01.3 Ground Investigation RPT

Proposed development
Thurrock Central Hub

Stanford Le Hope
Ground Investigation Report
Cedar Barn, White Lodge, Walgrave, Northamptonshire NN6 9PY

t: 01604 781877 e: mail@soiltechnics.net
f: 01604 781007 w: www.soiltechnics.net
Thurrock Central Hub, Stanford-le-Hope
Thurrock Central Hub
Stanford Le Hope
SS17 7ES
GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
Soiltechnics Ltd. Cedar Barn, White Lodge, Walgrave, Northampton. NN6 9PY.
Tel: (01604) 781877 Fax: (01604) 781007 E-mail: mail@soiltechnics.net
Report originators
Prepared
by
stuart.hadley@soiltechnics.net
Stuart Hadley B.Sc. (Hons)., M.Sc. Assistant geo-environmental Engineer, Soiltechnics Limited
Supervised
by
seb.crolla@soiltechnics.net
Seb Crolla B.Sc, (Hons), MIEnvSc., FGS. Senior geo-environmental Engineer, Soiltechnics Limited
Reviewed
by
stephen.cragg@soiltechnics.net
Stephen Cragg B.Sc (Hons)., F.G.S. Director, Soiltechnics Limited



Report: STM3323B-G01 Page 1 of 4 October 2015
Revision 0 Report section 0
Aerial photograph of site



Report status and format

Report Principal coverage Report status
section Revision Comments
1 Executive summary
2 Introduction
3 Desk study information and site observations
4 Fieldwork
5 Ground conditions encountered
6 Laboratory testing
7 Engineering assessment
8 Chemical contamination
9 Gaseous contamination
10 Effects of ground conditions on building materials
11 Classification of waste soils under the Waste Acceptance
Criteria
12 Further investigations
13 Remediation statement
14 Drawings
List of drawings
Drawing Principal coverage Status
Revision Comments
01 Site location plan
02 Plan showing existing site features, proposed development
and location of exploratory points
03 Plot summarising in-situ density testing (dynamic cone
penetration testing)
04a Plot summarising results of pocket penetrometer
determinations by location
04b Plot summarising results of pocket penetrometer
determinations by geology
05 Plot summarizing ratio between 0.4 x W L and soil moisture
content (%)
06 Plot summarising moisture content (%) vs depth



List of appendices
Appendix Content
A Definitions of geotechnical terms used in this report

B Definitions of geo-environmental terms used in this report
C Trial pit records
D Borehole records (driven tube sampler)
E Soil infiltration test records and calculations
F Copies of laboratory test result certificates – classification and physical testing
G Copies of laboratory test result certificates – concentrations of chemical contaminants
H Analysis and summary of test data in relation to concentrations of chemical contaminants
I Conceptual models for chemical contamination
J Landfill waste acceptance criteria - primary classification
K Landfill waste acceptance criteria - secondary classification
L Landfill waste acceptance criteria - basic categorisation schedules
M Copy of desk study information produced by Envirocheck



1 Executive summary
1.1 General
1.1.1 We recommend the following executive summary is not read in isolation to the main
report which follows.
1.2 Site description, history and development proposals

1.2.1 The site is located within a predominately residential area. At the time of our
investigation the site comprised of vacant open space.
1.2.2 A review of historical maps indicates the site remained undeveloped until c1960,
after which time a school is recorded.
1.2.3 We understand the scheme will comprise the construction of a two storey steel
framed building providing clinical and office accommodation together with an access
road and car park.
1.3 Ground conditions encountered

1.3.1 The exploratory excavations encountered Made Ground overlying Head deposits,
which in turn overlie the London Clay Formation.
1.3.2 No groundwater was encountered.
1.4 Foundation solution

1.4.1 In our opinion, the naturally deposited Head deposits will adequately support the
proposed building on concrete spread foundations. There are a number of trees at
the site that will require deepened foundations.
1.4.2 The Head and London Clay soils are effectively impermeable and would not be able
to dispose of stormwater using soakaway systems.
1.5 Chemical and gaseous contamination

1.5.1 Human, vegetation and controlled waters receptors are at low risk from ground
conditions at the site.
1.5.2 Measures to protect against ground gases (methane, carbon dioxide and radon) are
not required for new buildings at the site.
1.6 Landfill classification

1.6.1 Made Ground, Head and London Clay Formation soils are all suitable for disposal as
inert waste.



2 Introduction
2.1 Objectives
2.2 Client instructions and confidentiality
2.3 Site location and scheme proposals
2.4 Report format and investigation standards
2.5 Status of this report
2.6 Report distribution
2.1 Objectives
2.1.1 This report describes a ground investigation carried out for a proposed development
at The Sorrells, Standford-le-Hope, Essex.
2.1.2 The objective of the ground investigation was to establish ground conditions at the
site, sufficient to identify possible foundation solutions for the development and
provide parameters necessary for the design and construction of foundations.
2.1.3 The investigation included an evaluation of potential chemical and gaseous

contamination of the site leading to the production of a risk assessment in relation
to contamination.
2.1.4 The investigation has also been produced to support a planning application for the
site by satisfying National Planning Policies Framework sections 120 and 121.
2.1.5 Our brief also included investigations and testing to allow classification of soils at the
site to be disposed of to landfill.
2.2 Client instructions and confidentiality

2.2.1 The investigation was carried out in September 2015 and reported in October 2015
acting on instructions received from our client, Willmott Dixon Construction Limited.
2.2.2 This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of our above named instructing
client, but this report, and its contents, remains the property of Soiltechnics Limited
until payment in full of our invoices in connection with production of this report.
2.2.3 The original investigation scope was defined by Price and Myers in their ‘Site
Investigation Scope of Works Document’ ref 24146 dated June 2015. The
investigation scope was subsequently amended by Soiltechnics with our final
proposal contained in our email to Willmott Dixon of 18th August 2015.
2.3 Site location and scheme proposals

2.3.1 The National Grid reference for the site is 569720, 183350. A plan showing the
location of the site is presented on Drawing 01.



2.3.2 We understand the scheme will comprise the construction of a two storey steel
framed building providing clinical and office accommodation together with an access
road and car park.
2.3.3 We have received layout drawings of the proposed scheme with the layout
presented on Drawing 02.
2.4 Report format and investigation standards

2.4.1 Sections 2 to 6 of this report describe the factual aspects of the investigation with
Section 7 presenting an engineering assessment of the investigatory data. Section 8
provides a risk assessment of chemical contamination based on readily available
historic records, inspection of the soils and laboratory testing. Section 9 provides a
similar risk assessment in relation to gaseous contamination with Section 10, a risk
assessment relating to construction materials likely to be in contact with the ground.
Section 11 provides a classification of waste soils for off-site disposal under the
waste acceptance criteria.
2.4.2 This investigation integrates both contamination and geotechnical aspects. The
investigation was carried out generally, and where practical following the
recommendations of BS EN 1997:2 2007 ‘Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical Design – Part 2:
Ground Investigation and Testing’. The investigation process also followed the
principles of BS10175: 2011 ‘Investigation of potentially Contaminated Sites – Code
of Practice’. In view of the client’s requirement for rapid implementation of the
investigation, the following elements, defined in BS10175, have been completed and
incorporated in this report.
a) Phase I Preliminary investigation (desk study and site

reconnaissance)
b) Phase II Exploratory and main (intrusive) investigations
2.4.3 The extent and result of the preliminary investigation (desk study) is reported in
Section 3. Fieldwork combined the exploratory investigation and main investigation
stages into one phase with the extent of these works described in Sections 4 and 6 of
this report. Any supplementary investigations deemed necessary are identified in
Section 12. Section 13 provides information on any remedial strategy and
specification if required.
2.5 Status of this report

2.5.1 This report is final based on our current instructions.



2.5.2 This investigation has been carried out and reported based on our understanding of
best practice. Improved practices, technology, new information and changes in
legislation may necessitate an alteration to the report in whole or part after
publication. Hence, should the development commence after expiry of one year
from the publication date of this report then we would recommend the report be
referred back to Soiltechnics for reassessment. Equally, if the nature of the
development changes, Soiltechnics should be advised and a reassessment carried
out if considered appropriate.
2.6 Report distribution

2.6.1 This report has been prepared to assist in the design and planning process of the
development and normally will require distribution to the following parties, although
this list may not be exhaustive:
Table summarising parties likely to require information contained in this report

Party Reason
Client For information / reference and cost planning
Developer / Contractor / project To ensure procedures are implemented, programmed and
manager costed
Planning department Potentially to discharge planning conditions
Environment Agency If ground controlled waters are affected and obtain approvals to
any remediation strategies
Independent inspectors such as To ensure procedures are implemented and compliance with
Building Control building regulations
Project design team To progress the design
Principal Designer (PD) To advise in construction risk identification and management
under the Construction (design and management) regulations
Waste recycling operators (if For recycling or reducing hazardous properties (if and where
appropriate) appropriate)
Table 2.6



3 Desk study information and site observations

3.1 General
3.2 Description of the site
3.3 Injurious and invasive weeds and asbestos
3.4 History of the site
3.5 Geology and geohydrology of the area
3.6 Landfill and infilled ground
3.7 Radon
3.8 Flood risk
3.9 Enquiries with Local Authority Building Control and Environmental
Health Officers
3.1 General
3.1.1 We have carried out a desk study which was limited to a review of readily available
information including:
a) Review of published Ordnance Survey maps dating back to 1876 at various

published scales
b) Inspection of geological maps produced by the British Geological Survey
together with relevant geological memoirs
c) Consultation with Statutory Undertakers
d) Site reconnaissance
e) Other relevant published documents
3.1.2 We have obtained old Ordnance Survey maps using the Envirocheck database
system. In addition to retrieval of historical and current Ordnance Survey data,
Envirocheck provide information compiled from outside agencies including: -
• Ordnance Survey • Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

• Environment Agency • Countryside Council for Wales
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency • Scottish Natural Heritage
• The Coal Authority • Natural England
• British Geological Survey • Health Protection Agency
3.1.3 The study did not extend to research of meteorological information or consultation
with other interested parties such as English Heritage (ancient monuments),
Ordnance Survey (survey control points), Planning Authorities or Archaeological
Units.



3.1.4 A copy of records produced by Envirocheck is presented in Appendix M. Envirocheck

produce a wealth of factual database information. Although we can provide a
discussion on each of the database topics, this would produce a very lengthy
document, but some of these discussions would not be relevant to the aims of this
report. As a consequence we have extracted some of the relevant topics and
discussed them in this section of the report.
3.1.5 The data presented in the following report sections has primarily been extracted
from the Envirocheck report.
3.2 Description of the site

3.2.1 The site is situated on topographically level ground on a shallow-sided valley carrying
the tidal reaches of the River Thames, the channel of which is located approximately
2km to the south. The nearest surface water feature is a pond recorded 618m to the
south of the site. The site is located in a predominately residential area in the north-
east of Stanford-le-Hope.
3.2.2 At the time of our investigation, the site comprised of predominately of vacant open
space with timber sheds and a domestic-type garage in the south-eastern corner.
The majority of the site was surfaced in concrete with sporadic areas of gravel,
paving slabs, grass and scrub vegetation.
3.2.3 Site levels are generally uniform. Dense vegetation and trees between
approximately 4m and 6m in height were observed within the main body of the site
with trees up to 8m in height present along the eastern site boundary.
3.2.4 Site boundaries were defined by a 2m high post and wire fence to the north-west
and a timber panel and concrete post fence to the north-east ranging between
approximately 1.5m and 2.0m in height. The remainder of the site boundaries were
undefined. Residential properties lay beyond the site to the north, Sorrells Road to
the east, a dental surgery to the south-east and Graham James Primary School to the
west. The photographs below show site conditions at the time of our visit:
Photograph of the
north-east of the
site, looking west
showing the
boundary wall and
adjoining dwelling



Photograph of
the centre of the
site, looking west
with dental
surgery in the
background
3.2.5. A plan showing observed site features and location of exploratory points together
with scheme proposals is presented on Drawing 02.
3.3 Injurious and invasive weeds and asbestos

3.3.1 Injurious and invasive weeds
3.3.1.1 The following weeds are controlled under the Weeds Act 1959:
• Common Ragwort,
• Spear Thistle,
• Creeping or Field Thistle,
• Broad leaved Dock
• Curled Dock
3.3.1.2 Whilst it is not an offence to have the above weeds growing on your land, you must:
• Stop them spreading to agricultural land, particularly grazing areas or land

used for forage, like silage and hay
• Choose the most appropriate control method for the your site
• Not plant them in the wild
Should you allow the spread of these weeds to another parties land, Natural England
could serve you with an Enforcement Notice. You can also be prosecuted if you
allow animals to suffer by eating these weeds.



3.3.1.3 In addition to the above, you must not plant in the wild or cause certain invasive and
non-native plants to grow in the wild as outlined in the Wildlife and Countryside act
1981. It is an offence under section 14(2) of the act to ‘plant or otherwise cause to
grow in the wild’ any plants listed in schedule 9, part II. This can include moving
contaminated soil or plant cuttings. The offence carries a fine or custodial sentence
of up to 2 years. The most commonly found invasive, non-native plants include:
• Japanese knotweed
• Giant hogweed
• Himalayan balsam
• Rhododendron ponticum
• New Zealand pigmyweed
3.3.1.4 You are not legally obliged to remove these plants or to control them. However, if
you allow Japanese knotweed to spread to another parties land, you could be
prosecuted for causing a private nuisance.
3.3.1.5 The presence of such weeds on site may have considerable effects on the cost /
timescale in developing the site. Japanese knotweed can cause significant damage
to buildings, roads and pavements following development, if untreated prior to
development.
3.3.1.6 Our investigations exclude surveys to identify the presence of injurious and invasive
weeds. We did not observe any obvious evidence the above species, however, we
recommend specialists in the identification and procedures to deal with injurious
and invasive weeds are appointed prior to commencement of any works on site.
3.3.2 Asbestos
3.3.2.1 Our investigations exclude surveys to identify the presence or indeed absence of
asbestos on site. It should be noted however, that where intrusive investigations
were undertaken we did not observe any obvious evidence of potential asbestos
containing materials. This information does not constitute a site specific risk
assessment and we recommend specialists in the identification and control /
disposal of asbestos are appointed prior to commencement of any works on site.
3.3.2.2 The presence of asbestos on site may have considerable effects on the cost /
timescale in developing the site. There is good guidance in relation to asbestos
available on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) web site.



3.4 History of the site

3.4.1 An attempt to trace the history of the site has been carried out by obtaining copies
of old Ordnance Survey maps provided by Envirocheck. The recent history of the site
based on published Ordnance Survey maps is summarised on the following table: -
Summary description of site history from Ordnance Survey maps

Date Historical Usage Comment
1876 Site occupied by fields. Site surrounded by open fields.
1950 No significant change. A Cart Track is recorded some 5m to the south-
west of the site.
1968 Graham James County Infant Site bordered by residential properties and a field
School is recorded on site, to the west. A commercial building borders the site
with the main building to the south-east.
towards the west.
1985 - 1992 No significant change. Graham James County Primary School is recorded
adjacent to the west of the site.
2015 The School is no longer No significant change.
present. Two buildings are
recorded adjacent to the
north-eastern site boundary.
Table 3.4.1
3.5 Geology and geohydrology of the area

3.5.1 Geology of the area
3.5.1.1 Envirocheck reproduce geological map extracts taken from the British Geological
Survey (BGS) digital geological map of Great Britain at 1:50,000 scale (ref Appendix
M). A summary of the recorded geological information for the site is presented in
Table 3.5.1.below:-
Summary of Geology and likely aquifer containing strata

Strata Bedrock or Approximate Typical soil Likely Aquifer
superficial thickness type permeability designation
London Clay Bedrock 8-12m Clays Impermeable Unproductive
Formation strata (r)
Lambeth Bedrock 15m Clay, sand and Marginally Secondary A
Group gravel permeable (r)
Thanet Sand Bedrock 20m Fine sand and Permeable Secondary A
Formation silt (r)
White Chalk Bedrock 200m Chalk Permeable Principal
Subgroup aquifer (a)
Table 3.5.1
(r) recorded aquifer designation

(a) assumed aquifer designation



3.5.1.2 Superficial deposits are the youngest geological deposits formed during the
Quaternary, which extends back about 2.6 million years. They rest on older deposits
or rocks referred to as bedrock. Soil types and assessments of permeability are
based on geological memoirs, in combination with our experience of investigations
in these soil types.
3.5.1.3 Unproductive strata are defined as deposits exhibiting low permeability with
negligible significance for water supply or river base flow. Unproductive Strata are
generally regarded as not containing groundwater in exploitable quantities.
3.5.1.4 Secondary A aquifers are predominantly permeable layers capable of supporting

water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale. In some cases, Secondary A
aquifers can form an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally
aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers.
3.5.1.5 Principal aquifers are defined as deposits exhibiting high permeability capable of
high levels of groundwater storage. Such deposits are able to support water supply
and river base flows on a strategic scale.
3.5.2 Water abstractions
3.5.2.1 One active groundwater abstraction point is recorded 1802m to the south-west of
the site. Groundwater is abstracted for Industrial/commercial/public services use. A
single surface water abstraction is recorded 1840m to the east of the site, licensed
for spray irrigation use.
3.5.2.2 The site is not located within a zone protecting a potable water supply abstracting
from a principal aquifer (i.e. a source protection zone).
3.5.3 Coal mining and brine extraction
3.5.3.1 The site is not recorded to be within an area affected by past or present coal mining,
or minerals worked in association with coal or brine extraction (within the Cheshire
Brine Compensation District).
3.5.4 Shallow mining and natural subsidence hazards
3.5.4.1 The British Geological Survey present hazard ratings for shallow mining and natural
subsidence hazards. The site has the following ratings;
Table summarising mining and subsidence hazards

Hazard Rating
Mining hazard in non-coal mining areas No hazard
Potential for collapsible ground stability hazard Very Low
Potential for compressible ground stability hazard No hazard
Potential for ground dissolution stability hazard No hazard
Potential for landslide ground stability hazard Very low
Potential for running sand ground stability hazard No hazard
Potential for shrinking or swelling clay ground stability hazard Moderate
Table 3.5.4



3.5.4.2 Envirocheck records a moderate potential for shrinking or swelling clay ground
stability hazard at the site. The geological map of the area record deposits of
London Clay in this location, which are likely to represent the elevated hazard rating.
3.5.4.3 In addition to the above hazard ratings, a report completed by Ove Arup and
Partners in December 1991, commissioned by the Department of the Environment
(DoE) indicates where mining should be borne in mind when considered planning
and development of land. The site is not recorded as lying in an area of conclusive
rock mining as indicated by the report.
3.5.5 Borehole records
3.5.5.1 The British Geological Survey (BGS) retain records of boreholes formed from ground
investigations carried out on a nationwide basis. The location of boreholes with
records held by the BGS is recorded on the borehole map contained in Appendix M.
We do not normally obtain copies of these records but can do on further
instructions. There is normally a charge made by the BGS for retrieving and copying
these records.
3.6 Landfill and infilled ground

3.6.1 There are no recorded or historical landfill sites within 1000m of the subject site.
3.7 Radon
3.7.1 Envirocheck use the British Geological Survey database to review reported radon
levels in the area in which the site is located to establish recommended radon
protection levels for new dwellings. The database records the site as being located
where no protection is recommended.
3.7.2 The Building Research Establishment publication applies to all new buildings,
conversions and refurbishments whether they are for domestic or non-domestic use.
For non-domestic buildings, the guidance supplements the requirements for radon
protection at work specified in the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, legislation
made under the Health and Safety at Work Act administered by the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE). Further information is contained in the HSE/BRE guide
“Radon in the Workplace”.



3.7.3 It is noteworthy that the BRE and BGS / HPA information is based on statistical
analysis of measurements made in dwellings in combination with geological units,
which are known to emit radon. Therefore there is a risk for actual radon levels at
the site to exceed the levels assessed by the BGS / HPA / BRE. Currently, the only
true method of checking actual radon levels is by measurement within a building on
the site over a period of several months. It should be noted that it is not currently a
requirement of the Building Regulations to test new buildings for radon, however
the BRE recommends testing on completion or occupation of all new buildings
(domestic and non-domestic), extensions and conversions. Should you wish to
undertake radon monitoring following completion of the development, we can
provide proposals.
3.8 Flood risk

3.8.1 The site is not located within a fluvial or tidal flood plain. It should be noted that this
information does not constitute a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), and a
full FRA may be required for the development to support a planning application or
satisfy planning conditions.
3.9 Enquiries with local authority building control and environmental

health officers
3.9.1 We have contacted Local Authority Building Control regarding their records relating
to the local area. They have advised that near surface soils generally comprise of
cohesive Head deposits and that concrete spread foundations are typically adopted
in the area, subject to the influence of trees. They are not aware of any landfills or
artificial deposits local to the site.
3.9.2 We have contacted Local Authority Environmental Health Officers who have advised
that they require a fee in order to search their records relating to the site. We can
proceed with requesting a records search on further instruction.



4 Fieldwork
4.1 General
4.2 Site restrictions
4.3 Exploratory trial pits
4.4 Driven tube sampling
4.5 Dynamic cone penetration testing
4.6 Sampling strategies
4.1 General
4.1.1 Fieldwork was undertaken on the 8th September 2015 and comprised the following
activities:-
• Excavation of eight exploratory trial pits

• Excavation of six exploratory boreholes using drive tube sampling techniques
• Dynamic cone penetration testing in three locations
4.1.2 A plan of the site showing observed/existing site features and position of exploratory
points in relation to development proposals is presented on Drawing 02. The
position of exploratory points shown on these plans is approximate only and
confirmation of these positions is subject to dimensional surveys, which is
considered outside our brief.
4.1.3 The extent of fieldwork activities and position of exploratory points were
determined by Price and Myers and Soiltechnics.
4.1.4 Exploratory points were positioned to avoid known locations of underground

services but were also positioned to provide a reasonable coverage of the site. Prior
to commencement of exploratory excavations an electronic cable locating tool was
used to scan the area of the excavation. If we received a response to this equipment
then the excavation would be relocated.
4.1.5 TP06 and TP07 were limited by the presence of a gas main which was recoded on the
service drawings provided.
4.1.6 All soils exposed in excavations were described in accordance with BS EN ISO 14688
‘Identification and Classification of soil’.
4.2 Site restrictions

4.2.1 Site features did not restrict our fieldwork activities.



4.3 Exploratory trial pits

4.3.1 Trial pits TP01 to TP08 were excavated using hand tools to a maximum depth of
0.75m. An electrically-powered breaker was used to loosen surface
concrete/bituminous bound materials prior to excavation.
4.3.2 Trial pits TP01, TP06, TP07 and TP08 exposed foundation arrangements to existing
buildings and boundary structures within the site and along the site boundaries. The
trial pit excavations were backfilled with excavated material which was compacted
using hand held ramming tools. The surface was reinstated to match the original
surroundings. A Geotechnical Engineer supervised the excavations.
4.3.3 Sampling and logging was carried out as trial pit excavations proceeded but were not
entered at depths exceeding 1.2m, or where trial pit sides were deemed unstable.
The density of granular soils encountered in excavations was gauged by the ease of
excavation.
4.3.4 Soil samples for subsequent laboratory determination of concentration of chemical

contaminants were taken from the sides of trial pits using clean stainless steel
equipment and stored in new plastic containers, which were labelled and sealed.
Samples from below access depth into trial pits were taken as a sub sample from soil
contained in the excavator bucket, discarding any soil, which may have been in
contact with the bucket. If as a consequence of visual or olfactory evidence, a
sample was suspected to be contaminated by organic material, the sample was
stored in an amber glass jar with a PTFE sealing washer.
4.3.5 Soil samples for subsequent ‘physical and classification’ laboratory testing were
taken from the side of trial pits. The sample was placed in a plastic bag and
subsequently sealed and labelled.
4.3.6 Soil samples were obtained to meet quality class 3 to 5 as described in BS EN I997-
2:2007. Sample sizes were appropriate for the laboratory test being considered.
4.3.7 A pocket penetrometer was used in the cohesive soils encountered. This tool is
deemed to measure the apparent ultimate bearing capacity of the soil under test.
The pocket penetrometer is calibrated in kg/cm2. The reading can be approximately
converted to equivalent undrained shear strength by multiplying the results by a
factor of 50. Tests were carried out in the sides of trial pits when access can be
safety achieved otherwise testing was carried out on excavated intact clods. The
results are reported in columns to the right of trial pit results. The pocket
penetrometer is not covered by British Standards. This tool has the advantage that it
can be used to determine the approximate insitu undrained shear strength of stony
cohesive soils.
4.3.8 Summaries of pocket penetrometer results obtained from the cohesive soils
encountered in exploratory excavations are presented in graphical format on
Drawings 04a and 04b.
4.3.9 Trial pit records with accompanying photographs are presented in Appendix C.



4.4 Driven tube sampling

4.4.1 Boreholes DTS01 to DTS06 were formed using driven tube sampling equipment.
Driven tube sampling comprises driving 1m long steel sample tubes which are screw
coupled together or coupled to extension rods and fitted with a screw on cutting
edge. The sample tubes are of various diameters, generally commencing with
100mm and reducing, with depth, to 50mm and include a disposable plastic liner
which is changed between sampling locations in order to limit the risk of cross
contamination. On completion of the excavation the liner containing the sample is
cut open and the soil sample logged by a geo-environmental engineer.
4.4.2 Samples for determination concentration of chemical contaminants are taken from
samples obtained in the disposable tubes as sub-samples using stainless steel
sampling equipment.
4.4.3 Soil samples for subsequent ‘physical and classification’ laboratory testing were
taken from the side of trial pits. The sample was placed in a plastic bag and
subsequently sealed and labelled. Samples for moisture content determination
were placed in sealable tubs and appropriately labelled. Moisture content samples
were taken to the laboratory for testing within 24 hours of sampling.
4.4.4 The driven tube sampler obtains samples under category A allowing laboratory test
quality classes 3 to 5 as described in BS EN ISO 22475-1:2006.
4.4.5 A pocket penetrometer was used in the cohesive soils retrieved from the borehole.
This tool is deemed to measure the apparent ultimate bearing capacity of the soil
under test. The pocket penetrometer is calibrated in kg/cm2. The reading can be
approximately converted to an equivalent undrained shear strength by multiplying
the results by a factor of 50. The results are reported on borehole records. The
pocket penetrometer is not covered by British Standards.
4.4.6 Summaries of pocket penetrometer results obtained from the cohesive soils
encountered in exploratory excavations are presented in graphical format on
Drawings 04a and 04b.
4.4.7 Indicative soil infiltration testing was carried out in boreholes DTS01 and DTS02. The
infiltration testing was carried out following the procedure described in Building
Research Establishment (BRE) Digest 365 (2007) “Soakaway Design”. Records of test
results and calculations to determine a soil infiltration rate are presented in
Appendix E. It should be noted that testing has not been strictly carried out in
accordance with the BRE publication, as the minimum size of the test hole could not
be achieved in the borehole, however the test provides an indication of the likely
permeability of the soils under test. A standpipe was temporarily installed in both of
the boreholes to retain stability during infiltration testing.
4.4.8 Records of boreholes formed using driven tube sampling techniques are presented
in Appendix D.



4.5 Dynamic cone penetration testing

4.5.1 Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) testing was carried out in three locations. Dynamic
Cone Penetration testing consists of driving a 50mm diameter, 90o cone into the
ground, via an anvil and extension rods with successive blows of a freefall hammer.
The number of blows required to drive the cone each successive 100mm (N100) is
recorded.
4.5.2 Dynamic Cone Penetration testing was carried out following BS EN ISO 22476-2:2005
and the apparatus used was categorised as ‘Super heavy’ (DPSH-B) in accordance
with the standard.
4.5.3 Dynamic cone penetration test data is presented in graphical format on Drawing 03.
4.6 Sampling strategies

4.6.1 Geotechnical
4.6.1.1 In general we adopted a judgemental sampling strategy in relation to geotechnical

aspects of the investigation. The location and frequency of sampling was carried out
in consideration of the following:-
i) Topography
ii) Geology (including Made Ground)
iii) Nature of development proposals
4.6.2 Environmental
4.6.2.1 Details of sampling with respect to contamination issues are described in Section 8.
4.6.3 Sample retention
4.6.3.1 Samples are stored for a period of one month following issue of this report unless
otherwise required.



