Sp169

CIRIA C718 was published in 2013. The guide acknowledged that there was limited
experience of dealing with such sites, but that the issue is likely to become a more
common challenge to coastal managers and those responsible for coastal sites in the
future. This supplementary guide is based on a Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) project (NE/N012909/1) funded as part of the NERC Environmental Risks to

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines. Supplementary guide
Infrastructure Innovation Programme by the Environment Agency.

Project steering group:

East Solent Coastal Partnership New Forest District Council
Guidance on the management of
Environment Agency Queen Mary University of London landfill sites and land contamination
Essex County Council Standing Conference on Problems
Hampshire County Council
Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC) on eroding or low-lying coastlines
West Dorset District Council
HR Wallingford
Supplementary guide

CIRIA

SP169 9 780860 179320

 Who we are
CIRIA members lead the industry in raising professional standards through collaboration, sharing knowledge
and promoting good practice. Recognised as leaders in industry improvement, CIRIA’s members represent all
construction stakeholder groups including clients, contractors, consultants, public sector champions, regulators
and academia.

CIRIA membership provides organisations with a unique range of business development and improvement
services, focused on sharing and embedding research, knowledge and good practice. In addition to the many
direct benefits, membership provides a wealth of opportunities for organisations to engage in shaping, informing
and delivering industry solutions focused on innovation and improvement.

In addition to representing excellent value for money in terms of direct benefits, CIRIA membership delivers
significant returns for organisational investment in business improvement and development, CPD, industry
engagement, profile enhancement and collaborative research.

CIRIA membership allows your employees to access the full breadth of CIRIA resources and services, creating
valuable networking, performance improvement and leadership opportunities.

In addition to CIRIA membership, there is a range of specialist community of practice memberships available:

zzCIRIA book club zzBrownfield Risk Management Forum (BRMF)

The CIRIA book club allows you to buy CIRIA publications BRMF provides comprehensive support to all
at half price – plus free copies of all new guidance for construction, environmental, financial and legal
Gold subscribers. professionals working on brownfield projects.

zzLocal Authority Contaminated Land (LACL) network zzEuropean Marine Sand And Gravel Group (EMSAGG)
LACL helps local authority officers to address EMSAGG provides a forum for the marine aggregate
responsibilities and duties involving land contamination industry across Europe to discuss sector issues and
and redevelopment. exchange ideas and learning.

Where we are
Discover how your organisation can benefit from CIRIA’s authoritative and practical guidance – contact us by:
Post Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN, UK
Telephone +44 (0)20 7549 3300
Fax +44 (0)20 7549 3349
Email enquiries@ciria.org
Website www.ciria.org
For details of membership, networks, events, collaborative projects and to access CIRIA publications through the bookshop.
CIRIA SP169 London, 2018

Guidance on the management

of landfill sites and land
contamination on eroding or
low-lying sites
Supplementary guide
Prof. Robert Nicholls, Dr Anne Stringfellow, Dr Richard Beaven
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences,
University of Southampton

Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN

Tel: 020 7549 3300 Fax: 020 7549 3349
Email: enquiries@ciria.org Website: www.ciria.org
Summary

CIRIA C718 Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying sites
was published in 2013. The document acknowledged that there was limited experience of dealing with
such sites, but that the issue is likely to become a more common challenge to coastal managers and those
responsible for coastal sites in the future.

This supplementary guide is based on a Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) project
Coastal landfill and shoreline management: implications for coastal adaptation infrastructure (NE/N012909/1)
funded as part of the NERC Environmental Risks to Infrastructure Innovation Programme by the
Environment Agency.

The guide provides a description of three coastal landfill sites studied as part of the project. However, its
main purpose is to identify:
„„ areas where the guidance could be improved or updated considering these findings
„„ gaps in knowledge that may require new research.

ii CIRIA, SP169
Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying sites.
Supplementary guide

Nicholls, R, Stringfellow, A, Beaven, R

CIRIA

SP169 © CIRIA 2018 RP963 ISBN: 978-0-86017-932-0

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record is available for this book from the British Library

Keywords
Coastal erosion, contaminated land, environmental good practice, gas, landfill site, leachate, remediation and remediation
verification, risk mitigation, vapour intrusion and migration

Reader interest Classification

This guidance is intended for anyone involved in: Availability Unrestricted
‹‹ management of sea flooding and coastal erosion risks Content Advice/guidance
‹‹ land use or spatial planning at, or near, the coast Status Committee-guided
‹‹ owning, operating or regulating a landfill site or area of land User Land owners, developers (commercial
contamination at, or near, the coast. and residential), professional
This includes (but is not restricted to) flood and coastal managers, advisors/consultants (both
land use planning and development control officers, contaminated engineering and environmental),
land officers, waste regulators, site managers from local authorities, builders and contractors, regulators
Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, Scottish Environmental (EA, SEPA, NIEA, local authority
Protection Agency, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Department and building control) and other
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Scottish Government, professional and non-specialist
Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Assembly, Department of stakeholders
Agriculture and Rural Development (DARDNI), Marine Management
Organisation (MMO), Marine Scotland, Natural England, Centre for
Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Single
Environmental Body Wales (from April 2013), Scottish Natural Heritage
(SNH), Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Landfill site operators,
Landowners (eg The National Trust, Ministry of Defence, private
individuals, Coal Authority, The Crown Estate).

Published by CIRIA, Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN, UK

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is sold and/or
distributed with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher is thereby engaged in rendering a specific legal or any
other professional service. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the publication, no warranty
or fitness is provided or implied, and the authors and publisher shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity
with respect to any loss or damage arising from its use.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying
and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to the publisher. Such
written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.
If you would like to reproduce any of the figures, text or technical information from this or any other CIRIA publication for use
in other documents or publications, please contact the Publishing Department for more details on copyright terms and charges at:
publishing@ciria.org Tel: 020 7549 3300.

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide iii

Acknowledgements

This guide has been produced as a result of a Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) project,
Coastal landfill and shoreline management: implications for coastal adaptation infrastructure (NE/N012909/1). The
project was funded as part of the NERC Environmental Risks to Infrastructure – Innovation Programme.

Authors (University of Southampton)

Dr Richard Beaven Dr Abiy Kebede Dr Anne Stringfellow
Dr Ivan Haigh Prof. Robert Nicholls Ms Jenny Watts

Funders
NERC
Environment Agency

NERC project partners/Project steering group

Robert Clarke West Dorset District Council
Dr Samantha Cope Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC)
David Emmett Hampshire County Council
Peter Ferguson New Forest District Council
Dr Jonathon Simm HR Wallingford
Prof. Kate Spencer Queen Mary University of London
Owen Tarrant Environment Agency
Richard Thomas Independent consultant
Dr Matthew Wadey East Solent Coastal Partnership
Jim Wilkinson Environment Agency

Project steering group

Robert Clarke West Dorset District Council
Dr Samantha Cope Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC)
Dr James Brand Environment Agency
Andrew Brown Essex County Council
Nick Hardiman Environment Agency
John Lindsay Environment Agency
Nicky Spurr Essex County Council
Prof. Kate Spencer Queen Mary University of London
Owen Tarrant Environment Agency
Richard Thomas Independent consultant
Dr Matthew Wadey East Solent Coastal Partnership
Neil Watson Environment Agency
Jim Wilkinson Environment Agency

CIRIA project team

Dr Owen Jenkins Director
Clare Drake Publishing manager

iv CIRIA, SP169
Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

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

2 Case study sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 Spittles Lane landfill site, Lyme Regis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Wicor Cams, Fareham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Pennington Marshes, Lymington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Learning points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 Scope of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Challenges in applying CIRIA C718 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1 Lack of information for landfill investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.2 Access to sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3 Coastal erosion rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3 Gaps in guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.1 Interpretation and application of regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.2 Site investigation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.3 National risk assessment of coastal landfill sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.4 Timescales of potential emissions from landfill sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.5 Options for coastal landfill management within dynamic shorelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4 Gaps in science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.1 Landfill characteristics, pathways and impact of pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.2 Coastal erosion, flooding and waste release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4 Summary of recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

A1 Case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A1.1 Spittles Lane landfill site, Lyme Regis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A1.2 Wicor Cams, Fareham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A1.3 Pennington Marshes landfill site, Lymington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A2 Potential landfill removal costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

A3 Sea level rise for Portsmouth Harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Boxes
Box 1.1 Summary to CIRIA C718 with outline contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Box 3.1 Legal definitions and interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide v

Figures
Figure 1.1 Scenarios encountered at the coastal sites [...] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2.1 View from the Spittles Lane landfill site looking towards the Black Ven and Spittles landslide
complex [...] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2.2 View from the beach below Spittles Lane landfill site [...] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2.3 The Wicor Cams study site showing the sea wall fronting the landfill site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2.4 Pennington Marshes sea wall embankment [...] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 3.1 Stages in a cyclic management approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Tables
Table 1.1 Areas investigated for each case study from Cooper et al (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2.2 Scientific advances and methodological developments needed to assess the impact of solid
waste released into coastal waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

vi CIRIA, SP169
Abbreviations and acronyms

AEP Annual exceedance probability

AONB Area of outstanding natural beauty
ATL Advance the line
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
COD Chemical oxygen demand
DEM Digital elevation model
EA Environment Agency
EQS Environmental quality standard
ERIIP Environmental Risks to Infrastructure Innovation Programme
ESCP Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership
FDGiA Flood Defence Grant in Aid
GHG Greenhouse gas
HCC Hampshire County Council
HTL Hold the (existing defence) line
H++ Extreme high sea level rise
LIDAR Light detection and ranging
L/S Liquid-solid ratio
NAI No active intervention
NFDC New Forest District Council
MHWS Mean high water springs
MR Managed realignment
MSL Mean sea level
QMUL Queen Mary University London
SAC Special Areas of Conservation
SCOPAC Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline
SGV Soil guidance values
SMP Shoreline management plan
SPA Special Protected Area
SSAC Site specific assessment criteria
SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest
UKCIP UK Climate Impact Programme

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide vii

viii CIRIA, SP169
1 Introduction

This guide has been produced as a result of a Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) project
Coastal landfill and shoreline management: implications for coastal adaptation infrastructure (NE/N012909/1).
The project was funded as part of the NERC Environmental Risks to Infrastructure - Innovation
Programme. The project aimed to apply NERC-funded research and other relevant research at the
University of Southampton to better understand the long-term management of coastal located landfills
on dynamic coasts and assess different management approaches to the problems that such sites pose.
This guide and its recommendations were also informed by an Environment Agency-funded project
(Brand, 2017) and other relevant research at Queen Mary University of London, which focused on
diffuse pollution and potential contamination from eroded waste at coastal landfill sites in Essex.

There are more than 1200 historic landfills in coastal areas in England that are at risk of flooding and
erosion and this is likely to increase in future due to sea level rise (Brand et al, 2017). In less developed
coastal areas, shoreline management plans (SMPs) seek to allow natural physical processes such as
erosion to progress. However, where a landfill is present, there may be a requirement to defend the
shoreline to protect people and the environment from hazards that could be released, so the presence
of landfill can constrain SMPs. The NERC project sought to assess a series of different management
approaches, in both engineering feasibility and economic terms, which have the potential to address the
difficulties that coastal landfills pose to SMP choices.

The project estimated the long-term impact of coastal processes under different sea level rise scenarios
on three selected landfills and investigated different management options to prevent pollution, including
removing the waste material. The project sought to apply and build on the guidance presented in CIRIA
C718 (Cooper et al, 2012). This guide acknowledged that UK experience in this field was limited, and
practice is emerging (see Box 1.1).

Box 1.1 Summary to CIRIA C718 with outline contents

This publication provides guidance on the management of landfill sites and areas of land contamination located on
eroding or low-lying coastlines. Over the years, processes of coastal erosion and sea flooding have resulted in waste from
some sites being deposited on the foreshore or seeping into the coastal and marine environment, potentially resulting in a
range of issues such as adverse effects on public health and safety or undesired physical, chemical and biological effects
on the natural environment. These are likely to be experienced more frequently because of the effects of climate change,
especially sea level rise. This is an emerging issue that could become a more common challenge to coastal managers and
those responsible for coastal sites in the future. To date there has been limited experience of dealing with such problems
from identification through to solution. This guide has been produced to help the increasing number of professionals who
will come across such problems for the first time.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapters 2 and 3: Background and context/identifying sites
Chapter 4: Characterising site history and setting
Chapter 5: Assessing the risks
Chapter 6: Appraising the options
Chapters 7 and 8: Delivering the solution and evaluating performance and effects

Three sites on the south coast of England were identified in consultation with practitioners. The sites were
chosen to represent a range of scenarios that might be encountered with coastal landfills (Figure 1.1). The
chosen case study sites were:

„„ Spittles Lane landfill site, Lyme Regis, Dorset: an undefended cliff top site where the cliff is subject
to significant instability and erosion (Figure 1.1a)
„„ Wicor Cams, Fareham, Hampshire: a site with ad hoc (non-engineered) defences in a sheltered
estuarine setting (Figure 1.1b)

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 1

„„ Pennington Marshes, Lymington, Hampshire: a defended coastal site located behind a defence
structure where the presence of the landfill is constraining options to allow managed realignment
(Figure 1.1c).

