application eference number: wwo10001 written summaries …...(‘agenda’) by way of a letter,...

Written summaries of the cases put orally at the hearings held on 11 December 2013Doc Ref: APP42.8

Folder 155 23 December 2013

Thames Tideway Tunnel Thames Water Utilities Limited

Application for Development ConsentApplication Reference Number: WWO10001

Compulsory acquisition hearings Day 8 – 11.12.13

List of contents

Page no.

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Agenda .................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Submissions ............................................................................................ 1

Legal submissions by Alex Booth ...................................................................... 1

Submissions by Stephen Thompson ................................................................. 3

2 Greenwich connection tunnel ......................................................................... 4

2.1 Submissions by Derek Arnold .................................................................. 4

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4

Guidance note for developers (ref Draft DCO Article 51)................................... 4

Limits of deviation ............................................................................................. 5

3 Chambers Wharf .............................................................................................. 6

3.1 Submissions by Derek Arnold .................................................................. 6

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6

River wall and existing deck .............................................................................. 7

3.2 Submissions by Stephen Walker ............................................................. 9

Alternatives – property assessment .................................................................. 9

SO24T – Heckford Street .................................................................................12

4 Responses to issues raised at the hearing.................................................. 16

4.1 Thames Water purchase of Chambers Wharf site ................................. 16

Issue raised .....................................................................................................16

Response ........................................................................................................16

Appendix A : River works licence for Chambers Wharf ....................................... 1

Written summary of compulsory acquisition hearings

i

This page is intentionally blank


ii

Compulsory acquisition hearings: Day 8 – 11.12.13

1 Introduction 1.1.1 This document contains a written summary of the oral submissions made

by Thames Water Utilities Limited (‘Thames Water’) at the compulsory acquisition hearing held on 11 December 2013, as part of the examination of the application for development consent for the Thames Tideway Tunnel project. The Examining Authority (‘ExA’) in respect of the application set out the agenda for the compulsory acquisition hearings (‘Agenda’) by way of a letter, dated 18 November 2013, addressed to interested parties. This written summary of Thames Water’s submissions is broadly structured by reference to the items on that Agenda that were addressed at the hearing on Wednesday 11 December 2013.

1.2 Agenda 1.2.1 This hearing was to cover the London Borough of Southwark.

1.3 Submissions

Legal submissions by Alex Booth Housekeeping

1.3.1 The deadline for comments on the Draft DCO which was issued to stakeholders on 9 December has been clarified such that comments will, as was envisaged, be taken into account as late as is possible before the 13 January 2014 date for submission of the updated Draft DCO to the Panel.

Surrey Quays Limited

1.3.2 In response to the submission of Surrey Quays Limited, there are broadly two points which Surrey Quays Limited seeks to pursue: firstly that it needs, and has not been provided with, guidance relating to load bearing on site, and secondly, the question of the novation of the agreement currently being negotiated.

1.3.3 Firstly, looking at the novation issue, while Thames Water notes what Surrey Quays Limited says about fairness, insofar as Surrey Quays Limited seeks to compare the position of Surrey Quays Limited with Thames Water, it is not a fair comparison of like with like.

1.3.4 Surrey Quays Limited is, as we understand it, a single project vehicle. The draft of the agreement, which was sent to Surrey Quays Limited's solicitors on Monday 9 December 2013, makes clear that Thames Water does not resist a suggestion that Surrey Quays Limited should be able to transfer its rights under the agreement to a third party; Thames Water does not suggest that the agreement must be personal to Surrey Quays Limited. What Thames Water seeks is a degree of comfort as regards the financial and technical competence of any party that Surrey Quays Limited would wish to transfer those benefits to. Insofar as a comparison is sought to be drawn between Thames Water and its ability to transfer


1


powers to the IP, the IP is going to be subject to financial and technical regulation. That is not the position as regards any successor to Surrey Quays Limited. Insofar as Thames Water seeks that British Land steps in as guarantor, all Thames Water is doing is seeking to provide some degree of comfort and certainty that whoever steps in, in short point, will be up to the job.

