7799682

Demolition of a Commercial Building, Redevelopment to provide a
73 Bedroom Care Home with associated Landscaping and Parking

Land Between The Leys and North Bar Place, Banbury
Conditions 18 & 19 of Application No: 13/01643/F
Site Investigation, Land Quality Risk Assessment

& Scheme of Remediation with Outline Geotechnical Appraisal
SLR Ref: 402-02498-00011-018
October 2014
Care UK i 402-02498-00011-0018
Banbury - SI, LQRA, SoR & Outline Geotechnical Assessment October 2014
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Planning Background........................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Development .................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Objectives .............................................................................................................. 6
1.4 PLQRA Findings and SLR’s Approach to this Investigation........................... 6
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES.............................................................................. 12
2.1 Utility Clearance .................................................................................................. 12
2.2 Trial Pits ............................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Hand-Dug Pits ..................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Boreholes............................................................................................................. 12
2.5 Ground-Gas Monitoring ..................................................................................... 13
2.6 Groundwater Sampling ...................................................................................... 13
2.7 Laboratory Analysis - Environmental............................................................... 13
3.0 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, VISUAL OBSERVATIONS & THE WATER AND GAS
REGIMES........................................................................................................................ 14
3.1 Topography ......................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Geology................................................................................................................ 14
3.3 Field / Visual Observations................................................................................ 16
3.4 Groundwater Regime.......................................................................................... 16
3.5 Ground-Gas Regime ........................................................................................... 17
4.0 LAND QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENTS & SCHEME OF REMEDIATION.................. 19
4.1 Built Environment / Property............................................................................. 24
4.2 Controlled Waters ............................................................................................... 29
4.3 Human Health ...................................................................................................... 32
4.4 Unidentified Sources – Condition 21................................................................ 50
4.5 Land Quality / Remedial Works Validation Report - Condition 20 ................ 50
5.0 OUTLINE GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 51
5.1 Development Layout and Recorded Ground Conditions............................... 51
5.2 Foundation Solution ........................................................................................... 51
5.3 Shrinkage and Swelling of Soils ....................................................................... 53
5.4 Buried Concrete .................................................................................................. 53
5.5 Ground Floor Slabs ............................................................................................ 54
5.6 Pavement Design ................................................................................................ 54
5.7 Earthworks........................................................................................................... 54
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 55
7.0 CLOSURE....................................................................................................................... 57
SLR
Care UK ii 402-02498-00011-0018
DRAWINGS
Drawing 1 Investigation Locations
Drawing 2 Indicative Cross Section
APPENDICES
Appendix A Photographic Log
Appendix B Excavation Logs
Appendix C Ground-Gas Monitoring Data
Appendix D Groundwater Monitoring Data
Appendix E Laboratory Certificates (JEF)
Appendix F Laboratory Certificates (Geolabs)
Appendix G Excerpts of Gas Guidance
SLR
Care UK 1 402-02498-00011-0018
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Planning Background
On 6th March 2014, Cherwell District Council’s (CDC) Planning Committee voted in favour of
Application 13/01643/F by Care UK for “Demolition of an existing single storey commercial
building and the redevelopment of the site to provide a 73 bedroom care home together with
associated landscaping and parking provision with access from North Bar Place, Land
Between The Leys And North Bar Place, Banbury”.
The Draft Schedule of Conditions contained four conditions relevant to land quality. Draft
Condition 17 required a comprehensive intrusive investigation:
17 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a

comprehensive intrusive investigation in order to characterise the type,
nature and extent of contamination present, the risks to receptors and to
inform the remediation strategy proposals shall be documented as a report
undertaken by a competent person and in accordance with DEFRA and the
Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land
Contamination, CLR 11' and submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. No development shall take place unless the Local
Planning Authority has given its written approval that it is satisfied that the
risk from contamination has been adequately characterised as required by
this condition.
SLR Consulting Limited (SLR) was commissioned later in March 2014 by Care UK to provide
consultancy services to address Draft Condition 171.
In order to address Draft Condition 17, SLR chose to:
 build upon our Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment (PLQRA) dated July 2013
(SLR Ref: 402-02498-00011-018); and
 take account of comments dated February 2013 made to CDC’s Planning Department
by Mr Gregory 2, an Environmental Protection Officer with the authority.
Mr Gregory had stated:
I’ve reviewed the SLR Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment

(ref 402-02498-0001100-1118, dated July 2013) submitted with this
application. I can confirm that the findings of this report are acceptable and
the general proposals for further site investigation and characterisation are
acceptable.
I would like further consideration given to the following maters as part of

these preliminary assessment works:
1
Since March 2014, CUK and CDC have ent ered into a Section 106 agreement and planning
permission has been formalised, the four draft conditions relevant to land quality persist.
2
Sean Gregory, Environmental P rotection Officer, Cherwell District Council, 01295 221622,
sean.gregory@cherwell -dc.gov.uk
SLR
Care UK 2 402-02498-00011-0018
-Potential impact from made ground on human receptors as a potential

pollutant linkage, until further justification for removal of this is provided
-Potential impact on flora e.g. phytotoxicity should be considered as a

potential pollutant linkage until further justification for removal of this is
provided:
-Care homes sometimes offer the possibility of gardening and growing

some of their own vegetables as recreational activities for their residents. I
would like to see the potential for eating home grown produce included as
a potential pollutant linkage.
On 22nd August 2014 Cherwell District Council (CDC) published their Notice of Decision
regarding Application No: 13/01643/F. Conditions 18 to 21 deal with contamination and
state:

comprehensive intrusive investigation in order to characterise the type, nature
and extent of contamination present, the risks to receptors and to inform the
remediation strategy proposals shall be documented as a report undertaken by a
competent person and in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment
Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR
11' and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No
development shall take place unless the Local Planning Authority has given its
written approval that it is satisfied that the risk from contamination has been
adequately characterised as required by this condition.
Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the
land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled
waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development
can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and
other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy ENV12 of the adopted Cherwell
Local Plan and Government guidance contained within the National Planning
Policy Framework.
19 If contamination is found by undertaking the work carried out under

