DOCSLIB.ORG

Flood Risk Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flood Risk Assessment Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Assessment of Water Impacts Technical Report Cross London Rail Links Limited Appendix H: Flood Risk Assessment 203357/31/Final/February 2005 Appendix dividers H.doc Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Flood Risk Assessment - Surface Water Crossings Cross London Rail Links Limited Cross London Rail Links 1 Butler Place London SW1H 0PT United Kingdom Crossrail Line 1 Flood Risk Assessment – Surface Water Crossings Crossrail Reference: 1E0321-GOE00-00006 February 2005 Mott MacDonald Demeter House Station Road Cambridge CB1 2RS UK Tel : 44 (0)1223 463500 Fax : 44 (0)1223 461007 203357/31/Final/February 2005 AppH_1.doc Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Flood Risk Assessment - Surface Water Crossings Cross London Rail Links Limited Summary The proposed Crossrail route extends from Maidenhead in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. The route crosses a number of watercourses ranging from minor brooks to substantial main rivers. There are concerns that the proposed works may increase the potential for flooding at the crossing sites and in surrounding areas. There are also concerns that the Crossrail route may itself be affected by flood events at the crossings. Flood Risk Assessments have therefore been carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Government Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 (PPG25). These have been set out in this report, with the exception of Pudding Mill Lane (Route Window C13) where, because of the extent of the works proposed within watercourses, a more detailed Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out and is reported separately. In carrying out the required Flood Risk Assessments, reference has been made to the ‘Flood Map’, which is shown on the Environment Agency (EA) website as of 7 October 2004, and is the primary source of publicly available flood risk information. At those locations where there is shown by the EA Flood Map to be a potential impact on flood risk, a more detailed assessment has been undertaken, and a more detailed determination of flood risk established. These local Flood Risk Assessments have made use of any available detailed modelling, backed up by analysis using Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) procedures. Flood levels have been taken from existing models where possible. Detailed topographic data gathered for the Crossrail alignment has also been used where possible. For the locations where there was assessed to be a risk of exacerbating flooding and/or encroachment on the floodplain, further study has been carried out to determine how such risks may be mitigated. The conclusions of the Flood Risk Assessments are summarised in Table S.1 which shows that there is no significant residual risk at any of the sites. It has been assessed that there is no risk of flooding of the Crossrail line at any of the named sites. The only exception to this is Gidea Park where levels from the most recent EA modelling indicate that there is a small risk of flooding to the existing railway. The proposals for Crossrail would not increase this risk. 203357/31/Final/February 2005 AppH_1.doc Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Flood Risk Assessment - Surface Water Crossings Cross London Rail Links Limited Table S.1: Summary Conclusion of Flood Risk Assessment Route Watercourse Residual risk Ref Flood related impacts window after mitigation NE4 Ilford Station Alders Brook • None Not Significant NE9 Romford River Rom • None Not Significant Station & Depot (East) NE11 Gidea Park River • There may be minor filling of the floodplain and displacement of flood Not Significant Stabling Ravensbourne storage. This is subject to model output verification and detailed Sidings design. • There would be a small headloss (afflux) due to the increase in culvert length. This can be mitigated by improvements to the entry and exit conditions to the culvert. W13 West Drayton Fray’s River • Construction of the new road bridge would have an impact on upstream Not Significant Station water levels. This can be mitigated by provision of hydraulic streamlining at the new bridge and between the new and existing bridge. 3 • Reduction in available flood storage of up to 150 m during the 100- year+20% flood event. This can be mitigated by providing compensation storage. • Temporary encroachment of floodplain during construction workswould need to be managed to minimise the volume of storage taken up and the duration of the works. 