RE: Edmund Street, Camberwell SE5

7th December 2011
18 Frogmore Road
Our reference: 131510L01CM/CN
Hemel Hempstead
Hertfordshire
HP3 9RT
Ms Laura Webster UK
Southwark Council Telephone: +44 (0)1442 437500
Regeneration and Neighbourhoods Fax: +44 (0)1442 437552
www.rsk.co.uk
Development Management
PO Box 64529
London
SE1P 5LX
Dear Ms Webster,
RE: Edmund Street, Camberwell SE5
Contamination Mitigation Strategy
Our Client Notting Hill Home Ownership is shortly submitting a planning application for residential
development at the above site. The contamination information concerning the proposals is covered by the
Hydrock Report reference 10079E/002 June 2010. This report includes mitigation recommendations that
remain valid for the current masterplan, which in summary, are as follows.
There is a layer of made ground in place over the whole site and due to the low-level contamination
(slightly elevated lead and hydrocarbons) being present within some of this material, it is proposed that
an engineered cover system is provided in the areas of the proposed private gardens and Public Open
Spaces. This will safeguard human health and mitigate the effect of contamination on plant growth. This
cover system will consist of a thickness of clean imported subsoil and topsoil placed upon a geotextile
marker layer. The thickness of the cover will be agreed after consultation with the Borough Environmental
Health Officer, but will ensure that any risk to future end users is acceptable based upon current
guidance. It is unlikely that contamination is impacting on the groundwater, but confirmation will be
obtained from the Environment Agency. There are no elevated concentrations of soil gasses and hence
mitigation measures are not anticipated.
We confirm that our client will submit a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) as part of the detailed design
process following on from any planning approval.
We trust this is acceptable.
Yours sincerely
For RSK Company Limited
Clive Maynard
Director – Land & Development Engineering
Cc: Martin Hall at GVA

Roger Arkell at Notting Hill
RSK Land & Development Engineering Ltd

Registered office
Spring Lodge • 172 Chester Road • Helsby • Cheshire • WA6 0AR • UK
Registered in England No. 4723837
www.rsk.co.uk
3 Hawthorn Park, Holdenby Road, Spratton,
Northampton, NN6 8LD.
Tel: 01604 842888 Fax: 01604 842666
E-mail: northampton@hydrock.com
www.hydrock.com
Ground Investigation at
Elmington Sites A & B
Final Report
Prepared by
Sarah Gregg
for
Notting Hill Housing Trust
Hydrock Ref: R/10079E/002
June 2010
Ground Investigation at Elmington Sites A & B, Camberwell
R/10079E/002
DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

Issued by: Hydrock Consultants Limited
3 Hawthorn Park
Holdenby Road
Spratton
Northampton
NN6 8LD
Tel: 01604 842888

Fax: 01604 842666
www.hydrock.com
Client: NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST
Project: ELMINGTON SITES A & B, CAMBERWELL
Title: GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
Status: FINAL
Date: June 2010
Document Production Record
Issue Number: 1 Name Signature
Prepared Sarah Gregg
Checked Chris Vincett and Allan Bell
Approved Allan Bell
Document Revision Record
Issue number Date Revision Details

1 18th June 2010 Original issue.
Hydrock Consultants Limited has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of the above
named Client for their sole and specific use. Any third parties who may use the information contained herein
do so at their own risk.
i
R/10079E/002
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.5 Report Structure ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.6 Information Sources Provided by the Client ................................................................................... 3
2.0 GROUND INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Investigation Rationale ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Site Works....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Geotechnical Testing ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Geo-Environmental Testing ............................................................................................................ 6
3.0 CONCEPTUAL GROUND MODEL................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Physical Ground Conditions ........................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Geotechnical Testing .................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Groundwater and Hydrogeology ................................................................................................... 15
3.5 Soil Chemistry ............................................................................................................................... 16
3.6 Asbestos ....................................................................................................................................... 16
3.7 Leaching Tests ............................................................................................................................. 17
3.8 Ground Gases .............................................................................................................................. 17
3.9 Services ........................................................................................................................................ 19
3.10 Concluding Remarks on the Conceptual Site Model .................................................................... 19
3.11 Limitations of the Conceptual Model ............................................................................................ 19
4.0 GENERIC QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................................................... 20
4.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 20
4.2 Human Health and Plant Life ........................................................................................................ 20
4.3 Estimation and Evaluation of Risks .............................................................................................. 21
4.4 Pollution of Controlled Waters ...................................................................................................... 24
4.5 Ground Gases .............................................................................................................................. 27
4.6 Findings of the Generic Risk Assessment .................................................................................... 28
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 29
5.1 Proposed Development ................................................................................................................ 29
5.2 Flooding ........................................................................................................................................ 29
5.3 Site Preparation, Earthworks, Groundworks and Landscaping.................................................... 29
5.4 Foundations .................................................................................................................................. 30
5.5 Ground Floor Slabs....................................................................................................................... 34
5.6 Roads............................................................................................................................................ 34
5.7 Soakaways and Drainage ............................................................................................................. 35
5.8 Buried Concrete ............................................................................................................................ 35
5.9 Uncertainties ................................................................................................................................. 35
5.10 Recommendations for Further Geotechnical Work ...................................................................... 35
6.0 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 37
6.1 Human Health ............................................................................................................................... 37
6.2 Controlled Waters ......................................................................................................................... 37
6.3 Plant Life ....................................................................................................................................... 37
6.4 Construction Materials .................................................................................................................. 37
6.5 Precautions Against Ground Gases ............................................................................................. 38
6.6 Waste Management...................................................................................................................... 38
6.7 Remedial Strategy ........................................................................................................................ 38
6.8 Uncertainties ................................................................................................................................. 39
6.9 Recommendations for Further Geo-Environmental Work ............................................................ 40
7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 41
i
R/10079E/002
APPENDICES
Appendix A SITE LOCATION PLAN, SITE SURVEY PLAN, SITE FEATURES PLAN,
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SITE ZONATION PLAN, EXPLORATORY
HOLE LOCATION PLAN, SERVICE PLANS & CROSS SECTIONS
Appendix B EXPLORATORY HOLE LOGS & PHOTOGRAPHS
Appendix C GEOTECHNICAL TEST RESULTS & SPT DEPTH PLOTS
Appendix D RISK ASSESSMENT RATIONALE
Appendix E CONTAMINATION TEST RESULTS & STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Appendix F WASTE MANAGEMENT
ii
R/10079E/002
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
Client Notting Hill Housing Trust.
Site Elmington Sites A & B, Camberwell.

SITE INFORMATION & SETTING
Site Location Off Edmund Street, Camberwell, Greater London, SE5 7NF.
Current Land The site is split into two irregular shapes, Sites A & B, either side of Edmund Street. The
Use & two sites together are approximately 2.0ha. The site is current disused after the recent
Description demolishment of flats, however there are two building shells present, one in the north of
each site. There is an electricity substation building in the northwest of Site B and an old
toilet block in the north of Site A. Most of the site is covered with a layer of crushed
demolition rubble, however Site A has an area of grass over topsoil. Various mature trees
are located throughout the site, concentrated at the site boundaries. There are various
areas of fly tipping and piles of tyres and demolition rubble throughout the site.
Development The proposed development is to comprise 270 units, with a mixture of 2 storey terraced
housing, 4 storey maisonettes, 4 storey flats and 6 to 8 storey flats. Although recent
discussions indicate that the maximum building height may be limited to 4 storeys.
Geology The geology of the site generally comprises:

x Made Ground (0.0m to >3.0m begl (below existing ground level)): generally
comprising clayey sandy angular to subangular fine to coarse gravel, cobbles and
boulders of concrete and brick. Various concrete obstructions in the form of disused
foundations were encountered.
x Kempton Park Gravel (top of stratum between 0.8m begl and >3.0m begl): generally
comprising moderately dense orange brown fine to coarse sand and subangular fine to
coarse grave of quartz, quartzite and limestone, locally with lenses of sandy gravelly
clay.
x Lambeth Group (top of stratum between 7.5m begl to >15.0m begl): generally
comprising stiff to very stiff grey mottled red slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay, with
layers of sandy gravel and gravelly sand.
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
x Thanet Sand (top of stratum between 14.5m begl to 17.5m begl): generally
comprising dense to very dense green or green grey silty fine sand with rare fine
subangular flint gravel.
Hydrogeology The Lambeth Group and the Thanet Sand are both classified as Minor Aquifers and may
be in hydraulic conductivity with the Upper Chalk Formation, the Major Aquifer in the area,
which outcrops north of the site.
Ground water is likely to flow northwards, towards the River Thames.
There is an Environment Agency defined water body present beneath the site, the
‘Greenwich Tertiaries’, which has poor chemical quality and has a predicted chemical
quality for 2015 as poor.
Groundwater was found within the Lambeth Group at depths of between 9.5m begl and
13.0m begl, rising a maximum of 2.4m in 30 minutes.
Although none was encountered, there is the potential for perched water in the Made
Ground and in the granular Kempton Park Gravel above the Lambeth Group.
Stability The main stability issues relating to the site are: potential for heterogeneous, poorly or
non-compacted Made Ground; potential for collapse of excavations within the Made
Ground and Kempton Park Gravel; and potential for consolidation settlement within the
clays of the Lambeth Group.
iii
R/10079E/002
Historic Site Historically the previous development on the site has comprised mainly housing, with
Use terraced houses existed on site from pre-1871 to approximately 1962.
Between approximately 1940 and 1962 there was a Sheet Metal Works located in the
middle of Site B.
The site was bombed during WWII and there is risk of Unexploded Ordnance (UXO).
Both Sites A & B are shown to be redeveloped as flats on the 1962 map.
The site has recently been demolished (between 2002 and 2009) and there is likely to be
a varying depth of Made Ground across the site, including deep obstructions in the form of
disused pile foundations for the flats. Two shells of buildings remain, one in the north of
each site.
Unexploded The Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment identified areas high and medium risk,
Ordnance mainly in the north of Site B and the north and west of Site A. It has been assessed that a
500kg bomb would have a maximum penetration depth of 10m below WWII ground level.
As recommended in the report, the following risk mitigation measures were in place during
siteworks:
All Areas: Explosive Ordnance Safety Awareness Briefings to all personnel conducting
intrusive works; and provision of Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Site Safety Instructions.
High and Medium Risk Area: Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Engineer watching brief
for trial pits and downhole intrusive magnetometer survey of boreholes.
Note that these risk mitigation measures will be required for any subsequent foundation
excavation works on the site.
Regulatory There is an area of Japanese Knotweed on Site A.

Enquiries
The sites may be providing a habitat to the protected species of the bird Black Redstart
and the empty buildings may be providing a habitat for bats.
Possible The conceptual risk model is based on the source-pathway-receptor approach. Linkages
Pollution for which the receptors are (re)development workers are listed here but are excluded from
Linkages the generic risk assessment and should be covered by method statements under the
relevant health and safety legislation. The Possible Pollutant Linkages on an un-
remediated site determined by desk study and walk-over are summarised according to the
From Phase 1 contaminant sources and impacts to possible receptors (see table 4 in report number
Study R.10079E.001, Desk Study at Elmington Sites A & B of the main report for the full
pathways). These form the basis for the ground investigation and assessment.
I.e. Basis for Source(s) potential Impact on Receptor(s)

Investigation &
Generic Risk Future occupiers
Assessment
Inorganic substances in the Made Ground Groundwater
Plant life
Future occupiers
Groundwater
PAHs and Phenols in the Made Ground
Plant life
Buildings
Future occupiers
Petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs and
Groundwater
SVOCs in the Made Ground
Plant life
iv
R/10079E/002
Buildings
Asbestos in the Made Ground or building Site workers

shells End users
Ground The ground investigation comprised:

Investigation
x service location search;
x The excavation of 19 trial pits to a maximum depth of 4.0m begl and the collection of
samples for geotechnical and chemical analysis;
x Two 25m and three 15m shell and auger boreholes to allow assessment of ground
conditions for the 6 and 8 storey apartment blocks and the 3 and 4storey apartment
blocks respectively;
x UXO supervision of trial pit excavation and forward probing of boreholes;
x the installation of 4 gas and groundwater monitoring wells to allow ground gas
concentrations to be monitored and groundwater levels to be measured;
x monitoring of gas and groundwater on 4 occasions on a weekly basis; and
x geotechnical and contamination testing of soil samples.
The geology (as described above) was found to comprise a thickness of ~1-3m of Made
Ground (deepening towards the east of Site B and the south of Site A). The underlying
natural strata were found to comprise Kempton Park Gravel (sands and gravels) over
Lambeth Group (clays, sands and gravels) over Thanet Sand (fine sand). The depths of
sand, gravel and clay vary at different locations throughout the site.
The geology established during the ground investigation was slightly different from the
expected geology in the Desk Study. The main differences are as follows:
x the Kempton Park Gravel was widely spread across the whole site, rather than confined
to the south of the site; and
x the Thanet Sand was found as the underlying geology at depths of between 14.5m and
17.5m.
Groundwater was found within the Lambeth Group at depths of between 9.5m begl and
13.0m begl, rising a maximum of 2.4m in 30 minutes.
Flooding A comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out for the site by Mott
ASSESSMENT & CONSIDERATIONS
Macdonald (Elmington Estate: Sites A & B: Flood Risk Assessment, ref.