1.3.5 Insofar as it is suggested that there will be no incentive on the part of Thames Water to agree to the transfer from Surrey Quays Limited to a third party, that is not a fair reflection of the wording that is set out in the agreement. The relevant wording speaks of Thames Water, acting reasonable, being satisfied and it would not be in any way reasonable for Thames Water to maintain that British Land, and only British Land, is good for the guarantee, and therefore Thames Water is not content with anything else.

1.3.6 Thames Water can confirm that it is very keen and remains wholly committed to reaching agreement with Surrey Quays Limited to enable the development of this site to take place.

1.3.7 In relation to the guidance which Surrey Quays Limited seeks so as to design process for the proposed development, the guidance for which Article 51 of the DCO provides, has not yet been published. That will be an extremely important document which requires careful drafting. Thames Water can confirm that, in the written submissions provided on 23 December 2013, it will confirm the date on which that guidance will be published.

Site selection

1.3.8 Comparing the 'prospective development' position at Surrey Quays with that at Cremorne Wharf is not a comparison of like with like. At Cremorne Wharf the landowner had a fully drawn up planning proposals and Thames Water was able to have regard to that, and to ensure that it was accommodated within Thames Water's proposed layout of culvert plus shaft, plus connection tunnel. As yet, there Surrey Quays has no proposals of any kind. The tunnel in this location is more than 40m below ground. Insofar as Surrey Quays Limited has given any preliminary indication as to the size and the sort of development it envisages on this site, Thames Water does not anticipate there being any conflict between the tunnel and the foundations of the structure that Surrey Quays Limited ultimately seeks consent for.

1.3.9 Insofar as the ExA is querying whether Thames Water is being equitable in terms of how it has regard to development potential, Thames Water submits that it is being equitable because, in both circumstances, Thames Water is looking to accommodate development at the surface. However, what Thames Water cannot do at the Surrey Quays site is give an unequivocal commitment at this time, because it does not know what is proposed. All Thames Water can do is work with Surrey Quays Limited, insofar as it is able to tell Thames Water what it has in mind, and to the extent that has happened, Thames Water does not anticipate there being a problem. The submission is made in full knowledge of the fact that the


2


planning policy on which Surrey Quays relies, and anticipates developing in accordance with, envisages a tall building on this site. However, there are, of course, various magnitudes of tall buildings.

1.3.10 As regards the need of Thames Water for the protection it is seeking in the draft agreement, the position is that, while some protection is afforded in the DCO, that would not assist Thames Water in circumstances where Surrey Quays Limited had assigned its interest in the site and its interest in the agreement to a third party which wasn't competent to undertake the development and didn't have the financial standing to make good any deficiencies, such that damage might be caused to the tunnel and Thames Water would have no redress against any party in respect of that damage caused. This scenario is posited by way of an example, and Thames Water does not mean, in any way, to confine the need for the agreement (and the need for a guarantor to that agreement) to that issue.

Chambers Wharf

Public highways

1.3.11 A full response on the need for temporary use powers in the highway is set out elsewhere in these submissions. In respect of Chambers Street, East Lane and Loftie Street, and the crossing at Bevington Street, Thames Water is seeking temporary use powers. Thames Water has not reached agreement with the local highway authority. The authority, as Thames Water understands it, objects to the Thames Water proposals for Chambers Wharf.

Submissions by Stephen Thompson 1.3.12 It was clarified that, where we have highlighted highway land which is

outside of the permanent works are but included in the LLAU, this allows for the construction of items such as new crossovers, access ways and utility diversions.

1.3.13 In relation to engagement with the London Borough of Southwark, other local authorities and TfL, this commenced in June and July of 2011, where we had borough-specific workshops, and these were followed up with a number of workshops in November 2012. Subsequent to that, we have also had meetings in June and July of 2013 clarifying the outstanding issues that remain between the different parties on the traffic assessments.

1.3.14 TfL has taken a leading role, being the strategic authority, particularly on items such as traffic modelling. TfL has employed a number of consultants to review the work and it shares the output from its consultants with the local authorities. We receive comments back from both TfL and the local authorities.