203357/31/Final/February 2005 AppH_1.doc Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Flood Risk Assessment - Surface Water Crossings Cross London Rail Links Limited Route Watercourse Residual risk Ref Flood related impacts window after mitigation W15 Dog Kennel Horton Brook • Reduction in available flood storage of up to 715 m³ during the 100- Not Significant Bridge year+20% flood event due to widening of the embankment. This can be mitigated by providing compensation storage. • Minor headloss (0.08 m) due to increase in culvert length of 7 m. This can be mitigated by provision of streamlining at the entry and exit transitions. C11 Isle of Dogs Docks • Available flood storage volume within the dock system would be Not Significant Station reduced, with potential for minor increases in the risk of flooding elsewhere in the vicinity. Effective mitigation should be possible, but cannot be guaranteed at this stage. SE7 Church Wickham • None Not Significant Manorway Valley Bridge Watercourse NE8 Romford Two non-main • None Not Significant Depot (West) rivers Various Other sites River Thames • As the stations and shafts are within the Thames protected floodplain, Not Significant located within which is protected to the 1000 year event, they are considered to have the Thames no flood related impacts for the purpose of this study. Protected Floodplain • At Maidenhead there may be a minor temporary impact due to the construction works. This should be managed to minimise the volume of storage taken up and the duration of the works. 203357/31/Final/February 2005 AppH_1.doc Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Flood Risk Assessment - Surface Water Crossings Cross London Rail Links Limited List of Contents Page Chapters and Annexes 1 Introduction 1 2 Route Window NE4 – Ilford Station 2 2.1 Existing Conditions 2 2.2 Proposed Works 3 2.3 Flooding Assessment 3 2.4 Mitigation 6 2.5 Conclusions 6 3 Route Window NE9 – Romford Station & Depot (East) 7 3.1 Existing Conditions 7 3.2 Proposed Works 9 3.3 Flooding Assessment 10 3.4 Mitigation 11 3.5 Conclusions 11 4 Route Window NE11 – Gidea Park Stabling Sidings 12 4.1 Existing Conditions 12 4.2 Proposed Works 13 4.3 Flooding Assessment 14 4.4 Mitigation 15 4.5 Conclusions 16 5 Route Window W13 – West Drayton Station 17 5.1 Existing Conditions 17 5.2 Proposed Works 19 5.3 Flooding Assessment 19 5.4 Mitigation 21 5.5 Conclusions 21 6 Route Window W15 – Dog Kennel Bridge 22 6.1 Existing Conditions 22 6.2 Proposed Works 24 6.3 Flooding Assessment 24 6.4 Mitigation 26 6.5 Conclusions 26 i 203357/31/Final/February 2005 AppH_1.doc Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Flood Risk Assessment - Surface Water Crossings Cross London Rail Links Limited 7 Route Window C11 – Isle of Dogs Station 27 7.1 Existing Conditions 27 7.2 Proposed Works 27 7.3 Flooding Assessment 28 7.3.1 EA’s Concerns 28 7.3.2 British Waterways Concerns 28 7.3.3 Temporary Works 29 7.3.4 Permanent Works 29 7.4 Mitigation 30 7.5 Conclusions 30 8 Route Window SE7 – Church Manorway Bridge 31 9 Romford Depot (West) 32 10 Other Thames Sites 33 10.1 Tidal Floodplain 33 10.2 Fluvial Floodplain 34 11 Conclusions 35 Annex A: Topographic Survey Data A ii 203357/31/Final/February 2005 AppH_1.doc Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Flood Risk Assessment - Surface Water Crossings Cross London Rail Links Limited Table of Figures Figure 2.1: Route Window NE4 – Ilford Station 2 Figure 2.2: Alders Brook as it passes under existing tracks 3 Figure 2.3: EA Flood Map – Ilford Station 4 Figure 2.4: Approximate Dimensions of Alders Brook at site 5 Figure 2.5: Alders Brook Barrage 5 Figure 3.1: Route Window NE9 – Romford Station & Depot (East) 7 Figure 3.2: Area to West of Romford Station 8 Figure 3.3: River Rom Culvert Beneath Railway Tracks 8 Figure 3.4: Position of Platform Extension at River Rom Culvert Entrance 9 Figure 3.5: EA Flood Map – Romford Station & Depot (East) 10 Figure 3.6: Approximate Dimensions of River Rom Channel at Culvert 11 Figure 4.1: Route Window NE11 – Gidea Park Stabling Sidings 12 Figure 4.2: River Ravensbourne near Crossrail Route 13 Figure 4.3: Ravensbourne Culvert at Gidea Park Sidings 13 Figure 4.4: EA Flood Map – Gidea Park Stabling Sidings 14 Figure 5.1: Route Window W13 – West Drayton Station 17 Figure 5.2: Fray’s River passing under railway tracks 18 Figure 5.3: Area Proposed for West Drayton Stabling 18 Figure 5.4: Lower Colne Model Flood Outline 19 Figure 5.5: Approximate Dimensions of Fray’s River 20 Figure 6.1: Route Window W15 – Dog Kennel Bridge 22 Figure 6.2: Horton Brook near Chequer Bridge 23 Figure 6.3: Chequer Bridge 23 Figure 6.4: EA Flood Map – Dog Kennel Bridge 24 Figure 6.5: Approximate Dimensions of Horton Brook 25 Figure 6.6: Approximate Dimensions of Horton Brook Culvert 25 Figure 7.1: Route Window C11 – Isle of Dogs Station 27 Figure 8.1: Route Window SE7 – Church Manorway Bridge 31 Figure 9.1: Route Window NE8 – Romford Depot (West) 32 Table of Tables Table 5.1: West Drayton Sidings Flood Levels and Topographic Information .......................20 Table 11.1: Summary of Flood Risk Assessments.................................................................35 iii 203357/31/Final/February 2005 AppH_1.doc Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Flood Risk Assessment - Surface Water Crossings Cross London Rail Links Limited 1 Introduction The proposed Crossrail route extends from Maidenhead in the west, through Whitechapel to Shenfield in the north east and Abbey Wood in the east.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HA16 Rivers and Streams London's Rivers and Streams Resource