265340/EVT/NVC/004/A).
The Mott Macdonald report concludes that there is negligible risk of fluvial,
surface/overland and sewerage flooding, but high risk of groundwater flooding.
Site Excavation within the Made Ground and the Kempton Park Gravel should be suitable with
Preparation, conventional excavation machinery. Pneumatic tools are likely to be required to break out
Earthworks & buried obstructions, such as disused foundations, within the Made Ground. Excavations
Landscaping undertaken during site works were unstable in the Made Ground and Kempton Park
Gravel and may require support.
It is essential that no site personnel enter any trenches unless there is adequate support
and this has been assessed by a competent person.
v
R/10079E/002
Site Any potential groundwater seepage during excavation emanating from perched water
Preparation, tables should be dealt with by sump pumping.
Earthworks &
All services must located by careful hand digging and clearly marked or confirmed ‘dead’
Landscaping
prior to works commencing on site. For excavations in close proximity to mains services
(assumed to be kept live for the majority of the works), it must be ensured that the
excavation walls are stable or appropriately battered to a safe angle, temporary slope
stability works may be required in any deep excavations.
Site There are a number of obstructions present including shallow footings of demolished
Preparation, buildings and likely to include piles. Allowance should be made for the removal of these
Earthworks & structures or if they cannot be removed these will need to be surveyed in 3 dimensions
Landscaping and the new foundations will need to compensate for the historical obstructions.
No groundworks should be carried out in the north of the sites until the demolition works
on the existing building shells have been completed. The structural integrity of these
buildings is uncertain and vibrations and loading/unloading in close proximity of these
buildings may cause instability.
Foundations Shallow and Trenchfill Foundations

Where there is less than 2.5m of Made Ground and the buildings are less then 4 storeys in
height, shallow foundations may be appropriate subject to further assessment and detailed
design.
Clay was found at shallow depths in the areas of TP11 and TP12 (south of Site B) and
TP15 and TP18 (southwest and east of Site A). The clay was found to be of medium
volume change potential. NHBC Standards Chapter 4.2 states minimum foundation
depths of 0.9m will be required for strip and trench fill foundations within the medium
plasticity clays. The shallow soil in the rest of the site is non-cohesive and so a minimum
depth of 0.75m is required according to the above document.
As there is Made Ground present across the whole site foundations will be required to
penetrate the Made Ground and to embed into the natural strata by at least 300mm. As
the depth of the Made Ground differs across the site, the required depth of the shallow
foundations will differ.
Within the medium dense sands and gravels of the Kempton Park Gravel, an allowable
bearing pressure of 125kN/m2 can be assumed for strip footings of width 1.0m. This
reduces to 100kN/m2 at foundation width of 2.0m. This bearing pressure should limit total
foundation settlement to less than 25mm for foundation widths up to 1m.
Deepening of foundations in the areas where clay is present at shallow depths may be
required where foundations are within the zone of influence of existing or proposed trees
according to NHBC Standards Chapter 4.2. The foundations in these areas may require
deepening to greater than 2.5m begl, which will change the recommended foundations to
piles.
Where foundations are within the influence of trees and deeper than 1.5m begl, a suitable
compressible material or void former will be required.
As foundations will span founding materials of different stiffness they should have mesh
reinforcement placed top and bottom.
Piled Foundations
Where the Made Ground is deeper than 2.5m begl, the proposed dwellings are greater
than 4 storeys, and deepening due to trees is greater than 2.5m, piled foundations are
recommended. These areas are generally in the north and northeast of Site B and the
southwest of Site A.
A number of piled solutions could be given consideration e.g. Continuous Flight Auger
(CFA) piles, driven concrete piles, driven steel piles or continuous helical displacement
(CHD) piles.
Piles are likely to terminate at depths of between 7m and 15.0m begl. However once
building loads are known, the depths and diameters of the piles and the most suitable
vi
R/10079E/002
choice of piling solution for the ground conditions should be discussed with the specialist
piling contractor.
It should be noted that groundwater was found in boreholes between 9.5 and 13.0m, so
piling technique must to be able to deal with water ingress.
If bored piles are the chosen piling method, there may be some instability within the sands
and gravels (especially below the water table) therefore it is likely that casing will be
required whilst piling.
It should be noted that the presence of obstructions in the Made Ground across the site
including disused foundations and demolition rubble may impact the installation of piles
and either all obstructions will need to be identified or removed or methodology for this will
need to be accounted for in the pile design.
Floor Slabs As deep Made Ground is present at the site it is recommended that suspended floor slabs
should be adopted in accordance with NHBC Standards.
Although the ground gas regime has been preliminarily classified as green, this is subject
to change on completion of further monitoring and any gas mitigation measures identified
as necessary should be incorporated into ground floor slabs.
Roads The following design CBR values are appropriate for use:
As most of the site is covered by between 1m and 2m of Made Ground, a CBR value of
<2.5% is recommended. However if roads are to be constructed on the natural strata, the
following CBR values should be used: 4% for the clay within the Kempton Park Gravel and
20% for the sand and gravel within the Kempton Park Gravel.
Proof rolling of the formation level will be required and any loose or soft spots to be
removed and replaced with an engineered granular fill. The formation level will also need
to be protected during inclement weather from deterioration.
Soakaways & Due to the presence of deep Made Ground and some shallow clays above the more
Drainage granular soil, soakaways are not recommended for this site.
Buried It is recommended that DC1 and AC1 should be adopted for the design of all buried
Concrete concrete at the site. This equates to Designated Concrete class DS-1 for a 50 year design
life.
Consolidation In the area of BH01, there is a layer of medium to high compressibility clay. Piling is
Settlement recommended here and these piles should penetrate the clay layer and be end bearing in
the very dense Thanet Sand at 15.5m begl to reduce risk of unacceptable consolidation
settlement.
It is possible that this clay may exist beneath the site at locations between boreholes, in
areas where shallow foundations have been recommended. For shallow foundations, the
pressure induced at a depth of 1.5 x the width of the foundation becomes negligible
(Tomlinson, 1986) and therefore at a depth of 7.5m begl the pressure would be negligible
and differential settlement is unlikely to be induced.
Unacceptable The Generic Risk Assessment has identified a number of chemicals of potential concern
Geochemical which require further consideration.
Risks
With regards to human health, there is pervasive contamination of lead and a number of
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): benz(a)anthracene; benzo(a)pyrene;
benzo(b)fluoranthene; chrysene; dibenz(a,h)anthracene; and indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene.
Results of
Generic Risk With regards to plant life there is pervasive contamination of zinc.
Assessment
Requiring Although lead was found to be elevated slightly above the EQS (Environmental Quality
Consideration Standard) for drinking water in the soil leachate, Hydrock do not consider the site to pose
a significant risk to Controlled Waters (subject to confirmation by the Environment
Agency).
Current advice is that no radon protection measures are required, but Hydrock
vii
R/10079E/002
understands that the Building Regulations may be updated in the near future to include
basic radon protection measures as standard, and so consideration of installing basic
measures should be made at this stage.
A programme of gas monitoring is underway and the results to date indicate the site to be
Green according to the modified Wilson and Card classification, however this is subject to
modification after further monitoring and will be detailed in a subsequent report.
Construction In accordance with the WRAS information and guidance note 9-04-03:
Materials &
Water Supply x The presence of a PAH value in excess of the respective WRAS trigger values may
warrant the use of Protectaline or similar proprietary barrier pipework for all water
Pipework
supplies at the site.
x The presence of inorganic substances (arsenic, lead and mercury) in excess of the
respective WRAS trigger values indicates trenches excavated for water supply pipework
should be backfilled with clean stone.
x Whilst requirements may also include lining of trenches with an impermeable
membrane, Hydrock do not believe this is necessary (subject to confirmation by the
water supply company).
Confirmation of these recommendations should be sought from the water supply company
before services are laid.
Contamination Human Health

Remediation
Based on the pervasive elevated concentrations of lead and PAH there is a requirement
Strategy
for an engineered cover system to break the pollutant linkages with regards to human
health. The following approach is suggested:
If levels allow, leave the Made Ground in place over the whole site and install an
engineered cover system in the areas of the proposed private gardens and Public Open
Spaces. This engineered cover system is proposed to consist of:
x a geotextile layer placed immediately onto the Made Ground;
x 200mm crushed concrete capillary break layer;
x a geotextile marker layer; and
x 400mm clean imported subsoil and topsoil (with a minimum topsoil thickness of
150mm).
If levels do not allow, this soil will need to be removed from site to allow the installation of
a clean cover system.
Plant Growth:
The Made Ground is a pervasive source of zinc. Detriment to plant life is difficult to
quantify but the recommended course of action is to import a clean growing medium. This
is already recommended as part of the engineered cover system for human health risk
and therefore no further remediation is necessary with regards to plants.
Limitations & The Kempton Park Gravel and the Lambeth Group are highly heterogeneous strata, with
Uncertainties highly varied ground conditions encountered within boreholes approximately 75m apart.
Therefore it is possible that between boreholes there are areas of clay and silt at varying
depths that were not encountered during ground investigation.
Ground water levels may vary due to seasonal or other effects and may at times differ
from those observed during the investigation.
Consultation with the Environment Agency will be required with regards to the conclusions
concerning the risks to Controlled Waters.
Subsequent ground gas monitoring rounds are required to confirm preliminary
assessments with regards to classification of the site (and will be undertaken and reported
in a separate letter report).
viii
R/10079E/002
Further Work x Foundation depth due to tree survey;

x Detailed pile design once building loads are known.
x The design of a Materials Management Plan.
x The design of a detailed Remediation Method Statement.
x Discussion with piling contractors and vibro-stone column contractors.
This Executive Summary forms part of Hydrock Consultants Limited report number R/10079E/002 (Issue 1) and should not be used
as a separate document.
Hydrock Consultants Limited
ix
R/10079E/002
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
In March 2010, Hydrock Consultants Limited (Hydrock) was commissioned by Notting Hill
Housing Trust to undertake a desk study and initial ground investigation at Elmington Sites A
& B, Camberwell.
The site is split into two sections, Site A and Site B, which together cover approximately 2.0
ha and currently comprise open land following demolition, scrubland, areas of fly tipping and
2 shells of buildings yet to be demolished.
The proposed development is to comprise 270 units, with a mixture of 2 storey terraced
housing, 4 storey maisonettes, 4 storey flats and 6 to 7 storey flats. Although recent
discussions indicate that the maximum building height may be limited to 4 storeys.
A site location plan (Hydrock drawing 10079/E/D001) and a site survey plan (Hydrock
drawing 10079/E/D002) are presented in Appendix A.
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of this investigation are to assess the ground and groundwater conditions to
provide initial geotechnical design recommendations and to carry out a risk assessment of
potential chemical contaminants to establish ‘suitability for use’ under the current planning
regime.
1.3 Scope
The scope of work for this commission comprises:
x an initial ground investigation including trial pitting, cable percussive boring, gas and
groundwater monitoring, laboratory chemical and geotechnical testing;
x reporting on findings of the ground investigation, geo-environmental assessment of the

site conditions and geotechnical interpretation of the ground and groundwater conditions;
and
x initial categorisation of geotechnical design requirements for the proposed development