1.3.15 With respect to works at Chambers Wharf, the last meeting with Southwark and TfL was in October 2013. Outstanding matters included the impact on the school and the school crossing, traffic on Jamaica Road, and replacement parking which is outside the LLAU, particularly in Chambers Street. In relation to discussions on the Section 106


3


agreement, we have agreed, in principle, various items of work relating to highway works outside of the LLAU which Southwark would undertake and we would contribute to. These include improvements to the footway and cycle route in Chambers Street and in East Lane, a contribution to safer routes to school, pedestrian crossing facilities in Jamaica Road, and a contribution towards the removal of the lower road gyratory system near the Earl worksite. Our contribution to these non-essential works would be secured through the Section 106 agreement. The works that are essential to the Thames Tideway Tunnel project, such as the utility works and crossover at Chambers Wharf and the pedestrian crossing at Bevington Street, would be undertaken by us.

2 Greenwich connection tunnel

2.1 Submissions by Derek Arnold

Introduction 2.1.1 The following documents were referred to:

a. Engineering Design Statement (Doc ref: 7.18) b. Works plan and section drawing number DCO-WP-000-ZZZZZ-

010041, 010042, 010043, 010044, 010045 c. Land plan drawing number DCO-LP-000-ZZZZZ-030031 - Rev 2,

030032 - Rev 2, 030033 - Rev 1, 030034 - Rev 1, 030035 - Rev 1.

Guidance note for developers (ref Draft DCO Article 51) 2.1.2 The guidance note is being drafted and we are making good progress. It

covers a number of scenarios, including: a. where a proposed development is built before Thames Tideway

Tunnel works are constructed b. where a proposed development is built during the construction of

Thames Tideway Tunnel works or c. where a proposed development is built after the completion of

construction and during the operation of the Thames Tideway Tunnel project.

2.1.3 A draft guidance note for developers will be submitted to ExA on 13

January and the final document will be published within 6 months. 2.1.4 We are seeking approval to build the tunnels within limits of deviation

which is defined in our application. At the point where the Greenwich connection tunnel passes by the Surrey Quays property, the limits of deviation is 27 metres wide and we have documented the justification for that in our Engineering Design Statement.


4


2.1.5 It is understood that the Surrey Quays development would come forward after the Greenwich connection tunnel. The guidance notes will give cover on what impact that development might have on the tunnel. The main concerns are to protect the tunnel by making sure that the future development does not increase the loading on the tunnel. It is anticipated that the guidance notes will require that the overburden on the tunnel should not increase by more than 17kN/m2 as a result of the future development and the foundations for that development.

2.1.6 When the tunnel is operational and carrying storm sewage, it will be a pressurised tunnel (ie, carrying storm sewage under pressure) and therefore we need to ensure that a future developer does not remove the support to the tunnel. That might happen in a scenario where a future developer excavates either above, below or adjacent to the tunnel in a way that removes that support. In these circumstances, it is anticipated that the guidance notes will require that a reduction in over-burden pressure does not exceed 10 per cent of the condition that exists before the development takes place.

Limits of deviation 2.1.7 The ExA sought clarification on whether the review of the limits of

deviation would include those for the Greenwich connection tunnel. 2.1.8 The Greenwich connection tunnel lies underneath a mature urban area

with numerous constraints. In choosing our tunnel alignment, we have sought to avoid as far as possible, known existing constraints and future development constraints. Between Chambers Wharf and Earl Pumping Station, we have a number of buildings, surface railways, underground railways and other features that we are trying to minimise the impact on.

2.1.9 There is the East London railway line that crosses the tunnel near the Surrey Quays site. There is the London Overground railway station on the junction of Lower Road and Hawkstone Road. There are a series of buildings on Lower Road to the east of Redriff Road. These constraints have moved the alignment further into Surrey Quays land.

2.1.10 Where the limits of deviation are not a standard offset from the tunnel centreline but have been widened for a particular reason, we have agreed to undertake a review in response to the ExA's questions, and in some cases reduce the limits. However, the limits of deviation on the Greenwich connection tunnel are not widely drawn and it would be appropriate for us to maintain the proposed limits of deviation, which gives us a 5 metre alignment adjustment either side of the tunnel.