    HA16 Rivers and Streams Definition All free-flowing watercourses above the tidal limit London’s rivers and streams resource The total length of watercourses (not including those with a tidal influence) are provided in table 1a and 1b. These figures are based on catchment areas and do not include all watercourses or small watercourses such as drainage ditches. Table 1a: Catchment area and length of fresh water rivers and streams in SE London Watercourse name Length (km) Catchment area (km2) Hogsmill 9.9 73 Surbiton stream 6.0 Bonesgate stream 5.0 Horton stream 5.3 Greens lane stream 1.8 Ewel court stream 2.7 Hogsmill stream 0.5 Beverley Brook 14.3 64 Kingsmere stream 3.1 Penponds overflow 1.3 Queensmere stream 2.4 Keswick avenue ditch 1.2 Cannizaro park stream 1.7 Coombe Brook 1 Pyl Brook 5.3 East Pyl Brook 3.9 old pyl ditch 0.7 Merton ditch culvert 4.3 Grand drive ditch 0.5 Wandle 26.7 202 Wimbledon park stream 1.6 Railway ditch 1.1 Summerstown ditch 2.2 Graveney/ Norbury brook 9.5 Figgs marsh ditch 3.6 Bunces ditch 1.2 Pickle ditch 0.9 Morden Hall loop 2.5 Beddington corner branch 0.7 Beddington effluent ditch 1.6 Oily ditch 3.9 Cemetery ditch 2.8 Therapia ditch 0.9 Micham road new culvert 2.1 Station farm ditch 0.7 Ravenbourne 17.4 180 Quaggy (kyd Brook) 5.6 Quaggy hither green 1 Grove park ditch 0.5 Milk street ditch 0.3 Ravensbourne honor oak 1.9 Pool river 5.1 Chaffinch Brook 4.4 Spring Brook 1.6 The Beck 7.8 St James stream 2.8 Nursery stream 3.3 Konstamm ditch 0.4 River Cray 12.6 45 River Shuttle 6.4 Wincham Stream 5.6 Marsh Dykes
    [Show full text]
  • Sugar House Lane Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals January 2010
    Sugar House Lane Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals January 2010 London Borough of Newham CONTENTS PART 1: CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..2 The Planning Context……………………………………………………………….....4 Summary of Special Interest……………………………………………………….....6 Location and Context……………………………………………………………….....7 Topography and Landscape Setting… …………………………………………......7 Geology……………………………………...……………………………………........7 Historical Development…………………………………………………...................8 Townscape Analysis………………………………………………………………….12 Analysis of Key Buildings and Spaces………….………………………………….16 Negative Features and Issues………………………………………………………25 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...…..26 PART 2: CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN A Vision for Sugar House Lane……………………..……….………………………27 Future Development…………………………………………………………………..28 Planning Controls……………………………………………………………………..29 Council Functions………………………………………..……………………………29 Enhancement and Funding…………………………………………………………..30 Community Engagement…………………………………………………………… 30 Public Realm……………………………………………………………….……….....30 Boundary Review……………………………………………………………………...31 Public Consultation and Monitoring…………………………………………….…...31 MAPS Sugar House Lane Conservation Area Boundary…………………………………..3 John Roque 1745………………………………………………………………………8 Ordnance Survey 1867………………………………………………………………..9 Ordnance Survey 1894…....................................................................................10 Views to and from Sugar House Lane………………………………………………13 Analysis
    [Show full text]
  • The Lea Valley Walk
    THE LEA VALLEY WALK LEAGRAVE TO THE HEART OF LONDON by Leigh Hatts JUNIPER HOUSE, MURLEY MOSS, OXENHOLME ROAD, KENDAL, CUMBRIA LA9 7RL www.cicerone.co.uk 774 Lea Valley text 2020 3rd Ed Rpt.indd 3 28/09/2020 14:52 © Leigh Hatts 2015 Third edition 2015 ISBN 978 1 85284 774 6 Reprinted 2020 (with updates) Second edition 2007 First edition 2001 Printed in Singapore by KHL using responsibly sourced paper. