DOCSLIB.ORG

Sivertown Tunnel Tunnel Engineering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sivertown Tunnel Tunnel Engineering TRANSPORT FOR LONDON RIVER CROSSINGS: SILVERTOWN TUNNEL SUPPORTING TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION This report is part of a wider FURTHER DEVELOPMENT suite of documents which OF TUNNEL ENGINEERING outline our approach to traffic, environmental, optioneering Mott MacDonald and engineering disciplines, July 2013 amongst others. We would like to know if you have any This report builds upon previous studies comments on our approach to to develop the bored tunnel concept and this work. To give us your addresses design development of key views, please respond to our areas. consultation at www.tfl.gov.uk/silvertown- tunnel Please note that consultation on the Silvertown Tunnel is running from October – December 2014. Silvertown Tunnel Further development of Tunnel Engineering 298348/MNC/TUN/002 July 2013 Transport for London Silvertown298348 MNC TunnelTUN 002 A Document3 15 April 2013 Further development of Tunnel Engineering 298348/MNC/TUN/002 July 2013 Transport for London Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom t +44 (0)20 8774 2000 f +44 (0)20 8681 5706, W www.mottmac.com Silvertown Tunnel Content Chapter Title Page Executive Summary i 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background ________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Scope of this report __________________________________________________________________ 1 1.3 Report structure ____________________________________________________________________ 1 1.4 Contributors _______________________________________________________________________ 1 2. Project Constraints 2 2.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 2 2.2 Land Use, Ownership and Greenwich Peninsula Development ________________________________ 2 2.3 Emirates Air Line (London Cable Car) ___________________________________________________ 2 2.4 Gas Works Foundations and Existing Gas Holder __________________________________________ 4 2.5 River Flood Walls ___________________________________________________________________ 4 2.6 Land Ownership ____________________________________________________________________ 4 2.7 Connections to A102 Blackwall Approach ________________________________________________ 4 2.8 DLR Thames Wharf Station ___________________________________________________________ 4 2.9 Jubilee Line Future Extension __________________________________________________________ 4 2.10 Royal Victoria Dock Western Entrance ___________________________________________________ 5 2.11 DLR Viaduct _______________________________________________________________________ 5 2.12 Royal Victoria Dock Drainage __________________________________________________________ 6 3. Geotechnical 7 3.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 7 3.2 Ground and Groundwater Conditions ____________________________________________________ 7 3.2.1 Topography ________________________________________________________________________ 7 3.2.2 Regional Geology ___________________________________________________________________ 7 3.2.3 Scour Hollows ______________________________________________________________________ 8 3.2.4 Hydrogeology _____________________________________________________________________ 10 3.2.5 Expected Ground Conditions _________________________________________________________ 10 3.2.5.1 Made Ground _____________________________________________________________________ 12 3.2.5.2 Alluvium _________________________________________________________________________ 12 3.2.5.3 River Terrace Deposits ______________________________________________________________ 13 3.2.5.4 London Clay ______________________________________________________________________ 13 3.2.5.5 Harwich Formation _________________________________________________________________ 15 3.2.5.6 Lambeth Group ____________________________________________________________________ 15 3.2.5.7 Thanet Sand ______________________________________________________________________ 16 3.2.5.8 Upper Cretaceous Chalk _____________________________________________________________ 16 3.3 Additional Ground Investigation _______________________________________________________ 17 3.4 Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) _________________________________________________________ 17 3.5 Geotechnical Implications for Bored Tunnel ______________________________________________ 18 3.5.1 TBM Selection & Specification ________________________________________________________ 18 3.5.2 Cross Passages ___________________________________________________________________ 18 3.5.3 Low Point Sump ___________________________________________________________________ 19 3.5.4 Cut and Cover _____________________________________________________________________ 19 298348/MNC/TUN/002 17 July 2013 Silvertown Tunnel 3.5.5 Retained Cut Ramps ________________________________________________________________ 19 4. Tunnel and Civil Engineering Considerations 20 4.