2.1.11 Surrey Quays is not the only potential developer along the line of this tunnel and making an adjustment, sometimes several kilometres away, can affect the tunnel alignment further downstream or upstream. Therefore a 5 metre adjustment alignment each side of the centreline is of benefit to both parties. If indeed Surrey Quays brought forward more detailed development proposals for this area, we could adjust our final centreline to help accommodate those in the knowledge of what they were proposing to build.


5


2.1.12 The Ram Brewery proposals in Wandsworth are advanced and we do know what they are proposing to build and we know that their proposals would not be relieving the over-burden on our tunnel. Therefore, we can protect the Frogmore connection tunnel in the knowledge of what they are building. In the absence of any development details, it is impossible for us to give a blanket removal of restrictions. For example, if a large deep excavation was dug over the tunnel or adjacent to the tunnel, that would affect its integrity.

2.1.13 The guidance notes would constrain developers beyond the tunnel protection zone if their proposals created a situation where the over-burden was reduced by more than 10 per cent.

2.1.14 It is very unlikely that the presence of a tunnel 42 metres below ground would ultimately be a problem to a developer, but we need to check its proposals. Thames Water is not seeking to constrain developers, but is seeking to protect the Greenwich connection tunnel.

3 Chambers Wharf

3.1 Submissions by Derek Arnold

Introduction 3.1.1 The following documents were referred to:

a. Engineering Design Statement (Doc ref: 7.18) b. Response to first written question 4.31g (Doc ref: APP04) c. Response to first written question 14.25 d. Thames Water's Response to Issue Specific Hearing and Written

Representations Relating to Chambers Wharf and Alternative Drive Strategy (Doc ref: APP31.02)

e. Permanent works layout drawing number DCO-PP-19X-CHAWF-210007

f. Construction phase drawing number DCO-PP-19X-CHAWF-210016 g. Works plan and section drawing number DCO-WP-000-ZZZZZ-

010041 h. Land plan drawing number DCO-LP-000-ZZZZZ-030031 - Rev 2 i. Land acquisition plan drawing number DCO-LA-000-ZZZZZ-020031 -

Rev 1. 3.1.2 In the Engineering Design Statement, we set out how the site would be

used. In our response to first written question 4.31g, we describe the alternative locations we considered for the permanent works.

3.1.3 This site is proposed as a tunnel drive site for the main tunnel between Chambers Wharf and Abbey Mills Pumping Station and to receive tunnels from Kirtling Street and Greenwich Pumping Station.


6


3.1.4 The blue shaft zone is drawn fairly tightly around the proposed main tunnel shaft location giving a little bit of flexibility for detailed design of the shaft relative to the line of the river wall. The detailed design of the shaft itself and how that is built into the river wall will need to be further developed.

3.1.5 Although there is no CSO to intercept at this site there is a convergence of significant flows from both the Greenwich connection tunnel and the main tunnel. These flows are very large: about 60 cubic metres per second from the Greenwich connection tunnel and about 100 cubic metres per second in the main tunnel. Therefore, hydraulic design is particularly important at this site.

3.1.6 The green zone within which all the permanent works would be located includes a reconstructed river wall and the provision of a new flood wall on the end of the deck in front of Luna House. The Chambers Wharf site is below the flood level and therefore the flood wall is necessary to provide flood protection.

3.1.7 All of the Thames Tideway Tunnel shafts are capped at a minimum level of 104.5 metres above tunnel datum. At Chambers Wharf, we propose a ground finished level of 105 metres above tunnel datum. This will also tie in with the plans for the further residential development, which would raise the level over the site generally and at the front of the development along the river it would also generally be at about 105 metres above tunnel datum. The existing ground level is about 104 metres above tunnel datum.

3.1.8 We have shown a raised area around our structures and bounded by some slopes to form a platform sloping back down to the lower area over the rest of the development. We do not propose to lift the whole area up, because that would subsequently be excavated during construction of the residential property which includes basements over the site.