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All photographs are by the author unless otherwise stated. This product includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey® with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown copyright 2015. All rights reserved. Licence number PU100012932. Updates to this Guide While every effort is made by our authors to ensure the accuracy of guidebooks as they go to print, changes can occur during the lifetime of an edition. Any updates that we know of for this guide will be on the Cicerone website (www.cicerone.co.uk/774/updates), so please check before planning your trip. We also advise that you check information about such things as transport, accommodation and shops locally. Even rights of way can be altered over time. We are always grateful for information about any discrepancies between a guidebook and the facts on the ground, sent by email to [email protected] or by post to Cicerone, Juniper House, Murley Moss, Oxenholme Road, Kendal, LA9 7RL. Register your book: To sign up to receive free updates, special offers and GPX files where available, register your book at www.cicerone.co.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • The London Rivers Action Plan
    The london rivers action plan A tool to help restore rivers for people and nature January 2009 www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php acknowledgements 1 Steering Group Joanna Heisse, Environment Agency Jan Hewlett, Greater London Authority Liane Jarman,WWF-UK Renata Kowalik, London Wildlife Trust Jenny Mant,The River Restoration Centre Peter Massini, Natural England Robert Oates,Thames Rivers Restoration Trust Kevin Reid, Greater London Authority Sarah Scott, Environment Agency Dave Webb, Environment Agency Support We would also like to thank the following for their support and contributions to the programme: • The Underwood Trust for their support to the Thames Rivers Restoration Trust • Valerie Selby (Wandsworth Borough Council) • Ian Tomes (Environment Agency) • HSBC's support of the WWF Thames programme through the global HSBC Climate Partnership • Thames21 • Rob and Rhoda Burns/Drawing Attention for design and graphics work Photo acknowledgements We are very grateful for the use of photographs throughout this document which are annotated as follows: 1 Environment Agency 2 The River Restoration Centre 3 Andy Pepper (ATPEC Ltd) HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE This booklet is to be used in conjunction with an interactive website administered by the The River Restoration Centre (www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php).Whilst it provides an overview of the aspirations of a range of organisations including those mentioned above, the main value of this document is to use it as a tool to find out about river restoration opportunities so that they can be flagged up early in the planning process.The website provides a forum for keeping such information up to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Middlesex University Research Repository an Open Access Repository Of
    Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Read, Simon ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2380-5130 (2017) Cinderella River: The evolving narrative of the River Lee. http://hydrocitizenship.com, London, pp. 1-163. [Book] Published version (with publisher’s formatting) This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/23299/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Ravensbourne Vision
    RAVENSBOURNE VISION YOUR CATCHMENT - YOUR VISION 2015-2021 Enhancing the quality of our rivers with local communities THE CATCHMENT The area of land that includes farms, parks, gardens, buildings and roads, through which water drains into the rivers and streams, makes up the catchment. The rivers of the Ravensbourne catchment rise in the London Boroughs of Bromley and Croydon and run for 25kms northwards through the Boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich until they meet the River Thames at Deptford. The three main rivers, the Ravensbourne, Quaggy and Pool have mostly been straightened, set in concrete and diverted over time while the more natural, and naturalised, sections of the river are providing both havens for wildlife and popular places for public access to nature. 1 2 3 Norman Park Sutcliffe Park Chinbrook Meadows 4 5 6 Ladywell Fields Linear Park Cornmill Gardens RIVER RAVENSBOURNE CATCHMENT MAP 6 2 4 5 3 1 WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE We want a Ravensbourne catchment that continues to develop into a destination of enjoyment and discovery. A catchment where: • new development enhances the river and allows nature to thrive. • opportunities for leisure, education and discovery are commonplace. • community and volunteer groups are well supported in their work along the river. • enhancement and education programmes benefit local people. • A locally supported Catchment Plan that creates a path toward a healthy future for the rivers within the catchment. A natural place where: • species and habitats thrive along clean-water river corridors. • a diverse natural environment attracts people to the rivers. • a mosaic habitats and green corridors allow species to move freely throughout the catchment.