5 Ground conditions encountered

5.1 Soils
5.2 Existing foundation arrangements
5.3 Groundwater
5.1 Soils
5.1.1 The exploratory excavations encountered a profile of soils considered to be Made
Ground overlying Head deposits, which in turn overlie the London Clay Formation.
5.1.2 Made Ground soils were encountered in each exploratory location to depths in the
range of 0.25m to 0.5m where the full thickness was proven (Made Ground
extended to greater than 1m depth in borehole DTS05 and greater than 0.75m in
trial pits TP03 and TP05). Made Ground typically comprised of medium strength
dark brown slightly silty slightly gravelly sandy clay or silty gravelly sand. Gravels
consisted of flint with occasional brick and concrete.
5.1.3 Head deposits were encountered in boreholes DTS01, DTS02, DTS04 DTS05 and
DTS06 and trial pit TP04 to depths in the range of 2.0m and 2.4m where the full
thickness was proven, extending to greater than 4.0m depth in borehole DTS03.
Head deposits typically comprised of high and very high strength brown mottled
light grey slightly silty slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay with occasional thin lenses
of sandy gravelly clay. Gravels consisted of flint.
5.1.4 The London Clay Formation was encountered in boreholes DTS01 to DTS04 and
DTS06 to depths in excess of 5m. The London Clay Formation generally comprised of
high and very high strength, becoming medium strength with depth, brown
occasionally mottled dark grey slightly silty clay.
5.2 Existing foundation arrangements

5.2.1 Trial pit TP01 exposed the foundation to an adjoining domestic garage. The trial pit
exposed an apparent 250mm thick concrete slab bearing directly onto Made Ground
soils at ground level.
5.2.2 Trial pits TP06 and TP07 exposed the foundation arrangement to the north-eastern
boundary wall. Trial pit TP06 exposed unshuttered concrete to a depth of 300mm
below ground level bearing onto shuttered concrete which extended to greater than
450mm depth. The shuttered concrete footing was drilled and confirmed to greater
than 900mm thickness. At TP07, the foundation comprised shuttered concrete to
300mm depth, founded on Made Ground soils.
5.2.3 Trial pit TP08 exposed the foundation to an existing large wooden shed within the
site. The trial pit exposed an unshuttered concrete footing extending to 250mm
below ground level, bearing onto Made Ground soils.



5.3 Groundwater
5.3.1 No groundwater inflows were observed in any of the exploratory excavations.
5.3.2 It should be noted that water levels will vary depending generally on recent weather
conditions and only long term monitoring of levels in standpipes will provide a
measure of seasonal variations in groundwater levels.



6 Laboratory testing
6.1 Classification and physical testing
6.2 Chemical testing
6.1 Classification and physical testing

6.1.1 Laboratory testing was carried out in accordance with BS1377: 1990 “Methods of
Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes” and limited to the following: -
a) Classification tests: (to part 2):
i) Determination of moisture content (method 3)

ii) Determination of the plastic limit and plasticity index (method 5)
b) Compaction related tests (to part 4); determination of the California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) (test 7)
6.1.2 Laboratory testing was carried out by an independent specialist testing house, which
operates a quality assurance scheme. Copies of laboratory test result certificates are
presented in Appendix F.
6.2 Chemical testing

6.2.1 Laboratory testing was carried out as deemed necessary and carried out using the
following techniques:
• Using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), determination

of concentration of metals, semi-metals and soluble sulphate
• Using gas chromatography flame ionisation detection methods (GC–FID),

determination of concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
• Using electromagnetic measurement, determination of pH
• Following methods described in the Environment Agency publication

‘Guidance on sampling and testing of wastes to meet landfill waste acceptance
procedures’ (April 2005) – suite of testing in accordance with Table 2.1.
6.2.2 Laboratory testing was carried out by an independent specialist testing house, which
operates a quality assurance scheme. Copies of laboratory test result certificates are
presented in Appendix G.



7 Engineering assessment
7.1 General description of the development
7.2 Building foundation design and construction
7.3 Influence of trees and other major vegetation
7.4 Ground floor construction
7.5 Service trench excavations
7.6 Infiltration potential
7.7 Pavement foundations
7.1 General description of the development

7.1.1 The following assessments are made on the investigatory data presented in the
preceding sections of this report and are made with reference to specific nature of
the development. Should scheme proposals change then it may be necessary to
review the investigation and report.
7.1.2 The project will comprise the construction of a two storey steel framed building
comprising clinical and office accommodation together with an access road and car
park.
7.2 Building foundation, design and construction

7.2.1 Definitions of geotechnical terms used in the following paragraphs are provided in
Appendix A.
7.2.2 In our opinion naturally deposited Head will adequately support proposed buildings
on concrete spread foundations. Based on laboratory determination of plasticity
and following National House Building Council (NHBC) Standards Chapter 4.2, we
recommend foundations extend to a minimum depth of 1.0m below existing or
proposed ground levels whichever gives the deeper founding level. In all cases we
recommend foundation excavations fully penetrate any Made Ground deposits and
extend into the Head deposits by a minimum of 0.3m into the naturally deposited
soils, subject to an overall minimum foundation depth of 1.0m. It should be noted
that there are a number of trees and major vegetation on the site which will require
foundation depths exceeding the minimum depth defined above. Further guidance
on this is provided in the following report paragraphs.
7.2.3 Laboratory testing indicates the Head deposits are plastic, thus our assessment of
bearing values are based on the assumption that these soils predominantly exhibit
cohesion. Calculations, based on a conservative undrained shear strength of say
65kN/m2 (derived from measured insitu shear strengths taken below proposed
founding levels – refer Drawings 05a and 05b), indicate the following bearing values
for strip and pad foundations:



Table of bearing values - strip foundations

Width of Ultimate bearing value Presumed bearing value Allowable bearing pressure
2 2 2
strip (m) kN/m kN/m kN/m
0.6 555 195 160
0.9 515 185 125
1.2 490 175 100
Table 7.2.3a
Table of bearing values - pad foundations

Plan size of Ultimate bearing value Presumed bearing value Allowable bearing pressure
2 2 2
pad (m) kN/m kN/m kN/m
1.5 x 1.5 725 255 170
2x2 705 245 120
2.5 x 2.5 690 240 95
Table 7.2.3b
7.2.4 The presumed bearing value has been derived from the ultimate bearing value by
applying a factor of safety of 3, and the allowable bearing pressure derived to limit
total settlement.
7.2.5 It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of total and differential movement
caused by consolidation of the foundation supporting subsoils, however, providing
the foundation loads do not exceed the allowable bearing pressure provided in the
preceding paragraph, we suggest total settlement will be small, and probably less
than 25mm. Differential settlements are totally dependent on the variation of
foundation loads and consistency of the supporting ground. Assuming the
foundation loads are reasonably uniform, we suggest differential settlement is
unlikely to exceed say 15mm. It is likely settlement will be fully achieved within 20
years of construction.
7.2.6 The Head deposits encountered in exploratory excavations are consistent and will
provide uniform support to foundations. In the unlikely event foundation
excavations encounter a soft area, we recommend foundation excavations continue
to locate stiffer soils or reinforcement introduced into foundation concrete to span
the soft area.
7.2.7 Trench Stability
7.2.7.1 Generally the sides of trench excavations will remain stable and we anticipate no
groundwater will be encountered in any of the excavations. The silty nature of the
near surface Head deposits will render them moisture susceptible with small
increases in moisture content promoting rapid deterioration. We recommend,
therefore, that as soon as trench excavations are opened foundation concrete be
poured as quickly as practically possible.



7.2.7.2 We recommend any trench excavation requiring human entry is shored as necessary
to conform with current best practice, and accepted by the Health and safety
Executive (HSE) and in particular, following guidance provided in the HSE publication
‘Health and safety in construction (HSG 150)’ www.hse.gov.uk
7.3 Influence of Trees and other major vegetation

7.3.1 Soil classification and new foundation design
7.3.1.1 The results of plastic and liquid limit determinations performed on samples of the
Head and London Clay Formation indicate the deposits are soils of high volume
change potential when classified in accordance with National House Building Council
(NHBC) Standards, Chapter 4.2. Foundations taken down onto a depth of 1.0m will
penetrate the zone of shrinkage and swelling caused by seasonal wetting and drying.
Trees and other major vegetation extend this zone and will require deeper
foundations. A good guide to this subject is provided in NHBC Standards, Chapter
4.2.
7.3.2 New planting
7.3.2.1 Any planting schemes should also take into account the effect that new trees could
have on foundations when they reach maturity. Again a good guide to this subject is
provided in NHBC Standards, Chapter 4.2.
7.3.3 Tree species identification
7.3.3.1 There are a number of trees and other major vegetation at the site. We recommend
a qualified Arboriculturist (listed in the Arboricultural Association Directory of
Consultants – www.trees.org.uk) be appointed to determine the location, height
(and mature height) and water demand of all trees/major hedgerows at the site.
7.4 Desiccation assessment

7.4.1 In order to assess the potential for moisture depletion (desiccation) of near surface
soils, we have made reference to BRE Digest 412 ‘Desiccation in clay soils’. The
digest describes four broad empirical methods for assessing desiccation:
1. Comparisons of soil water contents with soil index properties

2. Comparisons of soil water content profiles
3. Comparisons of strength profiles
4. Effective stress or suction profiles
7.4.2 The assessment is based primarily on test data obtained from boreholes DTS01 and
DTS06. DTS06 was positioned in the south-eastern area where trees would be most
likely to have an effect, while DTS01 is the ‘control hole’, positioned where trees
would be less likely to affect soil moisture contents.



7.4.2 Comparison of soil water content profiles
7.4.2.1 Drawing 06 details moisture content values versus depth. The results do not suggest
a significant decrease in moisture content with depth or any relationship between
moisture content and soil type.
7.4.3 Comparison of soil water contents with soil index properties
7.4.3.1 This method uses the criterion where the soils are considered significantly
desiccated if the moisture content value is less than 0.4 multiplied by the liquid limit.
The results of this comparison are presented on Drawing 05, where the ratio
between 0.4 x W L and moisture content is plotted against depth. Where the ratio is
below 1, the soils may be deemed potentially significantly desiccated.
7.4.3.2 Three of four test results suggest potential desiccation, although it is interesting to
note that one of these results is in the ‘control hole’, DTS01. The results do,
however, indicate that soils at DTS06 are potentially significantly desiccated to a
depth of 2.2m
7.4.4 Comparison of soil strength profiles
7.4.4.1 Drawings 04a and 04b summarise in-situ shear strength measurements. Were soils
to be desiccated at a particular location, higher shear strength values would be
expected compared to locations remote from the influence of trees. The shear
strength profile in DTS06 is shown on Drawing 04a; shear strengths at DTS06 do
show any significant variation from other borehole locations, therefore this measure
does not suggest the presence of significant desiccation.
7.4.5 Summary
7.4.5.1 The differing methods of soil moisture data analysis do not all point to the presence
or otherwise of significant soil desiccation. In our opinion, empirical methods are
unlikely to provide reliable enough data with which to determine foundation depths,
therefore foundations should be designed in accordance with NHBC Standards
Chapter 4.2 with localised deepening to accommodate the presence of the trees.
7.4.5.2 it was also noted that the trees appear to have been ‘dead’ (burnt) for some time
which may have influenced the soil moisture profiling and this should be taken into
consideration.
7.5 Ground Floor Construction

7.5.1 Ground bearing floor slabs can be adopted at this site where buildings are remote
from trees and where Made Ground deposits are fully removed within the footprint
of the building. We recommend a blanket of good quality compacted granular
material be placed prior to construction of the floor slabs.



7.5.2 In areas close to existing major vegetation at the site (or where ground floors are
elevated requiring in excess of 600mm of fills) then we recommend the use of a
suspended ground floor with a sub floor void determined following NHBC Standards,
Chapter 4.2.
7.6 Infiltration Potential

7.6.1 Based on the results of infiltration testing, the Head and London Clay Formation
deposits are effectively impermeable and would not be able to dispose of water
using soakaway systems.
7.7 Pavement Foundations

7.7.1 It is anticipated that the proposed access road and associated hardstanding areas
will be located at or about existing ground levels with formation located on Made
Ground and/or Head soils.
7.7.2 Four samples were submitted for laboratory testing to determine the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR). The samples were taken from near surface cohesive Made
Ground and Head soils. The laboratory test certificates are presented in Appendix F
and indicate a CBR of between 5% and 7.4%.
7.7.3 Equilibrium CBR (California Bearing Ratio) values (with reference to Transport and
Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) Report LR1132 ‘Structural design of Bituminous
Roads’) are derived from knowledge of soil classification data (plasticity index for
soils exhibiting cohesion (clay type) and particle size distribution for granular soils),
the location of the water table pavement thickness, and weather conditions at the
time of construction. It is anticipated that excavations to formation levels will
encounter a mixture of both granular and cohesive soils. Granular soils will provide
numerically high CBR values, but cohesive soils will typically provide significantly
lower values. Assuming an average plasticity index of say 30 for cohesive soils, a low
water table, and a ‘thin’ pavement the following equilibrium CBR values are derived
for varying construction conditions.
Equilibrium CBR values for differing construction conditions

Poor Average Good
CBR = 3% CBR = 4% CBR = 4%

Table 7.7.3
We recommend these CBR values be utilised for design purposes and reassessed
immediately prior to construction. The Head deposits are considered frost
susceptible and this may override the CBR criteria for pavement foundation design
purposes. It should also be noted that the thickness of the pavement foundation
also relates to the amount and loading from construction traffic, which is discussed
in detail in the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) Report LR1132
‘Structural design of Bituminous Roads’.



7.7.4 It is possible to derive the ‘insitu’ CBR value at formation from undrained shear
strength data by applying a conversion factor of 23 (refer TRRL laboratory report
LR889). Thus adopting pessimistic undrained shear strength of say 75kN/m2 at
formation level (based on insitu shear strength measurements) then an equivalent
CBR value can be obtained i.e.
Insitu CBR = undrained shear strength C = 3.3%

23
7.7.5 The ‘insitu’ CBR derived above, is susceptible to change dependent upon weather
conditions during construction. The equilibrium CBR value derived in paragraph
7.7.3 above is an estimate of the CBR value, which will predominate during the life of
the pavement. We recommend the insitu CBR of 3.3% derived from shear strength
data be utilised for design purposes and reassessed during construction. The fact
that the clay subgrade soils are likely to be deemed frost susceptible will probably be
the overriding criteria for pavement foundation design purposes. It should also be
noted that the thickness of the pavement foundation also relates to the amount and
loading from construction traffic, which is discussed in detail in the Transport and
Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) Report LR1132 ‘Structural design of Bituminous
Roads’.
7.7.6 Once formation levels have been established it is recommended that the formation
be trimmed and rolled following current requirements of the Highways Agency
Specification for Highways Works (clause 616)
(refer www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/mchw/vol1) Such a process will identify any
soft areas, which we recommend be either excavated out and backfilled with a
suitable well compacted material similar to those exposed in the sides of the
resulting excavation, or large cobbles of a good quality stone rolled into the
formation to stabilise the ‘soft’ area.
7.7.7 The silty nature of the Head deposits will render them moisture susceptible with
small increases in moisture content giving rise to a rapid loss of support to
construction plant. We therefore recommend, as soon as formation is trimmed and
rolled, that sub-base is laid in order to avoid deterioration of the subgrade in wet or
frosty conditions.



8 Chemical contamination
8.1 Contaminated land, regulations and liabilities
8.2 Objectives and procedures
8.3 Development characterisation and identified receptors
8.4 Identification of pathways
8.5 Assessment of sources of contamination
8.6 Initial conceptual model
8.7 Laboratory testing
8.8 Updated conceptual model
8.9 Risk assessment summary and recommendations
8.10 Statement with respect to National Planning Policy Framework
8.11 On site monitoring
8.1 Contaminated land, regulation and liabilities

8.1.1 Statute
8.1.1.1 Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act 1990 became statute in April 2000. The
principal feature of this legislation is that the hazards associated with contaminated
land should be evaluated in the context of a site-specific risk based framework.
More specifically contaminated land is defined as:
“any land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in
such a condition, by reasons of substances in, on or under the land, that:
a) Significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such

harm being caused; or
b) Pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused”.
8.1.1.2 Central to the investigation of contaminated land and the assessment of risks posed
by this land is that:
i) There must be contaminants(s) at concentrations capable of causing health

effects (Sources).
ii) There must be a human or environmental receptor present, or one which
makes use of the site periodically (Receptor); and
iii) There must be an exposure pathway by which the receptor comes into
contact with the environmental contaminant (Pathway).



8.1.1.3 In most cases the Act is regulated by Borough or District Councils and their role is as
follows:
i) Inspect their area to identify contaminated land

ii) Establish responsibilities for remediation of the land
iii) See that appropriate remediation takes place through agreement with
those responsible, or if not possible:
• by serving a remediation notice, or
• in certain cases carrying out the works themselves, or
• in certain cases by other powers
iv) keep a public register detailing the regulatory action which they have taken
8.1.1.4 For “special” sites the Environment Agency will take over from the Council as
regulator. Special sites typically include:-
• Contaminated land which affects controlled water and their quality

• Oil refineries
• Nuclear sites
• Waste management sites
8.1.2 Liabilities under the Act
8.1.2.1 Liability for remediation of contaminated land would be assigned to persons,

organisations or businesses if they caused, or knowingly permitted contamination, or
if they own or occupy contaminated land in a case where no polluter can be found.
8.1.3 Relevance to predevelopment conditions
8.1.3.1 For current use, Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides the
regulatory regime. The presence of harmful chemicals could provide a ‘source’ in a
‘pollutant linkage’ allowing the regulator (local authority or Environment Agency) to
determine if there is a significant possibility of harm being caused to humans,
buildings or the environment. Under such circumstances the regulator would
determine the land as ‘contaminated’ under the provision of the Act requiring the
remediation process to be implemented.
8.1.4 Relevance to planned development
8.1.4.1 The developer is responsible for determining whether land is suitable for a particular
development or can be made so by remedial action. In particular, the developer
should carry out an adequate investigation to inform a risk assessment to determine:
a) Whether the land in question is already affected by contamination through

source – pathway – receptor pollutant linkages and how those linkages are
represented in a conceptual model



b) Whether the development proposed will create new linkages e.g. new
pathways by which existing contaminants might reach existing or proposed
receptors and whether it will introduce new vulnerable receptors
c) What action is needed to break those linkages and avoid new ones, deal
with any unacceptable risks and enable safe development and future
occupancy of the site and neighbouring land?
8.1.4.2 Building control bodies enforce compliance with the Building Regulations. Practical
guidance is provided in Approved documents, one of which is Part C, ‘Site
preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture’ which seeks to protect
the health, safety and welfare of people in and around buildings, and includes
requirements for protection against harm from chemical contaminants.
8.1.5 Pollution of controlled waters
8.1.5.1 Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act 1990, defines pollution of controlled
waters as
‘The entry into controlled waters of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or
any solid waste matter’
8.1.5.2 Paragraphs A36 and A39 of statutory guidance (DETR 2000) further define the basis
on which land may be determined to be contaminated land on the basis of pollution
of controlled waters.
‘Before determining that pollution of controlled waters is being, or likely to be,

caused, the Local Authority should be satisfied that a substance is continuing to
enter controlled waters, or is likely to enter controlled waters. For this purpose,
the local authority should regard something as being likely when they judge it
more likely than not to occur’
‘Land should not be designated as contaminated land where:
a) A substance is already present in controlled waters:

b) Entry into controlled waters of that substance from the land has ceased,
and
c) It is not likely that further entry will take place.
Substances should be regarded as having entered controlled waters where:
a) They are dissolved or suspended in those waters; or

b) If they are immiscible with water, they have direct contact with those
waters, or beneath the surface of the waters’



8.1.5.3 Controlled waters are defined in statute to be:
‘territorial waters which extend seawards for 3 miles, coastal waters, inland
freshwaters, that is to say, the waters in any relevant lake or pond or of so
much of any relevant river or watercourse as is above the freshwater limit, and
groundwaters, that is to say, any waters contained in underground strata.’
8.1.6 Further information
8.1.6.1 The above provides a brief outline as regards current statute and planning controls.
Further information can be obtained from the Department for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and their Web site www.defra.gov.uk.
8.2 Objectives and procedures

8.2.1 Objectives
8.2.1.1 This report section discusses investigations carried out with respect to chemical
contamination issues relating to the site. The investigations were carried out to
determine if there are any liabilities with respect to Part IIA of the Environment
Protection Act. As stated in Section 2.4.2, the investigation process followed the
principles of BS10175: 2011 ‘Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – Code of
Practice’, with the investigation combining a desk study (preliminary investigation)
together with the exploratory and main investigations (refer BS10175: 2011 for an
explanation).
8.2.1.2 This section of the report produces ‘Conceptual models’ based on investigatory data
obtained to date. The conceptual model is constructed by identification of
contaminants and establishment of feasible pathways and receptors. The
conceptual model allows a risk assessment to be derived. Depending upon the
outcome of the risk assessment it may be necessary to carry out remediation and/or
further investigations with a view to eliminating, reducing or refining the risk of
harm being caused to identified receptors. If appropriate, our report will provide
recommendations in this respect.
8.2.1.3 Definition of terms used in the preceding paragraph and subsequent parts of this
section of the report are presented in Appendix B.
8.2.2 Procedure to assess risks of chemical contamination
8.2.2.1 For the purposes of presenting this section of this report, we have adopted the
following sequence in assessing risks associated with chemical contamination.



Table outlining sequence to assess risk associated with chemical contamination

Conceptual model Contributory information Outcome
element
Receptor Development categorisation Identification of receptors at risk of being
harmed
Method of analysing test data
Criteria for risk assessment modelling
Pathways Geology and ground conditions Identification of critical pathways from
Development proposals source to receptor
Source Previous site history Testing regime
Desk study information Identification of a chemical source
Site reconnaissance Analysis of test data and other evidence
Fieldwork observations
Table 8.2.2
8.2.2.2 We have adopted, in general, the procedures described in CIRIA C552 ‘Contaminated
land risk assessment - a guide to good practice’ in deriving a risk assessment. Initially
we have carried out a ‘phase 1 assessment’ based on desk study information and site
reconnaissance, to produce an initial conceptual model and thus a preliminary risk
assessment. This model / assessment is then used to target fieldwork activities and
laboratory testing, with the results of this part of the investigation used to allow a
phase 2 assessment to be produced by updating the conceptual model and refining
the risk assessment.
8.3 Development characterisation and identified receptors

8.3.1 Site characterisation
8.3.1.1 The nature of the site has a significant influence the likely exposure pathways
between potentially contaminated soils and potential receptors. The following table
summarises elements which characterise the site based on site observations and
desk study information.
Summary of site characteristics

Element Source / criteria Characteristic
Current land use Observations The site is currently unoccupied. A disused
domestic garage and single storey building is
currently present in the north-eastern corner
of the site.
Future land use Advice Two-storey building comprising clinical and
office accommodation together with an
access road and car park.
Site history Desk study Formerly occupied by Graham James County
Infant School. Buildings now demolished.
Geology Site investigation Fieldwork identified typically 2 - 3m thickness
of Head deposits overlying the London Clay.
Groundwater Aquifer potential London Clay recorded as Unproductive Strata
Abstractions One active groundwater abstraction point
located 1802m the south-west.
Source protection zone Site not within source protection zone.
Surface waters Location Tidal River Thames located about 2km distant.
Abstractions None within 2km of the site.
Table 8.3.1



8.3.2 Identified receptors
8.3.2.1 The principal receptors subject to harm caused by any contamination of the
proposed development site are as follows.
Principle Receptor Detail

Humans Users of the current site
End user of the developed site
Construction operatives and other site investigators
Vegetation Plants and trees, both before and after development
Controlled waters Surface waters (Rivers, streams, ponds and above ground reservoirs)
Ground waters (used for abstraction or feeding rivers / streams etc)
Building materials Materials in contact with the ground
Table 8.3.2
This section of the report assesses those receptors listed above. Section 10 provides
a risk assessment in relation to building materials.
8.3.3 Human receptors
8.3.3.1 The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) model can be used to derive
guideline values, against which land quality data can be compared to allow an
assessment of the likely impacts of soil contamination on humans. The parameters
used within the model can be chosen to allow guideline values to be derived for a
variety of land uses and exposure pathways. For example, a construction worker is
likely to be exposed in different ways and for different durations than an adult in a
residential setting.
8.3.3.2 On the basis that the site is currently unoccupied and inaccessible to the public
including children we therefore do not consider current site users relevant and will
therefore not be discussed further. Following completion of the proposed
development the critical site user (receptor) is considered to be an adult (while
children are likely to use the facility, exposure durations will be minimal and likely
inconsequential). This criterion has been used in the conceptual model for the
future site use. Our assessment also considers construction operatives as adult
receptors.
8.3.4 Vegetation receptors
8.3.4.1 Soil contaminants can have an adverse effect on plants if they are present at
sufficient concentrations. The effects of phytotoxic contaminations include growth
inhibition, interference with natural processes within the plant and nutrient
deficiencies.
8.3.4.2 Vegetation is currently present on site and is likely to be incorporated within the
proposed development. On this basis, both current and proposed vegetation are
considered viable receptors.



8.3.5 Water receptors
8.3.5.1 The site lies in an area designated Unproductive Strata, located within the London
Clay Formation. On this basis, groundwater is not considered to be a potentially
viable receptor.
8.3.5.2 The closest surface water feature is a pond recorded 618m to the south of the site.
Based on the distance of the water feature from the subject site, surface water is not
considered a potentially viable receptor.
8.3.6 Summary of identified receptors
8.3.6.1 Based on the above assessments, the following table summarises identified and
critical receptors.
Table summarising identified (viable) receptors

Principle Detail Viable and critical receptors
Receptor Viability and justification Critical receptor
Humans Users of the current site No Site inaccessible to N/A
public
End user of the developed site Yes Medical centre Adult
Construction operatives and Yes Adult
other site investigators
Vegetation Current site Yes Trees on site Vegetation
Developed site Yes Trees to remain Vegetation
Controlled Surface waters (Rivers, No Site remote from N/A
waters streams, ponds and above water features
ground reservoirs)
Groundwaters (used for No London Clay N/A
abstraction or feeding rivers / designated
streams etc) Unproductive Strata
Table 8.3.6
8.4 Identification of pathways

8.4.1 Pathways to human receptors
8.4.1.1 Guidance published by the Environment Agency in Science Report SC050021/SR3

‘Updated technical background to the CLEA model’ provides a detailed assessment of
pathways and assessment and human exposure rates to source contaminants. In
summary, there are three principal pathway groups for a human receptor:
Table summarising likely pathways

Principal pathways Detail
Ingestion through the mouth Ingestion of air-borne dusts
Ingestion of soil
Ingestion of soil attached to vegetables
Ingestion of home grown vegetables
Inhalation through the nose and mouth. Inhalation of air-borne dusts
Inhalation of vapours
Absorption through the skin. Dermal contact with dust
Dermal contact with soil
Table 8.4



8.4.1.2 The site is to be developed for a public healthcare use, therefore pathways
associated with the consumption of vegetables are not considered relevant.
Pathways associated with the consumption of vegetables are not considered viable
for construction operatives.
8.4.1.3 A summary of our pathway assessment is presented in Section 8.4.4.
8.4.2 Pathways to vegetation
8.4.2.1 Guidance published by the Environment Agency in Science Report SC050021/SR

(Evaluation of models for predicting plant uptake of chemicals from soil) provides a
detailed assessment of plant uptake pathways. In summary, plants are exposed to
contaminants in soils by the following pathways:
• Passive and active uptake by roots.

