south banks of the River Thames. Although potential accidents and the lack of view for extended periods of time may affect some road users, overall it is predicted there would be a beneficial impact.

11.4.1.4 There would be a beneficial effect on community severance compared with the existing situation. Once operational the extended journey times and severance of communities and facilities north and south of the river would be removed, resulting in a beneficial impact for all travellers. The addition of bus services to the shared highway space would also increase connectivity between communities north and south of the river.

11.4.1.5 There is the potential for increased or decreased traffic flows on the approach roads to affect non-motorised traffic in relation to safe at-grade road crossings in the area. The increase and decrease of traffic flows on approach roads is yet to be quantified in detail, therefore this does not form part of this report. The Traffic Impact Report (East of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report) will have a high level overview of the approach roads that would be affected.

169 East of Silvertown

11.4.2 Mitigation

11.4.2.1 Provide a safe and clear diversion for pedestrians and cyclists during construction in consultation with relevant authorities, together with appropriate signage.

11.4.2.2 The towing, immersing and backfilling of the immersed tube tunnel elements to the River Thames would need to be agreed in conjunction with the PLA as well as dredging works that would be required.

11.4.2.3 A detailed Transport Assessment would be required for the proposals. There is potential for either the road or water network to be used for transportation of materials and wastes to and from the construction site. If water transport is used it could maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion. It could also reduce driver stress and a fear of accidents for motorists and non- motorised users, as fewer heavy construction vehicles would be travelling on the road network.

11.4.2.4 Provide alternative pedestrian linkages with signage to community facilities. 11.4.3 Summary

11.4.3.1 Overall the option is considered to have a slight beneficial effect on travellers.

11.5 Ground Conditions 11.5.1 Highway

11.5.1.1 Areas of contaminated soils are likely to be encountered along the route alignment on the north and south banks, passing through car compounds and other industry to the north, and industrial activity to the south. Arisings from onshore piling and drilling work, and sediment dredging, may pose a risk to human health especially if allowed to become airborne as dust. Contamination may include metals, hydrocarbons or asbestos. The potential for direct contact or inhalation of contaminated soil to members of the public are site workers may exist if soil cover is not maintained or dust is allowed to blow off site. There is also a risk to construction workers whilst developing the site at Option 20. Historic landfills are located on the northern bank of the River Thames. The proposed route would directly traverse these historic landfills.

11.5.1.2 Made Ground, historic landfill sites and river sediment in the vicinity of the crossing are all likely to have elevated levels of heavy metals and other contaminants. The construction of the cut-and-cover sections and associated construction activities on the north and south banks would cause ground disturbance with the potential for contaminated soils to enter the river as particulates or dissolved contamination to leach into water. Should piling be required for the open access ramp foundations either side of the tunnel, a potential pathway may be created for leaching of contaminated soils to the underlying lower aquifer.

11.5.1.3 Similarly, the dredging of the trench in the river bed along the line of the tunnel would cause disturbance of potentially contaminated base sediment and

170

create a contamination pathway to the underlying lower aquifer. If the casting basin is formed in the vicinity of the site the potential for contaminated soil, alluvial material or Made Ground entering the watercourse is high without appropriate mitigation measures. All surplus spoil would be disposed to licensed landfills. The historic landfills surrounding the site are likely to be a major sources of ground gas and any intrusive works in the vicinity of the landfill may potentially be impacted.

11.5.1.4 Dredging the channel in the river bed and any piling work in the channel or at the river bank has the potential to create a pathway for mitigation via contaminated perched groundwater to the lower aquifer. It is also likely to lead to saline intrusion by penetrating the Alluvium deposits and London Clay separating the Lambeth Group and the surface waters. Other on-shore deep excavations, if required, would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer. The disturbed sediment could migrate and impact down river. Dewatering works are likely to be required in the alluvium/head deposits and the shallow groundwater may be contaminated. Contamination could migrate horizontally and vertically along newly created preferential pathways such as drainage runs, piles and site investigation boreholes.

11.5.1.5 Temporary piling is expected to be necessary at the river banks to enable excavation and tunnel connection which would create a potential contamination pathway if it penetrates the superficial deposits and London Clay. The tunnel design requires deep excavations and therefore the risk from UXO in these locations is high. In addition, the potential remains of unrecorded bomb strikes in the channel close to the river banks must be taken into account.

11.5.1.6 The organic material in the Alluvium deposits as well as areas of organic contamination present a potential source of ground gas. Gas may build up in excavations for the cut-and-cover ramps and may also build up in the tunnel itself or in any granular fill materials around it. These may act as a gas migration pathway. 11.5.2 Mitigation

11.5.2.1 Potential risks to construction workers can be mitigated by adoption of appropriate health and safety practices outlined in the Code of Construction Practice. These include the completion of a Health & Safety Risk Assessment by the engaged Contractor, implementation of the appropriate training for all site workers and provision of suitable PPE, RPE and welfare facilities. Works should be conducted in accordance with the Health and Safety Executive publication entitled “Protection of Workers and the General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land”, 1991.

11.5.2.2 Contaminated soils should be identified and measures taken to avoid migration off site as dust by the use of damping down during construction and clean cover post construction.

11.5.2.3 An investigation into the type and characteristics of the landfilled waste is recommended if the casting basin is likely to be located in or near to the landfill. A mitigation strategy would be required so risks to construction workers and other human receptors are mitigated.

171 East of Silvertown

11.5.2.4 A piling risk assessment should be carried out in advance of any piling works in the channel or on the north or south banks to assess the potential risk to groundwater resources from contaminated soils or sediment.

11.5.2.5 Detailed method statements should be prepared to include measures to avoid releases of contaminants to the river, and aquifer protection measures depending on the outcome of the piling risk assessment.

11.5.2.6 Arisings from piling works and construction of access roads and cut-and- cover ramps should be managed to ensure that any surface runoff is collected and prevented from impacting a Controlled Water receptor. Surface water should be prevented from entering excavations, where possible.

11.5.2.7 A detailed risk assessment should be carried out in advance of any dredging or piling works in the channel or on the north or south banks to assess the potential risk to groundwater resources from river sediments or contaminated surface water or perched groundwater.

11.5.2.8 Detailed method statements should be prepared to include methods to avoid releases of contaminated perched groundwater to the river, and also aquifer protection measures depending on the outcome of the detailed risk assessments.

11.5.2.9 If dewatering of excavations is required, treatment of contaminated water may be required before discharge. A discharge consent would be required.

11.5.2.10 A capping layer of clay or a synthetic membrane should be installed after the installation of the tunnel sections to prevent long-term saline intrusion into the lower aquifer.

11.5.2.11 A ground gas investigation is recommended as part of a future site investigation focusing on the final route. This should focus in particular on the area around the landfills.

11.5.2.12 Gas alarms are considered necessary if construction workers enter excavations within the landfills, Alluvium or contaminated Made Ground and during piling or drilling works in these areas.

11.5.2.13 Gas protection measures may be required within the tunnel.

11.5.2.14 A detailed UXO mitigation strategy to be prepared utilising all existing information and including provision for specialist banksmen and awareness briefings. Intrusive UXO clearance in excavation locations (magnetometer surveys) should be carried out.

11.5.2.15 Intrusive ground investigation and laboratory testing for aggressive chemical conditions and corrosive gases should be undertaken. A specification of resistant materials should be included in the final design. 11.5.3 Summary

11.5.3.1 Overall there would be a moderate adverse impact on ground conditions from this twin compartment immersed tube tunnel.

172

11.6 Materials 11.6.1 Highway

11.6.1.1 Excavated material from tunnelling activity, the construction of portals and general construction work waste will be produced during the construction period. The volumes of waste arising from construction would depend on how Option 20 is managed and the implementation of a Site Waste Management Plan. It is suggested that a pre-demolition audit should carried out prior to demolition to identify key waste materials and support the beneficial re-use and recycling of these materials.

11.6.1.2 Waste figures were estimated using preliminary Bill of Quantities in the first instance and engineering options study reports, drawings and calculations extrapolated from similar structures where BOQs were not available.

11.6.1.3 The waste figures include excavated wastes, as we cannot provide assurance that this material could be or would definitely be reused at this stage.

11.6.1.4 Current approximate predictions of the total key materials forecast and key waste forecast for Option 20 are listed below.

Key materials forecast to be used:  Concrete: 13,952 tonnes  Soils and stone: 81,790 tonnes  Total key materials forecast: 95,743 tonnes

Key waste materials forecast and likely waste destination:  Concrete: (Recycled off-site): 558 tonnes  Soils and stone: (Re-used off-site): 482,545 tonnes  Total key wastes forecast: 483,103 tonnes

11.6.1.5 It is predicted there would be a moderate adverse impact with regards to materials at Option 20. It is suggested that a pre-demolition audit is carried out prior to demolition to identify key waste materials and support the beneficial re-use and recycling of these materials. A large amount of material would arise from the dredging activities and the land- based operations needed for an immersed tube tunnel. 11.6.2 Mitigation

11.6.2.1 Optimise construction programme to reduce double handling of materials (with associated emissions).

11.6.2.2 With appropriate planning, the majority of key wastes would have the potential to be re-used or recycled off-site, minimising the need for any waste arisings to be sent to landfill.

11.6.2.3 It is noted that this option would require the demolition of various existing structures. It is suggested that a pre-demolition audit is carried out prior to demolition

173 East of Silvertown to identify key waste materials and support the beneficial re-use and recycling of these materials.

11.6.2.4 Transportation of wastes to and from the construction site can maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion. 11.6.3 Summary

11.6.3.1 The impact would arise from earthworks excavations of the casting basin and excavation of the open cut and cover passages at the entrance and exits from the tunnel. Waste material would also arise from the dredged channel in which the immersed tunnel would be constructed within the River Thames. For an immersed tunnel there are large volumes of material arising and large volumes required for backfilling.

11.6.3.2 The spoil disposal quantity is larger for an immersed tube tunnel. The dredged cohesive material would not be suitable for re-use as backfill to the tunnel elements and would need to be disposed of. Terrace gravels may be re-usable but the volumes are small and the cost of storage on site and re-handling to place the material as backfill may be prohibitive. It is therefore unlikely these materials would be re-used.

11.6.3.3 Overall, it is expected there would be a moderate adverse impact on materials from Option 20.Overall there would be a moderate adverse effect on materials from this option.

11.7 Water Environment 11.7.1 Highway

11.7.1.1 The construction phase dredging of the Thames and temporary piling at the rivers banks would result in the mobilisation of contaminant in the river bed sediments and the release into the water column. Ground breaking works to construct the tunnel entrances would disturb contaminated soils, producing contaminated runoff with the risk of polluting the Thames, any underlying aquifers and other nearby waterbodies. The general construction phase at site creates a pollution risk through associated accidental spills (fuels/oils), the use of concrete, earthworks and the management of the large volumes of material arising.

11.7.1.2 The operational phase water quality risks arise with the disposal of tunnel drainage. Construction phase dewatering to excavate the cut and cover approach tunnels and create the casting basin also carries a risk of pollution. Piling into the chalk aquifer increases the risk of saline intrusion.

11.7.1.3 There would be a temporary increase in third party flood risk due to the construction phase removal of parts of the existing Thames river wall flood defence. Tunnel approaches to the south side lie within Flood Zone 3 and are at risk of flooding during a defence failure/breach event.

11.7.1.4 The diversion of an unnamed watercourse that drains the small catchment between the Beam and Ingrebourne Rivers would be required to facilitate the works.

174

11.7.1.5 This option would generate a large quantity of excavated material that would require disposal off-site and potentially on-site treatment prior to disposal, increasing the pollution risk. 11.7.2 Mitigation

11.7.2.1 Silt curtains should be used to limit mobilisation of sedimentation.

11.7.2.2 Environmental management protocols should be implemented. Remedial works, guided by results of further site investigations and risk assessments should be undertaken, for example, for onsite treatment of contaminated soils, cover systems and removal of contaminated materials.

11.7.2.3 Incorporate adequate spillage containment and treatment of highway runoff prior to discharge to the water environment within the drainage design.

11.7.2.4 Construction works and waste management should be undertaken in accordance with EA best practice pollution prevention guidelines.

11.7.2.5 Limit the potential for creation of pollution pathways through the use of selectively placed cohesive backfill material or by use of ground membranes.

11.7.2.6 Flood defences should provide a high standard of protection. Management of residual risk should be undertaken through emergency planning.

11.7.2.7 Detailed hydraulic assessments to inform design of scour protection measures. 11.7.3 Summary

11.7.3.1 Overall it is assumed that the impact on the River Thames, superficial aquifers and the small tributary of the Thames would be moderate adverse, with slight adverse effect on the bedrock aquifer.

11.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 11.8.1 Highway

11.8.1.1 Given the surrounding landscape and that the majority of the immersed tube tunnel option would be below the ground, it is not anticipated to have any major landscape impacts outside the areas of the portals. Visual disruption could occur from infrastructure that conflicts with regional level policy for the protection and enhancement of townscape and views, namely the Blue Ribbon Network/Thames Policy Areas. However, given the industrial nature of the options surroundings potential impacts are unlikely to exceed thresholds of slightly adverse. The portal design should try and complement or potentially enhance local townscape and views. 11.8.2 Mitigation

11.8.2.1 The design should be able to complement/potentially enhance local townscape and views.

175 East of Silvertown

11.8.3 Summary

11.8.3.1 Overall it is assumed that impact on townscape and visual would be neutral.

11.9 Energy 11.9.1 Highway

11.9.1.1 The embodied energy analysis in this Options Study Report is qualitative, based upon the principle construction materials of the options and construction approach in relation to other options (comparatively). The change in energy use from vehicles using the crossing is not included within this assessment.

11.9.1.2 The adopted methodology for related and unrelated energy is mainly based upon relevant national and local policies and more specifically upon the policies included in the London Plan 2011.

11.9.1.3 The implementation of the immersed tube tunnel would involve a large amount of energy during construction to create both a safe and efficient working environment whilst under construction. Once operational there would also be energy demands to create a safe and efficient environment for road users.

11.9.1.4 The immersed tube tunnel option would generate a large quantity of excavated material that would require disposal off-site (other than rock armour). Excavated Made Ground material may contain significant levels of contaminant that requires on-site treatment prior to disposal or is disposed off-site to a special landfill with associated additional treatment of contaminated soils. That may result in an increase of the overall embodied emissions.

11.9.1.5 Operationally in addition to surveillance and traffic control systems the immersed tunnel option would require energy for running the ventilation systems and the constant use of artificial lighting; therefore these options would have an extensive energy demand during operation. Careful design of the option will help reduce the likely energy demands and associated carbon emissions. Energy use in any ancillary buildings would also result in carbon emissions. The tunnel requires ventilation systems which absorb significant energy during operation. 11.9.2 Mitigation

11.9.2.1 Mitigation during construction would comprise:  This option requires pre-construction works i.e., the remediation of contaminated land and potential treatment of landfill which would add into the other construction energy demands. Minimising preconstruction works would help to reduce energy used.  Sizing plant and machinery to minimise use and no idling policy to reduce carbon emissions  Develop a construction stage travel plan to minimise transport movements  Construct as much as possible offsite and utilise the pre-fabricated materials

176

 Where possible re-use the demolished or existing construction material to minimise the embodied carbon and energy  Use of Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) in concrete mixes where appropriate  Pre-fabricated materials should be used during construction  Local sourcing of construction material where possible  Sustainable sourcing of construction material, i.e. materials which have chain of custody and environmental procurement certificates such as BRE Green Book  Utilise low energy/ energy efficient construction machinery where appropriate to minimise the energy and CO2 emissions during construction

11.9.2.2 It is reported that a large portion of the dredge material would not be able to be reused (the alluvium and chalk strata are not anticipated to be reused but the terrace gravel may be). See section 13.6 for more details on the potential reuse of materials.

11.9.2.3 Mitigation during operation would comprise:  Energy efficient low energy lighting should be proposed for the tunnel to mitigate the high energy demand.  The development of an energy efficient ventilation system for tunnels should consider the fan efficiency (the proportion of electrical power that is used to accelerate a mass of air via an axial thrust) and installation efficiency (the proportion of the fan thrust that is actually delivered the tunnel air rather than wasted via friction with the tunnel walls and soffit) to minimise the ventilation energy and associated CO2 emissions.  Consider varying planned user charges for the new links according to vehicle emissions. For example, the standards being considered for the potential Ultra Low Emission Zone in central London could be used to vary the charge level for vehicles using the new link. Any increase in traffic in the areas of the new crossing would therefore be encouraged to be as clean as possible.  Higher energy demand during the operational phase would be mitigated to an extent by modal shift from private vehicle use to public transport. At this stage of the design process it is not possible to quantify this change in energy consumption or the time period required to fully mitigate the additional energy consumption associated with constructing the larger structure.

11.9.2.4 The above approaches can help to minimise the overall construction embodied energy demands. In addition, energy saving techniques, such as insulating site offices and installing thermostat heating controls and timers, should be adopted during construction to minimise the carbon footprint of construction.

11.9.2.5 To meet the London Plan requirements and to achieve the energy efficient design, Renewable Energy technology also needs to be considered, such as solar panels. The street lighting should also be energy efficient low energy lighting and

177 East of Silvertown where possible solar driven lighting should be proposed. The utilisation of automatic sensors and timers should also reduce the overall energy demand of the preferred option.

11.9.2.6 The likely energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions should be estimated at the design stage and further advice would be provided with regards to the mitigation of energy demand and carbon emissions. 11.9.3 Summary

11.9.3.1 Overall it is predicted there would be a moderate adverse impact for Option 20 regarding energy.

178

OPTION 20A: BELVEDERE IMMERSED TUNNEL WITH FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION

179 East of Silvertown

12 OPTION 20A: BELVEDERE IMMERSED TUNNEL (FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT)

12.1 Community and Private Assets 12.1.1 Highway

12.1.1.1 Please refer to Option 20 (section 12.1) for the potential impacts on Community and Private Assets associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 20A. 12.1.2 DLR addition

12.1.2.1 The addition of the DLR would benefit the area as it would offer an alternative fixed public transport crossing to residents and access to community and private assets both north and south of the river. The addition of the DLR would be a catalyst to attract further investment in the area. Travel out of the borough for work could increase private wealth and assets, and could attract new residents to the area.

12.1.2.2 The addition of DLR would increase noise, vibration and dust within the surrounding community during construction. It is not envisaged that there would be a highly adverse impact on the community and private assets in the area due to the industrial nature of the surroundings. 12.1.3 .Pedestrian and Cycle paths

12.1.3.1 Pedestrian and cycle paths could improve private assets by creating new communities with an enhanced walking and cycling provision. Active travel options make the area more attractive to a wider range of potential residents. 12.1.4 Mitigation

12.1.4.1 Please refer to Option 20 (Section 12.1) for mitigation relating to Community and Private Assets for the immersed tube tunnel. Compensation measures, either financial or relocation, are likely to be required for the demolition of buildings and/or private assets on both sides of the River Thames. 12.1.5 Summary

12.1.5.1 The alignment of this option does not indicate that any demolition of residential or important community features would take place. It is considered that once operational the overall environmental risks will be minimal. There is a slight adverse impact on community and private assets from this option.

12.2 Cultural Heritage 12.2.1 Highway

12.2.1.1 Please refer to Option 20 (section 12.2) for the potential impacts on Cultural Heritage associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 20A.

180

12.2.2 DLR addition

12.2.2.1 The larger footprint that would be associated with the addition of the DLR may increase the risk of discovering archaeological remains. The portal would have the largest potential impact upon cultural heritage, and would nearly double in size with the addition of the DLR. 12.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

12.2.3.1 The larger footprint that would be associated with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths may cause an adverse impact due to the increased risk of discovering archaeological remains. These non-motorised galleries would have a smaller impact than the addition of the DLR. 12.2.4 Mitigation

12.2.4.1 Please refer to Option 20 (Section 12.2) for mitigation relating to Cultural Heritage for the immersed tube tunnel. 12.2.5 Summary

12.2.5.1 Overall the addition of public transport would have a slight adverse impact on cultural heritage.

12.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation 12.3.1 Highway

12.3.1.1 Please refer to Option 20 (section 12.3) for the potential impacts on Ecology and Nature Conservation associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 20A. 12.3.2 DLR addition

12.3.2.1 The addition of the DLR would not adversely affect the terrestrial ecology of the area any more than without public transport. However the option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The land take for cut-and-cover portals would have a slight adverse impact. The majority of land take would be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long-term adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted. 12.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

12.3.3.1 The addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths would not affect the terrestrial ecology of the area any more than without public transport. However the option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The majority of land take would be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long- term adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted.

12.3.3.2 The area surrounding Option 20A at Belvedere comprises of vacant plants of undeveloped land or hardstanding areas used for storage, so the addition of public transport options is unlikely to have a significantly adverse impact during

181 East of Silvertown construction. It is also anticipated to have a neutral impact during operation. The land take would not all be at local level meaning ecologically this option is preferable to bored tunnels. 12.3.4 Mitigation

12.3.4.1 Please refer to Option 20 (Section 12.3) for mitigation relating to Ecology and Nature Conservation for the immersed tube tunnel. With the inclusion of public transport the additional mitigation below will need to be considered.

12.3.4.2 Fixed public transport links create wildlife corridors that would remain relatively undisturbed due to limited access. It might be possible to create corridors on the banks of the river near the portals. This is a biodiversity enhancement opportunity that could be considered at the detailed design stage. 12.3.5 Summary

12.3.5.1 Overall the option would have a slight adverse/neutral impact on the surrounding terrestrial ecology, and a major/moderate adverse effect on marine ecology.

12.4 Effects on All Travellers

12.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers. 12.4.2 Highway

12.4.2.1 Please refer to Option 20 (section 12.4) for the potential impacts on Effects on All Travellers associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 20A. 12.4.3 DLR addition

12.4.3.1 The addition of the DLR is likely to have a significant benefit for travellers within the area. It would provide an efficient link from Thamesmead to the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and central London, creating job prospects for the area. It would have a significant benefit on dependents within the community, creating a viable travel option and supporting the creation of a mixed use town centre hub that is safe and accessible to all users.

12.4.3.2 Public transport could be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time. Potential improvement of traffic in the areas surrounding the tunnel would benefit both the local community and the travellers.

12.4.3.3 Driver stress may increase during the construction of Option 20A due to the longer construction period needed to include public transport options. 12.4.4 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

12.4.4.1 A beneficial effect would be felt by non-motorised users with any crossing that includes the pedestrian-cycle provision. Previous suitable crossings at Woolwich

182

will remain in place but there would be a significant reduction in journey time for locals using the Belvedere crossing.

12.4.4.2 Cyclists and pedestrians within the community would now have a convenient route across the river, linking to the National Cycle Route 1 to the south. As with the DLR, pedestrian and cycle paths could be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time for journeys within the community. Improvements of traffic in the areas surrounding the tunnel would benefit both the local community and the travellers.

12.4.4.3 Driver stress may increase during the construction of Option 20A due to the longer construction period needed to add the fixed public transport options. However it is predicted that once operational driver stress will decrease. 12.4.5 Mitigation

12.4.5.1 Please refer to Option 20 (Section 12.4) for mitigation relating to Effect on All Travellers for the immersed tube tunnel. 12.4.6 Summary

12.4.6.1 The multi-modal transport solution provided by Option 20A (comprising highway, fixed public transport and pedestrian and cycle provision) would have a beneficial impact for all travellers using the immersed tube tunnel. From a driver stress perspective, highways users would benefit from multi modal transport due to the potential reduction in traffic flows within the highways tunnel. Public transport users would benefit from having a more reliable mode of transport with the fixed public transport provision, compared with a bus network using the shared highway space.

12.4.6.2 Overall there would be a major beneficial impact on the effects of all travellers with the addition of fixed public transport and pedestrian and cycle facilities to Option 20A.

12.5 Ground Conditions 12.5.1 Highway

12.5.1.1 Please refer to Option 20 (section 12.5) for the potential impacts on Ground Conditions associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 20A. 12.5.2 DLR addition

12.5.2.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer with moderate adverse impact significance. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths creates the potential for contaminated soils to leech into the water body or enter the river via runoff. Due to the industrial nature of the surrounding environment, it is likely the construction would include the removal of contaminated land from the area. This would benefit the local environment, but would add to the need for construction traffic as the material would need to be taken to a licensed disposal facility.

183 East of Silvertown

12.5.2.2 If the casting basin for the DLR tunnel occurs on site there is an increased risk for soil contamination. The proximity of contaminated land to the site and the volume of construction traffic increases the risk of contamination.

12.5.2.3 Due to the larger footprint of the scheme there would be a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance. 12.5.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

12.5.3.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer with moderate adverse impact significance. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths creates the potential for contaminated soils to leach into the water body or enter the river via runoff.

12.5.3.2 If the casting basin for the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel occurs on site there is an increased risk for soil contamination.

12.5.3.3 Due to the larger footprint of the scheme there would be a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance. 12.5.4 Mitigation

12.5.4.1 Please refer to Option 20 (Section 12.5) for mitigation relating to Ground Conditions for the immersed tube tunnel. 12.5.5 Summary

12.5.5.1 The majority of impacts will be during or will identified and potentially mitigated against during the construction period. as for the highway-only option the impacts ranged from neutral to moderate adverse, with neutral experienced for demolition and deterioration of buildings, slight adverse in relation to harm to human health from UXO strikes, contaminated soil, hazardous landfill or sediment. A moderate adverse impact is seen for the migration and build-up of Ground gas and leaching and migration of contamination to controlled waters. Overall the impact on ground conditions would be moderate adverse.

12.6 Materials 12.6.1 Highway

12.6.1.1 Please refer to Option 20 (section 12.6) for the potential impacts of Materials associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 20A. 12.6.2 DLR addition

12.6.2.1 Predictions for the total key materials and waste are unavailable for public transport options at the time of writing.

12.6.2.2 The DLR option would require approximately 11.5 metres of additional tunnel width, which is approximately 29% larger than the highway-only option. This is anticipated to require approximately 29% of additional material therefore, there would be a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside

184

the volume of material needed to construct the DLR tunnel and excavated material from the bed of the River Thames. Such an increase would have scheme and community wide effects with more construction traffic to transport materials to and from the site. Though much of the additional work would be undertaken off-site, a greater volume of material and excavation would take place.