Condition 18, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted,
a scheme of remediation and/or monitoring to ensure the site is suitable for its
proposed use shall be prepared by a competent person and in accordance with
DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management
of Land Contamination, CLR 11' and submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. No development shall take place until the Local
Planning Authority has given its written approval of the scheme of rem ediation
and/or monitoring required by this condition.
Policy Framework.
SLR
Care UK 3 402-02498-00011-0018
20 If remedial works have been identified in Condition 19, the development

shall not be occupied until the remedial works have been carried out in
accordance with the scheme approved under Condition 19. A verification report
that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Policy Framework.
21 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found

to be present at the site, no further development shall be carried out until full
details of a remediation strategy detailing how the unsuspected contamination
shall be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Thereafter the remediation strategy shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
Policy Framework.
In September 2014 SLR’s remit was broadened and this document, which supplements and
should be read in conjunction with SLR’s PLQRA, responds to Conditions 18 and 19 – it
provides details of the intrusive investigation carried out in March and April 2014 and, where
necessary, a Scheme of Remediation.
To aid the reader any text concerning the Scheme of Remediation is in blue.
We trust that CDC will confirm in writing that this document fulfils the requirements of the
pre-commencement aspects of Conditions 18 and 19, allowing remedial works and the
development to proceed.
Please note that the fieldwork and reporting have been undertaken by SLR’s Land Quality
team based in Bradford on Avon 3 with work being directed by a chartered professional.
The ground investigation locations referred to herein are presented on Drawing 1.
1.2 The Development
By way of introduction, CUK is a leading independent provider of health and social care
services, and currently provides care and support for over 6,000 people in over 110 nursing
and care homes.
The development site is situated in the centre of Banbury to the west of commercial
premises fronting North Bar Street and to the east of People’s Park; please see Figure 1-1
3
Treenwood House, Rowden Lane, Bradford on A von, Wiltshire BA15 2A U. Tel: 01225 309400.
SLR
Care UK 4 402-02498-00011-0018
(Page 5) which shows the proposed development and Drawing 1 which also illustrates
CUK’s proposals (see orange brown cross hatching). It is accessed from North Bar Place, a
lane off North Bar Street (A361) roughly 250m north of Banbury Cross. Historically the site
has amongst other uses been home to a builder’s yard, a dairy and a scrap yard but in the
last decade it has largely been disused save for some car parking.
The proposed development would see the site brought back into use and comprises:
 demolition of a derelict workshop;

 redevelopment of the site to comprise a 73 bed residential care home (use class C2)
to include bedroom areas, treatment rooms, management and administration areas,
communal dining and socialising areas including restaurant / cafe, cinema,
hairdressers, day room and hobby room;
 reconfiguration of the remaining site area to include landscaped gardens, car parking
spaces, bicycle parking spaces, and service areas; and
 repair / refurbishment of the wall with People’s Park.
The design will introduce a high quality blend of traditional and contemporary architecture
and materials to the site, enhancing the existing situation. The proposed building surrounds
courtyard parking, with patio areas to the external edges of the building.
The development allows retention of protected trees including a large oak within the
communal gardens. The proposed planting includes seven apple trees (Bramley’s, Cox’s
Orange Pippin, James Grieve) along the site’s northern boundary and two raised curved
planters for residents own planting on its eastern boundary. The trees are to be planted in
imported soil and the planters are to be filled with imported topsoil / compost. No growth of
edible crops will be allowed aside from the apples and any produce grown in the pair of
raised beds.
SLR
Care UK 5 402-02498-00011-0018
Figure 1-1
Extract of Proposed Planting Plan by SLR showing 73 Bed Care Home set in Landscaped Grounds with Parking
SLR
Care UK 6 402-02498-00011-0018
1.3 Objectives
SLR’s PLQRA report presented basic site information and detailed desk study information.
The information therein was used to develop a preliminary conceptual model of potential
risks to human and environmental receptors. The conceptual model examined the potential
for contaminant-pathway-receptor linkages. The risks associated with the potential linkages
were discussed and SLR recommended an intrusive investigation and environmental
monitoring to provide the scheme’s environmental consultant and (foundation) designers
with information regarding ground conditions and the risks to Controlled Waters, building
materials including potable water pipelines and human health. SLR also saw the
investigation as an opportunity to gauge whether near surface soils match the requirements
of BS 3882:2007 4 (as demanded by the Specification for Soft Landscaping Works).
This report presents the findings of the voluntary ground investigation. The information
obtained has been used to further develop the conceptual model, and to provide an outline
geotechnical appraisal to demonstrate to the local authority that ground conditions are
capable of supporting the new building and, secondarily, to assist CUK’s chosen design and
build contractors who will be tasked with designing the foundations. The risks associated
with the potential linkages are discussed and SLR discusses mitigation measures which the
developer is volunteering as part of the development and the remedial strategy. Some of the
measures volunteered react to perceived risks and other measures are designed to ensure
soil materials soon to be brought onto site for use in creation of the soft landscape are
suitable.
Overall, this “precautionary” approach is designed to give confidence to future residents,