• Gaseous and particulate deposition to above ground shoots.
• Direct contact between soils and plant tissue.
8.4.2.2 All of the above routes of exposure are considered to be present for vegetation.
8.4.3 Summary of identified likely pathways
8.4.3.1 Based on the above assessments, the following table summarises likely pathways of
potential chemical contaminants at the site to identified receptors.
Table of likely pathways

Receptor group Critical receptor Pathway
Construction Adult Ingestion of air-borne dusts
operatives Ingestion of soil
Inhalation of air-borne dusts
Dermal contact with dust
Dermal contact with soil
Future site users Adult Ingestion of air-borne dusts
Inhalation of air-borne dusts
Vegetation Root uptake, deposition to shoots and foliage
contact
Table 8.4.4



8.5 Assessment of sources of chemical contamination

8.5.1 Introduction
8.5.1.1 Initially, potential sources of contamination are assessed using the following
elements of the investigation process.
• History of the site

• Desk study information
• Site reconnaissance
• Geology
• Fieldwork
These elements will dictate a relevant soil/water testing regime to quantify possible
risks of any identified contaminative sources which may harm identified receptors.
8.5.2 Source assessment – History of the site
8.5.2.1 The history of the site and its immediate surroundings based on published Ordnance
Survey maps is described in Section 3.4.
8.5.2.2 Based on published historical maps, there is no evidence to indicate the site or its
immediate surroundings have been subject to activities which could produce a
source of chemical contamination.
8.5.3 Source assessment – Desk study information
8.5.3.1 Envirocheck presents a detailed database of environmental information in relation

to the site including;
• Pollution incidents
• Landfill sites
• Trading activities
8.5.3.2 Based on the Envirocheck data (refer Appendix M) the site has no recorded history
of any pollution events which could generate a source of contamination, or is
located in close proximity to a landfill site.
8.5.3.3 Envirocheck report four active trade activities within 250m of the site. These are
summarized below:
• Abbey Domestic (Domestic Appliances - Servicing, Repairs & Parts) – 80m

north-east
• Corringham Dry Cleaners (Dry Cleaners) – 127m north-east
• Active Mastics Ltd (Sealant Compounds & Applications) – 165m south-east
• Regency Car Hire – Thurrock (Car Engine Tuning & Diagnostic Services) –
236m south



8.5.3.4 Based on the distance from the site, we do not consider there to be a significant risk
of contamination arising from these sources that could affect the subject site.
8.5.3.5 There are two fuel station entries recorded within 1km of the site, which are both
recorded as obsolete.
8.5.4 Source assessment – Site reconnaissance
8.5.4.1 A full description of the site and observed adjacent land uses is provided in Section 3
of this report. A plan summarising observations made on site during our site
reconnaissance visit is presented on Drawing 02.
8.5.4.2 Domestic lock-up garages were present in the north-east of the site and adjacent to
the north of the site. No evidence for any large-scale vehicle maintenance and
repair activities was noted, therefore these garages are considered to represent a
low likelihood of producing a source of contamination.
8.5.5 Source assessment – Geology
8.5.5.1 The geological map of the area indicates the topography local to the site is formed in
deposits of London Clays. Typically, and in our experience, the London Clays do not
exhibit any abnormal concentrations of naturally occurring chemical contaminants.
8.5.6 Source assessment - Fieldwork observations
8.5.6.1 Made Ground soils containing brick and concrete were observed in exploratory
excavations across the site, suggesting a potential source of chemical contamination.
8.5.6.2 We obtained samples of the potentially chemically impacted soils for subsequent
laboratory testing.
8.5.7 Source assessment - summary
8.5.7.1 Based on the paragraphs above, we have identified the following potential sources
of contamination:
Table summarising results of source assessment

Source Origin of Possible contaminant Probability of risk Likely extent of
information occurring contamination
On site and adjacent site
Made Ground Fieldwork Metals, PAH, asbestos Likely Potentially site wide
Domestic Fieldwork Metals, asbestos, PAH, Low likelihood Limited to the

garages TPH north-east of the
site
Table reference 8.5.7



8.6 Initial Conceptual Model

8.6.1 Based on our assessment of potential contaminative sources, identified receptors
and viable pathways to receptors described in preceding paragraphs, we have
produced an initial conceptual model in the form of a table which is presented in
Appendix I.
8.6.2 Based on the conceptual model there are risks which exceed the low category which
in our opinion are unacceptable, and require either remedial action or further
investigation by laboratory testing of soil samples to refine the risk assessment.
8.7 Laboratory testing

8.7.1 Testing regime – Human receptors
8.7.1.1 In order to carry out a quantitative assessment, we have scheduled testing to

measure the concentration of commonly occurring inorganic and organic
contaminants.
8.7.1.2 Five samples were submitted for measurement of organic and inorganic
contaminants. The samples were also screened for the presence/absence of
asbestos and asbestos containing material. Obviously, additional testing (quantity
and types) would allow a more accurate risk assessment to be made.
8.7.2 Testing regime – Vegetation
8.7.2.1 As described in 8.7.1 above we have scheduled testing for a suite of inorganic and
organic contaminants. With reference to ‘BPG Note 5 - Best Practice Guidance for
Land Regeneration’ testing will include copper and zinc.
8.7.3 Testing regime – Summary
8.7.3.1 The following table summarises the scheduled testing, in relation to soil types and
identified receptors under consideration of the conceptual model.
Table summarising scheduled testing (human receptors)

Sample Sample Strata Targeted Non Scheduled Critical
origin type sampling targeted testing receptor
sampling
DTS01 Soil Made Inorganic & All human
0.1m Ground  organics and receptors
DTS02 asbestos
0.4m

DTS03
0.3m

DTS04
0.1m 
DTS06
0.2m

Table 8.7.3



8.7.3.2 The results of laboratory determination of concentration of chemical contaminants

are presented in Appendix G.
8.7.4 Criteria for assessment of test data – Human receptors
8.7.4.1 Assessment of laboratory test data has been carried out with reference to current
nationally recognised documents listed in the final page of Appendix B. Due to
changes in guidance on contaminated land, items 6-8 and item 10 in the document
listing above have been withdrawn. In the absence of alternative guidance however
we have used these documents. Where new guidance is available, this has been
followed in preference to superseded guidance.
8.7.4.2 Soil guideline values (SGVs) are used as a screening tool to assess the risks posed to
health of humans from exposure to soil contamination in relation to land uses.
Where published SGVs are not available, we have adopted Generic Assessment
Criteria (GAC) and Soil Screening Values (SSV) derived by Soiltechnics and by Atkins
(SSVATK). GACs have been derived by Land Quality Management (LQM) and the
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and presented in ‘Generic
Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment’. GACs have been prepared
for a number of metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and are used in
preference to values produced by Soiltechnics and Atkins. The CLEA model has been
used with toxicology data presented by the EA, LQM/CIEH and Atkins (in that order
of preference) to derive SSVs by Soiltechnics. SSVs produced by Atkins are
presented on their ATRISKSOIL website.
8.7.4.3 SGVs, GACs, SSVs and SSVATKs represent ‘intervention values’; indications to an
assessor that soil concentrations above these levels might present an unacceptable
risk to the health of site users. These soil guideline values have been produced using
conceptual exposure models, which use assumptions and are applied to differing
end uses of land. If the values are exceeded, it does not necessarily imply there is an
actual risk to health and site-specific circumstances should be taken into account.
Conversely, where a critical pathway or chemical form of the contaminant has not
been evaluated, a risk may be present even if the SGV/GAC has not been exceeded.
8.7.4.4 For evaluation of test data in relation to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
contamination, we have compared measured concentrations with corresponding
GACs. The GAC fractions are dependent on the Soil Organic Matter (SOM) content of
the soils. We have adopted the lowest GAC as an initial screening value.
8.7.4.5 We have followed procedures outlined by the CIEH to compare measured

concentrations of metals and PAH contaminants against guideline values. The
guidance presents an approach to data analysis and includes the examination of data
for potential outliers, assessment of the normality of the test data and the
calculation of a 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL). The UCL provides an estimate of
the population mean, based on test data, with a 95% confidence that the actual
mean does not exceed this value. The UCL is compared to the guideline value for the
site.



8.7.4.6 We have adopted an industrial/commercial land use for proposed end users of the
site.
8.7.5 Criteria for assessment of test data – Construction operatives
8.7.5.1 In the absence of guidelines we have adopted industrial guideline values for
assessment of construction operatives.
8.7.6 Criteria for assessment of test data – Vegetation
8.7.6.1 Guidance published by Forest Research in “BPG Note 5 - Best Practice Guidance for
Land Regeneration” suggests that a residential without plant uptake or
industrial/commercial CLEA model should be adopted for this receptor although
specific guideline values are provided for copper and zinc at 130mg/kg and
300mg/kg respectively. As a practice we have adopted the industrial / commercial
CLEA model for assessment of test data for vegetation.
8.7.6.2 It is difficult to quantify the phytotoxity of a contaminant as large variations exist

between plant tolerances, soil effects and synergistic/antagonistic reactions
between chemicals. Due to the complexities of the effects of soil contamination on
different plant species, we recommend that the test results presented in this report
are passed to a landscape architect for the selection of suitable planting.
8.7.7 Evaluation of test data – Human receptors
8.7.7.1 Tables summarising and analysing test data are presented in Appendix H. The
following table summarises the outcome of the analyses.
Table Summarising assessment of test data for Human receptors

Analysis Receptor group Critical CLEA model Inorganic Organic
tables receptor contaminants contaminants
1 and 2 Future site Adult Industrial / No exceedances No exceedances
commercial
users and
construction
operatives
Table 8.7.7.1
8.7.7.2 Asbestos was not detected in any of the samples screened.
8.7.7.3 Based on the above, laboratory testing has not identified any measured
concentrations of contaminants which exceed current guideline values for human
receptors. Based on the above evaluation, the concentrations of contaminants
measured on soil samples taken from the site are considered unlikely to exhibit
significant contamination from a perspective of human receptors



8.7.8 Evaluation of test data – Vegetation
8.7.8.1 Comparison of test data with guideline values is presented on Tables 2 and 3 in
Appendix H. None of the measured concentrations exceed the adopted guideline
values. On this basis, we are of the opinion that measured concentrations are
unlikely to exhibit significant contamination with respect to vegetation.
8.7.8.2 It is difficult to quantify the phytotoxity of a contaminant as large variations exist

between plant tolerances, soil effects and synergistic/antagonistic reactions
between chemicals. Due to the complexities of the effects of soil contamination on
different plant species, we recommend that the test results presented in this report
are passed to a landscape architect for the selection of suitable planting.
8.8 Updated conceptual model

8.8.1 Having now completed analysis of laboratory testing, we can now update our
conceptual model which is presented in Appendix I.
8.8.2 Based on the updated conceptual model none of the assessed risks exceed the low
category and on this basis no remedial action is considered necessary at this stage to
render the site fit for purpose.
8.9 Risk assessment summary and recommendations

8.9.1 Based on our assessments described above, we can provide the following summary
and recommendations for each identified receptor.
8.9.2 End users
8.9.2.1 As no source of significant chemical contamination has been identified on site, we

are of the opinion that the site represents a low risk of causing harm to the health of
future end users of the developed site, based on current development proposals
8.9.3 Construction operatives and other site investigators
8.9.3.1 The risk of damage to health of construction operatives and other site investigators
is, in our opinion, low. As a precautionary approach, however, we recommend
adequate hygiene precautions are adopted on site. Such precautions would be:-
8.9.3.2 Guidance on safe working practices can be obtained from the following documents
 The Health and Safety Executive Publication “Protection of Workers and the
General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land” (HMSO) and
 “A Guide to Safer Working on Contaminated Sites” (CIRIA Report 132).



8.9.3.3 In addition, reference should be made to the Health and Safety Executive. In all
cases work shall be undertaken following the requirements of the Health and Safety
at Work Act 1974 and regulations made under the Act including the COSHH
regulations.
8.9.4 Vegetation
8.9.4.1 As no source of significant chemical contamination has been identified on site, we

are of the opinion that the site represents a low risk of causing harm to vegetation.

8.10.1 Based on investigations completed to date with respect to chemical contamination,
we are of the opinion the proposed development will be safe and suitable for use for
the purpose for which it is intended (without the need for any remedial action) thus
meeting the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework section 121,
and compliant with the Building Regulations Part C, ‘Site preparation and resistance
to contaminants and moisture’.
8.11 On Site Monitoring

8.11.1 We have attempted to identify the potential for chemical contamination on the site,
however, areas, which have not been investigated at this stage, may exhibit higher
levels of contamination. If such areas are exposed at any time during construction
we will be pleased to re-attend site to assess what action is required to allow the
development of safely proceed.



9 Gaseous contamination
9.1 Legislative framework
9.2 General
9.3 Assessment of source of gases
9.4 Conclusion
9.1 Legislative framework

9.1.1 There is currently a complex mix of documentation relating to legislative and
regulatory procedures on the issue of contamination, and it is not considered a
purpose of this report to discuss the detail of these regulations. Essentially,
Government Policy is based on ‘suitable for use approach’, which is relevant to both
the current and proposed future use of land. For current use Part IIA of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides the regulatory regime (see Section 8.1
above). The presence of harmful soil gases could provide a ‘source’ in a ‘pollutant
linkage’ allowing the regulator (Local Authority) to determine if there is a significant
possibility of harm being caused to humans, buildings or the environment. Under
such circumstances the regulator would determine the land as ‘contaminated’ under
the provision of the Act requiring the remediation process to be implemented with
the Environment Agency responsible for enforcement.
9.1.2 The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995,
requires the planning authority to consult with the Environment Agency before
granting planning permission for development on land within 250 metres of land
which is being used for deposit of waste, (or has been at any time in the last 30
years) or has been notified to the planning authority for the purposes of that
provision.
9.1.3 Building control bodies enforce compliance with the Building Regulations. Practical
guidance is provided in Approved documents, one of which is Part C, ‘Site
preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture’ which seeks to protect
the health, safety and welfare of people in and around buildings, and includes
requirements for protection against harm from soil gas.
9.2 General
9.2.1 The following assessment relates to the potential for, and the effects of, gases
generated by biodegradable matter. The potential for the development to be
affected by Radon Gas is considered in Section 3 above. The principal ground gases
are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) . The following table provides a
summary of the effects of these gases when mixed with air.



Revision 0 Report Section 9
Significant gas concentrations in air

Gas Concentration Consequence
by volume
Methane 0.25% Ventilation required in confined spaces
5 - 15% Potentially explosive when mixed with air
30% Asphyxiation
75% Death after 10 minutes
Carbon Dioxide 0.5% 8 hour long term exposure limit (LTEL) (HSE workplace limit)
1.5% 15 min short term exposure limit (STEL) (HSE workplace limit)
>3% Breathing difficulties
6 – 11% Visual distortion, headaches, loss of consciousness, possible
death
>22% Death likely to occur
Table 9.2.1
9.2.2 Following the current Building Regulations Approved Document C1, Section 2
'Resistance to Contaminates' (2004 incorporating 2010 and 2013 amendments) a risk
assessment approach is required in relation to gaseous contamination based on the
source-pathway-receptor conceptual model procedure. We have adopted
procedures described in the following reference documents for investigation and
assessments of risk of the development being affected by landfill type gases
(permanent gases) and if appropriate the identification of mitigation measures.
• BS10175:2011 ‘Investigation of potentially contaminated sites- Code of

Practice’
• BS8576:2013 ‘Guidance on investigations for ground gas – Permanent gases
and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)’
• BS8485:2015 ‘Code of practice for the design of protective measures for
methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings’
• CIRIA Report C665 'Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to
buildings' (2007)
• CL:AIRE Research Bulletin RB17 ‘A pragmatic approach to ground gas risk
assessment’ (November 2012)
9.2.3 An assessment of the risk of the site being affected by ground gases is based on the
following aspects.
a) Source of the gas

b) Investigation information
c) Migration feasibility
d) Sensitivity of the development and its location relative to the source



9.3 Assessment of source of gases
9.3.1 General sources
9.3.1.1 The following table summarises the source of gases and parameters for producing
gases:
Source and control of gases

Type Parameters affecting the rate of gassing
Landfills Portion of biodegradable material, rate reduces with time.
Mine workings Flooding reduces rate of gassing
Dock silt Portion of organic matter
Carbonate deposits Ground / rainwater (acidic) reacts with some carbonates to
produce carbon dioxide.
Soils / rocks Portion of organic matter
Table 9.3.1
The rate of decomposition in gas production is also related to atmospheric

conditions, pH, temperature, and water content / infiltration.
9.3.1.2 As the site is not within a dockland environment or an area affected by

mineworkings, and near surface soils do not exhibit high carbonate content, then
potential gas sources are limited to landfills and /or soils with a high proportion of
organic matter.
9.3.2 Landfill sources
9.3.2.1 Waste Management Paper 27 (1991) produced by the Department of the

Environment ‘Control of Landfill Gases’ contains the recommendation to avoid
building within 50m of a landfill site actively producing large quantities of landfill
type gases and to carry out site investigations within a zone 250m beyond the
boundary of a landfill site. No distinction is made between sites of differing ground
conditions, but the paper does not advocate the site is safe beyond the 250m zone,
dependant, of course, upon the type of landfill and potential for migration of landfill
gases.
9.3.2.2 Envirocheck reports there are no recorded landfill sites within 1000m of the subject
site. In addition, we have reviewed old Ordnance Survey maps and there is no
obvious evidence of any quarrying in the area which may have been restored with
materials which could generate landfill gases. On the above basis there is no
recorded evidence to suggest a source of landfill gases from such past activities.
9.3.3 Soil conditions
9.3.3.1 None of the soils observed in exploratory excavations, in our opinion, exhibit
significant concentrations of organic matter which are likely to produce elevated
quantities of carbon dioxide and / or methane gas.



9.3.3.2 Based on an assessment of 'deep' geological conditions we are of the opinion that it
is unlikely that the subject site would be affected by significant quantities of carbon
dioxide and methane generated by soils/rocks at depth.
9.3.4 Source assessment summary
9.3.4.1 The following table summarises the possibility of a source of landfill type gases.
Source assessment summary

Potential source Viability of source Evidence
origin
Landfills Unlikely Desk study information
Mineworkings Unlikely Desk Study information
Geological conditions not amenable
Dock silt Unlikely Site remote from dockland environment
Carbonate deposits Unlikely Recorded and observed soil conditions do not indicate
high concentrations of carbonates
Soils / rocks Unlikely Soils exposed in exploratory excavations do not exhibit
high concentrations of organic matter
Table 9.3.4
9.4 Conclusion
9.4.1 Based on the above there is no evidence to demonstrate that there is a potential
source rendering the site at a significant risk of being affected by ground gases
(carbon dioxide / methane) sufficient to cause significant harm to human end users
of the site, construction operatives or indeed buildings. On this basis, it is not
considered necessary to consider possible pathways for migration of ground gases,
and indeed implementation of further investigations to measure concentrations of
ground gases. Again on the basis of evidence provided above, mitigation measures
against ingress of ground gases into the proposed development are not considered
necessary.

9.5.1 Based on investigations completed to date with respect to gaseous contamination,
we are of the opinion the proposed development will be safe and suitable for use for
the purpose for which it is intended (without the need for any remedial action) thus
meeting the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework section 121,
and compliant with the Building Regulations Part C, ‘Site preparation and resistance
to contaminants and moisture’.



10 Effects of ground conditions on building materials

10.1 General
10.2 Reference documents
10.3 Hazard identification and assessment
10.4 Provision of test data to specifiers/manufacturers/installers
10.5 Risk assessments for individual building materials
10.6 Concrete – general mechanisms of attack
10.7 Concrete – sulphate attack
10.8 Concrete – chloride attack
10.9 Concrete – acid attack
10.10 Concrete – magnesium attack
10.11 Concrete – ammonium attack
10.12 Concrete blocks
10.13 Clay bricks/pipes
10.14 Mortar
10.15 Metals – general
10.16 Metals – cast iron
10.17 Metals – steel piles
10.18 Metals – stainless steel
10.19 Metals – galvanised steel
10.20 Metals – copper
10.21 Metals – lead
10.22 Plastics – general
10.23 Plastic membranes and geotextiles
10.24 Plastic pipes
10.25 Electrical cables
10.26 Rubbers
10.1 General
10.1.1 Building materials are often subjected to aggressive environments which cause them
to undergo chemical or physical changes. These changes may result in loss of
strength or other properties that may put at risk their structure integrity or ability to
perform to design requirements. Aggressive conditions include:-
• Severe climates
• Coastal conditions
• Polluted atmospheres
• Aggressive ground conditions
This report section only considers aggressive ground conditions, with other items
considered outside our brief and scope of investigations.



10.1.2 In aggressive ground conditions, the potential for contaminant attack depends on
the following:-
• The presence of water as a carrier of chemical contaminants, (except free

phase organic contamination)
• The availability of the contaminant in terms of solubility, concentration and
replenishment rate
• Contact between the contaminant and the building material
• The nature of the building materials and its capability of being attacked by
contaminants
In general the thicker the building material the less likelihood there is for
contaminant attack to cause damage to the integrity of the structure.
10.2 Reference documents

10.2.1 Following the Environment Agency publication 'Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination' (Contaminated Land Report 11) the following
documents have been referred to in production of the following report paragraphs.
• 'Performance of Building Materials in Contaminated Land' report BR255

(Building Research Establishment 1994).
• 'Risks of Contaminated Land to Buildings, Building Materials and Services. A
Literature Review' - Technical Report P331 (Environment Agency 2000).
• 'Guidance on assessing and managing risks to buildings from land
contamination' - Technical Report P5 035/TR/01).
• Building Regulations Approved document C - site preparation and resistance
to contaminants and moisture (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004).
• 'Concrete in aggressive ground' Special Digest 1: 2005 (Building Research
Establishment).
10.3 Hazard identification and assessment

10.3.1 The identification of hazards is based on the findings of this investigation primarily
relating to former land uses (potential for chemical contamination, and likely type of
contamination) and laboratory determination of concentration of chemical
contaminants. Clearly, the scope of laboratory testing is determined with respect to
former land uses, contaminants which may cause harm to human health and water
resources.
10.3.2 Based on the above, the scope of our testing regime is described in Sections 8. We
have utilised this test data in production of the following risk assessments in relation
to building materials, in conjunction with test data targeting the effects of chemical
attack on concrete in contact with the ground, as described in BRE Special Digest 1.
10.3.3 The identification of hazards from contamination and subsequent assessment of

risks is based on the following:-



• The contaminants present on site.

• The nature of the contaminant (i.e. calcium sulphate is much less soluble than
sodium or magnesium sulphate and is, therefore, less of a concern with
regards sulphate attack).
• The concentration of contaminants - in general the higher the concentration
the greater the hazard.
• The solubility of the contaminants - contaminants which are not soluble will
not generally react with materials.
• The permeability of the soils - i.e. case by which fluids can transport
contaminants to the building.
10.3.4 The process of risk assessment for building materials is concerned with identification
of the hazard (contaminants at the site - a source) and subsequently how the
contaminants can reach the building (pathway) and how they can react with the
building (receptor). Thus the risk assessment is produced based on the source -
pathway - receptor model.
10.4 Provision of test data to specifiers/manufacturer/installer

10.4.1 The following risk assessments are based on current published data. We strongly
recommend, however, that information gained from this investigation are provided
to specifiers/manufacturers/installers of building materials/service ducts/apparatus
who may have more up to date research to confirm the ability of the product to
resist the effects of chemical contaminants at the site for the desired lifespan of the
product.
10.5 Risks assessments for individual building materials

10.5.1 The following/typical sections contain risk assessments for various building materials
likely to be incorporated in developments. Other materials which we are not aware
of may also be used in developments and in contact with the ground and, therefore,
recommend the suppliers are consulted with respect to ground conditions at this site
and their opinion sought as to the ability of the product to resist chemical conditions
determined at the site.
10.6 Concrete - General mechanisms of attack

10.6.1 There are a number of mechanisms by which contaminants attack concrete including
the following:-
• Hydrolysis of the hardened concrete.

• Degradation as a result of exchange reactions between calcium in calcium
hydroxide (free lime hydrate) and ions in aggressive solutions.
• Expansive reactions as a result of chemical reaction or salt crystallisation.



10.7 Concrete - Sulphate attack

10.7.1 Hazard
10.7.1.1 Sulphate attack on concrete is characterised by expansion, leading to loss of

strength, cracking, spalling and eventual disintegration. There are three principal
forms of sulphate attack, as follows:-
• Formation of gypsum through reaction of calcium hydroxide and sulphate

ions.
• Ettringite formation through reaction of tricalcium alluminate and sulphite
irons.
• Thaumasite formation as a result of reactions between calcium silicate
hydrates, carbonate ions (from aggregates) and sulphate ions.
10.7.2 Assessment
10.7.2.1 The hazard of sulphide attack is addressed by reference to procedures described in

Building Research Establishment (BRE) Special Digest 1: 2005 'Concrete in Aggressive
Ground' to establish a design sulphate class (DS) and the 'aggressive Chemical
Environment for Concrete' (ACEC). These procedures have been followed during our
investigation and are described in the following paragraphs.
10.7.3 Desk Study Information
10.7.3.1 The first step in the procedure is to consider specific elements of the desk study.
These are tabulated below.
Summary of desk study information

Element Interrogation Outcome SD1: 2005
reference
Geology Likelihood of soils containing pyrites Likely Box C6
Past industrial uses Brownfield site? No C2.1.2
Table 10.7
10.7.3.2 A brownfield site is defined in SD1: 2005 as a site, or part of a site which has been
subject to industrial development, storage of chemicals (including for agricultural
use) or deposition of waste, and which may contain aggressive chemicals in residual
surface materials, or in ground penetrated by leachates. Where the history of the
site is not known, it should be treated as brownfield until there is evidence to classify
it as natural.
10.7.3.3 Based on the above it is necessary to follow the procedures described in figure C5
('sites or locations where disturbance of pyrite bearing natural ground could result in
additional sulphate').



10.7.4 Assessment of Design Sulphate Class
10.7.4.1 The sulphate concentration in a 2:1 water/soil extract was measured in three
samples of Made Ground, two samples of Head and one sample of London Clay
Formation. The mean of the highest two test results has been calculated as the
characteristic value 16mg/l (refer to table 10.7.4). The measured values are not
considered to be significantly variable.
10.7.4.2 Again following the recommendations of SD1: 2005, we have scheduled additional
testing on the same soil samples to include:-
• Determination of total sulphate content (% SO 4 )

• Determination of total sulphate present (% S)
Using this test data we have calculated the total potential sulphate content (TPS, %
SO 4 ) and the amount of oxidisable sulfides (OS % SO 4 ), again following the
procedures described in SD1: 2005. As the amount of oxidisable sulfides does not
exceed 0.3% SO 4 on a significant number of samples, pyrite is probably not present
in any of the soil types.
10.7.4.3 The concentration of sulphate was measured at less than 3000mg/l and thus the
concentration of magnesium was not measured.
10.7.4.4 If excavations are to be formed for foundations in potentially pyritic ground, and
total potential sulfates (TPS) are not used, any backfill with pyritic material should
not be placed in proximity to foundations.
10.7.5 Assessment of groundwater mobility
10.7.5.1 With reference to SD1: 2005, Section C3.1, we are of the opinion that soils at the site
generally have a low permeability and thus 'static' groundwater conditions are
considered characteristic of the site.
10.7.6 Assessment of aggressive chemical environment for concrete (ACEC)
10.7.6.1 Based on the design sulphate class, characteristic value of pH and assessment of
groundwater mobility, and with reference to table C1 of SDI: 2005, the ACEC class for
each soil type is presented in Table 10.7.6 below.



Summary of concrete classification

Soil type No. of Characteristic Groundwater Characteristic Characteristic DS ACEC
samples pH mobility TPS sulphate (mg/l) class class
Made Ground 3 5.6 Static 0.21 10 DS-1 AC-1s
Head 2 7.8 Static N/A 22 DS-1 AC-1s

Head 0.03 DS-1 AC-1s
(disturbed)
London Clay 1 7.7 Static N/A 10 DS-1 AC-1s
Formation
London Clay 0.03 DS-1 AC-1s
Formation
(disturbed)
Table reference 10.7.6
10.8 Concrete - Chloride attack

10.8.1 Hazards
10.8.1.1 There are a number of ways in which chlorides can react with hydrated cement
compounds in concrete. These are as follows:-
• Chlorides react with calcium hydroxide in the cement binder to form soluble
calcium chloride. This reaction increases the permeability of the concrete
reducing its durability.
• Calcium and magnesium chlorides can react with calcium aluminate hydrates
to form chloroaluminates which result in low to medium expansion of the
concrete.
• If concrete is subject to wetting and drying cycles caused by groundwater

fluctuations, salt crystallisation can form in concrete pores. If pressure
produced by crystal growth is greater than the tensile strength of the
concrete, the concrete will crack and eventually disintegrate.
10.8.2 Risk assessment
10.8.2.1 Chlorides of sodium, potassium, and calcium are generally regarded as being non-
aggressive towards mass concrete; indeed brine containers used in salt mines have
been known to be serviceable after 20 years’ service. Depending upon the type of
concrete, and the cement used up to 0.4% chloride is allowed in BS8110: Part 1.
10.8.2.2 In view of the past use of the site we consider the likelihood of elevated
concentrations of chlorides in the ground is not likely to occur and on this basis have
not specifically measured concentrations of chlorides and, in our opinion, the risk of
buried concrete being affected by chlorides is considered low.



10.9 Concrete - Acid attack

10.9.1 Hazards
10.9.1.1 Concrete being an alkaline material is vulnerable to attack by acids. Prolonged

exposure of concrete structures to acidic solutions can result in complete
disintegration.
10.9.2.1 The rate of acid attack on concrete depends upon the following:-
• The type of acid

• The acid concentration (pH)
• The composition of the concrete (cement/aggregate)
• The soil permeability
• Groundwater movement
British Standard BS8110: Part 1 classifies extreme environment as one where

concrete is exposed to flowing groundwater that has a pH<4.5. The standard also
warns that Portland Cement is not suitable for acidic conditions with a pH of 5.5 or
lower.
10.9.2.2 The pH of the soil/groundwater was measured exceeding 5.5 and on this basis the
risk of concrete being affected by acidic conditions is considered low.
10.10 Concrete - Magnesium attack

10.10.1 Hazards
10.10.1.1 Magnesium salts (excepting magnesium hydrogen carbonate) are destructive to

concrete. Corrosion of concrete occurs from cation exchange reactions where
calcium in the cement paste hydrates and is replaced with magnesium. The cement
loses binding power and eventually the concrete disintegrates.
10.10.2.1 In practise 'high' concentrations of magnesium will be found in the UK only in ground
having industrial residues. Following BRE Special Digest 1:2005, measurement of the
concentration of magnesium is recommended if sulphate concentrations in water
extract or groundwater exceed 3000mg/l. Once measured the concentration of
magnesium is considered further in BRE Special Digest in establishing the concrete
mix to resist chemical attack.
10.10.2.2 We are not aware the site has been subject to any manufacturing processes which
would have included magnesium containing compounds, and in addition sulphate
concentrations did not exceed 3000mg/l, on this basis we have not measured the
concentration of magnesium in soils at the site, and would consider the risk of soils
at the site promoting attack on concrete is considered low.