12.6.2.3 A larger footprint would remove and treat a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 20A would be built. 12.6.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

12.6.3.1 There would be approximately 4.5 metres additional width of tunnel with the pedestrian and cycle provision, which is approximately 11% larger than the highway- only option. This is anticipated to require approximately 11% of additional material for the pedestrian therefore there would be a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the DLR tunnel.

12.6.3.2 A larger footprint would remove and treat a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 20A would be built. 12.6.4 Mitigation

12.6.4.1 Please refer to Option 20 (Section 12.6) for mitigation relating to Materials for the immersed tube tunnel. 12.6.5 Summary

12.6.5.1 Incorporating both the DLR and the pedestrian and cycle paths would have the most adverse effect on the materials associated with Option 20A, compared with only one or other of these elements being included. This is due to the increase in materials used, excavated materials and the waste created from the scheme. Appropriate planning would be key to minimise the impact of materials.

12.6.5.2 Overall there would be a moderate adverse impacts during the construction of the public transport options when considering the volumes of material needed for Option 20A.

12.7 Water Environment 12.7.1 Highway

12.7.1.1 Please refer to Option 20 (section 12.7) for the potential impacts on the Water Environment associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 20A. 12.7.2 DLR addition

12.7.2.1 As with ground conditions, the water environment may be adversely impacted with the addition of the DLR tunnel due to increased ground breaking for the cut-and-cover sections and the removal of extra flood defences. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column.

185 East of Silvertown

12.7.2.2 As set out in section 13.5 Ground Conditions, removal of contaminated land would have a beneficial impact although the risk to the water environment remains during the construction period. 12.7.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

12.7.3.1 As with ground conditions, the water environment may be adversely impacted with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel due to increased ground breaking for the cut-and-cover sections and the removal of extra flood defences. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column. 12.7.4 Mitigation

12.7.4.1 Please refer to Option 20 (Section 12.7) for mitigation relating to Water Environment for the immersed tube tunnel. 12.7.5 Summary

12.7.5.1 For the highways elements, it is assumed that the impact on the River Thames, superficial aquifers and the small tributary of the Thames would be moderate adverse, with slight adverse effect on the bedrock aquifer.

12.7.5.2 Overall there would be a moderate adverse impact on the water environment with the addition of public transport facilities due to the increased likelihood of spills and contamination from construction activities of a larger immersed tunnel. No extra construction would occur within the water environment. The greatest risk would occur when dredging the channel to immerse the tunnel.

12.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 12.8.1 Highway

12.8.1.1 Please refer to Option 20 (section 12.8) for the potential impacts on Townscape and Visual Impact associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 20A. 12.8.2 DLR addition

12.8.2.1 The inclusion of public transport would increase the overall footprint of the immersed tube tunnel, but would have little to no effect on the predicted effects identified above for the Highways section of the crossing. DLR tie-ins connecting each end of the crossing to existing or proposed DLR infrastructure are not predicted to have an effect on Townscape and Visual Impact. Though they would be visible from sensitive visual receptors, the portal design should try to complement or potentially enhance local townscape and views, as noted in the Highways option. High quality infrastructure may provide the opportunity to improve the views in the area.

186

12.8.3 Pedestrians and Cycle Path

12.8.3.1 The inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle path would increase the overall footprint of the immersed tube tunnel, but would have little to no effect on the predicted effects identified above for the Highways section of the Mitigation

12.8.3.2 The design should be able to complement/potentially enhance local townscape and views. 12.8.4 Mitigation

12.8.4.1 Please refer to Option 20 (Section 12.8) for mitigation relating to Townscape and Visual for the immersed tube tunnel. 12.8.5 Summary

12.8.5.1 Overall a neutral impact is expected for townscape surrounding the option.

12.9 Energy 12.9.1 Highway

12.9.1.1 Please refer to Option 20 (section 12.9) for the potential impacts on Energy associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 20A. 12.9.2 DLR addition

12.9.2.1 The addition of the DLR would greatly increase energy consumed during construction– both in terms of the energy consumption on site and embodied carbon of the materials used. During the operational phase there would be constant use of energy for signalling, lighting, ventilation and the consumption of the DLR itself. The energy needed for this DLR tunnel during operation is likely to be greater than that of the vehicle tunnel.

12.9.2.2 However, this may be mitigated to a degree by the modal shift from private vehicle use to the DLR, resulting in a beneficial impact on energy use. This is difficult to quantify at the current stage. 12.9.3 Pedestrians and Cycle path

12.9.3.1 As with the DLR tunnel, the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel would see an increase in energy needed during both construction and operation. Energy used for lighting and ventilation in the tunnel must be enough to make a safe environment for the users. Due to its smaller size the amount of energy needed would not be as adverse as that of the DLR. The addition of a pedestrian and cycle path allows the use of sustainable methods of transport. 12.9.4 Mitigation

12.9.4.1 Please refer to Option 20 (Section 12.9) for mitigation relating to Energy for the immersed tube tunnel.

187 East of Silvertown

12.9.5 Summary

12.9.5.1 Overall there would be a major adverse impact on energy for the scheme. There would be a notable increase in the amount of energy needed both during construction and operation but with successful mitigation as discussed above, the impact could be reduced to moderate adverse. It is reported that a large portion of the dredge material would not be able to be reused (the alluvium and chalk strata are not anticipated to be reused but the terrace gravel may be), as set out in section 12.6 Materials.

188

OPTION 21: BELVEDERE BORED TUNNEL

189 East of Silvertown

13 OPTION 21: BELVEDERE BORED TUNNEL

13.1 Community and Private Assets 13.1.1 Highway

13.1.1.1 The construction site for a bored tunnel requires considerable space and power to operate the TBM. The principal work site for the TBM is likely to be on the north bank due to more available space. It is likely that the tunnel would be driven from north to south and then returned to the north bank for a second drive. The north bank site would require the diversion of the River Beam and therefore part of the Ford motor compound to the east side of the river would be needed, affecting the surrounding community.

13.1.1.2 Demolition of industrial buildings on the south side of the river, including Infinity House on Anderson Way currently occupied by Jablite, would be required at Belvedere if Option 21 is taken forward. However, no residential buildings or community facilities are likely to be affected by permanent or temporary land-take. Mitigation options include compensation measures (financial compensation or relocation) for the demolition of buildings.

13.1.1.3 Option 21 would improve the connectivity between the residents and communities on both sides of the river. 13.1.2 Mitigation

13.1.2.1 Compensation measures, either financial or relocation, are likely to be required for the demolition of buildings and/or private assets on the south side of the River Thames. 13.1.3 Summary

13.1.3.1 Overall it is considered the bored tunnel would have a slight adverse impact on community and private assets.

13.2 Cultural Heritage 13.2.1 Highway

13.2.1.1 There is a high potential for archaeological remains dating from the prehistoric period until the post-medieval period to be located on the northern and southern banks of the Thames in the study areas.

13.2.1.2 The proposed bored tunnelling works are anticipated to be at sufficient depths to avoid impacting on archaeological remains. However, excavations are required to construct the approach road, the approach ramps and the cut-and-cover sections on both sides of the river. These works would have the potential to impact locally or regionally significant archaeological remains located near to the scheme, particularly within the peat identified on the southern side of the river. This could lead to a potentially slight or moderate adverse effect on the surrounding cultural heritage environment.

190

13.2.1.3 Where areas of land would need to be acquired for temporary construction of works sites, there may be additional associated impacts. 13.2.2 Mitigation

13.2.2.1 Further archaeological investigations will be required to assess the potential impact the option will have on archaeological resources prior to the commencement of construction. This will allow the formulation of any required mitigation measures such as archaeological excavation in advance of construction works and the maintenance of archaeological watching briefs during construction works. 13.2.3 Summary

13.2.3.1 Overall there would be a slight adverse impact on the cultural heritage surrounding Option 21 at Belvedere.

13.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation

13.3.1.1 The impact assessment has been based on guidance set out in the Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment (September 2010). 13.3.2 Highway

Designated Sites

13.3.2.1 No direct impacts on Lee Valley SPA are likely as a result of these options. However, potential temporary disturbance and displacement of roosting and foraging birds in the winter months (October – March) may occur during the construction and operational phases of the options. There would be loss of small areas of intertidal habitat (used by foraging and roosting birds during the winter months) during the construction and operational phases of the bored tunnel option. The bored tunnel may not affect intertidal habitats dependant on the locations of the entrance holes. Given the amount of other suitable foraging and roosting opportunities in the vicinity of the option, it is unlikely that the small loss of intertidal habitat in this area would have a significant impact on the wintering waders and waterfowl associated with the site in the vicinity of the options. The same is true for the River Thames Tidal Tributaries SMI, though there is potential for impacts on fish species including eel, bass and flounder (for which the site is designated) during the installation of the immersed tube tunnel.

13.3.2.2 No direct or indirect impacts are anticipated as a result of this option within the following designated sites:  Abbey Wood SSSI  Ingrebourne Marshes SSSI/Ingrebourne Valley LNR  Inner Thames Marshes SSSI/Rainham Marshes LNR  Beam Valley LNR  Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI  Dagenham Breach and the lower Beam River SBI  Ingrebourne Valley SMI

191 East of Silvertown

 Mudlands SBI  Riverside Sewage Treatment Works SBI  Crossness LNR  Erith Marshes SMI

13.3.2.3 Belvedere Dykes SBI would experience both direct and indirect impacts on a number of ditches associated with the SBI with the potential direct loss of one or more of the ditches within the network, which may impact on water voles.

Habitats

13.3.2.4 The option would lead to the loss of areas of intertidal habitat, bare ground, scrub, and a ditch (part of Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI) on the northern side of the river. The option would lead to the loss of areas of intertidal habitat, bare ground, scrub and potentially part of a ditch network (part of Belvedere Dykes SBI) on the southern side of the river.

13.3.2.5 No impacts on habitats suitable for terrestrial invertebrates are anticipated as a result of these options. Habitats considered potentially important for aquatic invertebrates may be affected or lost as a result of these options, including part of the ditch network associated with Belvedere Dykes SBI, and a ditch which forms part of Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI.

Protected Species

13.3.2.6 Great crested newts could be present in ponded sections of the ditches both north and south of the River Thames, if they support freshwater. In particular, those associated with the Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI and the ditch network which forms Belvedere Dykes SBI.

13.3.2.7 Three species of reptile (including grass snake, common lizard and slow- worm) are known to be present within 2km of the option. Areas of habitat potentially suitable for reptiles, including areas of bare ground and scrub, and the edges of the ditches would be lost as a result of the options.

13.3.2.8 Areas of habitat suitable for nesting and foraging birds during the breeding season, including scrub and the edges of the watercourse and ditch network, would be lost as a result of these options. This includes habitats suitable for black redstart.

13.3.2.9 A number of trees and buildings with the potential to support roosting bats may be present within the route of these options. In addition, there is the potential for fragmentation of commuting routes and foraging habitat for bats as a result of the options.

13.3.2.10 Water voles are known to be present on both the north and south side of the river. Areas of habitat potentially suitable for water voles, including the Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI and part of the ditch network with forms Belvedere Dykes SBI would be lost as a result of the options.

13.3.2.11 There is the potential for the loss of badger setts, although unlikely given the nature of the terrestrial habitats.

192

13.3.2.12 It is not likely the bored tunnel option would have any direct impacts on marine ecology as boring works are anticipated to be at sufficient depths under the River Thames. 13.3.3 Mitigation

13.3.3.1 A review of detailed alignments and footprints will be necessary to see if direct impact on protected marine species can be avoided. Design measures and construction techniques would also need to be considered to minimise disturbance to surrounding protected species colonies and avoid changes in river flows that would indirectly affect them. Where appropriate, a mitigation strategy involving translocation and/or provision of compensatory habitat would need to be considered.

13.3.3.2 Where possible, construction works should be carried out adjacent to the estuary outside of the winter period to minimise disturbance/ displacement of foraging and wintering birds and adjacent to the estuary outside of the winter period to minimise disturbance/displacement of foraging and wintering birds.

13.3.3.3 New habitat would need to be provided to compensate for habitat loss.

13.3.3.4 Where possible, ensure adequate measures are put in place to avoid adverse hydrological effects on retained ditches during the construction and operational phases of the option.

13.3.3.5 Further investigation and surveys would need to be undertaken to confirm the presence/absence of important spawning/nursery grounds for bass and flounder in the vicinity of the option and the presence/absence of great crested newts, black redstart, bat, badgers, water voles and protected marine species. Should great crested newts be found within 500m of the footprint of these options, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be put in place (in consultation with Natural England).

13.3.3.6 An appropriate mitigation strategy would be put in place (in consultation with the Local Planning Authority) should reptiles be found within the footprint of the option. Further surveys would be required to confirm this. 13.3.4 Summary

13.3.4.1 Overall, Option 21 would have a slight adverse/neutral impact on the surrounding terrestrial ecology, and a neutral impact on marine ecology.

13.4 Effects on All Travellers 13.4.1 Highway

13.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers.

13.4.1.2 The bored tunnel option at Belvedere would alleviate the severance between the residents of Belvedere and Havering as well as employees in industrial areas on both sides of the river. Depending on the exact location of the tunnel entrance and construction compounds, a small part of the National Cycle Network

193 East of Silvertown

Route 1 and footways would be diverted during construction if the twin bored tunnel is driven from the south site of the river. Due to the predominantly industrial area and relatively high percentage of residents using private cars as their main mode of transport, it is anticipated that the number of potential receptors affected during construction would be negligible.

13.4.1.3 Whilst driver stress may be increased due to construction traffic and related activities because of diversions, longer journey times and an increase of construction traffic on local roads, once operational driver stress is predicted to fall. This is compared with the Reference Case scenario, due to increased connectivity and a reduction in journey time for journeys between the north and south banks of the River Thames. Although potential accidents and the lack of view for extended periods of time may affect some road users, but overall it is predicted that there would be a beneficial impact.

13.4.1.4 A beneficial effect on community severance compared with the existing situation is expected. Once operational the extended journey times and severance of communities and facilities north and south of the river would be removed, resulting in a beneficial impact for all travellers. The addition of bus services to the shared highway space would also increase connectivity between communities north and south of the river.

13.4.1.5 There is the potential for increased or decreased traffic flows on the approach roads to affect non-motorised traffic in relation to safe at-grade road crossings in the area. The increase and decrease of traffic flows on approach roads is yet to be quantified in detail, therefore this does not form part of this report. The Traffic Impact Report (East of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report) will have a high level overview of the approach roads that would be affected. 13.4.2 Mitigation

13.4.2.1 The north side of the river should be selected for the driving of the tunnel boring machine as it has more space and the impacts on pedestrians and cyclists would be neutral.

13.4.2.2 A detailed Transport Assessment would be required for the proposals. There is potential for either the road or water network to be used for transportation of materials and wastes to and from the construction site. If water transport is used it could maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion. It could also reduce driver stress and a fear of accidents for motorists and non- motorised users, as fewer heavy construction vehicles would be travelling on the road network. 13.4.3 Summary

13.4.3.1 Overall it is expected there would be a slight beneficial impact on travellers using Option 21.

194

13.5 Ground Conditions 13.5.1 Highway

13.5.1.1 Areas of contaminated soil are likely to be encountered along the route alignment on both the north and south banks due to the car compounds and other industries to the north, and the industrial activity to the south. Arising’s from onshore piling and drilling work alongside sediment dredging may pose a risk to human health especially if allowed to become airborne in dust. Contamination may include metals, hydrocarbons or asbestos. The potential for direct contact or inhalation of contaminated soil to members of the public and site workers may exist if soil cover is not maintained or dust is allowed to blow off site. There would be a risk to construction workers from direct contact and inhalation.

13.5.1.2 Historic landfills are located on the northern bank of the River Thames. The proposed alignment of Option 21 would directly traverse these historic landfills. Made Ground, historic landfill sites, and river sediment in the vicinity of the crossing are likely to have elevated levels of heavy metals and other contaminants. The construction of the cut-and-cover sections and associated construction activities on the north and south banks would cause ground disturbance with the potential for contaminated soils to enter the river via runoff or contamination to leach into water. All surplus spoil would be disposed to licensed landfills. No sea disposal would be required because no river dredging would be undertaken.

13.5.1.3 The proposed ground break required to construct the tunnel portals and tunnel on both the north and south side of the river has the potential to lead to the disturbance of the underlying contaminated soils which could result in the contamination of controlled waters such as groundwater within the underlying aquifer and the River Thames. Contamination could migrate horizontally and vertically along newly created preferential pathways such as drainage runs, piles and site investigation boreholes. The proximity of the option to the multiple historic landfills on the north bank should also be taken into account and further investigations made to identify the material contained in the site. The tunnel design should avoid tunnelling directly under or placing structures on the landfill sites.

13.5.1.4 The organic material in the Alluvium deposits as well as areas of organic contamination present a potential source of ground gas. Gas may build up in excavations for the cut-and-cover ramps and may also build up in the tunnel itself or in any granular fill materials around it. These may act as a gas migration pathway.

13.5.1.5 The historic landfills are likely to be a major source of ground gas and any intrusive works in the vicinity of the landfill may potentially be impacted.

13.5.1.6 The tunnel design requires deep excavations and therefore the risk from UXO in these locations is high. In addition, the potential remains for unrecorded bomb strikes in the channel close to the river bank. 13.5.2 Mitigation

13.5.2.1 Potential risks to construction workers can be mitigated by adoption of appropriate health and safety practices outlined in the Code of Construction Practice. These include the completion of a Health & Safety Risk Assessment by the engaged

195 East of Silvertown

Contractor, implementation of the appropriate training for all site workers and provision of suitable PPE, RPE and welfare facilities. Works should be conducted in accordance with the Health and Safety Executive publication entitled “Protection of Workers and the General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land”, 1991.

13.5.2.2 Contaminated soils should be identified and measures taken to avoid migration off site as dust by the use of damping down during construction and clean cover post construction.

13.5.2.3 An investigation into the type and characteristics of the landfilled waste is recommended if the casting basin is likely to be located in or near to the landfill. A mitigation strategy would be required to risks to construction workers and other human receptors are mitigated.

13.5.2.4 Material identified as being contaminated would need to be carefully managed in accordance with environmental and health and safety requirements.

13.5.2.5 Arisings from piling works and construction of access roads and cut-and- cover ramps should be managed to ensure that any surface runoff is collected and prevented from impacting the river. Surface water should be prevented from entering excavations, where possible.

13.5.2.6 Any surplus material disposed of on site should be deposited within carefully designed and constructed ‘cells’ that would not allow pollutants to escape.

13.5.2.7 A detailed risk assessment should be carried out in advance of any piling works on the north or south banks to assess the potential risk to groundwater resources from river sediments or contaminated surface water or perched groundwater.

13.5.2.8 Detailed method statements should be prepared to include methods to avoid releases of contaminated perched groundwater to the river, and also aquifer protection measures depending on the outcome of the detailed risk assessments.

13.5.2.9 If dewatering of excavations is required, treatment of contaminated water may be required before discharge, a discharge consent would be required.

13.5.2.10 A ground gas investigation is recommended as part of a future site investigation focusing on the final route. This should focus in particular on the area around the landfills.

13.5.2.11 Gas alarms are considered necessary if construction workers enter excavations within the landfills, Alluvium or contaminated Made Ground, and during piling or drilling works in these areas.

13.5.2.12 Gas protection measures may be required within the tunnel.

13.5.2.13 Detailed UXO mitigation strategy to be prepared utilising all existing information and including provision for specialist banksmen and awareness briefings. Intrusive UXO clearance in excavation locations (magnetometer surveys) may be required.

196

13.5.2.14 Intrusive ground investigation and laboratory testing for aggressive chemical conditions and corrosive gases should be undertaken. A specification of resistant materials should be included in the final design. 13.5.3 Summary

13.5.3.1 Overall the impact is expected to be moderate adverse.

13.6 Materials 13.6.1 Highway

13.6.1.1 The volumes of waste arising from construction would depend on how the site of the selected option is managed and the implementation of a Site Waste Management Plan. It is noted that man-made waste materials (potentially hazardous) have been recorded following trial-pits dug within the footprint of this

13.6.1.2 There was no information of key materials and waste for the bored tunnel at the time of writing.

13.6.1.3 It is anticipated that the bored tunnel would result in excavation of approximately 444,500 tonnes of waste material. The close proximity of the site to the River Thames and the local road network provides the opportunity to remove waste by either road or barge.

13.6.1.4 Other slight adverse impacts would be seen with the chalk excavation from the boring activity. It may have a high water content making it slurry and difficult to reuse.

13.6.1.5 It is suggested that a pre-demolition audit is carried out prior to demolition to identify key waste materials and support the beneficial re-use and recycling of these materials 13.6.2 Mitigation

13.6.2.1 The project should examine the potential re-use and disposal options for excavated material, in particular the re-use options for chalk which is anticipated to be encountered during the tunnel drive. Where re-use is not possible there will be a requirement to dispose of excavated material, by licensed carriers, to licensed landfill sites and handled in accordance with the Waste Management Regulations.

13.6.2.2 With appropriate planning, the majority of key wastes would have the potential to be re-used or recycled off-site, in particular chalk which is anticipated to be encountered during the tunnel drive, minimising the need for any waste arisings to be sent to landfill. Transportation of wastes to and from the construction site can maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion.

13.6.2.3 The potential to use either road or river transport for removing excavated material and waste, along with the potential to use Wallesea Island and other destinations, should be explored.

13.6.2.4 It is noted that man-made waste materials (potentially hazardous) have been recorded following trial-pits dug within the footprint of the footprint of this

197 East of Silvertown option. This waste would need to have a mitigation strategy put in place to ensure these materials are managed appropriately 13.6.3 Summary

13.6.3.1 The impact would arise from earthworks excavations and the open cut and cover passages at the entrance and exits from the tunnel.

13.6.3.2 Terrace gravels may be re-usable but the volumes are small and the cost of storage on site and re-handling to place the material as backfill may be prohibitive. It is therefore unlikely these materials would be re-used.

13.6.3.3 Overall there would be a slight adverse impact on Option 21 from its associated materials.

13.7 Water Environment 13.7.1 Highway

13.7.1.1 Given the nature of the works it is unlikely that the bored tunnels would have a direct adverse effect on the River Thames as no works are proposed within the river itself.

13.7.1.2 Ground breaking to construct the tunnel entrances has the potential to disturb contaminated soils and producing contaminated runoff and the risk of polluting the Thames, any underlying aquifers or other waterbodies nearby.

13.7.1.3 There is the risk of pollution to the surrounding water environment during the general construction phase on both sides of the Thames. Risks are associated with accidental spills (fuels/oils), use of concrete, earthworks and the management of the large volumes of material arising. There would also be associated risks with the disposal of tunnel drainage. The bored tunnel at Belvedere would generate a significant amount of excavated material that would require disposal off-site and potential on treatment site prior to disposal, increasing the pollution risk.

13.7.1.4 The location of the bored tunnel lies predominantly within Flood Zone 1 to the north and Flood Zone 3 to the south. However lands to the south benefit from defences along the banks of the River Thames which effectively remove it from the Flood Risk Zone and locate it within the residual risk floodplain.

13.7.1.5 The option, once complete, would not affect the permanent flood defences. It is assumed that reliance would be placed on existing flood protection and no tunnel specific protection works would be provided. Best practice for intercepting water flows at the cut-and-cover tunnel portals would be followed. The bored tunnel option is not expected to have any impacts on flow dynamics.

13.7.1.6 The principal work site for the tunnel boring machine would likely be on the north bank due to more available space, and would require the diversion of the unnamed tributary of the Thames that drains the small catchment between the Beam and Ingrebourne Rivers.

198

13.7.2 Mitigation

13.7.2.1 On site treatment of contaminated soils, use of cover systems or removal to reduce pollution risk should be considered as potential mitigation options.

13.7.2.2 Construction works and waste management should be undertaken in accordance with EA best practice pollution prevention guidelines.

13.7.2.3 Drainage systems should be designed to incorporate appropriate treatment or removal of drainage effluents.

13.7.2.4 A compliance with EA Flood Defence Consent conditions to ensure that flood defence provisions are not compromised.

13.7.2.5 The potential to incorporate flood protection measures at tunnel approaches e.g. moveable flood barrier or flood gates should be considered.

13.7.2.6 Buffer zones should be incorporated to facilitate access to existing flood defences. 13.7.3 Summary

13.7.3.1 Overall there would be a slight adverse impact on the water environment of the River Thames, aquifers and the tributary of the Thames to the north from Option 21 at Belvedere.

13.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 13.8.1 Highway

13.8.1.1 Given the surrounding landscape and that the majority of the bored tunnel option would be below the ground, it is not anticipated to have any major landscape impacts outside the areas of the portals. However, views from sensitive visual receptors, such as national recreational trails/routes should be taken in to account. The latter including the Thames Path and National Cycle Route 1, south of the River Thames, together with the London Loop and National Cycle Route 13, north of the river. There is potential for a moderate adverse impact on the surrounding townscape and visual at due to the infrastructure of the bored tunnel construction conflicting with regional level policy for the protection of townscape and views, notably the Blue Ribbon Network and Thames Policy Areas, though this is predicted to be temporary. The portal design should try and complement or potentially enhance local townscape and views.

13.8.1.2 Views of the proposals will also need to be considered in relation to heritage features. Bexley Unitary Development Plan identifies that a number of strategic views cross the area in which the options lie, including those from Beckton Alps (Newham) over East London, and from Eaglesfield Recreational Ground (Greenwich) to Bexley and the lower Thames. However, these viewpoints are in excess of 5km away such that the proposals would appear as distant elements in corresponding views.

199 East of Silvertown

13.8.2 Mitigation

13.8.2.1 The design should be able to complement/potentially enhance local townscape and views. 13.8.3 Summary

13.8.3.1 Overall, it is expected there would be a neutral to slight beneficial impact on townscape on Option 21.

13.9 Energy 13.9.1 Highway

13.9.1.1 The embodied energy analysis in this Options Study Report is qualitative, based upon the principle construction materials of the options and construction approach in relation to other options (comparatively). The change in energy use from vehicles using the crossing is not included within this assessment.

