DOCSLIB.ORG

Development Consent Order Application

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development Consent Order Application Development Consent Order Application Response to ExA’s First Written Questions: 8.11 Principal Issue: Dredging and Navigation The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 November 2016 Silvertown Tunnel Response to ExA’s First Written Questions: Dredging and Navigation THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK Page 2 of 32 Silvertown Tunnel Response to ExA’s First Written Questions: Dredging and Navigation Silvertown Tunnel Development Consent Order Application Response to ExA’s First Written Questions: Dredging and Navigation Document Reference: 8.11 Internal Code: ST150030-PLN-ZZZ-ZZ-REP-ZZ-0141 Author: Transport for London Rev. Date Approved By Signature Description 0 15/11/2016 David Rowe (TfL For Deadline 1 Lead Sponsor) Page 3 of 32 Silvertown Tunnel Response to ExA’s First Written Questions: Dredging and Navigation THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK Page 4 of 32 Silvertown Tunnel Response to ExA’s First Written Questions: Dredging and Navigation Contents DN DREDGING AND NAVIGATION ................................................................... 6 DN.1 Question .................................................................................................... 6 Response ............................................................................................................... 6 DN.2 Question .................................................................................................... 8 Response ............................................................................................................... 8 DN.3 Question .................................................................................................. 12 Response ............................................................................................................. 12 DN.4 Question .................................................................................................. 14 Response ............................................................................................................. 14 DN.5 Question .................................................................................................. 16 Response ............................................................................................................. 16 DN.6 Question .................................................................................................. 17 Response ............................................................................................................. 17 DN.7 Question .................................................................................................. 19 Response ............................................................................................................. 19 DN.8 Question .................................................................................................. 20 Response ............................................................................................................. 20 DN.9 Question .................................................................................................. 22 Response ............................................................................................................. 22 DN.10 Question ............................................................................................... 23 Response ............................................................................................................. 23 DN.11 Question ............................................................................................... 25 Response ............................................................................................................. 25 DN.12 Question ............................................................................................... 26 Response ............................................................................................................. 26 DN.13 Question ............................................................................................... 30 Response ............................................................................................................. 30 Appendix A. Safeguarded Wharves Review .................................................... 32 Page 5 of 32 Silvertown Tunnel Response to ExA’s First Written Questions: Dredging and Navigation DN DREDGING AND NAVIGATION DN.1 Question (a) What is the maximum depth of dredging that would be required for the construction of the temporary jetty? (b) How would the maximum depth of dredge be secured in the dDCO? (c) What is the duration of the dredging and jetty construction activities? Response Response Part (a) DN.1.1 Clause 4.4.76 and Appendix B of the CMS (APP-046) envisage that up to 3m of material will be dredged from the river bed (including a 0.5m over dredge allowance). This is the depth that has been assessed in the ES. DN.1.2 But, as set out in the CMS (APP-046) the requirement for and exact depth of any dredging will not be known until after the completion of the detailed design of the temporary works. DN.1.3 Clause 7.3.37 of the CMS (APP-046) identifies that there are a number of options for configuring the ship and barge loading facilities and the specific details, including dredging depth, will be developed by the Contractor. DN.1.4 The Applicant is currently discussing the issue of dredging depth with the PLA. Response Part (b) DN.1.5 Controls on dredging depth are secured in the dDCO (APP-013) through the plan approval role contained within the protective provisions for the PLA and through the method statement approval mechanisms within the dDML (see the