in accordance with the three Geotechnical Categories introduced in Eurocode 7 –
Geotechnics and, where applicable, preliminary foundation design.
1.4 Limitations
This report details the findings of work carried out in May to June 2010. The report has been
prepared by Hydrock on the basis of available information obtained during the study period.
1
R/10079E/002
Although every reasonable effort has been made to gather all relevant information, all
potential environmental constraints or liabilities associated with the site may not have been
revealed.
The report has been prepared for the exclusive benefit of Notting Hill Housing Trust and
those parties designated by them for the purpose of providing geotechnical and
environmental recommendations for the site. The report contents should only be used in that
context. Furthermore, new information, changed practices or new legislation may necessitate
revised interpretation of the report after the date of its submission.
Hydrock has used reasonable skill, care and diligence in the design of the investigation of the
site. The inherent variation of ground conditions allows only definition of the actual conditions
at the locations and depths of trial pits and boreholes at the time of the investigation. At
intermediate locations, conditions can only be inferred. Information provided by third parties
has been used in good faith and is taken at face value, however Hydrock cannot guarantee
its accuracy or completeness.
The work has been carried out in general accordance with recognised best practice as
detailed in guidance documents such as in the CLR 11 Model Procedures (Environment
Agency 2004), BS5930:1999 and BS10175:2001. Important aspects of the risk assessment
process are transparency and justification. The rationale behind the assessments carried out
for this report are given in Appendix D.
The chemical analyses reported were scheduled for the purposes of risk assessment with
respect to human health, plant life, ecosystems and controlled waters as discussed in the
report. Whilst the results may be useful in applying the Hazardous Waste Assessment
Methodology given in Environment Agency Technical Guidance WM2, they are not primarily
intended for that purpose and additional analysis may be required should waste classification
be required for consideration of off-site disposal of contaminated soils. Separate analyses
will be required to meet the Waste Acceptance Criteria for specific landfill sites.
The preliminary risk assessment process may identify potential risks to site demolition and
redevelopment workers. However, consideration of occupational health and safety issues is
beyond the scope of this report.
Please note that notwithstanding any site observations concerning the presence or otherwise
of asbestos, asbestos-containing materials or invasive weeds such as Japanese knotweed,
this report does not constitute a formal survey of these potential hazards.
1.5 Report Structure
This report describes the second part of a two-staged investigation and assessment of the
site. The first stage, the Phase 1 Study1 comprising desk study, walk-over survey and
Preliminary Risk Assessment, has been reported previously (Report R.10079E.001).
Throughout the report the term ‘geotechnical’ is used to describe aspects relating to the
1
This type of work is commonly referred to as a ‘Phase 1 study’ and the term is retained in this report in keeping with the industry
standard terminology. Please note that it does not refer to a site development phase.
2
R/10079E/002
physical nature of the site (such as foundation requirements) and the term ‘geo-
environmental’ is used to describe aspects relating to ground-related environmental issues
(such as potential contamination). However, it should be appreciated that this is a
This report details the second stage of the investigation: the Ground Investigation, Generic
Risk Assessment and Geotechnical Interpretation. The Ground Investigation comprises field
work and laboratory testing based on the findings of the Preliminary Risk Assessment, to
reduce uncertainty in the geotechnical and geo-environmental hazard identification.
The Ground Investigation section (2.0) describes the fieldwork and laboratory tests. The
Conceptual Ground Model section (3.0) presents the factual data and an interpretation of the
ground conditions including groundwater, surface water, geotechnics (with assessed soil
parameters), ground gases and chemistry. At this stage the ground model and exposure
model derived in the Phase 1 study are refined.
The Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment section (4.0) evaluates the possible pollution
linkages against generic criteria in line with the CLR 11 Model Procedures. Linkages which
fail the generic assessment are potentially unacceptable risks in terms of the current
contaminated land regime legal framework and require either remediation or further
assessment. Geo-environmental conclusions and recommendations are given in Section
6.0.
The Geotechnical Interpretation and Recommendations (Section 5.0) categorises the

geotechnical design requirements for the proposed development, derives additional design
soil parameters as required and recommends appropriate foundation solutions for
Geotechnical Category 1 and 2 structures and further investigatory and design works for
Category 2 and 3 structures. Further ground investigation reports and a separate design
report may be required for Category 2 and 3 structures.
1.6 Information Sources Provided by the Client
x Southwark Council, ‘License to enter site at Elmington Sites A & B, Edmund Street,
Camberwell, SE5’, dated 30th April 2010;
x Allford, Hall, Monaghan, Morris, ‘Elmington Sites A & B, Camberwell: Feasibility Study’,
dated December 2009;
x Mott Macdonald, ‘Elmington Sites A & B: Additional Protected Species Surveys:

Recommendations and Indicative Costs’ letter, ref. IA/EW/EW/EC/265340/1/07, dated
September 2009;
x Museum of London Archaeology, ‘Site Surveys, Elmington Estate, London SE5:

Archaeological desk based assessment,’ dated September 2009;
x Mott Macdonald, ‘Elmington Estate: Sites A & B: Ecological Assessment,’ ref.

265340/EVT/NVC/001/A, dated September 2009;
3
R/10079E/002
x Mott Macdonald, ‘Elmington Estate: Sites A & B: Japanese Knotweed Assessment,’ ref.
x Mott Macdonald, ‘Elmington Estate: Sites A & B: Flood Risk Assessment,’ ref.
x Groundwise, ‘ Edmund Street, Camberwell, SE5 7NR; Utility Report’, ref. 5963PC, dated
September 2009;
x Bactec, ‘Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment: Elmington Estate Site, Edmund Street,
Southwark, London SE5,’ ref. 9950TA, dated September 2009;
x Hurst Surveys, ‘Topographic Survey, Elmington Estate, Edmund Street, Camberwell,

London,’ ref. 04509/REVA, dated September 2009;
x Southwark Council, ‘Elmington Sites A & B,’ ref. LBS_2203, dated 24/9/2009;
x Connect, ‘Elmington Estate: Site Mains, Edmund Street/Benhill Road, London,’ ref.
27039-001, dated May 2004; and
x Connect, ‘Elmington Estate: Site Mains, Southampton Road, London,’ ref. 23422-001,
dated October 2003.
4
R/10079E/002
2.0 GROUND INVESTIGATION
2.1 Investigation Rationale
The ground investigation comprised the following:
x service location and avoidance search to identify and mark out live mains services within
the site, to confirm any services as dead and to provide a full utility map;
x Bactec Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) watching brief on trial pits and magcone forward
probing prior to drilling cable percussive holes;
x 5 boreholes to confirm the deeper geology, to identify competent bearing strata, provide
samples for geotechnical and geo-environmental testing and to allow ongoing
groundwater and gas monitoring; and
x 19 trial pits to allow shallow ground conditions to be assessed both laterally and vertically
and allow samples to be taken for geotechnical and geo-environmental testing.
2.2 Site Works
The site works undertaken for this investigation are summarised in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Summary of Site Works
Max.
Activity Method No. In situ tests Installations / Notes
Depth
Drilling, pitting & probing
Boreholes Cable percussive 5 25.0m SPT Dual installations of 63mm
HDPE wells with gas taps in 3
holes
Trial pits Machine (JCB 3X) 19 4.0m n/a n/a
The approximate investigation locations (surveyed in using a tape measure from landmarks)
are shown on the Ground Investigation Plan in Appendix A. The logs are presented in
Appendix B and with details including sampling.
The trial pits and boreholes (without installations) were backfilled with the excavated material
upon completion.
2.3 Geotechnical Testing
Geotechnical testing has been carried out to provide design parameters for construction and
is in line with recommendations given in the NHBC Standards, Chapter 4, Ground
Conditions.
5
R/10079E/002
2.3.1 In Situ Testing
SPT tests were performed in the boreholes (see Table 2.1) and the (un-adjusted) plots
against depth are given in Appendix C.
2.3.2 Laboratory Testing
In order to address the geotechnical risks identified in the Desk Study in Report
R.10079E.001 the following geotechnical testing was scheduled on samples retrieved from
the above site works. The testing laboratory was UKAS accredited.
x 9 natural moisture contents;
x 9 Atterberg limits;
x 5 analyses for sulfate and aggressive chemical environment classification for buried
concrete (actual analyses vary depending on the anticipated conditions and may include
pH and water extractable SO4 where no sulfide minerals are anticipated; additional total
SO4 and S where sulfide minerals are anticipated and for certain lithologies the dependent
options of ammoniacal N as NH4, Cl, NO3 and Mg (the full BRE SD1 suite (Building
Research Establishment 2001);
x 7 particle size distribution analyses;
x 4 quick undrained triaxial shear strength tests; and
x 3 consolidation tests.
The geotechnical test results are provided in Appendix C.
2.4 Geo-Environmental Testing
2.4.1 Sampling Strategy and Protocols
The locations of the investigatory holes were determined by reference to the conditions
identified in the preliminary risk assessment. A random spacing was used for the sampling
on the site. No specific sampling statistics or grid were utilised in this instance.
The dataset comprises 18 samples from the Made Ground at between 0.1 and 2.0m.
Soils for inorganic analysis were sealed in air-tight polythene tubs. Soils for organic analysis
were sealed in amber glass jars with the minimal practicable headspace. All samples were
scheduled on chain of custody forms prior to being dispatched to the UKAS accredited
laboratory for analysis.
6
R/10079E/002
2.4.2 Monitoring
A programme of 4 gas monitoring visits to measure ground gas levels within the three
installed boreholes is currently underway. Monitoring rounds already completed are included
within this report and subsequent rounds will be detailed in a subsequent letter report.
Therefore interpretation of gas monitoring results is subject to modification on collection of
further data. The results to date are presented in Table 3.10.
2.4.3 Laboratory Analyses
The findings of the preliminary risk assessment have been used to scope the analyses of
chemicals of potential concern as follows.
The following were performed on samples of soil or other solids:
x 16 Hydrock default suite of determinands for solids comprising: As, B (water soluble),
Be, Cd, Cr (total), Cr(VI), Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, S (elemental), Se, V, Zn, cyanide (total),
sulfide, pH, asbestos fibres, speciated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH, by GC-
FID), total phenols and fraction of organic carbon. If high total cyanide is detected, this
may be re-analysed for ‘free’ and ‘complex’ species if appropriate. Note: SO4 is included
within the geotechnical testing schedule. See Appendix D for details; and
x 2 Hydrock default leachate suite of determinands, following leaching to BS12457-2,

comprising: As, B, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, V, Zn, cyanide (total), phenols
(speciated), sulfide, SO4, NO3, PAH (speciated) and pH. If high total cyanide is detected,
this may be re-analysed for ‘free’ and ‘complex’ species if appropriate.
The chemical test results are provided in Appendix E.
7
R/10079E/002
3.0 CONCEPTUAL GROUND MODEL
The findings of the ground investigation are presented in the following sections.
3.1 Overview
Made Ground is present across the whole site to a general depth of 1.0m begl to 2.0m begl,
deepening in some areas of the site to >3.0m begl, most notably in the northeast of Site B
and the southwest of Site A.
The Made Ground comprised in general three types:
x grey sandy gravel, cobbles and boulders of brick, brickwork, concrete, ceramics, metal
reinforcement bars and ballast;
x dark brown to grey clayey gravelly sand (gravel as above); and
x soft brown slightly gravelly clay (gravel as above).
There are voids, old reinforced concrete foundations, buried concrete slabs and disused
services throughout the Made Ground.
The drift deposits of Kempton Park Gravel are located beneath the Made Ground to depths
of between 7.5m begl and >15.0m begl. The Kempton Park Gravel is a heterogeneous
stratum comprising variable depths of gravelly fine to coarse sand and sandy fine to coarse
gravel, with some areas of sandy gravelly clay.
Beneath the Kempton Park Gravel is the Lambeth Group, which was found in all boreholes
apart from BH03 (which terminated at 15.0m begl in the Kempton Park Gravel) and is
assumed to underlie the whole site to depths of between approximately 14.5m begl and
17.0m begl. The Lambeth Group generally comprises stiff to very stiff slightly sandy slightly
gravelly clay, dense gravelly fine to medium sand and sandy fine to coarse gravel.
The underlying geology of the site is Thanet Sand (found in three of the five boreholes and
assumed to underlie the whole site) which was found to depths of at least 25.0m. The Thanet
Sand generally consists of dense to very dense dark grey green and black silty fine sand with
rare gravel.
Generalised cross sections of the underlying geology of the site are presented in Appendix
A, drawing number 10079/E/D007.
Groundwater was found in the Lambeth Group between depths of approximate depths of
9.5m begl and 13.5m begl. The groundwater rose a maximum of 2.4m in 30 minutes,
indicating a pressure head caused by confining clay layers within the Lambeth Group.
8
R/10079E/002
3.2 Physical Ground Conditions
The geology established during the ground investigation was slightly different from the
expected geology in the Desk Study. The main differences are as follows:
x the Kempton Park Gravel was widely spread across the whole site, rather than confined
to the south of the site; and
x the Thanet Sand was found as the underlying geology at depths of between 14.5m and
17.5m.
The general geological sequence is listed in Table 3.1 and the individual strata are described
in the sections below.
Table 3.1: Geology Encountered
Depth to Top (m
Stratum Description Thickness (m)
begl)
Made Ground: varying boulders, cobbles and gravel of 0.0 up to 3.0
brick, concrete and quartzite with some sands and clays.
Kempton Park Gravel: clayey gravelly sand, sandy 0.8 - 3.0 5.5 - >15.1
gravel with some gravelly clay.
Lambeth Group: stiff to very stiff slightly sandy slightly 7.5 – 17.0 4.75 – 9.5
gravelly clay and silt with some sandy gravel and silty
sand.
Thanet Sand: dense to very dense silty fine sand. 14.5 – 17.0 unknown
There is a thickness of 1.0-2.0m of Made Ground across the majority of the site, however,
the Made Ground deepens towards the northeast of Site B, where a maximum depth of
>3.0m of Made Ground was found in TP07, and the southwest of Site A, where a maximum
of 3.0m was found in BH05.
Kempton Park Gravel was encountered across the whole site underlying the Made Ground
and deepens to the southeast and south of Site A, where it is found to depths >15.0m in
BH03.
The Lambeth group was encountered in all boreholes apart BH03 in the extreme south and is
located between the Kempton Park Gravel and the Thanet Sand. The boundary between the
Kempton Park Gravel and the underlying Lambeth Group slopes from 7.5m in the north of
the site to >15.0m in the southwest.
The Thanet Sand is assumed to underlie the whole site (not found in shallow boreholes
BH02 and BH03) and the top of the strata is located between 14.5m and 17.0m begl
extending to >25.0m begl.
Cross Sections of the geology are presented in Appendix A: A-A’, runs northwest to
southeast across Site B and B-B’ runs northeast to southwest across the two sites.
9
R/10079E/002
3.2.1 Made Ground
Differing depths of Made Ground were encountered across the whole site. In general, there
are 3 types of Made Ground:
x Grey sandy gravel, cobbles and boulders of brick, brickwork, concrete, ceramics, metal
reinforcement bars and ballast. This type of Made Ground has void space between the
cobbles and boulders. It is generally found in the north of both Sites A & B, with an
isolated large concrete foundation in TP09 in the south of Site A. It is located both at the
surface and underneath the other types of Made Ground and is generally the relics of old
foundations. Particular obstructions to note occur in TP02, TP03, TP07, TP14 and TP21
as disused concrete foundations, timber supports, metal poles and concrete slabs.
x Soft brown slightly gravelly clay (gravel as above). This type of Made Ground is found at
varying levels between 0.0m and 2.60m, with the deepest occurrence in TP05.
x Dark brown to grey clayey gravelly sand (gravel as above). This type of Made Ground is
found at varying levels between 0.0m and 2.40m, with the deepest occurrence in TP19.
Various obstructions relating to disused foundations comprising concrete, brick and tarmac
cobbles and boulders were encountered at depths ranging from ground level to 1.9m.
Disused services, such as drains, were also encountered in the top 1.0m. Ash, tarmac and
metal waste (tin cans, crockery etc.) were found at various levels notably in TP07 and TP11.
There are various areas of hardstanding throughout the site, particularly areas of large
concrete slabs and ornamental cobbles at the back of the building shells in both sites.
3.2.2 Kempton Park Gravel
Kempton Park Gravel was encountered across the whole site between depths of 0.8-3.0m
begl and 7.5-17.5m begl.
Although clays, sands and gravels were all encountered within the heterogeneous Kempton
Park Gravel deposits, the strata mainly comprised:
x Medium dense to dense orange brown sandy gravel of subangular to rounded fine to
coarse quartz, quartzite, limestone and shell fragments; and
x Medium dense to dense orange brown gravelly fine to coarse sandy (gravel as above).
Other layers within the Kempton Park Gravel include:
x Light brown sandy gravelly clay (gravel as above); and
x Clayey sandy gravel (gravel as above).
10
R/10079E/002
3.2.3 Lambeth Group
The Lambeth Group is assumed to underlie the whole site and is located between the
Kempton Park Gravel and the Thanet Sand. The boundary between the overlying Kempton
Park Gravel and the Lambeth Group slopes from 7.5m in the north of the site to >15.0m in
the southwest. The stratum terminates between 15.5m and 17.0m begl. The Lambeth Group
generally comprises a clay layer over a layer of sands and gravels, as described below.
The cohesive layers within the Lambeth Group are located at top depths of between 7.5m
begl and >15.0m (most thick at 5.5m in BH05) and generally comprise:
x Stiff to very stiff orange brown to red brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay. Sand is
fine to medium and gravel is subangular fine to coarse quartzite.
x Stiff to very stiff grey mottled orange occasionally red clay with occasional gravel of
subangular fine mudstone lithorelics.
x Stiff white mottled green slightly sandy gravelly clay/silt (gravel as above).
The underlying layer of sand and gravel within the Lambeth Group is located at top depths of
between 10.0m and >15.0m begl (most thick at 5.5m in BH01) and generally comprises:
x Dense green mottled orange brown slightly sandy slightly gravelly fine to medium sand
with gravel sized clay pockets (gravel as above).
x Dense grey clayey sandy gravel of subrounded to rounded fine to coarse quartzite,
sandstone and limestone.
3.2.4 Thanet Sand
The Thanet Sand was encountered in three boreholes with the top of the stratum between
14.5m and 17.0m and extends to a depth greater than 25.0m. The Thanet Sand was not
encountered in boreholes BH02 and BH03 (which both ended at 15.0m) but is assumed to
underlie the whole site generally at depths >15.0m. The Thanet Sand generally consisted of
dense to very dense green or green grey silty fine sand with rare fine subangular quartz
gravel.
3.3 Geotechnical Testing
Laboratory test results are given in Appendix C and in situ test results are given on the
relevant exploratory hole log in Appendix B. The following sections tabulate the main
findings and give interpretations where appropriate.
11
R/10079E/002
3.3.1 Plasticity Index
The plasticity and volume change potentials in terms of NHBC Standard (Chapter 4.2) with
respect to building near trees have been determined from the results of plasticity index tests
on samples of cohesive soils. These are summarised in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Volume Change Potential
No. Plasticit Modified Plasticity Volume Change