13.9.1.2 The adopted methodology for related and unrelated energy is mainly based upon relevant national and local policies and more specifically upon the policies included in the London Plan 2011.

13.9.1.3 The implementation of the bored tunnel would involve a large amount of energy during construction and once operational to create both a safe and efficient working environment whilst under construction. Once operational there would also be energy demands to create, but also a safe and efficient environment for road users once the tunnel is complete.

13.9.1.4 Operationally in addition to surveillance and traffic control systems the immersed tunnel option would require energy for running the ventilation systems and the constant use of artificial lighting; therefore these options would have an extensive energy demand during operation. Careful design of the option will help reduce the likely energy demands and associated carbon emissions. 13.9.2 Mitigation

13.9.2.1 Mitigation during construction would include:  This option requires pre-construction works i.e., the remediation of contaminated land and potential treatment of landfill would add into the other construction energy demands. Minimising preconstruction works would help to reduce energy used.  Sizing plant and machinery to minimise use and no idling policy to reduce carbon emissions  Develop a construction stage travel plan to minimise transport movements  Construct as much as possible offsite and utilise the pre-fabricated materials  Where possible re-use the demolished or existing construction material  Use of Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) in concrete mixes where appropriate

200

 Local sourcing of construction material where possible  Sustainable sourcing of construction material, i.e. materials which have chain of custody and environmental procurement certificates such as BRE Green Book  Utilise low energy/ energy efficient construction machinery where appropriate to minimise the energy and CO2 emissions during construction  Use of Green Tariff schemes to offset CO2 emissions associated with the use of tunnel boring machines (TBM)

13.9.2.2 Mitigation during operation would include:  Energy efficient low energy lighting should be proposed for the tunnel to mitigate the high energy demand.  The development of an energy efficient ventilation system for tunnels should consider the fan efficiency (the proportion of electrical power that is used to accelerate a mass of air via an axial thrust) and installation efficiency (the proportion of the fan thrust that is actually delivered the tunnel air rather than wasted via friction with the tunnel walls and soffit) to minimise the ventilation energy and associated CO2 emissions.  An approach to mitigate any potential adverse impact, which would also have knock-on benefits across London, is to consider varying planned user charges for the new links according to vehicle emissions. For example, the standards being considered for the potential Ultra Low Emission Zone in central London could be used to vary the charge level for vehicles using the new link. Any increase in traffic in the areas of the new crossing would therefore be encouraged to be as clean as possible.

13.9.2.3 The above approaches can help to minimise the overall construction embodied energy demands. In addition, energy saving techniques, such as insulating site offices and installing thermostat heating controls and timers, should be adopted during construction to minimise the carbon footprint of construction.

13.9.2.4 To meet the London Plan requirements and to achieve the energy efficient design, Renewable Energy technology also needs to be considered, such as solar panels. The street lighting should also be energy efficient low energy lighting and where possible solar driven lighting should be proposed. The utilisation of automatic sensors and timers should also reduce the overall energy demand of the preferred option.

13.9.2.5 The likely energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions should be estimated at the design stage and further advice would be provided with regards to the mitigation of energy demand and carbon emissions. 13.9.3 Summary

13.9.3.1 Overall, there is expected to be a moderate adverse effect on energy in relation to the Belvedere bored tunnel option.

201 East of Silvertown

OPTION 21A: BELVEDERE BORED TUNNEL WITH FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION

202

14 OPTION 21A: BELVEDERE BORED TUNNEL (FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT)

14.1 Community and Private Assets 14.1.1 Highway

14.1.1.1 Please refer to Option 21 (section 14.1) for the potential impacts on Community and Private Assets associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 21A. 14.1.2 DLR addition

14.1.2.1 The addition of the DLR would benefit the area as it would offer an alternative fixed public transport crossing to residents and access to community and private assets both north and south of the river. The addition of the DLR would be a catalyst to attract further investment in the area. Travel out of the borough for work could increase private wealth and assets, and could attract new residents to the area.

14.1.2.2 The addition of two separate DLR tunnels would increase noise, vibration and dust within the surrounding community during construction. It is not envisaged that there would be a highly adverse impact on the community and private assets in the area due to the industrial nature of the surroundings. 14.1.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

14.1.3.1 Pedestrian and cycle paths could improve private assets by creating new communities with an enhanced walking and cycling provision. Active travel options make the area more attractive to a wider range of potential residents. 14.1.4 Mitigation

14.1.4.1 Please refer to Option 21 (Section 14.1) for mitigation relating to Community and Private Assets for the bored tunnel. 14.1.5 Summary

14.1.5.1 There are no predicted impacts on community and private assets with the addition of the public transport and pedestrians and cycle options within the bored tunnel. Overall it is predicted the impact would be slight beneficial.

14.2 Cultural Heritage 14.2.1 Highway

14.2.1.1 Please refer to Option 21 (section 14.2) for the potential impacts on Cultural Heritage associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 21A. 14.2.2 DLR addition

14.2.2.1 The larger footprint associated with the addition of the DLR would increase the risk of discovering archaeological remains. The portal would have the largest

203 East of Silvertown potential impact upon cultural heritage, with an additional 33% of tunnel needed to incorporate the DLR. Bored tunnelling works are anticipated to be at sufficient depths to avoid impacting on archaeological remains within the River itself. 14.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

14.2.3.1 The larger footprint associated with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths may cause an adverse impact due to the increased risk of discovering archaeological remains, though it is not expected to have any other adverse impacts. These non-motorised galleries will have a smaller impact than the addition of the DLR. 14.2.4 Mitigation

14.2.4.1 Please refer to Option 21 (Section 14.2) for mitigation relating to Cultural Heritage for the bored tunnel. 14.2.5 Summary

14.2.5.1 Overall Option 21A would have a slight adverse impact on cultural heritage.

14.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation 14.3.1 Highway

14.3.1.1 Please refer to Option 21 (section 14.3) for the potential impacts on Ecology and Nature Conservation associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 21A. 14.3.2 DLR addition

14.3.2.1 The addition of the DLR would not adversely affect the terrestrial ecology of the area. The option has the largest cut-and-cover section and would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The loss could be significant in the context of borough due a shortage of such habitat. The majority of land take would be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long-term adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted. 14.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

14.3.3.1 The addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths would not affect the terrestrial ecology of the area. However the option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The loss could be significant in the context of borough due a shortage of such habitat. The majority of land take would be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long-term adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted. 14.3.4 Mitigation

14.3.4.1 Please refer to Option 21 (Section 14.3) for mitigation relating to Ecology and Nature Conservation for the bored tunnel. With the inclusion of public transport the additional mitigation below will need to be considered.

204

14.3.4.2 Fixed public transport links create wildlife corridors that would remain relatively undisturbed due to limited access. It might be possible to create corridors on the banks of the river near the portals. This is a biodiversity enhancement opportunity that could be considered at the detailed design stage.

14.3.5 Summary

14.3.5.1 The area surrounding Option 21A at Belvedere comprises of vacant plants of undeveloped land or hardstanding areas used for storage. The addition of public transport options is likely to have a slight adverse/neutral impact on terrestrial ecology, and a slight adverse impact on marine ecology. During the operational phase it is expected that there will be a neutral impact.

14.4 Effects on All Travellers

14.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers. 14.4.2 Highway

14.4.2.1 Please refer to Option 21 (section 14.4) for the potential impacts on Effects on All Travellers associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 21A. 14.4.3 DLR addition

14.4.3.1 The addition of the DLR is likely to have a significant benefit for travellers within the area. It would provide an efficient link from Thamesmead to the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and central London, creating job prospects for the area. It would have a significant benefit on dependents within the community, creating a viable travel option and supporting the creation of a mixed use town centre hub that is safe and accessible to all users.

14.4.3.2 Public transport may be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time. Potential Improvement of traffic in the areas surrounding the tunnel would benefit both the local community and the travellers.

14.4.3.3 Driver stress may increase during the construction of option 21A due to the longer construction period needed to add public transport options. 14.4.4 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

14.4.4.1 A beneficial effect would be felt by non-motorised users with any crossing that includes the pedestrian-cycle provision. Previous suitable crossings at Woolwich will remain in place but there would be a significant reduction in journey time for locals using the Belvedere crossing.

14.4.4.2 Cyclists and pedestrians within the community would now have a convenient route across the river, linking to the National Cycle Route 1 to the south. As with the DLR, public transport may be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time for journeys within the community. Improvements of traffic in the areas surrounding the tunnel would benefit both the

205 East of Silvertown local community and the travellers. Driver stress may increase during the construction of option 21A due to the longer construction period needed to add the fixed public transport options. However it is predicted than once operational driver stress will decrease. 14.4.5 Mitigation

14.4.5.1 Please refer to Option 21 (Section 14.4) for mitigation relating to Effects on All Travellers for the bored tunnel. 14.4.6 Summary

14.4.6.1 Overall there is expected to be a major beneficial effect on travellers with the inclusion of public transport on Option 21A.

14.5 Ground Conditions 14.5.1 Highway

14.5.1.1 Please refer to Option 21 (section 14.5) for the potential impacts on Ground Conditions associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 21A. 14.5.2 DLR addition

14.5.2.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer, resulting in a moderate adverse impact. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the DLR creates the potential for contaminated soils to leach into the water body or enter the river via runoff. Due to the industrial nature of the surrounding environment, it is likely the construction would include the removal of contaminated land from the area. This would benefit the local environment, but would add to the need for construction traffic as the material would need to be taken to a licensed disposal facility.

14.5.2.2 There is an increased risk for soil contamination from the tunnel boring machine activity versus the immersed tube tunnel due the amount of activity taking place on site. The boring tunnel machine may dig into areas of unknown contaminated land, causing potential leaching and environmental upset.

14.5.2.3 Due to the larger footprint of the scheme there is a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance. 14.5.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

14.5.3.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer, resulting in a moderate adverse impact. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths creates the potential for contaminated soils to leach into the water body or enter the river via runoff.

14.5.3.2 There would be an increased risk for soil contamination from the tunnel boring machine activity versus the immersed tube tunnel due the amount of activity taking place on site. The boring tunnel machine may dig into areas of unknown contaminated land, causing potential leaching and environmental upset.

206

14.5.3.3 The footprint of the pedestrian and cycle path is smaller than that of the DLR but there is a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance. 14.5.4 Mitigation

14.5.4.1 Please refer to Option 21 (Section 14.5) for mitigation relating to Ground Conditions for the bored tunnel. 14.5.5 Summary

14.5.5.1 The majority of impacts will be during or will identified and potentially mitigated against during the construction period. as for the highway-only option the impacts ranged from neutral to moderate adverse, with neutral experienced for demolition and deterioration of buildings, slight adverse in relation to harm to human health from UXO strikes, contaminated soil, hazardous landfill or sediment and the leach and migration of contamination from soil and sediment to Controlled Waters. A moderate adverse impact is seen for the migration and build-up of Ground gas and the migration of contamination to controlled waters. Overall the impact on ground conditions would be moderate adverse.

14.6 Materials 14.6.1 Highway

14.6.1.1 Please refer to Option 21 (section 14.6) for the potential impacts of Materials associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 21A. 14.6.2 DLR addition

14.6.2.1 Predictions for the total key materials and waste are unavailable for public transport options at the time of writing.

14.6.2.2 The DLR option would require approximately 30 metres of additional tunnel width, which is approximately 33% larger than the highway-only option. This is anticipated to require approximately 33% of additional material therefore, there would be a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the DLR tunnel and excavated material from the bed of the River Thames. Such an increase would have scheme and community wide effects with more construction traffic to transport materials to and from the site.

14.6.2.3 A larger footprint would remove and treat a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 21A would be built.

14.6.2.4 Option 21A has the largest impact of the options within the Belvedere area. Due to the vacant, undeveloped nature of the surrounding environment, it is likely that there would be the most adverse impact arising from the addition of the DLR, or the DLR alongside pedestrian and cycle paths. 14.6.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

14.6.3.1 There would be approximately 12 metres additional width of tunnel with the pedestrian and cycle provision, which is approximately 13% larger than the highway-

207 East of Silvertown only option. This is anticipated to require approximately 13% of additional material for the pedestrian and cycle tunnel. Therefore there would be a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the DLR tunnel.

14.6.3.2 A larger footprint would remove and treat a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 21A would be built. . 14.6.4 Mitigation

14.6.4.1 Please refer to Option 21 (Section 14.6) for mitigation relating to Materials for the bored tunnel. 14.6.5 Summary

14.6.5.1 Incorporating both the DLR and the pedestrian and cycle paths would have the most adverse effect on the materials associated with Option 21A, compared with only one or other of these elements being included. This is due to the increase in materials used, excavated materials and the waste created from the scheme. Appropriate planning would be key to minimise the impact of materials. .

14.6.5.2 Overall there would be a moderate adverse impacts during the construction of the public transport options when considering the volumes of material needed for Option 1A.

14.7 Water Environment 14.7.1 Highway

14.7.1.1 Please refer to Option 21 (section 14.7) for the potential impacts on the Water Environment associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 21A. 14.7.2 DLR addition

14.7.2.1 Increased ground breaking for the cut-and-cover sections and the removal of extra flood defences may have an indirect impact on the water environment, which could be escalated with the addition of the DLR. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column.

14.7.2.2 As set out in section 15.5 Ground Conditions, removal of contaminated land would have a beneficial impact although the risk to the water environment remains during the construction period. 14.7.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

14.7.3.1 As with ground conditions, the water environment may be adversely impacted with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel due to increased ground breaking for the cut-and-cover sections and the removal of extra flood defences. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column.

208

14.7.4 Mitigation

14.7.4.1 Please refer to Option 21 (Section 14.7) for mitigation relating to Water Environment for the bored tunnel. 14.7.5 Summary

14.7.5.1 The addition of both the DLR and pedestrian and cycle transport options within the scheme would have the most detrimental effect on the surrounding water environment of all schemes based within the Belvedere area due to the size of tunnel and its associated impacts on surrounding environments. Overall there would be a moderate adverse impact on the water environment with the addition of public transport during dredging activities, but once operational no further impact is predicted.

14.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 14.8.1 Highway

14.8.1.1 Please refer to Option 21 (section 14.8) for the potential impacts on Townscape and Visual Impact associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 21A. 14.8.2 DLR addition

14.8.2.1 The public transport options are likely to have little to no effect on the predicted effects of the bored tunnel. With the opportunity to carry out construction works off site, the addition of the DLR would not impact on sensitive visual receptors when dredging occurs. The boring of the tunnel would not adversely impact the surrounding area due to the part industrial nature of nearby land. 14.8.3 Pedestrians and Cycle Path

14.8.3.1 The inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle path would increase the overall footprint of the immersed tube tunnel, but would have little to no effect on the predicted effects identified above for the Highways section of the Mitigation. 14.8.4 Mitigation

14.8.4.1 Please refer to Option 21 (Section 14.8) for mitigation relating to Townscape and Visual for the bored tunnel. 14.8.5 Summary

14.8.5.1 Overall a neutral/slight beneficial impact is expected for townscape surrounding the option.

14.9 Energy 14.9.1 Highway

14.9.1.1 Please refer to Option 21 (section 14.9) for the potential impacts on Energy associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 21A.

209 East of Silvertown

14.9.2 DLR addition

14.9.2.1 The addition of the DLR would greatly increase energy consumed during construction– both in terms of the energy consumption on site and embodied carbon of the materials used. During the operational phase there would be constant use of energy for signalling, lighting, ventilation and the consumption of the DLR itself. The energy needed for this DLR tunnel during operation is likely to be greater than that of the vehicle tunnel.

14.9.2.2 However, this may be mitigated to a degree by the modal shift from private vehicle use to the DLR, resulting in a beneficial impact on energy use. This is difficult to quantify at the current stage. 14.9.3 Pedestrians and Cycle path

14.9.3.1 As with the DLR tunnel, the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel would see an increase in energy needed during both construction and operation. Energy used for lighting and ventilation in the tunnel must be enough to make a safe environment for the users. Due to its smaller size the amount of energy needed would not be as adverse as that of the DLR. The addition of a pedestrian and cycle path allows the use of sustainable methods of transport. 14.9.4 Mitigation

14.9.4.1 Please refer to Option 21 (Section 14.9) for mitigation relating to Energy for the bored tunnel. 14.9.5 Summary

14.9.5.1 Overall there would be a major adverse impact on energy for the scheme. There would be a notable increase in the amount of energy needed both during construction and operation but with successful mitigation, as discussed above, the impact could be reduced to moderate adverse. The addition of both public transport schemes would create the greatest energy requirements.

210

OPTION 22: BELVEDERE HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE

211 East of Silvertown

15 OPTION 22: BELVEDERE HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE

15.1 Community and Private Assets 15.1.1 Highway

15.1.1.1 On the north side of the river, the proposed approach road to the bridge would be routed primarily over land within the Ford Estate. The crossing approach road would cut through the areas of hardstanding and the strip of vegetated land. The new arm from the roundabout would require the stopping up of the existing Courier Road and Marsh Way arms to the roundabout. A new junction to the south of the existing roundabout and re-alignment of the two roads to connect to the crossing approach road would be required.

15.1.1.2 On the south side of the river, the proposed approach road utilises the strip of landscaped land between the two industrial estates. It would also require a strip of land from the western extremity of the Belvedere Industrial Estate necessitating the demolition of the Jablite warehouse and loss of some of the available storage space from the hardstanding areas. The enlargement of the roundabout would require additional land, which is currently undeveloped.

15.1.1.3 No residential buildings or community facilities are likely to be affected by permanent or temporary land-take. Mitigation options include compensation measures (financial compensation or relocation) for the demolition of buildings. The option would improve the connectivity between the residents/commuters on both sides of the river. 15.1.2 Pedestrian and cycle paths

15.1.2.1 Pedestrian and cycle paths could improve private assets by creating new communities with an enhanced walking and cycling provision. Active travel options make the area more attractive to a wider range of potential residents. 15.1.3 Mitigation

15.1.3.1 Compensation measures, either financial or relocation, are likely to be required for the demolition of buildings and/or private assets on the south side of the River Thames. 15.1.4 Summary

15.1.4.1 Overall there would be a slight adverse impact on community and private assets from the cable stayed bridge.

15.2 Cultural Heritage 15.2.1 Highway

15.2.1.1 The presence of the Havering Archaeological Priority Zone creates the potential to unearth a number archaeological remains within the new footprint. There is high potential for archaeological remains dating from the prehistoric to post- medieval periods to be present on the south side of the river within the Belvedere option area.

212

15.2.1.2 Excavations would be required to construct the approach road and the approach ramps of the bridge on both sides of the river. These works would have the potential to impact locally or regionally significant archaeological remains located near to the scheme, particularly Roman period occupation within the peat identified on the southern side of the river. This could lead to a potentially slight or moderate adverse effect on the surrounding cultural heritage environment. However, they would have a lower impact that construction works associated with other options being considered at Belvedere.

15.2.1.3 Where areas of land would need to be acquired for temporary construction of works sites, there may be additional associated impacts.

15.2.1.4 Further archaeological investigations would be required to assess the potential impact the option would have on archaeological resources prior to the commencement of construction. This would allow the formulation of any required mitigation measures such as archaeological excavation in advance of construction works and the maintenance of archaeological watching briefs during construction works. 15.2.2 Pedestrian and cycle paths

15.2.2.1 The larger footprint associated with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths may cause an adverse impact due to the increased risk of discovering archaeological remains. 15.2.3 Mitigation

15.2.3.1 Further archaeological investigations would be required to assess the potential impact the option would have on archaeological resources prior to the commencement of construction. This would allow the formulation of any required mitigation measures such as archaeological excavation in advance of construction works and the maintenance of archaeological watching briefs during construction works. 15.2.4 Summary

15.2.4.1 Overall there would be a slight adverse impact on the cultural heritage surrounding Option 22 at Belvedere.

15.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation

15.3.1.1 The impact assessment has been based on guidance set out in the Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment (September 2010). 15.3.2 Highway

Designated Sites

15.3.2.1 No direct impacts on Lee Valley SPA are likely as a result of these options. However, potential temporary disturbance and displacement of roosting and foraging birds in the winter months (October – March) during the construction and operational phases of Option 22. There could be loss of small areas of intertidal habitat (used by

213 East of Silvertown foraging and roosting birds during the winter months) during the construction and operational phases of the high level bridge option. The high level bridge may not affect intertidal habitats dependant on the locations of the approach ramps and roads and the position of the piles. Given the amount of other suitable foraging and roosting opportunities in the vicinity of the option, it is unlikely that the small loss of intertidal habitat in this area would have a significant impact on the wintering waders and waterfowl associated with the site in the vicinity of the options. The same is true for the River Thames Tidal Tributaries SMI, though there is potential for impacts on fish species including eel, bass and flounder (for which the site is designated) during the installation of the cable stayed bridge.

15.3.2.2 No direct or indirect impacts are anticipated as a result of this option within the following designated sites:  Abbey Wood SSSI  Ingrebourne Marshes SSSI/ Rainham Marshes LNR  Beam Valley LNR  Dagenham Breach and the lower Beam River SBI  Crossness LNR/Erith Marshes SMI  Inner Thames Marshes SSSI/Rainham LNR

15.3.2.3 Given the proximity of Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI and Belvedere Dykes SBI to the access route and construction area, potential impacts on this designated site are likely, in particular the potential direct loss of ditch habitat.

Habitats

15.3.2.4 The option would lead to the loss of areas of intertidal habitat, bare ground, scrub, and a ditch (part of Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI) on the northern side of the river. The option would lead to the loss of areas of intertidal habitat, bare ground, scrub and potentially part of a ditch network (part of Belvedere Dykes SBI) on the southern side of the river.

15.3.2.5 No impacts on habitats suitable for terrestrial invertebrates are anticipated as a result of this option. Habitats considered potentially important for aquatic invertebrates may be affected or lost as a result of these options, including part of the ditch network associated with Belvedere Dykes SBI, and a ditch which forms part of Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI.

Protected Species

15.3.2.6 Great crested newts could be present in ponded sections of the ditches both north and south of the River Thames, if they support freshwater. In particular, those associated with the Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI and the ditch network which forms Belvedere Dykes SBI.

15.3.2.7 Three species of reptile (including grass snake, common lizard and slow- worm) are known to be present within 2km of the option. Areas of habitat potentially suitable for reptiles, including areas of bare ground and scrub, and the edges of the ditches would be lost as a result of the options.

214

15.3.2.8 Areas of habitat suitable for nesting and foraging birds, during the breeding season, including scrub and the edges of the watercourse and ditch network would be lost a result of this option. This includes habitats suitable for black redstart.

15.3.2.9 A number of trees and buildings with the potential to support roosting bats may be present within the route of these options. In addition, there is the potential for fragmentation of commuting routes and foraging habitat for bats as a result of the options.

15.3.2.10 Water voles are known to be present on both the north and south side of the river. Areas of habitat potentially suitable for water voles, including the Lower River Beam and Ford Works Ditches SBI and part of the ditch network with forms Belvedere Dykes SBI would be lost as a result of the options.

15.3.2.11 There is the potential for the loss of badger setts, although unlikely given the nature of the terrestrial habitats.

15.3.2.12 Due to the nature of the bridge infrastructure, there is potential for mortality to, or disturbances of protected marine species, such as those mentioned in the River Thames Tidal Tributaries SMI above. 15.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

15.3.3.1 The addition of the pedestrian and cycle paths would not affect the terrestrial ecology of the area. However the option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The majority of land take would be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long-term adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted.

15.3.3.2 The area surrounding Option 22 at Belvedere is mainly vacant plots of undeveloped land or hardstanding areas used for storage so there is potential that within the area, previously man-made hazardous land could be found. The addition of public transport options is likely to have a slight/moderate adverse impact during construction if pollution pathways are created during heavy construction periods. 15.3.4 Mitigation

15.3.4.1 A review of detailed alignments and footprints would be necessary to see if direct impact on protected marine species can be avoided. Design measures and construction techniques would also need to be considered to minimise disturbance to surrounding protected species colonies and avoid changes in river flows that would indirectly affect them. Where appropriate, a mitigation strategy involving translocation and/or provision of compensatory habitat would need to be considered.

15.3.4.2 Where possible, construction works should be carried out adjacent to the estuary outside of the winter period to minimise disturbance/ displacement of foraging and wintering birds. The loss of valuable habitats, in particular intertidal habitats, should be minimised wherever possible. New habitat would need to be provided to compensate for habitat loss.

215 East of Silvertown

15.3.4.3 If possible, align the access route to avoid direct impacts on the designated site. Otherwise new habitat would need to be provided to compensate for habitats lost.

15.3.4.4 Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence/absence of great crested newts. Should great crested newts be found within 500m of the footprint of these options, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be put in place (in consultation with Natural England). An appropriate mitigation strategy would be put in place (in consultation with the Local Planning Authority) should reptiles be found within the footprint of these options. Further surveys would be required to confirm this.

15.3.4.5 Surveys would be required to confirm the presence/absence of black redstart, bats, badgers, water voles and protected marine species from within the footprint of the options. 15.3.5 Summary

15.3.5.1 Overall the option would have a slight adverse/neutral impact on the surrounding terrestrial ecology, with a major/ moderate adverse impact on marine ecology.

15.4 Effects on All Travellers

15.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers. Views from the road cannot be assessed for the proposed alignment due to the lack of road prior to construction. 15.4.2 Highway

15.4.2.1 No pedestrian or cycle routes are likely to be affected on the north bank of the river. National Cycle Network Route 1 and footways are likely to be affected during construction on the south side of the river. However, due to the predominantly industrial area and relatively high percentage of residents using private cars as their main mode of transport, it is anticipated that the number of potential receptors affected during the construction of the bridge is negligible. There are currently no pedestrian river crossings in the vicinity of the proposed crossing, the nearest lying approximately 8 kilometres to the west. In addition, the existing land use and planning applications for future land use, as well as existing and proposed public transport links would have to be considered at the detailed stage in order to assess the catchment area for a pedestrian crossing facility at this location.

15.4.2.2 The road would offer elevated views over the lower Thames and on to the adjacent industrial areas of Bexley and Havering.