Figure 1.1 Scenarios encountered at the coastal sites: waste at or near cliff top or estuary bank released due to
erosion or landslip, Spittles Lane, Lyme Regis (a), waste retained behind an (informal) coastal defence structure, Wicor
Cams, Fareham (b), removal or breaching of coastal defence, Pennington, Hampshire (c) (from Cooper et al, 2012)
These sites are briefly described in Chapter 2, with further details in Appendix A1. Full case study
reports on the individual sites can be found on the LANDSS and University of Southampton coastal
landfill websites:

LANDSS: www.landss.soton.ac.uk/coastal
University of Southampton (coastal landfills):
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/engineering/research/projects/coastal-landfill-and-shoreline-management.page

Full environmental risk assessments were not carried out at the study sites. Project funding only allowed for
desk studies and limited site visits, but no waste sampling or laboratory analysis was undertaken. Meetings
were held with a range of relevant stakeholders. Due to the nature and state of development of the sites
studied, it was not possible to assess each site in relation to all the topics covered in Cooper et al (2012). The
aspects covered by the guidance that were considered in the case studies are shown in Table 1.1. Chapter 3
collates the learning points from undertaking the work at the case study sites within the context of the CIRIA
guide, particularly in terms of:

„„ challenges faced in undertaking some of the actions recommended in the guide, eg identifying
sources of guidance
„„ areas where, due to the low maturity of the science base, Cooper et al (2012) is only able to provide
limited guidance, with recommendations for further data collection or research.

2 CIRIA, SP169
Table 1.1 Areas investigated for each case study from Cooper et al (2012)

Challenges and
Chapter learning points
Item Lyme Regis Wicor Cams Pennington
of C718
Section
Background and context Identify regulatory status of the landfill/
  
contaminated land
Identify polluter   

Identify landowner   

2

Is there risk of coastal erosion or flooding   

Does the problem need urgent attention or
  
long-term monitoring?
Identify risk

Coastal erosion   

3

Coastal flooding   

Location of site    3.2.1

Changes in ownership   

Landfilling practices    3.2.1

Changes in land use   

Historic maps and charts    3.2.1

Historic photographs   

Anecdotal evidence 

Planning maps 

Bomb damage maps

Desk study characterising site history and setting

Mining and gravel extraction 

Records of underground oil storage tanks 

Private groundwater abstraction boreholes 

Industry profiles

Land deeds 
4

Records of pollution incidents 

Ordnance survey maps for current usage   

Aerial photographs 

Geological and hydrogeological maps, borehole
  
logs, published papers
Admiralty maps and charts 

Aquifer, groundwater maps  

Topographic maps and light detection and
  
ranging(Lidar) data
Water level and wave climate data and
   3.4.2
coastline dynamics
Erosion and flood risk maps    3.2.3, 3.4.2

Ground investigations and geophysical surveys    3.3.2

Utilities and services data

Landfill maps    3.2.1

Environmental designation maps and
  
databases

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 3

 Challenges and
Chapter learning points
Item Lyme Regis Wicor Cams Pennington
of C718
Section

Desk study characterising Type of material landfilled    3.2.1, 3.3.2

site history and setting
Material released and management response    3.3.1

Historic rates of coastal erosion or flooding    3.2.3

Who is responsible for maintenance of defences   

Current management of shoreline   

Status of site (operational/closed/historic)   

Examined site access    3.2.2

Examined foreshore for waste material   

Examined foreshore for odour, staining or
  
Site visit characterising site history and setting

contamination

4 Examined defences   

Salt marsh die back, erosion of channels and
creek margins
Checked buildings, foundations, structures,
  
retaining walls
Checked presence of overhead or underground
services
Determined neighbouring land use   

Evidence of previous site investigations  

Measurements of relevant site features

View site at different states of tide 

Checked gas and/or groundwater levels

Samples of waste material or contaminated
soils
Samples of ground or surface water quality

Source 3.4.1
Risk assessment

  

Pathway    3.4.1
5
Receptor    3.4.1

Risk assessed?    3.4.1

Option appraisal   

Option appraisal

Technical   
6
Economic   

Environmental   

Note
The shading indicates that the topic was addressed. Symbols indicate the relative success of application for each topic and site.
Key

Area investigated

 Relative success of investigation

4 CIRIA, SP169
2 Case study sites

2.1 SPITTLES LANE LANDFILL SITE, LYME REGIS

The Spittles Lane landfill site is located to the east of Lyme Regis, Dorset, south-west England. It is an
unlicensed site, which is believed to contain household, commercial and inert waste. The landfill closed in
1974. This site is located within the Black Ven and Spittles landslide complex (Figure 2.1). This is part of the
coastline known as the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site, which is significant for its geology, fossils, and
coastal geomorphology.

The SMP2 policy for the coastal stretch, which includes the main frontage of Lyme Regis (Halcrow,
2010a), is to ‘hold the line’ (HTL), and the town is protected by coastal defences and cliff stabilisation
works. However, for the stretch of the coastline in front of the Spittles Lane landfill site (Halcrow, 2010b),
the SMP2 strategy is ‘no active intervention’ (NAI).

Figure 2.1 View from the Spittles Lane landfill site looking towards the Black Ven and Spittles landslide complex.
Waste can be seen on the cliff face in the foreground

Note
SMPs divide the shoreline into a series of cells/sub-cells, policy development zones, management areas, and policy units. In the SMP2
policy, there are a total of 22 cells and related SMPs for the shoreline of England and Wales (ie classified based on coastal type and
natural processes such as beach and seabed sediment movements within and between them) (see Burgess et al, 2004). These larger
sediment-based plans/divisions are then sub-divided into nearly 2000 policy units, which represent detailed classification of the stretch of
coastline along England and Wales.

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 5

The Spittles Lane landfill site (Chapter 19 of CIRIA C718) described the large landslide event at the
landslide complex in 2008. This resulted in waste being released from landfill into the landslip tumble
zone and onto the foreshore (Figure 2.2). Risk assessments carried out for West Dorset District Council
(WDDC) found no significant contamination in controlled waters (WPA Consultants, 2010, 2013). However,
the detection of lead and poly-aromatic hydrocarbons in soil’ samples from the landslip toe, together
with fragments of asbestos and asbestos-forming materials, was attributed to the presence of waste. A risk
of physical harm to beach users from falling debris, and glass and metal fragments on the beach, was
identified.

Assessment of the mechanisms causing the 2008 landslide suggested that cliff failures would continue
to occur, bringing more of the Spittles Lane landfill down the cliff face in the future (Gallois, 2009).
Waste released during 2008, but contained in the landslide complex below the landfill, would continue
to migrate episodically towards the beach in response to erosion and weathering events (Cooper et al,
2012). WDDC decided that removal of the waste from the landfill or within the landslip was impractical
on safety, economic and environmental grounds. The 2013 risk assessment (WPA Consultants, 2013)
concluded that frequent monitoring of the landfill and landslip should continue, regular beach
inspections should be carried out (together with removal of asbestos and waste items that are likely
to cause physical harm to beach users), and further soil and air sampling should be undertaken to
understand the impact of erosional processes on asbestos. In 2016 WDDC concluded that weekly
inspections would no longer be undertaken because there had been a dramatic reduction in waste
materials being found on the beach.

Appendix A1.1 describes the study carried out at the site for the NERC project in 2017. The results of
the studies are given together with the data sources consulted, site visit information, and additional
information collected. Management options for the site were considered and are described in
Appendix A1.1. A major recommendation for long-term management of the site is that further detailed
geotechnical consideration should be given to removing the landfill from the cliff face. This is because
in the future all waste in the landfill will be undercut, fall onto the beach and be washed into the sea,
and the environmental risks of this occurring are not properly understood. Comments on challenges
applying the CIRIA guidance are reported in Appendix A1.1 and further discussed in Chapter 3.

Spittles Lane landfill site

Figure 2.2 View from the beach below Spittles Lane landfill site, showing benches (red lines) formed during the
landslip and some waste material on the benches. The arrow shows the approximate position of landfill site

2.2 WICOR CAMS, FAREHAM

The Wicor Cams study site is located within Fareham district in south-east England, lying near Cams
Bay at north-west Portsmouth Harbour in the East Solent (Figure 2.3). The site lies in a sheltered
estuarine environment, with parts of Cams Bay containing intertidal mudflats and saltmarshes. The

6 CIRIA, SP169
Wicor Cams study site includes three landfills that are now overlain by the Cams Hall Golf Course, the
Fareham Creek Trail and the Wicor sports playing fields. The surrounding shoreline (including in front
of the landfill sites) is of national, European and international conservation interest, and is designated as
a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protected Area (SPA), and listed as a Ramsar site
(FBC, 2006).

Figure 2.3 shows the sea wall and frontage at the Wicor Cams study site. The SMP2 unit 5A22 includes
the coastal stretch fronting the landfill sites. While the policy for 5A22 is currently to hold the existing
defence line (HTL) for all the three epochs (NFDC, 2010), medium and long term SMP policies note
‘requirements for more detailed study’ (see Appendix A1.2).

The results from the NERC case study on Wicor Cams are given in Appendix A1.2 together with the
data sources consulted, site visit information, and additional information collected. Comments on
challenges applying the CIRIA guidance are reported in Appendix A1.2 and further discussed in
Chapter 3. The recommendations for this site are that systematic monitoring should be carried out to
determine erosion rates in different parts of the shoreline fronting the landfill sites to enable protection
to be focused on the most vulnerable parts. The design and construction of sea defences needs to take
into account future flood heights under sea level rise in order to prevent flooding of the landfill site.

Figure 2.3 The Wicor Cams study site showing the sea wall fronting the landfill site

2.3 PENNINGTON MARSHES, LYMINGTON

The Pennington Marshes study site is located between Lymington town and the villages of Keyhaven
and Milford-on-Sea on the south-east coast of England, lying at the western end of the Solent region in
Hampshire County. The study site lies behind a sea defence wall that fronts an area of intertidal mud/salt
marsh bordering the Solent (Figure 2.4).

The coastline in this area is characterised by extensive low-lying land with mudflats and saltmarsh
systems of historic and nature conservation importance, backed by a series of sea walls, soft cliffs, barrier
beaches and a shingle spit. Areas of gravel excavation have been filled with waste materials and a historic
waste disposal landfill site nearer the shoreline at Hampshire County Council’s (HCC) Pennington
Marshes site A (referred here as Pennington Marshes landfill). Most of the coastline has a rich diversity

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 7

of nationally and internationally important flora and fauna. It is a designated area of outstanding
natural beauty (AONB) on south Hampshire’s coast, which also includes SSSI, SPA, Special Areas of
Conservation (SAC), and Ramsar sites.

A large area behind the sea wall defence, including parts of the landfill sites, lies within the 1 in 200-year
indicative coastal floodplain. The existing sea wall is the main engineered structure that manages potential
flooding of these sites and potential loss of material and pollution from the historic landfill sites. The SMP2
policy (Halcrow, 2010a and b) for the coastal stretch fronting the landfills at Pennington is to hold the
existing defence line (HTL) for all the three epochs. Release of material or pollutants would only occur if
the sea wall defence either fails to perform as designed, design conditions are exceeded, or the defence is
poorly maintained, and breaches occur. The former landfill site has previously been noted as an obstacle to
the adoption of either a NAI, or managed realignment (MR) policy.

The study site is a complex area, comprising both authorised (permitted) and historic landfill sites,
with different landfills partly/wholly overlapping with one another. The Pennington Marshes landfill
is geographically isolated from the remaining landfill complex and this was the focus in terms of
landfill and shoreline management options. The results of the case study, together with the data sources
consulted, site visit information, and additional information collected on Pennington Marshes are given
in Appendix A1.3. Comments on the challenges of applying CIRIA C718 guidance are also reported in
Appendix A1.3, and further discussed in Chapter 3.