10.10.2.3 No groundwater was encountered by the investigation and we would consider the
risk of magnesium requiring special consideration with respect to enhancement of
exposure class for this contaminant in isolation to be low.
10.11 Concrete - Ammonium attack

10.11.1 Hazards
10.11.1.1 Ammonium salts, like magnesium salts act as weak acids and attack hardened
concrete paste resulting in softening and gradual decrease in strength of the
concrete.
10.11.2.1 UK guidance is not available on the concentration of ammonium which may affect
concrete. BS EN 206-1: 2000 'Concrete - Part 1: Specification, performance,
production and conformity' does, however, provide exposure classes for concrete in
contact with water with varying concentrations of ammonia for the
design/specification for concrete mixes.
10.11.2.2 As no groundwater was encountered by the investigation, we have not been able to
obtain water samples for measurement of concentration of ammonia. In addition
the site has no history which provides evidence of the uses of ammonia on site, and
in overall conclusion the risk of concrete being affected by ammonia is considered
low.
10.12 Concrete blocks

10.12.1 Hazards
10.12.1.1 Precast aggregate concrete blocks and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks are
commonly used in the construction of shallow foundations. Concrete blocks are
potentially attacked by the same contaminants and ground conditions which affect
dense concrete.
10.12.2 Risk Assessment
10.12.2.1 In general, the mechanism of attack on concrete blocks is the same for hardened
concrete. We recommend parameters for ground conditions for concrete described
in the preceding paragraphs for concrete blockwork in contact with the
ground/groundwater and the blockwork manufacturers confirmation sought for
applicability of their product.
10.13 Clay Bricks/Pipes

10.13.1 Clay Bricks are highly durable materials which have been used in buildings for many
centuries. Fire clay pipe material can also be considered similarly resistant to
contaminants.



10.13.2 Hazards
10.13.2.1 Dissolution of clay brick in a potentially serious cause of deterioration. The extent of
dissolution depends upon the solubility of the glassy material (produced by firing of
the clay) contained in the brick. The acidic nature of the glass phase will produce
low solubility in a neutral and acidic environment, but can be soluble in a basic
environment.
10.13.2.2 A potentially more serious hazard for brickwork is the crystallisation of soluble salts
within the brick pore structure. Salts are transported by water to the interior of the
brick originating from the external environment or by rehydration, however, are only
likely to occur when there is a gradient from a wet interior to a drying surface. The
potential, therefore, for salt crystallisation in the ground is, therefore, low.
10.13.3.1 There seems to be little published information as regards the resistance to clay
bricks/pipes in aggressive ground conditions, however, clay bricks are generally
considered very durable. We recommend manufacturers' advices are sought with
respect to their resistance to ground conditions encountered at this site. As no
significant concentrations of chemical contaminants have been identified at this site
in combination with near neutral pH conditions it is considered unlikely that ground
conditions are sufficiently aggressive to cause damage to brickwork/clay pipes.
10.13.3.2 Some basic guidance is provided in BS5628-3: 2005 'Code of Practice for the Use of
Masonry - Part 3: Materials and components, design and workmanship' with regards
to resistance of masonry to resist the effects of sulphate attack.
10.14 Mortar
10.14.1 Mortars are based on building sands mixed with cement and/or lime as a binder. In
the UK Portland cements and masonry cement are commonly used. Masonry
cements are a mixture of Portland Cements and fine mineral filler (i.e. Limestone)
with an air entraining agent.
10.14.2 Hazards
10.14.2.1 Mortar is subject to the same agents for deterioration as concrete with the major
cause of deterioration being sulphate attack.
10.14.3.1 Sulphates can originate from soils/groundwater or from the bricks themselves.
Calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium sulphates are present in almost all
fired-clay bricks. Water can dissolve a fraction of these sulphates and transport
them to the mortar.



10.14.3.2 Currently, we are not aware of any guidance on the resistance of mortars to sulphate
attack. The Building Research Establishment report that the sulphate resistance of
mortar was improved by the use of sulphate resisting Portland cements and lime.
Some guidance is also provided in BS5628-3: 2005 'Code of Practice for the use of
Masonry - Part 3: Materials and components, design and workmanship'.
10.14.3.3 Based on ground conditions determined at the site the risk of significant sulphate
attack on mortars (Based on testing/analysis of sulphates in relation to concrete -
refer Section 10.7) is considered low.
10.15 Metals - general

10.15.1 There are a number of metals which are used in buildings either as piles, services,
non-structural and, indeed, structural components. The most common metals used
in buildings are steel, stainless steel, copper, lead, zinc, aluminium and cast iron. All
these metals can deteriorate through corrosion process. Corrosion can affect metals
in a variety of ways depending upon the nature of the metal and the environment to
which it is subjected. In most common forms of corrosion are:-
• Electrochemical - the most common form of corrosion in an aqueous solution

• Chemical corrosion - occurs when there is a direct charge transfer between
the metal and the attacking medium (examples are oxidation, attack by acids,
alkalis and organic solvents)
• Microbial induced corrosion
10.16 Metals - Cast iron

10.16.1 Cast iron is a term to describe ferrous metals containing more than 1.7% carbon and
is used extensively in the manufacture of pipes.
10.16.2 Hazards
10.16.2.1 Generally, cast iron has a good resistance to corrosion by soils, however, corrosion
can occur due to the following mechanisms:-
1) Generation of large scale galvanic cells caused by differences in salt

concentrations, oxygen availability or presence of stray electrical currents.
2) Hydrochloric acid will cause corrosion at any concentration and

temperature. Dilute sulphuric, nitric and phosphoric acids are also
aggressive as also are well aerated organic acids.
10.16.3.1 Testing can be carried out on site to measure the resistivity and redox potential of
soils which can assist in deriving recommendations for protection of cast iron
components using coatings, burial trenches, or isolation techniques. Currently,
however, there is no specific guidance and we recommend advice is sought from
manufacturers.



10.16.3.2 Guidelines produced by the Water Research Centre (WRc) on the use of ductile iron
pipes, state that highly acidic soils (pH <5) are corrosive to cast iron pipe even when
protected by a zinc coating or polythene sleeving. WRc also indicate that
groundwater containing >300ppm chloride may corrode even protected cast iron
pipes.
10.16.3.3 On the basis that the pH of soils at the site are not less than 5, and groundwater is
unlikely to be in contact with cast iron elements, then the risk of ductile cast iron
pipes being affected by acid/chloride attack is considered low. We have not carried
out any redox/resistivity testing (considered outside our brief) and thus we cannot
comment further with regards to the risks of galvanic action.
10.17 Metals - Steel piles

10.17.1 Hazards
10.17.1.1 The corrosion of steel requires the presence of both oxygen and water. In
undisturbed natural soils the amount of corrosion of driven steel piles is generally
small. In disturbed soils (made ground) however, corrosion rates can be high and
normally twice as high as those for undisturbed natural soils.
10.17.2.1 Guidance on the use of steel piles in different environments is provided in British
Steel's piling handbook which includes calculating the effective life of steel piles.
There is no specific guidance, however, for contaminated soils in this publication.
Coatings can be provided to the pile surface but experience has shown that some
coatings can be damaged during driving, particularly in ground which can contain
hard materials such as brick/concrete/stone.
10.18 Metals - Stainless steel

10.18.1 Hazards
10.18.1.1 Stainless steel is used in a number of building components including services,

pipework, reinforcement bars and wall ties. There is little knowledge, however, of
the performance of stainless steel in aggressive environments.
10.18.2.1 Stainless steel can withstand pH of 6.5 to 8.5, but the chlorine content of a soil
increases the risk of corrosion. At concentrations of 200mg/l type 304 stainless steel
can be used, but for concentrations of 200 to 1000mg/l type 316 should be used in
preference to type 304, but for concentrations greater than 1000mg/l type 316
should always be used.



10.18.2.2 At this site the pH of the soils was near neutral (within the range of 6.5 to 8.5) and it
is considered unlikely that groundwater will be in contact with stainless steel
components (unless we are advised otherwise) thus the risk of ground conditions at
the site affecting stainless steel is considered low.
10.19 Metals - Galvanised steel

10.19.1 Hazards
10.19.1.1 Galvanising steel is a means of protecting steel from aggressive environments;

however, zinc galvanising can be corroded by salts and acids.
10.19.2 Risk assessment/remedial action
10.19.2.1 There is no current specific guidance on the effects of aggressive ground conditions
on galvanised steel, however, some research indicates zinc alloys are generally more
resistant than pure zinc coatings in aggressive conditions.
10.20 Metals - Copper

10.20.1 Hazards
10.20.1.1 Copper is commonly used for gas and water supplies. Copper is generally resistant
to corrosion in most natural environments, but in contaminated ground copper can
be subject to corrosion by acids, sulphates, chlorides and ground containing
cinders/ash. Wet peat (pH 4.6) and acid clays (pH 4.2) are considered aggressive
conditions to promote corrosion to copper.
10.20.2.1 There is no specific published guidance on what constitutes aggressive conditions to

copper except very acid/peaty conditions.
10.20.2.2 There are no significantly acidic or peaty conditions in near surface soils at the site
or, indeed, significant concentrations of ash/cinders. On this basis the risk of
significant corrosion to copper in contact with the ground is considered low.
10.21 Metals - Lead

10.21.1 Hazards
10.21.1.1 Lead is used in tanking, flashings, damp proof courses, etc. Lead is a durable
material which is resistant to corrosion in most environments. Lead damp proof
courses can be subject to attach from the lime released by Portland Cement based
mortar and concrete. In the presence of moisture, a slow corrosive attack is initiated
on lead sheet. In such cases a thick coat of bitumen should be used to protect the
lead damp proof course.



10.21.2.1 There is no current guidance on the performance of lead in contact with

contaminated soils, however, acids and alkalis (lime) could be aggressive towards
lead.
10.21.2.2 At the site pH conditions are not considered significantly extreme and this it is
considered unlikely that ground conditions at the site would significantly affect lead.
10.22 Plastics - General

10.22.1 The range of plastics in construction is wide and increasing. The deterioration of
plastics varies with the individual material and the environment to which it is
exposed. In general, plastics deteriorate through degradation of their polymer
constituent, but loss of plasticizer and other additives can render plastics ultimately
unserviceable.
10.23 Plastic membranes and geotextiles

10.23.1 Plastic membranes and textiles are used in the construction industry as damp proof
courses, gas resistant membranes, cover systems and liners. They are typically used
to restrict the movement of gas or water into buildings, building materials or
components or to separate differing soil types. Typically materials used for
membranes are polyethylene (PE) and poly vinyl chloride (PVC).
10.23.2 Hazards
10.23.2.1 Membranes of PE and PVC are attacked by a variety of acids and solvents. PE has a
poor corrosion resistance to oxidising acids (nitric and sulphuric) at high
concentrations. Hydrochloric acid (HCl) does not chemically attack PE but can have a
detrimental effect on its mechanical properties. Alkalis, basic salts, ammonia
solutions and bleaching chemicals such as chlorine will cause deterioration of PE. PE
is resistant to non-oxidising salt solutions.
10.23.2.2 PVC is degraded by the action of oxidising acids. Nitric acid is particularly aggressive
towards PVC. PVC does not deteriorate under the action of neutral or alkaline
solutions.
10.23.3.1 There is no published guidance on quantitative assessment of the risks to PE or PVC

although there is a lot of advice on how contaminants react with these plastics. In
general, the more concentrated the contamination the greater the risk to plastic
membranes/geotextiles.
10.23.3.2 Based on the investigatory data obtained to date, and in consideration of the
hazards described above, there is no evidence of significant concentrations of acids
or alkalis, indicating the risks of ground conditions at the site affecting PE and PVC
materials are considered low.



10.24 Plastic Pipes

10.24.1 Hazards
10.24.1.1 Plastic pipes are predominantly manufactured from PVC and PE but other materials
can be used. In general they perform well but it is known that chemical attack and
permeation of contaminants through the pipes can result from use in contaminated
land. A published review on plastic pipes reports the following:-
• Polyethylene (PE) - good resistance to solvents, acids and alkalis

• Poly vinyl chloride (PVC) - most common form of pipe. Good general
resistance to chemical attack but can be attacked by solvents such as ketones,
chlorinated hydrocarbons and aromatic polypropylene (PP) - chemically
resistant to acids, alkalis and organic solvents but not recommended for use
with storing oxidising acids, chlorinated hydrocarbons and aromatics.
• Poly vinylidene fluoride (PVDF) - inert to most solvents, acids and alkalis as
well as chlorine, bromide and other halogens
• Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) - one of the most inert thermoplastics
available. PTFE has good chemical resistance to solvents, acids and alkalis
A survey carried out by the Water Research Centre (WRc) on reported incidents of
permeation (more than 25), only two involved PVC with these incidents relating to
spillages of fuel.
10.24.2 Assessment
10.24.2.1 A survey carried out by the Water Research Centre (WRc) on reported incidents of
permeation (more than 25), only two involved PVC with these incidents relating to
spillages of fuel.
The UK Water Industry research (UKWIR) have published a document entitled

’Guidance for the selection of Water supply pipes to be used in Brownfield sites’. The
publication defines brownfield sites as
‘Land or premises that have been used or developed. They may also be vacant, or
derelict. However they are not necessarily contaminated’
The subject site has not previously been developed however, it would appear that it
has been used, and on this basis could potentially be considered brownfield in
accordance with the UKWIR document. Following the preliminary risk assessment
procedures described in the UKWIR document however, (paragraph 2.4.2) there is
no evidence to indicate that chemicals have ever been used or stored on site or
adjacent to the development. On this basis it is considered unlikely that there will be
a requirement to use barrier water supply pipes. We recommend Thames Water
however is consulted on this to gain their opinion and requirements.



10.25 Electrical cables

10.25.1 Hazards
10.25.1.1 Electrical cables are generally protected by plastic sleeves. These sleeves are
potentially subject to chemical and permeation in similar modes as plastic pipes.
Medium and low voltage cables are often laid directly into the ground and are thus
at risk of attack by contaminants. High voltage cables tend to be laid in trenches
backfilled with 'clean' materials.
10.25.2.1 The selection of appropriate sheathing material is important to provide resistance to

ground conditions at the site and recommend manufacturers’ advices are sought.
10.26 Rubbers
10.26.1 Hazards
10.26.1.1 Rubbers are cross-linked polymeric materials containing a number of additives such
as carbon black, fillers, antioxidant and vulcanising agents. The corrosion resistance
of rubber is dependent upon the polymeric constituent. The mechanisms by which
rubbers deteriorate when placed in aggressive chemical environments are similar to
those described for plastics. Oxidation is the principal form of degradation. Whilst
rubbers are resistant to strong acids and alkalis, they are rapidly attacked by
oxidising agents such as nitric acid and oxidising salts such as copper, manganese
and iron.
10.26.1.2 Rubber is also susceptible to attack by certain hydrocarbons and oils. The
absorption of these liquids causes the rubber to smell.
10.26.2.1 Information on the effect of a range of chemicals on the physical properties of

various rubbers has been produced by the Rubber and Plastics Research Association.
This was based on observations carried out following immersion tests using
undiluted chemicals, but this has limitations such as the effects of combined
chemicals and the effects of dilution.
10.26.2.2 We recommend manufacturers of the rubber materials likely to be in contact with

the ground at the site are consulted to confirm, or otherwise, the applicability of
their product.



11 Classification of waste soils under the Waste

Acceptance Criteria
11.1 The Landfill Directive
11.2 Classification of soil types
11.3 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC)
11.4 Primary Classification
11.5 Secondary Classification
11.6 Naturally deposited soils not affected by artificial contaminants
11.7 Basic Categorisation
11.8 Treatment of waste
11.9 Reuse of soils - Materials Management Plans
11.1 The Landfill Directive

11.1.1 The Landfill Directive represents an important change in the way we dispose of
waste. It encourages waste minimisation by promoting increased levels of recycling
and recovery. The Landfill Directive became law in 1999 and transcribed into the
Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations which came into force in 2002. These
Regulations were amended in 2005 by introducing criteria to classify soils for
disposal to landfill. It is the duty of the waste producer (the client) to classify the
soils for this purpose.
11.2 Classification of soil types

11.2.1 Our investigations consider two soil types which may be generated as wastes as part
of construction operations, potentially contaminated soil and uncontaminated soil.
A full hazard assessment and subsequent testing for waste acceptance criteria is
undertaken on soils which are not considered to be naturally deposited or are likely
to be affected by artificial contamination. For soils that are unlikely to be affected by
artificial contamination (such as natural soils), specific testing in relation to the
classification process is not necessary.
11.3 Waste acceptance criteria (WAC)

11.3.1 The Environment Agency publication, ‘Framework for the classification of
contaminated soils as hazardous wastes’ (July 2004), provides an appropriate
procedure for establishing if the soils are hazardous or non-hazardous and applies to
soils that are identified as potentially contaminated. Uncontaminated, natural soils
are considered separately (see Section 11.6).



11.3.2 Primary classification
11.3.2.1 The first stage is classifying a potentially ‘contaminated’ soil for disposal to landfill is
to establish its chemical status by first identifying potential sources/types of
chemical contamination (desk study) followed by intrusive site investigations to
obtain samples for undefined testing of soil samples to measure concentrations of
chemical contaminants. Such data provides information to partly complete the basic
characteristic checklist.
11.3.2.2 Laboratory test data is then compared with the Environment Agency publication
‘hazardous waste – Interpretation of the definition and classification of hazardous
waste (second edition, version 2.1)’. Where the waste is suspected to contain oil, we
have referred to the Environment Agency draft consultation paper ‘How to Find Out
if Waste Oil and Wastes that Contain Oil are Hazardous’ (Draft Version 2.5 – October
2006). With reference to these documents a hazard assessment has been carried
out to enable categorisation of the material as hazardous or non-hazardous and to
subsequently establish the European Waste Catalogue (EWC) code (ref Section
11.3.4 below).
11.3.3 Secondary classification
11.3.3.1 If the soil is deemed hazardous then measurement of organic contaminants and
leachable inorganic contaminants is necessary for comparison with values listed in
the Environment Agency publication ‘Guidance on sampling and testing of wastes to
meet landfill waste acceptance procedures’ (April 2005) Table 5.1. Similarly should
the soil be deemed as non-hazardous then such testing may also be undertaken to
determine if it is potentially inert. This document also provides guidance on
sampling materials and frequency as well as test procedures and quality assurance of
testing.
11.3.3.2 The above procedures are described with respect to the subject site in the following
sections Section 11.4 (primary) and 11.5 (secondary), leading to basic
characterisation of soils for disposal. Subject to the results of the categorisation and
anticipated development methodology, consideration should be given by the
developer to reduce volumes of disposal or treatment to allow reclassification.
11.3.4 European waste catalogue (EWC) coding
11.3.4.1 The EWC 2002 is a catalogue of all wastes, grouped according to generic industry,
process or waste type. It is divided into twenty main chapters, each with a two digit
code between 01 and 20. Following the EWC, in our opinion, soils considered as part
of this investigation would be categorised within ‘Group 17’ of the EWC catalogue,
which comprises ‘Construction and Demolition Wastes (including excavated soils
from contaminated sites)’.



11.3.4.2 The Catalogue further categorises the waste, such that soils considered as part of
this investigation would be classified as either 17 05 04 defined as ‘soil and stones
(other than those mentioned in 17 05 03)’; or 17 05 03* defined as soil or stones
containing dangerous substances (where hazardous wastes are described by entries
followed by an asterisk).
11.4 Primary classification
11.4.1 Soil types
11.4.1.1 Based on soils exposed in exploratory excavations, in combination with anticipated

construction works, we assume soils requiring off-site disposal will comprise Made
Ground, Head and London Clay Formation soils arising as a result of foundation and
service trench excavations and general site clearance.
11.4.2 Classification as hazardous or non-hazardous waste
11.4.2.1 The Environment Agency publication ‘Framework for the classification of

contaminated soils as hazardous wastes’ (July 2004) provides the following
procedure for establishing if the soils are hazardous or non-hazardous. The first
stage in classifying a potentially ‘contaminated’ soil for disposal is to establish its
chemical status by first identifying potential sources/types of chemical
contamination (desk study) followed by intrusive site investigations to obtain
samples for laboratory testing of soil samples to measure concentrations of chemical
contaminants.
11.4.2.2 An assessment of potential source of contamination is presented in Section 8 of this

report. Laboratory testing has been set as deemed appropriate to our source
assessment.
11.4.2.3 We have carried out an analysis of test data for each chemical contaminant
considered in this investigation. A conservative approach has been adopted for the
analysis whereby the maximum test value for each contaminant has been adopted
as a preliminary screening process to determine if the soils are hazardous or non-
hazardous. Should the analysis indicate potentially hazardous properties then a
process of zoning by further analysing the site history, geological conditions and
analytical data may be undertaken.
11.4.2.4 Laboratory test data measures the concentration of anions, which are unlikely to
exist in the pure metallic form in the soil, but probably exist as a compound.
Following guidance provided in the Environment Agency Technical Guidance WM2
‘Interpretation of the definition and classification of hazardous waste, we have
reviewed a variety of compounds for each of the metallic and semi metallic elements
we have tested.



11.4.2.5 To determine the hazardous waste properties for each element, we have reviewed
chemical compounds listed in Table 3.2 of Annex VI of the European Regulation
(1272/2008) for Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) of chemicals which has
now superseded the Approved Supply List (Published by the Health and Safety
Executive) for the classification of hazardous chemicals in the UK. In order to
provide a ‘worst case’ scenario, initially we adopt the most severe hazardous
properties (risk phrases) associated with the various compounds for each element
under review. If measured concentrations produce a hazardous outcome then the
element or elements are reassessed on a site specific basis. For review of organic
contamination, we have directly adopted the threshold concentrations for the
appropriate organic compounds listed in Table 3.2.
11.4.2.6 The compound or compounds adopted for each element is used to convert the
measured metallic concentration to the substance concentration using their
respective molecular weights. This derived conversion factor is then used in the
threshold concentration spreadsheet (refer paragraph 11.4.2.8 below).
11.4.2.7 Our assessment of each of the chemical substances is maintained on our files and is
available for confidential review/audit by the Environment Agency.
11.4.2.8 A spreadsheet detailing the hazard assessment following the procedures described
in ‘framework for the classification of contaminated soils as hazardous wastes’ is
presented in Appendix J.
11.4.2.9 The spreadsheet indicates the soils are non-hazardous.
11.5 Secondary assessment

11.5.1 Following ‘Guidance on sampling and testing of wastes to meet landfill waste
acceptance procedures’ produced by the Environment Agency (Version 1, April 2005)
we have scheduled testing of one sample to measure the parameters listed in table
5.1 (landfill waste acceptance criteria) included in the above publication. A copy of
the test result certificate is presented in Appendix G. The source of the composite
sample is detailed below:
Composition of soil samples for classification testing

Strata Source Soil Type
Made Ground DTS01-0.1m Grey occasionally mottled brown
DTS03- 0.1m slightly silty slightly sandy slightly
DTS04- 0.3m gravelly clay. Gravel consists of
flint and occasional brick.
DTS05- 0.3m
DTS06- 0.2m
Table 11.5.1
11.5.2 The sample was deemed representative of Made Ground soils as described in
Section 5. The sample was formed by combining individual samples taken from
exploratory excavations within the Made Ground. The combined sample was then
quartered in the laboratory to produce a representative sample for subsequent
testing.



11.5.3 Laboratory test data has been compared with the landfill waste acceptable criteria
(table 5.1) to allow the secondary assessment to be completed. A copy of table 5.1
is presented in Appendix K with test result data added for ease of comparison.
11.5.4 Comparison of test data with landfill waste acceptance criteria indicates that Made
Ground soils are suitable for disposal as inert waste.
11.6 Naturally deposited soils not affected by artificial contaminants

11.6.1 With reference to the European Waste Catalogue and table 5.1 of the Environment
Agency publication ‘a better place – guidance for waste destined for disposal in
landfills – version 2 June 2006’, naturally occurring soils not likely to be affected by
contamination can be classified as inert waste, with a EWC code of 17 05 04. Should
any of the naturally deposited soils be suspected to contain contamination (by virtue
of visual of olfactory evidence) upon excavation, then such soils should be stockpiled
appropriately and additional testing carried out as considered necessary. Based on
evidence obtained during our investigations, we are of the opinion that the Head
and London Clay Formation at the site are not likely to be affected by chemical
contamination and thus can be classified as inert waste.
11.7 Basic categorisation

11.7.1 Based on the preceding assessment, we have produced three basic categorisation
schedules relating to the Made Ground, Head and London Clay Formation deposits,
which are presented in Appendix L. These schedules should be provided together
with a copy of this report to an appropriately licensed landfill facility to demonstrate
the material can be deposited at this facility.
11.7.2 We understand that some landfill sites have licences which have restrictions on
concentrations of chemical contaminants and thus we recommend this report is
provided to the selected landfill facility to confirm (or otherwise) it can accept the
waste. Please be aware that landfill sites are obligated to undertake in house quality
assurance tests and thus may require further WAC testing for any soils encountered
as part of this investigation. There is no obligation on any landfill operator to accept
waste if they choose not to and waste operators may require additional testing of
untested waste soils prior to acceptance at landfill in accordance with the landfill
regulations.
11.8 Treatment of waste

11.8.1 Treatment of wastes is now a requirement of the landfill directive applied by the
Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. Landfill cannot accept untreated
waste (be it hazardous or non-hazardous), thus waste producers have the choice of
treating it themselves on site or treating it elsewhere prior to disposal to landfill.
The regulations require:
’10 – (1) The operator of a landfill shall ensure that the landfill is only used for
landfilling waste which is subject to prior treatment unless:



a) It is inert waste for which treatment is not technically feasible; or
b) It is waste other than inert waste and treatment would not reduce its
quantity or the hazards which it poses to human health or the
environment.’
11.8.2 Regulation 2 defines treatment as: ‘physical, thermal, chemical or biological

processes (including sorting) that change the characteristics of waste in order to
reduce its volume or hazardous nature, facilitate its handling or enhance
recovery.’
11.8.3 A treatment option must comply with the definition of treatment. This involves a
‘three point test’ against which treatment is assessed i.e.
1. It must be a physical, thermal, chemical or biological process including
sorting
2. It must change the characteristics of the waste: and
3. It must do so in order to:
a) Reduce its volume: or
b) Reduce its hazardous nature: or
c) Facilitate its handling: or
d) Enhance its recovery.
11.8.4 Treatment of inert wastes
11.8.4.1 Inert waste does not need to be treated if it is not technically feasible however
treatment should reduce the amount of waste which goes to landfill and enhance its
recovery (by re-use or recycling). Inert wastes are often suitable for recycling, for
example as an aggregate or an engineering fill material. A fact sheet on treatment of
inert wastes is available on the following website www.environment-agency.gov.uk
11.8.4.2 Clearly, excavations in the Head and London Clay Formation will generate inert
wastes which could be reused on site or off site for bulk filling, subject of course to
maintenance of an acceptable water content and provided that it is fit for its
intended purpose.
11.8.5 Treatment of non-hazardous waste
11.8.5.1 Guidance and indeed examples of treatment is provided in the Environment Agency
publication ‘Treatment of non-hazardous wastes for landfill – your waste – your
responsibility,’ again available on the EA website.
11.8.6 Landfill operators
11.8.6.1 It is a requirement of the landfill operator to check if the waste soils taken to the
facility have been treated.



11.9 Reuse of Soils - Materials Management Plans

11.9.1 Where soils are to be moved and reused onsite, or are to be imported to the site, a
Waste Exemption or an Environmental Permit is required.
11.9.2 An alternative is the use of a Materials Management Plan (MMP) to determine

where soils are and are not considered to be a waste. By following ‘The Definition of
Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice’ published by CL:AIRE (produced in
2008 and revised in March 2011), soils that are suitable for reuse without the need
for remediation (either chemical or geotechnical) and have a certainty of use, are
not considered to be waste and therefore do not fall under waste regulations. In
addition, following this guidance may present an opportunity to transfer suitable
material between sites, without the need for Waste Exemptions or Environmental
Permits.
11.9.3 MMPs offering numerous benefits, including maximising the use of soils onsite,
minimising soils going to landfill and reducing costs and time involved in liaising with
waste regulators.
11.9.4 We can provide further advice on this and provide fees for producing a Materials
Management Plan on further instructions.



12 Further investigations
12.1 At this stage we do not consider further investigations to be necessary.



13 Remediation strategy and specification

13.1 Based on a combination of intrusive investigations and desk study information, our
risk assessment indicates there is a low risk to human and controlled water
receptors. On this basis remedial action to render the site fit for purpose is not
considered necessary.