15.4.2.3 Whilst driver stress may be increased due to construction traffic and related activities because of diversions, longer journey times and an increase of construction traffic on local roads. The enlargement of the A2016 roundabout would necessitate various lane closures and traffic management would be needed on the A2016 and other roads in the surrounding area, causing disruption and delays to the travelling

216

public. Traffic disruption during works to increase the capacity and alter Courier Road and Marsh Way, road realignment and the increased traffic flow due to construction deliveries and travel of the operatives would create an unfavourable environment. Once operational driver stress is predicted to fall. This is compared with the Reference Case scenario, due to increased connectivity and a reduction in journey time for journeys between the north and south banks of the River Thames. . Stress may decrease during operation if the congestion issues on the main roads in Bexley and Havering are addressed through the provision of a new bridge.

15.4.2.4 Once operational the extended journey times and severance of communities and facilities north and south of the river would be removed, resulting in a beneficial impact for all travellers. The addition of bus services to the shared highway space would also increase connectivity between communities north and south of the river.

15.4.2.5 There is the potential for increased or decreased traffic flows on the approach roads to affect non-motorised traffic in relation to safe at-grade road crossings in the area. The increase and decrease of traffic flows on approach roads is yet to be quantified in detail, therefore this does not form part of this report. The Traffic Impact Report (East of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report) will have a high level overview of the approach roads that would be affected. The addition of bus services to the shared highway space would also increase connectivity between communities north and south of the river. 15.4.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

15.4.3.1 Cyclists and pedestrians within the community would now have a convenient route across the river. As with the DLR option (see Option 22A), pedestrian and cycle path use may be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time. Improvements of traffic in the areas surrounding the tunnel would benefit both the local community and the travellers. 15.4.4 Mitigation

15.4.4.1 Provide a safe and clear diversion for pedestrians and cyclists during construction in consultation with relevant authorities, together with appropriate signage.

15.4.4.2 Provide a safe and clear diversion for drivers during construction in consultation with relevant authorities, together with appropriate signage.

15.4.4.3 A detailed Transport Assessment would be required for the proposals. There is potential for either the road or water network to be used for transportation of materials and wastes to and from the construction site. If water transport is used it could maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion. It could also reduce driver stress and a fear of accidents for motorists and non- motorised users, as fewer heavy construction vehicles would be travelling on the road network.

217 East of Silvertown

15.4.5 Summary

15.4.5.1 Overall it is expected there would be a moderate beneficial effect for travellers using Option 22.

15.5 Ground Conditions 15.5.1 Highway

15.5.1.1 Areas of contaminated soil are likely to be encountered along the route alignment on both the north and south banks due to the car compounds and other industries to the north, and the Belvedere Incinerator Generating Plant and other industrial activity to the south. In addition, the route crosses multiple historic landfills on the north bank. Bridge foundations in this area may potentially affect migration routes for landfill gas and leachate as they penetrate the landfill capping layer. River sediment arisings from bridge foundation works may also be contaminated. Contamination may include metals, hydrocarbons or asbestos. The potential for direct contact or inhalation of contaminated soil to members of the public and site workers may exist if soil cover is not maintained or dust is allowed to blow off site. There may be a risk to construction workers from direct contact and inhalation.

15.5.1.2 Made Ground, historic landfills, and river sediment are likely to have elevated levels of heavy metals and other contaminants. Construction of the bridge pier foundations may create contamination pathways to the underlying lower aquifer. The disturbance of contaminated soils on the north and south banks may cause leaching and migration of contamination to Controlled Water receptors.

15.5.1.3 Piling work in the channel or at the river bank has the potential to create a pathway for migration via contaminated perched groundwater to the lower aquifer. It may also lead to saline intrusion by penetrating the Alluvium/London Clay separating the lower aquifer and the surface waters. Other on-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer.

15.5.1.4 The organic material in the Alluvium deposits, areas of organic contamination and historic landfills present potential sources of ground gas although the impact on final users is expected to be minor as confined spaces are not likely to be present in the final design.

15.5.1.5 The route alignment traverses multiple historic landfills on the north bank, which are a likely source of ground gas. There is potential for gas to build up in any excavations during construction and potential for the bridge foundations and access roads to alter existing gas migration pathways.

15.5.1.6 The bridge design requires deep excavations and therefore the risk from UXO in these locations is high. In addition, the potential remains for unrecorded bomb strikes in the channel close to the river bank. 15.5.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

15.5.2.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer with moderate adverse impact significance. Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the DLR

218

creates the potential for contaminated soils to leach into the water body or enter the river via runoff.

15.5.2.2 There is an increased risk for soil contamination from the bridge structures directly within the watercourse. The bridge foundations may well dig into areas of unknown contaminated land, causing potential leaching and environmental impact.

15.5.2.3 Due to the larger footprint of the scheme there is a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance. 15.5.3 Mitigation

15.5.3.1 Potential risk to construction workers can be mitigated by adoption of appropriate health and safety practices outlined in the Code of Construction Practice including the completion of a Health & Safety Risk Assessment by the engaged Contractor, implementation of the appropriate training for all site workers and suitable PPE, RPE and welfare facilities. Works should be conducted in accordance with the Health and Safety Executive publication entitled “Protection of Workers and the General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land”, 1991.

15.5.3.2 Contaminated soils should be identified and measures taken to avoid migration of dust off site by the use of damping down during construction, and the use of clean cover after construction.

15.5.3.3 An investigation into the type and characteristics of the landfilled waste along the proposed route is recommended.

15.5.3.4 A piling risk assessment should be carried out in advance of any piling works in the channel or on the north or south banks to assess the potential risk to groundwater resources from contaminated soils or sediment.

15.5.3.5 Detailed method statements should be prepared to include measures to avoid releases of contaminants to the river, and aquifer protection measures developed depending on the outcome of the piling risk assessment.

15.5.3.6 Arisings from piling works and construction of access roads should be managed to ensure that any surface runoff from bare soil, excavations and stockpiles is collected and prevented from impacting a Controlled Water receptor. Surface water should be prevented from entering excavations, where possible.

15.5.3.7 A capping layer beneath the finished bridge and road network is required in the historic landfill area to ensure that infiltration to the landfill waste is controlled.

15.5.3.8 A piling risk assessment should be carried out in advance of any piling works in the channel or on the north or south banks to assess the potential risk to groundwater resources from contaminated soils or sediment.

15.5.3.9 Detailed method statements should be prepared to include methods to avoid releases of contaminated perched groundwater to the river, and aquifer protection measures depending on the outcome of the piling risk assessment.

219 East of Silvertown

15.5.3.10 If dewatering of excavations is required, treatment of contaminated water may be required before discharge, and discharge consent required.

15.5.3.11 A limited intrusive ground gas investigation is recommended as part of a future site investigations focusing on the final route. On the north bank, due to this options proximity to Manor Way landfill, gas protection measures are likely to be necessary for this option.

15.5.3.12 Gas alarms are considered necessary if construction workers enter excavations within the landfill or in Alluvium, peat or contaminated Made Ground, and during piling or drilling works in these areas.

15.5.3.13 A capping layer beneath the finished bridge and road network is required in the landfill area to ensure that gas migration to the surface is controlled. Road drainage and subsurface utilities should be designed to incorporate gas protection measures.

15.5.3.14 A detailed UXO mitigation strategy should be prepared utilising all existing information and including provision for specialist banksmen and awareness briefings. Intrusive UXO clearance in piling locations (magnetometer surveys) should be undertaken.

15.5.3.15 Intrusive ground investigations and laboratory testing for aggressive chemical conditions and corrosive gases should be undertaken. A specification of resistant materials should be included in the final design. 15.5.4 Summary

15.5.4.1 Overall the impact is expected to be neutral to moderate adverse.

15.6 Materials 15.6.1 Highway

15.6.1.1 The volumes of waste arising from construction would depend on how the site of the selected option is managed and the implementation of a Site Waste Management Plan.

15.6.1.2 Waste figures were estimated using preliminary Bill of Quantities in the first instance and engineering options study reports, drawings and calculations extrapolated from similar structures where BOQs were not available.

15.6.1.3 Approximate forecasted figures below include excavated wastes, as we cannot provide assurance that this material could be or would definitely be reused at this stage.

Key materials forecast to be used:  Concrete: 1,147,802 tonnes  Soils and stone: 37,458 tonnes  Metals: 33,720 tonnes  Bituminous mixtures: 3,067 tonnes

220

 Total key materials forecast: 1,222,047 tonnes

Key waste materials forecast:  Concrete: 45,912 tonnes  Soils and stone: 49,575 tonnes  Metals: 1,012 tonnes  Bituminous mixtures: 153 tonnes  Total key wastes forecast: 96,652 tonnes

15.6.1.4 It is predicted there would be a moderate adverse impact with regards to materials at Option 22. It is suggested that a pre-demolition audit is carried out prior to demolition to identify key waste materials and support the beneficial re-use and recycling of these materials. 15.6.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

15.6.2.1 The pedestrian and cycle deck would add a large area to the cable stayed bridge, creating a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the combined gallery and protective windshield. Such an increase would have scheme and community wide effects with more construction traffic to transport materials to and from the site, and in the water environment. 15.6.3 Mitigation

15.6.3.1 With appropriate planning, the majority of key wastes would have the potential to be re-used or recycled off-site, minimising the need for any waste arisings to be sent to landfill.

15.6.3.2 It is noted that this option would require the demolition of various existing structures. It is suggested that a pre-demolition audit is carried out prior to demolition to identify key waste materials and support the beneficial re-use and recycling of these materials.

15.6.3.3 Optimise construction programme to reduce double handling of materials (with associated emissions).

15.6.3.4 Transportation of wastes to and from the construction site can maximise the potential of the River Thames to help alleviate traffic congestion. 15.6.4 Summary

15.6.4.1 Overall, it is expected there will be a moderate adverse impact on materials from Option 22.

15.7 Water Environment 15.7.1 Highway

15.7.1.1 Construction phase piling would result in mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column, although

221 East of Silvertown several components of this design can be pre-fabricated off site, reducing the risk of pollution.

15.7.1.2 Earthworks undertaken to create the embankments at the bridge approaches would disturb contaminated soils, producing contaminated runoff with risk of pollution of the Thames and other nearby waterbodies. There is the risk of pollution to the surrounding water environment during the general construction phase on both sides of the Thames. Risks are associated with accidental spills (fuels/oils), use of concrete, earthworks and the management of the large volumes of material arising.

15.7.1.3 Operational phase water quality risks are associated with the disposal of highway drainage from the bridge deck and approaches.

15.7.1.4 Pollution risks associated with construction phase dewatering and disturbance of underlying contaminated soils at bridge approaches result in the contamination of the underlying aquifer. Piling into the chalk for bridge piers would create a potential pollution pathway to the aquifer and would increase the risk of saline intrusion.

15.7.1.5 The northern bridge approaches are located in Flood Zone 3 and are at risk of flooding during a defence failure or breach event. The southern approach is located in Flood Zones 1 and 3 with more of the scheme footprint in Flood Zone 1 on this alignment.

15.7.1.6 Access to the jetties built out into the river from north and south banks could temporarily impact on flow dynamics and permanent bridge piers causing localised changes to eater levels and flow velocities, with increased risk of scour. 15.7.2 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

15.7.2.1 As with ground conditions, the water environment may be adversely impacted with the addition of the pedestrian and cycle path tunnel due to increased ground breaking for bridge piers and the removal of extra flood defences. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column.

15.7.2.2 Linking the pedestrian and cycle paths to the local road network could cause potential leaching from associated accident spills (fuels/oils), use of concrete, earthworks and the management of the large volumes of material arising from piling activity With a shared segregated cycle and pedestrian facility the impact from pedestrians and cyclists would be less than the tunnel options suggested due to its smaller footprint. 15.7.3 Mitigation

15.7.3.1 Detailed hydraulic assessments should be undertaken to inform design of scour protection measures.

15.7.3.2 Consideration of onsite treatment of contaminated soils and the use of cover systems or removal to reduce pollution risk.

222

15.7.3.3 Construction works and waste management should be undertaken in accordance with EA best practice pollution prevention guidelines.

15.7.3.4 The drainage system should be designed to incorporate appropriate treatment or removal of drainage effluents.

15.7.3.5 Construction works and waste management techniques should be undertaken in accordance with EA best practice pollution prevention guidelines.

15.7.3.6 Suggestions on how to limit the potential for saline intrusion and contamination include the use of selectively placed cohesive backfill material or by use of ground membranes.

15.7.3.7 Compliance with EA Flood Defence Consent conditions should be undertaken to ensure that flood defence provisions are not compromised.

15.7.3.8 Incorporate flood protection measures at tunnel approaches e.g. a moveable flood barrier or flood gates.

15.7.3.9 Incorporate buffer zones to facilitate access to existing flood defences. 15.7.4 Summary

15.7.4.1 Overall, it is expected there will be a slight adverse impact on the River Thames water environment.

15.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 15.8.1 Highway

15.8.1.1 The infrastructure of the cable stayed bridge option could result in townscape and visual disruption that conflicts with regional level policy listed below for the protection and enhancement of townscape and views. Views from sensitive visual receptors such as residential properties and national recreational trails/routes will need to be considered. The latter including the Thames Path and National Cycle Route 1, south of the River Thames, together with the London Loop and National Cycle Route 13, north of the river. Views of the proposals will also need to be considered in relation to heritage features. Bexley Unitary Development Plan identifies that a number of strategic views cross the area in which the options lie, including those from Beckton Alps (Newham) over East London, and from Eaglesfield Recreational Ground (Greenwich) to Bexley and the lower Thames. However, these viewpoints are in excess of 5km away such that the proposals would appear as distant elements in corresponding views. 15.8.2 Pedestrians and Cycle Path

15.8.2.1 The addition of the pedestrian and cycle gallery would have a neutral impact on townscape and visual impact. Though there would be a prolonged construction period with more construction traffic, it is not predicted that once operational there would be adverse impacts associated with the pedestrian and cycle path.

15.8.2.2 Once operational there would be a beneficial impact with the addition of views that were not previously accessible to the public. Views of the local area and

223 East of Silvertown metropolitan open land both north and south of the area would reduce the adverse effects of the bridge. The public transport galleries would allow safe and accessible access to these views. 15.8.3 Mitigation

15.8.3.1 A high quality bridge/infrastructure design could help to enhance local townscape and views. 15.8.4 Summary

15.8.4.1 With high quality bridge and infrastructure design enhancing the local townscape and view, the bridge is expected to have a slight beneficial impact on the surrounding townscape and visual environment.

15.9 Energy 15.9.1 Highway

15.9.1.1 The embodied energy analysis in this Options Study Report is qualitative, based upon the principle construction materials of the options and construction approach in relation to other options (comparatively). The change in energy use from vehicles using the crossing is not included within this assessment.

15.9.1.2 The adopted methodology for related and unrelated energy is mainly based upon relevant national and local policies and more specifically upon the policies included in the London Plan 2011.

15.9.1.3 Potential construction impacts include the construction of the steel concrete composite bridge deck and pylons, including the transportation of construction materials and on-site construction equipment. Similarly, the construction activities required for the site compounds on both river banks would impact on townscape and visual.

15.9.1.4 The bridge option does not contain any significant energy related systems except street lighting, surveillance and traffic control systems. In addition, energy use relative to control and any ancillary buildings will be needed, but energy needs would be lower than other potential options at Belvedere. 15.9.2 Pedestrians and Cycle path

15.9.2.1 The addition of the pedestrian and cycle path gallery would see an increase in energy needed during both construction and operation. Energy used for lighting on the non-motorised gallery must be enough to make a safe environment for the users.

15.9.2.2 The cable stayed bridge would only need lighting during night time hours for passengers to feel safe, therefore being the most energy efficient of the public transport options considered. 15.9.3 Mitigation

15.9.3.1 Mitigation during construction would include:

224

 The utilisation of pre-fabricated components for arch connection and procurement of the sustainable construction material would mitigate the overall energy requirements during construction. Locally and sustainable sourcing of construction material would reduce the construction embodied emissions.

15.9.3.2 Mitigation during operation would include:  Energy efficient lighting should be used combined with day time sensors to control the energy wastage to reduce the likely CO2 emissions associated with this option. It should also be ensured that all buildings are built to energy efficient standards.  An approach to mitigate any potential adverse impact, which would also have knock-on benefits across London, is to consider varying planned user charges for the new links according to vehicle emissions. For example, the standards being considered for the potential Ultra Low Emission Zone in central London could be used to vary the charge level for vehicles using the new link. Any increase in traffic in the areas of the new crossing would therefore be encouraged to be as clean as possible.

15.9.3.3 The above approaches could help to minimise the overall construction embodied energy demands. In addition, energy saving techniques, such as insulating site offices and installing thermostat heating controls and timers, should be adopted during construction to minimise the carbon footprint of construction.

15.9.3.4 To meet the London Plan requirements and to achieve the energy efficient design, Renewable Energy technology also needs to be considered. Renewable energy generation for Option 22 could include wind energy and solar panels. The street lighting should also be energy efficient low energy lighting and where possible solar driven lighting should be proposed. The utilisation of automatic sensors and timers should also reduce the overall energy demand of the preferred option.

15.9.3.5 The likely energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions should be estimated at the design stage and further advice would be provided with regards to the mitigation of energy demand and carbon emissions.

15.9.3.6 The impact on CO2 emissions in London of the options is expected to be neutral overall. Changes in PM10 would be expected to be of the same proportional magnitude as for NOx. 15.9.4 Summary

15.9.4.1 Overall, it is predicted there would be a slight adverse impact on energy for Option 22.

225

OPTION 22A: BELVEDERE HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE WITH FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION

227 East of Silvertown

16 OPTION 22A: BELVEDERE HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (FIXED PUBLIC TRANSPORT)

16.1 Community and Private Assets 16.1.1 Highway

16.1.1.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.1) for the potential impacts on Community and Private Assets associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 22A. 16.1.2 DLR addition

16.1.2.1 The addition of the DLR would benefit the area as it would offer an alternative fixed public transport crossing to residents and access to community and private assets both north and south of the river. The addition of the DLR would be a catalyst to attract further investment in the area. Travel out of the borough for work could increase private wealth and assets, and could attract new residents to the area.

16.1.2.2 The addition of DLR would increase noise, vibration and dust within the surrounding community during construction. It is not envisaged that there would be a highly adverse impact on the community and private assets in the area due to the industrial nature of the surroundings. 16.1.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

16.1.3.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.1) for the potential impacts on Community and Private Assets associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle paths’ elements of Option 22A. 16.1.4 Mitigation

16.1.4.1 Please refer to Option 22 (Section 16.1) for mitigation relating to Community and Private Assets for the cable stayed bridge. 16.1.5 Summary

16.1.5.1 The nature of the industrial land surrounding the option means there is not predicted to be an adverse impact on community and private assets with the addition of the public transport on the cable stayed bridge. Overall there would be a neutral impact on community and private assets.

16.2 Cultural Heritage 16.2.1 Highway

16.2.1.1 Please refer to section 22 Option 1 (section 16.2) for the potential impacts on Cultural Heritage associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 22A. 16.2.2 DLR addition

16.2.2.1 The larger footprint associated with the addition of the DLR may increase the risk of discovering archaeological remains. The presence of the Havering Archaeological Priority Zone creates the potential to unearth a number archaeological remains within the new footprint. The addition of the DLR to the cable stayed bridge is not expected to have an adverse effect on cultural heritage.

228

16.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle paths

16.2.3.1 Please refer to section 22 Option 1 (section 16.2) for the potential impacts on Cultural Heritage associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 22A. 16.2.4 Mitigation

16.2.4.1 Please refer to Option 22 (Section 16.2) for mitigation relating to Cultural Heritage for the cable stayed bridge. 16.2.5 Summary

16.2.5.1 Due to the industrial nature of surrounding land, there is little predicted impact on the cultural heritage. The presence of the Havering Archaeological Site means during construction there is potential for archaeological remains of importance to be discovered. As such, a mitigation plan should be in place prior to construction. Overall the addition of public transport would have a slight adverse impact on cultural heritage.

16.3 Ecology and Nature Conservation 16.3.1 Highway

16.3.1.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.3) for the potential impacts on Ecology and Nature Conservation associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 22A.The impact assessment has been based on guidance set out in the Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment (September 2010). 16.3.2 DLR addition

16.3.2.1 The addition of the DLR would not affect the terrestrial ecology of the area. The option would increase land take within designated areas including intertidal habitat which may have an impact on species migration through fragmentation. The majority of land take would be temporary during the construction phrase and therefore a long-term adverse impact on ecology of the area is not predicted. The increase of marine traffic and construction within the Thames watercourse would have an adverse impact on marine ecology, as will the piling and bridge piers once they are placed in the river. 16.3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

16.3.3.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.3) for the potential impacts on Ecology and Nature Conservation associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 22A. 16.3.4 Mitigation

16.3.4.1 Please refer to Option 22 (Section 16.3) for mitigation relating to Ecology and Nature Conservation for the cable stayed bridge. 16.3.5 Summary

16.3.5.1 Overall the option would have a slight adverse/neutral impact on the surrounding terrestrial ecology, and a major/moderate adverse impact on marine ecology.

229 East of Silvertown

16.4 Effects on All Travellers

16.4.1.1 The analysis of the full range of transport impacts can be found in the Strategic Outline Business Case and supporting documentation. The following information relates solely to the DMRB defined criteria of Effects on All Travellers. 16.4.2 Highway

16.4.2.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.4) for the potential impacts on Effects on Travellers associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 22A. 16.4.3 DLR addition

16.4.3.1 The addition of the DLR is likely to have a significant benefit for travellers within the area. It would provide an efficient link from Thamesmead to the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and central London, creating job prospects for the area. It would have a significant benefit on dependents within the community, creating a viable travel option and supporting the creation of a mixed use town centre hub that is safe and accessible to all users.

16.4.3.2 Public transport may be a quicker option during peak travel times, reducing traveller stress and commute time. Improvements of traffic in the areas surrounding the bridge would benefit both the local community and the travellers.

16.4.3.3 Driver stress may increase during the construction of Option 22A due to the longer construction period needed to add public transport options. In comparison to other options in the same area, construction would be more disruptive as all bridge construction would be done on site, unlike the immersed tunnel which can be built in offsite locations. 16.4.4 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

16.4.4.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.4) for the potential impacts on Effects on all Travellers associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 22A. 16.4.5 Mitigation

16.4.5.1 Please refer to Option 22 (Section 16.4) for mitigation relating to Effects on All Travellers for the cable stayed bridge. 16.4.6 Summary

16.4.6.1 Overall there would be a major beneficial impact on the effects of travellers with the addition of public transport to Option 22A, but slight adverse impacts would be found during construction and for cyclists using the northern approach road.

16.5 Ground Conditions 16.5.1 Highway

16.5.1.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.5) for the potential impacts on Ground Conditions associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 22A. 16.5.2 DLR addition

16.5.2.1 On-shore deep excavations (if required) would also potentially create a contamination pathway to the lower aquifer with moderate adverse impact significance.

230

Ground disturbance of a larger area with the addition of the DLR creates the potential for contaminated soils to leach into the water body or enter the river via runoff.

16.5.2.2 There is an increased risk for soil contamination from the bridge structures directly within the watercourse. The bridge foundations may well dig into areas of unknown contaminated land, causing potential leeching and environmental upset.

16.5.2.3 Due to the larger footprint of the scheme there is a greater risk of discovering unexploded ordnance. 16.5.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

16.5.3.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.5) for the potential impacts on Ground Conditions associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 22A. 16.5.4 Mitigation

16.5.4.1 Please refer to Option 22 (Section 16.5) for mitigation relating to Ground Conditions for the cable stayed bridge. 16.5.5 Summary

16.5.5.1 The majority of impacts will be during or will identified and potentially mitigated against during the construction period. as for the highway-only option the impacts ranged from neutral to moderate adverse, with neutral experienced for demolition and deterioration of buildings, slight adverse in relation to harm to human health from UXO strikes, contaminated soil, hazardous landfill or sediment. A moderate adverse impact is seen for the migration and build-up of Ground gas and leaching and migration of contamination to controlled waters. In the event that significant piling or excavation works are required at the site of historic landfill, the potential of leaching and migration of contamination from soil and/or sediment to Controlled Waters would be increased to large/moderate adverse. Overall the impact on ground conditions would be moderate adverse.

16.6 Materials 16.6.1 Highway

16.6.1.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.6) for the potential impacts on Materials associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 22A. 16.6.2 DLR addition

16.6.2.1 The DLR deck would increase the width of the cable stayed bridge, creating a moderate adverse impact on the waste arising from the option, alongside the volume of material needed to construct the DLR deck. Such an increase would have scheme and community wide effects with more construction traffic to transport materials to and from the site.

16.6.2.2 Due to the industrial nature of the surrounding environment, it is likely the construction would include the removal of contaminated land from the area. This would benefit the local environment, but would add to the need for construction traffic as the material would need to be taken to a licensed disposal facility.

231 East of Silvertown

16.6.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

16.6.3.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.6) for the potential impacts on Materials associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 22A. 16.6.4 Mitigation

16.6.4.1 Please refer to Option 22 (Section 16.6) for mitigation relating to Materials for the cable stayed bridge. 16.6.5 Summary

16.6.5.1 . Having both the DLR and the pedestrian and cycle paths would have the most adverse effect. This is due to the increase in materials used, excavated materials and the waste created from the scheme. Appropriate planning would be key to minimise the impact of materials. A larger footprint may remove and treat a larger proportion of the contaminated land through which Option 22A would be built.

16.6.5.2 Overall there would be a moderate adverse impact during the construction of the public transport options when considering the volumes of material needed for Option 22A.

16.7 Water Environment 16.7.1 Highway

16.7.1.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.7) for the potential impacts on the Water Environment associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 22A. 16.7.2 DLR addition

16.7.2.1 As with ground conditions, the water environment may be adversely impacted with the addition of the DLR tunnel due to increased ground breaking and disturbance within the watercourse from bridge piers and the removal of extra flood defences. More piling on the river banks would result in the greater potential mobilisation of contaminants in river bed sediments and the release of sediments into the water column. 16.7.3 Pedestrian and Cycle paths

16.7.3.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.7) for the potential impacts on the Water Environment associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycles’ elements of Option 22A. 16.7.4 Mitigation

16.7.4.1 Please refer to Option 22 (Section 16.7) for mitigation relating to Water Environment for the cable stayed bridge. 16.7.5 Summary

16.7.5.1 Overall there would be a slight adverse impact on the water environment with the addition of public transport due to the likelihood of spills and contamination from construction activities within the watercourse for the cable stayed bridge.