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 20 4.2 Alignment Development _____________________________________________________________ 21 4.3 Design Criteria ____________________________________________________________________ 21 4.3.1 Design Speed and Stopping Site Distance _______________________________________________ 21 4.3.2 Super Elevation ____________________________________________________________________ 21 4.3.3 Gradient _________________________________________________________________________ 22 4.4 Minimum Alignment Plan Radius ______________________________________________________ 22 4.5 Minimum Tunnel Crown Cover ________________________________________________________ 22 4.6 Tunnel Clearances and Diameter ______________________________________________________ 22 4.6.1 Vertically _________________________________________________________________________ 22 4.6.2 Horizontally _______________________________________________________________________ 23 4.7 Tunnel Linings _____________________________________________________________________ 24 4.8 Tunnel Ventilation __________________________________________________________________ 25 4.9 Cladding considerations _____________________________________________________________ 25 4.10 Phase I Settlement Assessment _______________________________________________________ 26 4.10.1 General __________________________________________________________________________ 26 4.10.2 Potential Damage Assessment Procedure _______________________________________________ 26 4.10.3 Results of the Stage 1 Potential Damage Assessment ______________________________________ 29 4.10.4 Preliminary Mitigation Measures _______________________________________________________ 30 4.11 Cross-passages ___________________________________________________________________ 30 4.12 Service Diversions _________________________________________________________________ 31 5. Environmental Issues 32 5.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 32 5.2 Flood Risk ________________________________________________________________________ 32 5.3 Ground Contamination ______________________________________________________________ 32 5.3.1 Potential Contaminants of Concern ____________________________________________________ 34 5.3.2 Gas Holder Area Considerations ______________________________________________________ 35 5.3.2.1 General __________________________________________________________________________ 35 5.3.2.2 COMAH designation ________________________________________________________________ 35 5.3.2.3 Land contamination _________________________________________________________________ 37 5.3.2.4 Development of scheme in this area ____________________________________________________ 38 5.3.3 Potential for ground contamination at tunnel depth _________________________________________ 40 5.4 Waste Management ________________________________________________________________ 41 5.5 Air Quality ________________________________________________________________________ 41 5.6 Archaeology ______________________________________________________________________ 42 5.7 Biodiversity _______________________________________________________________________ 43 5.8 Heritage _________________________________________________________________________ 44 5.9 Landscape & Townscape ____________________________________________________________ 44 5.10 Noise & Vibration __________________________________________________________________ 45 5.11 Sustainability ______________________________________________________________________ 46 6. Fire Life Safety 48 6.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 48 6.2 Design Criteria ____________________________________________________________________ 48 6.3 Consultations with London Fire Brigade _________________________________________________ 49 298348/MNC/TUN/002 17 July 2013 Silvertown Tunnel 6.4 Green Wave Traffic Plan _____________________________________________________________ 51 6.5 Design Fire Size ___________________________________________________________________ 52 6.5.1 Range of Vehicle Fire Sizes __________________________________________________________ 52 6.5.2 Summary of practices adopted in different countries _______________________________________ 52 6.5.3 Comparison with selected UK tunnels __________________________________________________ 53 6.5.4 Recommended Fire Size for Ventilation Design ___________________________________________ 54 6.5.5
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Limehouse, Westferry & Canary Wharf