Based on the results of the NERC study, if the HTL SMP policy is retained, then the sea wall defences
should be monitored to understand the likelihood of coastal flooding and erosion. The costs for improving
the current sea wall were estimated under different sea level rise and extreme water level scenarios. An MR
plan was proposed that would allow dynamic management of large areas behind the current sea wall, while
protecting Pennington Marshes landfill site. Removal of this site was also considered.

Figure 2.4 Pennington Marshes sea wall embankment, looking east, with the wetland (Butts Lagoon) fronting the landfill
site on the left and the Solent on the right

8 CIRIA, SP169
3 Learning points

3.1 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

As described in Chapter 1, the aim of the NERC project was to better understand the long-term
management of coastal landfills on dynamic coasts and assess management options. CIRIA C718 was used
to guide the assessment at the three study sites, together with research methods developed in the coastal
group at the University of Southampton (eg sea level rise predictions for the case study areas). CIRIA C718
aims to take the user through the process of identifying and characterising a site on eroding or low-lying
coastlines, undertaking risk assessments, and finally appraising options to deliver solutions for the site. The
guidance recommends that a cyclic approach is taken to management (Figure 3.1) such that solutions to site
problems are evaluated against the original aims of the chosen management option. The Environmental
Risks to Infrastructure Innovation Programme (ERIIP) focused only on the first two parts of the
management cycle, ie characterisation of sites and risk assessment and appraisal of management options.
However, learning points can be drawn from the use of the guidance in this project.

Figure 3.1 Stages in a cyclic management approach (from Cooper et al, 2012)

3.2 CHALLENGES IN APPLYING CIRIA C718

Most of the areas suggested for investigation by CIRIA C718 were addressed in the site studies, albeit
with different degrees of success as indicated in Table 1.1. In the desk study, some areas were not
addressed as they were considered not critical to the site investigation for the selected sites, e. bomb
damage maps, industry profiles. In other cases, eg land deeds and planning maps, preliminary searches
were carried out, but there was insufficient time to pursue information further. During the site visits no
sampling was carried out to assess solid wastes or sediments, water quality or gas emissions as no budget
was allocated to sampling in the project proposal.

The C718 guidance provides an extensive list of the types of information that need to be gathered
about coastal landfills in the context of ongoing shoreline management planning. Much of the general
information (Ordnance Survey [OS] maps, geological maps, surveys, historic maps and photographs,
Admiralty Charts) are available online, although some services are charged for, and some material
may only be available in hard copy, eg through county council archives. Despite the plethora of online
information, some difficulties were experienced in following the guidance, which are described as follows.

Tidal parameters Admiralty Charts: https://www.admiralty.co.uk/charts

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 9

3.2.1 Lack of information for landfill investigation
It was difficult to obtain sufficient, reliable
information about historic landfill sites. The
Environment Agency database What’s in your
backyard was consulted for information on the site
boundaries, contents and operation of the site,
as well as other sources such as environmental
reports, site plans, aerial photographs and survey
maps were accessed.
Note
As of 27 March 2018 What’s in your backyard is no longer available,
but data from this site can now be accessed from:
https://data.gov.uk
Data for historic landfills is also available from the Queen Mary
University London (QMUL) website:
www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/research/research-projects/historiclandfill/maps

The site boundaries for the Spittles Lane landfill site were found to vary from those shown in the
historical landfill database. Those given for the landfills at the Wicor Cams study site need further
investigation, and it appeared that the landfill at Pennington Marshes did not extend over the full area
shown in the database. Also, there were duplicate entries listed for the Pennington Marshes site, ie
Pennington Marshes and HCC Pennington Marshes site A.

On a national scale, some double or even multiple entries for landfill sites in the same location in the
historical landfill database may lead to overestimation of the number of historic landfills in England
and Wales. However, the landfill database is also acknowledged as being incomplete, with examples of
sites known to local area regulators that are not listed. This suggests that the landfill database should be
evaluated carefully and not taken at face value, and that local authorities and other sources should be
accessed if possible to confirm the information given in the database. Regular updates of the data.gov.uk
database for all landfills would be useful, especially for any in coastal erosion and flood zones, but this
would be a time consuming and expensive task.

Due to the difficulties in determining the true extent of landfill boundaries, there was uncertainty
regarding the area of the landfills in the case studies. There was limited information about the types of
waste present in the sites, when waste was deposited, and the amount of waste on site. There was also
little information on landfill design and operation. The profile and level of the base of any landfill is
extremely important for understanding how a landfill sits within the overall geology and hydrogeology
of its setting and for calculating realistic waste volumes. Establishing the base level of historic landfills
was extremely problematic – even where site investigation data purported to have located the base of a
site there was some doubt about the reliability of the data. Information was also lacking on the nature
of any site lining, whether gas or leachate extraction or monitoring was ever undertaken, and on the
method of restoration after landfilling was completed.

Lack of information has an impact on the estimation of the amount of solid waste that may be released to the
environment over time in the case of erosion of the landfill site, and the estimation of amounts of leachate
produced and released if waste is inundated in the event of flooding. The lack of information on total waste
volumes also leads to uncertainty in estimation of costs for removal of the waste, and/or costs for remediation.

Recommendation
There is a need to synthesise and critically assess the range of information from all available data sources. As
demonstrated by the case studies reported here significant assessment can be made from existing information, but it is
likely that site investigations will be necessary to make decisions regarding SMP and waste management options.
A mechanism needs to be found such that the historic landfill database can be updated to address errors and omissions
when identified.

3.2.2 Access to sites

Access to the Spittles Lane landfill site was limited by the overgrowth of vegetation, and due to the
location of the site at the top of an unstable slope, and it was not possible to measure the site, or gain
access to the tumble zone where some of the waste was redistributed. Historical maps and LIDAR
(light detection and ranging) data were used to enable estimates of the extent of the landfill and its
topography. But this led to uncertainty in estimates of the waste mass in the landfill and the amount of
waste already released from the site.

10 CIRIA, SP169
3.2.3 Coastal erosion rates
At the Wicor Cams site, erosion rates were derived from coastal erosion zones for this area (using
information from What’s in your backyard and coastal erosion maps). The zone widths are 1.8 m to 8 m, 10 m
to 20 m and more than 40 m for the short (2005 to 2025), medium (2025 to 2055) and long term (2055 to
2105), respectively. The erosion rates derived from these values gave upper and lower potential rates of
erosion of 0.4 and 0.2 m/year. However, little erosion was observed from study of historical maps of the
area, and in topographic profiles from 2007 to 2011 (Channel Coastal Observatory), with the exception of
one short length of the coastline. A longer time series is needed to confirm these present observations.

Channel Coastal Observatory: www.channelcoast.org

Recommendation
There is a need to use all available data sources to determine coastal erosion rates at specific sites. Continual monitoring
of shoreline changes and erosion is also recommended for sites of concern and this will include measuring effects of
accelerated sea level rise.

3.3 GAPS IN GUIDANCE

3.3.1 Interpretation and application of regulations

Chapter 2 of CIRIA C718 sets out to explain the roles and responsibilities related to different site
categories and contaminated land in the context of current legislative and regulatory frameworks.
A route map is provided to aid the user through the many questions that need to be answered to
understand the status of the landfill and the roles and responsibilities which apply in each case. While
the route map is helpful, there is a missing step concerning the release of solid waste from such sites
relating to The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 (see Box 3.1). A site may have been assessed
and determined as not being contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act
1990. Here the guidance advises that the “polluter or landowner is responsible for measures to manage risks
posed by release of waste and/or clean-up any environmental damage”.

Box 3.1 Legal definitions and interpretations

It is a direct offence under Section 12.(1) of The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 to
allow waste matter (which is specified in Schedule 21 as a ‘water discharge activity’) to enter “inland freshwaters,
coastal waters or relevant territorial waters” in the absence of an environmental permit authorising such activity. This
is irrespective of whether the waste is considered to be polluting or not and so is an additional requirement to any
obligations under EPA Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
A site may have been assessed and determined as not being contaminated land under Part IIA, but if waste is released
directly into regulated surface waters there is potentially an offence under the Environmental Permitting (England and
Wales) Regulations 2016. This information could be included in CIRIA C718 and additional questions in the route map
could be used to ask whether or not solid waste is being released from the site and if so whether there is an existing
environmental permit that authorises such a discharge.
There are other issues which also need guidance. For example, is waste deposited before 1975 covered by Directive
2008/98/EC (Waste Framework Directive)? Where does responsibility lie for the release of solid waste when there is a ‘no
active intervention’ SMP policy in place?

Recommendation
There is little environmental case law on the release of solid waste into coastal waters and the guidance provided is
limited in this regard. Legal issues need to be addressed and additional guidance given particularly in the route map (see
Figure 2.1 of CIRIA C718).

3.3.2 Site investigation methods

Options for understanding subsurface structures and characteristics include drilling or geophysical studies
(BS 10175:2011+A2:2017). Drilling to determine the base level of a landfill should be carried out with
caution as it could breach a liner where this is present, leading to potential uncontrolled leachate release.
Geophysical surveying could be considered as this a non-invasive imaging technique that can be used to
help characterise subsurface conditions in a landfill, such as waste boundaries and distribution of leachate.

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 11

The heterogeneity of waste leads to problems relating to determination of representative numbers
of samples, and choice of appropriate locations for site investigations both on the landfill and on the
foreshore where waste may have been released. Lessons could be drawn from sampling methods at
contaminated land sites.

The Environment Agency (2015) provides guidance on how to assess and classify waste and identify if it
is hazardous, which would be required if waste in a coastal landfill was to be moved, recovered or treated
in situ. The Environment Agency guidance is organised according to chapters that generally relate to an
industry process or business activity that produces a waste. Chapter 17 is for wastes from construction
and demolition wastes (including excavated soil from contaminated sites) but does not currently contain
any codes that provide a good fit for classifying waste arising from historic landfills containing mixed
household, commercial and industrial wastes.

The main need to characterise the nature of wastes in closed landfills is likely to relate to the risk
posed by current and future emissions. For most closed landfills, characterising the quality and fluxes
of leachate and gas allows the potential impact on the environment to be made without necessarily
requiring detailed information on solid waste composition. However, for landfills in a coastal setting,
where there may be a risk of flooding and/or erosion in the future, additional information about the
nature of the solid waste in the landfill becomes more important. Landfilled waste and associated
contamination is highly heterogeneous and large sample numbers would be required to achieve
representative sampling (Brand, 2017). However, site investigations are always likely to be limited due
to budget constraints and the potential to undermine the landfill integrity through invasive sampling.
There are well-developed methodologies for sampling and assessing the risks posed by contaminated
land and these could form a basis for coastal landfill characterisation. However, there are certain
unique characteristics of coastal landfill that relate to potential flooding by seawater and erosion of
waste materials into the marine environment that requires further consideration within the existing
contaminated land assessment regime.

Waste may be classified as ‘inert’ in site records, but a precautionary approach should be taken to
determine the environmental risk as this classification only considers chemical stability in freshwater
environments. Although the impact of release of inert solid waste and landfill matrix sediments on
shoreline management plans needs to be assessed, contaminant concentrations may be less important
than the likelihood that waste is released and the vulnerability of receptors in determining the overall
risk of eroding landfills (Brand and Spencer, 2018). If the pollution risk is determined to be low, it may
not be necessary to defend the landfill.

The lack of information on landfill contents leads to uncertainty in risk assessment with respect to the
likely contaminants released from waste and release of solid waste materials into the environment. A
precautionary approach should be taken if there is limited data available on landfill contents and the
degree to which the waste may have degraded and leachate flushed from the site.

Recommendation
Environment Agency (2015) is a starting point for classification of waste samples but needs to be revised or extended for
use with wastes arising from historic, including coastal, landfills. Further guidance is needed on waste sampling methods
from landfills in a coastal setting. The science underpinning the existing contaminated land assessment regime could be
expanded to take account of the unique characteristics that coastal landfills pose to the environment.

3.3.3 National risk assessment of coastal landfill sites

There are a high number of landfill sites in the coastal zone of the UK. This indicates a large potential
problem that is likely become more acute in the future if left unmanaged. A more formal national
assessment that ranks the risks posed by these sites is essential to gauge the scale of the problem and
guide national priorities. In England, this might be led by the Environment Agency as the organisation
responsible for taking a strategic overview of the management of all sources of flooding and coastal
erosion. A high-level assessment of the impacts posed by landfills at risk from flooding and coastal

12 CIRIA, SP169
erosion could be linked to other national assessment processes such as the development of the National
flood and coastal risk management strategy for England (Defra and Environment Agency (2011) and/or the
SMP process.