3.1.9 The construction phase plan shows that the site will be extended into the river by construction of a cofferdam.

3.1.10 There are utilities which run across the Chambers Wharf site that need to be diverted to make way for the works. Therefore, the LLAU extends into East Lane to the west, into Chambers Street to the south, and into Loftie Street to the east for the diversion works.

3.1.11 The land acquisition plan includes provision for land which is temporarily used, but where we seek rights over that third-party land. In this case, those rights are sought for crane oversailing.

River wall and existing deck 3.1.12 The levels required to protect the project's works, not the future residential

development, would be 104.5 metres above tunnel datum. 3.1.13 The ExA sought clarification on the extent of river wall works required for

the project as the proposed works extend beyond the frontage of the main works.


7


3.1.14 The section of decking, and land area, which includes the river wall beneath, between Lunar House and the hoarded area is within the order limits to facilitate construction and maintenance of the site hoarding.

3.1.15 The river wall here has a long and complex history of development, having been extended we believe between the mid-1930s and the mid-1950s in several phases, when the owners at that time built the deck. The deck is of variable design and construction. There appears to be a wall in front of an older wall with a deck on a piled structure tied into the wall. Our assessment of its condition and its ability to sustain loads concluded that the deck could not sustain the loads we would need to put upon it. Therefore, our proposal is to demolish the deck and the existing river wall and to build a new river wall with flood wall on the alignment of the existing river wall.

3.1.16 If we had tried to use barge access off the existing jetty (decking) we would have not had the land area required for all of the facilities shown on the construction phase plan. The extent of the cofferdam is dictated by the size of site, which for a slurry drive site is in the order of 20,000 square metres. We did contemplate whether to put a cofferdam in front of the deck and somehow support the deck to enable it to carry our loads but rejected that option.

3.1.17 The area we require is in the order of 20,000 square metres and to achieve that we need to extend into the river. In considering how we can extend into the river, we considered the condition of the deck and its structural design and concluded that it was not a suitable structure to leave in place as part of, or beneath, our construction site.

3.1.18 Thames Water commissioned surveyors to do an enhanced inspection report of the deck in November 2011. It was a non-intrusive inspection based upon what they could get access to above and below the deck from land and water. The findings included that parts of the deck are in poor condition and there are corroded piles. Following the report, we came to the conclusion we could not rely upon it or improve its condition in any sensible, practical way, to make this a fully functioning tunnel drive site.

3.1.19 The ExA sought clarification on the minimum land area required and the impact on the deck for the alternative drive strategy where Chambers Wharf would be a triple reception.

3.1.20 In first submission on 4 November 2013 to first written question 14.25, we provided a construction phase plan, drawing DCO-FQ-19X-CHAWF-142501, for a tunnel reception site scenario at Chambers Wharf. The area of this plan is 9,100m2, most of which is on the eastern part of the Chambers Wharf site. It also includes a cofferdam area in the foreshore adjacent the shaft as we did envisage removing part of the deck and building a smaller cofferdam. We limited the portion of decking to be demolished to that required for building the shaft.

3.1.21 We made further submissions regarding Chambers Wharf on 2 December 2013 following the issue-specific hearings and written representations. Figure 4.1 was prepared in response to discussions that we had during those issue-specific hearings and shows where we could break the


8


decking with respect to existing movement joints. Therefore we have provided a plan to demonstrate the feasibility of this layout.

3.2 Submissions by Stephen Walker

Alternatives – property assessment 3.2.1 The application for development consent document reference relevant to

this response is 7.05 Volume 18 and it is the Final Report on the Site Selection Process, submitted by Thames Water on 23 September 2013.

Introduction

3.2.2 The site selection process identified six final shortlisted sites for this CSO in the London Borough of Southwark and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The property team made an assessment for each of the shortlisted sites as follows.

S54SK – King’s Stairs Gardens

3.2.3 The site with this reference number was described as 'King’s Stairs Gardens'.

3.2.4 This site is in the ownership of the London Borough of Southwark. It is a public park, classified as Metropolitan Open Land and registered as a Village Green.