Stratum
Tests y Index Plasticity Index (A-line) Potential
Kempton Park Gravel
4 24-34 19-30 intermediate to high medium
(clays)
Lambeth Group 5 6-43 6-43 low to very high low to high
3.3.2 Soil Strength
Table 3.3 summarises information pertaining to the shear strength of the soils according to
geological stratum and, if applicable, weathering zones or other variations within particular
strata. Factual results are summarised for laboratory tests and uncorrected Standard
Penetration Tests (SPT). SPT versus depth profiles are presented in Appendix C.
Where the SPT N-values have been used to infer a shear strength by published correlation,
this is also tabulated. Finally, a “characteristic soil strength” is given for each unit in
Table 3.4. These are the values determined by professional judgement from laboratory and
other tests and a knowledge of the ground conditions. They are the values used in
Section 5.4 for preliminary foundation design. Care should be exercised in using these
assumed soil strength parameters for any purpose beyond the scope of this report because it
may be that additional sampling and testing is required for certain purposes. The reader
should refer to the original test results in Appendix C.
12
R/10079E/002
Table 3.3: Soil Strength
SPT Shear Strength (Range)

No. of
Stratum (N-value) Method
cu (kPa) phi’(°) Results
(Range)
9 - refusal at Correlation in
Kempton Park
75 blows over n/a 30 - 43 Tomlinson (1986) 42
Gravel
31mm SPT
34 - refusal at 7 SPT/4
Lambeth Group
50 blows over 73-279 Undrained Triaxial undrained
(clay/silt)
25mm triaxial
Correlation in
Lambeth Group
35 - 63 n/a 37 - 43 Tomlinson (1986) 8
(sand/gravel)
SPT
48 – refusal at Correlation in
Thanet Sand 50 blows over n/a 41 - 43 Tomlinson (1986) 15
60mm SPT
Table 3.4: Characteristic Cohesive Soil Strength for Preliminary Design
Shear Strength
Stratum Depth
cu (kPa)
7.5 – 10.5 70
Lambeth Group (clay/silt)
10.5 – 17.0 100
Table 3.5: Characteristic Granular Soil Strength for Preliminary Design
Stratum Depth (m begl) phi’(°)
Made Ground 0.0 - 3.0 29
Kempton Park Gravel 1.0 - 3.0 29

(sand and gravel) 3.0 – 7.5 33
7.5 - 10.0 33
Kempton Park Gravel /
Lambeth Group (sands and gravels) 10.0 – 17.5 39
14.5 – 20.0 40
Thanet Sand
>20.0 41
3.3.3 Soil Compressibility
Within the Lambeth Group in the middle of Site A (found in BH02) there is a 1.1m thick layer
of stiff gravelly clay between 9.4m begl and 10.1m begl. Although no U100 was taken in this
strata, the correlation of Plasticity Index to mv found in Tomlinson (1986) indicates an mv
value of 0.03 for a clay with PI=25 and SPT N-value = 60. This classifies the clay as very
low compressibility. However, as the high SPT N-value may correlate to a cobble or a very
gravelly area in the clay, this compressibility classification should be used with caution.
13
R/10079E/002
In the north of Site A, in the area of BH01, there is a 2.5m layer of clay within the Lambeth
Group between 7.5m and 10.0m begl. A consolidation test on a sample from 8-8.45m begl
found the coefficients of volume compressibility (mv) to be between 0.014 and 0.413 m2/MN
at different loading stages (see Table 3.6). These results indicate the clay to be of medium
to high compressibility.
In the middle of the site, in the area of BH04, there is a 1.25m thick layer of stiff to very stiff
clay within the Lambeth Group, at 9.75-11m begl. A consolidation test on a sample from 10-
10.45m begl found the coefficients of volume compressibility (mv) to be between 0.036 and
0.103 m2/MN at different loading stages (see Table 3.6), indicating the clay to be of low to
medium compressibility.
Within the Lambeth Group in the southwest of Site B, in the area of BH05, there is a 4.0m
thick layer of clay and silt between 9.0m and 13.0m and a further 2.5m thick layer between
14.5m and 17.0m. A consolidation test on a sample from 8-8.45m begl found the coefficients
of volume compressibility (mv) to be between 0.044 and 0.136 m2/MN at different loading
stages (see Table 3.6), indicating the clay to be of low to medium compressibility.
There were no clay or silt layers found in BH03 in the southeast of the site and it is assumed
that the Lambeth group is located deeper than the end of the borehole at 15.0m.
Table 3.6: Consolidation test results for Clays within Taplow Gravel in BH01
Laboratory coefficients of
Sample Depth Pressure stage
Stratum Compressibility, Consolidation,
(m) (kPa) 2 2
mv (m /MN) Cv (m /year)
75 0.413 24.69
100 0.134 8.41
Lambeth Group
8.0-8.45 200 0.078 5.44
(north of site)
400 0.041 4.27
100 0.014 n/a
75 0.048 3.21
100 0.080 0.42
Lambeth Group 200 0.103 2.23
10.0-10.45
(middle of site) 400 0.100 6.11
800 0.065 2.38
100 0.036 n/a
200 0.117 0.77

400 0.136 1.63
Lambeth Group
10.0-10.45 800 0.090 0.88
(southwest of site)
1600 0.050 0.79
200 0.044 n/a
14
R/10079E/002
3.3.4 Sulfate Content
Sulfate and complimentary analyses indicate Design Sulfate (DS) classification and
Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) classification according to BRE
Special Digest 1 as shown in Table 3.7. The ACEC class can be used in accordance with
BS 8500-1 (2006), Table A.9 to select the Designated Concrete (DC) class. Table 3.7 shows
the DC-class for an intended working life of 50 years, but refer to BS 8500 for full details and
notes to Table A.9, including any Additional Protective Measures (APMs).
Table 3.7: Aggressive Chemical Environment Concrete Classification
No. DC-Class
Stratum DS ACEC
Tests
Made Ground 2 DS-1 AC-1s / AC-1 DC-1
Kempton Park Gravel 1 DS-1 AC-1s / AC-1 DC-1
Lambeth Group 1 DS-1 AC-1s / AC-1 DC-1
Thanet Sand 1 DS-1 AC-1s / AC-1 DC-1
3.4 Groundwater and Hydrogeology
No groundwater was encountered in the trial pits during excavation.
During drilling, groundwater was encountered in 4 of the 5 boreholes, with each water strike
occurring within the Lambeth Group. The water strikes were recorded at the following depths:
9.5m begl in BH01 rising to 7.1m begl in 30 minutes; 9.6m begl in BH02 rising to 9.0m begl in
30 minutes; 10.5m begl in BH04 rising to 9.6m begl in 30 minutes; and 13.5m begl in BH05
rising to 12.0m begl in 30 minutes.
Dual gas and groundwater monitoring wells were installed in four of the five boreholes, one at
a shallow depth to screen out the Made Ground, and one deeper to screen out the shallow
level Kempton Park Gravel.
Table 3.8: Depth of Installations
Borehole Shallow/Deep Top of Pipe Bottom of Pipe Total depth

Shallow 1.5m slotted - 1.5m
BH01
Deep 2.0m plain 8.0m slotted 10.0m
BH02
Deep
n/a
Shallow
BH03
BH05
15
R/10079E/002
Groundwater records from piezometers or wells obtained during subsequent monitoring visits
are summarised in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9: Groundwater Monitoring Elevations
Depth to Ground Level Groundwater Reduced

Borehole Date
Groundwater (m begl) (mOD) Level (mOD)
BH01s Dry n/a
3.06
BH01d 5.12 -2.06
BH02s unable to access 3.15 -
25/5/2010
BH03d 4.99 2.99 -2.00
BH05s Dry n/a
3.22
BH05d 7.29 -4.07
BH01s Dry n/a

3.06
BH01d 5.14 -2.08
BH02s unable to access 3.15 -
3/6/2010
BH03d 5.03 2.99 -2.04
BH05s Dry n/a
3.22
BH05d 5.21 -1.99
Note that groundwater findings described above are only representative of the dates on
which they were made and that groundwater levels may vary.
3.5 Soil Chemistry
The chemical test results are given in Appendix E.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons were not tested for as there was no visual or olfactory
evidence of TPH in any of the trial pits.
All chemicals of potential concern tested for in the standard Hydrock Suite were found above
laboratory reporting limits, apart from cyanide (free) and phenols (total) (although for
completeness the data are included where appropriate in the statistical assessment in
Section 4.0).
3.6 Asbestos
The presence of asbestos was not detected during laboratory analysis on the soil samples.
However, due to the widespread nature of demolition materials in the Made Ground there is
potential for isolated cases of asbestos within the Made Ground and therefore precautionary
health and safety measures should be taken during ground works as and when necessary.
16
R/10079E/002
There are also two semi-demolished shells of buildings still present on the site which will
require demolition before re-development and it is recommended that a pre-demolition
asbestos survey is carried out on these structures.
3.7 Leaching Tests
Leachate testing was undertaken to assess the risk to controlled waters from soil
contaminants in line with good practice defined in ISO 15175:2004. The test results are
given in Appendix E.
3.8 Ground Gases
Records from the gas monitoring boreholes are summarised in Table 3.10.
17
Ground Investigation at Wood Dene, Peckham
R/10079W/002
Table 3.10: Gas Monitoring Results
CH4 CH4 CO2 O2