During the case study assessments, the absence of realistic funding mechanisms to address the issues of
coastal landfills was repeatedly raised. A review of potential funding mechanisms conducted by Standing
Conference on Problems Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC) shows that there are no mechanisms
able to generate funding at the level that is required to deal with a problem coastal landfill site. At the
same time, it was agreed that these issues are real and need to be addressed proactively to avoid issues
such as the ongoing erosion of a coastal landfills. In addition to a national assessment of the scale of the
problem and potential needs as described here, regional assessment of priorities, and local assessment of
mitigation measures taking into account site-specific factors should be carried out.

Further guidance could be provided on assessment tools that can help determine which of these pose
the greatest pollution risk. For example, Brand and Spencer (2018) have developed an index-based risk
screening assessment method that could be used to evaluate sites in terms of impact of coastal processes,
landfill stability and pollution potential.

Recommendation
A national assessment that ranks the risks posed by these sites should be carried out to gauge the scale of the problem
and guide national priorities. Regional assessment of priorities, and local assessment of mitigation measures including
site-specific factors should be carried out. Further guidance is required on the availability and application of tools to
assess the risk posed by landfill sites on eroding or low-lying coastal land.

3.3.4 Timescales of potential emissions from landfill sites

The guidance is limited with respect to the timescales of the various chemical and biochemical processes
that occur over the life of the landfill. Methane emissions from landfills are generally considered to
occur over a period of a few decades as waste degradation occurs. The concentration of pollutants in
leachate declines over a few centuries, but some solid wastes may be geological in their timescales. This
becomes highly relevant if there is a future risk of erosion. In comparison, SMPs cover a period of up to
one century and so there is a timescale mismatch.

A useful measure of how well flushed and stabilised waste is likely to be is the liquid-solid ratio (L/S), which
is the ratio of clean water that has passed through a unit dry mass of waste (ISO/TS 21268–3, 2007). An L/S
value of 10 indicates a very high degree of flushing and clean up, whereas values significantly less than 0.5
are typical of most modern ‘engineered landfills’ (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2016, Yasutaka et al, 2017).
The degree of flushing from the L/S ratio at some of the study sites was estimated.

While L/S ratios may indicate that historical sites have been well flushed, and little further release of
soluble contaminants would be expected, there may be pockets of waste that have not yet been accessed
by rainwater or leachate. There is the potential for contaminants in these (hydraulically) isolated
amounts of waste to be mobilised if water is introduced through flooding. If such localised areas of waste
are inherently hazardous this may lead to the release of potentially toxic leachate and/or gas. It should
be noted that the L/S method is based on freshwater flushing and that flooding with seawater is likely to
mobilise significantly higher proportions of soluble metals than rainwater (Brand, 2017). This method
only considers release of soluble contaminants from the landfill. Waste and matrix materials may be
exposed during erosion and impact of this release needs to be considered separately.

Recommendation
Guidance is required to support risk assessment in relation to the timescales of potential emissions from landfill sites,
backed where necessary by new science (see Table 2.2). Further work is required to assess the suitability of the L/S
method for seawater flushing due to flooding.

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 13

3.3.5 Options for coastal landfill management within
dynamic shorelines
There is little consideration in the literature on how coastal landfills could be removed or remediated
in a way that would allow them to become part of a dynamic shoreline. The management options in
the three case studies explored the option of removing the landfills, which is described in the NERC
case study reports and briefly in each study in Appendix A1. The overall cost is dominated by payment
of landfill tax if the higher rate of tax is applied (Appendix A2). Assuming that high costs rule out
total removal of waste, other innovative options, such as staged removal or in situ treatment should be
explored. This is an area that needs further multi-disciplinary research involving coastal scientists and
engineers working with waste experts to find practical solutions.

It should be noted that there is no current funding source to deal with contaminated land or landfill
sites at risk of flooding or erosion. The levels of Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) are calculated on
the value of benefits that the schemes provide. Although funding should not limit the preferred option
for a scheme, the reality is that the likely default scenario will be to continue to HTL, which limits the
range of coastal management options and could contribute to coastal squeeze.

Recommendation
Guidance to support options for removal or remediation of landfills that are constraining dynamic shoreline management
is required.

3.4 GAPS IN SCIENCE

3.4.1 Landfill characteristics, pathways and impact of

pollutants
Solid wastes
The characteristics, chemical and physical behaviour and biological fate of solid wastes released to the
marine environment are poorly understood. There is only limited understanding of the potential harm
to human health and marine organisms due to contact, ingestion or inhalation associated with solid
wastes released in the coastal environment. As has been demonstrated in recent months through the
media, there is rising awareness that plastic, thought of as an inert innocuous material, can result in
physical harm to marine life. Plastic also has the potential to absorb organic contaminants and act as
vectors for them. Incombustible wastes (eg brick, ceramics, glass, metals) and combustion residues may be
all that remain in historic sites due to the practice of burning waste, but toxic combustion products may
be incorporated into matrix sediments, so the impacts resulting from sediments released from landfill
should also be considered.

Recommendation
Erosion of coastal landfills has the potential to release many different types of materials into the environment. Methods
need to be developed, and research carried out, to determine the magnitude, transport and impact of solid wastes and
sediments released from coastal landfill.

Leachates
Current methods to assess the impacts of wastes only consider the release of soluble contaminants in
freshwater, with limited understanding of release of contaminants from waste by saline water. The study
by Brand (2017) showed that landfill matrix material released more organic carbon and metals when
leached with seawater than when leached with distilled water. However, the proportion of specific metals
released during leaching varies between samples from the same landfill, and between samples from
different landfill sites. Brand (2017) attributed this to the initial metal concentration and speciation of
the metal, with some solid metal particles being insoluble in a particular matrix.

14 CIRIA, SP169
 Recommendation
Further work is needed to understand the speciation of metals in historic landfill materials and the likely response to
leaching in a range of salinities. Similar work is needed to understand leaching of other landfill contaminants such as
ammoniacal nitrogen, and persistent organic pollutants.

Source-pathway-receptor
The main focus of the work described in this guide relate to the investigation of the location, boundaries
and content of landfill sites. The study also considered the legal position in terms of obligations for those
responsible to undertake remedial measures.

However, following investigation of the source, the risk that the landfill poses in the contexts of its
environmental setting needs to be understood in order to assess the nature and extent of any remedial
measure required.

To undertake a thorough risk assessment, there is a need to better characterise the source of pollution,
the pathways to coastal waters and the number and type of receptors that may be impacted. Table 2.2
details research areas that need to be addressed and methods that need to be developed to gain a better
understanding of the impacts of solid waste entering the coastal settings.

Recommendation
Further guidance is required on the availability of information in relation to the transport mechanisms and harm to
environmental receptors, supported by new scientific evidence where appropriate.

3.4.2 Coastal erosion, flooding and waste release

With the available understanding of extreme water levels and LIDAR elevation data, inundation of the
landfills under present and future (with sea-level rise) conditions can be simulated with some confidence.
The interaction of sea water with the landfill and the resulting leachate remains uncertain, but
significant dilution is likely, as already discussed.

Physical removal of waste by erosion is a bigger concern. While methods to determine erosion rates
have been extensively studied, erosion rates at specific sites are strongly affected by local processes and
conditions. Erosion rates are expected to widely accelerate with accelerating sea level rise so greater
erosion (and also potentially waste release) is expected in the future. The effect of removal of coastal
defences, which is widely proposed in epochs 2 and 3 of the SMPs, could also be important, as rapid
erosion will occur as the shoreline adjusts to the new conditions. Erosion rates 10 or 20 times faster than
expected, based on historical expectations have been observed (eg Walkden et al, 2015, Dornbusch and
Mylroie, 2017). The implications for adjacent coastal landfills should be considered.

Information on erosion is less precise than that for flooding, especially on cliffs, where cliff-top
erosion and any subsequent waste transport through landslides have an episodic nature. This shows
the importance of good historical assessment, regular monitoring and the application of available
quantitative erosion model assessment tools like Walkden and Dickson (2006).

Recommendation
Guidance on the assessment of erosion rates with respect to accelerating sea level rise and the use of quantitative
erosion modelling tools is needed.

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 15

 Table 2.2 Scientific advances and methodological developments needed to assess the impact of solid waste released into coastal waters

16
Scientific evidence/research Methodologies, tools and guidance Policy or regulatory review

An understanding of the potential hazards associated with Sampling methods for waste from historic landfills, taking into consideration that the
wastes released from historic landfills, differentiating where characteristics of many waste materials placed in a landfill will change over time, in response to
necessary between: degradation and stabilisation processes. Review of application
„„ solid and liquid wastes and sludges Tests to determine: of Part IIA of the
Source „„ airborne (dust, vapours) „„ waste characteristics in historic landfills, including speciation of metals Environmental Protection
Act 1990 in the case of
„„ gas (ground and air, including greenhouse gases [GHGs]) „„ the toxicity and persistence of contaminants released from waste materials in saline waters coastal landfill
„„ pathogens „„ physical harm, eg from ingestion of glass or inhalation of particles
„„ radiological hazards. Methods to understand the consequences of erosion and flooding.

An understanding of the mechanisms by which different Methods to determine erosion rates, degradation rates and transport mechanisms in intertidal,
Pathway waste particles are transported in coastal and tidal settings. coastal and marine environments.
Biological/physical/chemical pathways. Tests to understand biological uptake of waste particles by marine biota.

A better understanding of the different types of organisms

that may be affected by solid wastes released from landfill.
Recognising the range of possible receptors and the different
ways each can be affected:
„„ humans Tests to determine susceptibility of receptors to solid waste in the marine environment, including
Receptors
„„ flora bioaccumulation rates in marine organisms and ecological impacts on marine populations.
„„ fauna
„„ land
„„ water (fresh, marine).

CIRIA, SP169
4 Summary of recommendations

Application of CIRIA C718 to the case study sites studied worked well in practice. Overall, the guide was
found to be a comprehensive and well-structured document. However, adaptation of a few areas in the
guide would benefit from the following recommendations.

Challenge Recommendation Section ref

There is a need to synthesise and critically assess the range of information

Lack of information for
landfill investigation
Coastal erosion rates
from all available data sources. As demonstrated from the case studies
reported here significant assessment can be made from existing information,
but it is likely that site investigations will be necessary to make decisions 3.2.1
regarding SMP and waste management options.
A mechanism needs to be found such that the historic landfill database can be
updated to address errors and omissions when identified.
There is a need to use all available data sources to determine coastal erosion
rates at specific sites. Continual monitoring of shoreline change and erosion is
3.2.3
also recommended for sites of concern and this will include measuring effects
of accelerated sea level rise.

There is little environmental case law on the release of solid waste into coastal
Legal interpretation and
waters and the guidance provided is limited in this regard. Legal issues need
definitions in respect of 3.3.1
to be addressed and additional guidance given particularly in the route map
‘waste’
(Figure 2.1 of C718).

Environment Agency (2015) is a starting point for classification of waste

samples, but needs to be revised or extended for use with wastes arising
from historic, including coastal, landfills. Further guidance is needed on waste
Site investigation methods sampling methods from landfills in a coastal setting. The science underpinning 3.3.2
the existing contaminated land assessment regime could be expanded to take
into account some of the unique characteristics that coastal landfills pose to
the environment.
A national assessment that ranks the risks posed by these sites should be
carried out to gauge the scale of the problem and guide national priorities.
National risk assessment of Regional assessment of priorities, and local assessment of mitigation
3.3.3
coastal landfill sites measures considering site-specific factors should be carried out. Further
guidance is required on the availability and application of tools to assess the
risk posed by landfill sites on eroding or low-lying coastal land.
Guidance is required to support risk assessment in relation to the timescales
Timescale for degradation
of potential emissions from landfill sites, backed where necessary by new
of the contents of landfill 3.3.4
science (see Table 2.2). Further work is required to assess the suitability of the
sites
L/S method for seawater flushing due to flooding.
Options for coastal landfill
Guidance to support options for removal or remediation of landfills that are
management within 3.3.5
constraining dynamic shoreline management is required.
dynamic SMPs
Erosion of coastal landfills has the potential to release many different types of
materials into the environment. Methods need to be developed, and research
Erosion of solid wastes 3.4.1
carried out, to determine the magnitude, transport and impact of solid wastes
and sediments released from coastal landfill.