232

16.8 Townscape and Visual Impact 16.8.1 Highway

Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.8) for the potential impacts on Townscape and Visual Impact associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 22A. 16.8.2 DLR addition

16.8.2.1 The addition of the DLR would have a slight adverse townscape and visual impact. Though no adverse impacts are predicted with the construction of the cable stayed bridge, there would be additional and more prolonged disturbance to the area during the construction phase. Once operational there will be a neutral/ slight beneficial impact on the surrounding townscape and visual intrusion. 16.8.3 Pedestrians and Cycle Path

16.8.3.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.8) for the potential impacts on Townscape and Visual Impact associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 22A. 16.8.4 Mitigation

16.8.4.1 Please refer to Option 22 (Section 16.8) for mitigation relating to Townscape and Visual for the cable stayed bridge. 16.8.5 Summary

16.8.5.1 Overall the cable stayed bridge would have a slight beneficial impact on townscape and visual at Belvedere. Though construction impacts are predicted to be slight adverse, effective design in a predominantly industrial area means once complete the bridge could have a minimal impact, and would be beneficial to area once operational.

16.9 Energy 16.9.1 Highway

16.9.1.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.9) for the potential impacts on Energy associated with the ‘Highways’ elements of Option 22A. 16.9.2 DLR addition

16.9.2.1 The addition of the DLR would greatly increase energy consumed during construction– both in terms of the energy consumption on site and embodied carbon of the materials used. During the operational phase there would be constant use of energy for signalling, lighting, ventilation and the consumption of the DLR itself. The energy needed for this DLR tunnel during operation is likely to be greater than that of the vehicle tunnel.

16.9.2.2 However, this may be mitigated to a degree by the modal shift from private vehicle use to the DLR, resulting in a beneficial impact on energy use. This is difficult to quantify at the current stage. 16.9.3 Pedestrians and Cycle path

16.9.3.1 Please refer to Option 22 (section 16.9) for the potential impacts on Energy associated with the ‘Pedestrian and Cycle’ elements of Option 22A.

233 East of Silvertown

16.9.4 Mitigation

16.9.4.1 Please refer to Option 22 (Section 16.9) for mitigation relating to Energy for the cable stayed bridge. 16.9.5 Summary

19.9.5.1 The additional construction traffic – both marine and terrestrial - and ancillary buildings needed for the longer construction period, the amount of energy for the cable stayed bridge would be far greater than that needed without public transport options. Overall there would be a moderate adverse impact on energy for the cable stayed bridge.

234

17 NOISE AND VIBRATION

17.1 INTRODUCTION 17.1.1 Background information

17.1.1.1 This Chapter is a high-level assessment to indicate the potential of any significant differences between the traffic scenarios in terms of noise impacts. This noise assessment is not comparable to that prepared for Silvertown Tunnel as this assessment has utilised a much higher level method of investigation. The findings therefore should not be read in parallel. As the East of Silvertown project progresses to the next stage in the planning process, more detailed modelling will be undertaken.

17.1.1.2 There are 13 river crossing options in total, with four distinct traffic scenarios. This chapter provides a comparison between the four traffic scenarios, as described in section 3.3 of this report. It does not compare the potential noise impacts between the river crossing options.

17.1.1.3 As with other chapters, the methodology and baseline conditions have been reported in Chapters 3 and 4 respectively.

17.2 Results 17.2.1 Scenario 114

17.2.1.1 Drawings 18-1 to 18-3 illustrate the result of this noise assessment. In accordance with DMRB links with an increase 3.0 dBA have been identified and highlighted in accord with their likely impact criteria.

17.2.1.2 Table 18.1 contains a brief summary of the results for Scenario 114 for the year 2031: Table 18.1 Summary of Results Comparing the Reference Case Scenario 4b with Scenario 114 (Year 2031)

Link Location (A, B node coordinates) Description

A Node X A Node B Node B Node Change Y X Y dB(A)

Moderate 543793 181407 543812 181178 Traffic exiting the new 8.6 Adverse crossing will have to use this link road resulting in around a 60% increase in traffic flow and a relative increase in noise levels.

17.2.1.3 The indicated magnitude of noise change shown in Table 18.2 above refers to a change in basic noise level (BNL) along affected routes in the study area and does not necessarily reflect the change in noise level at respective receptor locations. Further assessment would need to be carried out at the next stage to predict noise change at individual receptor locations whereby consideration is given to change in height and

235 East of Silvertown alignment of roads and the effects of topography and screening from buildings and other structures. 17.2.2 Scenario 115

17.2.2.1 Table 18.2 contains a brief summary of the results for Scenario 115 for the year 2031; Table 18.2 Summary of Results Comparing the Reference Case Scenario 4b with Scenario 115 (Year 2031)

Change Link location (A, B node coordinates) Description Category

A Node A Node B Node B Node Change

X Y X Y dB(A)

550571 182302 550248 182442 4.5

550229 182464 550591 182422 3.9

Roads in close 550571 182302 550591 182422 proximity to the 3.4 scheme will see Minor increases in general Adverse 549890 179793 549747 179018 traffic wanting to use 3.2 the crossing and as a result road noise 549747 179018 549890 179793 levels will increase 3.2

550591 182422 550571 182302 3.2

549586 178369 549467 179063 3.1

549467 179063 549586 178369 3.1

550575 178847 550634 178844 3

550602 178790 550456 178961 -3.2

Change Link location (A, B node coordinates) Description Category

A Node A Node B Node B Node Change

X Y X Y dB(A)

In the future scenario it’s predicted that this link will see a Minor decreased traffic flow beneficial resulting in a reduction in basic noise level.

17.2.2.2 The indicated magnitude of noise change shown in Table 18.3 above refers to a change in basic noise level (BNL) along affected routes in the study area and does not necessarily reflect the change in noise level at respective receptor locations. Further assessment would need to be carried out to predict noise change at individual receptor locations whereby consideration is given to change in height and alignment of roads and the effects of topography and screening from buildings and other structures. 17.2.3 Scenario 201

17.2.3.1 Table 18.3 contains a brief summary of the results for Scenario 201 for the year 2031. This traffic scenario includes both Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings. Table 18.3 Summary of Results Comparing the Reference Case Scenario 4b with Scenario 201 (Year 2031)

Change Link location (A, B node Description Category coordinates)

A A B B Change Node X Node Y Node X Node Y dB(A)

Moderate 543793 181407 543812 181178 Traffic exiting the new 7.1 Adverse Gallions crossing will have to use this link road resulting in around a 60% Increase in traffic

Minor 4.2 Adverse 549586 178369 549467 179063

549467 179063 549586 178369 4.2

549890 179793 549747 179018 3.3 Link roads surrounding both 549747 179018 549890 179793 crossings will see a general 3.3 increase in road traffic and 548992 179095 548893 178605 3.2 there for a small increase in 548893 178605 548992 179095 basic noise levels 3.2

550575 178847 550634 178844 3.2

547623 180363 546927 179976 3.1

546927 179976 547623 180363 3.0

Minor 550602 178790 550456 178961 In the future scenario it’s -3.6 Beneficial predicted that this link will

237 East of Silvertown

see a decreased traffic flow resulting in a reduction in basic noise level.

17.2.3.2 The indicated magnitude of noise change shown in Table 18.3 above refers to a change in basic noise level (BNL) along affected routes in the study area and does not necessarily reflect the change in noise level at respective receptor locations. Further assessment would need to be carried out to predict noise change at individual receptor locations whereby consideration is given to change in height and alignment of roads and the effects of topography and screening from buildings and other structures. 17.2.4 Summary of Results

17.2.4.1 A high level assessment has been carried out to consider the change in noise level attributed to the implementation of the various traffic scenarios. This has been prepared to enable a comparison between each traffic scenario with regards to impacts on the noise environment. Road traffic noise predictions have been undertaken in accordance with CRTN which is the standard UK procedure for assessing road traffic noise.

17.2.4.2 For the purposes of this high level assessment, a basic noise level has been calculated for each scenario and the predicted noise levels have been considered against a Do-Minimum scenario (the ‘Reference’ case) without any proposed river crossing options in place. DMRB guidance suggests only assessing links within 1km of the proposed scheme. However, as this assessment is still in early stages we have proceeded on the basis that this is a very high level assessment so have included links up to 2km. A more detailed study area would be assessed at the next stage of the project.

17.2.4.3 The classification of magnitude of noise impacts set out in DMRB when assessing traffic noise in the long term is shown in Table 3-13. DMRB considers a change in noise levels of 0.1 dB(A) to 2.9dB(A) as being of Negligible significance.

17.2.4.4 In accordance with DMRB, the links where an increase of more than 3.0dB(A) or a decrease of more than 3.0dB have been identified and have been shown on Drawings 18-1 to 18-3.

17.2.4.5 A direct comparison between the scenarios suggests that Scenario 115 (which comprises Silvertown, Blackwall and Belvedere crossings all being charged and the Woolwich Ferry updated with an assumed 30% additional capacity) may cause the least impact out of the three Do-Something scenarios as it doesn’t incur anything above a Minor Adverse effect. In comparison, Scenarios 114 and 201 both result in at least one Moderate Adverse effect to a road link with regards to noise impact.

17.2.4.6 As previously indicated, the results from this assessment are based upon a high- level assessment rather than detailed noise modelling. They have been prepared for comparison purposes only. A detailed noise assessment would be undertaken at the next stage of the project.

17.2.4.7 At this stage in the assessment it is too early to suggest suitable mitigation. Without a detailed model the behavioural properties of the sound, based on area specific properties like building shielding, topography and vegetation, are unknown. In high level studies such as this it may be the case that the noise change in an area is quite dramatic. However when detailed modelling is undertaken, in which the receptors are more closely

analysed, it may become apparent that the level of mitigation required is significantly more or less than previously assumed.

239 East of Silvertown

18 AIR QUALITY

18.1 Background information

18.1.1.1 As discussed in Section 1.1 of this Options Study, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy set out a commitment to take forward a package of new river crossings for east and southeast London. These included Silvertown Tunnel and River Crossings East of Silvertown, which diverged into separate projects in 2014 following a joint public consultation. Silvertown Tunnel is at a more progressed stage in the planning process, having recently prepared the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) as part of the Development Consent Order application process under The Planning Act 2008. This has involved detailed (dispersion) modelling for air quality. East of Silvertown is at a much earlier stage in the planning process, with this report forming part of the optioneering stage. There were originally 26 options for East of Silvertown, varied in design (bridge, tunnel, ferry) and location (three sites at Gallions Reach, Woolwich and Belvedere). The assessment for which is set out in the Environmental Options Study report (EOSR), Hyder, July 2014. TfL has shortlisted six options from the draft River Crossings East of Silvertown: Option Assessment Report (long list), TfL, 2015. Each option has highway only and fixed public transport options, with an additional option at Woolwich Ferry, therefore there are 12 options in total.

18.1.1.2 This is a high level assessment in order to indicate the potential of there being any significant differences in the options in terms of air quality impacts, which is a proportionate approach at the options stage. The air quality assessment is not comparable to that prepared for Silvertown Tunnel as this assessment has utilised a screening tool rather than comprising detailed modelling. The findings are therefore not comparable and should not be read in parallel. As the East of Silvertown project progresses, however, more detailed modelling will be undertaken.

18.1.1.3 Whilst there are 13 options in total, there are four distinct traffic scenarios. These four traffic scenarios have therefore been the focus of this air quality assessment. In response to consultation feedback in 2014, these traffic scenarios include a new proposal for two crossings (Scenario 200), along with a proposal for individual crossings (Scenarios 7a and 13a) which were previously presented in the 2014 consultation. Air quality impacts have been assessed on all these options, and compared to the ‘Reference Case’ (Scenario 4a). Details of the scenarios considered are as follows: 1. Scenario 4a (Reference Case) - Silvertown and Blackwall crossings are both charged. The Woolwich ferry has no capacity to increase and is not charged (assumed for the purpose of this assessment). This scenario is future year 2021, without any of the proposed schemes in operation; 2. Scenario 7a (Do-Something) - Silvertown, Blackwall and Gallions Crossings are all charged. The Woolwich Ferry is removed in future year 2021 (assumed for the purpose of this assessment); 3. Scenario 13a (Do-Something) - Silvertown, Blackwall and Belvedere Crossings are all charged. The Woolwich Ferry is updated with 30% additional capacity for future year 2021 (assumed for the purpose of this assessment); and

4. Scenario 200 (Do-Something) - Silvertown, Blackwall, Gallions and Belvedere Crossings are all charged. The Woolwich Ferry is removed in future year 2021 (assumed for the purpose of this assessment). For the purposes of this report, this will be referred to as Scenario 200 from this point forward.

18.1.1.4 Scenarios 4a, 7a and 13a have been derived from TfL’s 2014 Traffic Forecasting Report (TfL, 2014), and Scenario 200 derives from the 2015 Traffic Forecasting Report (TfL, 2015).

18.1.1.5 As outlined above, the traffic scenarios include a variety of river crossing combinations to reflect the different crossing options available in the wider area. The Woolwich Ferry is currently operational and, for the purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed to remain operational with a 30% increased capacity in Scenario 13a as Silvertown and Belvedere crossing locations are some distance from Woolwich. Woolwich Ferry has not, however, been included in Scenarios 7a and Scenario 200 as these options already include a crossing at both Silvertown and Gallions Reach. It has been assumed that any new crossing facility at Gallions Reach would result in Woolwich Ferry no longer being required due to their proximity of locations.

18.1.1.6 To assess the potential air quality impacts of options 7a, 13, and 200 (Do- Something scenarios), an assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 (HA207/07) (Highways Agency, 2007). Potential air quality impacts were evaluated by looking at projected changes in annual mean Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) concentrations for the assumed opening year 2021. The purpose of the assessment is to determine whether there are any significant differences between the options in terms of air quality. Details of the assessment are outlined in the following sections.

18.1.1.7 For traffic sources, the pollutants of particular concern are nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10). In practice, the evaluation of significance is typically undertaken considering exceedances of NO2 against annual average objectives and thresholds. This is because the majority of exceedences are for NO2, and PM10 concentrations do not frequently exceed the annual or short term objective. As a result, NO2 has been the focus of this high-level assessment.

18.2 Results – Option 7A

18.2.1 Affected Road Network (ARN)

18.2.1.1 The ARN for Option 7a was defined by the criteria specified in Section 3.14.1.1, and covered an area encompassed by the A12 and M25 in the east-west direction and Junctions 27 and 2 of the M25 in the north-south direction. A number of smaller local roads were predicted to be impacted by the proposed scheme within the aforementioned boundaries. Drawing 3-1 depicts the ARN.

18.2.1.2 If a Local Authority identifies any locations within its boundaries where the AQS Objectives are not likely to be achieved, it must declare the area as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The AQMAs located within the vicinity of the proposed scheme are presented in Drawing 3-1.

18.2.1.3 Air Quality Focus Areas (AQFAs) are locations that not only exceed the AQS Objective/EU annual mean limit value for NO2 but are also locations with high human exposure. The Focus Areas were defined to address concerns raised by boroughs within

241 East of Silvertown the LAQM review process and forecasted air pollution trends. This is not an exhaustive list of London’s hotspot locations, but where the Greater London Authority (GLA) believes the problem to be most acute. The AQFAs located within the vicinity of the proposed scheme are also presented in Drawing 3-1.

18.2.2 Impact on Emissions and Potential Impact on Receptors

Predicted Mean Annual NO2 Concentrations

18.2.2.1 As per guidance outlined in DMRB, potential air quality impacts relating to the proposed option were assessed at a total of 88 worst case receptors which were selected at sites located within 200 metres of the associated ARN.

18.2.2.2 Table 18.1 details the annual mean NO2 concentrations predicted by the DMRB air quality screening model at all receptors for the Reference Case scenario (Option 4a) and the Do-Something scenario (Option 7a) and reflects the change in mean annual NO2 concentrations projected for 2021 between the Reference Case and Option 7a.

Table 18.1: Predicted Annual NO2 Concentrations at Receptors within 200 Metres of Affected Road Network for Options 4a and 7a LTT Adjusted 2021 Annual Receptor Co- Mean NO2 Concentrations Difference between ordinates (µg/m³) [1] Projected Reference Option 4a Case (4a) and Do- Receptor (Reference Option 7a (Do- Something (7a) ID X (m) Y (m) Case) Something) Concentration [2] R1 549498 179044 24.9 25.2 0.3 R2 549576 178387 22.2 22.7 0.5 R3 551069 178230 28.7 29.7 1.0 R4 550177 176896 29.6 30.1 0.5 R5 547752 177236 26.0 26.4 0.4 R6 551552 176873 35.6 36.8 1.2 R7 548879 174356 50.3 50.0 -0.3 R8 555650 173547 45.8 45.8 0.0 R9 547205 180179 22.8 24.6 1.8 R10 545064 179669 29.5 29.5 0.0 R11 538362 180920 35.1 33.2 -1.9 R12 539908 178508 34.6 33.7 -0.9 R13 557598 181085 18.4 18.3 -0.1 R14 538624 181161 36.8 36.6 -0.2 R15 555379 179904 28.5 28.4 -0.1 R16 555056 175660 29.0 29.0 0.0 R17 552631 175356 49.5 50.2 0.7 R18 553587 172322 32.1 32.1 0.0 R19 544034 178887 35.0 34.4 -0.6 R20 544779 178375 25.7 25.6 -0.1 R21 546454 183694 43.4 43.4 0.0 R22 542895 182178 37.5 37.6 0.1 R23 543750 181240 23.7 24.4 0.7 R24 543715 180875 32.8 34.4 1.6

LTT Adjusted 2021 Annual Receptor Co- Mean NO2 Concentrations Difference between ordinates (µg/m³) [1] Projected Reference Option 4a Case (4a) and Do- Receptor (Reference Option 7a (Do- Something (7a) ID X (m) Y (m) Case) Something) Concentration [2] R25 545988 180036 20.3 20.4 0.1 R26 547294 179645 22.4 23.5 1.1 R27 548734 179379 19.7 19.6 -0.1 R28 546434 178562 23.1 23.1 0.0 R29 544536 177833 29.2 28.9 -0.3 R30 545410 176093 27.2 26.7 -0.5 R31 540979 177130 35.0 33.5 -1.5 R32 548633 175751 23.7 23.9 0.2 R33 549658 175793 29.1 29.2 0.1 R34 550996 174794 23.2 23.0 -0.2 R35 541919 175060 30.5 30.5 0.0 R36 543518 175167 29.1 28.8 -0.3 R37 551789 182210 20.7 20.8 0.1 R38 546254 174715 34.8 34.7 -0.1 R39 549085 177573 25.5 25.8 0.3 R40 548993 177996 22.9 22.9 0.0 R41 553272 175279 26.1 26.3 0.2 R42 552726 173629 26.2 26.1 -0.1 R43 538700 173686 33.0 33.0 0.0 R44 541162 174360 31.5 28.8 -2.7 R45 541116 178485 32.2 31.7 -0.5 R46 540432 180222 31.3 31.1 -0.2 R47 542361 182116 42.4 42.3 -0.1 R48 542662 186959 28.4 28.6 0.2 R49 543375 184339 31.5 31.8 0.3 R50 540318 181771 49.9 49.8 -0.1 R51 537996 182851 39.6 39.4 -0.2 R52 536613 184631 35.4 35.2 -0.2 R53 536871 185065 42.8 42.7 -0.1 R54 539164 187253 46.5 46.2 -0.3 R55 542961 180916 27.4 27.7 0.3 R56 543734 180046 34.6 32.1 -2.5 R57 543335 178617 34.0 33.4 -0.6 R58 543616 178676 30.5 29.5 -1.0 R59 544078 178381 23.5 23.1 -0.4 R60 556235 178457 20.6 20.6 0.0 R61 556248 178747 21.5 21.3 -0.2 R62 567446 182119 32.2 32.3 0.1 R63 568302 183217 20.6 20.6 0.0 R64 556406 172144 29.8 29.9 0.1 R65 558664 172638 32.8 32.8 0.0 R66 554234 170532 17.7 17.7 0.0

243 East of Silvertown

LTT Adjusted 2021 Annual Receptor Co- Mean NO2 Concentrations Difference between ordinates (µg/m³) [1] Projected Reference Option 4a Case (4a) and Do- Receptor (Reference Option 7a (Do- Something (7a) ID X (m) Y (m) Case) Something) Concentration [2] R67 553053 168290 19.9 19.9 0.0 R68 550375 164661 17.0 17.0 0.0 R69 550682 168099 24.7 24.6 -0.1 R70 558307 185117 20.8 20.8 0.0 R71 557036 191876 21.4 21.4 0.0 R72 555051 194148 17.4 17.4 0.0 R73 561867 180906 23.5 23.6 0.1 R74 560033 179871 32.5 32.6 0.1 R75 549803 179620 21.2 21.5 0.3 R76 550402 178386 23.2 22.8 -0.4 R77 547375 178664 23.5 24.4 0.9 R78 546857 180824 19.1 19.2 0.1 R79 545092 180453 17.7 18.7 1.0 R80 546777 176998 30.9 30.8 -0.1 R81 545608 180167 17.7 20.1 2.4 R82 545698 179981 20.7 23.1 2.4 R83 545573 179885 24.5 25.1 0.6 R84 543650 181117 27.8 28.8 1.0 R85 550121 179742 15.6 15.7 0.1 R86 550632 182248 25.6 25.6 0.0 R87 548221 183504 31.5 31.5 0.0 R88 550588 183024 22.6 22.6 0.0 [1] LTT=Long Term Trend. Predicted NO2 concentrations were adjusted using a Gap Factor based on the long term adjustment factor calculated by the Highways England’s “INTERIM Highways Agency Alternative Long Term Gap Analysis Calculator v1.1”. All values reflect predicted concentrations for the future year 2021. Bold font indicates mean annual NO2 concentration predicted to be greater than Air Quality Strategy Objective. [2] Italic font indicates projected changes in mean annual NO2 concentration between Reference Case and Do-Something 3 options were greater than 2 g/m at associated receptor.

18.2.3 Potential Future Exceedences of Air Quality Strategy NO2 Objectives

18.2.3.1 Impacts of the option on local air quality were evaluated by determining the number of the worst case receptors likely to result in an improvement or deterioration in air quality, together with the associated risk of exceeding the annual NO2 AQS objective criteria (acknowledging that this assessment is limited to using the DMRB air quality screening model and not all monitoring has been used to verify the model).

18.2.3.2 High risk receptors were defined as those with annual NO2 concentrations exceeding the annual AQS objective criteria of 40g/m3. A summary of predicted annual mean NO2 concentrations for the Reference Case (Option 4a) and the Do-Something (Option 7a) relating to the associated potential risk of future exceedence at each receptor can be seen in Figures 18-1 and 18-2, and is outlined in Table 18.2. Five of the high risk receptors were anticipated to improve with the new scheme and one was predicted to deteriorate. There were no additional high risk receptors predicted to occur with the implementation of Option 7a in comparison to the Reference Case scenario.

Table 18.2: Projected Concentration and Risk Rating of Potential Future Exceedence for Option 7a

Number of Receptors Projected 2021 Risk of Concentration No Exceedance (g/m3) Improvement Deterioration Change Total Low <36 26 31 19 76 Medium 36-40 2 2 0 4 High >40 5 1 2 8

18.2.3.3 For Option 7a, the largest predicted change in mean annual NO2 concentration occurred at receptor R44 (located at Sidcup Road and Westhorne Avenue), which showed a predicted decrease of 2.7 g/m3 and receptor R56 (located at Woolwich crossing area), which showed a predicted decrease of 2.5 g/m3. This equates to a 9% and 7% decrease in mean annual NO2 concentrations at each of the aforementioned receptors, respectively.

3 18.2.3.4 Increases in annual mean NO2 concentrations greater than 2g/m were predicted to occur at receptors R81 and R82 (located near Battery Road), which both had a projected increase in concentration of 2.4g/m3. 18.3 Results – Option 13A

18.3.1 Affected Road Network

18.3.1.1 The ARN for Option 13a was defined by the criteria specified in Section 3.14.1.1 and covered an area encompassed by the A12 and A13 to the A1014 in the east-west direction and Junctions 28 and 4 of the M25 in the north-south direction. A number of smaller local roads were also impacted by the proposed scheme within the aforementioned boundaries. Figure 3-2 depicts the ARN, AQMAs and AQFAs located within the vicinity of the scheme.

18.3.2 Impact on Emissions and Potential Impact on Receptors

Predicted Mean Annual NO2 Emissions

18.3.2.1 As per guidance outlined in the DMRB document, potential air quality impacts relating to the proposed option were assessed using a total of 88 worst case receptors which were selected at sites located within 200 metres of the associated ARN.

18.3.2.2 Table 18.3 details the annual mean NO2 concentrations predicted by the DMRB air quality screening model at all receptors for the Reference Case scenario (Option 4a) and the Do-Something scenario (Option 13a), and reflects the change in annual mean NO2 concentrations projected for 2021 between the Reference Case and Option 13a.