(%v/v) (%LEL) (%v/v) (%v/v)
Date
(l/hr)
(l/hr)
(l/hr)
(m begl)
(m begl)
Gas Flow
Borehole
#
Depth to Water
Response Zone
Initial
Initial
Initial
Initial
Relative Pressure (mb)

Steady
Steady
Steady
Steady
Gas Screening Value* (CH4)
Atmospheric Pressure (mb)

Gas Screening Value* (CO2)
(peak/trough)
(peak/trough)
(peak/trough)
(peak/trough)
BH01s 0.0 – 1.5 0.00 <0.1 1010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 19.7 19.7 0.0 0.0 Dry
BH01d 2.0- 10.0 0.00 <0.1 1010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 19.1 19.1 0.0 0.0 5.12
BH02s 0.0 – 2.5 -

25/5/10
BH03d 1.5 – 8.5 0.00 <0.1 1010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 20.8 0.0 0.0 4.99
BH05s 0.0 – 2.5 0.00 <0.1 1010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 20.7 0.0 0.0 Dry
3.5 –
BH05d 10.0 0.00 <0.1 1010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 20.7 0.0 0.0 7.29
BH01s 0.0 – 1.5 0.00 <0.1 1026 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 20.7 20.7 0.0 0.0 Dry
BH01d 2.0- 10.0 0.00 <0.1 1026 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 20.8 20.8 0.0 0.0 5.14
BH02s 0.0 – 2.5

3/6/10
BH03d 1.5 – 8.5 0.00 <0.1 1026 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 20.7 0.0 0.0 5.03
BH05s 0.0 – 2.5 0.00 <0.1 1026 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.6 20.6 0.0 0.0 Dry
3.5 –
BH05d 10.0 0.00 <0.1 1026 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 5.21
18
R/10079E/002
3.9 Services
There are a number of services running across the site. There are two water mains that are
shown to run across the site in the south of Sites A & B, in a southwest to northeast direction
and a surface drain. They are shown on the service plan (Site Vision Surveys drawing no.
0410-hyd-3782 Elmington) as ‘possibly removed/redundant’ as it was noted that the ground
had been turned over.
There are a series of live electricity cables in the south of Site B, running either side of the
access gate and joining to run into the new flats beyond the northeast site boundary.
There are also a number of services concentrated around the semi-demolished building shell
in the north of Site B. A sub-station building is located behind wooden hoarding just south of
the demolished building, but no services are marked on the plan in this area.
3.10 Concluding Remarks on the Conceptual Site Model
The conceptual site model initially developed from the desk study and walk-over survey
(Report R.10079E.001) has been updated using the findings of the ground investigation. The
ground model following intrusive investigation has been described in Section 3.1.
This model forms the basis of the generic risk assessment described in the next section and
the geotechnical recommendations made in Section 5.0.
3.11 Limitations of the Conceptual Model
The inherent variation of ground conditions allows only definition of the actual conditions at
the locations and depths of trial pits and boreholes. At intermediate locations, conditions can
only be inferred.
19
R/10079E/002
4.0 GENERIC QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT
4.1 Scope
The purpose of this risk assessment is to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed
development. Four aspects of risk from substances in the ground are considered below:
x human health;
x plant life;
x pollution of Controlled Waters; and
x ground gases.
The possible pollution linkages initially identified in the Outline ‘Exposure Model – Risk
Assessment of Source-Pathway-Receptor Pollution Linkages’ from Phase 1 Study, in report
R.10079E.001 have been re-assessed in the light of the ground investigation. Any
substances not identified during the investigation have been listed in Section 3.5 and are
excluded.
The investigation has shown that none of the possible linkages are likely to be present.
Consequently, only the Hydrock default list of determinands will form the basis of this generic
risk assessment for the standard land use scenarios of human health with plant uptake, plant
growth and risk to groundwater.
Those linkages for which the receptors are demolition and site redevelopment workers are
specifically excluded from the following assessment since this should be covered by method
statements required under the relevant health and safety regulations.
4.2 Human Health and Plant Life
This is a Tier 2 assessment using soil screening values and involves generic human health
risk assessment for the following standard land use scenario:
x residential with plant uptake; and
x a check on levels of priority phytotoxic chemicals to determine the likely risk to plant
growth.
Although it is acknowledged that some dwellings (notably the flats) will not have private
gardens, the site has been statistically analysed for a ‘residential with plant uptake’ scenario,
as plans in the feasibility study suggest many of the 3-4 storey dwellings will have private
gardens. Moreover, the difference between the analyses for residential with and without plant
uptake is minor and does not result in any variation of the proposed remediation.
20
R/10079E/002
The soil chemical analysis results have been screened against guideline soil concentrations
to provide an assessment of potential risks associated with contamination at the site.
Justification for the criteria adopted for this risk assessment are given in Appendix D. It has
been assumed in this report that the exposure conditions are within the generic conditions
used to derive Soil Guideline Values (SGVs). Where no SGVs are published, or where the
published values require modification, a number of Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) have
been developed for certain chemicals of potential concern. These GAC have been
developed using largely generic assumptions about the characteristics and behaviour of
sources, pathways and receptors, i.e. similar to those used by the Environment Agency in
the derivation of SGVs.
In the following assessment it should be noted that the term “further assessment required” is
used to denote soil concentrations that are equal to, or exceed, a GAC. This does not
automatically mean that the soil is “contaminated”. The derivation of GACs includes a
number of precautionary assumptions such that non-exceedance will indicate that risk to
human health is acceptable and that the land is suitable for use, with regard to the
contaminant in question.
However, the legal test for land contamination under the statutory guidance of Part IIA of the
Environment Protection Act 1990 (i.e. “significant harm or significant possibility of significant
harm”) is unacceptable intake or direct bodily contact. The details are given in Annex 3 of
DEFRA Circular 01/2006 (DEFRA September 2006). PPS23 (DCLG November 2004)
confirms that the standard of remediation to be achieved under the planning regime is also
the removal of unacceptable risk. DEFRA (2005) has made it clear that exceedance of a
GAC does not necessarily meet this legal test, i.e. exceedance of a GAC does not
necessarily equate to unacceptable risk. Consequently, the GACs must be considered as
screening values only and further consideration and judgement is required in setting any
remedial targets.
4.3 Estimation and Evaluation of Risks
Generic risk assessment is a two stage process. Firstly, the measured contaminant
concentrations are compared to the relevant GACs. This is the Risk Estimation stage.
Where there is a suitable dataset, this is done after carrying out statistical analysis to
determine the upper confidence limit on the true mean. Otherwise, maximum or specific data
points are compared directly.
The second stage, Risk Evaluation, comprises an authoritative review of the findings with
other pertinent information, in cases where the GACs are exceeded, in order to consider if
exceedance may be acceptable in the particular circumstances.
4.3.1 Statistical Tests
The ‘averaging area’ used in this report is the area of the site represented by the conceptual
model and in this case has been chosen to characterise materials that are likely to form the
ground cover in critical receptor areas (gardens and Public Open Space). As the site is all
21
R/10079E/002
areas outside of the footprint of the building/hardstanding will be gardens or Public Open
Space, the whole site is analysed as one ‘averaging area’. This is discussed in more detail in
Appendix D. All samples tested were from the Made Ground.
Initial Data Review (Hydrock Default Suite of Determinands)
The data set for each chemical determinand has been assessed for the presence of potential
outliers and to determine if the data are normally or non-normally distributed. This has been
done by reference to the quantile (q-q) plot and frequency histogram and applying a z-score
to the mean absolute deviation (as a measure of the deviation from the median). The
statistical assessment sheets are presented in Appendix E.
A potential outlier is defined as a data value that does not fit well with the rest of the values in
a data set. If it in not the result of a laboratory or typographic error, or it may be that the
sample in question is representative of a different data set, for example resulting from a
different contaminating incident. Alternatively, it may be that the number of samples is too
small to give a full spread of values where the site conditions are heterogeneous.
Any potential outliers have been considered in the light of the conceptual site model and a
decision made to include them with the other data in the following statistical assessment, or
to remove them. Where outliers have been removed, this is justified.
No outliers have been removed.
Statistical Test (Hydrock Default Suite of Determinands)
In line with the guidance provided by the CIEH (May 2008) the 95th upper confidence level
on the true mean (US95) has been calculated from the sample data. This means that there is
a 95% probability that the true mean concentration does not exceed this value, based on the
information given by the samples analysed.
A one-sample t-test has been used for data which do not depart significantly from a normal
distribution or the one-sided Chebychev Theorem has been used for non-normally distributed
data.
Under the land use planning system the aim is to demonstrate ‘suitability for use’. In
statistical language, a null hypothesis is stated; that the level of contamination is the same
as, or higher than, some critical concentration (in this case the GAC). The alternative
hypothesis is that the level of contamination is lower than the critical concentration. The
statistical test is used to decide whether or not the null hypothesis is rejected.
If it is rejected, it is concluded that the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true, i.e. that
contaminant concentrations are low relative to the critical concentration and that, potentially,
the land is suitable for use. Conversely, if the null hypothesis is not rejected, the assessor
22
R/10079E/002
should conclude that contaminant concentrations may be the same as, or higher than, the
critical concentration and further measures may be needed.
The results of the statistical assessment are given for each chemical of potential concern on
the sheets in Appendix E. Also given are summary sheets for human health and plant life.
Those chemicals of potential concern for which further assessment is required are
summarised in Table 4.1 for human health and are indicative of pervasive contamination of
lead and the following PAHs: benz(a)anthracene; benzo(a)pyrene; benzo(b)fluoranthene;
chrysene; dibenz(a,h)anthracene; and indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene.
Those chemicals of potential concern for which further assessment is required are
summarised in Table 4.2 for plant growth and are indicative of pervasive contamination of
zinc.
Table 4.1: Chemicals of Potential Concern for which Further Assessment is Required (Human Health)
No.
Generic Basis for Samples
Chemical of Potential No. Min. Max. US95
Criterion Generic Exceeding
Concern Samples (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
(mg/kg) Criterion Generic
Criterion
Superseded
Lead 450 SGV 10 16 86 2100 10 1347.1
Benz(a)anthracene 5.9 16 0.01 27 5 12.8
Benzo(a)pyrene 1 16 0.01 26 10 14.0
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7 LQM/CIEH 16 0.01 26 5 13.1

+ CLEA
1.06
Chrysene 9.3 16 0.01 28 5 13.6
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.9 16 0.01 4.3 5 2.5
Indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene 4.2 16 0.01 16 5 8.6
Table 4.2: Chemicals of Potential Concern for which Further Assessment is Required (Risk to Plants)
No.
Generic Samples
Chemical of Basis for Generic No. Min. Max. US95
Criterion Exceeding
Potential Concern Criterion Samples (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
(mg/kg) Generic
Criterion
Zinc 300 BS3882 2007 16 47 930 2 418.5
23
R/10079E/002
4.4 Pollution of Controlled Waters
The risks to groundwater and surface water from contaminants on site have been assessed
according to the remedial targets methodology (RTM) prescribed by the Environment Agency
(2006) as described in Appendix D. This was previously known as the “P20” methodology,
after the now-withdrawn R&D Publication 20. Depending on the possible pollution linkage(s)
and the available data, the quality of groundwater, perched water or soil leachate is
compared directly with generic criteria for the quality of Controlled Waters. No further, more
detailed, assessment has been made at this stage.
In cases where groundwater quality data have not been obtained directly, an indication of the
potential for pollution resulting from soil contamination can be obtained by a Level 1 (soil
zone) assessment. This considers whether the concentrations in the soil moisture are
sufficient to impact the water receptor(s) without taking into account attenuation, dilution or
dispersion. Pore water concentrations are determined by measurement of perched water
quality, from soil leaching tests, or by calculation from physico-chemical properties and are
compared with the generic criteria for the quality of Controlled Waters. The compliance point
is the soil zone.
Where more than one criterion is available it is important to apply the one relevant to the
critical receptor. The drinking water standards (DWS) apply to groundwater or to surface
water used for abstraction; the Surface Water Abstraction Directive (SWAD) standards may
also apply to surface water used for abstraction where water treatment works are in place
down stream; and the environmental quality standards (EQS) apply to surface water where
the aquatic ecosystem is the receptor. Where the most appropriate water quality criterion
cannot be determined with certainty, the lowest one is adopted in line with the precautionary
principle.
A summary of the protocol used is given in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Summary of Water Quality Risk Assessment Protocol
Samples Used (if Water Quality