    LIMEHOUSE, WESTFERRY & CANARY WHARF RESIDENTS' INFORMATION SUNDAY 1 MARCH 2020 5 Road closures from 07:00 to 12:30 on Vehicle Crossing Point Sunday 1 March 2020 Three Colt Street Closed for runners from 08:55 to 11:15 The information provided in this leaflet is supplementary to The Vitality Big Half Road The vehicle crossing point will be open Closure Information booklet. Please make from 07:00 to 08:55. It will then close to sure you have read the booklet, which allow runners to pass and is anticipated to is available at thebighalf.co.uk/road- reopen at 11:15. closures Access to Three Colt Street is available Roads in Limehouse, Westferry and Canary from Commercial Road throughout the Wharf will close at 07:00 and reopen at 12:30 day. Additionally, an exit route via Grenade on Sunday 1 March. A vehicle crossing point Street to West India Dock Road north will operate during the times stated and will towards Commercial Road and Burdett close to traffic in advance of the runners. Road is available during the road closure The event will start by Ensign Street at the period. junction of The Highway, before travelling east along The Highway and through the Canary Wharf Limehouse Link Tunnel, Aspen Way and into Access is available to Canada Square car Canary Wharf. park from Preston's Road roundabout and Trafalgar Way from 7:00 to 08:30. Runners will then return via Westferry Road, Limehouse Causeway and Narrow Street Isle of Dogs where they will rejoin The Highway and Access and exit is available via Preston's continue through Wapping towards Road.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 20 Route Window SE1 Blackwall Way and Limmo Peninsula Shafts
    Chapter 20 Route Window SE1 Blackwall Way and Limmo Peninsula shafts Transport for London BLACKWALL WAY AND LIMMO PENINSULA SHAFTS Baseline conditions 20 Route Window SE1 Blackwall Way and Limmo Peninsula shafts Blackwall Way shaft 20.6 The site lies in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, alongside the Reuters car park behind the Virginia Quay Developments on Blackwall Way, a short distance from the East India DLR station. The area around the worksite is undergoing major commercial and residential development. The Reuter’s Building car park, for example, is the site of the proposed Blackwall Yard residential development. Some of the residential development may come forward before the Crossrail works start. The Crossrail works must therefore be assessed with this potential Transport residential context in mind. for London 20.7 The site is linked to the A1261 Aspen Way/A1020 Lower Lea Crossing junction by Blackwall Way, a section of which (west of Newport Avenue) is at present closed to traffic. Blackwall Way is a quiet two-way road. Parking is not restricted, and vehicles may be seen parked on both sides of the road as far as the entrance to the Reuters car park. Blackwall Way is an unadopted road, but proposals are in hand for its adoption by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in the near future. Limmo Peninsula shaft Introduction 20.8 The Limmo Peninsula shaft site lies in the London Borough of Newham, towards the southwest 20.1 The principal works in this route window will be the construction of: corner of a large triangular area of semi-derelict land bounded by the River Lea to the west and south, and by the DLR and the Jubilee line to the east.
    [Show full text]
  • London Assembly MQT – 2 July 2014 22Nd Mayor’S Report to the Assembly
    London Assembly MQT – 2 July 2014 22nd Mayor’s Report to the Assembly This is my twenty-second report to the Assembly, fulfilling my duty under Section 45 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It covers the period 29 May to 18 June. Executive Summary London housing zones to create 50,000 new homes On 13 June, alongside the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon George Osborne MP, I announced that twenty new housing zones will be created in London, delivering 50,000 new homes. Housing zones are a new approach to get new homes built quickly. Local authorities identify and package together brownfield land which could be used for development into a housing zone, remove all unnecessary planning restrictions across it and partner with a developer to build new homes. The absence of planning constraints in these zones will significantly accelerate construction. Last November, my draft Housing Strategy set out plans for ten potential housing zones, but this announcement now doubles that number as central government and the GLA each offer £200 million for twenty zones. Commonwealth Games Queen's Baton Relay On 6 June, I was joined by Olympic, World and Commonwealth Champion, Christine Ohuruogu MBE and local schoolchildren to welcome the Commonwealth Games Queen's Baton Relay to the capital, part of the England leg of a journey that will see it travel 190,000 kilometres over 288 days. On 8 June, the Queen’s Baton made its way through Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park as part of the run up to Games. Approval of Westfield expansion On 30 May, I approved plans to extend the Westfield Shopping Centre in Shepherds Bush and build more than 1,300 homes.