Table 18.3: Predicted Annual NO2 Concentrations at Receptors within 200 Metres of Affected Road Network for Options 4a and 13a

245 East of Silvertown

Receptor Co- LTT Adjusted 2021 Annual Mean Difference between [1] ordinates NO2 Concentrations (µg/m³) Projected Reference Option 4a Option 13a (Do- Case (4a) and Do- Receptor (Reference Something) Something (13a) ID X (m) Y (m) Case) Concentration [2] R4 550177 176896 29.6 30.3 0.7 R5 547752 177236 26.0 26.7 0.7 R6 551552 176873 35.6 36.2 0.6 R7 548879 174356 50.3 50 -0.3 R8 555650 173547 45.8 45.4 -0.4 R9 547205 180179 22.8 23.1 0.3 R10 545064 179669 29.5 29.3 -0.2 R11 538362 180920 35.1 33.3 -1.8 R12 539908 178508 34.6 34.2 -0.4 R13 557598 181085 18.4 18.4 0.0 R14 538624 181161 36.8 36.4 -0.4 R15 555379 179904 28.5 28.9 0.4 R16 555056 175660 29.0 28 -1.0 R17 552631 175356 49.5 48.3 -1.2 R18 553587 172322 32.1 31.9 -0.2 R19 544034 178887 35.0 34.6 -0.4 R20 544779 178375 25.7 25.6 -0.1 R21 546454 183694 43.4 43 -0.4 R22 542895 182178 37.5 37.5 0.0 R23 543750 181240 23.7 23.5 -0.2 R24 543715 180875 32.8 32.4 -0.4 R25 545988 180036 20.3 20.3 0.0 R26 547294 179645 22.4 22.5 0.1 R27 548734 179379 19.7 20 0.3 R28 546434 178562 23.1 23 -0.1 R29 544536 177833 29.2 29.2 0.0 R30 545410 176093 27.2 27 -0.2 R31 540979 177130 35.0 34.7 -0.3 R32 548633 175751 23.7 23.7 0.0 R33 549658 175793 29.1 29.1 0.0 R34 550996 174794 23.2 23.1 -0.1 R35 541919 175060 30.5 30.6 0.1 R36 543518 175167 29.1 29.1 0.0 R37 551789 182210 20.7 20.9 0.2 R38 546254 174715 34.8 34.7 -0.1 R39 549085 177573 25.5 26.1 0.6 R40 548993 177996 22.9 24.3 1.4 R41 553272 175279 26.1 26.5 0.4 R42 552726 173629 26.2 25.9 -0.3 R43 538700 173686 33.0 32.7 -0.3 R44 541162 174360 31.5 31.4 -0.1

Receptor Co- LTT Adjusted 2021 Annual Mean Difference between [1] ordinates NO2 Concentrations (µg/m³) Projected Reference Option 4a Option 13a (Do- Case (4a) and Do- Receptor (Reference Something) Something (13a) ID X (m) Y (m) Case) Concentration [2] R45 541116 178485 32.2 32 -0.2 R46 540432 180222 31.3 31.3 0.0 R47 542361 182116 42.4 42.2 -0.2 R48 542662 186959 28.4 28.4 0.0 R49 543375 184339 31.5 31.5 0.0 R50 540318 181771 49.9 49.7 -0.2 R51 537996 182851 39.6 39.5 -0.1 R52 536613 184631 35.4 35.3 -0.1 R53 536871 185065 42.8 42.7 -0.1 R54 539164 187253 46.5 46.4 -0.1 R55 542961 180916 27.4 27.4 0.0 R56 543734 180046 34.6 32.5 -2.1 R57 543335 178617 34.0 33.7 -0.3 R58 543616 178676 30.5 29.8 -0.7 R59 544078 178381 23.5 23.3 -0.2 R60 556235 178457 20.6 20.8 0.2 R61 556248 178747 21.5 21.2 -0.3 R62 567446 182119 32.2 32.4 0.2 R63 568302 183217 20.6 20.6 0.0 R64 556406 172144 29.8 29.8 0.0 R65 558664 172638 32.8 32.8 0.0 R66 554234 170532 17.7 17.7 0.0 R67 553053 168290 19.9 20 0.1 R68 550375 164661 17.0 17 0.0 R69 550682 168099 24.7 24.5 -0.2 R70 558307 185117 20.8 20.8 0.0 R71 557036 191876 21.4 21.5 0.1 R72 555051 194148 17.4 17.4 0.0 R73 561867 180906 23.5 23.6 0.1 R74 560033 179871 32.5 32.8 0.3 R75 549803 179620 21.2 23.2 2.0 R76 550402 178386 23.2 22.3 -0.9 R77 547375 178664 23.5 23.6 0.1 R78 546857 180824 19.1 19.1 0.0 R79 545092 180453 17.7 17.7 0.0 R80 546777 176998 30.9 31.4 0.5 R81 545608 180167 17.7 17.7 0.0 R82 545698 179981 20.7 20.7 0.0 R83 545573 179885 24.5 24.3 -0.2 R84 543650 181117 27.8 27.7 -0.1 R85 550121 179742 15.6 16.1 0.5 R86 550632 182248 25.6 28.4 2.8

247 East of Silvertown

18.3.3 Potential Future Exceedence of Air Quality Strategy NO2 Objectives

18.3.3.1 Impacts of the scheme on local air quality were evaluated by determining the number of the worst case receptors likely to result in an improvement or deterioration in air quality and the associated risk of exceeding the annual NO2 AQS objective criteria in a future assessment (acknowledging that this assessment is limited to using the DMRB air quality screening model and not all monitoring has been used to verify the model).

18.3.3.2 High risk receptors were defined as those with annual NO2 concentrations exceeding the annual AQS objective criteria of 40 g/m3. A summary of predicted mean annual NO2 concentrations for Do-Something (Option 13a) relating to the associated potential risk of future exceedance at each receptor can be seen in Table 18.4 and Drawing 18-3. Eight of the high risk receptors were anticipated to improve with the new scheme. There were no additional high risk receptors predicted to occur with the implementation of Option 13a in comparison to the Reference Case scenario.

Table 18.4: Projected Concentration and Risk Rating of Potential Future Exceedence for Option 13a

Projected Number of Receptors 2021 Risk of Concentration No Exceedance (g/m3) Improvement Deterioration Change Total Low <36 28 27 21 76 Medium 36-40 2 1 1 4 High >40 8 0 0 8

18.3.3.3 For Option 13a, the largest predicted change in mean annual NO2 concentration occurred at receptor R1 (located at Picardy Street and Lower Park Road), which showed a 3 predicted increase of 3 g/m . This equates to a 12% increase in annual mean NO2 concentration.

18.3.3.4 Decreases in annual mean NO2 concentrations from the Reference Case projection greater than 2 g/m3 occurred at R56 (located at Woolwich crossing area Albert Road and Barge House Road), which showed a predicted decrease of 2.1 g/m3.

18.4 Results – Option 200

18.4.1 Affected Road Network

18.4.1.1 The ARN for Option 200 was defined by the criteria specified in Section 3.14.1.1 and covered an area encompassed by the A12 and A13 up to the A176 in the east/west direction and Junctions 27 and 4 of the M25 in the north/south direction. Additionally, a number of smaller local roads are also impacted by the proposed scheme within the aforementioned boundaries. Drawing 3-3 depicts the ARN in addition to the AQMAs and AQFAs located within the vicinity of the proposed scheme.

18.4.2 Impact on Emissions and Potential Impact on Receptors

Predicted Mean Annual NO2 Emissions

18.4.2.1 As per guidance outlined in the DMRB document, potential air quality impacts relating to the proposed option were assessed using a total of 88 worse case receptors which were selected at sites located within 200 metres of the associated affected road network.

18.4.2.2 Table 18.5 details the mean annual NO2 concentrations predicted by the DMRB air quality screening model at all receptors for the Reference Case scenario (Option 4a) and the Do-Something scenario (Option 200), and reflects the change in mean annual NO2 concentrations projected for 2021 between the Reference Case and Option 200.

Table 18.5: Predicted Annual NO2 Concentrations at Receptors within 200 Metres of Affected Road Network for Options 4a and 200 Receptor LTT Adjusted 2021 Annual Mean Difference between [1] Co-ordinates NO2 Concentrations (µg/m³) Projected Reference Option 200 Case4a) and Do- Receptor Option 4a (Do- Something (200) ID X (m) Y (m) (Reference Case) Something) Concentration [2] R1 549498 179044 24.9 28.0 3.1 R2 549576 178387 22.2 23.2 1.0 R3 551069 178230 28.7 30.3 1.6 R4 550177 176896 29.6 30.7 1.1 R5 547752 177236 26.0 27.0 1.0 R6 551552 176873 35.6 37.1 1.5 R7 548879 174356 50.3 49.7 -0.6 R8 555650 173547 45.8 45.4 -0.4 R9 547205 180179 22.8 25.0 2.2 R10 545064 179669 29.5 29.5 0.0 R11 538362 180920 35.1 33.1 -2.0 R12 539908 178508 34.6 33.6 -1.1 R13 557598 181085 18.4 18.4 0.0 R14 538624 181161 36.8 36.4 -0.4 R15 555379 179904 28.5 28.9 0.4 R16 555056 175660 29.0 28.4 -0.6 R17 552631 175356 49.5 49.2 -0.3 R18 553587 172322 32.1 31.8 -0.3 R19 544034 178887 35.0 34.5 -0.5 R20 544779 178375 25.7 25.7 0.0

249 East of Silvertown

Receptor LTT Adjusted 2021 Annual Mean Difference between [1] Co-ordinates NO2 Concentrations (µg/m³) Projected Reference Option 200 Case4a) and Do- Receptor Option 4a (Do- Something (200) ID X (m) Y (m) (Reference Case) Something) Concentration [2] R21 546454 183694 43.4 43.2 -0.2 R22 542895 182178 37.5 37.6 0.1 R23 543750 181240 23.7 24.4 0.7 R24 543715 180875 32.8 34.8 2.0 R25 545988 180036 20.3 20.4 0.1 R26 547294 179645 22.4 23.3 0.9 R27 548734 179379 19.7 19.8 0.1 R28 546434 178562 23.1 23.2 0.1 R29 544536 177833 29.2 29.1 -0.1 R30 545410 176093 27.2 26.8 -0.4 R31 540979 177130 35.0 33.4 -1.6 R32 548633 175751 23.7 23.9 0.2 R33 549658 175793 29.1 29.1 0.0 R34 550996 174794 23.2 23.1 -0.1 R35 541919 175060 30.5 30.6 0.1 R36 543518 175167 29.1 28.8 -0.3 R37 551789 182210 20.7 21.0 0.3 R38 546254 174715 34.8 34.7 -0.1 R39 549085 177573 25.5 26.3 0.8 R40 548993 177996 22.9 24.1 1.2 R41 553272 175279 26.1 26.5 0.4 R42 552726 173629 26.2 25.9 -0.3 R43 538700 173686 33.0 32.5 -0.5 R44 541162 174360 31.5 31.5 0.0 R45 541116 178485 32.2 31.8 -0.5 R46 540432 180222 31.3 31.0 -0.3 R47 542361 182116 42.4 42.2 -0.2 R48 542662 186959 28.4 28.6 0.2 R49 543375 184339 31.5 31.8 0.3 R50 540318 181771 49.9 49.7 -0.2 R51 537996 182851 39.6 39.4 -0.2 R52 536613 184631 35.4 35.2 -0.2 R53 536871 185065 42.8 42.7 -0.1 R54 539164 187253 46.5 46.1 -0.4 R55 542961 180916 27.4 27.7 0.3 R56 543734 180046 34.6 32.4 -2.2 R57 543335 178617 34.0 33.3 -0.6 R58 543616 178676 30.5 29.5 -1.0 R59 544078 178381 23.5 23.1 -0.4 R60 556235 178457 20.6 20.9 0.3 R61 556248 178747 21.5 21.2 -0.3 R62 567446 182119 32.2 32.4 0.2

Receptor LTT Adjusted 2021 Annual Mean Difference between [1] Co-ordinates NO2 Concentrations (µg/m³) Projected Reference Option 200 Case4a) and Do- Receptor Option 4a (Do- Something (200) ID X (m) Y (m) (Reference Case) Something) Concentration [2] R63 568302 183217 20.6 20.6 0.0 R64 556406 172144 29.8 29.8 0.0 R65 558664 172638 32.8 32.9 0.1 R66 554234 170532 17.7 17.7 0.0 R67 553053 168290 19.9 20.0 0.1 R68 550375 164661 17.0 17.0 0.0 R69 550682 168099 24.7 24.5 -0.2 R70 558307 185117 20.8 20.8 0.0 R71 557036 191876 21.4 21.4 0.0 R72 555051 194148 17.4 17.4 0.0 R73 561867 180906 23.5 23.7 0.2 R74 560033 179871 32.5 32.8 0.4 R75 549803 179620 21.2 23.2 2.0 R76 550402 178386 23.2 22.1 -1.1 R77 547375 178664 23.5 24.4 0.9 R78 546857 180824 19.1 19.3 0.2 R79 545092 180453 17.7 18.6 0.9 R80 546777 176998 30.9 31.5 0.6 R81 545608 180167 17.7 19.8 2.1 R82 545698 179981 20.7 22.9 2.2 R83 545573 179885 24.5 25.0 0.5 R84 543650 181117 27.8 29.0 1.2 R85 550121 179742 15.6 16.3 0.7 R86 550632 182248 25.6 28.0 2.4 R87 548221 183504 31.5 31.4 -0.1 R88 550588 183024 22.6 22.7 0.1 [1] LTT=Long Term Trend. Predicted NO2 concentrations were adjusted using a Gap Factor based on the long term adjustment factor calculated by the Highways England’s “INTERIM Highways Agency Alternative Long Term Gap Analysis Calculator v1.1”. All values reflect predicted concentrations for the future year 2021. Bold font indicates mean annual NO2 concentration predicted to be greater than Air Quality Strategy Objective. [2] Italic font indicates projected changes in mean annual NO2 concentration between Reference Case and Do-Something options were 3 greater than 2 g/m at associated receptor.

18.4.3 Potential Future Exceedence of Air Quality Strategy NO2 Objectives

18.4.3.1 Impacts of the scheme on local air quality were evaluated by determining the number of the worst case receptors likely to result in an improvement or deterioration in air quality and the associated risk of exceeding the annual NO2 AQS objective criteria in a future assessment (acknowledging that this assessment is limited to using the DMRB air quality model and not all monitoring has been used to verify the model).

18.4.3.2 High risk receptors were defined as those with annual NO2 concentrations exceeding the annual AQS objective criteria of 40 g/m3. A summary of predicted mean annual NO2 concentrations for Do-Something (Option 200) relating to the associated potential risk of future exceedance at each receptor can be seen in Table 18.6 and Drawing 18-4. Eight of the high risk receptors in the Reference Case scenario were anticipated to improve with the new scheme. There were no additional high risk receptors

251 East of Silvertown predicted to occur with the implementation of Option 200 in comparison to the Reference Case scenario.

Table 18.6: Projected Concentration and Risk Rating of Potential Future Exceedence for Option 200

Projected Number of Receptors 2021 Risk of Concentration No Exceedance (g/m3) Improvement Deterioration Change Total Low <36 24 40 12 76 Medium 36-40 2 2 0 4 High >40 8 0 0 8

18.4.3.3 Concentration changes greater than 2 g/m3 occurred at 9 of the 88 receptors, with the greatest predicted improvement in concentration occurring at R56 (located at Woolwich crossing area Albert Road and Barge House Road), which indicated a projected 3 decrease in mean annual NO2 concentration of 2.2 g/m in comparison to the Reference Case Option.

18.4.3.4 The worst impacted receptors, relating to a predicted increase in mean annual 3 NO2 greater than 2 g/m between the Do-Something and Reference Case options, were predicted to occur at receptor R1 (located at Picardy Street and Lower Park Road), which showed an increase of 3.1 g/m3 and at receptor R86 (located at A13 and Marsh way intersection), which showed a predicted increase of 2.4 g/m3. 18.5 Summary of Results

18.5.1.1 A total of 8 of the selected receptors had predicted concentrations greater than 3 40g/m . These receptors exceeded the AQS objective for NO2 for Scenario 4a (the reference case), as well as the three scenario options (Scenarios 7a, 13a, and 200). All 8 receptors are located in close proximity to main roads and are within AQMAs, with receptors R50 and R21 also being located within AQFAs.

18.5.1.2 There were no predicted new exceedences of AQS objective at any receptor in the Do-Something scenarios (Scenarios 7a, 13a and 200) in comparison to the Reference Case scenario (Scenario 4a).

18.5.1.3 The largest predicted increase in concentrations at any of the options was 3.1g/m3 which occurred in Scenario 200 at Receptor R1 (located in close proximity to Picardy Street and Lower Park Road), due to an increase in traffic flows associated with this scenario.

3 18.5.1.4 All of the predicted increases of greater than 2g/m in mean annual NO2 concentrations for the Do-Something options in comparison to the Reference Case option occurred at low-risk receptors (i.e. those with NO2 concentrations predicted to be below 36g/m3). 18.6 Significance

18.6.1.1 Based on the criteria detailed in IAN 174/13, the results of the DMRB screening model assessment predicted minimal changes in air quality which would be considered in the judgement of significance (as the majority of the worst case receptors modelled had

predicted concentrations which were below the EU Limit Value). There was a total of eight receptors exceeding the EU Limit Value criteria in each option of the worst case receptors modelled. Of these eight, only two of these receptors were predicted to experience a change of >0.4µg/m³.

18.6.1.2 The main difference between the options is that Option 7a (Gallions Reach) 3 predicted a small increase in annual average NO2 concentration (>0.4g/m ) at receptor R17, which is located along Thames Road in Crayford, as indicated in Table 19.7. There is therefore a risk that other receptors could exceed with a small change at this location and contribute to the judgement as to whether the scheme’s impacts are significant. The results from Option 13a (Belvedere) at the same receptor indicated it would experience a 3 small decrease (>0.4g/m ) in annual average NO2 concentration and for Option 200, an imperceptible decrease (<0.4µg/m³).

Table 18.7 – Receptors with Modelled Concentrations Greater than 40µg/m³

Receptor LTT Adjusted 2021 Annual Mean NO2 ID Concentrations (µg/m³) Option 4a Option 7a (Do- Option 13a Option 200 (Do- (Reference Something) (Do-Something) Something) Case) R7 50.3 50 50 49.7 R8 45.8 45.8 45.4 45.4 R17 49.5 50.2 48.3 49.2 R21 43.4 43.4 43 43.2 R47 42.4 42.3 42.2 42.2 R50 49.9 49.8 49.7 49.7 R53 42.8 42.7 42.7 42.7 R54 46.5 46.2 46.4 46.1

18.6.1.3 Additionally, modelling predicted an improvement in air quality greater than >0.4µg/m³, with the implementation of Option 200 in comparison to the Reference Case at Receptor R7. R7 is located in a residential area along the A2 between Arbuthnot Lane and the A223. As this is a high-level assessment, it cannot be determined whether an option is significant at this stage in accordance with IAN 174/13. Rather, the aim of this assessment was to provide an indication as to whether there was a difference between the options.

18.6.1.4 The assessment has illustrated that the impacts are very similar for each of the options, however a small deterioration in air quality at a high risk receptor is predicted for Option 7a. Should this option proceed, there may be a requirement for mitigation in this area.

253 East of Silvertown

19 SUMMARY

19.1.1.1 Table 20-1 below provides a summary of the environmental assessment scores reported in this Report for each river crossing option. Due to the early stage of this project the assessment scores have been provided as a comparative tool, rather than representing an absolute significance of effects under the EIA Regulations. For example, the Energy assessment is based upon energy consumption during the construction and operational phases, but does not incorporate modal shift to assess whether there is any change in mode of transport from private car use to public transport or non-motorised travel options. As such, despite offering a fixed public transport option the Energy assessment scores for Option 1A, 2A, 5A, 20A, 21A and 22A are higher than for the non- DLR options as the construction material requirements, duration of construction phase, scale of infrastructure and operational energy demands of the DLR are much greater.

19.1.1.2 In addition, where there are different levels of significance associated with a topic these have been summarised in Table 20-1, but the text provided in the corresponding part of this report should be referred to in order to provide the context. For example, terrestrial ecology impacts are less adverse on some options than for marine ecology which cannot be conveyed in this summary table, but is outlined in the corresponding section of the report. Surveys undertaken for topics, such as ecology, were undertaken some time ago and will be updated at the next stage of assessment. Due to the transient nature of terrestrial and marine ecology it is likely that current conditions differ to those reported in this assessment.

19.1.1.3 Due to the early stage in the project planning process, mitigation measures are also at an early stage of development therefore some potential effects are currently not shown as being mitigated. As design development progresses, mitigation measures would be incorporated and taken into account in the environmental assessment. Whilst some mitigation is reported in this Report for comparative purposes, this is not exhaustive.

19.1.1.4 The Noise and Vibration and Air Quality assessments are not summarised in Table 20-1 as they do not assess the river crossing options, instead assessing different traffic scenarios.

Table 20-1: Summary of Environmental Assessment Scores for East of Silvertown River Crossing Options

1 1A 2 2A 5 5A 20 20A 21 21A 22 22A Community Slight Moderate Slight Moderate Moderate Moderate Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Neutral and Private Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Adverse Adverse Adverse Beneficial Adverse Assets Cultural Slight Slight Neutral Neutral Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Heritage Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Ecology and Major Major Neutral Slight Moderate Moderate Major Major Slight Slight Major Major Nature Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Conservation

Effects on all Slight Major Slight Major Moderate Major Slight Major Slight Major Moderate Major Travellers Beneficial Beneficial Adverse/ Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Slight Beneficial Ground Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Conditions Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse

Materials Moderate Moderate Slight Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Slight Moderate Moderate Moderate Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse

Water Slight Moderate Slight Slight Slight Slight Moderate Moderate Slight Moderate Slight Slight Environment Adverse/ Adverse Adverse Adverse/ Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Moderate Moderate Adverse Adverse

Townscape Neutral/ Neutral Slight Slight Moderate Moderate Neutral Neutral Neutral/ Neutral/ Slight Slight and Visual Slight Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Slight Slight Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial

Energy Moderate Major Moderate Major Slight Moderate Moderate Major Moderate Major Slight Moderate Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse

255 East of Silvertown

20 REFERENCES  Action Plan for Reducing Emissions to Air 2011 – 2014. TfL. Greater London Authority. 2011.  Archaeology of Greater London, Museum of London (MoLAS), 2000a  Bankside Jetty, Southwark, Biological Survey; Final report 1998 survey. Report to Arup Environmental. Unicomarine Report MILPR98b. February, 1999.  Belvedere Crossing Options Report. Transport for London/Atkins, January 2014.  Belvedere Ferry Crossing Study. Transport for London/ Halcrow. November 2013.  Bexley Core Strategy, London Borough of Bexley, February 2012  Bexley Detailed Policies and Sites Local Plan, Preferred Approached Paper, London Borough of Bexley, August 2013  Bexley’s Local Distinctiveness: A Characterisation Study of the London Borough of Bexley, London Borough of Bexley, 2010  Bexley Unitary Development Plan: Saved Policies, London Borough of Bexley, 2006  Blackwall Way intertidal biological survey 2003. Report to Environ Ltd. Unicomarine Report EVNBWW03, August 2003.  British Red Data Books:3. Invertebrates other than insects. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 1991.  Census first results: London boroughs’ populations by age and sex, Office for National Statistics. 2011  Coastal and Estuarine Environments: sedimentology, geomorphology and geoarchaeology, Geological Society, London Special Publication 2000  Cycling route mapping. Sustrans. Available at: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map  CRTN (Calculation of Road Traffic Noise), Department of Transport, 1998  Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Highway Agency, 2011  Dowell’s Wharf Biological Survey Final Report. Unicomarine Report DOW98b to Arup Environmental, October 1998.  Ecological survey at Gallions Reach and Woolwich Ferry Terminal, March 2013  East of Silvertown: Appraisal Specification Report (ASR), Transport for London, 2015  East of Silvertown Environmental Options Study, Hyder Consulting Ltd, 2014  East of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report – Strategic Analysis, Jacobs, 2014  East of Silvertown: Traffic Impact Report – Strategic Analysis, Jacobs, 2015  The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations (EIA Regulations), UK Government, 2011 (as amended)  The Experian Goad Category Report

 Draft River Crossings East of Silvertown Option Assessment Report, Jacobs, 2015  Future Waste arisings in London 2010-2031, Summary Note, Directorate of Development and Environment. Greater London Authority, 2010  Gallions Reach Fixed Link Bridge: Belvedere Crossing Options Report, Transport for London, 2014  Gallions Reach Fixed Link Bridge, Concept Engineering, Options Study Report, Atkins, 14th June 2013;  Gallions Reach River Crossings (Task 102) Marine Aspects Preliminary Design Report, Halcrow, May 2013;  Gallions Reach River Crossing Study, Tunnel Engineering, Mott MacDonald, May 2012.  GeoIndex Website, www.bgs.ac.uk, British Geological Society (BGS), accessed August 2013  Get a Map (http://www.getamap.ordnancesurveyleisure.co.uk/, Ordnance Survey, accessed 2014  Greater London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC), 2014  Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL)  Greenwich Unitary Development Plan, Royal Borough of Greenwich, 2006.  HA207/07 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, Highways Agency, 2007  Havering Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, London Borough of Havering, 2008  Havering Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, London Borough of Havering, 2010  Holocene sea level change and archaeology in the inner Thames estuary, London, UK. Unpublished PhD. Thesis. University of Durham. 2 vols. Sidell, E.J. 2003  Interim Advice Note (IAN) 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment, Highways Agency, September 2010

 IAN 170/12v3 Updated air quality advice on the assessment of future NOx and NO2 projections for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 'Air Quality’, Highways Agency, 2013  IAN 174/13 Updated advice for evaluating significant local air quality effects for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air Quality (HA207/07), Highways Agency, 2013  Invest Bexley, Regeneration Framework 2007-2016, London Borough of Bexley 2007  Landscape evolution in the lower Thames Valley: implications for the archaeology of the earlier Holocene period. Bates, M.R. and Whittaker, K. 2004  Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09), Defra, 2009  Locating and evaluating archaeology below the alluvium: the role of subsurface stratigraphic modelling. Lithics 19: 4 – 18. Bates, M.R. 1998

257 East of Silvertown

 London Outer Orbital Path, www.walklondon.co.uk, accessed February 2014  London Plan, Greater London Authority, 2011.  Mayor’s Business Waste Strategy for London, Greater London Authority, 2011  Mayor’s Transport Strategy, Greater London Authority, 2010  MoLAS (2000a) Archaeology of Greater London. Museum of London  Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Website. http://www.magic.gov.uk/  National Biodiversity Network Gateway. http://www.searchnbn.net/  Natural England’s Nature-on-the-map. http://www.natureonthemap.org.uk/  Neighbourhood Statistics, Office of National Statistics, 2011  Newham 2027 – The Core Strategy, London Borough of Newham, January 2012.  Newham Community Infrastructure Study Baseline Report, London Borough of Newham, 2010  New Thames River Crossing, Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment, Mott MacDonald Ltd., August 2011  New Thames River Crossings, Wintering Wildfowl Surveys, Mott MacDonald Ltd., September 2011  New Thames River Crossing, Wintering Waterbird Survey, April 2013

 NOx to NO2 calculator (Version 4.1), Defra, 2014  Open Communities Data, 2014  Planning for the future of Barking and Dagenham Core Strategy, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, July 2010  River Crossings East of Silvertown: Provision for Public Transport and Other Road Users (Final Report, Revision C), Jacobs, 2015  River Crossings East of Silvertown: Strategic Outline Business Case, Transport for London, 2015  River Crossings Ground Investigation Desk Study, Mott MacDonald, 2013.  Review of Beam Park Development Opportunity, Havering London Borough, March 2012  Rare marine benthic flora and fauna in Great Britain: the development of criteria for assessment. JNCC Report, No. 240. 1996.  Site Specific Allocations Development Planning Document, Havering, 2010  Stratigraphic architecture, relative sea-level, and models of estuary development in southern England: new data from Southampton Water. 253 – 279. In: Pye, K and Allen, J.R.L. (eds.) Coastal and Estuarine Environments: sedimentology, geomorphology and geoarchaeology. Geological Society, London Special Publication 175. The Geological Society: London. Long, A.J., Scaife, R.G. and Edwards, R.J. 2000  Submission Core Strategy with Development Management policies, Royal Borough of Greenwich, 2013  Task 102 Variation 2 Woolwich Ferry Replacement Study, Transport for London 2013

 Task 102 Variation 4 Belvedere Ferry Crossing Study, Transport for London 2013  TfL River Crossing. Ecological survey at Gallions Reach and Woolwich Ferry Terminal, Mott MacDonald Ltd., June 2013  TfL River Crossing. Environmental impacts associated with River Crossing options, Mott MacDonald Ltd., March 2013  TfL River Crossings – Ground Investigation Desk Study, Preliminary Sources Study Report, Mott MacDonald, May 2013  Thames Ferry Crossings, Marine Benthic Survey, Mott MacDonald Ltd. February 2011  Thames Ferry Crossings, Marine Benthic Survey, Mott MacDonald Ltd., October 2011  Thames Gateway Bridge, EIA, Main report, Halcrow/Scott Wilson July 2004 (Partially updated October 2008)  Thames Gateway Bridge: Updated Lee Tunnel and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Extension Environmental Statement. Scott Wilson/Halcrow Group, London 2008.  Thamesmead and Abbeywood SPD, Greenwich Council and London Borough of Bexley 2009  The Gallions Reach River Crossings (Task 102) Marine Aspects, Transport for London, 2013  ‘The Heritage of historic Resources Sub-Objective, TAG Unit 3.3.9’ (June 2003).  The National Heritage List for England, English Heritage, 2014  The Royal Docks Vision, London Borough of Newham, 2010  Travel to work’ Census Data, Office for National Statistics, 2011.  Transport Analysis Guidance – WebTAG. Department for Transport, 2011

 Trend in NOx and NO2 emissions and ambient measurements in the UK, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Defra, 2011  ‘What’s in your backyard’ website, Environment Agency, www.environment- agency.gov.uk accessed August 2013. 