Example Pollution Linkages
Available) Criteria
Contaminants from site leach or seep into groundwater
body and this is a (potential/actual) source of human Groundwater. DWS
consumption or a strategic resource. Soil leachate or
Contaminants from site leach or seep into groundwater perched water if no
groundwater DWS
body and this feeds surface water by base flow. The
available. SWAD
surface water may be used for human consumption and/or
EQS
is an aquatic ecosystem.
Contaminants from site leach or seep into surface water DWS
Soil leachate or
which may be used for human consumption and/or is an SWAD
perched water.
aquatic ecosystem. EQS
Note: some EQS are water hardness dependent. This is measured either in the receiving water or in groundwater (if it
is part of the pathway), or is estimated from national maps.
The results of the remedial targets methodology assessment are presented in Table 4.4.
24
R/10079E/002
Table 4.4: Summary of Remedial Targets Methodology Level 1 Soil Zone Assessment (from Soil
Leaching Analyses)
Chemical of Generic
No. Samples Range of Max. <
Potential Concern Criterion Basis of Criterion
Tested Concentrations (µg/l) Criterion
(µg/l) (µg/l)
Hardness as mg/l (used in some of

n/a 2 77-88 n/a
CaCO3 following)
UK/EU drinking
10
water
As 2 1.9-7.9 PASS
50 EQS freshwater
50 SWAD A1/A2
UK/EU drinking
1000
B water 2 <20-30 PASS
2000 EQS freshwater
700 WHO drinking water
Ba 2 <5.0 PASS
100/1000 SWAD A1/A2
UK/EU drinking
5 water
Cd SWAD A1/A2 2 <0.08-0.17 PASS
0.08-0.25* EQS freshwater

UK/EU drinking
50 water
SWAD A1/A2
Cr (total) 3.4 2 1.9-3.7 PASS
(Cr(VI))
EQS freshwater
4.7
(Cr(III))
UK/EU drinking
2000
water
Cu 2 2-9.7 PASS
40* EQS freshwater
50/n/a SWAD A1/A2
0.05 EQS freshwater
UK/EU drinking
Hg water 2 <0.5 PASS
1
SWAD A1/A2
20 EU drinking water
Ni 2 3-4.2 PASS
20 EQS freshwater
UK/EU drinking
25
water
Pb 2 3.3-7.9 FAIL
7.2 EQS freshwater
50 SWAD A1/A2
UK/EU drinking
Se 10 water 2 <1.0 PASS
SWAD A1/A2
V 60* EQS freshwater 2 3.1-7.6 PASS
300* EQS freshwater
Zn 2 <1.0-10 PASS
3000/5000 SWAD A1/A2
Cyanide (total) 1 EQS freshwater 2 <0.05 PASS
25
R/10079E/002
Chemical of Generic
No. Samples Range of Max. <
Potential Concern Criterion Basis of Criterion
Tested Concentrations (µg/l) Criterion
(µg/l) (µg/l)
UK/EU drinking
50 water
SWAD A1/A2
7.7 EQS freshwater
Phenols 2 <0.005 PASS
1/5 SWAD A1/A2
UK/EU drinking
Nitrate (NO3) 50,000 water 2 1.4-3.1 PASS
SWAD A1/A2
UK/EU drinking
250,000 water
Sulfate (SO4) SWAD A1/A2 2 10-16 PASS
400,000 EQS freshwater

Lab unable
2- to detect
Sulfide (S ) 0.25 EQS freshwater 2 <0.05
as low as
EQS
Hydrocarbons
(dissolved or 50/200 SWAD A1/A2 2 <0.2 PASS
emulsified) ***
PAH anthracene 0.1 EQS freshwater 2 <0.01 PASS
UK/EU drinking
0.01
PAH benzo(a)pyrene water 2 <0.01 PASS
0.05 EQS freshwater
PAH sum of
benzo(ghi)perylene
0.002 EQS freshwater 2 <0.01 PASS
indeno(1,2,3-
cd)pyrene
PAH sum of
benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.03 EQS freshwater 2 <0.01 PASS
benzo(k)fluoranthene
PAH fluoranthene 0.1 EQS freshwater 2 <0.01 PASS
PAH naphthalene 2.4 EQS freshwater 2 <0.01 PASS
PAH sum of
benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, UK/EU drinking
0.1 2 <0.01 PASS
benzo(ghi)perylene, water
indeno(1,2,3-
cd)pyrene
From Environment Agency (2002c) Appendix A and Agency web site (annual average basis), Water Quality Regulations
2001 and WHO 2004.
*- depends on water hardness and fish type, The site is in a hard to very hard water area according to<
www.britishwater.co.uk/Document/Download.aspx?uid=ee36c54e-925e-4b64-b732-b7b13aa6a638>
an appropriate EQS have been used.
*** - The SWAD specifies infra-red or gravimetric methods, both of which are no longer available, so GC-FID has been
used. Note that this is likely to give a different result as TPH determination is method dependent. Note also that standard
leaching tests are not truly representative of potential for hydrocarbon pollution and that the findings should be considered
as indicative only.
As these tests did not indicate any significantly elevated leachate, no samples from the
underlying natural strata were tested, as it is interpreted that no contamination will have
leached through to the underlying natural strata.
26
R/10079E/002
Since contamination of the groundwater body is of potential concern, the appropriate generic
criterion is the Drinking Water Standard (DWS). The table shows minor exceedances for
Lead in TP07 at 2.0m, 17.9 g/l compared to an EQS of 7.2 g/l. As this exceedance is
minor, Hydrock do not believe additional consideration is required with regards to risk to
controlled waters. This should, however, be confirmed with the Environment Agency.
4.5 Ground Gases
The risks associated with the ground gases methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are
assessed using BS 8485:2007 which cites the guidelines published by CIRIA (Wilson et al
2007) and the NHBC (Boyle and Witherington 2007). These guidelines were written so as to
be mutually consistent and are based on interpretation of the gas concentrations and the gas
flow rates, amongst other variables. They are compliant with the model procedures of
CLR11.
In the above guidance, ‘Situation B’ is defined as the specific development of low-rise (1 or 2

storey) housing with beam and block floors, vented sub-floor void and gardens. Initial risk
classification can be made according to NHBC Table 8.1. This determines the appropriate
risk strategy for protection, including the need to progress to generic quantitative risk
assessment (GQRA). Even where no risk assessment is recommended by this table, one
may be carried out if so desired. The GQRA is known as the ‘NHBC traffic light
classification’ as it uses red, amber and green designations to portray levels of risk.
‘Situation A’ covers all other forms of development. This uses a modified version of the
Wilson and Card (1999) methodology.
The development proposals for the subject site require consideration of Situation A.
The modified Wilson and Card assessment can be used by comparing the maximum gas
concentrations and gas screening values (GSV2) in Table 3.10 with the published table
(CIRIA Table 8.5).
One of the assumptions in using the published table is that the worst-case ground gas
regime has been identified on the site, for either CH4 or CO2, at the worst-case temporal
conditions that the site may be expected to encounter (such as immediately following rapid
changes in atmospheric pressure or prolonged rainfall).
The idealised frequency of monitoring is suggested in CIRIA Tables 5.5a and 5.5b. These
tables are adapted from Wilson and Haines (2005) Table 3 which gives examples of ground
conditions with the various gas generation potentials, ranging from inert Made Ground (very
low potential) to post 1960s domestic landfill (very high potential). It is judged from the
available evidence that the gas generation potential at the site is low and the sensitivity of the
development is moderate. This is on account of the amount and density of residential
housing proposed for the site. Consequently, an appropriate minimum monitoring regime is
2
Note: GSV is synonymous with ‘site characteristic hazardous gas flow rate’ (Qhgs) of BS 8485:2007.
27
R/10079E/002
4 readings over 1 month, provided other monitoring requirements are also met, such as
prevailing atmospheric pressure conditions (for example, BS 8485:2007 suggests monitoring
shall include a period of falling atmospheric pressure).
The monitoring strategy reported in Table 3.10 is adequate for a preliminary assessment and
the data gathered to date indicates the site to be Green. However, this is subject to change
after further gas monitoring which will be detailed in a subsequent letter report. In total, there
will be 4 monitoring visits made over the period of a month, which should be adequate to
assess the risk as no evidence of organic material was found in the Made Ground during
Ground Investigation. The implications are discussed in Section 6.5.2.
4.6 Findings of the Generic Risk Assessment
The findings of the generic risk assessment indicate that the substances listed in Table 4.5
will require further consideration.
Table 4.5: Summary of Unacceptable Pollution Linkages
Unacceptable Pollution Source

Receptor Group
Hotspots Pervasive
Lead and PAHs: benz(a)anthracene;

benzo(a)pyrene;
Human Health Nil benzo(b)fluoranthene; chrysene;
dibenz(a,h)anthracene; and
indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene
Plant Life Nil Zinc
One soil leachate sample exceeds drinking water standards for lead, however
as this exceedence is small Hydrock believe no additional consideration with
Controlled Waters
regards to risks to controlled water is required (subject to confirmation with the
Environment Agency).
Human health /
property (from Nil, subject to confirmation after further gas monitoring.
ground gases)
28
R/10079E/002
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Geotechnical aspects of the site are discussed in the following sections. Specific areas of
potential concern are indicated on the Site Zonation Plan in Appendix A with site-wide issues
listed in the notes. These are based on the preliminary risk assessment in Table 3.4 of
Report R.10079E.001 Desk Study at Elmington Sites A &B which has been updated
following the intrusive ground investigation works.
5.1 Proposed Development
It is understood that the proposed development at the site is to comprise a mixture of 8 and 6
storey apartments; 4 storey maisonettes and walk-up apartments; 3 storey terraced houses;
and associated road and service infrastructure. Also proposed are shared gardens and
private gardens.
Two 6-8 storey blocks are proposed and these will be located in the southwest of Site A and
the north of Site B. The 3 and 4 storey blocks will be located in the remainder of the site, with
Public Amenity Space located in the east of Site B.
Recent discussions indicate that the maximum building height may be limited to 4 storeys.
5.2 Flooding
A comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out for the site by Mott
Macdonald (Elmington Estate: Sites A & B: Flood Risk Assessment, ref.
265340/EVT/NVC/004/A).
The Mott Macdonald report concludes that there is negligible risk of fluvial, surface/overland
and sewerage flooding, but there is a high risk of groundwater flooding.
5.3 Site Preparation, Earthworks, Groundworks and Landscaping
Excavation within the Made Ground and the Kempton Park Gravel should be suitable with
conventional excavation machinery. Pneumatic tools are likely to be required to break out
buried obstructions, such as disused foundations and piles, within the Made Ground. Spoil
resulting from excavation within the Made Ground will not be suitable for reuse as
engineered fill and may either be used for landscaping (subject to further testing and
approvals/consents) or disposed of off-site.
Following breakout of hardstanding and any obstructions, the shallow soils should not
present any difficulty for conventional plant and equipment. Excavations undertaken during
site works were unstable in the Made Ground, the depth of tree influence and Kempton Park
Gravel and may require support.
29
R/10079E/002
It is essential that no site personnel enter any trenches unless there is adequate support and
this has been assessed by a competent person.
No groundwater was encountered in the trial pits during ground investigation, and there is
unlikely to be any perched water due to the presence of the permeable Kempton Park Gravel
beneath the Made Ground. However, as there are occurrences of clayey Made Ground and
clay at shallow depths within the Kempton Park Gravel, there is potential for relatively small
pockets of perched water. Any potential groundwater seepage during excavation emanating
from perched water tables should be dealt with by sump pumping.
Groundwater levels may vary from those at the time of the investigation, for example in
response to seasonal fluctuations.
There is an array of underground electricity cables, two (possibly removed) water mains and
a surface drain crossing the site. All services must be located by careful hand digging and
clearly marked or confirmed ‘dead’ prior to works commencing on site. For any excavations
in close proximity to mains services (it is assumed these are to be kept live for the majority of
the works), it must be ensured that the excavation walls are stable or appropriately battered
to a safe angle, temporary slope stability works may be required in any deep excavations.
It is envisaged that there will be a number of obstructions present on site. This will include
piles and shallow footings for demolished buildings which have been present in various
layouts throughout the sites history. Allowance should be made for the removal of these
structures. If the structures can not be removed (e.g. historical piles), these will need to be
surveyed in 3 dimensions and the new foundations will need to compensate for the historical
obstructions.
No groundworks should be carried out in the north of the sites until the demolition works on
the existing building shells have been completed. The structural integrity of these buildings is
uncertain and vibrations and loading/unloading in close proximity of these buildings may
cause instability.
Excavations close to third party buildings around the site boundaries should be considered
under the third Party Wall Act and care should be taken to avoid from ground movements
resulting from the works on site.
5.4 Foundations
The preliminary foundation designs in this section are based on the parameters given in
Section 3.3. Designs for Geotechnical Category 2 and 3 structures (according to EC7) are
not intended to be final and are presented to aid development proposals.
In response to the ground conditions that have been identified at the site, it is considered that
a combination of shallow spread and piled foundation solutions are likely to be appropriate
30
R/10079E/002
according to the depth of Made Ground and the loading induced by buildings of different
height.
Where there are areas of Made Ground deeper than 2.5m and where the proposed
development is for buildings of greater than 4 storeys, piled foundations or ground
improvement is recommended. These areas are generally located in the north and northeast
of Site B and the southwest of Site A (see Site Zonation Plan, drawing no. 10079/E/D006,
Appendix A). Where there is less than 2.5m of Made Ground and the buildings are less then
4 storeys or less, shallow foundations may be appropriate.
Detailed foundation design taking into account specific ground conditions in different areas of
the site will be required to confirm these foundation recommendations.
5.4.1 Shallow and Trenchfill Foundations
Clay was found at shallow depths (between approximately 1.0m and 2.0m begl) in the areas
of TP11 and TP12 (south of Site B) and TP15 and TP18 (southwest and east of Site A). The
clay was found to be of medium volume change potential.
NHBC Standards Chapter 4.2 states minimum foundation depths of 0.9m will be required for
strip and trench fill foundations within the medium plasticity clays in these areas of the site.
The shallow soils in the rest of the site are non-cohesive and are therefore of low volume
change potential and so a minimum depth of 0.75m is required according to the above
document.
However, Made Ground is present across the whole site and foundations are required to
penetrate the Made Ground and to embed into the natural strata by at least 300mm. As the
depth of the Made Ground differs across the site, the required depth of the shallow
foundations will differ also. These depths are detailed in the Foundation Zonation Plan,
drawing no. 10079/E/D006, with the area of shallow spread foundations split into 2 zones:
1.0m-2.0m depth in the south and southwest of Site B and in the southeast of Site A; and
2.0m-3.0m depth in the north of Site A.
As shallow spread foundations will be embedded in the granular soils across the majority of
the site, the correlation of SPT N-value, width of foundation and allowable bearing pressure
in Tomlinson (1986) is used to estimate allowable bearing pressure. Within the medium
dense sands and gravels of the Kempton Park Gravel, an allowable bearing pressure of
125kN/m2 can be assumed for strip footings of width 1.0m. This bearing pressure should
limit total foundation settlement to less than 25mm for foundation widths up to 1m. The
allowable bearing pressure reduces to 100kN/m2 at a foundation width of 2.0m. However, it is
not envisaged that foundations of width >1.0m will be used due to the excessive amount of
spoil that would be produced and the amount of concrete that would be needed to construct
the foundations.
31
R/10079E/002
Deepening of foundations in the areas where clay is present at shallow depths may be
required where foundations are within the zone of influence of existing or proposed trees
according to NHBC Standards Chapter 4.2. This is likely around the area of TP18 in the east
of Site A, where a 0.7m thick layer of clay is present at 1.4m to 2.1m begl within the Kempton
Park Gravel and large mature trees are in close proximity. Deepening may also be required
in the south of Site B, where a 1.0m thick clay layer is present at 1.0-2.1m begl. This may
require deepening of foundations to greater than 2.5m begl, which may change the
recommended foundation solution to piling or vibro-stone columns.
Where foundations are within the influence of trees and deeper than 1.5m begl, a suitable
compressible material or void former will be required (this includes piled foundations). Any
future or proposed planting of trees should be designed in accordance with NHBC standards,
Chapter 4.2.
Due to access issues, the area around the two existing building shells could not be fully
investigated, particularly in Site A. The nearest exploratory holes (TP14 and BH04) indicate
that the Made Ground around the building shell is at extends to approximately 1.5m to 2.0m
begl. Foundation depths have been recommended on this basis, however it should be noted
that further investigation will be required after demolition of the buildings. If spread
foundations are suitable, the existing foundations (which could be trench fill or piles) could
present hard spots which could lead to differential settlement or obstructions to foundation
excavations. If the Made Ground is found to be deeper than 2.5m, trench fill foundations are
unlikely to be suitable. Suitable alternative foundation solutions are likely to include piling or
ground improvement by vibro-stone columns (see Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.4). If the former
building is on piles, these may be able to be re-used subject to careful investigation.
Otherwise, they should be broken off to a suitable depth below formation level.
Spread foundations will span founding materials of different stiffness and should have mesh
reinforcement placed top and bottom.
Foundation formations should be inspected by a competent geotechnical engineer and any