Crown land and special land comments

3.2.5 The site is in an area of public open space, and any permanent acquisition using compulsory acquisition powers would require replacement land to be provided or a certificate under s131/132. Without agreement with the London Borough of Southwark or a certificate, Special Parliamentary Procedure may be required to secure this site.

Property valuation comments

3.2.6 The assessment was carried out on the basis of an estimate of the cost to identify and provide replacement open space. This provided a significant but acceptable property cost.

Disturbance compensation comments

3.2.7 Use of this site would involve a very large area of land for temporary use from within the park. The costs of disturbance to users would depend on the extent to which alternative facilities would be available, and would need to be consistent with any available replacement land provision. We had concerns over how this could be calculated, particularly given the general strong opposition to the use of this site.

Discretionary purchase comments

3.2.8 This site is in close proximity to residential properties and we know, from phase one consultation, that three applications under the Exceptional Hardship Procedure were received from this location. We therefore


9


anticipated substantial use of the discretionary purchase procedure and the costs associated with that.

Off-site compensation comments

3.2.9 The site was unlikely to result in off-site statutory compensation costs. 3.2.10 The site is close to large numbers of residential properties, a nearby

church and a convent. Claims under the non-statutory compensation schemes were deemed likely at a not inconsiderable cost.

Site conclusions

3.2.11 The risks associated with progress of this site with opposition from the London Borough of Southwark were assessed as considerable. The potential delay and difficulty in resolving the concerns and issues arising from taking large areas of public open space for six years or more was a further concern.

3.2.12 The site was assessed by the property team as less suitable.

SO20T – Shadwell Basin

3.2.13 The site with this reference number was described as 'Shadwell Basin'. 3.2.14 The site is in the ownership of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and

it is an open body of water for the local community, of which users include the Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre.


3.2.15 No Crown interests or special category land was identified at this site.


3.2.16 This property was passed to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, it being a legacy of the London Docklands Development Corporation. Its property value was assessed as modest because of the limited scope to generate income from the water-based activities, and was therefore likely to be acceptable.


3.2.17 On account of the nature of uses, we anticipated claims under Rule 5 of s5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which would oblige the equivalent reinstatement of use to be provided as compensation. To do this we thought extremely challenging and would likely result in another body of water locally being included in the CPO to provide such replacement. The costs, if a solution could be found at all, were assessed as likely to be significant.


3.2.18 This site is in close proximity to residential properties and we therefore anticipated some use of the discretionary purchase procedure and the costs associated with that.


10



3.2.19 The site was unlikely to result in any significant off-site statutory compensation costs.

3.2.20 The site is close to large numbers of residential properties which overlook the site. A high volume of claims under the non-statutory compensation schemes were deemed likely, at a not inconsiderable cost.

Site conclusions

3.2.21 The challenge of turning this body of water into a worksite and the knock on impact to local community users it would create was of concern. The unknown availability of other water and the costs associated with equivalent reinstatement presented a high risk to the project programme.

3.2.22 Without progress in engagement with the owner, which had not been possible, the property risks associated with this site were high.


SO21T – King Edward Memorial Park

3.2.24 The site with this reference number was described as 'King Edward Memorial Park'.

3.2.25 The site is in the ownership of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and it is a public park for the local community. The proposal includes the taking of the whole park under this option.


3.2.26 The site is in an area of public open space and any permanent acquisition using compulsory acquisition powers would require replacement land to be provided or a certificate under s131/132. Without agreement with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets or a certificate, Special Parliamentary Procedure may be required to secure this site.


3.2.27 The assessment was carried out on the basis of an estimate of the cost to identify and provide replacement open space. This provided a significant but acceptable property cost.


3.2.28 Use of this site would involve the whole park within the area of land for temporary use. The costs of disturbance to users would depend on the extent to which alternative facilities would be available and would need to be consistent with any available replacement land provision. We had concerns over how this could be calculated, particularly given the general strong opposition to the use of this site by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and local residents.


