100-RG-CP1-LTTDT-000002 | 01 December 2010

Barn Elms Sports Ground

How we chose the preferred site

Executive Summary

100-RG-CP1-LTTDT-000002

01/12/2010

Barn Elms Sports Ground

1
1.1.1

Executive Summary
This paper sets out the reasons why Barn Elms Sports Ground, in the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames, was put forward as the preferred site to construct the western section of the proposed Thames Tunnel. It has been written to explain to consultees the process by which we have selected sites and why Barn Elms was put forward over other potentially available sites in the area. We are currently in the first phase of public consultation and are seeking views on all potential sites which could be used to construct and/or operate the Thames Tunnel. We will consider all the feedback that we receive and consider amendments to the project where possible, in response to feedback. Powers of compulsory purchase are only granted to a scheme once it receives approval from the relevant determining body. At this time, the Thames Tunnel does not have the relevant approvals necessary for the compulsory purchase of land and so we are not able to acquire sites through these means. This has been a significant factor in our site selection process. Without the necessary approval we are unable to halt any development that may take place on the land.

1.1.2

1.1.3

Site Selection Process

1.1.4 Preferred sites, including Barn Elms, have been identified in accordance with our Site Selection Methodology (which is available on the consultation website). The site selection process involved a filtering approach, passing sites through increasingly detailed levels of assessment to move from a long list to a draft short list, short list and preferred sites. A total of 17 main tunnel shaft sites were identified in Richmond at the long list stage, Appendix 1 includes the assessments of all of the long list sites. Out of these sites, 15 were eliminated and two continued to the draft short list stage, these were site S13RD: St Pauls School playing fields and site S17RD: Barn Elms Sports Ground. The results of the assessment of these sites are summarised in Appendix 2. The outcome of the assessment showed that the St Pauls School playing fields site was not considered suitable for use as a main tunnel drive site as its access to the river is restricted. The sites location upriver and its proximity to Hammersmith Bridge were also cited as being significant enough for this site not to proceed as a main tunnel drive site. Barn Elms was the only site in this area assessed as suitable for shortlisting for a main tunnel shaft site and following further assessment, was judged suitable by engineering, planning, environment, property and community experts. Seven other sites were identified as potential main tunnel drive sites for the construction of the western section of the tunnel and 17 sites were identified as reception or intermediate sites, including the Hammersmith Pumping Station site (S33HF).

1.1.5

1.1.6

1.1.7

1.1.8

100-RG-CP1-LTTDT-000002

01/12/2010

Barn Elms Sports Ground

Hammersmith Pumping Station site (S33HF)

1.1.9 This site was not considered suitable as a main tunnel drive site due to a pre-existing planning approval for the redevelopment of the site, the subsequent high acquisition costs, the high probability that construction work on the development would start prior to construction of the Thames Tunnel offering greater risk that the site would be lost to the project and also the close proximity of a considerable number of existing residential properties. The navigational capacity of the river close to Hammersmith Bridge is more restricted due to a narrowing of the navigational channel and the site being on a bend of the river. For all the short-listed sites located close to Hammersmith Bridge, our assessments indicate that the navigational capacity of the river would be insufficient to provide a practical solution for the removal of excavated material from a main tunnel drive. Excavated material arising from shaft or connection tunnel construction is less than that for the main tunnel construction and it may be possible to use the river at Hammersmith for these operations, and again this will need to be investigated further.

1.1.10

1.1.11

Point Pleasant and Osiers Road (S16WH & S17WH)

1.1.12 These sites (which are located in the vicinity of Feathers Wharf) were not considered suitable for the construction of the tunnel because access to the river at this location is severely restricted (site S17WH). There are also numerous residential dwellings surrounding the two sites and a preexisting planning application which would mean that acquisition costs would be very high.

Sites at Hurlingham Wharf (S69HF & S70HF)

1.1.13 The sites identified at Hurlingham Wharf, even used together, were considered to be too small to be used as a main tunnel drive site.

Creation of the preferred list of shaft sites

1.1.14 Consideration of the sites during the initial site selection process focussed on each as an individual site in isolation from the rest however once the short list of sites was created, main tunnel shaft sites were investigated to see how they would work in combination. The engineering team looked at the possible drive strategies the ways in which the tunnel could be constructed and the sites available to them, clustered in 11 zones across the three routes. The most appropriate sites in each zone were then selected for the construction of the tunnel.

1.1.15

Tunnel Drive Strategy

1.1.16 For all three route alignment options (the proposed River Thames, Rotherhithe and Abbey Mills routes), it was concluded that a main tunnel shaft site would be required in Zone S2 (Barn Elms) to drive to Zones S1 (Hammersmith) and S5 (Battersea) although these would be completed sequentially using a single tunnel boring machine. A main tunnel reception shaft site would therefore be required in Zone S1.

100-RG-CP1-LTTDT-000002

01/12/2010

Barn Elms Sports Ground 1.1.17 We chose Zone S2 (Barn Elms) for a drive site for the main tunnel because there were no suitable sites identified in Zones S1, S3 (Wandsworth Bridge) or S4 (Lots Road) from which to drive the tunnel. The alternative option of driving the main tunnel from Zone S5 westward would require use of Tideway Walk as a double drive site. This was considered to be less favourable than having a drive site for the main tunnel in Barn Elms because the wharf and jetty facilities at Tideway Walk may not be able to support simultaneous tunnel drives, it would increase the size of the site and therefore the cost of acquisition. There are also a number of residential and commercial occupiers at Tideway Walk that would need to be relocated. Barn Elms Sports Ground , although designated as Metropolitan Open Land and public open space, could accommodate a drive shaft without causing unacceptable conflict with planning policies due to the extent of remaining open space and number of facilities on the site.

1.1.18

1.1.19

Next steps
1.1.20 As mentioned above, we are currently in our first phase of consultation and will listen and take into consideration all comments made about our proposals. If the site is confirmed in due course as the selected site, it would with the rest of the scheme be the subject of a statutory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that would identify all environmental concerns, necessary mitigation and conclude on the extent of environmental impacts after mitigation measures have been taken into account. The relevant planning authority would, when deciding whether or not to grant planning permission (development consent), take into consideration the conclusions of the EIA.

1.1.21

100-RG-CP1-LTTDT-000002

01/12/2010