those lending to CUK and the local authority that the development site, in the words of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012, is:
…suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land
instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as
mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for
mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment
arising from that remediation.
It is also our objective to show that CUK’s redevelopment will leave the site / land in a
condition where it is not capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part 2A of
the Environmental Protection Act 1990
1.4 PLQRA Findings and SLR’s Approach to this Investigation
SLR’s PLQRA used information collected from the desk-based research and site walkover
to:
 identify the likely contaminant sources, receptors and pathways present at the site;
 develop a conceptual model; and
 identify potential pollutant linkages which required inspection.
In summary, the PLQRA identified that:
 the southern section of the main site has remained undeveloped, save for the use as a
formal walled garden;
4
Specification for topsoil and requirements for use
SLR
Care UK 7 402-02498-00011-0018
 potentially contaminative land uses have been present in the north of the site, including a
dairy, a builders yard and a scrap yard, with areas of permeable surfacing and associated
oil tanks;
 cut and fill practises, associated with terracing the site, are likely to have been
undertaken;
 demolition materials are likely to be present on site;
 although potentially contaminative land uses have been present to the immediate north
and east of the site, significant potentially contaminative land uses have not been
identified up gradient of the site.
 the developer will have the chance to deploy protective measures (e.g. Protectaline water
supply pipe; etc) if needs be;
 the care home workers and residents will have access to managed / landscaped gardens;
and,
 sub-soil will most likely be prepared and topped with 150mm (grassed areas) to 450mm
(shrub beds) thickness of site-won / imported topsoil, which will be tested for compliance
with BS 3882:2007 5, or BSI PAS100 compost.
Given the proposed use as a care home with managed gardens the most likely / significant
PPL appeared to be:
 PPL 1a: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Contaminants Entering Water
Supply Pipework
 PPL 1b: Potential Damage to Future Buildings from Exposure to Aggressive Ground
 PPL 1c: Potential Pollution of Groundwater by Contaminants in Made Ground / Natural
Geology
 PPL 2a&b: Potential for Harm to Health and Building Damage from Hazardous Gases
 PPL 3a-c: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Airborne Asbestos
 PPL 4a-c: Potential Harm to Human Health from Potential Contaminants in Imported
Landscaping Soils
 PPL 5a&b: Potential Harm to Health or the Environment from Potential Weathered
Hydrocarbons Associated with the Former and Current Oil/Fuel Tanks
 PPL 6: Potential Risks to Health or the Environment from Unidentified Sources
Subsequent to the PLQRA but before any investigation, SLR took account of comments by
CDC and has introduced:
 PPL1a(i): Potential Harm to Human Health from exposure to contaminants in the Made
Ground via inhalation, ingestion (direct) and dermal contact.
That new PPL addresses Mr Gregory’s comment about the “Potential impact from made
ground on human receptors...”.
Mr Gregory’s comment about “Care homes sometimes offer the possibility of gardening and
growing some of their own vegetables as recreational activities for their residents. I would
like to see the potential for eating home grown produce included as a potential pollutant
linkage” is examined with PPL4 as the crops to be grown on this development will be planted
in imported soil: a) within two raised planters; and b) within tree pits (for the apples).
The “Potential impact on flora...” is considered by new PPL1d: Potential Harm to Landscape
Plants from Phytotoxic Elements and Compounds in Made Ground.
5
SLR
Care UK 8 402-02498-00011-0018
The PLQRA assessed PPL1, PPL2, PPL3 and PPL5 and concluded that they required an
intrusive investigation (and in most cases subsequent environmental monitoring) in order to
further understand the risks to human health and the environment and to inform the
scheme’s design.
The table overleaf, divided by receptor class, acts as an aide memoir and introduces the
fieldwork rationale.
PPL4 (Imported Landscaping Soil) and PPL6 (Unidentified Sources) are discussed in
Sections 4.3.5 and 4.4.1 but were obviously not subject to targeted investigation.
SLR
Care UK 9 402-02498-00011-0018
Table 1-1
PPL Requiring Further Investigation & Action Taken
Source / Area of Concern PPL Description of PPL SLR’s PLQRA Action Taken
Recommendation
Built Environment / Property
Source 1 – Contaminants in Made PPL1b Potential Damage to Buildings Intrusive investigation and to PPL1b has been initially assessed through analysis of
Ground / backfill associated w ith from Exposure to Aggressive provide information regarding selected soil samples.
for mer site uses. Ground aggressive ground conditions.
Source 1 – Contaminants in Made PPL1d Potential Harm to Landscape Intrusive investigation to provide PPL1d has been initially assessed through analysis of
Ground / backfill associated w ith Plants from Phytotoxic information regarding ground selected soil samples.
for mer site uses. Elements and Compound s in conditions.
Made Ground
Source 2 – Hazardous gases / PPL2b Potential Building Damage Intrusive investigation and PPL 2b has been investigated by undertaking intrusive
vapours associated w ith historic from Hazardous Ground- environmental monitoring to investigation (boreholes, trial pits and hand pits) across the
activities on and off site. Gases provide information regarding site to assess the composition of the ground and facilitate the
ground gas conditions. installation of monitoring wells for ground-gas monitoring.
3 rounds of ground-gas monitoring have been undertaken.
Controlled Waters
Source 1 – Contaminants in Made PPL1c Potential Impact to Controlled Intrusive investigation to provide PPL1c has been investigated by under taking intrusive
Ground / backfill associated w ith Waters by Contaminants in the information regarding the ground investigation (boreholes, trial pits and hand pits) across the
for mer site uses. Made Ground and Natural conditions along with site to assess the composition of the ground and facilitate the
Geology confir matory groundwater installation of monitoring wells for groundwater
sampling. monitoring/sampling. Soil and groundwater samples have
been tested for a variety of compounds.
Source 5 - Weathered hydrocarbons PPL5b PPL5a: Potential Impact to Targeted intrusive investigation PPL5b has been investigated by field screening soil samples
associated w ith the current above Controlled Water s from and environmental monitoring to for hydrocarbon vapours during intrusive investigation works
ground storage tank (assumed to be Potential Weathered provide information regarding (boreholes, trial pits and hand pits) at selected locations
related to fuel / oils), current car Hydrocarbons Associated with presence of hydrocarbons. across the site, and by testing selected soil and groundwater
storage practises, the historic use of Former and Current oil/Fuel samples for petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile compounds, etc.
the site as a scrap yard and the Tanks.
historic oil tanks (also assumed to be
above ground)
SLR
Care UK 10 402-02498-00011-0018
Source / Area of Concern PPL Description of PPL SLR’s PLQRA Action Taken
Recommendation
Human Health
Source 1 – Contaminants in Made PPL1a Potential Harm to Human Intrusive investigation at likely PPL1a has been investigated by under taking intrusive
Ground / backfill associated w ith Health from Exposure to route of water main to provide investigation across the likely route of the water main. Soil
for mer site uses. Contaminants Entering Water information regarding the ground samples have been tested for a variety of compounds as per
Supply Pipework conditions guidance.
PPL1a(i) Potential Harm to Human Intrusive investigation to provide PPL1a(i) has been identified as a PPL after the production of
Health from exposure to information regarding the ground the PLQRA. It has been investigated by under taking intrusive
contaminants in the Made conditions investigation across the areas that are due to be soft ground
Ground via inhalation, and are to remain uncapped by impor ted landscaping soils.
ingestion (direct) and dermal Soil samples have been tested for a variety of compounds as
contact. per guidance.
Source 2 – Hazardous gases / PPL2a Potential harm to human health Intrusive investigation and PPL 2b has been investigated by undertaking intrusive
vapours associated w ith historic from exposure to hazardous environmental monitoring to investigation (boreholes, trial pits and hand pits) across the
activities on and off site. ground-gases provide information regarding site to assess the composition of the ground and facilitate the
ground conditions and the gas installation of monitoring wells for ground-gas monitoring.
regime. 3 rounds of ground-gas monitoring have been undertaken.
Source 3 - Asbestos fibres in near PPL3a-c Potential Harm to Human Intrusive investigation to provide PPL3a-c has been investigated by undertaking intrusive
surface Made Ground / soil Health from Exposure to information regarding the ground investigation (boreholes, trial pits and hand pits) across the
associated w ith the for mer land uses Airborne Asbestos conditions. site to assess the composition of the ground. Any potential
especially the demolition of the site asbestos containing material was noted in the excavations (if
buildings. present) and selected soil samples have been tested for
asbestos.
Source 5 - Weathered hydrocarbons PPL5a Potential Harm to Health from Targeted intrusive investigation PPL5a has been investigated by field screening soil samples
associated w ith the current above Potential Weathered and environmental monitoring to for hydrocarbon vapours during intrusive investigation works
ground storage tank (assumed to be Hydrocarbons Associated with provide information regarding (boreholes, trial pits and hand pits) at selected locations
related to fuel / oils), current car Former Fuel Tank presence of hydrocarbons. across the site, and by testing selected soil and groundwater
storage practises, the historic use of samples for petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile compounds, etc.
the site as a scrap yard and the
historic oil tanks (also assumed to be
above ground)
SLR
Care UK 11 402-02498-00011-0018
1.4.1 Scope of Field Work
The fieldwork carried out is detailed in Section 2, but in summary comprised;
 health and safety planning and project management;