Further work is needed to understand the speciation of metals in historic

Leaching of soluble
landfill materials and the likely response to leaching in a range of salinities.
materials in saline 3.4.1
Similar work is needed to understand leaching of other landfill contaminants
environment
such as ammoniacal nitrogen, and persistent organic pollutants.
Further guidance is required on the availability of information in relation to the
Source-pathway-receptor
transport mechanisms and harm to environmental receptors, supported by new 3.4.1
models
scientific evidence where appropriate.

Coastal erosion, flooding Guidance on the assessment of erosion rates with respect to accelerating sea
3.4.2
and waste release level rise and the use of quantitative erosion modelling tools is needed.

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 17

A1 Case studies

Full reports of the studies are available from:

www.landss.soton.ac.uk/coastal
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/engineering/research/projects/coastal-landfill-and-shoreline-management.page

A1.1 SPITTLES LANE LANDFILL SITE, LYME REGIS

Chapters in C718 Site investigation

The site

Spittles Lane is a historic landfill site located in an area known as the Black Ven and
History, physical Spittles landslide complex to the east of Lyme Regis. West Dorset District Council
2 description, problems (WDDC) is responsible for managing the site and foreshore.
faced
SMP2 policy is NAI for all three epochs (ie short (2005–2025), medium (2025–2055) and
long-term (2055–2105).
The main issue was that ongoing erosion of the landslip toe will release more waste
Responsibilities, onto the foreshore and over time further landslips are almost certain to bring down the
3
stakeholders remaining parts of the landfill. What is the appropriate future management solution for
the landfill to prevent release of waste to the environment?

Site characterisation
Data sources consulted include OS maps from the 1920s to 1980s (Digimap), aerial
photographs (1962, 2006, 2009, 2013). Environment Agency database. Digital elevation
model (DEM) elevations. Literature sources (including Bennett, 2007, Brunsden, 1996,
Burgess et al, 2004, Halcrow, 2001, High-Point Rendel Ltd, 2000, 2009, Lowe et al,
2009, McInnes et al, 2011, Nicholls et al, 2013, Pope et al, 2011, Walkden and Dickson,
2006, WPA Consultants, 2010, 2013). Area designations (Natural England). SMPs.
National Coastal Erosion Risk Map. UK Climate Impact Programme 2009 (UKCIP09) sea-
level rise projections. Anecdotal evidence from local historian and WDDC. Two site visits
to the landfill and foreshore.
Additional data
Estimate of amount of waste deposited and amount of waste released to landslip.
Estimate of waste flushing at the landfill site. The effect of sea-level rise on future rates
of erosion was assessed. Estimate of costs for removal of remaining landfilled waste.
Data sources
Challenges
Additional data – archived
4 Limited information on current or historic site ownership, site history, landfill contents.
Additional data – site
No information on amount of waste deposited or released to landslip or foreshore.
Key pollutants
Limited information on contamination from released waste.
Access to site was poor and the landslip is unstable so not able to physically determine
the current extent of the site, or the amount or characteristics of released waste in the
tumble zone.
Results
The majority of the landfill lies within an area of unregistered land. WDDC owns the area
adjacent to town council allotments, which may have been landfilled in the 1920s, and site
investigations would be needed to confirm this. Waste has fallen onto the landslip below
the landfill site. Part of this land is unregistered and part is owned by the National Trust. It
was not possible to access the landslip to determine if waste had fallen onto National Trust
land. Waste has also fallen onto the foreshore, which is privately owned. Since the 2008
landslip, further erosion, slippage and settlement has occurred.

18 CIRIA, SP169
Chapters in C718 Site investigation

Wastes are now entrained within naturally occurring soils in benches formed during
slippage and are spread over 400 m of the foreshore, where predominantly metals,
glass and other dense materials (eg concrete blocks) remain. Part of the landfill remains
at the top of the eroding cliff. Site visits and examination of data sources (maps, aerial
photographs) led to the conclusion that the landfill was larger than identified by the
Environment Agency’s database or Bennett (2007) and originally extended to 1.6 ha, but
site investigation would be needed to confirm this. About 0.2 ha was released during the
2008 landslip, but it is likely that more has been lost since this time due to the instability
of this part of the cliff. No reliable estimate of waste depth could be found. It was
estimated that between 17 000 t and 50 000 t of waste remains on the site assuming an
average waste depth of between 1 m and 3 m, and waste density of 1.2 t/m3. The liquid-
solid L/S ratio was estimated as a measure of flushing of waste in the landfill. An L/S ratio
Data sources of 22.5 was calculated for the site indicating very high degrees of flushing at the site.
Additional data – archived WDDC commissioned several site investigations and reports under Part IIA of
4 Environmental Protection Act 1990, six rounds of sampling were undertaken between
Additional data – site
2009 and 2013 (WPA Consultants, 2010, 2013). The latest report (2013) identified lead
Key pollutants as exceeding assessment criteria in soil samples from the landslip toe. Benzo(a)pyrene
and asbestos were found in the landslip toe samples and in beach sediment samples.
No coastal defences are in place below the landfill site to prevent further erosion.
Photographic and anecdotal evidence suggests that the toe of the landslip has eroded
since 2008 and waste has already washed out to sea.
Current management of the foreshore involves infrequent monitoring of the waste on the
beach and removal of larger pieces of solid waste as it becomes a hazard to beach users.
In 2016, a review of the management plan determined that weekly inspections would no
longer be undertaken because of the reduction in waste materials being found on site.
However, this choice is made following a decision regarding what is an ‘acceptable’ level
of waste entering the marine environment. This threshold is not universally defined and,
as a result, is inherently ambiguous. This is a key issue identified within this research.

Assessing the risk

Sources: waste from unlicensed landfill site. Glass and metal waste from the landfill was
found on the foreshore and toe of the landslip during a site visit in January 2018. Large
metal tanks, and pieces of metal, ceramic and glass were observed at the landfill site.
Literature sources also described these waste types together with asbestos. No liquid
wastes or gases identified during the site visit or from literature sources.
Pathways: weathering of the landslip area could release more of the landfill into the
landslip tumble zone and onto the benches. Erosion of the landslip toe will release waste
onto the foreshore.
Receptors: these include foreshore users exposed to waste on the beach and landslip
toe. Marine flora and fauna may be exposed to contaminants leaching from the waste,
and marine organisms may be physically harmed by contact, or ingestion of waste
particles. The number of foreshore users, and populations of marine flora and fauna were
not determined in this study. The waste is being released into a highly designated site,
including an AONB, SSSI, SAC, and into coastal waters that form the Lyme Bay and Torbay
5
candidate SAC.
Risk assessment: the effect of sea level rise on future rates of erosion was estimated
using the Walkden and Dickson (2006) equation and historic erosion rates. Brunsden
(1996) quotes average erosion rates of between 0.3 m and 3.0 m per year. A report by
HPR Ltd (2000) described in Bennett (2007) quotes recession rates of 0.5 m, 0.8 m and
1.3 m per year for areas of East Cliff. Under low sea-level rise by 2050, the future rates
of erosion may not change significantly. However, by 2100 under low sea-level rise, rates
could increase by a third, whereas under an extreme high sea level rise (H++) scenario,
erosion rates could quadruple.
Reactivation of the landslip complex may result after prolonged rainfall or high
groundwater levels in the study area. HPR (2009) indicated that there was a 95 per cent
chance of landsliding in the near future (ie the next 20 years), but it could happen at any
time. Landslides could release small amounts of waste in any one event, or large parts of
the landfill.

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 19

Chapters in C718 Site investigation
Risk assessment concerning the contaminants released from the landfill was based
on the most recent environmental assessment (WPA, 2013). Lead concentrations
in sediments exceeded soil guidance values (SGVs) in the landslip toe samples, and
benzo(a)pyrene and asbestos were found in beach sediments and toe samples. However,
average concentrations of toxic pollutants in sediments were below site specific
assessment criteria (SSAC) which take into account likely land use and human exposure
5
conditions at the site (WPA, 2013). So, it is unlikely that significant harm will be caused
to foreshore users. There is a greater risk from contact with solid waste debris (through
cuts, potentially inhalation of asbestos) due to the large amount of waste material on the
foreshore. However, there is potential for decline of water quality and bioaccumulation of
toxic substances in the marine biota. The impact of release of waste was not determined
due to the lack of assessment techniques. This issue is further explored in Chapter 3.
Appraising the options

Key stakeholders: WDDC, local landowners, including the National Trust, SCOPAC.
The current shoreline management policy at the study site is NAI. The option of creating a
physical barrier to prevent waste getting to the foreshore was considered but discounted
on feasibility grounds. This was due to the numerous environmental designations of
Jurassic Coast site, and the expense and geotechnical difficulty of creating a barrier to
prevent erosion of the landslip toe.
Management options considered:
„„ Continue with current monitoring. Contaminated land assessment reports have
generally concluded that the risks to human health from wastes on the beaches and
contained in the land slip of fallen material do not warrant removal of the remaining
landfill. Monitoring should continue, and waste should be removed from the beach if
it poses a risk of physical harm to beach users. The arrival of waste on the shore is
likely to be intermittent with slugs of waste arriving and being redistributed, broken
up and washed away by marine processes. A rapid response to notification of waste
on the foreshore, and removal of waste material, would be needed. However, the
legal status of this approach, ie allowing solid waste to enter controlled waters is
uncertain, as further discussed in Section 3.3.1. Also, the potential damage to the
environment of solid waste matter coastal waters is unknown due to a gap in science
6 (see Assessing the risk and Section 3.4.1).
„„ Remove the remaining landfill. The toe of the landslip will continue to erode
(potentially destabilising the slope behind it) and erosion will increase as sea level
rises. It is almost certain that future landslips will occur in the study area resulting in
further release of waste from the landfill. Without intervention all waste in the landfill
will be undercut (over a timescale of 50 to 500 years) and ultimately all waste will
end up on the beach or will be washed out to sea.
The cost for excavating 50 000 t of waste from the site, transport to the nearest landfill
site and disposal was estimated at £6.8M if all the waste is subject to the full landfill tax
rate (£84.40/tonne between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017) or £3.9M assuming only
30 per cent of the waste is subject to this rate and the rest at the lower rate for inactive
waste (£2.65/tonne) (further details of costing assumptions are given in Appendix A2).
However, in practice it may not be possible to separate inactive waste. A site investigation
to determine waste characteristics was not carried out in this study and the cost of such
an investigation is not included in the estimates given.
It is recommended that the feasibility of removing the landfill is more formally assessed.
Further investigations will be needed to determine the nature of the waste and the true
extent of the landfill site, and a thorough geotechnical assessment would be needed to
understand the risks and costs involved before carrying out this work.

20 CIRIA, SP169
A1.2 WICOR CAMS, FAREHAM
Chapters in C718 Site investigation

The site

History, physical
2 description, problems
faced
Responsibilities,
3 the sites are low-lying and potentially at risk of erosion and flooding. Currently, there are
stakeholders
The Wicor Cams site includes three landfills known as Cams Bay Tip, Birdwood Grove Tip,
and Land near Wicor Hard (Environment Agency database information). Cams Bay was
landfilled between 1969 and 1973, Birdwood Grove between 1984 and 1993, and Wicor
Hard between 1942 and 1976.
Key stakeholders: ESCP (Fareham Borough Council, Gosport Borough Council. Havant
Borough Council and Portsmouth City Council) and SCOPAC.
SMP2 policy is HTL for all three epochs (ie short (2005–2025), medium (2025–2055)
and long-term (2055–2105). However, the medium- and long-term SMP policies for
this unit note “Requirements for more detailed study (for management of site to be
determined following contaminated land investigations)”. A strategy appraisal carried
out for the local authorities stated that the landfill sites were undefended, and erosion
could present a risk to people and the environment (AECOM, 2016d). The appraisal
recommended that the preferred option for phased management of shoreline would be
to protect against erosion to 2030, then provide defence where currently undefended,
and sustain a minimum one per cent of annual exceedance probability (AEP) from 2030
to 2115.
Challenge
several different seawall structures formed from granite slabs, concrete sandbags and
slabs, but there are also lengths which are undefended, or the wall has been eroded, and
waste material is visible. Is this low-lying site at serious risk of erosion and/or flooding
and what are the appropriate courses of action to take to defend the site to prevent
release of waste to the environment?