Thurrock Central Hub,
The Sorrells, Stanford-le-Hope
Neighbourhood extract from Ordnance Survey map Town extract from Ordnance Survey map
Title Scale Drawing number
Site location plan Not to scale 01

Detail extract from Ordnance Survey map
Report ref: STM3323B-G01 October 2015
Revision 0
Equivalent (SPT) N-value derived from Dynamic Cone

Penetration testing N-value for 300mm
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
MADE
GROUND
HEAD
2
Depth (m)
LONDON
CLAY
FORMATION
DCP01 DCP02 DCP03
Title
Scale Drawing number
Plot summarising insitu density testing utilising dynamic cone
As shown 03
penetration (DCP) techniques

Revision: 0
Undrained shear strength (kN/m2)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

0
2
Depth (m)
DTS01 DTS02 DTS03 DTS04 DTS05 DTS06 TP02 TP03 TP04
Notes
1) Equivalent undrained shear strength derived by multiplying Pocket Penetrometer (PP) results by 50
Title
Plot summarising results of pocket penetrometer
As shown 04a
determinations by location

Revision: 0
Undrained shear strength (kN/m2)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

0
2
Depth (m)
MADE GROUND HEAD LONDON CLAY FORMATION
Notes
1) Equivalent undrained shear strength derived by multiplying Pocket Penetrometer (PP) results by 50
Title
Plot summarising results of pocket penetrometer
As shown 04b
determinations by geology

Revision: 0
Ratio between 0.4WL and soil moisture content

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0.0
0.5
0.4WL
1.0
Depth (m)
1.5
2.0
2.5
Key:
DTS01 DTS06
Notes
1) Assessment of data carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 412 ‘Desiccation in clay soils’
Plot summarising ratio between 0.4 x WL and soil As shown 05

moisture content (%)

Revision: 0
Soil moisture content (%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
0.5
1.5
Depth (m)
2.5
3.5
Key DTS01 DTS06
Notes
1) Assessment of data carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 412 ‘Desiccation in clay soils’
Plot summarising moisture content (%) vs depth by As shown 06

location

Revision: 0
Appendix A
Definition of geotechnical terms
Definition of geotechnical terms used in this report - foundations

Strip foundations.
A foundation providing a continuous longitudinal ground bearing.
Trench fill concrete foundation.

A trench filled with mass concrete providing continuous longitudinal ground bearing.
Pad foundation.
An isolated foundation to spread a concentrated load.
Raft foundation.
A foundation continuous in two directions, usually covering an area equal to or greater than the
base area of the structure.
Substructure.
That part of any structure (including building, road, runway or earthwork) which is below natural or
artificial ground level. In a bridge this includes piers and abutments (and wing walls), whether below
ground level or not, which support the superstructure.
Piled foundations and end bearing piles. A pile driven or formed in the ground for transmitting the
weight of a structure to the soil by the resistance developed at the pile point or base and the friction
along its surface. If the pile supports the load mainly by the resistance developed at its point or
base, it is referred to as an end-bearing pile; if mainly by friction along its surface, as a friction pile.
Bored cast in place pile.

A pile formed with or without a casing by excavating or boring a hole in the ground and
subsequently filling it with plain or reinforced concrete.
Driven pile.
A pile driven into the ground by the blows of a hammer or a vibrator.
Precast pile.
A reinforced or prestressed concrete pile cast before driving.
Driven cast in place pile.

A pile installed by driving a permanent or temporary casing, and filling the hole so formed with plan
or reinforced concrete.
Displacement piles.
Piled formed by displacement of the soil or ground through which they are driven.
Skin friction.
The frictional resistance of the surrounding soil on the surface of cofferdam or caisson walls, and pile
shafts.
Downdrag or negative skin friction. A downwards frictional force applied to the shaft of a pile
caused by the consolidation of compressible strata, e.g. under recently placed fill. Downdrag has the
effect of adding load to the pile and reducing the factor of safety.



Report: STM3323B-G01 Page 1 of 2 Appendix A
Appendix A
Definition of geotechnical terms
Definition of geotechnical terms used in this report – bearing values

Ultimate bearing capacity.
The value of the gross loading intensity for a particular foundation at which the resistance of the soil
to displacement of the foundation is fully mobilised.
Presumed bearing value.

The net loading intensity considered appropriate to the particular type of ground for preliminary
design purposes. The particular value is based on calculation from shear strength tests or other field
tests incorporating a factor of safety against shear failure.
Allowable bearing pressure.

The maximum allowable net loading intensity at the base of the foundation, taking into account the
ultimate bearing capacity, the amount and kind of settlement expected and our estimate of ability of
the structure to accommodate this settlement.
Factor of safety.
The ratio of the ultimate bearing capacity to the intensity of the applied bearing pressure or the ratio
of the ultimate load to the applied load.
Definition of geotechnical terms used in this report – road pavements

The following definitions are based on Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) Report
LR1132.
Equilibrium CBR values.

A prediction of the CBR value, which will be attained under the completed pavement.
Thin pavement.
A thin pavement (which includes both bound and unbound pavement construction materials 1 in
300mm thick and a thick pavement is 1200mm thick (typical of motorway construction).



Report: STM3323B-G01 Page 2 of 2 Appendix A
Appendix B
Geo-environmental terms and bibliography
Definition of geo-environmental terms used in this report

Conceptual model
Textual and/or schematic hypothesis of the nature and sources of contamination, potential
migration pathways (including description of the ground and groundwater) and potential
receptors, developed on the basis of the information obtained from the investigatory process.
Contamination
Presence of a substance which is in, on or under land, and which has the potential to cause harm
or to cause pollution of controlled water.
Controlled water
Inland freshwater (any lake, pond or watercourse above the freshwater limit), water contained in
underground strata and any coastal water between the limit of highest tide or the freshwater line
to the three mile limit of territorial waters.
Harm
Adverse effect on the health of living organisms, or other interference with ecological systems of
which they form part, and, in the case of humans, including property.
Pathway
Mechanism or route by which a contaminant comes into contact with, or otherwise affects, a
receptor.
Receptor
Persons, living organisms, ecological systems, controlled waters, atmosphere, structures and
utilities that could be adversely affected by the contaminant(s).
Risk
Probability of the occurrence of, and magnitude of the consequences of, an unwanted adverse
effect on a receptor.
Risk Assessment
Process of establishing, to the extent possible, the existence, nature and significance of risk.



Report: STM3323B-G01 Page 1 of 5 Appendix B
Appendix B
Definition of environmental risk/hazard terms used in this report.

Based on CIRIA report C552 ‘Contaminated land risk assessment – A guide to good practice’.
Potential hazard severity definition
Category Definition
Severe Acute risks to human health, catastrophic damage to buildings/property, major pollution
of controlled waters
Medium Chronic risk to human health, pollution of sensitive controlled waters, significant effects
on sensitive ecosystems or species, significant damage to buildings or structures.
Mild Pollution of non sensitive waters, minor damage to buildings or structures.
Minor Requirement for protective equipment during site works to mitigate health effects,
damage to non sensitive ecosystems or species.
Probability of risk definition
Category Definition
High likelihood Pollutant linkage may be present, and risk is almost certain to occur in long term, or
there is evidence of harm to the receptor.
Likely Pollutant linkage may be present, and it is probable that the risk will occur over the long
term
Low likelihood Pollutant linkage may be present, and there is a possibility of the risk occurring, although
there is no certainty that it will do so.
Unlikely Pollutant linkage may be present, but the circumstances under which harm would occur
are improbable.
Level of risk for potential hazard definition
Probability of Potential severity

risk Severe Medium Mild Minor
High Likelihood Very high High Moderate Low/Moderate
Likely High Moderate Low/Moderate Low
Low Likelihood Moderate Low/Moderate Low Very low
Unlikely Low/Moderate Low Very low Very low
Refer sheet 2 for definitions of ‘very high’ to ‘low’



Appendix B
Definition of environmental risk/hazard terms used in this report.

Based on CIRIA report C552 ‘Contaminated land risk assessment – A guide to good practice’.
Risk classifications and likely action required:
Very high risk

High probability that severe harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard OR there is
evidence that severe harm to a designated receptor is currently happening. This risk, if realised is likely to
result in substantial liability. Urgent investigation and remediation are likely to be required.
High risk
Harm is likely to arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard. This risk, if realised, is likely to result
in substantial liability. Urgent investigation is required and remedial works may be necessary in the short term
and are likely over the long term.
Moderate risk
It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard. However, it is either
relatively unlikely that any such harm would be severe, or if any harm were to occur it is likely that the harm
would be relatively mild. Investigation is normally required to clarify risks and to determine potential liability.
Some remedial works may be required in the long term.
Low risk
It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard but it is likely that this
harm, if realised, would at worst normally be mild.
Very low risk

It is a low possibility that harm could arise to a designated receptor. On the event of such harm being realised
it is not likely to be severe.



Appendix B
Gaseous contamination -
Extract copy of table 3 of BS8485:2007 Solutions scores
PROTECTION ELEMENT/SYSTEM SCORE COMMENTS
a) Venting/dilution (see Annex A of BS8485)
Passive sub-floor ventilation (venting layer can be a clear void or Very good 2.5 Ventilation performance in accordance with
formed using gravel, geocomposites, polystyrene void formers, performance Annex A of BS8485.
etc) A)
Good If passive ventilation is poor this is generally
performance unacceptable and some form of active system
will be required.
1
Subfloor ventilation with active abstraction/pressurization (venting layers can be a There have to be robust management systems in
clear void or formed using gravel, geocomposites, polystyrene void formers, etc)A) place to ensure the continued maintenance of
any ventilation system.
2.5
Active ventilation can always be designed to
meet good performance.
Mechanically assisted systems come in two main
forms: extraction and positive pressurization
Ventilated car park (basement or undercroft) 4 Assume car park is vented to deal with car
exhaust fumes, designed to Building Regulations
Document F and IStructE guidance.
b) Barriers
Floor Slabs It is good practice to install ventilation in all
foundation systems to effect pressure relief as a
Block and beam floor slab 0
minimum.
Reinforced concrete ground bearing floor slab 0.5
Reinforced concrete ground bearing foundation raft with limited service 1.5 Breaches in floor slabs such as joints have to be
penetrations that are cast into slab effectively sealed against gas ingress in order to
maintain these performances.
Reinforced concrete cast in situ suspended slab with minimal service penetrations 1.5
and water bars around all slab penetrations and at joints
Fully tanked basement 2
c) Membranes
Taped and sealed membrane to reasonable levels of workmanship/in line with 0.5 The performance of membranes is heavily
current good practice with validation B), C) dependent on the quality and design of the
installation, resistance to damage after
Proprietary gas resistant membrane to reasonable levels of workmanship/in line 1 installations, and the integrity of joints.
with current good practice under independent inspection (CQA) B), C)
Proprietary gas resistant membrane installed to reasonable levels of 2
workmanship/in line with current good practice under CQA with integrity testing
and independent validation.
d) Monitoring and detection (not applicable to non-managed property, or in isolation)
Intermittent monitoring using hand held equipment 0.5 Where fitted, permanent monitoring system
A) ought to be installed in the underfloor
Permanent monitoring and alarm system Installed in the underfloor 2 venting/dilution system in the first instance but
venting/dilution system can also be provided within the occupied space
as a fail safe.
Installed in the building 1
e) Pathway Intervention
Pathway intervention - This can consist of site protection measures for
off-site or on-site sources (see Annex A of
BS8485)
NOTE In practice the choice of materials might well rely on factors such as construction method and the risk of damage after installation. It is
important to ensure that the chosen combination gives an appropriate level of protection.
A)
It is possible to test ventilation systems by installing monitoring probes for post installation validation.
B)
If a 200g DPM material is to function as a gas barrier it should be installed according to BRE 212)/BRE 414), being taped and sealed to all
penetrations.
C)
Polymeric Materials > 1 200g can be used to improve confidence in the barrier. Remember that their gas resistance is little more than the
standard 1 200g (proportional to thickness) but their physical properties mean that they are more robust and resistant to site damage.



Appendix B
List of documents used in assessment of chemical contamination

No. Title Publication reference / publisher
1 Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants in EA Science Report – SC050021/SR2
soil
2 Updated technical background to the CLEA model EA Science Report – SC050021/SR3
3 CLEA Software (Version 1.03 beta) Handbook EA Science Report - SC050021/SR4
4 Guidance on comparing Soil Contamination Data with a CIEH

Critical Concentration
5 Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk LQM/CIEH

Assessment
6 Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Land R&D Publication, Contaminated Land
Contamination: An overview of the development of soil Report CLR 7
guideline values and related research
7 Contaminants of Soil: Collation of Toxicological Data and R&D Publication, Contaminated Land
Intake Values for Humans Report CLR 9
8 The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model R&D Publication, Contaminated Land
(CLEA): Technical Basis and Algorithms Report CLR 10
9 Model Procedures for the Management of Land R&D Publication, Contaminated Land
Contamination Report CLR 11
10 Contaminants in Soil: Collection of Toxicological Data and R&D Publications, Tox. 6

Intake Values for Human Values
11 Soil Guideline Values for Contamination (2002) R&D Publications, SGV 10
12 Soil Guideline Values (2009) EA Science Reports – SC050021
CIEH Chartered institute of Environmental Health

LQM Land Quality Management
EA Environment Agency



Key to legends, columns & water observations
Trial pit records
Key to legends
Composite materials, soils and lithology
Topsoil Made Ground Boulders
Chalk Clay Coal
Cobbles Cobbles & Boulders Concrete
Gravel Limestone Mudstone
Peat Sand Sand and Gravel
Sandstone Silt Silt / Clay
Siltstone
Note: Composite soil types are signified by combined symbols.
Key to ‘test results’ and ’sampling’ columns
Test result Sampling

Records depth that the test was
From (m)
Depth carried out (i.e.: at 2.10m or between Records depth of sampling
2.10m and 2.55m)
To (m)
D Disturbed sample
PP – Pocket penetrometer result
2
(kN/m ) B Bulk disturbed sample
HVP – Hand held shear vane result
2
(kN/m ) Environmental sample
ES comprising plastic and/or
PP result converted to an equivalent glass container
Result Type
undrained shear strength by applying a
factor of 50. Where at least 3 results W Water sample
obtained at same depth then an
average value may be reported. Undisturbed sample in
CBR mould (California Bearing
Ratio)
Water observations
Described at foot of log and shown in the ‘water strike’ column.
= water level observed after specified delay in excavation
= water strike



TEST RESULTS SAMPLING

DEPTH WATER
DESCRIPTION LEGEND TYPE/ FROM
(m) STRIKE RESULT TO (m) TYPE
DEPTH (m) (m)
Grass onto high strength orange brown slightly silty slightly sandy slightly
gravelly CLAY with frequent ne to coarse gravel-sized pockets of coarse orange
brown sand. Gravel consists of sub-angular ne to coarse int and occasional
PP 0.10 75
brick.
MADE GROUND
0.20 D
PP 0.30 100
PP 0.50 100 0.50 D
TRIAL PIT TERMINATED AT 0.70m 0.70
Notes: Trial pit sides remained upright and stable upon comple on.
Ground level (mAOD) Co-ordinates Title Surface breaking

569707, 183378 Trial pit record No
Groundwater observa ons Dimensions (W x L) Date of excava on (range if applicable) Appendix

No groundwater encountered. 0.40m x 0.40m 08/09/2015 C
Method of excava on
TP02
Loca on plan on drawing number
Hand tools 02
Report ref: STM3323B-G01 Revision: 0


DEPTH WATER
DEPTH (m) (m)
Light grey reinforced CONCRETE.
MADE GROUND
0.10 PP 0.10 125
High strength brown slightly silty slightly gravelly sandy CLAY. Gravel consists of
sub-angular ne to coarse brick and int.
MADE GROUND
0.20 D
PP 0.30 100
PP 0.50 92 0.50 B


Method of excava on
TP03
Hand tools 02


DEPTH WATER
DEPTH (m) (m)
Grass onto high strength grey mo led brown slightly silty sandy gravelly CLAY.
Gravel consists of sub-angular ne to coarse int, concrete and occasional
brick.
PP 0.10 75
MADE GROUND
0.20 D
PP 0.30 75
0.35
High strength brown slightly silty slightly sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel consists of
sub-angular int.
HEAD
PP 0.50 100 0.50 0.60 B


Method of excava on
TP04
Hand tools 02


DEPTH WATER
DEPTH (m) (m)
Grass onto grey brown slightly silty gravelly SAND with rare cobbles of brick.
Gravel consists of sub-angular ne to coarse brick, concrete and sub-angular to
sub-rounded int.
0.10 D
MADE GROUND
Medium strength grey slightly silty sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel consists of sub- 0.40
angular ne to coarse brick, int and occasional bituminous bound material.
MADE GROUND
0.50 0.60 B


Method of excava on
TP05
Hand tools 02

Key to legends, columns & water observations
Driven tube sampling
Key to legends
Composite materials, soils and lithology
Topsoil Made Ground Boulders
Chalk Clay Coal
Cobbles Cobbles & Boulders Concrete
Gravel Limestone Mudstone
Peat Sand Sand and Gravel
Sandstone Silt Silt / Clay
Siltstone
Note: Composite soil types are signified by combined symbols.
Key to ‘test results’ and ’sampling’ columns

Test result Sampling
Records depth that the test was
From (m)
Depth carried out (i.e.: at 2.10m or between Records depth of sampling
2.10m and 2.55m) To (m)
D Disturbed sample
PP – Pocket penetrometer result
(kN/m )
2 B Bulk disturbed sample
HVP – Hand held shear vane result
2 Environmental sample
(kN/m )
PP result converted to an equivalent ES comprising plastic and/or
undrained shear strength by applying a glass container
factor of 50. Where at least 3 results
Result obtained at same depth then an Type
W Water sample
average value may be reported.
Undisturbed sample 100mm

SPT – Standard Penetration Test result
diameter sampler with
(uncorrected)
U (32) number of blows of driving
SPT(c) – Standard Penetration Test
equipment required to
result (solid cone) (uncorrected)
obtain sample
Water observations Standpipe details

Described at foot of log and shown in the ‘water strike’
column. Gravel filter Arisings
Bentonite
= water level observed after specified delay in drilling
Slotted pipe
= water strike
Unslotted pipe
Density
Density recorded in brackets inferred from density testing and soil descriptions from across the site (i.e.:
[Medium dense]).




DEPTH WATER
WELL DESCRIPTION LEGEND TYPE/ FROM
DEPTH (m) (m)
Loose orange brown SAND.
MADE GROUND 0.10 0.10 D
Very high strength grey occasionally mo led brown slightly silty slightly PP 0.20 175
sandy slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel consists of sub-angular ne to coarse 0.30 D
int and occasional organic ma er. PP 0.40 150
MADE GROUND
0.50
High strength brown mo led light grey slightly silty slightly sandy to
sandy CLAY. PP 0.60 125 0.60 D
HEAD
PP 0.80 108
…between 1m and 1.2m depth, becoming very sandy. PP 1.00 100 1.00 D
PP 1.20 75 1.20 D
PP 1.40 150 1.40 D
PP 1.60 75 1.60 D
PP 1.80 150 1.80 D
High and very high strength occasionally medium strength brown 2.00 PP 2.00 167 2.00 D
slightly silty CLAY.
LONDON CLAY FORMATION PP 2.20 175 2.20 D
PP 2.40 100 2.40 D
PP 2.60 125 2.60 D
PP 2.80 100 2.80 D
PP 3.00 83 3.00 D
PP 3.20 50
PP 3.40 108
3.50 4.00 D
PP 3.60 25
PP 3.80 92
BOREHOLE TERMINATED AT 4.00m 4.00
Notes: For Dynamic Cone Penetra on tes ng, refer to DCP01. In ltra on tes ng performed.

569705, 183364 Driven tube sampler borehole record No
Groundwater observa ons Date of excava on (range if applicable) Appendix

No groundwater encountered. 08/09/2015 D
DTS01
02


DEPTH WATER
DEPTH (m) (m)
Light grey unreinforced CONCRETE.
MADE GROUND
[Dense] orange brown and dark grey slightly silty gravelly to very 0.30
gravelly SAND. Gravel consists of sub-angular to sub-rounded ne to 0.40 PP 0.40 67 0.40 D
coarse int.
MADE GROUND PP 0.60 75 0.60 D
High and very high strength brown mo led grey slightly silty CLAY.
HEAD
PP 0.80 92
PP 1.00 100 1.00 D
PP 1.20 100
PP 1.40 125
1.50 D
PP 1.60 150
PP 1.80 117
PP 2.00 100 2.00 D
PP 2.20 150
Very high strength becoming medium strength brown CLAY. 2.40 PP 2.40 125
LONDON CLAY FORMATION 2.50 D
PP 2.60 192
PP 2.80 200
PP 3.00 175 3.00 3.50 D
PP 3.20 150
PP 3.40 133
PP 3.60 50
PP 3.80 50
Notes: 85% recovery between 1-2m depth. In ltra on tes ng performed.


DTS02
02


DEPTH WATER
DEPTH (m) (m)
Medium strength dark grey and brown slightly silty very sandy CLAY.
MADE GROUND 0.10 D
PP 0.20 42
0.25
High and very high strength brown occasionally mo led light grey 0.30 D
slightly silty sandy CLAY. PP 0.40 71
HEAD
PP 0.60 75 0.60 D
PP 0.80 75
PP 1.00 100 1.00 D
…between 1.15m and 1.25m depth, band of gravelly CLAY.

PP 1.20 92
PP 1.40 125
1.50 D
PP 1.60 125
PP 1.80 125
PP 2.00 175 2.00 D
PP 2.20 150
PP 2.40 167
2.50 D
PP 2.60 225
…between 2.7m and 2.8m depth, band of gravelly CLAY.
2.80 PP 2.80 175
High strength and very high strength brown occasionally mo led grey
CLAY.
PP 3.20 142
PP 3.40 100
3.50 D
PP 3.60 100
PP 3.80 75
Notes: For Dynamic Cone Penetra on tes ng, refer to DCP02.


DTS03
02


DEPTH WATER
DEPTH (m) (m)
Grass onto high strength brown slightly silty slightly gravelly sandy CLAY.
Gravel consists of sub-angular to sub-rounded ne to medium int and 0.10 D
occasional brick. PP 0.20 75
MADE GROUND 0.30 D
High to very high strength brown mo led grey slightly silty sandy CLAY. 0.40 PP 0.40 125
HEAD 0.50 D
PP 0.60 75
PP 0.80 125
PP 1.00 67 1.00 D
PP 1.20 75 1.20 D
PP 1.40 83 1.40 D
PP 1.60 142 1.60 D
PP 1.80 175 1.80 D
PP 2.00 175 2.00 D
PP 2.20 125 2.20 D

High and very high strength becoming medium strength brown 2.30
occasionally mo led dark grey slightly silty CLAY. PP 2.40 175 2.40 D
LONDON CLAY FORMATION
PP 2.60 125 2.60 D
PP 2.80 150 2.80 D
PP 3.00 108 3.00 D
PP 3.20 125
PP 3.40 125
3.50 4.00 D
PP 3.60 100
PP 3.80 108
PP 4.00 75 4.00 4.50 D
PP 4.20 58
PP 4.40 50
PP 4.60 50
PP 4.80 75
CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET


DTS04
02


DEPTH WATER
DEPTH (m) (m)


DTS04
02


DEPTH WATER
DEPTH (m) (m)
Dark grey BITUMINOUS BOUND MATERIAL.
MADE GROUND
High strength brown mo led grey slightly silty slightly sandy slightly 0.20
gravelly CLAY. Gravel consists of ne to medium sub-angular to sub- PP 0.30 75 0.30 D
rounded int.
MADE GROUND PP 0.50 100
0.60 D
PP 0.70 108
0.80 D
PP 0.90 125
Notes:


DTS05
02


DEPTH WATER
DEPTH (m) (m)
Grass onto high strength dark brown slightly silty slightly sandy slightly
gravelly CLAY. Gravel consists of sub-angular ne to medium int.
MADE GROUND PP 0.20 50 0.20 D
High and very high strength brown slightly silty slightly sandy slightly 0.40 PP 0.40 67 0.40 D
gravelly CLAY. Gravel consists of ne to medium int.
HEAD PP 0.60 100 0.60 D
PP 0.80 150
PP 1.00 133 1.00 D
PP 1.20 150 1.20 D
PP 1.40 133 1.40 D
PP 1.60 100 1.60 D
PP 1.80 125 1.80 D
PP 2.00 125 2.00 D
High and very high strength becoming medium strength brown 2.20 PP 2.20 150 2.20 D
occasionally mo led dark grey slightly silty CLAY.
PP 2.60 150 2.60 D
PP 2.80 133 2.80 D
PP 3.00 167 3.00 D
PP 3.20 125
PP 3.40 125
3.50 4.00 D
PP 3.60 108
PP 3.80 125
PP 4.00 125 4.00 4.50 D
PP 4.20 100
PP 4.40 83
PP 4.60 75
PP 4.80 67
CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET
Notes:


DTS06
02


DEPTH WATER
DEPTH (m) (m)
Notes:


DTS06
02

Sorrells, Stanford-le-hope
Plot showing time against depth to water:

4.000
3.510
Depth to water (m)
3.020
2.530
2.040
0 50 100 150 200
Time (minutes)
Test observations: Calculations:

TIME DEPTH TO No movement in water level over 204 minutes of monitoring therefore unable
(mins) WATER (m) to calculate soil infiltration rate.
0 2.04
1 2.04
8 2.04 Notes
10 2.04
123 2.04 1. Temporary standpipe installed to 4.0m depth (3m slotted pipe, 1m plain
pipe above)
204 2.04
Groundwater observations Title

No groundwater encountered. Soil infiltration test (following principles of the Building
Research Establishment Digest 365 2007)
Borehole diameter Ground level Location plan on drawing number

0.063m N/A 02
Depth of borehole at start of test (m) Co-ordinates Borehole number Cycle number
Date of excavation
4 569705, 183364 DTS01 1 08/09/2015

Revision: 0
Sorrells, Stanford-le-hope
Plot showing time against depth to water:

4.000
3.310
Depth to water (m)
2.620
1.930
1.240
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (minutes)
Test observations: Calculations:

TIME DEPTH TO No movement in water level over 145 minutes of monitoring therefore unable to
(mins) WATER (m) calculate soil infiltration rate.
0 1.24
5 1.24
60 1.24 Notes
145 1.24
1. Temporary standpipe installed to 4.0m depth (3m slotted pipe, 1m plain
pipe above)
Groundwater observations Title

No groundwater encountered. Soil infiltration test (following principles of the Building
Research Establishment Digest 365 2007)
Borehole diameter Ground level Location plan on drawing number

0.063m N/A 02
Depth of borehole at start of test (m) Co-ordinates Borehole number Cycle number Date of excavatio
4 569705, 183346 DTS02 1
Report ref: STM3323B-G01

Revision: 0
ESG
TEST REPORT
abc
2 Newton Close
Drayton Fields Industrial Estate
Daventry
Northants NN11 8RR
Telephone: +44 (0) 1327 703828
Facsimile: +44 (0) 1327 300154
0001
Determination of Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits
Client: Soiltechnics Limited Report No: 51017403/15/01

Client Address: Cedar Barn, Batch Number: DAM0055933
White Lodge
Walgrave Client Reference:STM3323G
Postcode: NN6 9PY Sampled by: Client
Contact: Andy Keeler Date Sampled: 08.09.15
Date Received: 09.09.15
Site: STM3323B – Thurrock Central Hub, Stanford le Hope Tested From: 14.09.15-15.09.15
Sample Type: Disturbed
Test Results:
Moisture % Passing
Laboratory Liquid Plastic Plasticity
Location Depth (m) Description Content 425µm
Reference Limit Limit Index
(%) (Estimated)
45257091 DTS01 1.40 Brown/Grey CLAY 18 31 13 18 100
Brown/Grey Sandy
4527093 DTS01 1.80 23 64 19 45 100
CLAY
45257100 DTS06 1.00 Brown Sandy CLAY 22 60 18 42 100
45257106 DTS06 2.20 Brown Sandy CLAY 23 68 21 47 100
45257112 TP03 0.50-0.60 Brown Sandy CLAY 21 46 16 30 100
Black Sandy CLAY with

45257114 TP05 0.50-0.60 16 44 20 24 *35
Gravel
Sample Preparation: As Received
* Washed over 425µm BS Test Sieve
** Actual % passing 425µm BS Test Sieve from separate grading analysis
Certified that the laboratory testing was carried out in accordance with BS 1377-2: 1990: Method 3.2, 4.4 and 5
Page: 1 of 1 [] M. Carr - Section Manager

Date Reported: 21.09.15 Signed [ ] D. Berrill - Laboratory Manager
For and on behalf of Environmental Scientifics Group
Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of UKAS accreditation
This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with the prior written approval of the issuing laboratory
Environmental Scientifics Group. Registered in England No. 2880501. Registered Office: ESG House, Bretby Business Park, Ashby Road, Burton on Trent DE15 0YZ
ESG
TEST REPORT
abc
2 Newton Close
Daventry
Northants NN11 8RR
Telephone: +44 (0) 1327 703828
Facsimile: +44 (0) 1327 300154
0001
Determination of California Bearing Ratio
Client: Soiltechnics Limited Report Number: 51017403/15/02