 review of utility mapping, utilities tracing and confirmatory cable avoidance tool (C.A.T)
scanning of each excavation location;
 excavation of 10 trial pits or trenches spread across the site, covering approximately 4%
of the site area;
 excavation of 4 boreholes to a maximum depth of 10 metres below ground level (m bgl) to
facilitate in-situ geotechnical testing, soil sampling and monitoring well installation;
 excavation of 4 hand dug pits in root protection areas;
 field screening tests and collection of soil samples and logging of soil arisings from all
excavations;
 surveying;
 ground-gas monitoring;
 groundwater level monitoring and collection of groundwater samples, and
 laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater samples for typical indicators of potential
contamination.
SLR
Care UK 12 402-02498-00011-0018
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
2.1 Utility Clearance
SLR obtained utility plans and undertook utility clearance in advance of all excavations.
Hand excavated pits were advanced to 1.2m below ground level (bgl) to confirm the absence
of services at each drilling location. Intrusive locations are shown on Drawing 1.
2.2 Trial Pits
Ten pits (c.2m wide and of varying lengths) were excavated between 26th March and
28th March 2014 and the soil profiles within these were logged to EN ISO 14688
(BS5930+A2) standard by SLR’s field engineer. In the longer trenches, which were
generally shallow, certain sections were excavated deeper to between 0.95m and 3.5m.
Small disturbed samples were recovered during the excavation and thes e underwent in-situ
headspace analysis for volatile organic compounds (VOC) using a PID calibrated to span
gas. Bulk samples and small disturbed samples for chemical and geotechnical testing were
also recovered, with in-situ CBR and hand shear vane tests undertaken in some locations.
In TP8 and TP4, hydrocarbon staining was observed and additional samples were recovered
for Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing.
The trial pits were backfilled on 11th April 2014.
The location of the trial pits and trenches are presented on Drawing 1 and the photographic
log containing images of the excavations is provided in Appendix A. Excavation records
are presented in Appendix B.
2.3 Hand-Dug Pits
Hand-Dug Pits HP1 to HP4 varying in depth from 0.3m to 0.6m were excavated on 28th
March 2014. The uppermost 0.35m to 0.40m of the ground within 2-3m of the locations of
both HP1 and HP2 were re-examined by excavating HP1a and HP1b on 25th April 2014. On
the same day, HP5 was dug to 0.35m to examine near surface conditions between the
locations of HP1 and HP2.
The soil profiles within all excavation locations were logged to EN ISO 14688 (BS5930+A2)
standard by SLR’s field engineer.
Small disturbed samples were recovered during the excavation and these underwent in-situ
headspace analysis for volatile organic compounds (VOC) using a PID calibrated to span
gas. Soil samples were recovered for testing.
The location of the hand dug pits are presented on Drawing 1 and the photographic log
containing images of the excavations is provided in Appendix A. Excavation records are
presented in Appendix B.
2.4 Boreholes
Four boreholes (BH1 to BH4) were excavated between 26th March and 28th March 2014
using a Dando 2000 rig. The boreholes were located within the proposed building footprint,
but two targeted the position of historic or current above ground oil/fuel tanks. The
boreholes were advanced to a maximum depth of 7.5m bgl. Bulk samples, U100 and small
disturbed soil samples were recovered from each borehole, with the small disturbed samples
SLR
Care UK 13 402-02498-00011-0018
undergoing in-situ analysis for VOCs. Many samples were recovered for chemical analysis.
In-situ geotechnical testing comprising standard penetration tests (SPT) were undertaken at
the base of the hand pit and then at 1 metre intervals. On completion each borehole was
installed with a combined groundwater and ground-gas monitoring well, with BH1, BH2 and
BH4 installed with a flush cover and BH3 installed with a raised headworks – a “top hat”
cover.
Ground conditions at the borehole locations were logged to EN ISO 14688 (BS5930+A2) by
SLR’s field engineer.
The locations of the boreholes pits are presented on Drawing 1, whilst the excavation
records along with the monitoring well details are presented in Appendix B.
2.5 Ground-Gas Monitoring
Ground-gas monitoring was undertaken on three occasions (4th, 11th and 25th of April 2014).
Each round comprised the measurement of methane (% volume), carbon dioxide (%
volume), hydrogen sulphide (ppm), carbon monoxide (ppm) and oxygen (% volume)
concentrations in the monitoring wells, using an infrared gas analyser (GA5000), along with
measurements of wind speed, gas flow rates, borehole gas pressures, atmospheric pressure
and groundwater level.
The ground-gas monitoring records are presented in Appendix C.
2.6 Groundwater Sampling
All four wells were developed on installation of the boreholes. During the first round of
groundwater monitoring (4th April 2014), all four wells were purged and subsequently
successfully sampled using a low flow peristaltic pump to reduce the quantity of sediment in
the sample. All were submitted for laboratory analysis.
The groundwater monitoring records are presented in Appendix D.
2.7 Laboratory Analysis - Environmental
All soil and groundwater samples were stored in cool boxes and transported by courier
under chain of custody to Jones Environmental Forensics Laboratories (JEF).
Selected soil samples were variously analysed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), speciated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), aliphatic and aromatic total petroleum hydrocarbons with a carbon working group
split (TPH-CWG), various metals, pH and targeted samples were analysed for the presence
of asbestos.
Samples from TP4 and TP8 were additionally analysed against Waste Acceptance Criteria
as hydrocarbon staining was noted.
The groundwater samples mentioned in Section 2.6, above, were analysed for pH, metals
and TPH-CWG, with selected samples analysed for PAH, SVOCs and VOCs.
Copies of the original test certificates are contained in Appendix E.
SLR
Care UK 14 402-02498-00011-0018
3.0 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, VISUAL OBSERVATIONS & THE WATER AND GAS
REGIMES
3.1 Topography
At present the site can be described as having three plateaux at different levels:
 the north-west “corner”- 98m to 99m above datum (AD);