Site characterisation
Data sources consulted include OS maps from the 1870s to 1990s (Digimap historic
maps), Enviroment Agency database. DEM elevations. Literature sources (AECOM,
2016a, b, c, Environment Agency, 2011, 2015, FBC, 2006, NFDC, 2010, URS, 2013a,
b, URS, 2014). Area designations (Natural England), SMPs, national coastal erosion risk
map. UKCIP09 sea level rise projections. Discussion with FBC and ESCP. One site visit to
Data sources Wicor Cams.
Additional data – archived Additional data
4 The effect of sea-level rise on future rates of erosion and flooding was assessed.
Additional data – site
Estimation of leachate volumes that could potentially be formed because of inundation.
Key pollutants Estimate of waste flushing at the landfill site.
Challenges
Limited information on the extent of the landfill sites, site history, landfill contents.
No information on amount of waste deposited.
Limited information on leachate contamination on the site or foreshore.

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 21

Chapters in C718 Site investigation

Results
The total area of the three landfills as determined from the Environment Agency dataset
was estimated to be 22 ha. However, ESCP’s data, which is based on contaminated land
assessment, suggests that the area is c.20 ha. The discrepancy in area between the
two is small, but the extent of waste, particularly in the area of the Birdwood landfill may
have a significant effect on the potential for loss of leachate and waste due to flooding
or erosion. Only limited data was available for the depth of waste from site investigations
(URS, 2013a). Assuming a depth of 4.5 m (URS, 2013a) and an area of 22 ha, the volume
of waste was estimated to be 1 million m3 or 1.2 million tonnes (assuming a bulk density
of 1.2 t/m3).
Site investigations (URS, 2013a) recorded made ground in the area of Cams Bay and
Wicor Hard landfills and recovered materials such as concrete, glass, metal, plastic and
clinker etc. Analysis of borehole sediment samples found levels of copper, lead and zinc
greater than Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) action
Data sources level 2 for the disposal of dredged material to the marine environment (URS, 2013a).
Additional data – archived There are no CEFAS action level standards for PAHs, but the URS report stated that PAH
4 concentrations (of 13 screened PAHs) in borehole samples at Wicor Hard landfill were
Additional data – site
elevated at probable effect levels (PEL) set in Canadian sediment quality guidelines
Key pollutants (CCME, 2014). PAH and total petroleum hydrocarbons were also elevated in sediment
samples taken from the foreshore especially those fronting the Wicor Hard landfill.
Groundwater levels within shallow <5 m deep boreholes from the URS (2013a) site
investigation were recorded at between 2.1 m to 2.6 m aOD at Cams tip and 1.6 m to
2.6 m aOD at Wicor Hard. Groundwater levels were lowest in boreholes nearer to the
foreshore indicating flow towards the estuary. Continuous logging of water levels over a
six-day period demonstrated there was no tidal influence on water levels in the site.
Analysis of flood risk at the site showed that under current sea level conditions, inundation
of the landfills is limited even under extreme water level events. Sea level rise at
Portsmouth tidal gauge is 1.73 mm/year (1962 to 2007) (Haigh et al, 2009, water levels
under different sea level scenarios are given in Appendix A3). With high sea level rise
by 2100, flooding would occur on parts of Wicor Hard landfill and Cams Bay Tip. Under
extreme high sea level rise (H++ scenario) by 2100, the risk of flooding increases such that
most of Wicor Hard and major parts of Cams Bay are at risk of flooding regularly.
Erosion rates derived from Environment Agency erosion zones for the site range from
0.2 to 0.4 m/year in the period to 2105. However, it was apparent from Channel Coastal
Observatory topographic profile data that erosion rates from 2007 to 2011 were not
significant. Comparison of OS maps from 1870 and 1992 showed little erosion of the
shoreline fronting the landfill sites, with the exception of one length of shoreline close to
the western limit of the Cams Bay landfill. However, a longer dataset would be needed to
confirm these results. No evidence of chronic erosion was observed during the site visit.
Data sources The volume of leachate that could be produced by inundation was estimated. By 2100, with
Additional data – archived high sea level rise and a 1 in 200-year extreme water event, the volume of leachate produced
4 at Wicor Hard could reach 20 000 m3 (assuming that sea level would be at 3.83 m, 6.65 ha
Additional data – site of Wicor Hard landfill was inundated, and the waste drainable porosity was 15 per cent).
Key pollutants After inundation, the leachate could be released into the bay over several days to
weeks. However, it is assumed that the entire volume of leachate was a diffuse release
with mixing occurring over one tidal cycle. The dilution due to tidal flow in the upper
reaches of Portsmouth Harbour around Wicor Cams would result in a 100-fold dilution
of the leachate. This is sufficient to reduce metal concentrations, and most organic
contaminant levels (apart from benzo(g,h,i)peryline), below EQS threshold values for
saline water (URS, 2013a). We did not take account of the impact of saline waters on
release of metal contaminants, as discussed further in Section 3.4.1.
Assessing the risk

Sources
Wastes from landfill sites. There was limited data on the types of waste deposited,
but site investigations (URS, 2013) reported mixed waste types which could include
commercial and household waste.
Pathways
Topographic profile data showed that there has been little erosion at the Wicor Cams
study site. However, waste is already exposed in parts due to collapse of the sea wall and
5
short low cliffs. Future erosion may increase the risk that this waste is released to the
environment. Flooding could lead to inundation of the landfills, especially under high and
extreme high sea level rise. This could potentially result in release of leachate to Cams
Bay and Portsmouth Harbour.
Receptors
During the site visit it was observed that dog walkers on the Fareham Trail walk along the
foreshore. The walkers and their dogs could be exposed to waste material.

22 CIRIA, SP169
Chapters in C718 Site investigation

Estuarine flora and fauna may be exposed to leachate resulting from inundation of the
waste and release into the environment. The number of foreshore users and population
size of marine flora and fauna was not determined in this study. Waste from the landfill
sites could be released into a SSSI, a SPA, and a Ramsar site.
Risk assessment
Based on the data gathered for this case study, it appears that the risk of erosion of the
5 shoreline leading to release of waste from the landfill sites is low in the period to 2100.
There is a greater risk that flooding will become more frequent and extensive by this time
leading to frequent inundation of the landfill sites and the formation of leachate. There
was only limited data on the types of waste present in the landfills and limited data on
contaminant concentrations. Based on this data, any leachate released is likely to be
diluted by tidal flow in Portsmouth Harbour, and not likely to cause significant harm.
However, further investigations to gain a better understanding of the waste present in the
three landfill sites, and the extent of the landfills, are needed.

Appraising the options

Management options considered:

„„ In the short term, systematic monitoring would be useful to better understand actual
erosion rates in different parts of the shoreline fronting the landfill sites and enable
efforts to improve protection to be focused on the most vulnerable parts of the shoreline.
Further site investigations are needed to fully understand the extent of the landfill sites.
„„ If the HTL management policy is followed, then work should be undertaken to
6 repair or replace the sea wall to prevent release of waste from the site. The design
and construction of sea defences needs to take into account future flood heights
under sea level rise in order to prevent flooding of the landfill site. Protection of
two kilometres of coastline fronting the landfill sites was estimated to be £60 000
to £600 000 depending on the type of protection chosen. Total costs including
maintenance over a 50-year lifespan rise to £100 000 to £1M. However, it may not
be necessary to protect the whole length of the site.
„„ The costs for removal of the landfilled waste were based on the maximum area of
landfill estimated from two datasets, but as described earlier more information is
needed to determine the true extent of landfilling. Based on new tests the cost of
excavation and removal of waste could be reassessed. It may be possible to remove
only those parts of the landfill which are most susceptible to flooding or erosion.

6 The cost of removing the total landfilled waste to a new site was estimated to be £140M
assuming all the removed materials attracted the top rate of landfill tax (further details
of costings are given in Appendix A2). Open landfill sites are at a considerable distance
from the site. Given the large cost of excavation and disposal, total removal of the
landfills from Wicor Cams is not considered financially viable. Excavation and in situ
treatment of the landfilled waste with recovery of some of the material for use on site or
in shoreline defences may be possible.

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 23

A1.3 PENNINGTON MARSHES LANDFILL SITE,
LYMINGTON
Chapters of C718 Site investigation

The site
The study site includes several authorised (permitted) and historic landfills defended by
the Pennington sea wall. The study concentrates one of the historic landfills, referred to as
History, physical Pennington Marshes landfill site. This landfill occupies a triangle of land to the south-east
2 description, problems of the main landfill complex. The site is now owned and managed by HCC as part of the
faced Lymington and Keyhaven Marshes Local Nature Reserve. The landfill is thought to contain
inert, industrial, household and commercial waste and was operated from 1962 to 1969.
Key stakeholders: HCC, NFDC, SCOPAC.
A large area behind the sea defence, including parts of the landfill sites, lies within the 1 in 200-
year indicative coastal floodplain. Some of the land includes nature conservation/designated
sites, including SSSI, SPA, SAC, and Ramsar sites. SMP2 policy for this area is HTL for all three
epochs (ie short (2005–2025), medium (2025–2055) and long term (2055–2105).
Challenge
Responsibilities, The site is defended, but defence depends partly the presence of saltmarsh fronting
3
stakeholders the sea wall. Sea-level rise and erosion of the saltmarsh could make the sea wall more
vulnerable to overtopping and breaching. The Pennington Marshes landfill site has
previously been noted as an obstacle to the adoption of either a NAI, or MR policy. Is this
defended site at serious risk of flooding and what are the appropriate courses of action
to take to defend the landfill to prevent release of waste to the environment? Is there
potential to adopt a NAI or MR policy?
Site characterisation

Data sources consulted include OS maps (Digimap historic maps), Environment Agency
database, DEM elevations. Literature sources (Bamber and Robbins,2010, Colenutt, 2002,
Gardiner et al, 2007, Haigh et al, 2009, Hodges, 1999, Kebede, 2009, Leatham et al,
2013, Lowe et al, 2009, NFDC, 2001, Nicholls et al, 2013, NRA, 1990, Oranjewoud, 1985,
Wadey, 2013), SMPs. UKCIP09 sea level rise projections. Two site visits to Pennington.
Additional data: the effect of sea level rise on the probability of breaching of the sea wall,
overtopping due to sea level rise, and flooding behind the sea wall were assessed. Estimation of
mass of waste contained in Pennington Marshes landfill. Estimate of waste flushing at the site.
Estimation of leachate volumes which could potentially be formed because of inundation.

Challenges
„„ Limited information on the extent of the landfill sites and site history.

„„ Limited information on amount and type of waste deposited.

„„ Limited information on leachate contamination on the site or local environment.
Results
The total area of the Pennington Marshes landfill as determined from the Environment
Agency dataset was estimated to be 17.1 ha. However, reports on the site, together with
maps and land elevations, suggest that the area tipped at Pennington Marshes covers
Data sources
c.7.5 ha. The landfill volume based on the latter area, is 160 000 m3 including 30 000 m3
Additional data – archived of inert materials (Hodges, 1999).
4
Additional data – site Site investigations carried out by Hodges (1999) found waste consisting of mixed soil,
Key pollutants plastic, wood, glass and rags. No methane was found. Leachate was found at 0.5 m to
0.75 m aOD. Very low concentrations of heavy metals, Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
and chemical oxygen demand (COD) and ammonia were found. BOD in the Butts Lagoon
next to the site was 16.2 mg/L at that time, which is greater than environmental quality
standard (EQS) recommended for aquatic life. Groundwater samples suggested that
leachate was migrating from the site at this time (1999).
The landfill was not capped so it is likely that leachate concentrations have declined
since the site investigation was carried out. A L/S ratio of 13 was calculated for the site
assuming an average waste depth of two metres, a dry density of 0.8 t/m3 and effective
rainfall of 450 mm/year acting over a 47-year duration (by 2017). This indicates a high
degree of flushing has occurred at the site. Leachate may have been transported to
groundwater or to the Butts Lagoon. The latter does not have a sea wall overflow sluice
so there is potentially some contamination contained in the lagoon.
Erosion rates for the saltmarshes were not estimated during this study, but rates of 0.5
to 5 m/year have been reported (NFDC, 2004, Colenutt, 2012).
The height of the sea wall varies (from 2.13 m to 3.21 m) along its length (8.1 km).
Currently, the wall is of sufficient height to protect the hinterland along its length apart
from a short section at the west end, under a 1 in 50 return period water levels. By 2050,
with sea level rise, there will be overtopping in other parts of the sea wall, and by 2100