response to DN6). Response Part (c) Page 6 of 32 Silvertown Tunnel Response to ExA’s First Written Questions: Dredging and Navigation DN.1.6 The detailed envisaged programme of activities, including dredging and jetty construction, is presented in Appendix C “Envisaged Construction Programme” of the CMS (APP-046) The duration of dredging and jetty construction activities have been based on experience of projects of a similar nature and scale. The actual start and end dates for the activities may vary subject to the Contractor’s actual construction programme. The likely timing and durations of the dredging and jetty construction activities are as follows: Dredging is needed to create low water access to the jetty. To enable access to the full dredge envelope, dredging will be carried out prior to the jetty construction. Activity ST.1008 in the programme envisages that dredging is anticipated to last 30 calendar days. Jetty construction will start upon completion of dredging. The piled structure and commissioning is expected to take 70 days to complete. This work is shown as activity ST.1010. Activity ST.1005 identifies river wall strengthening for jetty installation (if required). This pre-jetty construction work is anticipated to last for 20 days. As set out in CoCP (8.1.3), the Contractor’s construction programme will be agreed so that “Any planned (i.e. non-emergency) dredging work must avoid the period of June-August inclusive.” Page 7 of 32 Silvertown Tunnel Response to ExA’s First Written Questions: Dredging and Navigation DN.2 Question During the proposed dredging and jetty construction, would any other users of the river be impacted? Please provide details and estimated timescales for each activity/river user that would be impacted. Response DN.2.1 Construction of the jetty at Thames Wharf (if selected by the Contractor) will entail dredging of the river bed in the vicinity of the proposed jetty, piling and other works requiring barge or other marine plant access, and working within the river ('Jetty Construction'), and is envisaged to take place from December 2019 to March 2020. DN.2.2 The interface between these construction works and organisations operating from the existing Thames Wharf, and other organisations using the river Thames, has been recognised and addressed by the Applicant. DN.2.3 The development of the envisaged construction methods, the Reference Design and development of the dDCO provisions have been informed by user engagement and consultation, navigable interest surveys of users of the river Thames, and particularly close and continuous liaison with the PLA and GLA (as owners of the adjacent land) throughout Scheme development. DN.2.4 The use of the river (including use by marine equipment required for the Scheme’s construction activity) is controlled by the PLA. In TfL’s extensive engagement with the PLA on such issues, the need for a Navigational Interests Risk Assessment has been identified as a mechanism by which PLA can ensure risks of marine use on the river are adequately controlled. DN.2.5 Whilst usually prepared and submitted to PLA closer to commencing river use, TfL have prepared a draft of this document, known as the 'Navigation Issues and Preliminary Risk Assessment ('NIPRA') (APP-054) and submitted this with the DCO application to reflect the preliminary design stage, having discussed its contents with the PLA. DN.2.6 Together the NIPRA, the dDCO and specifically the Protective Provisions for the benefit of PLA, address the need to maintain operation of all navigable interests in the Thames. Page 8 of 32 Silvertown Tunnel Response to ExA’s First Written Questions: Dredging and Navigation DN.2.7 The Applicant is seeking powers through the dDCO for the construction of a jetty and for the re-use of the Thames Wharf NAABSA berth (not always afloat but safe aground) to enable the Applicant to fulfil its commitments
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessment of Current and Future Cruise Ship Requirements in London
    London Development Agency June 2009 AN ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT AND FUTURE CRUISE SHIP REQUIREMENTS IN LONDON In conjunction with: 5 Market Yard Mews 194 Bermondsey Street London SE1 3TQ Tel: 020 7642 5111 Email: [email protected] CONTENTS 1. Introduction 3 2. Current cruise facilities in central London 4 3. The organisational and planning context 8 4. The cruise market and future demand 11 5. Views of cruise operators 19 6. Potential for growing cruise calls to London 22 7. Assessment of potential sites 24 8. Lessons from elsewhere 37 9. Conclusions 51 Appendices: Appendix 1: List of consultees Appendix 2: Seatrade cruise market report Appendix 3: Location plan of potential sites Appendix 4: Economic impact study Appendix 5: Overview of costs The Tourism Company – Assessment of current and future cruise ship requirements 2 1. INTRODUCTION This report was commissioned by the London Development Agency (LDA) and Greater London Authority (GLA), with support from the Port of London Authority (PLA) in response to a need for a better understanding of London’s future cruise facility requirements. This need is identified in the London Tourism Vision for 2006-2016, and associated Action Plan 2006-2009, under the theme ‘A Sustainable and Inclusive City’, one of whose objectives is to ‘Increase the profile and usage of services along the Thames’. London currently hosts a relatively small number of cruise ships each year, making use of the informal and basic mooring and passenger facilities at Tower Bridge and Greenwich. The aim of this research is to assess the extent to which the lack of a dedicated, more efficient cruise facility is discouraging operators from bringing cruise ships to London, and if there is latent demand, how might this be accommodated.