 the car park and former Banbury Motor Spares Stores area - c. 100.6m AD; and
 the wooded / vegetated area to the south and south west - 101m to 102m AD.
Land within the north-west of the site (formerly the vehicle dismantling yard) is the lowest
point of the site, approximately 98m to 99m AD and the boundaries with the adjacent car
park and former Banbury Motor Spares Stores are formed by retaining walls. The area is
broadly flat and accessed from the roadway which forks at the junction with the car park
entrance and slopes gently downwards through metal gates. There are also the remains of
metal framed steps leading from the former Banbury Motor Spares Stores.
The car park and former Banbury Motor Spares Store are at a similar elevation
c. 100.6m AD. They are both predominantly level and higher than the former vehicle
dismantling yard, but lower than the wooded / vegetated area to the south and south west.
The car park is accessed from the roadway, which forks at the junction with the former
vehicle dismantling yard and slopes gently upwards through metal framed gates and height
barrier. The former Banbury Motor Spares Store is at grade with the roadway and is
accessed from it through large metal framed and wire gates.
The vegetated area to the south and south west is the highest area in the site (approximately
101m to 102m AD. Along the roadway there is a bund of soil with occasional rubble which
was breached during the ground investigation to allow access. The vegetated area is gently
sloping with the highest point to the southern boundary of the site.
3.2 Geology
The paragraphs below describe the geology encountered in boreholes, trial pits and hand
pits. Drawing 2 provides an indicative geological cross section through the site using the
available information. The section line is illustrated on Drawing 1.
3.2.1 Boreholes
Two of the boreholes encountered concrete surfacing. Beneath that all four encountered
Made Ground. The underlying natural ground comprised sandy clays and silts.
Reference should be made to the excavation records in Appendix B for full details of the
strata encountered by this investigation, but in summary the encountered geological
horizons are described in Table 3-1, overleaf.
Refusal on competent strata (recovered as strong blue-grey fine grained cobbles and coarse
gravels) was generally found to be shallower in the south of the site than in the north. For
example, BH1 in the southern half of the site refused at 4.3m bgl (96.4m AD), while BH3 in
the northwest of the site encountered similar fine grained cobbles and gravels (this time in a
silt matrix) at 7.4m (91.43m AD).
SLR
Care UK 15 402-02498-00011-0018
Table 3-1
Summary of Geological Horizons: Boreholes
Depth Depth to
Encountered Base Description
(m bgl) (m bgl)
0.0 ~0.2 MADE GROUND: Concrete (absent in BH1 and BH3)
~0.2 ~0.4 MADE GROUND: Grey-black and orange-brown slightly silty, slightly clayey SAND and
GRAVEL w ith occasional to frequent brick cobbles. Gravel comprises fine to coarse
sub-angular to sub-rounded sandstone, limestone and tar mac.
~0.4 ~2.2 MADE GROUND: Soft to fir m light brown-grey to dar k brown-grey sandy gravelly
CLAY with occasional fine gravel grade carbonised inclusions. Gravel comprises fine
to coarse angular limestone, brick, concrete and sandstone. (Absent in BH1 – strata is
instead Fir m blue-grey mottled orange slightly sandy CLAY).
~2.2 ~4.2 Firm orange-brown and blue-grey slightly sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel comprises fine
angular weak mudstone and sandstone. (In BH4 strata is medium dense brown-grey
orange weakly cemented SAND with pockets of clay, becoming sandy CLAY w ith
depth).
~4.2 >5.0 Stiff dark blue-grey SILT with occasional pockets of fine orange sand.
3.2.2 Trial Pits
In general, the trial pits encountered fairly similar ground conditions across the site
comprising concrete and sub-base materials (up to approximately 0.4m thick) overlying a
layer of clay-based Made Ground approximately 1.7m to 2m thick. Below this, natural clay
was encountered. In the wooded/vegetated area to the south of the site, the type of Made
Ground found elsewhere was much thinner at c.0.5m and was overlain by a soily Made
Ground comprising soft dark grey-black slightly silty sandy clay with degraded leaf litter and
roots.
Reference should be made to the excavation records in Appendix B, for full details of the
strata encountered by this investigation, but in summary the encountered geological
horizons are described in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2
Summary of Geological Horizons: Trial Pits
Depth Depth to
Encountered Base Description
(m bgl) (m bgl)
0.0 0.25 MADE GROUND: CONCRETE (or in some cases TOPSOIL).
0.25 0.4 MADE GROUND: Yellow to yellow-brown SAND and GRAVEL. Gravel comprises fine
to coarse sub-rounded concrete and limestone.
0.4 ~2.0 MADE GROUND: Firm light brown, occasionally patchy yellow brown CLAY with
occasional gravel and rare, fine gravel grade carbonised inclusions. Gravel comprises
fine to coar se angular brick, slate and concrete. In some locations this horizon is
slightly clayey GRAVEL including fine to coarse angular limestone, brick, concrete,
plastic, metal and glass.
~2.0 >3.0 Firm light grey to yellow-brown mottled blue and orange CLAY
3.2.3 Hand Pits
The hand pits, which were used in areas where machine excavation would have damaged
roots, generally comprised topsoil over Made Ground (comprising gravelly sandy silty clay).
Reference should be made to the excavation records in Appendix B.
SLR
Care UK 16 402-02498-00011-0018
3.3 Field / Visual Observations
Field screening tests were undertaken during the intrusive investigation. All soils tested
exhibited low organic vapour concentrations (i.e. <15ppm) except in TP4. At this location,
hydrocarbon staining was noticed between approximately `1.15m and 2.2m bgl adjacent to a
drain and there was a hydrocarbon odour. A surge of water was released (likely to be from
the drain) as the pit was dug, and this had a hydrocarbon sheen. At this location, organic
vapour concentrations reached 70ppm within the stained material, dropping to 33.9ppm in
the clay below where there was no obvious staining.
Hydrocarbon staining was noted in the end of TP8b in conjunction with a hydrocarbon odour,
and a slight sheen was observed when water was struck. However, organic vapour
concentrations at this location were recorded as 1.1ppm, suggesting the hydrocarbons to be
low volatility.
Within TP3, hydrocarbon staining and odour was noted at 0.55m bgl, and organic vapour
concentrations were recorded as 12.9ppm. A sheen was observed when water was struck
on top of the clay at 0.6m. This trial pit was excavated in the location of a former above
ground storage tank (AST).
Within the other excavations, asphalt and fine gravel-grade carbonised material, metal and
glass were commonly noted within the made ground. However, no further hydrocarbon
staining or odours were recorded. Within TP4a, the remains of a metal drum in a cellar
foundation was recorded, although it is not known what this is likely to have contained. The
remains of an additional drum / tin were also noted within TP9.
3.4 Groundwater Regime
Groundwater was encountered during the excavation of all the boreholes at multiple depths
within the profile.
Groundwater strikes and groundwater monitoring data from three rounds of well monitoring
is summarised in Table 3-3, overleaf. The water levels used are provided in Appendix C.
The “Existing Well” was found in the car park area, stop-cock type cover.
Mirroring ground levels, the groundwater level is highest in the south (BH1) and falls by up to
c.2.4m to the north-west (BH3) – the flow direction is north-west. It should not be assumed
that the groundwater gradient is smooth, there is a working theory supported by field
observations that the watertable is influenced by in-ground structures.
Within the trial pits, water was encountered within permeable / made ground horizons in
TP1, TP3, TP8b and TP10. Water was also encountered in TP4, although this is likely to
have been from the adjacent drain c.1m away.
SLR
Care UK 17 402-02498-00011-0018
Table 3-3:
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Data
Rest Groundwater Level (m bgl)
Groundwater Well Response SPH* Thickness
Groundwater Elevation (m AD)
Location Strike Zone (mm)*
(m bgl) (m bgl) 4/4/14 10/4/14 25/4/14
BH1 0.489 0.647 0.879 Nil