24 CIRIA, SP169
Chapters of C718 Site investigation
in H++ sea level rise scenarios, the whole length will be overtopped. In 1 in 200-year
return period scenarios, overtopping would occur in the highest sections of the sea wall
by 2100 with high sea level rise.
Analysis by Kebede (2009) showed that the sea wall is currently at risk of breaching in
a 1 in 50-year storm. This rises to 1 in 5 years by 2055 with medium sea level rise. If a
breach occurred, analysis showed that some areas behind the wall would be flooded, but
Data sources
significant inundation of the Pennington Marshes landfill does not occur until 2100 under
Additional data – archived H++ sea level rise. However, lower elevation land around the perimeter of the landfill
4
Additional data – site will be exposed to flooding under all sea level rise scenarios and sea water could seep
into the landfill as it is not lined. Some flooding could also occur at the authorised site of
Key pollutants
Efford landfill.
Leachate volumes in the event of flooding were calculated. 4300 m3 of leachate would
be produced if the sea wall was breached and flooding occurred in a spring tide in
2050. In 2100, under high sea level rise and with 1 in 50-year extreme water levels,
leachate volumes of ~15 000 m3 could be produced. Leachate would be released to the
surrounding environment as water levels recede.
Assessing the risk

Sources: waste and leachate from landfill sites. There was limited data on the types of
waste deposited, but site investigations (Hodges, 1999) reported mixed waste types that
could include commercial and household waste.
Pathways: breach of the sea wall could lead to inundation of the land surrounding the
Pennington Marshes with seawater and eventually complete inundation of the landfill
itself under high sea level rise and extreme water level events. This could lead to
leachate escaping to the environment surrounding the landfill. In the long term, erosion of
solid waste into the environment could occur if the sea wall no longer provides protection.
5 Receptors: leachate and waste from the landfill site could be released into a SSSI, a
SPA, and a Ramsar site. Walkers, cyclists and horse riders use the coastal path along the
sea wall. Marine flora and fauna in the area surrounding the landfill and the mudflat and
saltmarsh are likely receptors.
Risk assessment: the analysis carried out in this study suggests that the landfill is at
risk of flooding in the event of a breach of the sea wall and/or overtopping as sea levels
rise. There is only limited data on the types of waste in the landfill and the contaminant
concentration of leachates. It is likely that leachate concentration levels are now very
dilute and not likely to cause significant harm. However, further investigations are needed
to gain a better understanding of the waste present in the landfill and its extent.

Appraising the options

Management options considered:
„„ HTL. The existing sea wall defence would need to be raised and widened to provide
the same level of protection. Estimated costs are £42M (including capital and
maintenance costs) for low sea level rise, and £97.5M for high sea level rise scenarios.
„„ Managed realignment could be adopted. The western part of the sea wall could be
upgraded and a new sea wall built around the southern and eastern perimeter of the
Pennington Marshes landfill. The remaining existing sea wall would not be maintained.
Breach of this part of the wall would allow the creation of a larger area of intertidal
habitat, while protecting the landfill from erosion. The cost of this design amounts to
£31M for capital and maintenance costs (50-year period) for low sea level rise, and
£42M for high sea level rise, scenarios. It may be possible to place the defences along
the perimeter wall of the landfill instead of building a full scale sea wall. In this case,
6 the costs of this managed realignment option would be reduced. There are additional
challenges with managed realignment that relate to preserving designated coastal
grazing marsh and saline lagoons, which should be maintained to comply with the
Habitats Directive. This aspect was not addressed in the study.
„„ Remove the landfill. Depending on the rate of landfill tax that the waste attracts, the
cost of removal of the Pennington Marshes landfill could be £10M to £21M (landfill
removal costing assumptions are given in Appendix A2). It may be possible to sort
some of the waste in situ and use inert materials on site for renovation work or use
in a new sea-wall. It would be necessary to carry out a waste characterisation to
determine if there are any useable materials in the site or if the waste is hazardous
and an ‘end of waste’ protocol would need to be agreed. Further challenges that
would need to be addressed relate to the regulatory regime. Planning permission
would be required and there would need to be a consideration of the impact of lorry
and other environmental nuisances on the local community.

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 25

A2 Potential landfill removal costs

Potential costs £/t

Excavation costs 2–5

Health and safety, environmental control and geotechnical stabilisation measures 5–30

Transport costs (30 to 50 miles) 4–6

Disposal costs 15–25

Landfill tax (full rate)* 84.40

Landfill tax (lower rate)* 2.65

TOTAL 28.65–150.40

Notes
* Tax rates applicable between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017.

These costs are estimated based on available data. Engineering, transport and disposal costs may be different for specific sites and
locations. There may be additional costs, such as preparatory site investigations.

26 CIRIA, SP169
A3 Sea level rise for Portsmouth
Harbour

Sea levels
Sea level rise scenario MHWS MHW MHWN MSL MLWN MLWS
(m OD)
2015 1.97 1.52 1.07 0.15 -0.83 -1.93

Low SLR 2.02 1.57 1.12 0.2 -0.78 -1.88

Medium SLR 2.12 1.67 1.22 0.3 -0.68 -1.78

2050
High SLR 2.22 1.77 1.32 0.4 -0.58 -1.68

H++ 2.47 2.02 1.57 0.65 -0.33 -1.43

Low SLR 2.17 1.72 1.27 0.35 -0.63 -1.73

Medium SLR 2.37 1.92 1.47 0.55 -0.43 -1.53

2100
High SLR 2.72 2.27 1.82 0.9 -0.08 -1.18

H++ 3.47 3.02 2.57 1.65 0.67 -0.43

Notes
Tidal parameters: Admiralty TotalTide: https://www.admiralty.co.uk/digital-services/admiralty-digital-publications/admiralty-totaltide
Sea level rise predictions from Lowe et al (2009)

Key
MHWS = mean high water springs
MHW = mean high water
MHWN = mean high water neaps
MSL = mean sea level
MLWN = mean low water neaps
MLWS = mean low water springs

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 27

References

AECOM (2016a) Hamble to Portchester coastal flood and erosion risk management strategy. Appendix A: Coastal
processes report, Ref: 470661901/CP_7, prepared for East Gasport & Fareham Borough Council, Aecom
Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited, London, UK
http://www.escp.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Appendix_A_Coastal_Processes.pdf

AECOM (2016b) Hamble to Portchester coastal flood and erosion risk management strategy. Appendix J: Strategic
environmental assessment – environmental report, Ref: 47067754_SEA_7, prepared for East Gasport &
Fareham Borough Council, Aecom Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited, London, UK
https://www.escp.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Appendix_J_SEA_0.pdf

AECOM (2016c) Hamble to Portchester coastal flood and erosion risk management strategy. Appendix C: Desktop
contaminated land assessment, Ref: 47061901/CL_8, prepared for East Gosport & Fareham Borough
Council, Aecom Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited, London, UK
https://www.escp.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Appendix_C_Contaminated_Land.pdf

AECOM (2016d) Hamble to Portchester coastal flood and erosion risk management strategy. Strategy appraisal
report, Ref: CPW 2049, prepared for East Gosport & Fareham Borough Council, Aecom Infrastructure &
Environment UK Limited, London, UK

BAMBER, R N and ROBBINS, R S (2010) Condition monitoring of the Lymington to Keyhaven Coastal Saline
Lagoons, Artoo Marine Biology Consultants LLP, Southampton, UK
http://www.dassh.ac.uk/dataDelivery/filestore/1/9/4_17602601dc341f2/194_d5d92c2cda70e5a.pdf

BENNETT, M (2007) Site investigation of Spittle Lane landfill, Lyme Regis, Landscan Investigations,
Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK

BRAND, J H (2017) Assessing the risk of pollution from historic coastal landfills, PhD thesis, Queen Mary
University of London, UK
https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/19486

BRAND, J H and SPENCER, K L (2017) Assessing the risk of pollution from historic coastal landfills. Executive
summary, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK
http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/media/geography/docs/staff/J-Brand-Exec-summary.pdf

BRAND, J H and SPENCER, K L (2018) “Risk screening assessment for ranking historic coastal landfills
by pollution risk” Anthropocene Coasts, vol 1, 1, Canadian Science Publishing and East China Normal
University, pp 44-61 (https://doi.org/10.1139/anc-2018-0001)

BRUNSDEN, D (1996) “The landslides of the Dorset Coast: some unresolved questions” Proceedings of the
Ussher Society, vol 9, 1, Plymouth, UK, pp 1–7

BURGESS, K, JAY, H and HOSKING, A (2004) “Futurecoast: Predicting the future coastal evolution of
England and Wales” Journal of Coastal Conservation, vol 10, no 1/2, Springer, UK, pp 65–71

CCME (2014) Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment, Winnipeg, Canada
http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/en/index.html

COLENUTT, A (2002) Western Solent Coastal Defence Strategy: notes on the Lymington and Keyhaven
Saltmarshes, Coast Protection Group, New Forest District Council, Hampshire, UK
https://www.newforest.gov.uk/media/adobe/3/r/SaltmarshStudy2002.pdf

COLENUTT, A (2012) Hurst Spit field trip, Standing Conference on Problems Associated with the
Coastline (SCOPAC), UK
http://www.scopac.org.uk/Hurst%20Spit%20Field%20Trip/Andrew_Colenutt.pdf

28 CIRIA, SP169
COOPER, N J, BOWER, G, TYSON, R, FLIKWEERT, J J, RAYNER, S and HALLAS, A (2012) Guidance
on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding and low-lying coastlines, C718, CIRIA,
London, UK (ISBN: 978-0-86017-721-0)
https://www.ciria.org/Resources/Free_publications/Landfill_on_eroding_coastlines.aspx

DEFRA and ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2011) Understanding the risks, empowering communities building
resilience. The national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England, Department for the
Environment Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228898/9780108510366.pdf

DORNBUSCH, U and MYLROIE, P (2017) “Examples of coastal catch-up including barrier roll-back,
marsh and brick-earth cliff erosion in Southeast England”. In: K Burgess (ed) Coasts, marine structures and
breakwaters 2017: Realising the potential, ICE Publishing, London, UK (ISBN: 978-0-7277-6317-4)

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2011) Adapting to climate change: advice for flood and coastal erosion risk
management authorities, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adapting-to-climate-change-for-risk-management-authorities

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2015) Waste classification. Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste,
first edition, v1.1, Technical Guidance WM3, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/719394/Waste-classification-
technical-guidance-WM3.pdf

FBC (2006) Portsmouth Harbour coastal strategy study and possible works funding, report to the Planning and
Transportation Review Panel, Item 7, Fareham Borough Council, Hampshire, UK

GALLOIS, R W (2009) “A recent large landslide at The Spittles, Lyme Regis, Dorset and its implications
for the stability of the adjacent urban area” Geoscience in Southwest England: Proceedings of the Ussher
Society, vol 12, 2, Plymouth, UK, pp 101–108

GARDINER S, HANSON S, NICHOLLS R J, ZHONG ZHANG, Z, JUDE, S, JONES, A, RICHARDS, J,

WILLIAMS, A, SPENCER, T, COPE, S, GORCZYNSKA, M, BRADBURY, A, MCINNES, R, INGLEBY,
A and DALTON, H (2007) “The Habitats Directive, coastal habitats and climate change-case studies
from the south coast of the UK”, Working Paper 108, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,
Working Paper 108. In: R McInnes (ed) Coastal management: Proceedings of the two-day international
conference organised by the Institution of Civil Engineers and held in Cardiff on 31 October to 1 November 2007,
Institution iof Civil Engineers, ICE Publishing, London, UK

HAIGH, I, NICHOLLS, R and WELLS, N (2009) “Mean sea level trends around the English Channel
over the 20th century and their wider context” Continental shelf research, vol 29, 17, Elsevier BV, London,
UK, pp 2083–2098

HALCROW (2001) Preparing for the impacts of climate change. Summary report, Standing Conference on
Problems Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC), UK
https://www.scopac.org.uk/Preparing%20for%20the%20impacts%20of%20Climate%20Change_%20summary%20report.pdf

HALCROW (2010a) Summary of preferred plan recommendations and justifications, Lyme Regis, Durlston
Head to Rame Head SMP2, South Devon and Dorset Coastal Advisory Group, Dorset, UK
http://www.sdadcag.org/docs/SMP/Policy_Statements/19.pdf

HALCROW (2010b) Summary of preferred plan recommendations and justifications, Charmouth (West) to East
Cliff (Lyme Regis), Durlston Head to Rame Head SMP2, South Devon and Dorset Coastal Advislory
Group, Dorset, UK
http://www.sdadcag.org/docs/SMP/Policy_Statements/18.pdf