White Lodge
Walgrave Client Reference: 23
Postcode: NN6 9PY Sampled By: ESG Daventry
Date Received 09.09.15
Site: STM3323B – Thurrock Central Hub, Stanford le Date Tested 17.09.15
Hope
Test Results:
Description: Brown Sandy CLAY
Laboratory Ref: 45257111
Location: TP02 @ 0.50-0.60m
Sample Type: Recompacted Using a 2.5kg Rammer
Retained on 20mm test sieve: 0% Applied Seating Load (top): 50 N

Applied Seating Load (base): 50 N
Moisture Content (Top): 22 % Applied Surcharge: 6.0kg
Moisture Content (Base): 21 %
Moisture Content (Mean): 21 %
Initial Bulk Density (Mg/m3): 2.05
Initial Dry Density (Mg/m3): 1.59
CBR Top: 5.1% CBR Base: 6.4% Average CBR: N/A
CBR Load Penetration Plot

2
Applied Load [kN]
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration [mm]
Top Base
Certified that the test was carried out in accordance with BS 1377-4: 1990: Method 7.4
Comments: The specimen was tested in an unsoaked condition
Certified that the moisture content was carried out in accordance with BS 1377-2: 1990: Method 3.2

Date Reported: 21.09.15 Signed: [ ] D. Berrill - Laboratory Manager
ESG
TEST REPORT
abc
2 Newton Close
Daventry
Northants NN11 8RR
Telephone: +44 (0) 1327 703828
Facsimile: +44 (0) 1327 300154
0001

White Lodge
Hope
Test Results:
Description: Brown Sandy CLAY

CBR Top: 5.0% CBR Base: 5.3% Average CBR: 5.2%

2
Applied Load [kN]
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration [mm]
Top Base

ESG
TEST REPORT
abc
2 Newton Close
Daventry
Northants NN11 8RR
Telephone: +44 (0) 1327 703828
Facsimile: +44 (0) 1327 300154
0001

White Lodge
Hope
Test Results:
Description: Brown Sandy CLAY with Gravel

CBR Top: 5.3% CBR Base: 5.5% Average CBR: 5.4%

1.963712092
Applied Load [kN]
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration [mm]
Top Base

ESG
TEST REPORT
abc
2 Newton Close
Daventry
Northants NN11 8RR
Telephone: +44 (0) 1327 703828
Facsimile: +44 (0) 1327 300154
0001

White Lodge
Hope
Test Results:
Description: Brown Sandy CLAY with Gravel
CBR Top: 5.8% CBR Base: 7.4% Average CBR: N/A

3.927424183
Applied Load [kN]
1.963712092
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Penetration [mm]
Top Base

ESG
TEST REPORT
abc
2 Newton Close
Daventry
Northants NN11 8RR
Telephone: +44 (0) 1327 703828
Facsimile: +44 (0) 1327 300154
0001
Determination of Moisture Content

White Lodge
Walgrave
Client Postcode: NN6 9PY Sampled by: Client
Site: STM3323B – Thurrock Central Hub, Stanford le Hope Tested From: 11.09.15
Type of Sample: Disturbed
Test Results:
Laboratory
Location Depth (m) Description Moisture Content (%)
Reference
45257089 DTS01 1.00 Brown Sandy CLAY 13
45257091 DTS01 1.40 Brown/Grey CLAY 18
45257092 DTS01 1.60 Brown CLAY 21
45257093 DTS01 1.80 Brown/Grey Sandy CLAY 23
45257094 DTS01 2.00 Brown CLAY 20
45257095 DTS01 2.20 Brown CLAY 21
45257096 DTS01 2.40 Brown CLAY 21
45257097 DTS01 2.60 Brown CLAY 22
45257098 DTS01 2.80 Brown CLAY 22
Certified that the laboratory testing was carried out in accordance with BS 1377-2: 1990: Method 3.2

ESG
TEST REPORT
abc
2 Newton Close
Daventry
Northants NN11 8RR
Telephone: +44 (0) 1327 703828
Facsimile: +44 (0) 1327 300154
0001

White Lodge
Walgrave
Test Results:
Laboratory
Reference
45257099 DTS01 3.00 Brown CLAY 21
45257101 DTS06 1.20 Brown CLAY 11
45257102 DTS06 1.40 Brown CLAY 11
45257103 DTS06 1.60 Brown CLAY 23
45257104 DTS06 1.80 Brown CLAY 29
45257105 DTS06 2.00 Brown CLAY 23
45257107 DTS06 2.40 Brown CLAY 22
45257108 DTS06 2.60 Brown CLAY 19

ESG
TEST REPORT
abc
2 Newton Close
Daventry
Northants NN11 8RR
Telephone: +44 (0) 1327 703828
Facsimile: +44 (0) 1327 300154
0001

White Lodge
Walgrave
Test Results:
Laboratory
Reference
45257109 DTS06 2.80 Brown CLAY 20
45257110 DTS06 3.00 Brown CLAY 21

Chemtest Ltd.
Depot Road
Newmarket
CB8 0AL
Tel: 01638 606070
Final Report Email: info@chemtest.co.uk
Report Number: 15-20976 Issue-1
Initial Date of Issue: 18-Sep-2015
Client: Soiltechnics Limited
Cedar Barn
White Lodge
Walgrave
Client Address:
Northampton
Northamptonshire
NN6 9PY
Rachel Brown
Contact(s):
Sara Bertholdson
Project: STM3323B Thurrock Central Hub, Sorrells, Stanford le Hope
Quotation No.: Date Received: 10-Sep-2015
Order No.: 19823 Date Instructed: 10-Sep-2015
No. of Samples: 1
Turnaround: (Wkdays) 7 Results Due Date: 18-Sep-2015
Date Approved: 18-Sep-2015
Approved By:
Details: Keith Jones, Technical Manager
Page 1 of 3
Results Summary - 2 Stage WAC
Chemtest Job No: 15-20976 Landflll Waste Acceptance Criteria
Chemtest Sample ID: 190382 Limits
Sample Ref: CS1 Stable Non-
Sample ID: 79 reactive
Hazardous
Top Depth(m): 0.00 Inert Waste Hazardous
Waste
Bottom Depth(m): Landfill waste in
Landfill
Sampling Date: 08-Sep-2015 non-
Determinand SOP Accred. Units hazardous
Total Organic Carbon 2625 U % 0.47 3 5 6
Loss on Ignition 2610 U % 3.5 -- -- 10
Total BTEX 2760 U mg/kg < 0.010 6 -- --
Total PCBs (7 congeners) 2815 U mg/kg < 0.10 1 -- --
TPH Total WAC (Mineral Oil) 2670 U mg/kg < 10 500 -- --
Total (of 17) PAHs 2700 N mg/kg 12 100 -- --
pH 2010 U 8 -- >6 --
Acid Neutralisation Capacity 2015 N mol/kg 0.009 -- To evaluate To evaluate
Cumulative
2:1 8:1 2:1 Limit values for compliance leaching
Eluate Analysis 10:1
mg/l mg/l mg/kg test using BS EN 12457-3 at L/S 10 l/kg
mg/kg
Arsenic 1450 U 0.001 0.0013 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.5 2 25
Barium 1450 U 0.013 0.0035 < 0.50 < 0.50 20 100 300
Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.00010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5
Chromium 1450 U 0.006 0.0033 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.5 10 70
Copper 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.050 < 0.050 2 50 100
Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.00050 < 0.0010 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2
Molybdenum 1450 U 0.008 < 0.0010 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.5 10 30
Nickel 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.050 < 0.050 0.4 10 40
Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50
Antimony 1450 U 0.0024 0.0016 < 0.010 0.017 0.06 0.7 5
Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7
Zinc 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.0010 < 0.50 < 0.50 4 50 200
Chloride 1220 U 4.6 < 1.0 < 10 < 10 800 15000 25000
Fluoride 1220 U 0.45 0.24 < 1.0 2.6 10 150 500
Sulphate 1220 U 36 5.5 71 82 1000 20000 50000
Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 160 36 320 470 4000 60000 100000
Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.030 < 0.30 < 0.50 1 - -
Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 12 6.6 < 50 71 500 800 1000
Soild Information Leachate Test Information

Dry mass of test portion/kg 0.175 Leachant volume 1st extract/l 0.316
Moisture (%) 16 Leachant volume 2nd extract/l 1.4
Eluant recovered from 1st extract/l 0.157
Page 2 of 3
Report Information
Key
U UKAS accredited
M MCERTS and UKAS accredited
N Unaccredited
S This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is accredited for this analysis
SN This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is not accredited for this analysis
T This analysis has been subcontracted to an unaccredited laboratory
I/S Insufficient Sample
U/S Unsuitable Sample
N/E not evaluated
< "less than"
> "greater than"
Comments or interpretations are beyond the scope of UKAS accreditation

The results relate only to the items tested
Uncertainty of measurement for the determinands tested are available upon request
None of the results in this report have been recovery corrected
All results are expressed on a dry weight basis
The following tests were analysed on samples as received and the results subsequently corrected to a dry
weight basis TPH, BTEX, VOCs, SVCOs, PCBs, Phenols
For all other tests the samples were dried at < 37°C prior to analysis
All Asbestos testing is performed at our Coventry laboratory
Issue numbers are sequential starting with 1 all subsequent reports are incremented by 1
Sample Deviation Codes

A - Date of sampling not supplied
B - Sample age exceeds stability time (sampling to extraction)
C - Sample not received in appropriate containers
D - Broken Container
Sample Retention and Disposal

All soil samples will be retained for a period of 60 days from the date of receipt
All water samples will be retained for 14 days from the date of receipt
Charges may apply to extended sample storage
If you require extended retention of samples, please email your requirements to:
customerservices@chemtest.co.uk
Page 3 of 3
Chemtest Ltd.
Depot Road
Newmarket
CB8 0AL
Tel: 01638 606070
Final Report Email: info@chemtest.co.uk
Report Number: 15-21124 Issue-1
Initial Date of Issue: 17-Sep-2015
Client: Soiltechnics Limited
Cedar Barn
White Lodge
Walgrave
Client Address:
Northampton
Northamptonshire
NN6 9PY
Contact(s): Rachel Brown
No. of Samples: 6 Target Due Date: 14-Sep-2015
Turnaround: (Wkdays) 5 Results Due Date: 16-Sep-2015
Date Approved: 17-Sep-2015
Approved By:
Details: Keith Jones, Technical Manager
Page 1 of 4
Results Summary - Soil

Client: Soiltechnics Limited Chemtest Job No.: 15-21124 15-21124 15-21124 15-21124 15-21124 15-21124
Quotation No.: Chemtest Sample ID.: 191050 191051 191052 191053 191054 191055
Order No.: 19822 Client Sample Ref.: DTS01 DTS02 DTS03 DTS04 DTS04 DTS06
Client Sample ID.: 6 25 34 44 55 63
Sample Type: SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL
Top Depth (m): 0.10 0.40 0.30 0.10 2.60 0.20
Bottom Depth(m):
Date Sampled: 08-Sep-15 08-Sep-15 08-Sep-15 08-Sep-15 08-Sep-15 08-Sep-15
Determinand Accred. SOP Units LOD
ACM Type U 2192 - - - - -
No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos
Asbestos Identification U 2192
Detected Detected Detected Detected Detected
Moisture N 2030 % 0.02 13 17 20 10 17 18
Soil Colour N Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown
Other Material N Stones Stones Stones Stones Stones Stones
Soil Texture N Clay Clay Clay Sand Clay Clay
pH M 2010 8.5 7.8 7.9 5.6 7.7 6.6
Boron (Hot Water Soluble) M 2120 mg/kg 0.4 < 0.40 0.93
Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 M 2120 g/l 0.01 < 0.010 0.022 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010
Total Sulphur M 2175 % 0.01 0.020 0.010 0.010 0.040 0.010 0.070
Cyanide (Complex) M 2300 mg/kg 0.5 < 0.50 < 0.50
Cyanide (Free) M 2300 mg/kg 0.5 < 0.50 < 0.50
Cyanide (Total) M 2300 mg/kg 0.5 < 0.50 < 0.50
Sulphate (Acid Soluble) M 2430 % 0.01 0.024 0.012 0.015 0.056 0.025 0.027
Arsenic M 2450 mg/kg 1 9.5 9.4
Beryllium U 2450 mg/kg 1 1.0 < 1.0
Cadmium M 2450 mg/kg 0.1 0.49 < 0.10
Chromium M 2450 mg/kg 1 26 33
Copper M 2450 mg/kg 0.5 16 14
Mercury M 2450 mg/kg 0.1 0.23 < 0.10
Nickel M 2450 mg/kg 0.5 18 17
Lead M 2450 mg/kg 0.5 11 8.6
Selenium M 2450 mg/kg 0.2 < 0.20 < 0.20
Vanadium U 2450 mg/kg 5 49 56
Zinc M 2450 mg/kg 0.5 74 41
Chromium (Hexavalent) N 2490 mg/kg 0.5 < 0.50 < 0.50
Organic Matter M 2625 % 0.4 0.88 0.72
Naphthalene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Acenaphthylene N 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Acenaphthene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Fluorene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Phenanthrene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Page 2 of 4
Results Summary - Soil

Top Depth (m): 0.10 0.40 0.30 0.10 2.60 0.20
Bottom Depth(m):
Anthracene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Fluoranthene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Pyrene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo[a]anthracene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Chrysene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo[b]fluoranthene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo[k]fluoranthene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo[a]pyrene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene N 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene M 2800 mg/kg 0.1 < 0.10 < 0.10
Total Of 16 PAH's N 2800 mg/kg 2 < 2.0 < 2.0
Total Phenols M 2920 mg/kg 0.3 < 0.30 < 0.30
Page 3 of 4
Report Information
Key
U UKAS accredited
N Unaccredited
N/E not evaluated
< "less than"
> "greater than"



Page 4 of 4
Chemtest Ltd.
Depot Road
Newmarket
CB8 0AL
Tel: 01638 606070
Email: info@chemtest.co.uk
Amended Report
Report No.: 15-21124-2
Initial Date of Issue: 17-Sep-2015 Date of Re-Issue: 05-Oct-2015
Client Soiltechnics Limited
Client Address: Cedar Barn

White Lodge
Walgrave
Northampton
Northamptonshire
NN6 9PY
Contact(s): Rachel Brown
Project STM3323B Thurrock Central Hub,

Sorrells, Stanford le Hope
No. of Samples: 6 Target Date: 05-Oct-2015
Turnaround (Wkdays): 18 Results Due: 05-Oct-2015
Date Approved: 05-Oct-2015
Approved By:
Details: Phil Hellier, Project Director
Page 1 of 4
Results - Soil
Project: STM3323B Thurrock Central Hub, Sorrells,
Stanford le Hope
Top Depth (m): 0.10 0.40 0.30 0.10 2.60 0.20
Bottom Depth (m):
ACM Type U 2192 N/A - - - - -
No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos
Asbestos Identification U 2192 N/A
Detected Detected Detected Detected Detected
Moisture N 2030 % 0.020 13 17 22 11 17 17
Soil Colour N N/A Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown
Other Material N N/A Stones Stones Stones Stones Stones Stones
Soil Texture N N/A Clay Clay Clay Sand Clay Clay
pH M 2010 N/A 8.5 7.8 7.9 5.6 7.7 6.6
Boron (Hot Water Soluble) M 2120 mg/kg 0.40 < 0.40 0.93 0.73 0.72 0.65
Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 M 2120 g/l 0.010 < 0.010 0.022 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010
Total Sulphur M 2175 % 0.010 0.020 0.010 0.010 0.040 0.010 0.070
Cyanide (Complex) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50
Cyanide (Free) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50
Cyanide (Total) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50
Sulphate (Acid Soluble) M 2430 % 0.010 0.024 0.012 0.015 0.056 0.025 0.027
Arsenic M 2450 mg/kg 1.0 9.5 9.4 14 14 17
Beryllium U 2450 mg/kg 1.0 1.0 < 1.0 1.3 < 1.0 1.2
Cadmium M 2450 mg/kg 0.10 0.49 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.35 0.23
Chromium M 2450 mg/kg 1.0 26 33 58 30 41
Copper M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 16 14 21 57 25
Mercury M 2450 mg/kg 0.10 0.23 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.13 0.11
Nickel M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 18 17 27 19 27
Lead M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 11 8.6 16 59 35
Selenium M 2450 mg/kg 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20
Vanadium U 2450 mg/kg 5.0 49 56 88 54 71
Zinc M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 74 41 64 84 73
Chromium (Hexavalent) N 2490 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50
Organic Matter M 2625 % 0.40 0.88 0.72 0.81 2.2 1.9
Naphthalene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Acenaphthylene N 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Acenaphthene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Fluorene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Phenanthrene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Anthracene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Fluoranthene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Pyrene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo[a]anthracene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Page 2 of 4
Results - Soil
Project: STM3323B Thurrock Central Hub, Sorrells,
Stanford le Hope
Top Depth (m): 0.10 0.40 0.30 0.10 2.60 0.20
Bottom Depth (m):
Chrysene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo[b]fluoranthene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo[k]fluoranthene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo[a]pyrene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene N 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene M 2800 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10
Total Of 16 PAH's N 2800 mg/kg 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 < 2.0
Total Phenols M 2920 mg/kg 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30
Page 3 of 4
Report Information
Key
U UKAS accredited
N Unaccredited
N/E not evaluated
< "less than"
> "greater than"



Page 4 of 4
Analysis of test data in relation to concentrations of inorganic chemical contaminants

Adopted Model: Industrial/Commercial
Receptor: Proposed site user and construction operatives
Test procedure Summary of test data Initial comparison Outlier test Normality test UCL
Contaminant Guideline No. of Min. Max. Mean Initial screening Concentration Shapiro-Wilk Probability Data normally 95% UCL of Contaminant
guideline value
value tests Normality test plot test distributed? mean
Pass outlier
No. of tests
Location of
Number of
Guideline
outliers
outlier
source
Depth
above
test?
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Arsenic SGV 640 5 9.4 17.0 12.8 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 19.2 Arsenic
Beryllium GAC 420 5 1.0 1.3 1.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 1.4 Beryllium
Boron GAC 192000 5 0.4 0.9 0.7 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 1.1 Boron
Cadmium SGV 230 5 0.1 0.5 0.3 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 0.6 Cadmium
Chromium GAC 30400 5 26.0 58.0 37.6 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal normal y 49.7 Chromium
Copper GAC 71700 5 14.0 57.0 26.6 0 Mean value below guideline n 0 0 normal not normal n 60.8 Copper
Cyanide (total) ATK 34 5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.5 Cyanide (total)
Lead ATK 6490 5 8.6 59.0 25.9 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 67.3 Lead
Mercury# SGV 26 5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline n 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.2 Mercury#
Nickel SGV 1800 5 17.0 27.0 21.6 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 31.3 Nickel
Selenium SGV 13000 5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.2 Selenium
Vanadium GAC 3160 5 49.0 88.0 63.6 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 94.6 Vanadium
Zinc GAC 665000 5 41.0 84.0 67.2 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 normal not normal n 98.9 Zinc
SGV Soil Guideline Value as published by the Environment Agency 2009

GAC Generic Assessment Criterion as published by LQM and CIEH
SSV Soil Screening Value as derived by Soiltechnics
ATK Soil Screening Value derived by Atkins
NGV No Guideline Value
BPG5 Guideline from BPG Note 5 as published by Forest Research Title Table number
Analysis of test
data in relation to concentrations of
# Assumed to be elemental mercury as initial screening value inorganic chemical contaminants. 1

Revision 0 Appendix H
Analysis of test data in relation to concentrations of organic chemical contaminants

Adopted model: Industrial/Commercial
Receptor: Proposed site user and construction operatives
Test procedure Summary of test data Initial Screening Oulier test Normality test UCL
Contaminant Guideline No. of Min. Max. Mean Initial screening Concentration Shapiro-Wilk Probability Data normally 95% UCL Contaminant
Pass outlier
No. of tests
Location of
Number of
Guideline
value tests Normality test plot test distributed? of mean
guideline
outliers
outlier
source
Depth
above
value
test?
Acenaphthene GAC 85000 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene GAC 84000 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Acenaphthylene
Anthracene GAC 530000 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene GAC 90 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene GAC 14 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene GAC 100 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene GAC 650 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene GAC 140 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene GAC 140 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene GAC 13 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene GAC 23000 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Fluoranthene
Fluorene GAC 64000 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene GAC 60 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene GAC 200 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Naphthalene
Phenanthrene GAC 22000 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Phenanthrene
Phenols SGV 3200 5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.3 Phenols
Pyrene GAC 54000 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.1 Pyrene
Notes
SGV Soil Guideline Value as published by the Environment Agency

Title Table number
Analysis of test
organic chemical contaminants. 2

Analysis of test data in relation to concentrations of inorganic chemical contaminants

Adopted Model: Industrial/Commercial and BPG5
Receptor: Vegetation
Test procedure Summary of test data Initial comparison Outlier test Normality test UCL
Contaminant Guideline No. of Min. Max. Mean Initial screening Concentration Shapiro-Wilk Probability Data normally 95% UCL of Contaminant
guideline value
value tests Normality test plot test distributed? mean
Pass outlier
No. of tests
Location of
Number of
Guideline
outliers
outlier
source
Depth
above
test?
Arsenic SGV 640 5 9.4 17.0 12.8 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 19.2 Arsenic
Beryllium GAC 420 5 1.0 1.3 1.1 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 1.4 Beryllium
Boron GAC 192000 5 0.4 0.9 0.7 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 1.1 Boron
Cadmium SGV 230 5 0.1 0.5 0.3 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 0.6 Cadmium
Chromium GAC 30400 5 26.0 58.0 37.6 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal normal y 49.7 Chromium
Copper BPG5 130 5 14.0 57.0 26.6 0 Mean value below guideline n 0 0 normal not normal n 60.8 Copper
Cyanide (total) ATK 34 5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.5 Cyanide (total)
Lead ATK 6490 5 8.6 59.0 25.9 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 67.3 Lead
Mercury# SGV 26 5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 Mean value below guideline n 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.2 Mercury#
Nickel SGV 1800 5 17.0 27.0 21.6 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 31.3 Nickel
Selenium SGV 13000 5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 not normal not normal n 0.2 Selenium
Vanadium GAC 3160 5 49.0 88.0 63.6 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 0 normal not normal n 94.6 Vanadium
Zinc BPG5 300 5 41.0 84.0 67.2 0 Mean value below guideline y 0 normal not normal n 98.9 Zinc
SGV Soil Guideline Value as published by the Environment Agency 2009

ATK Soil Screening Value derived by Atkins
BPG5 Guideline from BPG Note 5 as published by Forest Research Title Table number
Analysis of test
# Assumed to be elemental mercury as initial screening value inorganic chemical contaminants. 3

Initial Conceptual Model

Current site use commercial/industrial
Proposed site use commercial/industrial
Source Pathway Receptor Risk assessment to CIRIA C552

Humans Vegetation Water Consequence of risk occurring Risk
Ingestion of air- Ingestion of soil Ingestion of Inhalation of air- Inhalation of Dermal contact Root uptake, Percolation of Near-surface Saturation of via most likely pathway
borne dusts vegetables and borne dusts vapours with soil and dust deposition to water through water run-off contaminated
soil attached to shoots and contaminated through soils by flood
vegetables foliage contact soils contaminated waters
Soils
Made Ground Likely Low likelihood Unlikely Likely Likely Likely - - - - Proposed site users Adult Mild Low/moderate
Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely - - - - Construction operatives Adult Mild Low/moderate
- - - - - - Likely - - - Vegetation (current) - Mild Low/moderate
- - - - - - Low likelihood - - - Vegetation (proposed) - Mild Low
Domestic garages Likely Low likelihood Unlikely Likely Likely Likely - - - - Proposed site users Adult Mild Low/moderate
(on site and Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely - - - - Construction operatives Adult Mild Low/moderate
adjacent site) - - - - - - Likely - - - Vegetation (current) - Mild Low/moderate
- - - - - - Low likelihood - - - Vegetation (proposed) - Mild Low
Updated Conceptual Model
Source Pathway Receptor Risk assessment to CIRIA C552

Humans Vegetation Water Consequence of risk occurring Risk
Ingestion of air- Ingestion of soil Ingestion of Inhalation of air- Inhalation of Dermal contact Root uptake, Percolation of Near-surface Saturation of via most likely pathway
borne dusts vegetables and borne dusts vapours with soil and dust deposition to water through water run-off contaminated
soil attached to shoots and contaminated through soils by flood
vegetables foliage contact soils contaminated waters
Soils
Made Ground Likely Low likelihood Unlikely Likely Likely Likely - - - - Proposed site users Adult Minor Low
Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely - - - - Construction operatives Adult Minor Low
- - - - - - Likely - - - Vegetation (current) - Minor Low
- - - - - - Low likelihood - - - Vegetation (proposed) - Minor Very low
Domestic garages Likely Low likelihood Unlikely Likely Likely Likely - - - - Proposed site users Adult Minor Low
(on site and Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely - - - - Construction operatives Adult Minor Low
adjacent site) - - - - - - Likely - - - Vegetation (current) - Minor Low
- - - - - - Low likelihood - - - Vegetation (proposed) - Minor Very low
Title Table number
Conceptual Site Model 1 and 2

Revision 0 Appendix I
Table comparing cumulative compound concentrations with hazardous waste threshold values
Category of danger Irritant Harmful Toxic Carcinogenic Corrosive Toxic for reproduction Mutagenic Ecotoxic
∑N : R50-53/0.25 ∑N : 50-53 ∑N : 50-53
+∑N : R51-53/2.5 +∑N : R50 +∑N : 51-53
Carc Cat 1 Repr Cat 1 or +∑N : R52-53/25 +∑N : 52-53
Risk Phrase Xi Xn T+ T or 2 Carc Cat 3 C R34 C R35 2 Repr Cat 3 Muta Cat 2 Muta Cat 3 +∑N : R53
Contaminant Highest H4 H5 H6 H6 H7 H7 H8 H8 H10 H10 H11 H11 H14 H14 H14
concentration (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Metals
Arsenic 17.00 0.0022 0.0026 0.0026 0.3916 0.0026 0.0026
Beryllium 1.30 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
Copper 57.00 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143
Cadmium 0.49 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Chromium 58.00 0.0094 0.0094 0.0094
Lead 59.00 0.0064 0.0064 0.0064 0.0064 0.0064
Mercury 0.23 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Nickel 27.00 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034
Selenium 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Zinc 84.00 0.0609 0.0609 0.0233 0.0175 0.0395 0.0609 0.0609
Vanadium 88.00 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129
PAH
Naphthalene 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Chrysene 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
TPH
Benzene 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
PRO (C6 - C10) 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
DRO (C10 - C35) 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total (or greatest) 0.0884 0.0850 0.0026 0.0160 (0.0000) (0.0034) 0.0175 0.0000 (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0395) 0.3916 0.0969 0.1102
Threshold 20% 25% 0.10% 3% 0.10% 1% 5% 1% 0.50% 5% 0.10% 1% 1 25% 25%
Exceeded Y/N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Title Table number
Hazard assessment spreadsheet 1 of 1

Revision: 0 Appendix J
Landfill Waste Laboratory test data

Stable non-reactive
Inert waste hazardous waste in Hazardous waste
Parameter CS1
landfill non-hazardous landfill
landfill
Parameters determined on the waste
Total organic carbon (w/w %) 3% 5% 6%* 0.47
Loss on ignition 10%* 3.5
BTEX (mg kg-1) 6 < 0.010
PCBs (7 congeners) (mg kg-1) 1 < 0.10
Mineral oil C10 - C40 (mg kg-1) 500 < 10
PAH (17 congeners) 100 12
pH >6 8
Acid neutralisation capacity pH 6
To be evaluated To be evaluated 0.009
(mol kg-1)
Acid neutralisation capacity pH 4
To be evaluated To be evaluated
(mol kg-1)
Limit values (mg kg-1) for compliance test using BN 12457-3 at L/S 10 l kg-1
As (arsenic) 0.5 2 25 < 0.050
Ba (barium) 20 100 300 < 0.50
Cd (cadmium) 0.04 1 5 < 0.010
Cr (chromium (total)) 0.5 10 70 < 0.050
Cu (Copper) 2 50 100 < 0.050
Hg (mercury) 0.01 0.2 2 < 0.0050
Mo (molybdenum) 0.5 10 30 < 0.050
Ni (nickel) 0.4 10 40 < 0.050
Pb (lead) 0.5 10 50 < 0.010
Sb (antimony) 0.06 0.7 5 0.017
Se (selenium) 0.1 0.5 7 < 0.010
Zn (zinc) 4 50 200 < 0.50
Cl (chloride) 800 15,000 25,000 < 10
F (fluoride) 10 150 500 2.6
SO4 (sulphate) 1000# 20,000 50,000 82
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)+ 4,000 60,000 100,000 470
Phenol index 1 < 0.50
Dissolved organic carbon at own
500 800 1000 71
pH or pH 7.5-8.0@
Notes PRIMARY
NON-HAZARDOUS
CLASSIFICATION
* Either TOC or LOI must be used for hazardous waste
# If an inert waste does not meet the SO4 L/S10 limit, alternative limit
SECONDARY
INERT
values of 1500 mg l-1 SO4 at Co (initial eluate from the percolation test CLASSIFICATION
(prCEN/TS 14405:2003)) AND 6000 mg kg-1 SO4 at L/S10 (either from the
percolation test or batch test BS EN 12457-3), can be used to demonstrate
compliance with the acceptable criteria for inert wastes.
+ The value for TDS can be used instead of the values for Cl and SO4
@ DOC at pH 7.5-8.0 abd L/S10 can be determined or eluate derived
from a modified version of the pH dependence Test, prEN 14429, if the
limit value at own pH (BS EN 12457 eluate) is not met
Title Appendix
Comparison of test data with landfill waste acceptance K

criteria (table 5.1). (Secondary assessment)
Revision 0
Basic categorisation schedule for Made Ground soils

Produced following the requirements of The Landfill (England and Wales) (Amendment)
Regulations 2004 Part 2 (5)
(a) Source and origin of waste
Proposed development, Thurrock Central Hub, Stanford-le-Hope
(b) Process producing the waste
Foundation and service trench excavations / general site clearance
(c) Statement on waste treatment
Refer to pre-treatment confirmation form
(d) Composition of the waste
Grey occasionally mottled brown slightly silty slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay. Gravel consists of flint and
occasional brick.
(e) Appearance of the waste
As above
(f) European waste catalogue code
17-05-04 (for non-hazardous waste)
(g) Hazardous waste properties
None
(h) Is the waste prohibited under regulation 9?
No
(i) Landfill class

Inert
(j) Additional precautions required at landfill
None
(k) Can waste be recycled or recovered?
N/A
(l) Name and address of waste producer
TBC
(m) Name and address of consultant

Soiltechnics Limited, Cedar Barn, White Lodge, Walgrave, Northampton. NN6 9PY.
Tel: (01604) 781877 E-mail: mail@soiltechnics.net
Fax: (01604) 781007 Website: www.soiltechnics.net
Schedule Date: Signed
October 2015
Soiltechnics reference
STM3323B
Stuart Hadley B.Sc. (Hons)., M.Sc.
Geo-environmental Engineer for Soiltechnics Limited

Revision 0 Appendix L
Basic categorisation schedule for Head soils

Brown mottled light grey slightly silty slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay with occasional bands of sandy
gravelly clay. Gravels consist of flint.
As above
none
No
(i) Landfill class

Inert based on naturally deposited soils considered unlikely to contain artificial contamination
None
N/A

TBC
October 2015
STM3323B

Basic categorisation schedule for London Clay Formation soils

Brown slightly silty clay.