2.1 and 4.2 0.5 – 4.3
100.695mAOD 100.206 100.048 99.816
BH2 1.030 1.123 1.182 Nil
4.2 and 6.2 0.5 – 5.0
99.754mAOD 98.724 98.631 98.572
BH3
99.764mAOD 0.3, 4.3 and 1.962 2.066 2.108
(Level of Raised Cover) 0.5 – 5.0 Nil
5.9 97.802 97.698 97.656
99.430
(Ground Level)
BH4 2.2, 5.3 and 2.040 2.098 2.103 Nil
0.5 – 7.5
100.562 7.1 98.522 98.464 98.459
Existing Well 0.563 0.643 0.855 Nil
- Unknown
100.675 100.112 100.032 99.820
*No Separate Phase Hydrocarbon was found
3.5 Ground-Gas Regime
Monitoring wells were installed in each of the four boreholes. The details of the monitoring
well designs are provided on the excavation logs in Appendix B. Ground gas
concentrations and flows were monitored on three occasions in April: 4 th, 10th and 25th 2014.
The detailed ground gas monitoring records are presented in Appendix C. Table 3-4
summarises the maximum peak ground gas results for each of the monitoring wells installed
(and minimum values for oxygen).
Table 3-4
Ground Gas Results Summary
Well ID Methane Carbon Oxygen Hydrogen Carbon Headspace Flow Borehole
%v/v dioxide %v/v (min) Sulphide Monoxide (ppm) (l/hr) Gas
(max) %v/v (ppm) (ppm) Pressure
(max) (max) (max) (mbar)
BH1 0 2.6 16.4 0 3 2.3 0 0.66
BH2 0 2.2 15.6 0 2 1.3 0.1 0.06
BH3 0 2.6 14.2 0 0 2.4 0.2 0.05
BH4 0 8.2 5.3 0 2 2.9 0 0.24
Existing
0 1.2 19.5 0 0 2.1 0 0.17
Well
No hydrogen sulphide or methane was detected in any of the wells.
Very slightly elevated carbon dioxide was detected in all monitoring wells, with a maximum
detection of 8.2% v/v in BH4.
Trace concentrations of carbon monoxide were detected in three of the five monitoring wells.
Depleted concentrations of oxygen were encountered in on one occasion, 25th April 2014, in
BH4 with a minimum concentration of 5.3% v/v. All other boreholes had minimum recorded
SLR
Care UK 18 402-02498-00011-0018
oxygen concentrations ranging from 14.2 % v/v to 16.4% v/v (steady state averages were
nearer 17%).
Atmospheric pressure ranged between 994 and 1,009mbar, with the lowest pressure (on 4th
April) producing three of the five highest carbon dioxide concentrations. With no exception
the wells returned negligible (i.e. <0.2l/hr), neutral (0.0l/hr) or negative flow rates.
SLR
Care UK 19 402-02498-00011-0018
4.0 LAND QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENTS & SCHEME OF REMEDIATION
The environmental field work was designed to establish the concentrations of potential
contaminants, so that the subsequent LQRA could assess the risks to: the built environment
and property; Controlled Waters; and human health. The field work also sought to establish
ground conditions and geotechnical properties.
In broad terms, this section seeks to support the NPPF by ensuring the site is suitable for its
new use taking account of former activities and pollution arising from previous uses.
The subsections below assess the land’s quality by assessing the PPL set out in Table 1-1
of this report.
Table 4-1, overleaf, provides a useful summary of the findings of Sections 4.1 to 4.4 that
follow.
SLR
Care UK 20 402-02498-00011-0018
Table 4-1
PPL Requiring a Scheme of Remediation
Section PPL Description of PPL SLR’s LQRA Finding Does PPL Require a Scheme of Remediation?
Built Environment / Property
4.1.1 PPL1b Potential Damage to Buildings from Exposure to No special precautions are considered necessary for No
Aggressive Ground concrete below ground level and a design sulphate
class of DS-1 and an ACEC class of AC-1 should be
used.
4.1.2 PPL1d Potential Harm to Landscape Plants from In general, Made Ground exhibits phytotoxic metal Yes
Phytotoxic Elements and Compounds in Made concentrations that are acceptable but the presence of Given the need to control where clinker from the
Ground some clinker from the location of TP9 and location of TP9 is used (if it is retained on site), and the
metalliferous material from the for mer scrap yard area need to provide suitable landscaping soils across the
(HP4) opens up the possibility that site-won materials entire site, CUK has decided to control the quality and
being considered for reuse as landscaping soils may depth of site-won landscaping soil by enforcing the
contain har mful concentrations of phy totoxic metals. Specification for Soft Landscape Works which
accompanied CUK’s planning application.
HP4 - The material around HP4 cannot be removed
due to the need to safeguard the protected oak but
CUK are volunteering to cap the area of soft landscape
in the nor th-west corner of the site (around HP4 and
HP3) with the placement of a layer of impor ted topsoil
measuring a minimum of 150mm thick and a maximum
of 300mm thick over a geotex tile.
4.1.3 & PPL2b Potential Building Damage from Hazardous See PPL2a See PPL2a
4.3.3 Ground-Gases
Controlled Waters
4.2.1 PPL1c Potential Impact to Controlled Waters by Groundwater is not particularly sensitive at this No
PPL5b Contaminants in the Made Ground and Natural location. No underground tanks or other potential There is little evidence to suppor t a (regulatory)
Geology sources of ongoing pollution have been found. decision pointing to significant pollution of controlled
Potential Impact to Controlled Waters from Water quality directly beneath the site is relatively waters or significant possibility of such pollution, hence
Potential Weathered Hydrocarbons Associated good and bears very little evidence of the site’s former no reason to fur ther assess PPL1c and PPL5b.
with For mer and Current oil/Fuel Tanks. uses save for very slight traces of MTBE and PAH (not
site wide).
SLR
Care UK 21 402-02498-00011-0018
Human Health
4.3.1 PPL1a Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Given the hydrocarbon present in TP8 and the visual Yes.