259 East of Silvertown

21 ABBREVIATIONS AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

AAWT Annual Average Weekly Traffic

AQFAs Air Quality Focus Areas

AQMAs Air Quality Management Areas

AQS Air Quality Strategy

ARN Affected Road Network

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BGS British Geological Survey

BNL Basic Noise Level

BOQ Bill of Quantities

BPD Bomb Penetration Depth

CEME Centre of Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence

CHP Combine Heat and Power

CRTN Calculation of Road Traffic Noise

CSO Combined Sewer Overflows

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

DLR Docklands Light Railway

EA Environment Agency

EGDN Nitroglycol

EGGS Eastern Gateway Gate Separation

EQS Environmental Quality Standards

EOSR Environmental Options Study Report

ES Environmental Statement

GLA Greater London Authority

GLHER Greater London Historic Environment Record

HE Highways England (formerly Highways Agency)

HDV Heavy Duty Vehicle

HMX Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine

IAN Interim Advice Note

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

LAARC London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre

LAEI London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory

LBAP London Biodiversity Action Plan

LCEM London College of Engineering and Management

LNAPL Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

LNR Local Nature Reserve

LOOP London Outer Orbital Path

LTT Long Term Trend

NBN National Biodiversity Network

NMUs Non-Motorised Users

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Nitrogen

PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PEIR Preliminary Environmental Information Report

PETN Pentaerrythritol Tetranitrate

PEL Probably Effects Level

PFA Pulverised Fuel Ash

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

RDX Cyclotrimethylenetrinnitramine

RPE Respiratory Protective Equipment

RRR River Resource Recovery

RSPB Royal Society for Protection of Birds

SBI Sites of Borough Importance

SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

261 East of Silvertown

SIL Strategic Industrial Locations

SLI Sites of Local Importance

SMI Sites of Metropolitan Importance

SPA Special Protection Area

SPD Supplementary Planning Document

SPZ Source Protection Zone

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

STW Sewage Treatment Works

TBM Tunnel Boring Machine

TBT Tributyltin

TEGN Triethyleneglycol Dinitrate

TfL Transport for London

TGB Thames Gateway Bridge

TNT Trinitrotoluene

UDP Unitary Development Plan

UEL University of East London

ULSD Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

WFD Water Framework Directive

WWI World War I

WWII World War II

APPENDICES

265

APPENDIX 2A

Options Description

Option 1 – Gallions Reach Immersed Tube Tunnel (2+2 lanes) Key design details:  It is proposed to connect to a new Armada Way/Atlantis Avenue roundabout on the northern approach, and to the Thamesmead/Western Way Roundabout on the southern approach.  The tunnel would be formed by three types of structure – open approach ramps, cut and cover tunnel and the immersed tunnel section. The respective lengths comprising the complete crossing are as follows:  North approach road 90m  North open approach ramp 210m  North cut and cover tunnel 120m  Immersed tunnel 650m  South cut and cover tunnel 110m  South open approach ramp 260m  South approach road 750m  Two lane carriageway in each traffic cells with one dedicated bus lane and one dedicated normal traffic lane per carriageway.  Horizontal jet fans to provide longitudinal ventilation in traffic cells.  Emergency escape in traffic cells by means of an escape gallery between the traffic cells. Construction issues to consider:  The immersed tunnel is built within a dry trench, usually in a purpose built casting basin, as a series of tunnel elements (typically between 100m and 150m each in length) are placed within the basin.  The joint between the tunnel element and the approach tunnel is sealed using a heavy rubber “Gina” gasket that runs around the full perimeter of the element section.  The tunnel elements would be placed from one side of the waterway to the other leaving the last tunnel element in a cofferdam in the river wall. The cut and cover tunnel is then completed afterwards  The tunnel elements are backfilled within the trench and a layer of rock protection is placed over the structure  Worksites would be required on both sides of the river.

Option 1A – Gallions Reach Immersed Tube Tunnels (2+2 lanes + DLR + pedestrian/cycle) Key design details:  Highway design as per option 1

Appendix 2A Options Description East of Silvertown

 Light Rail (DLR) system would be accommodated in a completely separate cell. Completely separate ventilation system to be provided for the DLR cell - probably large diameter reversible fans situated at each portals. Emergency escape for the DLR would be dedicated walkways in the DLR cell.  Additional cell for pedestrian and cycle way. Separate ventilation system for pedestrian/cycleway cell. Construction issues to consider:  The immersed tunnel is built within a dry trench, usually in a purpose built casting basin, as a series of tunnel elements (typically between 100m and 150m each in length) are placed within the basin.  The joint between the tunnel element and the approach tunnel is sealed using a heavy rubber “Gina” gasket that runs around the full perimeter of the element section.  The tunnel elements would be placed from one side of the waterway to the other leaving the last tunnel element in a cofferdam in the river wall. The cut and cover tunnel is then completed afterwards  The tunnel elements are backfilled within the trench and a layer of rock protection is placed over the structure  Worksites would be required on both sides of the river.

Option 2 – Gallions Reach Twin Bored Tunnels (2+2 lanes) Key design details:  The bored tunnel option would connect EGGS bridge at the northern approach to the Western Way / A2041 roundabout at the southern approach. The tunnels are cross connected by pedestrian cross passages to facilitate intervention in an emergency.  The tunnel will be formed by three types of structure – open approach ramps, cut and cover tunnel and the bored tunnel section. The respective lengths comprising the complete crossing are as follows:  North approach road 60m  North open approach ramp 290m  North cut and cover tunnel 130m  Bored tunnel 1000m  South cut and cover tunnel 160m  South open approach ramp 290m  South approach road 520m  Two lane carriageway in each traffic cells. One dedicated bus lane and one dedicated normal traffic lane per carriageway.  Horizontal jet fans to provide longitudinal ventilation in traffic cells.  Emergency escape by means of walkways and cross passages between bores. Construction issues to consider:  Significant risk in unforeseen ground conditions, particularly with the potential presence of significant flint layers.

267

 Tunnel gradients of 5% may prove unacceptable for fire life safety – ventilation.  Ground treatment may be required at launch chambers and cross passages, but extent of this will not be known until further ground investigations have been conducted.

Option 2A – Gallions Reach Twin Bored Tunnels (2+2 lanes + DLR + pedestrian/cycle) Key design details:  Highway design as per option 2  Light rail (DLR) system would be accommodated in completely separate bored tunnels. Completely separate ventilation system to be provided for the DLR tunnels.  Emergency escape for the DLR would be by walkways and cross passages at 500m centres.  Additional bore for shared pedestrian and cycle way. Separate ventilation for the pedestrian and cycle tunnel. Construction issues to consider:  Significant risk in unforeseen ground conditions, particularly with the potential presence of significant flint layers.  Tunnel gradients of 5% may prove unacceptable for fire life safety – ventilation.  Ground treatment may be required at launch chambers and cross passages, but extent of this will not be known until further ground investigations have been conducted.

Option 5 – Gallions Reach Concrete box girder on original Safeguarded alignment – dual carriageway Key design details:  The bridge would connect Western Way, west of the junction with Central Way on south side to Armada Way on the northern side  The total length of the bridge is 1476m.The main river crossing comprises a 560m balanced cantilever bridge with a main span of 256m and two side spans of 152m each.  The approach structures comprise a steel concrete composite bridge of 458m on both sides of the main span.  The balanced cantilever spans are supported on split piers which, in turn, are supported on permanently cased, 2m diameter bored piles.  The deck would be built integrally with the main split piers but supported on pairs of mechanical bearings elsewhere.  The carriageway would have a width of 21.50m with the edges protected by 1.4m high N2/W2 bridge parapets.  The shared cyclist and pedestrian route would have a width of 3m and is assumed to be protected by a perforated windshield.

Appendix 2A Options Description East of Silvertown

Construction issues to consider:  Site compounds on both banks of the Thames would be required, to allow access to work on two fronts simultaneously.  It is assumed that the establishment of two batching plants would be required.  The critical path for the construction would be to build the main span of the bridge using the balanced cantilever method of construction. The programme would be controlled by the weekly casting of viaduct sections in sequence.

Option 5A – Gallions Reach Concrete box girder on original Safeguarded alignment (1+1 lanes + DLR + pedestrian/cycle) Key design details:  The length and height of the bridge structure would be as per option 5.  The bridge would accommodate twin DLR tracks and a single carriageway for road traffic. A high fence will segregate the DLR section of the deck. Lane widths will be maintained at 3.65m to provide adequate space for passing in case of emergency/breakdown.  The DLR sections will provide cess walkways on either side of the tracks. Derailment protection via robust kerbs will be present between the tracks and on either side.  The increased width would necessitate changing the concrete box girder to a twin cell girder.  The shared cyclist and pedestrian route would have a width of 3m and is assumed to be protected by a perforated windshield. Construction issues to consider:  Site compounds on both banks of the Thames would be required, to allow access to work on two fronts simultaneously.  It is assumed that the establishment of two batching plants would be required.  The critical path for the construction would be to build the main span of the bridge using the balanced cantilever method of construction. The programme would be controlled by the weekly casting of viaduct sections in sequence.

Option 20 – Belvedere - Twin Compartment Immersed tube Tunnel (2+2 lanes) Key design details:  The proposed tunnel would link the junction with Bronze Age Way/Picardy Manorway on the southern side to the Marshway/A13 junction on the northern side of the river.  The option comprises of a dual carriageway immersed tube tunnel. The following structures: approach structure (0-720m), cut and cover structure (720-880m), immersed tube tunnel (880-1660m), cut and cover structure (1660-1900m), and approach structure (1900-2500m)  Two lane carriageway in each traffic cells with one dedicated bus lane and one dedicated normal traffic lane per carriageway.

269

 Horizontal jet fans to provide longitudinal ventilation in traffic cells.  Emergency escape in traffic cells by means of an escape gallery between the traffic cells. Construction issues to consider:  The immersed tunnel is built within a dry trench, usually in a purpose built casting basin, as a series of tunnel elements (typically between 100m and 150m each in length) are placed within the basin.  The joint between the tunnel element and the approach tunnel is sealed using a heavy rubber “Gina” gasket that runs around the full perimeter of the element section.  The tunnel elements would be placed from one side of the waterway to the other leaving the last tunnel element in a cofferdam in the river wall. The cut and cover tunnel is then completed afterwards  The tunnel elements are backfilled within the trench and a layer of rock protection is placed over the structure.  Worksites would be required on both sides of the river.  Due to the thickness of Made Ground and Alluvium on both banks of the River Thames it is envisaged that both the cut and cover and approach structures will be constructed in a structural cofferdam which could form part of the permanent structure.  The immersed tube tunnel option will generate a significant amount of excavated material that will require disposal off-site as there is no requirement for significant engineered fill if this option is adopted (other than rock armour).  Excavated Made Ground material may contain sufficiently high levels of contaminant that it requires on-site treatment prior to disposal or is disposed off-site to a special landfill with associated additional cost.  Rock armour for protection of the immersed tunnel would probably be imported with Mendip Limestone or Granite from Leicestershire or Scotland being possible sources.

Option 20A – Belvedere - Twin Compartment Immersed tube Tunnel (2+2 lanes + DLR + pedestrian/cycle) Key design details:  Highway design as per option 20  Light Rail (DLR) system would be accommodated in a completely separate cell. Completely separate ventilation system to be provided for the DLR cell - probably large diameter reversible fans situated at each portals. Emergency escape for the DLR would be dedicated walkways in the DLR cell.  Additional cell for pedestrian and cycle way. Separate ventilation system for pedestrian/cycleway cell. Construction issues to consider:  The immersed tunnel is built within a dry trench, usually in a purpose built casting basin, as a series of tunnel elements (typically between 100m and 150m each in length) are placed within the basin.

Appendix 2A Options Description East of Silvertown

 The joint between the tunnel element and the approach tunnel is sealed using a heavy rubber “Gina” gasket that runs around the full perimeter of the element section.  The tunnel elements would be placed from one side of the waterway to the other leaving the last tunnel element in a cofferdam in the river wall. The cut and cover tunnel is then completed afterwards  The tunnel elements are backfilled within the trench and a layer of rock protection is placed over the structure.  Worksites would be required on both sides of the river.  Due to the thickness of Made Ground and Alluvium on both banks of the River Thames it is envisaged that both the cut and cover and approach structures will be constructed in a structural cofferdam which could form part of the permanent structure.  The immersed tube tunnel option will generate a significant amount of excavated material that will require disposal off-site as there is no requirement for significant engineered fill if this option is adopted (other than rock armour).  Excavated Made Ground material may contain sufficiently high levels of contaminant that it requires on-site treatment prior to disposal or is disposed off-site to a special landfill with associated additional cost.  Rock armour for protection of the immersed tunnel would probably be imported with Mendip Limestone or Granite from Leicestershire or Scotland being possible sources.

Option 21 – Belvedere – Bored Tunnel Key design details:  The proposed bore tunnel would link the Bronze Age Way/Picardy Manorway roundabout on the southern side of the river to the Marshway/A13 junction on the northern side.  The option comprises the following structures: approach structure (0-480m), cut and cover (480-840m), drive/reception shaft (840m), bored tunnel (840- 1780m), drive/reception shaft (1780m), cut and cover (1780-2100m), approach structure (2100-2500m)  Two lane carriageway in each traffic cells. One dedicated bus lane and one dedicated normal traffic lane per carriageway.  Horizontal jet fans to provide longitudinal ventilation in traffic cells.  Emergency escape by means of walkways and cross passages between bores. Construction issues to consider:  Due to the thickness of Made Ground and Alluvium on both banks of the River Thames it is envisaged that both the cut-and-cover and approach structures will be constructed in a structural cofferdam which could form part of the permanent structure.  The bored tunnel option will generate a significant amount of excavated material that will require disposal off-site as there is no requirement for significant engineered fill if this option is adopted.

271

 Excavated Made Ground material may contain sufficiently high levels of contaminant that it requires on-site treatment prior to disposal or is disposed off-site to a special landfill with associated additional cost.

Option 21A – Belvedere – Bored Tunnel (2+2 lanes + DLR + pedestrian/cycle) Key design details:  Highway design as per option 2  Light rail (DLR) system would be accommodated in completely separate bored tunnels. Completely separate ventilation system to be provided for the DLR tunnels.  Emergency escape for the DLR would be by walkways and cross passages at 500m centres.  Additional bore for shared pedestrian and cycle way. Separate ventilation for the pedestrian and cycle tunnel. Construction issues to consider:  Due to the thickness of Made Ground and Alluvium on both banks of the River Thames, it is envisaged that both the cut-and-cover and approach structures will be constructed in a structural cofferdam which could form part of the permanent structure.  The bored tunnel option will generate a significant amount of excavated material that will require disposal off-site as there is no requirement for significant engineered fill if this option is adopted.  Excavated Made Ground material may contain sufficiently high levels of contaminant that it requires on-site treatment prior to disposal or is disposed off-site to a special landfill with associated additional cost.

Option 22 – Belvedere – Cable stayed bridge Key design details:  The proposed bridge would link the Bronze Age Way/Picardy Manorway roundabout on the southern side of the river to the Marshway/A13 junction on the northern side.  The proposed bridge would be formed of two mono pylon supports 300m apart from which cables support the bridge deck. The bridge deck comprises a steel concrete composite deck, the main span is 300m and the backspans are 120m.  The height of the pylons is approximately 105m above the bridge deck, giving an overall height of 158m. Each half span is supported by 12 cable stays spaced at 12m centres at deck level.  The end spans are supported on reinforced concrete piers on piled foundations. The pylons are supported on piled or caisson foundations.  The carriageway would have a width of 21.50m with the edges protected by 1.4m high N2/W2 bridge parapets.  The shared cyclist and pedestrian route would have a width of 3m and is assumed to be protected by a perforated windshield.

Appendix 2A Options Description East of Silvertown

Construction issues to consider:  The junction at the A13 Marsh Way will have to be reconfigured to accommodate the new link and well as the existing Marsh Way and Courier Rd (possibly privately owned by Ford Motor Works). It may be that the bridge approaches have to remain at existing ground level until clear of the overhead power lines. The detail of this would be developed at a later stage.  Both north and south of the river the industrial sites would be readily adaptable as construction compounds and would be easily returned as viable business sites once construction was complete.  The previous industrial use of land on both sides of the river may require dealing with contaminated ground and would need to be investigated at a later stage.  Construction of the main bridge piers would be from temporary jetties built from either side arranged to span over existing flood defence bunds. Piling would be done within a caisson or sheet piled cofferdam to form the bridge foundations.

Option 22A – Belvedere – Cable stayed bridge (1+1 lanes + DLR + pedestrian/cycle) Key design details:  The length and height of the bridge structure would be as per option 22.  The bridge would accommodate twin DLR tracks and a single carriageway for road traffic. A high fence will segregate the DLR section of the deck. Lane widths will be maintained at 3.65m to provide adequate space for passing in case of emergency/breakdown.  The DLR sections will provide cess walkways on either side of the tracks. Derailment protection via robust kerbs will be present between the tracks and on either side.  The shared cyclist and pedestrian route would have a width of 3m and is assumed to be protected by a perforated windshield.

Construction issues to consider:  The junction at the A13 Marsh Way will have to be reconfigured to accommodate the new link and well as the existing Marsh Way and Courier Rd (possibly privately owned by Ford Motor Works). Bridge approaches may have to remain at existing ground level until clear of the overhead power lines. The detail of this would be developed at a later stage.  Industrial site both north and south of the river would be readily adaptable as construction compounds and would be easily returned as viable business sites once construction was complete.  The previous industrial use of land on both sides of the river may require dealing with contaminated ground and would need to be investigated at a later stage.  Construction of the main bridge piers would be from temporary jetties built from either side arranged to span over existing flood defence bunds. Piling

273

would be done within a caisson or sheet piled cofferdam to form the bridge foundations.

Appendix 2A Options Description

APPENDIX 4A

Cultural Heritage: Archaeological Gazetteer

OA no./ Arcadis LAA No. RC HER no. Grid ref Period Description

Several Palaeolithic artefacts including two axes, recovered from alluvium below a peat 1 51 60573 4440 8141 prehistoric layer, during works in c.1893.

Unspecified work in the River Thames at this approximate location revealed the chance find of a leaf-shaped blade of a Bronze Age 2 117 60197 4460 8085 prehistoric sword.

Monitoring of geotechnical pits by MoLAS in 2000/1 (CWY01) revealed alluvial and peat deposits of possible prehistoric date, SMR beneath dump deposits associated with the 3 197 backlog 4603 8048 prehistoric Royal Arsenal.

Archaeological evaluation (boreholes and two trenches) and watching brief by MoLAS in 2002 (CPT01) revealed alluvium and peat of prehistoric date and a possible SMR palaeochannel overlain by post- 4 198 backlog 4610 8063 prehistoric medieval/modern dump deposit.

Mesolithic tranchet axe from Thames alluvium below peat at Beckton Gas Works in 1893, also a tranchet axe from silt above 5 219 445 815 prehistoric ballast near Gasholder in 1891.

Palaeolithic implements, "Le Moustier" from TQ48SE1 the Thames at Beckton, found in an area of 6 209 05 450 810 prehistoric Alluvium geology or a buried channel.

Later medieval iron spearhead found by chance during unspecified works in the 7 86 61763 4450 8050 Medieval Thames in 1912.

The site of sea walls at Plumstead, possibly dated to the early 12th century. Flooding may have occurred in the late 10th century. Documentary sources describe Henry II order to Emeline de Ros to pay the Abbot of St Augustine's for the works and expenses of her part of the lands at Plumstead, as she and her ancestors had done since the time 8 160 71463 4500 8060 Medieval of Henry I. This almost certainly referred to

Appendix 5B Cultural Heritage Archaeological Gazetteer East of Silvertown

maintenance of sea walls near Sandhopeness (Margaret Ness).

Landfill site noted on SMR. Information from British Geological Survey. Date of the 9 173 71727 4550 8100 post-medieval infilling is not known.

Landfill site noted on SMR. Information from British Geological Survey. Date of the 10 175 62763 4410 8140 post-medieval infilling is not known.

Ammunition magazine, Thamesmead, built 1886 as one of pair of remote stores for TQ48SE9 machine gun ammunition. 6 cells retain 11 205 4 4588 8085 post-medieval timber overhead travelling crane.

An embanked area to the north of Gallions Inn. Hard standing in the area would appear to suggest the presence of a former structure. Feature identified during site 12 249 4402 8073 post-medieval walkover

River wall probably dating to the late nineteenth or early 20th century. The wall is faced and re-enforced by substantial timber beams which have later been re-enforced by an extra facing of timber. Wood and stakes in the mud below probably indicate the site of a former wharf. Feature identified during 13 250 4457 8100 post-medieval site walkover

Probable outlet into the Thames of a culverted stream channel to the north-west. 14 251 4343 8083 post-medieval Feature identified during site walkover

Brick building of c. 19th century appearance 15 252 4420 8057 post-medieval noted during the site walkover

Substantial wooden slipway. Well- constructed with substantial timbers and locking plates noted during the site 16 253 4493 8042 post-medieval walkover.

Substantial timbers along water line and a wooden structure base on the foreshore would seem to indicate the presence of a former wharf. Feature identified during site 17 254 44991 80440 post-medieval walkover

Row of wooden stakes in the foreshore appear to suggest the site of a wharf. Adjacent to this feature is the probable skeleton of a large ship abandoned on the 18 255 45200 80850 post-medieval mud. Feature identified during site walkover

Very gravely concrete pads c. 0.45m square containing Iron fittings may represent an earlier phase of the Tripcock Ness lighthouse feature identified during a site 19 256 4526 8098 post-medieval walkover.

A brick WWII pillbox with a concrete top has slipped slightly towards the foreshore. 20 257 45027 80580 Modern Feature identified during site walkover

Substantial WWII pillbox. Concrete with a separate chamber to the rear - possibly for a searchlight. Feature identified during site 21 258 45423 80984 Modern walkover.

Possible site of former wharf in the form of wood and stakes in the foreshore mud. 22 259 4460 8100 post-medieval Feature identified during site walkover

Large WWII pillbox, possibly a large gun emplacement, made of concrete and covered in gravely tarmac. The imprint of corrugated iron is obvious in the tarmac. 23 260 45027 80580 Modern Feature identified during site walkover.

Large spoil tip in former Arsenal shown on 1966-9 OS map and subsequent maps. 1899 plan shows canon cartridge factory and cap and detonator factories in this area. Each factory consists of relatively small buildings linked by track system. Large number of buildings in footprint of TGB scheme but none extant. Area blanked on earlier 20th-century maps but aerial photo from 1940 shows the area consisting of 24 261 4525 8030 post-medieval regular roads and small buildings.

Danger Buildings Area in former Arsenal. Regular layout of roads and small buildings. 25 262 4540 8080 post-medieval Relocated from arsenal in 1894.

Small building within proposed development site shown on Royal Arsenal General Plan of 1866. Shot store linked to small wharf by 26 265 4508 8044 post-medieval two shot tracks. Not extant.