    [Show full text]
  • Leamouth Leam
    ROADS CLOSED SATURDAY 05:00 - 21:00 ROADS CLOSED SUNDAY 05:00TO WER 4 2- 12:30 ROADS CLOSED SUNDAY 05:00 - 14:00 3 3 ROUTE MAP ROADS CLOSED SUNDAY 05:00 - 18:00 A1 LEA A1 LEA THE GHERR KI NATCLIFF RATCLIFF RATCLIFF CANNING MOUTH R SATURDAY 4th AUGUST 05:00 – 21:00 MOUTH R SUNDAY 5th AUGUST 05:00 – 14:00 LIMEHOUSE WEST BECKTON AD AD BANK OF WHITECHAPEL BECKTON DOCK RO SUNDAY 5th AUGUST 14:00 – 18:00 TOWN OREGANO DRIVE OREGANO DRIVE CANNING LLOYDS BUILDING SOUTH ST PAUL S ENGL AND Limehouse DLR SEE MAP CUSTOM HOUSE EAST INDIA O EAST INDIA DOCK RO O ROYAL OPER A AD AD CATHED R AL LEAMOUTH DLR PARK OHO LIMEHOUSE LIMEHOUSBecktonE Park Y Y HOUSE Cannon Street Custom House DLR Prince Regent DLR Cyprus DLR Gallions Reach DLR BROMLEY RIGHT A A ROADS CLOSED SUNDAY 05:00 - 18:00 Royal Victoria DLR W W Mansion House COVENT Temple Blackfriars POPLAR DLR DLR Tower Gateway LE A MOUTH OCEA OCEA Monument COMMERC COMMERC V V GARDEN IAL ROAD East India RO UNDABOU T IAL ROAD ExCEL UNIVERSI T Y ROYAL ALBERT SIL SIL ITETIONAL CHASOPMERSETEL Tower Hill Blackwall DLR OF EAST LONDON SEE MAP BELOW RT R AIT HOUSE MILLENIUM ROUNDABOUT DLR Poplar E TOWN GALLE RY BRIDGE A13 VENU A13 VENUE SAFFRON A SAFFRON A SOUTHWARK THE TO WER Westferry DLR DLR BLACKWALL Embankment ROTHERHITH E THE MUSEUM AD AD CLEOPATRA’S BRIDGE OF LONDON EAST INDIA DOCK RO EAST INDIA DOCK RO LONDON WAPPING T UNNEL OF LONDON West India A13 A13 LEAMOUTH NEED LE SHADWELL LONDON CI T Y BRIDGE DOCK L A NDS Quay BILLINGSGATE AIRPOR T A13 K WEST INDIA DOCK RD K WEST INDIA DOCK RD LEA IN M ARKET IN LEAM RATCLIFF L L SE SE MOUT WAY TATE MODERN HMS BELFAST U U SPEN O O AD A N H H A AY A N W E TOWER E E 1 ASPEN 1 H R W E G IM IM 2 2 L L OREGANO DRIVE 0 W 0 OWER LEA CROSSING L CANNING P LOWER LEA CROSSIN BRIDGE 6 O 6 O EAST INDIA DOCK RO POR AD R THE O2 BL ACK WAL L Y T LIMEHOUSE PR ESTO NS A T A A C C HORSE SOUTHWARK W V RO AD T UNNEL O O E V T T .
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Flood Risk Assessment
    London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal First Review August 2014 Contents Page Updating the January 2014 Consultation Draft 3 Executive Summary 4 Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 Wider Policy Background 5 1.2 The London Plan 6 1.3 The Sequential Test 8 1.4 How to use this RFRA 9 Chapter 2 - Overview of Flood Risk to London 2.1 Tidal Flood Risk 10 2.2 Fluvial Flood Risk 15 2.3 Surface Water Flood Risk 23 2.4 Foul Sewer Flood Risk 27 2.5 Groundwater Flood Risk 28 2.6 Reservoir Flood Risk 29 Chapter 3 – Spatial Implications of Flood Risk 3.1 Introduction 32 3.2 Specific Development Areas 33 3.3 Main Rail Network and Stations 47 3.4 London Underground & DLR Network 48 3.5 Main Road Network and Airports 49 3.6 Emergency Services 51 3.7 Schools 52 3.8 Utilities 53 3.9 Other Sites 55 Chapter 4 – Conclusions and Look Ahead 56 Appendix 1 List of Monitoring Recommendations 57 Appendix 2 Glossary 59 Appendix 3 Utility Infrastructure within Flood Risk Zones 60 Appendix 4 Comparison of Flood Risk Data with 2009 RFRA 66 Appendix 5 Flood Risk Maps Separate Document London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal – First Review – August 2014 page 2 of 66 Updating the January 2014 Consultation Draft This document represents an update of the draft, that was published in January 2014, in the light of a three-month consultation. Alongside further assistance by the Environment Agency, this final version of the First Review was also informed by responses the Mayor received from TfL as well as the London Boroughs of Richmond, Havering and Southwark (see Statement of Consultation provided separately).