    [Show full text]
  • Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Section 78 Appeal
    Sam Harper Our Ref: APP/E5900/A/12/2186269 Director Your Ref: 09139/VW/sh Firstplan Golden Cross House 8 Duncannon Street 16th September 2014 London WC2N 4JF Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES UK LTD AND LONDON CONCRETE LTD ORCHARD WHARF, ORCHARD PLACE, LONDON E14 0JU APPLICATION: REF PA/11/03824 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, David Nicholson RIBA IHBC, who held a public local inquiry between 23 April and 5 September 2013 into your clients’ appeal against a decision of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council) to refuse planning permission for planning application number PA/11/03824, dated 22 December 2011. This was a cross boundary hybrid planning application made to London Thames Gateway Development Corporation and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets with the extent of each Authority’s administrative boundary marked on each application drawing. The development proposed is a concrete batching plant, cement storage terminal and aggregate storage facilities, together with associated structures and facilities, walkway and landscaping, jetty and ship to shore conveyor. 1) Outline application: all matters reserved (except for layout) Jetty and ship to shore conveyor. 2) Full details: Demolition of all existing buildings; concrete batching plant; cement storage terminal; aggregate storage facilities; associated structures and facilities; associated highway works; walkway; and landscaping. 2. On 28 November 2012, the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 to Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because the appeal involves proposals against which another Government department has raised major objections or has a major interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Lenox Vision MAY 2018:Layout 1
    The Lenox Project Vision A lasting legacy for Deptford A project to build and sail a 17th century royal naval ship, create a dockyard museum and establish a centre of excellence for historic shipbuilding and restoration May 2018 The Lenox Project PATRONS: Dame Joan Ruddock, Dan Snow The Lenox Project 2a Creekside, Deptford, London SE8 4SA Tel +44 (0)7836 268068 [email protected] www.buildthelenox.org The Lenox Project © May 2018 Registered Charity no. 1171252 Registered in England & Wales. Company No: 7952149 Cover: L’Hermione construction; painting of the Lenox passing Greenwich on her 1678 maiden voyage from Deptford to Chatham by Richard Endsor; L’Hermione visitors during construction; Gothëborg visitors at her home port; Gothëborg sea cadets; L’Hermione crew; Gothëborg crew. Illustration acknowledgements: Richard Endsor 1, 3, 5, 17, 26; National Maritime Museum 8, 9, 12; Hutchison Whampoa 11, 29; Hermione-La Fayette Association 1, 13, 14, 15, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32; Swedish East India Company (SOIC) 1, 15; National Portrait Gallery 16; The Royal Society 16; Fram Museum Oslo 21; Royal Albert Memorial Museum 22; National Gallery of Canada 22; Trustees of the Royal Marines Museum 22; Mary Rose Museum, Portsmouth 23; Historic Dockyard Poltava 30, 31 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 5 Our vision 5 The project team 6 Our remit 6 2 Background 7 The Lenox 7 Deptford Dockyard 8 Kit model of the Lenox National significance 10 designed by Richard Endsor Archaeology 10 Heritage 12 Existing models 13 Project support 16 Evelyn’s legacy 16 3 Our Vision 17
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report & Accounts 2020
    OVERVIEW ANNUAL REPORT & ACCOUNTS 2020 CUSTODIANS OF THE TIDAL THAMES PROTECT / IMPROVE / PROMOTE PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT & ACCOUNTS 2020 D ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS & ACCOUNTS 2020 Pages 2-5 Pages 26-43 Pages 52-85 Overview Performance Financial statements About the tidal Thames 2 River use 2020 28 Consolidated income statement 53 2020 at a glance 2 Port trade 28 Consolidated statement of other About the PLA 4 Inland waterways freight 28 comprehensive income 53 2020 Highlights 5 Sport & recreation 29 Consolidated and company Passenger travel 29 balance sheet 54 River navigation and safety 30 Consolidated and company statements of changes in equity 55 Environmental stewardship 32 Consolidated and company Planning consultation and statements of cash flows 56 technical expertise 34 Notes to the consolidated and Bringing people together company