As above
None
No
(i) Landfill class

Inert based on naturally deposited soils considered unlikely to contain artificial contamination
None
N/A

TBC
October 2015
STM3323B

Envirocheck ® Report:
Datasheet
Order Details:
Order Number:
71640792_1_1
Customer Reference:
STM3323B
National Grid Reference:
569720, 183350
Slice:
A
Site Area (Ha):
0.29
Search Buffer (m):
1000
Site Details:
Thurrock Hub
The Sorrells
Stanford le Hope
Client Details:
Ms R Brown
Soiltechnics
Cedar Barn
White Lodge
Walgrave
Northampton
NN6 9PY
Order Number: 71640792_1_1 Date: 21-Aug-2015 rpr_ec_datasheet v50.0 A Landmark Information Group Service
Contents
Report Section Page Number
Summary -
Agency & Hydrological 1
Waste 4
Hazardous Substances -
Geological 5
Industrial Land Use 16
Sensitive Land Use 21
Data Currency 22
Data Suppliers 28
Useful Contacts 29
Introduction
The Environment Act 1995 has made site sensitivity a key issue, as the legislation pays as much attention to the pathways by which
contamination could spread, and to the vulnerable targets of contamination, as it does the potential sources of contamination.
For this reason, Landmark's Site Sensitivity maps and Datasheet(s) place great emphasis on statutory data provided by the Environment
Agency/Natural Resources Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; it also incorporates data from Natural England (and the
Scottish and Welsh equivalents) and Local Authorities; and highlights hydrogeological features required by environmental and geotechnical
consultants. It does not include any information concerning past uses of land. The datasheet is produced by querying the Landmark database
to a distance defined by the client from a site boundary provided by the client.
In the attached datasheet the National Grid References (NGRs) are rounded to the nearest 10m in accordance with Landmark's agreements
with a number of Data Suppliers.
Copyright Notice
© Landmark Information Group Limited 2015. The Copyright on the information and data and its format as contained in this Envirocheck®
Report ("Report") is the property of Landmark Information Group Limited ("Landmark") and several other Data Providers, including (but not
limited to) Ordnance Survey, British Geological Survey, the Environment Agency/Natural Resources Wales and Natural England, and must not
be reproduced in whole or in part by photocopying or any other method. The Report is supplied under Landmark's Terms and Conditions
accepted by the Customer.
A copy of Landmark's Terms and Conditions can be found with the Index Map for this report. Additional copies of the Report may be obtained
from Landmark, subject to Landmark's charges in force from time to time. The Copyright, design rights and any other intellectual rights shall
remain the exclusive property of Landmark and /or other Data providers, whose Copyright material has been included in this Report.
Natural England Copyright Notice
Site of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserve, Ramsar, Special Protection Area, Special Conservation Area, Marine Nature
Reserve data (derived from Ordnance Survey 1:10000 raster) is provided by, and used with the permission of, Natural England who retain the
copyright and Intellectual Property Rights for the data.
Ove Arup Copyright Notice
The Data provided in this report was obtained on Licence from Ove Arup & Partners Limited (for further information, contact
mining.review@arup.com). No reproduction or further use of such Data is to be made without the prior written consent of Ove Arup & Partners
Limited. The information and data supplied in the product are derived from publicly available records and other third party sources and neither
Ove Arup & Partners nor Landmark warrant the accuracy or completeness of such information or data.
Peter Brett Associates Copyright Notice
The cavity data presented has been extracted from the PBA enhanced version of the original DEFRA national cavity databases. PBA/DEFRA
retain the copyright & intellectual property rights in the data. Whilst all reasonable efforts are made to check that the information contained in
the cavity databases is accurate we do not warrant that the data is complete or error free. The information is based upon our own researches
and those collated from a number of external sources and is continually being augmented and updated by PBA. In no event shall PBA/DEFRA
or Landmark be liable for any loss or damage including, without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from the use of this
data.
Radon Potential dataset Copyright Notice
Information supplied from a joint dataset compiled by The British Geological Survey and Public Health England.
Report Version v50.0
Summary
Page 501 to 1000m
Data Type Number
On Site 0 to 250m 251 to 500m
(*up to 2000m)
Agency & Hydrological

Contaminated Land Register Entries and Notices
Discharge Consents pg 1 1
Enforcement and Prohibition Notices
Integrated Pollution Controls
Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control
Local Authority Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control
Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Controls pg 1 3
Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control Enforcements
Nearest Surface Water Feature pg 1 Yes
Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters pg 1 1
Prosecutions Relating to Authorised Processes
Prosecutions Relating to Controlled Waters
Registered Radioactive Substances
River Quality
River Quality Biology Sampling Points
River Quality Chemistry Sampling Points
Substantiated Pollution Incident Register
Water Abstractions pg 2 (*5)
Water Industry Act Referrals
Groundwater Vulnerability pg 3 Yes n/a n/a n/a
Bedrock Aquifer Designations pg 3 Yes n/a n/a n/a
Superficial Aquifer Designations n/a n/a n/a
Source Protection Zones
Extreme Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences n/a n/a
Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences n/a n/a
Areas Benefiting from Flood Defences n/a n/a
Flood Water Storage Areas n/a n/a
Flood Defences n/a n/a
Detailed River Network Lines n/a
Detailed River Network Offline Drainage n/a
Summary
Page 501 to 1000m
Data Type Number
(*up to 2000m)
Waste
BGS Recorded Landfill Sites
Historical Landfill Sites
Integrated Pollution Control Registered Waste Sites
Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Landfill Boundaries)
Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Locations)
Local Authority Recorded Landfill Sites
Registered Landfill Sites
Registered Waste Transfer Sites
Registered Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites
Hazardous Substances
Control of Major Accident Hazards Sites (COMAH)
Explosive Sites
Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances (NIHHS)
Planning Hazardous Substance Consents
Planning Hazardous Substance Enforcements
Geological
BGS 1:625,000 Solid Geology pg 5 Yes n/a n/a n/a
BGS Estimated Soil Chemistry pg 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes
BGS Recorded Mineral Sites
BGS Urban Soil Chemistry pg 11 Yes Yes Yes
BGS Urban Soil Chemistry Averages pg 14 Yes
Brine Compensation Area n/a n/a n/a
Coal Mining Affected Areas n/a n/a n/a
Mining Instability n/a n/a n/a
Man-Made Mining Cavities
Natural Cavities
Non Coal Mining Areas of Great Britain n/a n/a
Potential for Collapsible Ground Stability Hazards pg 14 Yes Yes n/a n/a
Potential for Compressible Ground Stability Hazards pg 14 Yes n/a n/a
Potential for Ground Dissolution Stability Hazards n/a n/a
Potential for Landslide Ground Stability Hazards pg 14 Yes Yes n/a n/a
Potential for Running Sand Ground Stability Hazards pg 14 Yes n/a n/a
Potential for Shrinking or Swelling Clay Ground Stability Hazards pg 15 Yes Yes n/a n/a
Radon Potential - Radon Affected Areas n/a n/a n/a
Radon Potential - Radon Protection Measures n/a n/a n/a
Summary
Page 501 to 1000m
Data Type Number
(*up to 2000m)
Industrial Land Use

Contemporary Trade Directory Entries pg 16 11 8 26
Fuel Station Entries pg 20 1 1
Sensitive Land Use

Areas of Adopted Green Belt pg 21 1
Areas of Unadopted Green Belt
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Forest Parks
Local Nature Reserves
Marine Nature Reserves
National Nature Reserves
National Parks
Nitrate Sensitive Areas
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
Ramsar Sites
Sites of Special Scientific Interest
Special Areas of Conservation
Special Protection Areas
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
Details (Compass Distance Contact NGR
ID
Direction) From Site
Discharge Consents
1 Operator: The Residents A12NW 890 3 568800
Property Type: Not Supplied (W) 183500
Location: Moore Place, Stanford-Le-Hope, Essex
Authority: Environment Agency, Anglian Region
Catchment Area: Not Supplied
Reference: Pr2nfe04259
Permit Version: 1
Effective Date: 9th September 1959
Issued Date: 9th September 1959
Revocation Date: 2nd March 1993
Discharge Type: Discharge Of Other Matter-Surface Water
Discharge Freshwater Stream/River
Environment:
Receiving Water: Hassingbrook Hall Farm Brook
Status: Pre National Rivers Authority Legislation where issue date < 01/09/1989
Positional Accuracy: Located by supplier to within 100m
Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Controls
2 Name: Corringham Service Station A13NE 112 4 569869
Location: Gordon Road, CORRINGHAM, Essex, SS17 7RE (E) 183379
Authority: Thurrock Borough Council, Environmental Health Department
Permit Reference: Ss22
Dated: 23rd May 2005
Process Type: Local Authority Air Pollution Control
Description: PG1/14 Petrol filling station
Status: Authorisation revokedRevoked
Positional Accuracy: Manually positioned to the address or location
3 Name: Rich Clean Ltd A13NE 126 4 569854
Location: 18 Grover Walk, Corringham (NE) 183437
Permit Reference: DC5
Dated: 29th March 2007
Process Type: Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control
Description: PG6/46 Dry cleaning
Status: Authorisation revokedRevoked
3 Name: Corringham Dry Cleaners Ltd A13NE 127 4 569855
Location: 18 Grover Walk, Corringham (NE) 183438
Permit Reference: DC12
Dated: 27th August 2009
Process Type: Local Authority Air Pollution Control
Description: PG6/46 Dry cleaning
Status: Permitted
Nearest Surface Water Feature
A8NE 618 - 569904
(S) 182729
Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters
4 Property Type: Water Company Sewage: Foul Sewer A18SE 685 3 570001
Location: Chelmsford District, FOBBING (NE) 184001
Pollutant: Crude Sewage
Note: Tributary Of Fobbing Creek
Incident Date: 6th January 1999
Incident Reference: 3979
Catchment Area: Not Given
Receiving Water: Freshwater Stream/River
Cause of Incident: Blocked Sewer
Incident Severity: Category 3 - Minor Incident
Order Number: 71640792_1_1 Date: 21-Aug-2015 rpr_ec_datasheet v50.0 A Landmark Information Group Service Page 1 of 29
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID
Water Abstractions
Operator: Essex Water Company A20NE 1723 3 571200
Licence Number: 8/37/44/*g/045 (NE) 184300
Permit Version: Not Supplied
Location: Bore - Fobbing - Auxiliary
Abstraction: Public Water Supply
Abstraction Type: Not Supplied
Source: Well And Borehole
Daily Rate (m3): 1200
Yearly Rate (m3): 682000
Details: E chalk; Status: Revoked
Authorised Start: Not Supplied
Authorised End: Not Supplied
Permit Start Date: Not Supplied
Permit End Date: Not Supplied
Water Abstractions
Operator: Essex Water Company A25SE 1780 3 571200
Location: Bore - Fobbing
Water Abstractions
Operator: Robert Boag & Son Ltd A1NW 1802 3 568200
Licence Number: 8/37/56/*G/0069 (SW) 182300
Permit Version: 100
Location: Well At The Brewery
Abstraction: Other Industrial/Commercial/Public Services: General Use (Medium Loss)
Abstraction Type: Water may be abstracted from a single point
Source: Groundwater
Daily Rate (m3): Not Supplied
Yearly Rate (m3): Not Supplied
Details: Fluvial Sand and Gravel; Status: Perpetuity
Authorised Start: 01 January
Authorised End: 31 December
Permit Start Date: 1st November 1982
Water Abstractions
Operator: J M Frood & Son (E) 1840 3 571600
Licence Number: 8/37/56/*S/0037 183300
Permit Version: 100
Location: The Hall Farm, Corringham
Abstraction: General Agriculture: Spray Irrigation - Direct
Abstraction Type: Water may be abstracted from a single point
Source: Surface
Daily Rate (m3): Not Supplied
Yearly Rate (m3): Not Supplied
Details: Not Supplied
Authorised Start: 01 May
Authorised End: 30 September
Permit Start Date: 1st January 1996
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID
Water Abstractions
Operator: Essex Water Company A25NW 1949 3 570801
Location: Bore - Fobbing Tunnel North
Groundwater Vulnerability
Soil Classification: Not classified A13SW 0 3 569716
Map Sheet: Sheet 40 Thames Estuary (W) 183350
Scale: 1:100,000
Drift Deposits
None
Bedrock Aquifer Designations
Aquifer Designation: Unproductive Strata A13SW 0 2 569716
(W) 183350
Superficial Aquifer Designations
No Data Available
Extreme Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences
None
Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences
None
Areas Benefiting from Flood Defences
None
Flood Water Storage Areas
None
Flood Defences
None
Detailed River Network Lines
None
Detailed River Network Offline Drainage
None
Waste
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID
Local Authority Landfill Coverage

Name: Thurrock Unitary Council 0 4 569716
- Has supplied landfill data 183350
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID
BGS 1:625,000 Solid Geology

Description: Thames Group A13SW 0 2 569716
(W) 183350
BGS Estimated Soil Chemistry
Source: British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service A13SW 0 2 569716
Soil Sample Type: Rural Soil (W) 183350
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Chromium 90 - 120 mg/kg
Concentration:
Lead Concentration: <150 mg/kg
Nickel 15 - 30 mg/kg
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Source: British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service A13SE 240 2 570000
Soil Sample Type: Rural Soil (E) 183350
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Source: British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service A13NE 242 2 570000
Soil Sample Type: Rural Soil (E) 183389
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Source: British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service A8NW 324 2 569716
Soil Sample Type: Rural Soil (S) 183000
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Soil Sample Type: Rural Soil (SE) 183000
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Soil Sample Type: Rural Soil (N) 184000
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Soil Sample Type: Rural Soil (NE) 184000
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Soil Sample Type: Rural Soil (SW) 183000
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Soil Sample Type: Rural Soil (NW) 183956
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Nickel <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic 15 - 25 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Soil Sample Type: Rural Soil (NE) 184000
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Arsenic <15 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium <1.8 mg/kg
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
BGS Measured Urban Soil Chemistry
Grid: 569720, 183304 (S) 183304
Soil Sample Type: Topsoil
Sample Area: London
Arsenic Measured 10.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium Measured 0.80 mg/kg
Concentration:
Chromium Measured 73.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Lead Measured 64.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Nickel Measured 22.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Grid: 569672, 183647 (N) 183647
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Grid: 569309, 183295 (W) 183295
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

Grid: 569342, 183661 (NW) 183661
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Grid: 570222, 183401 (E) 183401
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Grid: 570310, 183640 (NE) 183640
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Grid: 569759, 182682 (S) 182682
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Grid: 569258, 182639 (SW) 182639
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

Grid: 568911, 183645 (W) 183645
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Grid: 569667, 184237 (N) 184237
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Grid: 568902, 182862 (SW) 182862
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Grid: 569329, 184252 (NW) 184252
Sample Area: London
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Concentration:
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID
BGS Urban Soil Chemistry Averages

Sample Area: London (W) 183350
Count Id: 7189
Arsenic Minimum 1.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Arsenic Average 17.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Arsenic Maximum 161.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium Minimum 0.30 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium Average 0.90 mg/kg
Concentration:
Cadmium Maximum 165.20 mg/kg
Concentration:
Chromium Minimum 13.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Chromium Average 79.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Chromium Maximum 2094.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Lead Minimum 11.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Lead Average 280.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Lead Maximum 10000.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Nickel Minimum 2.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Nickel Average 28.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Nickel Maximum 506.00 mg/kg
Concentration:
Coal Mining Affected Areas
In an area that might not be affected by coal mining
Non Coal Mining Areas of Great Britain
No Hazard
Potential for Collapsible Ground Stability Hazards
Hazard Potential: Very Low A13SW 0 2 569716
Source: British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service (W) 183350
Hazard Potential: Very Low A13SE 240 2 570000
Source: British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service (E) 183350
Potential for Compressible Ground Stability Hazards
Hazard Potential: No Hazard A13SW 0 2 569716
Hazard Potential: Very Low A13NW 180 2 569501
Hazard Potential: No Hazard A13SE 240 2 570000
Potential for Ground Dissolution Stability Hazards
Hazard Potential: No Hazard A13SE 240 2 570000
Potential for Landslide Ground Stability Hazards
Potential for Running Sand Ground Stability Hazards
Geological
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

Hazard Potential: Very Low A13NW 180 2 569501
Hazard Potential: No Hazard A13NE 242 2 570000
Potential for Shrinking or Swelling Clay Ground Stability Hazards
Hazard Potential: Moderate A13SW 0 2 569716
Hazard Potential: Moderate A13SE 240 2 570000
Radon Potential - Radon Protection Measures
Protection Measure: No radon protective measures are necessary in the construction of new A13SW 0 2 569716
dwellings or extensions (W) 183350
Source: British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service
Radon Potential - Radon Affected Areas
Affected Area: The property is in a lower probability radon area, as less than 1% of homes A13SW 0 2 569716
are above the action level (W) 183350
Source: British Geological Survey, National Geoscience Information Service
Industrial Land Use
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID
Contemporary Trade Directory Entries

5 Name: Corringham Car Centre A13NE 59 - 569724
Location: Gordon Rd, Corringham, Stanford Le Hope, Essex, SS17 7RD (N) 183440
Classification: Car Dealers
Status: Inactive
Positional Accuracy: Manually positioned to the road within the address or location
5 Name: Corringham Service Centre A13NE 59 - 569724
Location: Gordon Rd, Corringham, Stanford Le Hope, Essex, SS17 7RD (N) 183440
Classification: Mot Testing Centres
Status: Inactive
6 Name: Abbey Domestic A13NE 80 - 569827
Location: 2-4, Grover Walk, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7LY (NE) 183398
Classification: Domestic Appliances - Servicing, Repairs & Parts
Status: Active
Positional Accuracy: Automatically positioned to the address
6 Name: Corringham Dry Cleaners A13NE 127 - 569855
Location: 18, Grover Walk, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7LY (NE) 183438
Classification: Dry Cleaners
Status: Active
6 Name: Kleenaworld Ltd A13NE 127 - 569855
Status: Inactive
6 Name: Richclean A13NE 127 - 569855
Status: Inactive
7 Name: Sketchley Retail Ltd A13NE 115 - 569805
Location: 13, Grover Walk, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7LP (NE) 183460
Status: Inactive
8 Name: Abros Blinds A13SE 123 - 569861
Location: 106, Andersons, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7JB (SE) 183282
Classification: Blinds, Awnings & Canopies
Status: Inactive
9 Name: Freezecare - Fridge Freezer Repairs A13SW 133 - 569559
Location: 185, Abbotts Drive, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7BN (SW) 183270
Classification: Refrigerators & Freezers - Servicing & Repairs
Status: Inactive
10 Name: Active Mastics Ltd A13SE 165 - 569879
Location: 94, Andersons, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7JD (SE) 183231
Classification: Sealant Compounds & Applications
Status: Active
11 Name: Regency Car Hire - Thurrock A13SW 236 - 569642
Location: 19, The Glen, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7EA (S) 183095
Classification: Car Engine Tuning & Diagnostic Services
Status: Active
12 Name: The Little Blind Co A13SW 265 - 569571
Location: 91, Priory Road, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7EN (SW) 183090
Status: Active
Industrial Land Use
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

13 Name: One Hour Digital Photo A13NE 295 - 569880
Location: 9, St. Johns Mews, St. Johns Way, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, (NE) 183624
SS17 7LW
Classification: Photographic Processors
Status: Inactive
14 Name: South East Vehicles A14SW 419 - 570127
Location: 27, The Geerings, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7HP (SE) 183149
Classification: Scrap Metal Merchants
Status: Active
15 Name: Steve Of Stanfords A12NE 444 - 569327
Location: 99, Springhouse Road, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7TS (NW) 183620
Classification: Bus & Coach Operators & Stations
Status: Inactive
16 Name: Woodtech Machinery A12NE 454 - 569254
Location: 15, Sandringham Close, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7BE (W) 183504
Classification: Woodworking Machinery
Status: Inactive
16 Name: Home Maids Cleaning Services A12NE 465 - 569232
Location: 7, Sandringham Close, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7BE (W) 183477
Classification: Cleaning Services - Domestic
Status: Active
17 Name: Beneath Heat Ltd A12NE 457 - 569229
Location: Crannley, Balmoral Avenue, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7BD (W) 183435
Classification: Under Floor Heating
Status: Inactive
17 Name: Standard Cleaning Services A12NE 464 - 569215
Location: 12, Balmoral Avenue, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7BD (W) 183396
Classification: Commercial Cleaning Services
Status: Inactive
18 Name: Karla'S Cleaning & Ironing Services A19SW 560 - 570080
Location: 92, Caswell Close, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7LA (NE) 183813
Status: Active
19 Name: Style Graphics A18SE 563 - 569746
Location: 3, Hawthorne Road, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7TE (N) 183946
Classification: Printers
Status: Inactive
20 Name: Barker & Hood A7NE 566 - 569350
Location: 41, Monks Haven, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7EF (SW) 182873
Classification: Road Haulage Services
Status: Inactive
21 Name: Blake Floyd'S A18SE 607 - 570047
Location: 140, Oxwich Close, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7JZ (NE) 183888
Classification: Boilers - Servicing, Replacements & Repairs
Status: Inactive
Industrial Land Use
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

22 Name: Elegance Curtains & Blinds A8SW 654 - 569588
Location: 209, Corringham Road, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 0BH (S) 182679
Status: Inactive
23 Name: Harris Automotive (Mobile) A18SE 666 - 569881
Location: 29, Edinburgh Avenue, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7TQ (N) 184027
Classification: Garage Services
Status: Inactive
24 Name: Premier Preservation & Plastering A18NW 686 - 569682
Location: 20, Gardner Avenue, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7SE (N) 184071
Classification: Damp & Dry Rot Control
Status: Inactive
25 Name: Denhams Mobile Bodyshop A19SW 696 - 570250
Location: 330, Parkmill Close, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7JR (NE) 183847
Classification: Car Body Repairs
Status: Active
26 Name: Auto Care A14SE 728 - 570488
Location: 3-5, Chase Road, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7QH (E) 183354
Classification: Battery Manufacturers & Supplies
Status: Inactive
27 Name: Artisan French Polishing A18NW 766 - 569615
Location: 416, Southend Road, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 8JA (N) 184146
Classification: French Polishing
Status: Active
28 Name: Carlton Cleaning A7NE 769 - 569078
Location: 1, Armstrong Close, Stanford-le-hope, Essex, SS17 7BX (SW) 182851
Classification: Carpet, Curtain & Upholstery Cleaners
Status: Active
29 Name: A A Shutter Doors A18NE 782 - 569927
Location: 82, Gardner Avenue, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7SA (N) 184133
Classification: Roller Shutter Manufacturers
Status: Active
30 Name: KRW A17SE 856 - 569086
Location: Leavale, 124, Branksome Avenue, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 8BY (NW) 183978
Classification: Car Body Repairs
Status: Inactive
31 Name: Corringham Tyre Services A14NE 861 - 570610
Location: Giffords Cross Garage, Giffords Cross Road, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, (E) 183492
Essex, SS17 7QD
Classification: Exhaust & Shock Absorber Centres
Status: Active
31 Name: Giffords Cross Garage A14NE 865 - 570618
Location: Giffords Cross Rd, Corringham, Stanford Le Hope, Essex, SS17 7QD (E) 183465
Classification: Garage Services
Status: Inactive
Industrial Land Use
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID

32 Name: Lam J Ltd A12NW 872 - 568847
Location: 67, Rodings Avenue, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 8DT (W) 183609
Status: Active
33 Name: M K Forwarding Co A17NE 888 - 569255
Location: 166, Branksome Avenue, STANFORD-LE-HOPE, Essex, SS17 8DE (NW) 184151
Classification: Freight Forwarders
Status: Inactive
34 Name: Laburnum Press A14NE 895 - 570618
Location: 44, Laburnum Drive, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 7QE (E) 183609
Classification: Printers
Status: Inactive
35 Name: Homesteads Cleaning A17SE 896 - 569080
Location: 167, Branksome Avenue, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 8DD (NW) 184029
Status: Active
36 Name: Clean For You Ltd A7NW 916 - 568831
Location: 13, Abbotts Drive, STANFORD-LE-HOPE, Essex, SS17 7DG (SW) 182980
Status: Inactive
37 Name: British Carpet Cleaning Co A12SW 927 - 568748
Location: 19, Bramleys, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 8AG (W) 183330
Classification: Carpet, Curtain & Upholstery Cleaners
Status: Inactive
38 Name: Mobile Clutch Service A17NE 939 - 569239
Location: Coytrey, 215, Branksome Avenue, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 8DD (NW) 184201
Classification: Brake & Clutch Service Centres
Status: Active
39 Name: A Baron A7NW 958 - 568826
Location: 15, Upton Close, Stanford-le-hope, Essex, SS17 7DQ (SW) 182894
Status: Active
40 Name: Elastomer Trading Ltd A17SW 978 - 568878
Location: 3, Pugh Place, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 8BL (NW) 183910
Classification: Chemicals & Allied Products
Status: Inactive
41 Name: Fineturf Products A18NW 981 - 569423
Location: 194, Branksome Avenue, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 8DF (N) 184325
Classification: Sand, Gravel & Other Aggregates
Status: Inactive
42 Name: Stanford Leadlites A19SE 997 - 570661
Location: 61, Lampits Hill, Corringham, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 9AA (NE) 183782
Classification: Stained Glass Designers & Producers
Status: Inactive
Industrial Land Use
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID
Fuel Station Entries

43 Name: Corringham Centre Service Station A13NE 112 - 569869
Location: Gordon Road, Corringham, STANFORD-LE-HOPE, Essex, SS17 7RD (E) 183379
Brand: Total
Premises Type: Not Applicable
Status: Obsolete
44 Name: Giffords Cross Garage A14NE 854 - 570600
Location: Giffords Cross Road, Corringham, CORNINGHAM, Essex, SS17 7QD (E) 183510
Brand: Obsolete
Premises Type: Not Applicable
Status: Obsolete
Positional Accuracy: Approximate location provided by supplier
Sensitive Land Use
Quadrant
Reference Estimated
Map
ID
Areas of Adopted Green Belt

45 Authority: Thurrock Borough Council, Development Control A8NE 415 5 570015
Plan Name: Core Strategy (SE) 183012
Status: Adopted
Plan Date: 21st December 2011
Data Currency
Agency & Hydrological Version Update Cycle