    [Show full text]
  • London Mooring Strategy Announcement
    25 June 2018 CHARITY ADDRESSES CHALLENGES OF SOARING POPULARITY OF Boating in London has soared in popularity in recent years. With the number of boats on announcing a raft of initiatives that will benefit boaters and help manage the strain placed on the -year old network. The Canal & River Trust the charity that cares for over 100 miles of waterways in the London region has produced a London Mooring Strategy in consultation with boaters, boating groups and local authorities, amongst others. Initiatives include managing the increasing demand for mooring spaces, improving facilities, and fairly balancing the needs of everyone who uses the In 2018/19, the Trust will be making the following improvements: • Water points: — (Shoreditch), Bow Locks, Alperton — Improve water pressure at Paddington Basin — Relocate tap from Old Ford to Sweetwater (Olympic Park) • Waste facilities: — New compounds at Harlesden, Feildes Weir (Hoddesdon), Stonebridge Lock • Elsan (toilet) facilities: — • Working with boaters and volunteers to install additional mooring rings • Residential moorings developed at Millwall Outer Dock and Hayes • Pre-bookable moorings developed in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park Creek (up to two berths), and on the Lee Navigation adjacent to the Park (three berths) • s Broxbourne and on the Lower Lee Navigation • Improved information at noticeboards, welcome stations and front-of-house Canal & River Trust, Toll House, Delamere Terrace, London, W2 6ND T: 0203 3204 4514 E: [email protected] W: www.canalrivertrust.org.uk
    [Show full text]
  • How Do You Lose a River?
    Number 1,1, SpringSummer 2016 2015 Waypoints 1 How do you lose a river? In this paper I explore the concept of the lost river and the implications this Jonathan Gardner term has for our understanding of the history of changing urban environ- jonathan.gardner@ucl. ments. ac.uk In taking a voyage down one of the London 2012 Olympic Park’s now-filled waterways, the Pudding Mill River, charting it and the surrounding area’s diverse history, I explore how rivers end up becoming losable. Drawing on diverse methodologies from archaeology and geography and with a particular emphasis on mapping, I argue that a literal and metaphorical exploration of such a rapidly changing environment reveals a multitude of buried narratives and fluid histories. This research suggests that the labeling of a river as lost is not a politically neutral act and that, with its romantic connotations, the term may actually serve to legitimise insensitive and contentious changes to our environment. Much has been written about London’s numerous lost watercourses over the years, most notably Nicho- las Barton’s seminal volume The Lost Rivers of London [1] and more, recently Paul Talling’s London’s Lost Riv- ers [2] and Tom Bolton’s London’s Lost Rivers: A Walker’s Guide [3]. In addition to these works a large range of blogs and websites devoted to the lost rivers are continually created and updated, for example, Diamond Geezer 2015 [4]. The subject is one that seems to inspire intense interest amongst a wide range of people and would suggest that city-dwellers are curiously attracted to such forgotten or lost spaces, and in particular, the unusual juxtaposition of the natural and the urban these watercourses seem to present.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossrail Act 2008 Page 1
    Crossrail Act 2008 Page 1 Crossrail Act 2008 2008 CHAPTER 18 Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited. UK Statutes Crown Copyright. Reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty©s Stationery Of®ce. An Act to make provision for a railway transport system running from Maidenhead, in the County of Berkshire, and Heathrow Airport, in the London Borough of Hillingdon, through central London to Shen®eld, in the County of Essex, and Abbey Wood, in the London Borough of Greenwich; and for connected purposes. [22nd July 2008] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen©s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:± Extent Preamble: England, Wales, Scotland Works Law In Force 1 Construction and maintenance of scheduled works (1) The nominated undertaker may construct and maintain the works speci®ed in Schedule 1 (ªthe scheduled worksº), being± (a) works for the construction of an underground railway between, in the west, a tunnel portal at Royal Oak in the City of Westminster and, in the east, tunnel portals at Custom House and Pudding Mill Lane in the London Borough of Newham, (b) works for the construction of other railways in the London Boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Ealing, Greenwich, Hammersmith and Fulham, Havering, Hillingdon, Newham, Redbridge and Tower Hamlets, the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, the District of Basildon and the Borough of Brentwood in the County of Essex, the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead and the Borough of Slough in the County of Berkshire and the District of South Bucks in the County of Buckinghamshire, (c) works consequent on, or incidental to, the construction of the works mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).