Contaminants Entering Water Supply Pipework observation of hydrocarbon sheen on water within that When the route is better defined CUK’s contractor will
pit, SLR conclude that the piped connection between take account of UKWIR guidance, prepare a Site
the Thames Water main and care home cannot be Assessment Report and agree construction details
achieved in straightforward polyethylene pipework. including a suitably protective pipe material with
Thames Water: Details to be provided in Validation
Report.
4.3.2 PPL1a(i) Potential Harm to Human Health from exposure to HP3 Area: The results indicate that arsenic and Yes.
PPL5a contaminants in the Made Ground via inhalation, several PAH compounds exceed the GAC. HP3 Area - The material around HP4 cannot be
ingestion (direct) and der mal contact. HP1, HP2 & HP5 Area: The physical evidence and removed due to the need to safeguard the protected
Potential Harm to Health from Potential Weathered chemical evidence reveals that Made Ground, oak but CUK are volunteering to cap the area of soft
Hydrocarbons Associated with For mer Fuel Tank. approximately two-thirds of which contains landscape in the north-west corner of the site (around
benzo(a)pyrene exceeding the GAC, has already been HP3 and HP4) with the placement of a layer of
capped with 200-300mm of soil. Whilst not imported topsoil measuring a minimum of 150mm thick
“agricultural grade” those sur face soils have a good and a maximum of 300mm thick over a geotextile.
organic matter content and are a lready sustaining HP1, HP2 & HP5 Area: SLR recommend that the
many plants on the woodland floor – which is used by presence of Made Ground containing PAH 200mm to
wildlife (as discussed in the Habitat Reports submitted 300mm below ground level is recorded in the care
with CUK’s original application). SLR’s home’s Health and Safety File and that the manager
recommendation is that this small area which won’t ensure that landscape maintenance contractors adopt
for m par t of accessible landscaped gardens to the care methods of working and personal protective equipment
home (and is to be used as a wooded wildlife strip / which minimise exposure and protect health on the
visual amenity) should be left undisturbed. The health very infrequent occasions when digging is necessary.
risks to residents and nurses are judged insignificant,
whilst the risk to maintenance workers carrying out
occasional works is low - as they will very likely only be
exposed to the near sur face soils.
SLR
Care UK 22 402-02498-00011-0018
4.3.3 PPL2a Potential har m to human health from exposure to Based on the systems proposed by Wilson and Card, No.
hazardous ground-gases the gas regime has been deter mined as a Guidance given in CIRIA Repor t C665 recommends
Characteristic Situation 1. that ‘no special precautions’ are required with respect
(The outline geotechnical assessment contains a to Characteristic Situation 1.
recommendation for suspended floors. That type of
construction would incorporate voids beneath the floor
the majority of which will vent to atmosphere - fur ther
lowering the risk of har m / damage).
4.3.4 PPL3a-c Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Seven of the eight soils samples tested were free from TP4 No. Leaving the ACM pipe deep in the ground
Airborne Asbestos asbestos. Made Ground from TP2 and fragments of beneath the future building and robust patio is the least
pipe from nearby TP4, which are both in the for mer hazardous option as it minimises the potential for
scrap yard area, were found to contain asbestos. human exposure to asbestos, most notably in the
TP4 construction phase. The contractor must, however, be
The north end of TP4 is due to fall beneath the building made aware of the risks at this location and SLR
and a patio area. The land across this par t of the old recommends that a protocol for handling any
scrap yard is due to be raised to a building suspected ACM encountered within excavations (e.g.
commencement level of 100.050m AD (building) and foundation trenches, service trenches, etc) across the
100.23m AD (patio). This means that the pipe conduit for mer scrap yard area and locally to the nor th end of
debris will eventually be covered by approximately 1m TP4 is incorporated in the contractor’s Construction
to 1.2m of fill and 0.25m to 0.3m of floor or patio Phase Health and Safety Plan.
construction. TP2 Yes. It is proposed that the Made Ground in the
TP2 & Other Areas of Soft Landscape old scrap yard containing asbestos at TP2 is allowed
to remain in-situ beneath a significant soil cap that
The position of TP2 itself and land to the east will be
would break PPL3. The cap would give a general
turned into an accessible garden nor th of the care
ground level of 100.45m AD and be around 1.6m thick
home, the soft landscape is due to change in level in total
markedly and have a finished level of approximately
100.45m AD – some 1.58m higher than existing CUK will control the quality of site-won landscaping
ground. soils by enforcing the Specification for Soft Landscape
Wor ks which accompanied their planning application.
Site-won soils are to be proven to be free-from
asbestos and all topsoil (impor ted or site won) is to be
underlain by a geotex tile.
SLR
Care UK 23 402-02498-00011-0018
4.3.5 PPL4a-c Potential Harm to Human Health from Potential No potential soil suppliers identified at this time. Voluntary Preventative Action – in order to prevent the
Contaminants in Impor ted Landscaping Soils risks CUK will restrict the grow th of crops to imported
soils and control the quality of those soils by enforcing
the Specification for Soft Landscape Works which