soft or loose pockets should be excavated and replaced with suitable compacted fill or lean
mix concrete.
5.4.2 Piled Foundations
If the proposed development is to follow the plans in the feasibility study, this will involve the
construction of buildings greater than 4 storeys. For these heavily loaded 6-8 storey
structures, where deepening due to trees is greater than 2.5m and for structures located in
areas where Made Ground is greater than 2.5m begl, piles are recommended.
Based on the proven ground conditions, a number of piled solutions could be given
consideration e.g. Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) piles and continuous helical displacement
(CHD) piles. As the site is in urban environment, it is unlikely that driven piles will be an
appropriate construction method due to the excessive noise and vibration caused. The most
32
R/10079E/002
suitable choice of piling solution for the specific ground conditions should be discussed with
the specialist piling contractor.
Piles derive load bearing capacity from a combination of end bearing and skin friction. As
there are relatively large loads and the presence of two different types of heterogeneous
strata (the Kempton Park Gravel and the Lambeth Group), one option is that the piles should
penetrate these layers and terminate in the dense to very dense Thanet Sand. This would
equate to pile lengths of between approximately 15.0m and 18.0m.
However, as the strata above the Thanet Sand comprises mainly sands and gravels, the
bearing capacity offered by skin friction may be enough to allow the piles to be shorter and
be end bearing in the sands and gravels of either the Lambeth Group or the Kempton Park
Gravel. Full structural loading information will be required to enable the piling design to be
finalised and a specialist piling contractor should be consulted with regards to detailed pile
designs for the ground conditions in specific areas of the site.
It should be noted that groundwater was found in boreholes between 9.5 and 13.0m, so the
piling technique must be able to deal with water ingress and have adequate precautions
against necking and running sands.
If bored piles are the chosen piling method, there may be some instability within the sands
and gravels (especially below the water table) therefore it is likely that casing will be required
whilst piling.
It should be noted that the presence of obstructions in the Made Ground across the site
including disused foundations, piles and demolition rubble may impact the installation of piles
and either all obstructions will need to be identified or removed or methodology for this will
need to be accounted for in the pile design.
The Environment Agency may require a piling risk assessment to be undertaken, however
Hydrock do not believe this is necessary due to the risk to Controlled Waters being assessed
as negligible (see Section 3.7).
5.4.3 Consolidation and Differential Settlement
In the area of BH01, there is a layer of medium to high compressibility clay. This is likely to
give rise to consolidation settlement under heavy loads and this is another reason why piling
is recommended for the expected loads from the proposed 8 storey building. In this area of
the site (north of Site B) it is recommended that the piles should penetrate this clay layer.
It is possible that this clay may exist beneath the site at locations between boreholes, in
areas where shallow spread foundations have been recommended. For shallow spread
foundations, the pressure induced at a depth of 1.5 x the width of the foundation becomes
negligible (Tomlinson, 1986). Therefore at the depth of the clay at 7.5m begl, the applied
33
R/10079E/002
pressure from shallow foundations is likely to be negligible and differential settlement would
be unlikely to occur.
5.4.4 Ground Improvement
Vibro-stone columns often present more economical solutions to low-rise housing

development than piles. Although not recommended for the whole site, vibro-stone columns
may be possible as an alternative to piles in the centre of Sites A & B where the proposed
developments are 4 storey maisonettes. Vibro-stone columns may be viable in this area
subject to design by a specialist contractor. The stone columns would have to penetrate any
compressible silt/clay lenses encountered and terminate within the medium dense to dense
Kempton Park Gravel or underlying strata. The columns could offer allowable ground bearing
pressures of between 100kN/m2 to 150kN/m2 if installed at column spacing of between 1m
and 2m beneath the strip footings. It is recommended that the design of such ground
improvement is undertaken by specialist contractors.
5.4.5 Working Platforms
Prior to piling or undertaking vibro-stone columns, it will be necessary to undertake design

and construction of a working platform for tracked plant in accordance with BRE 470:2004.
Hydrock can assist with this design once detailed plant loading information is available in the
FPS Certificate.
5.5 Ground Floor Slabs
As deep Made Ground is present at the site it is recommended that suspended floor slabs
should be adopted in accordance with NHBC Standards.
Although the ground gas regime has been preliminarily classified as green, this is subject to
change on completion of further monitoring. Any gas mitigation measures identified as
necessary after subsequent monitoring should be incorporated into ground floor slabs.
5.6 Roads
The following design CBR values are appropriate for use:
As most of the site is covered by a thickness of Made Ground, between 1-2m, a CBR value
of <2.5% is recommended. However if roads are to be constructed on the natural strata, the
following CBR values should be used: 4% for the clay within the Kempton Park Gravel and
20% for the sand and gravel within the Kempton Park Gravel.
Proof rolling of the formation level will be required and any loose or soft spots to be removed
and replaced with an engineered granular fill. The formation level will also need to be
protected during inclement weather from deterioration.
34
R/10079E/002
A minimum construction thickness of 450mm is recommended to protect against frost heave

of the sub-formation.
5.7 Soakaways and Drainage
Due to the presence of deep Made Ground soakaways are not recommended for the
development.
5.8 Buried Concrete
Buried concrete classification is based on guidelines provided in BRE Special Digest 1.
The results of sulfate concentrations and pH values presented in Section 3.5 suggest Design
DS1 and AC1 for all strata, including the Made Ground. It is recommended that DS1 and
AC1 should be adopted for the design of all buried concrete. This equates to Designated
Concrete class DC-1 for a 50 year design life (see BS 8500-1 for details).
5.9 Uncertainties
All information, comments and opinions given in this report are based upon the ground
conditions encountered and the results of laboratory and field testing undertaken during the
ground investigation. It should be noted that there may be conditions at the site which are
different but have not been investigated.
In particular, the Lambeth Group is a heterogeneous strata comprising varying levels of sand,
gravel and clay, with differing ground conditions occurring within boreholes only
approximately ~70m apart. Therefore it is possible that between boreholes there are areas of
clay and silt at varying depths that were not encountered during ground investigation. Also,
ground water levels may vary due to seasonal or other effects and may at times differ from
those observed during the investigation.
5.10 Recommendations for Further Geotechnical Work
The following further geotechnical work is recommended to supplement the advice in this
report:
x Foundation depth due to tree survey in the areas where clay is located at shallow
depths;
x Further trial pitting in the areas of the existing building shells after demolition, to
determine the depth of Made Ground;
x Once building loads are known after the final design of the proposed development it will
be necessary for detailed pile design. Discussions should be held with piling contractors
regarding detailed pile designs for the specific ground conditions in different areas of the
35
R/10079E/002
site. If vibro-stone columns are considered viable, discussions should also be held with
vibro-stone column contractors; and
x Discussions should be held with the Environment Agency and Environmental Health
Organisation regarding conclusions within this report and regarding proposed methods of
foundation construction from an early stage.
36
R/10079E/002
6.0 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Human Health
The Made Ground is a pervasive source of lead and a number of PAHs. The areas of the site
that are proposed to be developed as private gardens or Public Open Space will require
remediation prior to redevelopment as housing to cut the source-pathway-receptor links
identified in the initial Risk Assessment.
The most suitable forms of remediation for these contaminants would be the installation of an
engineered cover system, further details of which are included in Section 6.7.
6.2 Controlled Waters
Although there was one minor exceedence of the EQS for lead in the soil leachate, Hydrock
believe there is no significant risk to controlled waters and subject to agreement by the
Environment Agency, no further assessment of groundwater risk is considered necessary.
6.3 Plant Life
There are two exceedances of Zinc above the relevant GACs for plant life. However, a clean
growing medium is included as part of the engineered cover system required for remediation
against Human Health risks, this also remediates against the risk to plant life.
6.4 Construction Materials
6.4.1 Water Pipelines
In accordance with the WRAS information and guidance note 9-04-03:
x The presence of a PAH values in excess of the respective WRAS trigger values may
warrant the use of Protectaline or similar proprietary barrier pipework for all water supplies
at the site.
x The presence of inorganic substances (arsenic, lead and mercury) in excess of the
respective WRAS trigger values indicates trenches excavated for water supply pipework
should be backfilled with clean stone.
x Whilst requirements may also include lining of trenches with an impermeable membrane,
Hydrock do not believe this is necessary (subject to confirmation by the water supply
company).
Confirmation of these recommendations should be sought from the water supply company
before services are laid.
37
R/10079E/002
6.5 Precautions Against Ground Gases
6.5.1 Radon
The BR 211 Report states that no radon protection is required for new dwellings at this
location. However, Hydrock understands that the Building Regulations may be updated in the
near future to include basic radon protection measures as standard, and so consideration of
installing basic measures should be made at this stage.
6.5.2 Landfill Gases
As only two gas monitoring rounds have been undertaken, the ground gas data is not
sufficiently comprehensive to provide a full understanding of the ground gas regime yet. The
data to date puts the site in Green, but the worst-case conditions may not have been
observed.
Further monitoring will be completed and detailed in a subsequent letter report.
6.6 Waste Management
Any material excavated on site may be classified as waste and it is the responsibility of the
holder of a material to form their own view on whether or not it is waste. This includes
determining when waste that has been treated in some way can cease to be classed as
waste for a particular purpose.
One of the ways this can be achieved is set out in the Development Industry Code of
Practice (CoP) (CL:AIRE, September 2008).
The handling, re-use or disposal of waste is regulated by the Environment Agency. The
Agency will take into account the use of the CoP in deciding whether to regulate materials as
waste. If materials are dealt with in accordance with the CoP, the Agency considers that
those materials are unlikely to be waste at the point when they are to be used for the
purpose of land development. This may be because the materials were never discarded in
the first place, or because they have been submitted to a recovery operation and have been
completely recovered so that they have ceased to be waste.
Further details of the CoP and the classification of waste are presented in Appendix F.
6.7 Remedial Strategy
A preferred remedial strategy for the site will have to be developed in consultation with the
design team and the regulatory authorities. Liaison should be continued during
implementation and subsequent validation.
38
R/10079E/002
Human Health
Based on the pervasive elevated concentrations of lead and PAH there is a requirement for
an engineered cover system to break the pollutant linkages with regards to human health.
With the information available from the current investigation the following approach is
suggested:
If levels allow, leave the Made Ground in place over the whole site and install an engineered
cover system in the areas of the proposed private gardens and Public Open Spaces. The
engineered cover system should be designed according to the BRE guidance (Hollingsworth
2004).
This engineered cover system is proposed to consist of:
x a geotextile layer placed immediately onto the Made Ground;
x 200mm crushed concrete capillary break layer;
x a geotextile marker layer; and
x 400mm clean imported subsoil and topsoil (with a minimum topsoil thickness of 150mm).
If levels do not allow, this soil will need to be removed from site to allow the installation of a
clean cover system.
Plant Growth:
The Made Ground is a pervasive source of zinc. Detriment to plant life is difficult to quantify
but the recommended course of action is to import a clean growing medium. This is already
recommended as part of the engineered cover system for human health risk and therefore no
further remediation is necessary.
6.8 Uncertainties
Uncertainties or limitations associated with these conclusions are as follows:
x consultation with the Environment Agency will be required with regards to the conclusions
concerning the risks to Controlled Waters; and
x subsequent ground gas monitoring rounds are required to confirm preliminary