Contaminated Land Register Entries and Notices
Medway Council - Environmental Health August 2013 Annual Rolling Update
Thurrock Borough Council - Environmental Health Department November 2013 Annually
Basildon District Council - Environmental Health Department October 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Castle Point Borough Council - Environmental Health Services October 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Gravesham Borough Council - Public Health Services September 2013 Annual Rolling Update
Discharge Consents
Environment Agency - Anglian Region April 2015 Quarterly
Environment Agency - Southern Region April 2015 Quarterly
Enforcement and Prohibition Notices
Environment Agency - Anglian Region March 2013 As notified
Environment Agency - Southern Region March 2013 As notified
Integrated Pollution Controls
Environment Agency - Anglian Region October 2008 Not Applicable
Environment Agency - Southern Region October 2008 Not Applicable
Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control
Local Authority Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control
Thurrock Borough Council - Environmental Health Department February 2015 Annual Rolling Update
Castle Point Borough Council - Environmental Health Services January 2015 Annual Rolling Update
Medway Council - Environmental Health June 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Basildon District Council - Environmental Health Department May 2013 Annual Rolling Update
Gravesham Borough Council - Environmental Health Department October 2014 Annual Rolling Update
London Port Health Authority - Environmental Services October 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control Enforcements
Nearest Surface Water Feature
Ordnance Survey July 2012 Quarterly
Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters
Environment Agency - Southern Region December 1999 Not Applicable
Environment Agency - Anglian Region September 1999 Not Applicable
Prosecutions Relating to Authorised Processes
Prosecutions Relating to Controlled Waters
River Quality
Environment Agency - Head Office November 2001 Not Applicable
River Quality Biology Sampling Points
Environment Agency - Head Office July 2012 Annually
Data Currency
Agency & Hydrological Version Update Cycle

River Quality Chemistry Sampling Points
Environment Agency - Head Office July 2012 Annually
Substantiated Pollution Incident Register
Environment Agency - Anglian Region - Eastern Area April 2015 Quarterly
Environment Agency - Southern Region - Kent Area April 2015 Quarterly
Environment Agency - Southern Region - Kent and East Sussex April 2015 Quarterly
Water Abstractions
Water Industry Act Referrals
Environment Agency - Head Office April 2015 Not Applicable
Drift Deposits
Environment Agency - Head Office January 1999 Not Applicable
Bedrock Aquifer Designations
British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service October 2012 As notified
Superficial Aquifer Designations
British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service January 2015 As notified
Environment Agency - Head Office July 2015 Quarterly
Extreme Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences
Environment Agency - Head Office May 2015 Quarterly
Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences
Areas Benefiting from Flood Defences
Flood Water Storage Areas
Flood Defences
Detailed River Network Lines
Environment Agency - Head Office March 2012 Annually
Detailed River Network Offline Drainage
Environment Agency - Head Office March 2012 Annually
Surface Water 1 in 30 year Flood Extent
Environment Agency - Head Office October 2013 As notified
Surface Water Suitability
Data Currency
Waste Version Update Cycle

BGS Recorded Landfill Sites
British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service June 1996 Not Applicable
Historical Landfill Sites
Environment Agency - Anglian Region - Eastern Area May 2015 Quarterly
Environment Agency - Southern Region - Kent Area May 2015 Quarterly
Environment Agency - Southern Region - Kent and East Sussex May 2015 Quarterly
Integrated Pollution Control Registered Waste Sites
Environment Agency - Anglian Region October 2008 Not Applicable
Environment Agency - Southern Region October 2008 Not Applicable
Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Landfill Boundaries)
Environment Agency - Anglian Region - Eastern Area August 2014 Quarterly
Environment Agency - Southern Region - Kent Area August 2014 Quarterly
Environment Agency - Southern Region - Kent and East Sussex August 2014 Quarterly
Licensed Waste Management Facilities (Locations)
Environment Agency - Anglian Region - Eastern Area April 2015 Quarterly
Environment Agency - Southern Region - Kent Area April 2015 Quarterly
Environment Agency - Southern Region - Kent and East Sussex April 2015 Quarterly
Local Authority Landfill Coverage
Basildon District Council May 2000 Not Applicable
Castle Point Borough Council - Environmental Health Services May 2000 Not Applicable
Essex County Council May 2000 Not Applicable
Gravesham Borough Council May 2000 Not Applicable
Medway Council - Environmental Protection Department May 2000 Not Applicable
Thurrock Borough Council - Environmental Health Department May 2000 Not Applicable
Local Authority Recorded Landfill Sites
Basildon District Council May 2000 Not Applicable
Castle Point Borough Council - Environmental Health Services May 2000 Not Applicable
Gravesham Borough Council May 2000 Not Applicable
Medway Council - Environmental Protection Department May 2000 Not Applicable
Thurrock Borough Council - Environmental Health Department May 2000 Not Applicable
Essex County Council November 2004 Not Applicable
Registered Landfill Sites
Environment Agency - Anglian Region - Eastern Area March 2003 Not Applicable
Environment Agency - Southern Region - Kent Area March 2003 Not Applicable
Registered Waste Transfer Sites
Registered Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites
Data Currency
Hazardous Substances Version Update Cycle

Control of Major Accident Hazards Sites (COMAH)
Health and Safety Executive June 2015 Bi-Annually
Explosive Sites
Health and Safety Executive June 2015 Bi-Annually
Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances (NIHHS)
Health and Safety Executive November 2000 Not Applicable
Planning Hazardous Substance Enforcements
London Port Health Authority - Environmental Services January 2008 Annual Rolling Update
Castle Point Borough Council March 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Basildon District Council March 2015 Annual Rolling Update
Gravesham Borough Council November 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Thurrock Borough Council - Development Control November 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Medway Council October 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Essex County Council September 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Planning Hazardous Substance Consents
London Port Health Authority - Environmental Services January 2008 Annual Rolling Update
Castle Point Borough Council March 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Basildon District Council March 2015 Annual Rolling Update
Gravesham Borough Council November 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Thurrock Borough Council - Development Control November 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Medway Council October 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Essex County Council September 2014 Annual Rolling Update
Data Currency
Geological Version Update Cycle

BGS 1:625,000 Solid Geology
British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service January 2009 Not Applicable
British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service January 2010 Annually
BGS Recorded Mineral Sites
British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service May 2015 Bi-Annually
BGS Urban Soil Chemistry
British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service June 2011 Annually
BGS Urban Soil Chemistry Averages
Brine Compensation Area
Cheshire Brine Subsidence Compensation Board August 2011 Not Applicable
Coal Mining Affected Areas
The Coal Authority - Mining Report Service March 2014 As notified
Mining Instability
Ove Arup & Partners October 2000 Not Applicable
Non Coal Mining Areas of Great Britain
British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service July 2014 Not Applicable
Radon Potential - Radon Affected Areas
British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service July 2011 As notified
Radon Potential - Radon Protection Measures
British Geological Survey - National Geoscience Information Service July 2011 As notified
Industrial Land Use Version Update Cycle

Thomson Directories May 2015 Quarterly
Catalist Ltd - Experian August 2015 Quarterly
Data Currency
Sensitive Land Use Version Update Cycle

Areas of Adopted Green Belt
Basildon District Council May 2015 As notified
Castle Point Borough Council May 2015 As notified
Gravesham Borough Council May 2015 As notified
Medway Council May 2015 As notified
Thurrock Borough Council - Development Control May 2015 As notified
Areas of Unadopted Green Belt
Basildon District Council May 2015 As notified
Castle Point Borough Council May 2015 As notified
Gravesham Borough Council May 2015 As notified
Medway Council May 2015 As notified
Thurrock Borough Council - Development Control May 2015 As notified
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Natural England February 2015 Bi-Annually
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Natural England August 2014 Annually
Forest Parks
Forestry Commission April 1997 Not Applicable
Local Nature Reserves
Natural England April 2015 Bi-Annually
Marine Nature Reserves
Natural England July 2013 Bi-Annually
National Nature Reserves
Natural England March 2015 Bi-Annually
National Parks
Natural England August 2015 Bi-Annually
Nitrate Sensitive Areas
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA - formerly FRCA) February 2012 Not Applicable
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA - formerly FRCA) July 2014 Annually
Ramsar Sites
Sites of Special Scientific Interest
Special Areas of Conservation
Special Protection Areas
Data Suppliers
A selection of organisations who provide data within this report
Data Supplier Data Supplier Logo
Ordnance Survey
Environment Agency
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
The Coal Authority
British Geological Survey
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Natural Resources Wales
Scottish Natural Heritage
Natural England
Public Health England
Ove Arup
Peter Brett Associates
Useful Contacts
Contact Name and Address Contact Details
2 British Geological Survey - Enquiry Service Telephone: 0115 936 3143

Fax: 0115 936 3276
British Geological Survey, Kingsley Dunham Centre, Keyworth, Email: enquiries@bgs.ac.uk
Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG12 5GG Website: www.bgs.ac.uk
3 Environment Agency - National Customer Contact Telephone: 08708 506 506

Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
Centre (NCCC)
PO Box 544, Templeborough, Rotherham, S60 1BY
4 Thurrock Borough Council - Environmental Health Telephone: 01375 390000

Fax: 01375 652359
Department Website: www.thurrock.gov.uk
Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL
5 Thurrock Borough Council - Development Control Telephone: 01375 390000

Fax: 01375 652359
Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL Website: www.thurrock.gov.uk
6 Natural England Telephone: 0845 600 3078

Email: enquiries@naturalengland.org.uk
Suite D, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough, Website: www.naturalengland.org.uk
Cambridgeshire, PE1 1NG
7 Environment Agency - Head Office Telephone: 01454 624400

Fax: 01454 624409
Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, Avon,
BS32 4UD
- Public Health England - Radon Survey, Centre for Telephone: 01235 822622
Fax: 01235 833891
Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards Email: radon@phe.gov.uk
Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RQ Website: www.ukradon.org
- Landmark Information Group Limited Telephone: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
Imperium, Imperial Way, Reading, Berkshire, RG2 0TD Email: customerservices@landmarkinfo.co.uk
Website: www.landmarkinfo.co.uk
Please note that the Environment Agency / Natural Resources Wales / SEPA have a charging policy in place for enquiries.
Geology 1:50,000 Maps Legends
Artificial Ground and Landslip
Geology 1:50,000 Maps
Map Lex Code Rock Name Rock Type Min and Max Age
This report contains geological map extracts taken from the BGS Digital
Colour Geological map of Great Britain at 1:50,000 scale and is designed for users
carrying out preliminary site assessments who require geological maps for
WMGR Infilled Ground Artificial Deposit Cenozoic - the area around the site. This mapping may be more up to date than
Cenozoic previously published paper maps.
The various geological layers - artificial and landslip deposits, superficial
MGR Made Ground (Undivided) Artificial Deposit Holocene -
geology and solid (bedrock) geology are displayed in separate maps, but
Holocene superimposed on the final 'Combined Surface Geology' map. All map
WGR Worked Ground Void Holocene - legends feature on this page. Not all layers have complete nationwide
(Undivided) Holocene coverage, so availability of data for relevant map sheets is indicated below.
Geology 1:50,000 Maps Coverage
Map ID: 1
Superficial Geology Map Sheet No: 258
Map Name: Southend and Fo
Map Date: 1976
Map Lex Code Rock Name Rock Type Min and Max Age Bedrock Geology: Available
Colour Superficial Geology: Available
Artificial Geology: Available
Faults: Not Supplied
ALV Alluvium Clay, Silt, Sand Flandrian - Landslip: Available
and Gravel Flandrian Rock Segments: Not Supplied
ALV Alluvium Clay, Silty, Peaty, Flandrian -

Sandy [Unlithified Flandrian
Deposits Coding
Scheme]
TFD Tidal Flat Deposits Clay and Silt Holocene -
Holocene
LHGR Lynch Hill Gravel Member Sand and Gravel Wolstonian -
Wolstonian Geology 1:50,000 Maps - Slice A
TPGR Taplow Gravel Formation Sand and Gravel Wolstonian -
Wolstonian
HEAD Head Clay, Silt, Sand Quaternary -
and Gravel Quaternary
RTD3 River Terrace Deposits, 3 Sand and Gravel Quaternary -
Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary
BTFU Beach and Tidal Flat Clay, Silt and Sand Quaternary -
Deposits Quaternary
(Undifferentiated)
Order Details:
Bedrock and Faults Order Number: 71640792_1_1
Customer Reference: STM3323B
Map Lex Code Rock Name Rock Type Min and Max Age National Grid Reference: 569720, 183350
Colour Slice: A
Site Area (Ha): 0.29
LC London Clay Formation Clay, Silt and Sand Eocene - Eocene Search Buffer (m): 1000
Site Details:
TAB Thanet Formation Sand Thanetian - Thurrock Hub, The Sorrells, Stanford le Hope
Thanetian
HWH Harwich Formation Sand and Gravel Eocene - Paleocene
Tel: 0844 844 9952
LMBE Lambeth Group Clay, Silt and Sand Paleocene - Fax: 0844 844 9951
Web: www.envirocheck.co.uk
Paleocene
v15.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 1 of 5
Artificial Ground and Landslip
Artificial ground is a term used by BGS for those areas where the ground
surface has been significantly modified by human activity. Information about
previously developed ground is especially important, as it is often
associated with potentially contaminated material, unpredictable
engineering conditions and unstable ground.
Artificial ground includes:
- Made ground - man-made deposits such as embankments and spoil

heaps on the natural ground surface.
- Worked ground - areas where the ground has been cut away such as
quarries and road cuttings.
- Infilled ground - areas where the ground has been cut away then wholly or
partially backfilled.
- Landscaped ground - areas where the surface has been reshaped.
- Disturbed ground - areas of ill-defined shallow or near surface mineral
workings where it is impracticable to map made and worked ground
separately.
Mass movement (landslip) deposits on BGS geological maps are primarily

superficial deposits that have moved down slope under gravity to form
landslips. These affect bedrock, other superficial deposits and artificial
ground. The dataset also includes foundered strata, where the ground has
collapsed due to subsidence.
Artificial Ground and Landslip Map - Slice A
Order Details:
Order Number: 71640792_1_1
National Grid Reference: 569720, 183350
Slice: A
Search Buffer (m): 1000
Site Details:
Thurrock Hub, The Sorrells, Stanford le Hope
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v15.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 2 of 5

Superficial Geology
Superficial Deposits are the youngest geological deposits formed during the
most recent period of geological time, the Quaternary, which extends back
about 1.8 million years from the present.
They rest on older deposits or rocks referred to as Bedrock. This dataset

contains Superficial deposits that are of natural origin and 'in place'. Other
superficial strata may be held in the Mass Movement dataset where they
have been moved, or in the Artificial Ground dataset where they are of
man-made origin.
Most of these Superficial deposits are unconsolidated sediments such as

gravel, sand, silt and clay, and onshore they form relatively thin, often
discontinuous patches or larger spreads.
Superficial Geology Map - Slice A
Order Details:
Slice: A
Site Details:
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v15.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 3 of 5

Bedrock and Faults
Bedrock geology is a term used for the main mass of rocks forming the
Earth and are present everywhere, whether exposed at the surface in
outcrops or concealed beneath superficial deposits or water.
The bedrock has formed over vast lengths of geological time ranging from
ancient and highly altered rocks of the Proterozoic, some 2500 million years
ago, or older, up to the relatively young Pliocene, 1.8 million years ago.
The bedrock geology includes many lithologies, often classified into three
types based on origin: igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary.
The BGS Faults and Rock Segments dataset includes geological faults
(e.g. normal, thrust), and thin beds mapped as lines (e.g. coal seam,
gypsum bed). Some of these are linked to other particular 1:50,000
Geology datasets, for example, coal seams are part of the bedrock
sequence, most faults and mineral veins primarily affect the bedrock but cut
across the strata and post date its deposition.
Bedrock and Faults Map - Slice A
Order Details:
Slice: A
Site Details:
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v15.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 4 of 5

Combined Surface Geology
The Combined Surface Geology map combines all the previous maps into
one combined geological overview of your site.
Please consult the legends to the previous maps to interpret the Combined
"Surface Geology" map.
Additional Information
More information on 1:50,000 Geological mapping and explanations of rock
classifications can be found on the BGS website. Using the LEX Codes in
this report, further descriptions of rock types can be obtained by
interrogating the 'BGS Lexicon of Named Rock Units'. This database can
be accessed by following the 'Information and Data' link on the BGS
website.
Contact
British Geological Survey
Kingsley Dunham Centre
Keyworth
Nottingham
NG12 5GG
Telephone: 0115 936 3143
Fax: 0115 936 3276
email: enquiries@bgs.ac.uk
website: www.bgs.ac.uk
Combined Geology Map - Slice A
Order Details:
Slice: A
Site Details:
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v15.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 5 of 5

Index Map
For ease of identification, your site and buffer have been split into Slices,
Segments and Quadrants. These are illustrated on the Index Map opposite
and explained further below.
Slice
Each slice represents a 1:10,000 plot area (2.7km x 2.7km) for your site and
buffer. A large site and buffer may be made up of several slices (represented
by a red outline), that are referenced by letters of the alphabet, starting from
the bottom left corner of the slice "grid". This grid does not relate to National
Grid lines but is designed to give best fit over the site and buffer.
Segment
A segment represents a 1:2,500 plot area. Segments that have plot files
associated with them are shown in dark green, others in light blue. These are
numbered from the bottom left hand corner within each slice.
Quadrant
A quadrant is a quarter of a segment. These are labelled as NW, NE, SW,
SE and are referenced in the datasheet to allow features to be quickly located
on plots. Therefore a feature that has a quadrant reference of A7NW will be
in Slice A, Segment 7 and the NW Quadrant.
A selection of organisations who provide data within this report:
Envirocheck reports are compiled from 136 different sources of data.
Client Details
Ms R Brown, Soiltechnics, Cedar Barn, White Lodge,
Walgrave, Northampton, NN6 9PY
Order Details
Customer Ref: STM3323B
Site Details
Full Terms and Conditions can be found on the following link:

http://www.landmarkinfo.co.uk/Terms/Show/515
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
A Landmark Information Group Service v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 1 of 1

Site Sensitivity Context Map - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Bedrock Aquifer Designation
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Superficial Aquifer Designation
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Sensitive Land Uses
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Site Sensitivity Map - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Flood Map - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

For Borehole information please refer to the Borehole .csv file which
accompanied this slice.
A copy of the BGS Borehole Ordering Form is available to download

from the Support section of www.envirocheck.co.uk.
Borehole Map - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

EA/NRW Detailed River Network Map - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

EA/NRW Suitability Map - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Urban Soil Chemistry Arsenic - Slice A
Order Details
Order Details: 71640792_1_1
Slice: A
Search buffer (m): 1000
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 1 of 10

Estimated Soil Chemistry Arsenic - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 2 of 10

Urban Soil Chemistry Cadmium - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 3 of 10

Estimated Soil Chemistry Cadmium - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 4 of 10

Urban Soil Chemistry Chromium - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 5 of 10

Estimated Soil Chemistry Chromium - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 6 of 10

Urban Soil Chemistry Lead - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 7 of 10

Estimated Soil Chemistry Lead - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 8 of 10

Urban Soil Chemistry Nickel - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 9 of 10

Estimated Soil Chemistry Nickel - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951
v47.0 21-Aug-2015 Page 10 of 10

Historical Mapping Legends
Ordnance Survey County Series 1:10,560 Ordnance Survey Plan 1:10,000 1:10,000 Raster Mapping
Historical Mapping & Photography included:

Mapping Type Scale Date Pg
Kent 1:10,560 1869 3
Essex 1:10,560 1873 - 1876 4
Essex 1:10,560 1898 5
Kent 1:10,560 1898 6
Kent 1:10,560 1910 7
Essex 1:10,560 1924 8
Essex 1:10,560 1938 9
Essex 1:10,560 1938 10
Historical Aerial Photography 1:10,560 1947 11
Ordnance Survey Plan 1:10,000 1960 12
Ordnance Survey Plan 1:10,000 1966 - 1968 13
Gravesend 1:10,000 1977 15
VectorMap Local 1:10,000 2015 17
Historical Map - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Russian Military Mapping Legends
1:5,000 and 1:10,000 mapping 1:25,000 mapping Key to Numbers on Mapping
Historical Mapping & Photography included:

Kent 1:10,560 1869 3
Essex 1:10,560 1873 - 1876 4
Essex 1:10,560 1898 5
Kent 1:10,560 1898 6
Kent 1:10,560 1910 7
Essex 1:10,560 1924 8
Essex 1:10,560 1938 9
Essex 1:10,560 1938 10
Historical Aerial Photography 1:10,560 1947 11
Gravesend 1:10,000 1977 15
VectorMap Local 1:10,000 2015 17
Russian Map - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Kent
Published 1869
Source map scale - 1:10,560
The historical maps shown were reproduced from maps predominantly held
at the scale adopted for England, Wales and Scotland in the 1840`s. In 1854
the 1:2,500 scale was adopted for mapping urban areas; these maps were
used to update the 1:10,560 maps. The published date given therefore is
often some years later than the surveyed date. Before 1938, all OS maps
were based on the Cassini Projection, with independent surveys of a single
county or group of counties, giving rise to significant inaccuracies in outlying
areas. In the late 1940`s, a Provisional Edition was produced, which updated
the 1:10,560 mapping from a number of sources. The maps appear
unfinished - with all military camps and other strategic sites removed. These
maps were initially overprinted with the National Grid. In 1970, the first
1:10,000 maps were produced using the Transverse Mercator Projection. The
revision process continued until recently, with new editions appearing every
10 years or so for urban areas.
Map Name(s) and Date(s)
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Essex
Published 1873 - 1876
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Essex
Published 1898
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Kent
Published 1898
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Kent
Published 1910
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Essex
Published 1924
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Essex
Published 1938
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Essex
Published 1938
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Historical Aerial Photography
Published 1947
The Historical Aerial Photos were produced by the Ordnance Survey at a
scale of 1:1,250 and 1:10,560 from Air Force photography. They were
produced between 1944 and 1951 as an interim measure, pending
preparation of conventional mapping, due to post war resource shortages.
New security measures in the 1950's meant that every photograph was re-
checked for potentially unsafe information with security sites replaced by fake
fields or clouds. The original editions were withdrawn and only later made
available after a period of fifty years although due to the accuracy of the
editing, without viewing both revisions it is not easy to spot the edits. Where
available Landmark have included both revisions.
© Landmark Information Group and/or Data Suppliers 2010.
Historical Aerial Photography - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Ordnance Survey Plan
Published 1960
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Gravesend
Published 1977
These maps were produced by the Russian military during the Cold War
between 1950 and 1997, and cover 103 towns and cities throughout the U.K.
The maps are produced at 1:25,000, 1:10,000 and 1:5,000 scale, and show
detailed land use, with colour-coded areas for development, green areas, and
non-developed areas. Buildings are coloured black and important building
uses (such as hospitals, post offices, factories etc.) are numbered, with a
numbered key describing their use.
They were produced by the Russians for the benefit of navigation, as well as
strategic military sites and transport hubs, for use if they were to have
invaded the U.K. The detailed information provided indicates that the areas
were surveyed using land-based personnel, on the ground, in the cities that
are mapped.
Russian Map - Slice A
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Published 1988
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

VectorMap Local
Published 2015
VectorMap Local (Raster) is Ordnance Survey's highest detailed 'backdrop'
mapping product. These maps are produced from OS's VectorMap Local, a
simple vector dataset at a nominal scale of 1:10,000, covering the whole of
Great Britain, that has been designed for creating graphical mapping. OS
VectorMap Local is derived from large-scale information surveyed at 1:1250
scale (covering major towns and cities),1:2500 scale (smaller towns, villages
and developed rural areas), and 1:10 000 scale (mountain, moorland and
river estuary areas).
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Historical Mapping Legends
Ordnance Survey County Series and Ordnance Survey Plan, Additional SIMs and Large-Scale National Grid Data 1:2,500 and
Ordnance Survey Plan 1:2,500 Supply of Unpublished Survey Information 1:1,250
1:2,500 and 1:1,250 Historical Mapping & Photography included:
Essex 1:2,500 1882 2
Essex 1:2,500 1897 3
Essex 1:2,500 1922 4
Additional SIMs 1:2,500 1951 7
Additional SIMs 1:1,250 1965 - 1985 11
Supply of Unpublished Survey Information 1:1,250 1973 - 1975 14
Additional SIMs 1:1,250 1978 - 1988 16
Large-Scale National Grid Data 1:1,250 1992 - 1993 17
Large-Scale National Grid Data 1:1,250 1993 18
Large-Scale National Grid Data 1:1,250 1996 19
Historical Map - Segment A13
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Essex
Published 1882
the 1:2,500 scale was adopted for mapping urban areas and by 1896 it
covered the whole of what were considered to be the cultivated parts of Great
Britain. The published date given below is often some years later than the
surveyed date. Before 1938, all OS maps were based on the Cassini
Projection, with independent surveys of a single county or group of counties,
giving rise to significant inaccuracies in outlying areas.
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Essex
Published 1897
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Essex
Published 1922
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Published 1950
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Published 1951
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Additional SIMs
Published 1951
The SIM cards (Ordnance Survey's `Survey of Information on Microfilm') are
further, minor editions of mapping which were produced and published in
between the main editions as an area was updated. They date from 1947 to
1994, and contain detailed information on buildings, roads and land-use.
These maps were produced at both 1:2,500 and 1:1,250 scales.
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Published 1955
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Additional SIMs
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Supply of Unpublished Survey
Information
SUSI maps (Supply of Unpublished Survey Information) were produced
between 1972 and 1977, mainly for internal use at Ordnance Survey. These
were more of a `work-in-progress' plan as they showed updates of individual
areas on a map. These maps were unpublished, and they do not represent a
single moment in time. They were produced at both 1:2,500 and 1:1,250
scales.
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Published 1974
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Additional SIMs
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Large-Scale National Grid Data
'Large Scale National Grid Data' superseded SIM cards (Ordnance Survey's
'Survey of Information on Microfilm') in 1992, and continued to be produced
until 1999. These maps were the fore-runners of digital mapping and so
provide detailed information on houses and roads, but tend to show less
topographic features such as vegetation. These maps were produced at both
1:2,500 and 1:1,250 scales.
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Published 1993
1:2,500 and 1:1,250 scales.
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

Published 1996
1:2,500 and 1:1,250 scales.
dummy
Order Details
Slice: A
Site Details
Tel: 0844 844 9952

Fax: 0844 844 9951

01.3 Ground Investigation RPT

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

01.3 Ground Investigation RPT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed development

Thurrock Central Hub

Ground Investigation Report

Cedar Barn, White Lodge, Walgrave, Northamptonshire NN6 9PY

GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT

Aerial photograph of site

Report status and format

A Definitions of geotechnical terms used in this report

1.2 Site description, history and development proposals

1.3 Ground conditions encountered

1.3.2 No groundwater was encountered.

1.4 Foundation solution

1.5 Chemical and gaseous contamination

1.6 Landfill classification

2.1.3 The investigation included an evaluation of potential chemical and gaseous

2.2 Client instructions and confidentiality

2.3 Site location and scheme proposals

2.4 Report format and investigation standards

a) Phase I Preliminary investigation (desk study and site

2.5 Status of this report

2.6 Report distribution

Table summarising parties likely to require information contained in this report

3 Desk study information and site observations

a) Review of published Ordnance Survey maps dating back to 1876 at various

• Ordnance Survey • Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

3.1.4 A copy of records produced by Envirocheck is presented in Appendix M. Envirocheck

3.2 Description of the site

3.3 Injurious and invasive weeds and asbestos

• Stop them spreading to agricultural land, particularly grazing areas or land

3.4 History of the site

Summary description of site history from Ordnance Survey maps

3.5 Geology and geohydrology of the area

Summary of Geology and likely aquifer containing strata

(r) recorded aquifer designation

3.5.1.4 Secondary A aquifers are predominantly permeable layers capable of supporting

3.5.2 Water abstractions

3.5.3 Coal mining and brine extraction

3.5.4 Shallow mining and natural subsidence hazards

Table summarising mining and subsidence hazards

3.5.5 Borehole records

3.6 Landfill and infilled ground

3.8 Flood risk

3.9 Enquiries with local authority building control and environmental

• Excavation of eight exploratory trial pits

4.1.4 Exploratory points were positioned to avoid known locations of underground

4.2 Site restrictions

Report: STM3323B-G01 Page 3 of 4 October 2015

4.3 Exploratory trial pits

4.3.4 Soil samples for subsequent laboratory determination of concentration of chemical

Report: STM3323B-G01 Page 3 of 4 October 2015

4.4 Driven tube sampling

Report: STM3323B-G01 Page 3 of 4 October 2015

4.5 Dynamic cone penetration testing

4.6 Sampling strategies

4.6.1.1 In general we adopted a judgemental sampling strategy in relation to geotechnical

4.6.3 Sample retention

Report: STM3323B-G01 Page 3 of 4 October 2015

5 Ground conditions encountered

5.2 Existing foundation arrangements

6.1 Classification and physical testing

a) Classification tests: (to part 2):

i) Determination of moisture content (method 3)

6.2 Chemical testing