11



3.2.29 This site is in close proximity to residential properties and we know that four applications under the Exceptional Hardship Procedure have already been received from this location. We therefore anticipated substantial use of the discretionary purchase procedure and the costs associated with that.



3.2.31 The site is close to a large number of residential properties which overlook the site, the Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre and the Pier Head School. A high volume of claims under the non-statutory compensation schemes were deemed likely, at a not inconsiderable cost.

Site conclusions

3.2.32 The risks associated with progressing this site with opposition from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets were assessed as considerable. The potential delay and difficulty in resolving the concerns and issues arising from taking large areas of public open space for six years or more was a further concern.



SO24T – Heckford Street 3.2.35 The site with this reference number was described as 'Heckford Street'. 3.2.36 The site is in two separate ownerships, being the Workspace Group and

Canada Life Investments. There are two small industrial business parks occupied by a variety of commercial tenants.




3.2.38 We assessed the existing use value of the properties and then had regard for the known redevelopment aspirations of the two investment owners. During the period when assessments were made, the two owners joined together to promote redevelopment, but no application materialised to help firm up scope of the opportunity. We concluded that the cost would be significant but acceptable.


3.2.39 The site has many small business occupiers and an estimate of the disturbance, including identification of alternative premises, costs to secure the same, relocation costs, and other incidental loss and


12


expenditure during the period of disruption. This had to be balanced against the assessment of property value which, when looked at for redevelopment purposes, would have necessarily resulted in the relocation of the businesses in any event. Overall, we assessed the cost as substantial and acceptable.


3.2.40 This site is in close proximity to residential properties and we therefore anticipated some use of the discretionary purchase procedure and the costs associated with that.



3.2.42 The site is close to large numbers of residential properties which overlook the site. A high volume of claims under the non-statutory compensation schemes were deemed likely at a not inconsiderable cost.

Site conclusions

3.2.43 During the consultation phase, the two investment owners started to work together to accelerate the redevelopment proposals. Planning policy indicated that, in principle, this would not be resisted. Absent of this, the disturbance to local business would be significant, and the risk to loss of employment and business extinguishment was evident.

3.2.44 Engagement with the owners had not been productive and the potential to purchase the property in advance of compulsory acquisition appeared unlikely.

3.2.45 The site was assessed by the property team as suitable. If a planning consent was granted for redevelopment, that conclusion would be less suitable and if that redevelopment had commenced, the assessment would be not suitable.

SO36T – Limehouse Basin

3.2.46 The site with this reference number was described as 'Limehouse Basin'. 3.2.47 The site is in the ownership of the Canal & River Trust. The basin is

operated by a company wholly owned by CRT and is a well-used marina, which includes residential moorings.

3.2.48 The basin is surrounded by residential properties built to overlook the water, complimentary with the marina environment.




13



3.2.50 The property value was assessed as potentially substantial because of the established income stream and revenue growth in the leisure boat market. The cost high but likely to be acceptable.


3.2.51 The assessment was carried out on the assumption that the marina business would be extinguished at least for the duration of the works. Those with boats on the marina may have interests capable of making individual claims and, although residential houseboats would probably be on licences capable of being determined, some allowance was made for relocation of a number of moorings to elsewhere on the river.


3.2.52 This site is in close proximity to a large number of residential properties which aspect towards the basin, and we therefore anticipated substantial use of the discretionary purchase procedure and the high costs associated with that.



3.2.54 The site is close to large numbers of residential properties which overlook the site. A high volume of claims under the non-statutory compensation schemes were deemed likely, at a not inconsiderable cost.

Site conclusions

3.2.55 The challenge of turning this body of water into a worksite and the knock on impact to the marina business and surrounding residential properties was of concern. The unknown availability of other water and the costs associated with relocating residential moorings also presented a risk to the project programme.



S76SK – Chambers Wharf

3.2.58 The site with this reference number was described as 'Chambers Wharf'. 3.2.59 The site was owned by St Martins, the sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait.

There was planning permission for high density residential riverside development on the site, and demolition of existing structures had been carried out in preparation for a start on site.