assessments with regards to classification of the site (and will be undertaken and reported
in a separate letter report).
39
R/10079E/002
6.9 Recommendations for Further Geo-Environmental Work
x Discussions should be held with the Environment Agency regarding the conclusions of
this report, particularly those relating to risk to controlled waters.
x A Materials Management Plan should be produced with regards to the site.
x A detailed Remediation Method Statement should be produced with regards to the site.
40
R/10079E/002
7.0 REFERENCES
ALLEN, D. L., BREWERTON, L. J., COLEBY, L. M., GIBBS, B. R., LEWIS, M. A.,
MACDONALD, A. M., WAGSTAFF, S. J. and WILLIAMS, A.T. 1997. The physical properties
of major aquifers in England and Wales. British Geological Survey Technical Report
WD/97/34. 312pp. Environment Agency R&D Publication 8.
BOYLE, R. and WITHERINGTON, P. JANUARY 2007. Guidance on evaluation of

development proposals on sites where methane and carbon dioxide are present. Report No.
10627-R01(04). NHBC, Milton Keynes. 93pp + apps.
BRE. 1991. Soakaways. BRE Digest 365. BRE, Garston.
BRE. 2001. Concrete in aggressive ground. BRE Special Digest 1, Parts 1 to 4. BRE,
Garston.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 1990. Method of tests for soils for civil engineering
purposes. BS 1377. Parts 1 - 9. BSI, London.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 1999. Code of practice for Site Investigations. BS

5930. BSI, London.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 2001. Code of Practice for Investigation of Potentially

Contaminated sites. BS 10175. BSI, London.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 2002. Characterisation of waste : leaching :

compliance test for leaching of granular waste materials and sludges one stage batch test at
liquid to solid ratio of 10 l/kg for materials with particle size below 4 mm : without or with size
reduction. BS EN 12457: Part 2. BSI, London.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 2004. Soil quality. Characterization of soil related to

groundwater protection. ISO 15175. BSI, London.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 2006. Concrete – complementary British Standard to

BS EN 206-1 – Part 1: Method of specifying and guidance to the specifier. BS 8500-1. BSI,
London.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 2007. Code of practice for the characterization and
remediation from ground gas in affected developments. BS 8485. BSI, London.
CIEH and CL:AIRE. May 2008. Guidance on comparing soil contamination data with a critical
concentration. Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and Contaminated Land:
Applications in Real Environments, London, 66pp.
41
R/10079E/002
CL:AIRE. September 2008. The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice.
Contaminated Land: Applications in the Real Environment (CL:AIRE), London.
CLAYTON, C. R. I. 2001. Managing Geotechnical Risk. Improving productivity in UK building

and construction. Thomas Telford, London. 80 pp.
DCLG. November 2004. Planning and pollution control. Planning Policy Statement 23.
DCLG. December 2006. Development and flood risk. Planning Policy Statement 25.
DCLG. February 2007. Development and Flood Risk: A Practice Guide Companion to PPS25
'Living Draft' - A Consultation Paper.
DEFRA. September 2006. Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A. Contaminated Land.
Circular 01/2006, DEFRA, London.
DEFRA. 1 September 2005. Soil Guideline Values and the Determination of Land as
Contaminated Land under Part IIA. Guidance Note CLAN 2/05. DEFRA/LEQ, London.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. June 2009. Science Report – SC050021/Phenol SGV. The

Environment Agency, Bristol,
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2009c. CLEA Software (Version 1.04) Handbook. Science

Report – SC050021/SR4. The Environment Agency, Bristol, 121pp.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2009b. Updated technical background to the CLEA model.

Science Report – SC050021/SR3. The Environment Agency, Bristol, 164pp.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2009a. Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants

in soil. Science Report – Final SC050021/SR2. The Environment Agency, Bristol, 71pp.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2006. Remedial Targets Methodology. Hydrogeological Risk

Assessment for Land Contamination. The Environment Agency, Bristol, 123pp.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. April 2006. The Definition of Waste: developing greenfield and
brownfield sites.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2004. Model procedures for the management of land

contamination. Contaminated Land Report 11. The Environment Agency.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2003. Hazardous Waste. Interpretation of the definition and

classification of hazardous waste. Technical Guidance WM2. The Environment Agency.
42
R/10079E/002
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2002a. Assessment of risks to human health from land

contamination: an overview of the development of soil guideline values and related research.
Contaminated Land Report 7. The Environment Agency.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2002c. Environment Agency Technical Guidance to Third Parties

on Pollution of Controlled Waters for Part IIA of the EPA 1990, Version 2.0. The Environment
Agency.
HARTLESS, R. 1991. Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated land. Building

Research Establishment Report BR 212. BRE, Garston.
HOLLINGSWORTH, S. C.. 2004. Cover systems for land regeneration. BRE, Garston. 88pp +
CD-ROM.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON THE REDEVELOPMENT OF CONTAMINATED

LAND. 1983. Notes on the Redevelopment of Scrap Yards and Similar Sites. ICRCL 42/80
(2nd Ed). DETR, Rotherham.

LAND. 1987. Guidance on the assessment of contaminated land. ICRCL 59/83 (2nd Ed).
DETR, Rotherham.

LAND. 1990. Notes on the restoration and aftercare of metalliferous mining sites for pasture
and grazing. ICRCL 70/90. DETR, Rotherham.
JOHNSON, R. 2001. Protective measures for housing on gas contaminated land. Building
Research Establishment Report BR 414. BRE, Garston.
JONES, H. K., MORRIS, B. L., CHENEY, C. S., BREWERTON, L. J., MERRIN, P. D.,
LEWIS, M. A., MACDONALD, A. M., COLEBY, L. M., TALBOT, J. C., MCKENZIE, A. A.,
BIRD, M. J., CUNNINGHAM, J. and ROBINSON, V. K. 2000. The physical properties of
minor aquifers in England and Wales. British Geological Survey Technical Report WD/00/04.
234pp. Environment Agency R&D Publication 68.
MILES, J. C. H., APPLETON, J. D., REES, D. M., GREEN, B. M. R., ADLAM< K. A. M. and
MYRES. A. H. 2007. Indicative Atlas of Radon in England and Wales. Health Protection
Agency and British Geological Survey. Report HPA-RPD-033.
NATIONAL HOUSE-BUILDING COUNCIL. September 2007. Ground Conditions. NHBC

Standards, Part 4. NHBC, Amersham.
NATIONAL HOUSE-BUILDING COUNCIL. September 2007. Building near trees. NHBC

Standards, Part 4.2. NHBC, Amersham.
43
R/10079E/002
RUDLAND, D. J., LANCEFIELD, R. M. and MAYELL, P. N. 2001. Contaminated land risk

assessment. A guide to good practice. CIRIA Report C552. CIRIA, London. 158 pp.
SCIVYER, C. 2007. Radon: Guidance on protective measures for new buildings, extensions,
conversions and refurbishment (2007 edition). Building Research Establishment Report
BR 211. BRE, Garston.
THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY. 2002. Managing Geotechnical Risk. Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges. Vol. 4, Section 1, Part 2, HD 22/02.
TOMLINSON, M. J. 1986. Foundation Design and Construction (5th edition). Longman

Scientific & Technical.
WATER REGULATIONS ADVISORY SCHEME (WRAS). October 2002. The selection of

materials for water supply pipes to be laid in contaminated land. Information and Guidance
Note No. 9-04-03, Issue 1.
WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT. July 2004. Development and flood risk. Planning
Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 15.
WILSON, S.A. and CARD, G.B. 1999. Reliability and risk in gas protection design. Ground
Engineering, February 1999, 33-36, plus letters in March 1999.
WILSON, S. and HAINES, S. 2005. Site investigation and monitoring for ground gas
assessment – back to basics. Land Contamination and Reclamation 13(3), 211-222.
WILSON, S., OLIVER, S., MALLETT, H., HUTCHINGS, H. and CARD, G. 2007. Assessing
risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings. CIRIA Report C665. CIRIA, London.
182pp.
UK WATER INDUSTRY RESEARCH LTD. 2004. Pipe Materials Selection and Specification
for use in Contaminated Land. Set of Final Project Report (04/WM/03/9) and five Best
Practice Manual Booklets (04/WM/03/10, 11, 12, 14 & 15). UK Water Industry Research Ltd.
research reports, London.
Hydrock Consultants Limited
44
R/10079E/002
Appendix A
SITE LOCATION PLAN, SITE SURVEY PLAN, SITE

FEATURES PLAN, EXPLORATORY HOLE LOCATION PLAN,
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SITE ZONATION PLAN,
SERVICE PLANS & CROSS SECTIONS
Appendix A - 0

RE: Edmund Street, Camberwell SE5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RE: Edmund Street, Camberwell SE5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7th December 2011

RE: Edmund Street, Camberwell SE5

Contamination Mitigation Strategy

We trust this is acceptable.

Cc: Martin Hall at GVA

RSK Land & Development Engineering Ltd

Tel: 01604 842888 Fax: 01604 842666

Notting Hill Housing Trust

Hydrock Ref: R/10079E/002

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

Tel: 01604 842888

Client: NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST

Project: ELMINGTON SITES A & B, CAMBERWELL

Title: GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT

Date: June 2010

Document Production Record

Issue Number: 1 Name Signature

Prepared Sarah Gregg

Checked Chris Vincett and Allan Bell

Approved Allan Bell

Document Revision Record

Issue number Date Revision Details

Appendix B EXPLORATORY HOLE LOGS & PHOTOGRAPHS

Appendix C GEOTECHNICAL TEST RESULTS & SPT DEPTH PLOTS

Appendix D RISK ASSESSMENT RATIONALE

Appendix E CONTAMINATION TEST RESULTS & STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Appendix F WASTE MANAGEMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

Client Notting Hill Housing Trust.

Site Elmington Sites A & B, Camberwell.

Geology The geology of the site generally comprises:

Regulatory There is an area of Japanese Knotweed on Site A.

I.e. Basis for Source(s) potential Impact on Receptor(s)

Asbestos in the Made Ground or building Site workers

Ground The ground investigation comprised:

Macdonald (Elmington Estate: Sites A & B: Flood Risk Assessment, ref.

Foundations Shallow and Trenchfill Foundations

Contamination Human Health

Further Work x Foundation depth due to tree survey;

Hydrock Consultants Limited

1.1 Terms of Reference

The scope of work for this commission comprises:

x reporting on findings of the ground investigation, geo-environmental assessment of the

x initial categorisation of geotechnical design requirements for the proposed development

1.5 Report Structure

The Geotechnical Interpretation and Recommendations (Section 5.0) categorises the

1.6 Information Sources Provided by the Client

x Mott Macdonald, ‘Elmington Sites A & B: Additional Protected Species Surveys:

x Museum of London Archaeology, ‘Site Surveys, Elmington Estate, London SE5:

x Mott Macdonald, ‘Elmington Estate: Sites A & B: Ecological Assessment,’ ref.

x Hurst Surveys, ‘Topographic Survey, Elmington Estate, Edmund Street, Camberwell,

2.0 GROUND INVESTIGATION

2.1 Investigation Rationale

The ground investigation comprised the following:

2.2 Site Works

Table 2.1: Summary of Site Works

Trial pits Machine (JCB 3X) 19 4.0m n/a n/a

2.3 Geotechnical Testing

2.3.1 In Situ Testing

2.3.2 Laboratory Testing

x 9 natural moisture contents;

x 7 particle size distribution analyses;