financial statements 57 and promoting the river 35 Statement of Members’ responsibilities 84 PLA in the community 36 Independent auditor’s report 85 PLA people 37 PLA activity indicators 38 Port trade statistics 40 Review of principal risks 42 Pages 6-25 Strategic report Chairman’s statement 7 Chief Executive’s statement 8 Chief Harbour Master’s statement 12 Chief Financial Officer’s statement 14 Opportunities & challenges 16 PLA strategy 18 Photo credits Income 19 Krispen Atkinson Stakeholder benefits 20 Pages 44-51 Andrew Christy Engaging with stakeholders 22 Corbyn Governance DHL Ben Fitzpatrick Mark Stanford Corporate governance report 45 Graham Tassell Board members 46 Thames Clippers PLA Board – summary statistics 49 Thames Festival Trust Committees 50 Tideway Find out more www.pla.co.uk Tom Ochman PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT & ACCOUNTS 2020 1 OVERVIEW OVERVIEW OVERVIEW ABOUT THE TIDAL THAMES The tidal Thames is 95 miles of river from Teddington Lock, through central London, out to the North Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • London Plan Implementation Report Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames Mayor of London 1
    London Plan Implementation Report Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames London Plan Implementation Report January 2005 Cover photo stories: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 JJ Prior delivering aggregates to RMC Fulham (Comley’s Wharf). The aggregates, sand and gravel, originate from Prior’s quarry at Fingringhoe on the River Colne near Colchester. Prior owns seven aggregate vessels ranging in size from 250 to 600 tonne cargo carrying capacity. The vessels load directly from the quarry and delivery direct to upriver aggregates facilities, carrying approximately 160,000 tonnes per year. These small ships make a huge contribution to keeping heavy lorries off London’s streets. In recognition of this, the company has received several Freight Facilities Grants towards the cost of vessel refurbishment. 2 A panorama of two safeguarded Wandsworth terminals: Cringle Dock, a waste transfer station owned by the Western Riverside Waste Authority and operated by Cory Environmental; and RMC Battersea, owned and operated as a concrete batching plant by RMC. These two berths primarily handle cargo that has been transhipped within the Port of London, sea-dredged aggregates and cement arriving at RMC Battersea from terminals in Greenwich, Northfleet and Greenhithe and household waste barged from Cringle Dock to Mucking in Essex. In 2001, over 375,000 tonnes of cargo was handled at these two terminals, which kept over 51,000 lorry movements of the capital’s streets. 3 A Cory Environmental owned tug pulling a pair of dumb barges upstream through Lambeth Bridge carrying empty containers for loading with household waste at two safeguarded water transfer stations in Wandsworth (Western Riverside Waste Transfer Station and Cringle Dock).
    [Show full text]
  • Thames Vision 2035 Goals and Priority Actions Consultation Responses
    Port of London Authority: Thames Vision 2035 Goals and Priority Actions Consultation Responses Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 Visual Summary of Responses ............................................................................................. 6 Responses by Sector ............................................................................................................ 7 Port of London ................................................................................................................... 7 Armac Shipping Services ............................................................................................... 7 NuStar Terminals ........................................................................................................... 7 PD Shipping & Inspection Services ................................................................................ 9 Stema Shipping UK ...................................................................................................... 10 Port of Tilbury .............................................................................................................. 11 Vopak Terminals UK .................................................................................................... 11 Inland Freight .................................................................................................................. 13 Brett Group .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]