    [Show full text]
  • LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 1 BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD
    LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 1 BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD ACC/2423 Reference Description Dates LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD ENGINEER'S OFFICE Engineers' reports and letter books LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD: ENGINEER'S REPORTS ACC/2423/001 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1881 Jan-1883 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/002 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1884 Jan-1886 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/003 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1887 Jan-1889 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/004 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1890 Jan-1893 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/005 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1894 Jan-1896 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/006 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1897 Jan-1899 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/007 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1903 Jan-1903 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/008 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1904 Jan-1904 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/009 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1905 Jan-1905 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/010 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1906 Jan-1906 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 2 BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD ACC/2423 Reference Description Dates ACC/2423/011 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1908 Jan-1908 Lea navigation/ stort navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/012 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1912 Jan-1912 Lea navigation/ stort navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/013 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1913 Jan-1913 Lea navigation/ stort navigation
    [Show full text]
  • South East London Green Chain Plus Area Framework in 2007, Substantial Progress Has Been Made in the Development of the Open Space Network in the Area
    All South East London Green London Chain Plus Green Area Framework Grid 6 Contents 1 Foreword and Introduction 2 All London Green Grid Vision and Methodology 3 ALGG Framework Plan 4 ALGG Area Frameworks 5 ALGG Governance 6 Area Strategy 8 Area Description 9 Strategic Context 10 Vision 12 Objectives 14 Opportunities 16 Project Identification 18 Project Update 20 Clusters 22 Projects Map 24 Rolling Projects List 28 Phase Two Early Delivery 30 Project Details 50 Forward Strategy 52 Gap Analysis 53 Recommendations 56 Appendices 56 Baseline Description 58 ALGG SPG Chapter 5 GGA06 Links 60 Group Membership Note: This area framework should be read in tandem with All London Green Grid SPG Chapter 5 for GGA06 which contains statements in respect of Area Description, Strategic Corridors, Links and Opportunities. The ALGG SPG document is guidance that is supplementary to London Plan policies. While it does not have the same formal development plan status as these policies, it has been formally adopted by the Mayor as supplementary guidance under his powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended). Adoption followed a period of public consultation, and a summary of the comments received and the responses of the Mayor to those comments is available on the Greater London Authority website. It will therefore be a material consideration in drawing up development plan documents and in taking planning decisions. The All London Green Grid SPG was developed in parallel with the area frameworks it can be found at the following link: http://www. london.gov.uk/publication/all-london-green-grid-spg .
    [Show full text]
  • CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM to the BOARD [Redactions Below Relate to Commercially Confidential Information] REGENERATION REPORT – JANUARY 2010
    INFORMATION & DECISION REPORT BWB 3392 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO THE BOARD [Redactions below relate to commercially confidential information] REGENERATION REPORT – JANUARY 2010 Report by Director of Regeneration 1. PURPOSE: 1.1 To update the Board on key regeneration activities across England and Wales 1.2 To seek Board approval to increase expenditure on Three Mills Lock project to £ [ ] (£ [ ] previously noted), to cover risk of additional costs being awarded against BW following Adjudication process. 2.0 NEW REGENERATION DIRECTORATE: 2.1 The new Regeneration Directorate is now fully operational. The transition of regeneration/external funding functions from the former Business Units into the four geographical teams has been a smooth process with project continuity and the need to maintain key external relationships being uppermost in our minds. 3.0 REGENERATION SECTOR COMMENTARY: 3.1 Regional Development Agencies: The future of the RDA’s continues to be debated with the Conservative’s seemingly backtracking on previous pledges to scrap them, in favour of a more flexible approach dependent on whether respective local authorities valued them or not. It is suggested that where LA’s might opt to remove a RDA, the agency would be replaced by a partnership of Councils around real economic regions. These Local Enterprise Partnerships would closely resemble the ‘Leeds City Region’ model although with a smaller number of councils – maybe seven to eight. The Labour Party has however reiterated its support for RDA’s stating recently that they would remain central to Govt plans for economic recovery. 3.2 Conservative Party Policy on Regeneration: The Tory green paper, which was expected to be published in the New Year, has been deferred.
    [Show full text]