    [Show full text]
  • Road Closures on Sunday 22 August 2021
    ROAD CLOSURE INFORMATION IN YOUR AREA SUNDAY 22 AUGUST 2021 thebighalf.co.uk/road-closures #WERUNASONE The Vitality Big Half returns on Sunday 22 August 2021, when thousands of runners of all ages and abilities take to the streets of Tower Hamlets, ROAD CLOSURES ON Southwark, Lewisham and Greenwich. SUNDAY 22 AUGUST 2021 Now in its fourth year, The Vitality Big Half is The following pages provide details of the road TOWER HAMLETS SOUTHWARK getting more people, especially those from the closures and the vehicle crossing points that ROAD NAME CLOSED OPEN ROAD NAME CLOSED OPEN four host boroughs, into running. The event will operate during specific times on the day to Tower Bridge Approach 04:00 14:00 Tooley Street brings people together to share in the amazing allow you access across the event route. 06:00 15:00 experience of running through the streets of Tower Bridge 04:00 14:00 Jamaica Road London with family, friends and some of the Advance warning signs will be displayed in 06:00 15:00 Tower Hill 04:00 14:00 Brunel Road world’s best athletes. affected roads in the build-up to the event. 06:00 15:00 Police officers and stewards will be present East Smithfield 04:00 14:00 Salter Road There are a host of running distances available, on the day to help answer your queries and to 06:00 15:00 Limehouse Link Tunnel 04:00 14:00 Redriff Road from a challenging half marathon to a free one- ensure a safe and secure event.
    [Show full text]
  • The Isle of Dogs: Four Development Waves, Five Planning Models, Twelve
    Progress in Planning 71 (2009) 87–151 www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann The Isle of Dogs: Four development waves, five planning models, twelve plans, thirty-five years, and a renaissance ... of sorts Matthew Carmona * The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, 22 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom Abstract The story of the redevelopment of the Isle of Dogs in London’s Docklands is one that has only partially been told. Most professional and academic interest in the area ceased following the property crash of the early 1990s, when the demise of Olympia & York, developers of Canary Wharf, seemed to bear out many contemporary critiques. Yet the market bounced back, and so did Canary Wharf, with increasingly profound impacts on the rest of the Island. This paper takes an explicitly historical approach using contemporaneous professional critiques and more reflective academic accounts of the planning and development of the Isle of Dogs to examine whether we can now conclude that an urban renaissance has taken place in this part of London. An extensive review of the literature is supplemented with analysis of physical change on the ground and by analysis of the range of relevant plans and policy documents that have been produced to guide development over the 35-year period since the regeneration began. The paper asks: What forms of planning have we seen on the Island; what role has design played in these; what outcomes have resulted from these processes; and, as a result, have we yet seen an urban renaissance? # 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Isle of Dogs; Urban design; Planning; Urban renaissance Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • C261 LIM XRW10 Instone Wharf Non Listed Built Heritage Assessment Report.Pdf
    Instone Wharf NLBH Walkover Assessment Contents 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................4 2 Objectives and scope of this report ........................................................................4 3 Method of work..........................................................................................................5 4 A brief summary of structures .................................................................................6 5 Documentary research ...........................................................................................10 6 Conclusions.............................................................................................................16 6.1 Original research aims and archiving .................................................................... 16 6.2 Publication................................................................................................................ 16 6.3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. 16 7 Bibliography ............................................................................................................17 Page 2 of 17 Document uncontrolled once printed. All controlled documents are saved on the CRL Document System © Crossrail Limited RESTRICTED Instone Wharf NLBH Walkover Assessment Figures Fig 1 View of the mooring posts, looking south 6 Fig 2 Detail of a mooring post, looking south-west 7 Fig 3 Detail
    [Show full text]
  • Innovative Roadway Design Making Highways More Likeable
    September 2006 INNOVATIVE ROADWAY DESIGN MAKING HIGHWAYS MORE LIKEABLE By Peter Samuel Project Director: Robert W. Poole, Jr. POLICY STUDY 348 The Galvin Mobility Project America’s insufficient and deteriorating transportation network is choking our cities, hurt- ing our economy, and reducing our quality of life. But through innovative engineering, value pricing, public-private partnerships, and innovations in performance and manage- ment we can stop this dangerous downward spiral. The Galvin Mobility Project is a major new policy initiative that will significantly increase our urban mobility and help local officials move beyond business-as-usual transportation planning. Reason Foundation Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. We use journalism and public policy research to influence the frameworks and actions of policymakers, journalists, and opinion leaders. Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice, competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress. Reason produces rigorous, peer-reviewed research and directly engages the policy process, seeking strategies that emphasize cooperation, flexibility, local knowledge, and results. Through practical and innovative approaches to complex problems, Reason seeks to change the way people think about issues, and promote policies that allow and encourage individuals and voluntary institutions to flourish. Reason Foundation is a tax-exempt research and education organization as defined under IRS code 501(c)(3). Reason Foundation is supported by voluntary contributions from indi- viduals, foundations, and corporations. The views are those of the author, not necessarily those of Reason Foundation or its trustees.