HIGH-POINT RENDEL LTD (2000) Lyme Regis environmental improvements preliminary studies: Phase IV – East
Cliff: landslide recession scenarios, volume 1, Report No. R/H439/2/1, HPR Capital Project Consultants, UK

HIGH-POINT RENDEL LTD (2009) Spittles landslide and former landfill site, Lyme Regis HPR Report on
Site Inspection, HPR Capital Project Consultants, UK

HODGES, M (1999) The old tip, Pennington. Environmental assessment of impact and options for removal and
remedial engineering, Marcus Hodges Environment, Exeter, UK

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 29

KEBEDE, A S (2009) Assessing potential risks of impact of climate change on coastal landfill sites: A case study of
Pennington landfill site, MSc Thesis, University of Southampton, Hampshire, UK

LEATHAM, D, PONTEE, N, MONROE, B, MUFF, J and WILSON, J (2013) “Reconstructing habitats in

a heavily industrialised estuary: from brine wells to salt marsh”. In: Proc conf on coasts, marine structures
and breakwaters, September 2013, Aberdeen, Scotland

LOWE, J A, HOWARD, T, PARDAENS, A, TINKER, J, HOLT, J, WAKELIN, S, MILNE, G, LEAKE,

J, WOLF, J, HORSBURGH, K, REEDER, T, JENKINS, G, RIDLEY, J, DYE, S and BRADLEY, S (2009)
UK climate projections science report: marine and coastal projections, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=87905&

MCINNES, R G, COPE, S N, MOORE, R, BRADBURY, A P and MILLERCHIP, C J (2011) Adapting

to Coastal Change along England’s Southern Shorelines (ACCESS), Standing Conference on Problems
Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC), UK
https://www.scopac.org.uk/access.html

NFDC (2001) Coastal management issues, New Forest District Council, Hampshire, UK
http://www.nfdc.gov.uk/article/2658/Coastal-Management-Issues

NFDC (2004) New Forest District Coastal Management Plan, New Forest District Council, Hampshire, UK
http://www.newforest.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=23565&p=0

NFDC (2010) North Solent Shoreline Management Plan. Summary of final plan, New Forest District Council
and North Solent SMP Client Steering Group, Hampshire, UK
http://www.northsolentsmp.co.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=16230&p=0

NICHOLLS, R J, TOWNEND, I H, BRADBURY, A P, RAMSBOTTOM, D and DAY, S A (2013)

“Planning for long-term coastal change: Experiences from England and Wales” Ocean Engineering, vol 71,
October, Elsevier BV, London, UK, pp 3–16 (doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.01.025)

NORDIC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (2016) “Leaching as a function of L/S and pH”, Appendix A6.
In: O Hjelmar, J Bjerre Hansen, M Wahlström and O Wik (eds) End-of-waste criteria for construction and
demolition waste, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark (ISBN 978-92-893-4561-3)
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1044870/FULLTEXT03

NRA (1990) Lymington/Pennington flood investigation: interim report, Southern Projects Ltd, Engineering
Consultancy, National Rivers Authority Southern Region, UK

ORANJEWOUD (1985) Draft report Pennington Seawall Reconstruction for HCC, ORANJEWOUD, Almere,
The Netherlands

POPE, N D, O’HARA, S C M, IMAMURA, M, HUTCHINSON, T H and LANGSTON, W J (2011)

“Influence of a collapsed coastal landfill on metal levels in sediments and biota – a portent for the future?”
Journal of Environmental Monitoring, vol 13, 7, 1961–1974, Royal Society of Chemistry, London, UK

URS (2013a) North Portsmouth Harbour: factual report on ground investigation. Appendix A, Ref: 47066340,
prepared for East Solent Coastal Partnership, Havant, Hampshire

URS (2013b) North Portsmouth Harbour: controlled waters and WFD assessment report, Ref: 47066340,
prepared for East Solent Coastal Partnership, Havant, Hampshire

URS (2014) River Hamble to Portchester coastal flood and erosion risk management strategy. Appendix A: coastal
processes report, Ref: 470661901/CP_4, prepared for East Gasport and Fareham Borough Council, Havant,
Hampshire

WADEY, M P, COPE, S N, NICHOLLS, R J, MCHUGH, K, GREWCOCK, G and MASON, T (2015)

“Coastal flood analysis and visualisation for a small town” Ocean coastal Management, vol 116, November,
ElsevierBV, London, UK, pp 237–247

WALKDEN, M and DICKSON, M (2006) The response of soft rock shore profiles to increased sea-level rise,
Working Paper 105, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134.4058&rep=rep1&type=pdf

30 CIRIA, SP169
WALKDEN, M J A, WATSON, G, JOHNSON, A, HERON, E and TARRANT, O (2015) “Coastal catch-
up following defence removal at Happisburgh”. In: A Baptiste (ed) Coastal management: Changing coast,
changing climate, changing minds, Ice Publishing, London, UK (ISBN: 978-0-7277-6114-9)

WPA CONSULTANTS LTD (2010) Site specific human health risk assessment. Rounds 1 to 4 of soil sampling
from soil and waste materials deposited on the beach at Lyme Regis by continued land-slippage from the former
Spittles Lane landfill site, Lyme Regis, report for West Dorset District Council, Dorset, UK

WPA CONSULTANTS LTD (2013) Human health risk assessment: 2013 soil sampling from soil and waste
materials Lyme Regis Bay/former Spittles Lane landfill site, Lyme Regis, report for West Dorset District
Council, Dorset, UK

YASUTAKA, T, NAKA, A, SAKANAKURA, H, KUROSAWA, A, INUI, T, TAKEO, M, INOBA, S,

WATANABE, Y, FUJIKAWA, T, MIURA, T, MIYAGUCHI, S, NAKAJOU, K, SUMIKURA, M, ITO,
K, TAMOTO, S, TATSUHARA, T, CHIDA, T, HIRATA, K, OHORI, K, SOMEYA, M, KATOH, M,
UMINO, M, NEGISHI, M, ITO, K, KOJIMA, J, OGAWA, S (2017) “Reproducibility of up-flow column
percolation tests for contaminated soils” PLoS ONE, vol 12, 6, PLOS, Cambridge, UK (https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178979)

Standards
British
BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites. Code of practice

International
ISO/TS 21268–3 (2007) Soil quality. Leaching procedures for subsequent chemical and ecotoxicological testing of
soil and soil materials. Part 3: Up-flow percolation test

Statutes
Acts
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.43) Part IIA

Directives
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and
repealing certain Directives (Waste Framework Directive)

Regulations
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (No.1154)

Guidance on management of landfill sites. Supplementary guide 31

Further reading

BEAVEN, R P, STRINGFELLOW, A M, NICHOLLS, R J, HAIGH, I D, KEBEDE, A S and WATTS,

J, (2017) “The impact of coastal landfills on shoreline management plans” In: Proc 16th int Waste
management and landfill symposium, 5–9 October 2017, Santa Margherita di Pula, Italy

BRAND, J H, SPENCER, K L, O’SHEA, F T and LINDSAY, J E (2017) “Potential pollution risks of historic
landfills on low-lying coasts and estuaries” WIREs Water, vol e1264, pp 1–12 (doi: 10.1002/wat2.1264)

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2015) Cost estimation for channel management – summary of evidence,
SC080039/R3, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK
http://evidence.environment-agency.gov.uk/FCERM/Libraries/FCERM_Project_Documents/SC080039_cost_channel_mgmt.sflb.ashx
HULME, M, JENKINS, G J, LU, X, TURNPENNY, J R, MITCHELL T D, JONES, R G, LOWE, J,
MURPHY, J M, HASSELL, D, BOORMAN, P, MCDONALD, R and HILL, S (2002) Climate Change
Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

MARSHALL, T (2008) “Scientists to probe landfill exposed by coastal erosion” News from the Natural World
Planet Earth Online, NERC Science of the Environment, Natural Environment Research Council, Swindon, UK
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=205&cookieConsent=A Accessed on 04 April 2016
NICHOLLS, R J, DAWSON, R and DAY, S (eds) (2015) Broad scale coastal simulation New techniques to
understand and manage shorelines in the third millennium, Springer, London, UK (ISBN: 978-9-40075-257-3)

NICHOLLS, RJ, FRENCH J R and VAN MAANEN, B (eds) (2016) “Simulating decadal coastal
morphodynamics” Geomorphology, vol 256, Elsevier BV, London, UK, pp 1–90

O’SHEA, F T, CUNDY, A B and SPENCER, K L (2018) “The contaminant legacy from historic coastal
landfills and their potential as sources of diffuse pollution” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol 128, March,
Elsevier, London, UK, pp 446–455.

POWRIE, W (2006) Science and strategies for the long-term management and remediation of landfills, EPSRC
funded project, EP/E041965/1, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton,
Hampshire, UK
http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/E041965/1
POWRIE, W (2011) Processes, mechanics and management of wastes, EP/I012206/1, EPSRC funded project,
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Hampshire, UK
http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/I012206/1
SPENCER, K (2018) Development of a quantitative risk assessment model for diffuse pollution from estuarine
landfill sites associated with climate change, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
http://gotw.nerc.ac.uk/list_full.asp?pcode=NE%2FI018212%2F1&cookieConsent=A
WDDC (2005) Lyme Regis environmental improvements – Phase IV. Project appraisal report – preliminary design
stage, Technical Services Division, West Dorset District Council, Dorset, UK

WDDC (2014) “Lyme Regis Phase IV, environmental improvements. Lyme Regis coastal protection
works” Newsletter June 2014, West Dorset District Council, Dorset, UK
https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/340944/
WEST, I (nd) Lyme Regis – east to Charmouth. Geology of the Wessex Coast of Southern England, Southampton
University, Southampton, UK
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/Lyme-Regis-to-Charmouth.htm

Websites
Coastal sediment systems (iCOASST): https://www.channelcoast.org/iCOASST/introduction
iGlass: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/oes/research/projects/iglass_using_interglacials_to_assess_future_sea_level_scenarios.page

32 CIRIA, SP169
 CIRIA members
ABG Geosynthetics Ltd London Underground Ltd
AECOM Ltd Loughborough University
AMC Environmental Ltd Maccaferri Ltd
Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd Marshalls Plc
ARL Training Services Ltd Ministry of Justice
Arup Group Ltd Mistras Group Ltd
Atkins Consultants Ltd Morgan Sindall Construction and
Balfour Beatty Group Infrastructure Ltd
BAM Nuttall Ltd Mott MacDonald Group Ltd
Barratt Developments plc Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd
Black & Veatch Ltd Network Rail
BSG Ecology Northumbrian Water Ltd
Buro Happold Engineers Ltd O’Keefe Group
BWB Consulting Ltd Polypipe
City University Rail Safety and Standards Board
Costain Ltd Royal HaskoningDHV Ltd
COWI UK Ltd RSK Group Plc
Dynasafe BACTEC Ltd Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd
Environment Agency SLR Consulting Ltd
ESRI UK Ltd Southern Water Services Ltd
Farrow Walsh Consulting Ltd Stantec
Galliford Try Plc Stuart Michael Associates
Gatwick Airport Ltd T&S Environmental Ltd
Geotechnical Consulting Group Temple Group Ltd
Glasgow Caledonian University Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Golder Associates (UK) Ltd TOPCON (Great Britain) Ltd
Highways England Company Ltd Transport Scotland
High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd UK Green Building Council
HR Wallingford Ltd United Utilities Plc
Hydro Water Management University College London
Solutions Ltd University of Newcastle
Imperial College London University of Reading
Institution of Civil Engineers University of Southampton
Jacobs Wessex Archaeology
J Murphy & Sons Ltd WYG Environmental
Kier Group plc
Laing O’Rourke Civil Engineering Ltd November 2018
 Sp169
CIRIA C718 was published in 2013. The guide acknowledged that there was limited
experience of dealing with such sites, but that the issue is likely to become a more
common challenge to coastal managers and those responsible for coastal sites in the
future. This supplementary guide is based on a Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) project (NE/N012909/1) funded as part of the NERC Environmental Risks to

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines. Supplementary guide
Infrastructure Innovation Programme by the Environment Agency.

Project steering group:

East Solent Coastal Partnership New Forest District Council
Guidance on the management of
Environment Agency Queen Mary University of London landfill sites and land contamination
Essex County Council Standing Conference on Problems
Hampshire County Council
Associated with the Coastline (SCOPAC) on eroding or low-lying coastlines
West Dorset District Council
HR Wallingford
Supplementary guide

CIRIA

SP169 9 780860 179320