Small building within proposed development site shown on Royal Arsenal General Plan 27 266 4523 8034 post-medieval of 1866. Not extant

Large Royal Arsenal firing range shown on Royal Arsenal General Plan of 1866 and 28 268 4600 8030 post-medieval 2nd edition OS Plan of 1898. Two batteries

Appendix 5B Cultural Heritage Archaeological Gazetteer East of Silvertown

(10 gun and 6 gun) towards west end but largely open fields.

Great War Chemical works, produced TQ48SE9 ammonium nitrate from coal tar. Adjacent to 29 207 9 445 815 post-medieval Becton Gas Works.

Archaeological evaluation by WA in 1997 (ABN97) revealed an area of undated peat deposits to the west of a spur running south 30 168 62654-55 4410 8060 Undated from a high gravel bank.

Former Palaeo-channel/tributary of the Thames. Identified by Deposit Model as 270 on the 2008 area of potentially enhanced/palaeo- 31 270 figure 12.3 prehistoric environmental potential.

Gallions Reach Urban Village (1997). In two of 54 trial holes evidence of prehistoric activity was represented by struck flints, fire- cracked flint, animal bone and charcoal found on the surface of the natural sandy clay. They were sealed by the Tilbury III peat deposit dating to the late Mesolithic - early Neolithic period. In the other trial holes the Tilbury III peat deposit was overlaid by a sterile clay above which lay the Tilbury IV peat deposit, dating to the Late Bronze Age. At the W end of the site a river channel was located: it was filled with layered silt and LAAR 071501-3/ peat and probably dates to the Bronze Age 32 C GAC97 TQ45358015 prehistoric or Iron Age.

Gallions Reach Urban Village (Phase 2). A record of the prehistoric topography was made and peat and wood samples taken. The evaluation suggested an area of dry higher ground within an area typical of a LAAR lower lying, wet marsh environment which 33 C GAE97 TQ450800 prehistoric was traversed by substantial tidal channels.

Gallions Reach Urban Village (1996) Above the natural gravels were sands and sandy silts, succeeded by thick deposits of peat associated with the Tilbury III marine regression, which caused a fall in sea and river levels. It is dated to c 6150 bp, the Neolithic period. Environmental evidence indicates alder growing on a wet floodplain habitat, with mixed deciduous forest on the higher ground; the climate is considered to have been warmer than today's. The peat continued to develop until c 2540 bp, the LAAR 071491 / Bronze Age, and from its upper layers there 34 C GAT96 TQ45007990 prehistoric is evidence for both Elm and Lime decline

and for cereal production. Silty clays sealed the peat and represent Thames III and IV transgressions when sea and river levels rose; they are dated to c 3000 bp. The clays were truncated by construction of the Woolwich Arsenal, demolished in the 1970s and 80s.

"Princess Alice", Iron paddle steamer, British; Length: 64m, Beam: 6.1m, Draught: 35 612 12958 30'.530 05'.200 ship wreck 2.4m

Becton Sewage works. Part of Joseph Bazalgette's overall London sewage system constructed from mid 1850s. Where northern outfall sewer ends and the water is 36 263 545000, 182000 post-medieval pumped into the Thames after treatment.

Former Becton gas works. Gas Light and Coke Company's main London gas works constructed from 1870s. Formerly Europe's 37 264 544300, 181310 post-medieval largest gas works.

Augur survey commissioned by NMS in 1993 (WW-PS93) revealed c. 4.0 - 5.0 m thick deposits of alluvium and peat and a north-south natural channel. A geoarchaeological evaluation by MoLAS c. 100 m to the north in 2001 revealed alluvium dated to the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic to late Bronze Age. Evidence of 62294, SMR woodland clearance and cereal production 41 136 backlog 543300, 179700 prehistoric was identified.

110072/ Palaeolithic handaxe and four flint tools found by TQ47NW1 chance within the Thames. One recorded as 42 108 13 543000, 179500 prehistoric Woolwich Docks 1916.

Digging of a warren boundary ditch in 1777 revealed the chance find of a Bronze Age 43 163 71472-3 544000, 179200 prehistoric weapon and preserved wood, at a depth of 6 ft.

Site of Mid to Late Iron Age hillfort or Oppidum (proto-town). Excavation by SELAU in 1986 revealed a large ditch running north-south towards the river, which produced much Roman material. Round houses were apparently found, 44 82 70992 543600, 179300 prehistoric although no published information is available.

Site of Roman cremation cemetery. Large urn with bones and several vessels 70218, containing ashes unearthed by chance 45 15 70218/01 543850, 179040 Roman during digging of drains in the 19th century.

Site of Roman cremation cemetery. 46 16 70228 543810, 179000 Roman Cremation burial unearthed by chance

70225, a number of Roman coins found by chance TQ47NW1 at this location might indicate the site of 47 56 4 543990, 178820 Roman possible Roman burial

Appendix 5B Cultural Heritage Archaeological Gazetteer East of Silvertown

SMR records Roman votive pottery found by chance at this location. NMR records Romano-British cremations, found in Dial Square, Royal Arsenal, and one in the 70260, Carriage Department. Pottery is now in the 48 57 TQ47NW6 543800, 179200 Roman British Museum.

70993, Excavation by SELAU in 1986 revealed a 49 54 71460 543500, 179300 multi-period Roman ditch and an early Anglo-Saxon coin.

Manor of Hammarsh. First mentioned in charters of Edward the Confessor and King Edgar confirming ownership of the manor to Westminster Abbey. Possibly not genuine. At the time of the Domesday survey (AD1086) it comprised two hides of land and a small settlement. The site of the manor house is not known. In 1236 the settlement was destroyed by a great flood, with further flooding likely in the 14th and 15th centuries. Reference to 'Cottage and marsh' in 1530 suggests that the area was prone to early medieval flooding, although from 1500 some to post- reclamation was being carried out. By 1846 50 96 61803, 6181 543560, 179850 medieval Hammarsh manor grown to 50 acres.

Timbers identified during building works in 1912. The timbers were believed to represent the ‘Sovereign’, a ship built in 1488, rebuilt 1509, abandoned in dock in 1621. KARU trial excavation in 1952 revealed that the ship had been destroyed by Power Station extension. SMR mentions 51 74 70305 543420, 179300 medieval further excavations in 1983.

Site of medieval manor house. Sir Bowes purchased the site in 1538, at which time it was occupied by a house with mills and a mill pond to the east. Bowes enclosed part of the garden in 1538, enclosed a 6 acre area for a rabbit warren, created fish ponds, and reconstructed in the house in c. 1545. Areas of marshland were attached to the property by 1566. Orchards and 15 tenements or cottages are also mentioned. The property was sold in1568, and after changing hands several times, was bought 70284, by the Crown for use as an Ordnance depot 70284/01, (see OA 83). Prior to construction of the site 70284/02, contained a sugar refinery (1655), a 71468, glassworks (1639-50), a gun battery/fort 71470-71, (1667), Gun Wharf (late 16th century). 52 93 71474 543800, 179100 medieval

Woolwich Ferry – evidence suggests a ferry existed by 1308, although the use of this 53 161 71466-67 543250, 179250 medieval area as a crossing point began earlier.

Excavation before, and in 1984 revealed Later medieval and post-medieval kilns, a considerable amount of wasters and kiln 70306, furniture of 15th/16th century date, and c. 30 70306/01- pits, wells and cess tanks of 17th-19th 02, century date. The SMR notes a possible 54 109 70400 543360, 179250 medieval associated workshop on the site.

Excavation by SELAU in 1986 revealed evidence of post-medieval settlement including structures, pits, tanks and pottery. 70994, Evidence of pottery and clay pipe 55 52 70993 543500, 179300 post-medieval manufacture.

Site of gun emplacement shown on Armada 56 97 71010 543300, 179300 post-medieval defences map of 16th century

Site of disused Woolwich pumping station. 800110, NMUS auger survey in 1993 (WW-PS 93). 800110/01- TVAS carried out a building survey in 2002 57 138 04 543700, 179800 post-medieval (WMW99/02).

Archaeological excavation in 1924 revealed 58 106 71080 543400, 179300 post-medieval part of Crowley House, built in 1647.

Barracks for gentleman cadets, built in 1751, 59 111 223243/14 543940, 178920 post-medieval demolished in 1988.

Iron railings of post-medieval date, noted on 60 115 223243/14 543950, 178930 post-medieval the SMR but not Listed.

Possible site of gas works mentioned in 1817 and closed down in the mid-19th 61 152 71389 543400, 179200 post-medieval century.

Site of ropeyard built in 1573-6. Rope- making buildings were 180 m long, and produced ropes for royal ships. Enlarged and altered in the 17th and 18th centuries. 62 158 71422 543650, 179200 post-medieval Demolished 1835.

Existing line of sea walls probably largely established by early 17th century following 63 162 71469 543800, 179400 post-medieval marshland reclamation.

Purpose built paper cartridge factory, built 1855-6. Designed by Lt. Col. Beatson, TQ47NW8 converted to metal cartridge production in 64 200 5 544000, 179300 post-medieval the 1880's.

Woolwich Power Station erected 1924-8, 1940-8 & 1952-7. Successors to an early power station of 1893 which was an TQ47NW1 adaptation of boat repair shops. Demolished 65 201 20 543400, 179300 modern 1979-80

Appendix 5B Cultural Heritage Archaeological Gazetteer East of Silvertown

Ferndale Street/A13 Woolwich Manor Way, 1995, Bronze Age, Roman & Medieval. Also excavation by PCA in 2002 of 2 locations in advance of a flyover construction. Revealed timber structures including at least 3 trackways. Finds include Beaker pottery & 66 236 4340 7930 543000, 180000 multi-period rare wooden artefacts.

145-155 Albert Road, Newham. Evaluation by MOLAS in 2000 (AET01). Revealed Prehistoric, Medieval & Post Medieval sites. Also Prehistoric peat deposits spanning 67 241 543250, 179900 multi-period Mesolithic to Bronze Age.

Evaluation identified deep alluvial sequence was present, consisting of extensive peat and wood peat deposits which were formed in the wooded backswamp of a meandering PIE07. “inland river” Thames, prior to its flooding in 68 LAARC- 543246, 179904 prehistoric the Late Bronze Age or Iron Age

watching brief identified Post-Medieval/18th century, 19th century remains associated 69 CRQ04 543000, 179250 post-medieval within the Royal Navy Dockyard

Royal Arsenal, Woolwich. The arsenal was constructed on the site of Woolwich Warren in 1671. It was initially used as an ordnance storage depot, but after 1696 the Royal Laboratory was constructed and the site was used to manufacture munitions. The factory closed in 1967. The SMR lists a number of entries for the Royal Arsenal. These include the sites of: a WWII lookout post; the Arsenal railways (1873); a military ferry (early 19th and 20th centuries); a saltpetre storehouse, stables, wharves (1670s and early 19th century), a storehouse and barn for fireworks (1672-3), a defensive canal along the eastern boundary (1812-14), a Martello tower (early 19th century). A number of archaeological investigations have been undertaken at the 70 83 543800, 179100 post-medieval Arsenal.

71 Royal Albert post-medieval Royal Albert

King George 72 Docks post-medieval King George Docks

Wreck no. 73 641 13132 29'.922 03'.323 wrecks Remains of dolphin; No longer charted

74 638 12906 29'.763 04'.350 wrecks Obstruction

Scheduled Monument-Linear Training Fortification, Royal Military Repository 75 542686, 178109 post-medieval (SAM)-west-edge of 500m offset

Hornchurch Marshes. Landfill site, probably dating to the 19th century. Part of Archaeological Priority Area (APZ) 76 62723 TQ 503 816 post-medieval DLO33196

Site of a lake created by a breach of the flood wall at Dagenham Creek in 1591. The lake was enlarged by a subsequent breech in 1707 and the land reclaimed between 1800 and 1867. Part of Archaeological 77 60677 TQ 503 820 post-medieval Priority Area (APZ) DLO33196

Hornchurch Marshes (Cooling Ponds). Landfill site, probably dating to the 19th century. Part of Archaeological Priority Area 78 62721 TQ 506 824 post-medieval (APZ) DLO33196

Hornchurch Marshes (Settling Lagoons). Landfill site, probably dating to the 19th century. Part of Archaeological Priority Area 79 62722 TQ 508 824 post-medieval (APZ) DLO33196

Marsh Way. Landfill site, probably dating to the 19th century. Part of Archaeological 80 62720 TQ 508 522 post-medieval Priority Area (APZ) DLO33196

Manor Way. Landfill site, probably dating to the 19th century. Part of Archaeological 81 62719 TQ 507 817 post-medieval Priority Area (APZ) DLO33196

Site of WWII Light Anti-Aircraft guns, positioned to defend the Murex works to the south-east. Recorded for the Defence of Britain Project. Probably no longer extant. Part of Archaeological Priority Area (APZ) 82 300115 TQ 508 813 modern DLO33196

Sweetloves Bay. Site of artesian well. Part of Archaeological Priority Area (APZ) 83 60025 TQ 510 810 post-medieval DLO33196

Antler fragments, mollusc shells and wood fragments, including silver birch identified at a depth of approximately 9m on the site of 85 70535 TQ 502 805 prehistoric Belvedere power station

Picardy Manorway. Peat deposits identified during an archaeological evaluation in 1997. The peat horizon varied in depth from 0.5m to 4.3m. A single Mesolithic to Early Neolithic flint blade was recovered from the 87 MLO71431 TQ 497 797 prehistoric deposit.

Appendix 5B Cultural Heritage Archaeological Gazetteer East of Silvertown

Eastern Way / Picardy Manorway / Anderson Way. Peat deposits identified during and archaeological watching brief in 2001 and 2002. The peat deposits were approximately 0.5 to 2m thick and were 88 MLO77912 TQ 498 797 prehistoric sealed by alluvial deposits.

Crabtree Manorway South. Peat deposits believed to date from the Mesolithic to Bronze Age were identified during an 89 MLO98214 TQ 499 795 prehistoric archaeological evaluation in 2005.

Church Manorway (Pirelli Works). A geoarchaeological investigation in 2007, consisting of 13 boreholes, identified deposits dating from the Late Pleistocene onwards. Some deposits were interpreted as showing potential evidence for human occupation from the Mesolithic period onwards. Large timbers suggesting a timber structure were recorded and these were interpreted as possibly forming part of a trackway of Early Neolithic date. Significant information on the environment during the 90 MLO99178 TQ 504 794 prehistoric prehistoric period was recovered.

Archaeological works at Norman road in 2007 identified the natural gravels overlain by alluvium and peat. A single shred of LAAR Roman period pottery dating to the 1st or 91 C TQ 4975 8065 Roman 2nd century AD was recovered.

An archaeological watching brief at Frog Lane collected 31 samples of timber from LAAR peat and alluvial deposits. None of the 92 C TQ 4996 7955 prehistoric timber appeared to have been worked.

Group of timber dolphins of unknown date opposite mouth of Rainham Creek. Post-medieval Identified during site visit – probably date to 93 TQ 511 806 / modern the modern period.

APPENDIX 4B

Cultural Heritage: Listed Buildings

Hyder no. NMR no. Grid ref Grade Description

Gallions Hotel Built in 1881-83 by Grorge Vigers and T R Wagstaffe in the manner of Norman Shaw. Red brick, roughcast to first floor; tiled roofs. 4 storeys. Main entrance from south podium over wine cellars. Roughcast first floor with plaster frieze by Edward Roscoe Mullins. Mullioned and transomed windows subdivided by glazing bars, those at first floor level paired and bracketed. Overhanging third storey comprising 3 tile hung-gables with fishscale patterns. Plain bargeboards. Principal range divided from east wing with shallow mullioned and transomed bay window rising from basement to first floor. Ground-floor window with cornice head supporting broken pediment with urn. Elaborate wrought-iron corner bracket (sign missing). Massive shafted stacks. North elevation with open balcony at ground floor. Notable interior with diagonal timber bracing of massive proportions to ground floor. Oak staircase with enriched TQ 43972 balusters and newels. Main saloon contains huge timber bar 1 1376224 80689 II* and original fittings.

The chimney at Beckton Sewage Works has been listed at Grade II for the following principal reasons: * architecturally special for its elegant tapering form and Egyptian-style cap; * designed by Sir Joseph Bazalgette as part of improvements TQ 45147 to the Northern Outfall of his London drainage network in 2 1393160 81744 II 1887, in response to public health concerns;

Lock of 1812-14 and swing bridge of C1876. Entrance lock built of brick with dressings and coping of Dundee stone; C20 riveted steel lock gates. Iron swing bridge to south west corner of lock. History: the Royal Arsenal Canal was built to allow supplies (especially timber) to be brought into arsenal and to protect the eastern boundary of the site. The swing TQ44682797 bridge was built to serve a standard gauge line added in 3 1213695 93 II 1876 to connect the LCDR at Plumstead

Government House, Woolwich New Road. built originally as a private house it was in military use by 1841 as the Deputy Adjutant General's residence and subsequently used as the Commandant's residence up to 1937. It is first shown on 542954, Thomas Yeakell's "Plan shewing the Ordnance Ground and 4 1271813 178475 II parts adjacent at Woolwich" of 1810.

Appendix 5C Cultural Heritage: Listed Buildings East of Silvertown

Hyder no. NMR no. Grid ref Grade Description

543244, 5 1078960 177938 II Drinking fountain

543298, 6 1078986 178150 II South African War Memorial

Chapel of St George (ruin). The barracks at Woolwich for the Royal Artillery were built between 1776 and 1802. St 543346, George's was built as the garrison church in 1863 but was 7 1078985 178286 II bombed in July 1944, leaving the ruin that survives today.

543332, 8 1213269 178324 II K2 Telephone kiosk opposite Woolwich Barracks

543370, 9 1078983 178446 II North West entrance gate to Connaught Barracks

Overthrow lamp. Early C19. Wrought- and cast-iron. Two upright canon form the base, beneath 4 brackets supporting lamp standards, which curve toward each other and curl under at the top, and are connected by the bracket for the former lamp. Forms the central entrance to the quadrangle 543400, formed by the three former barracks (qqv), possibly re-sited 10 1375620 178400 II from the NW entrance

543430, Connaught Barracks south western part. Two separate, early 11 1078982 178407 II C19 buildings and a mid C19 building set back between them

543454, 12 1078984 178368 II Wall to south east of Connaught Barracks

543104, 13 1078918 178322 II* Royal Artillery Barracks main building

Statue of Victory at south side of parade ground, on axis 543165, facing Royal Artillery Barracks, and surrounding cannon 14 1290076 178259 II posts (Crimean war memorial) Repository Rd.

543295, 15 1291899 178844 II Woolwich Methodist Church, Calderwood Street.

543354, 16 1391898 178825 II Police Station 29-33 Market Street

Magistrates Court, 50 Calderwood Street Woolwich Magistrate Court was built in 1912 by John Dixon Butler, Architect and Surveyor to the Metropolitan Police. Dixon Butler, FRIBA, succeeded his father, John Butler, in this post in 1895 and served as Surveyor until his death in 1920, by which time he had designed over 200 police 543380, stations and courts. The Court building replaced an earlier 17 1391897 178848 II police court which stood on this site from the mid-C19.

543402, 18 1391896 178859 II Public Library, 48 Calderwood Street

Hyder no. NMR no. Grid ref Grade Description

543414, 19 1079064 178872 II Woolwich Old Town Hall, Calderwood Street

24-28, Market Street Early C19 terrace. Each house 2 storeys, 1 window. Low pitched slate roof. Multicoloured stock brick. Rendered plinth. Gauged, flat brick arches to sash windows with glazing bars in stucco-lined reveals. 6-panel doors, under reeded cornice heads and rectangular fanlights with glazing bars. 543384, Narrow, flat pilasters support curved brackets and cornice 20 1078938 178785 II hoods. Mint condition.

543452, 21 1289668 178739 II* Woolwich Town Hall, Wellington Street

543329, Royal Arsenal Cooperative Society Headquaters building, 22 1289022 179051 II 125-153 Powis Street

Former Granada cinema, built 1936-7 for Granada Theatres. Architects: Cecil Masey (1881- 1960) and Reginald Harold 543236, Uren (1903-88) with interior design by Theodore 23 1212651 179160 II* Komisarjevsky (1882-1954)

Odeon Cinema, Parsons Hill. Built in 1937, Architect George Coles. The best surviving 543139, examples of the "Odeon" style. Unaltered interior with a free 24 1212649 179153 II use of art-deco motif's around the proscenium.

Monument in churchyard to north east of Church of St Mary 543122, with St Anne, Greenlaw Street 25 1078989 179165 II

543068, Church of St Mary Magdalene, Greenlaw Street. 26 1358969 179124 II*

The south entrance rotunda of the Woolwich foot tunnel, 543300, Ferry Approach. 27 1213552 179281 II

543200, 28 1253068 179775 II Entrance to Woolwich pedestrian tunnel, Pier Road

North Woolwich Station, Pier Road, including turntable and 543316, platform lamp standards 29 1376229 179806 II

Appendix 5C Cultural Heritage: Listed Buildings

APPENDIX 4C

Cultural Heritage: Baseline Detailed Information

East of Silvertown

Belvedere Topography

21.1.1.2 The land within the Belvedere options area is relatively level and generally around 1m AOD. Geology

21.1.1.3 No previous baseline has been prepared regarding the geology within this area. Should any of the Belvedere options be progressed it is likely that a Deposit Model Survey would be required, as it was for the Thames Gateway Bridge EIA (Halcrow 2008).

21.1.1.4 Broadly, the solid geology of the Belvedere options area comprises clay, sand and silt of the Lambeth Group to the west and the London Clay formation to the east. These deposits are overlain by river gravels and alluvium, the former containing bands of peat. Activity in the 19th and 20th century has led to the build-up of areas of made ground, including an extensive area of 19th century landfill on the northern side of the river. Archaeology

Designated assets

21.1.1.5 There are no designated heritage assets (i.e. scheduled monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields or protected wrecks) within the Belvedere options area or its immediate vicinity. Prehistoric

21.1.1.6 There is considerable evidence for human activity from the Mesolithic period onwards within and surrounding the Belvedere options area, particularly on the southern side of the river. Extensive peat deposits dating from the Mesolithic period onwards have been identified during construction related archaeological works in the vicinity of Picardy Manorway, Norman Road, Church Manorway, Eastern Way, Anderson Way and Crabtree Manorway (HN85, HN87, HN88, HN89, HN90, and HN92). A single Mesolithic to Early Neolithic period flint blade was recovered from Picardy Manorway (HN87) and timbers interpreted as coming from a possible Neolithic period trackway were recovered from Church Manorway (HN90). Peat deposits thought to date to the Prehistoric period have also been identified at Frog Lane, on the northern side of the river (HN92).

21.1.1.7 Extensive prehistoric remains have also been identified in the wider vicinity of the Belvedere options area on the southern side of the

1 East of Silvertown river. Archaeological excavations associated with the construction of Bronze Age Way during the mid-1990s, approximately 250m-500m to the south-east of the southern end of the options area, identified extensive peat deposits and flint implements dating from the Mesolithic to Bronze Age were recovered. Pottery fragments dating to the Neolithic and Bronze Age and a portion of a Neolithic timber trackway were also recovered. A number of finds of Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts are recorded as having come from the Thames in the vicinity of Erith, and a prehistoric log boat is recorded as being recovered in the area. Roman

21.1.1.8 A sherd of Roman period pottery was recovered from a peat deposit during archaeological works at Norman Road in 2007 (HN91). No other Roman period heritage assets have been identified within the Belvedere options area. Though Roman period pottery fragments have been recovered in the wider area, including the southern end of Ferry Lane, approximately 100m to the south-east on the northern side of the river. Evidence of Roman period occupation was also identified during the archaeological works associated with the construction of Bronze Age Way, approximately 250m-500m to the south-east on the southern side of the river. Early Medieval

21.1.1.9 No early medieval period heritage assets were identified within the Belvedere options area or the wider vicinity. Whilst there are suggestions that St John’s Church at Erith had an Anglo-Saxon pre- cursor, no evidence to support this could be identified. Medieval

21.1.1.10 No early medieval period heritage assets have identified within the Belvedere options area. Evidence of medieval settlement dating from the 12th and 13th centuries, including structural remains, were identified during the archaeological works associated with the construction of Bronze Age way, circa 500m to the south-east of the Belvedere options area on the southern side of the river. A ferry is also known to have operated from the southern end of Ferry Lane, approximately 100m to the south east of the Belvedere options area on the northern side of the river, from the 12th or 13 century. Post-medieval

21.1.1.11 The earliest detailed maps of the Belvedere options area were produced during the post-medieval period. Hasted’s map dating of the 1790s and Chapman and André’s map of 1777 both show the northern and southern sides of the river as marsh. The 1777 map indicates location of the Rainham Ferry, located at the southern end of

East of Silvertown

Ferry Lane, approximately 100m to the south east of the Belvedere options area on the northern side of the river.

21.1.1.12 The earliest Ordnance Survey maps, dating to the 1860s, show greater detail than previous maps and a number of fields and dykes can be identified. No development is shown within the Belvedere options area on the northern side of the river, whilst a manure works and two powder magazines are shown on the edge of the Belvedere options area on the southern side of the river. A number of post- medieval period heritage assets associated with late 19th century landfills were identified within the Belvedere options area on the northern side of the river (HN76, HN77, HN78, HN79, HN80, and HN81). This area also forms part of the Havering Archaeological Priority Zone. Modern

21.1.1.13 Ordnance Survey maps dating to the first half of the 20th century shown some additional commercial and industrial development along the shore on both sides of the river, particularly the construction of the Ford car plant at Dagenham which lies adjacent to the Belvedere options area on the northern side of the river. However, the majority of the Belvedere options area remains largely undeveloped on both sides of the river during this period. Two modern period heritage assets were identified within the Belvedere options area on the northern side of the river, both of which are the sites of World War II anti-aircraft guns located to protect nearby industrial sites (HN82, HN83).

21.1.1.14 There is considerable industrial development on the southern side of the river during the second half of the 20th century, whilst the northern side remains relatively undeveloped until the last decades of the 20th century with the construction of car compounds associated with the Ford car plant and other commercial and industrial development.

Arcadis UK

34 York Way London N1 9AB T: +44 (0) 20 7812 2000 arcadis.com