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets
    Application by Transport for London for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Silvertown Tunnel (Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR010021) London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Reference no: SILV-396 ) Local Impact Report November 2016 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Local Impact Report The London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) is one of the three local authorities directly impacted by the proposed Silvertown Tunnel in that it will affect the operation and management of the Blackwall tunnel; of which the northern portal is located within the south east corner of the borough. The council has submitted relevant representations and as an interested party, LBTH is invited to submit a Local Impact Report (LIR) giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority’s area. This document constitutes LBTH’s (‘the Council’) LIR in relation to the application by Transport for London (TfL) for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Silvertown Tunnel (Planning Inspectorate reference TR010021). To inform this document, LBTH has carried out a review of appropriate parts of the Silvertown Tunnel Environmental Statement (ES) and other relevant documentation prepared by TfL that relate to the impact of the DCO proposal on the borough. This LIR considers: the socio-economic characteristics of the borough’s population and workforce the planning and transport policies relevant to the scheme the travel and transport patterns of the borough residents, employers and workforce the impact of the congestion problems on travel and transport in the areas adjacent to the Blackwall Tunnel any possible impacts caused by the proximity of the construction worksites to the borough The LIR comments on the principal issues relevant to LBTH as identified in the Examination Authority (ExA) Rule 6 letter issued on 13 th September 2016 concentrating in particular on transportation and traffic, environmental, socio economic impacts and user charging issues.
    [Show full text]
  • C123 LIM Limmo Peninsula Shaft Written
    Limmo Peninsula Shaft Site Specific Written Scheme of Investigation C123-JUL-T1-TPL-CR0144_SH011_Z-00001, Rev. 9.1 Document History Continued: Revision Date: Prepared By: Checked by: Approved by: Reason for Issue: 1.0 30/01/08 Issue for CLRL Approval (MoLAS) (MDC4) CLRL comments 2.0 01/05/08 (MoLAS) (MDC4) incorporated (MoLAS) Issue for CLRL Scheme 3.0 05/09/08 (MDC4) (MDC4) Design 3 (MDC4) Update for Grip 4 to 4.0 30/01/09 (MDC4) (MDC4) incorporate the NLBH and Street Furniture Surveys 5.0 24/11/09 (PDP) (PDP) (PDP) For inclusion with ITT Updated by 6.0 26/02/10 (PDP) For inclusion with ITT for PDP) (PDP) For Approval by PDP: 7.0 18/05/10 Revised for watching brief on gas diversion 8.0 22/07/10 For PDP Acceptance 9.0 10/03/11 For Issue Page 2 of 66 Document uncontrolled once printed. All controlled documents are saved on the CRL Document System © Crossrail Limited RESTRICTED Limmo Peninsula Shaft Site Specific Written Scheme of Investigation C123-JUL-T1-TPL-CR0144_SH011_Z-00001, Rev. 9.1 This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party.
    [Show full text]
  • Leamouth Peninsula North
    planning report PDU/1097c/01 4 November 2010 Leamouth Peninsula North London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Newham) planning application no. PA/10/01864 Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The proposal Part detailed part outline application for a mixed-use development comprising 1,706 residential units, 7, 848 sq.m. business floorspace, 1,852 sq.m. of retail floorspace, 1, 801 sq.m. of leisure floorspace, 2,049 sq.m. of arts and cultural floorspace, 4,800 sq.m. of education floorspace, 1,296 sq.m. of community use floorspace. The applicant The applicant is Clearstorm Properties Ltd, a full subsidiary of the Ballymore group of companies. The architect is Capita Lovejoy. Strategic issues The principle of a high-density mixed-use residential led redevelopment of the site is in the interest of good strategic planning in London. The application is broadly consistent with London Plan policy; however, further information is required on affordable housing, child play space, energy and transport to ensure compliance with the London Plan. Recommendation That Tower Hamlets and Newham Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 106 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 108 of this report could address these deficiencies. The application does not need to be referred back to the Mayor if the Corporation resolve to refuse permission, but it must be referred back if the Corporation resolve to grant permission.
    [Show full text]