3.2.60 In 2010 St Martins made a strategic decision to sell its non-prime investment UK property assets and this included the Chambers Wharf site.

3.2.61 In January 2011, Thames Water acquired the site to keep open the potential use of the site as a main drive shaft for the project.


14


3.2.62 In addition to the land identified at this location, the proposal included a temporary platform out into the river for use as a construction site. The PLA owns the foreshore in this location.




3.2.64 Thames Water had acquired the site, the price was high but reflecting the potential resale value on completion of the project was assessed as acceptable.

3.2.65 It was anticipated that an agreement would be reached with the PLA for use of the foreshore on a temporary basis at an acceptable cost.


3.2.66 The site is vacant and the river works on the foreshore would be temporarily relocated during the construction phase. We did not anticipate disturbance costs arising to any significant extent.


3.2.67 This site is near to a large number of residential properties. As a consequence, it was assessed that there would likely be a number of claims for discretionary purchase, although given alternative forms of compensation and the general desire to hold London property as an investment, this would probably be limited.

3.2.68 As the assessment process progressed, we introduced the assumption that an acoustic cover would be provided over the 24-hour noisy elements of work. This provided some assurance as to the levels of discretionary purchase that would materialise.


3.2.69 The site was unlikely to result in any significant off-site statutory compensation costs, but use of the highway network would need to be carefully managed to limit the potential for access to businesses to be disrupted.

3.2.70 This site is near to a large number of residential properties, commercial properties and local schools. As a consequence, it was assessed that there would likely be a high number of claims under the non-statutory compensation procedure at a not inconsiderable cost.

Site conclusions

3.2.71 Ownership of the site by Thames Water was material in the consideration made by the property team. The cost was high, but the risk of acquisition and need for compulsory acquisition had been removed.

3.2.72 We had significant concerns about off-site compensation issues, given the proximity of residential properties and schools. The mitigation measures


15


we were able to assume helped to allay concerns as to the overall impact in this regard.

3.2.73 The site was assessed by the property team as suitable.

Conclusions by property team

3.2.74 The acquisition by Thames Water of this site in advance of compulsory acquisition for use for the Chambers Wharf main shaft site reduced property acquisition risk at this site.

3.2.75 The availability of a brownfield site where no disturbance to occupation would be necessary appeared as an advantage over the other shortlisted sites.

3.2.76 Risk of acquisition without delay to the project was more significant at all of the alternative shortlisted sites.

3.2.77 Disturbance to nearby residential and community uses was a concern at all alternative site options. The mitigation proposals, including an acoustic shed to limit impacts of 24-hour working, helped to allay these concerns.

3.2.78 The alternatives to this site were explored and, in all cases, would have required the use of compulsory acquisition to a greater extent than at the subject site.

4 Responses to issues raised at the hearing

4.1 Thames Water purchase of Chambers Wharf site

Issue raised 4.1.1 When Thames Water purchased the Chambers site – the river works

licence remained – what are the terms of upkeep and repair of river wall?

Response 4.1.2 A copy of the river works license for Chambers Wharf can be found in

Appendix A.


16

Appendix A: River works licence for Chambers Wharf

Appendix A: River works licence for Chambers Wharf


1

Copyright notice Copyright © Thames Water Utilities Limited December 2013. All rights reserved. Any plans, drawings, designs and materials (materials) submitted by Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Water) as part of this application for Development Consent to the Planning Inspectorate are protected by copyright. You may only use this material (including making copies of it) in order to (a) inspect those plans, drawings, designs and materials at a more convenient time or place; or (b) to facilitate the exercise of a right to participate in the pre-examination or examination stages of the application which is available under the Planning Act 2008 and related regulations. Use for any other purpose is prohibited and further copies must not be made without the prior written consent of Thames Water. Thames Water Utilities LimitedClearwater Court, Vastern Road, Reading RG1 8DB The Thames Water logo and Thames Tideway Tunnel logo are © Thames Water Utilities Limited. All rights reserved.

application eference number: wwo10001 written summaries …...(‘agenda’) by way of a letter,...

Documents