accompanied their planning application. All topsoil
(impor ted or site won) is to be under lain by a
geotex tile.
4.4.1 PPL6 Potential Harm to Health or the Environment from - Further Assessment and Voluntary Remedial Works
Unidentified Contaminant Sources – Exposure may be needed if previously unidentified contaminant
Mechanism Unknown. sources ar ise.
SLR
Care UK 24 402-02498-00011-0018
4.1 Built Environment / Property
4.1.1 PPL 1b: Potential Damage to Buildings from Exposure to Aggressive Ground
Chemical analyses were carried out to determine the presence of sulphur and sulphates,
chloride and nitrate and acidic conditions which can result in the degradation and
decomposition of concrete by chemical attack. The laboratory results are presented in
Appendix F.
A sample was selected from each of the four boreholes which were located within the
proposed building footprint, and the samples tested covered soils from 1.2m to 3.6m bgl.
The laboratory testing has determined a low volume change potential and low levels of
soluble sulphate and weakly alkaline to weakly acid pH values within the shallow soils.
Comparison of the results with guideline values presented in BRE Special Digest 1 Concrete
in Aggressive Ground6 indicates that no special precautions are considered necessary for
concrete below ground level and a design sulphate class of DS-1 and an ACEC class of
AC-1 should be used.
4.1.2 PPL 1d: Potential Harm to Landscape Plants from Phytotoxic Elements in Made
Ground
The Planting Plan which accompanied CUK’s planning application, see Figure 1-1 on
Page 5, envisages landscaped gardens across those areas of the site which are not sealed
beneath the building or hard surfaces. The soft landscaping scheme includes several
existing trees, large numbers of ornamental plants, seven apple trees and two raised curved
planters for residents’ own planting. This section assesses the risks to landscape plants
from exposure to phytotoxic elements in Made Ground. Please note that the risks to the
apple trees and plants which will inhabit the two planters are not assessed here as those
trees / plants will be nourished by imported soil / compost the quality of which will be assured
by enforcing the Specification for Soft Landscape Works which also accompanied CUK’s
application - see Section 4.3.
SLR has compared the concentrations of the phytotoxic contaminants found on site to the
maximum permissible concentrations of zinc, copper and nickel set out on Table 1 of
BS3882:2007 Specification for Topsoil and Requirements for Use. Those criteria, displayed
in Table 4-2, vary by soil pH and are applicable to multipurpose and other topsoils with
specific purposes (e.g. acidic, low fertility and calcareous).
Table 4-2
Criteria for Phytotoxic Elements
pH Range 5.5-6. 0 6.0-7. 0 >7
Maximum permissible concentration Zinc 200 200 300
of metal extractable by nitric acid Copper 100 135 200
Nickel 60 75 110
6
Building Research Establishment Special Digest 1 - Concrete in Aggressive Ground, Third Edition,
2005.
SLR
Care UK 25 402-02498-00011-0018
For the most part, the sampling strategy for this PPL focussed on soils in the uppermost 1m
of the ground.
Locations HP1, HP2, and HP5 (in the south) are within a woodland area which is to be
retained, untouched, within the development.
Pits HP3 and HP4 (in the north west) are within the root protection area of the oak tree and
again should largely remain untouched by the development although a layer of landscaping
soil is to be placed as a surface dressing.
The sample taken from TP9 (from 0.5m below ground level) was collected and screened as
this area is to be lowered in elevation prior to the care home construction – and it is
anticipated that excavation arisings may be re-used on site.
Fourteen samples of Made Ground from across the site were tested. The pH ranged from
7.1 to 8.6, hence the criteria for >7 are most appropriate.
Nine of the samples, from BH1, BH2, HP1, HP2, HP3, TP1, TP5, TP7 and TP8, held
phytotoxic metal concentrations that were lower than the criteria. So, in general, Made
Ground exhibits phytotoxic metal concentrations that are acceptable. The paragraphs that
follow discuss the samples that held metal concentration higher than the criteria.
TP9
The log for TP9 includes included some clinker at 0.5m bgl within a layer of clayey Made
Ground which explains why the sample from that depth held 430mg/kg zinc and 130mg/kg
nickel – both concentrations exceeding the relevant criteria (copper was 170mg/kg). Tests
on the clay beneath the Made Ground reveal acceptable zinc and nickel concentrations.
The location, which will fall under the building, is due to be excavated to a construction
commencement level of approximately 100.05m AD – the excavation to reduce levels will
encounter the clinker.
HP4, TP2 and TP3
These locations (along with TP4) were positioned to investigate the former scrap yard area
where, at one time, cars were stacked. HP4 was dug by hand as it is within the root
protection area of an oak tree. (HP3 is also beneath the oak but is not within the former
scrap yard area; it is to the west of a wall and sits within a former garden area).
Relevant extracts of the logs are presented below alongside the concentrations of phytotoxic
metals. The concentration in bold exceed the maximum permissible criteria.
Even without the benefit of the chemical test results it is clear that metalliferous near surface
materials at HP4 and TP2, which do lie within proposed soft landscape areas, are not
suitable as landscaping soils. Tests on the clayey made ground (HP4) and clay (TP2)
samples taken from beneath the metalliferous materials revealed acceptable concentrations
of phytotoxic metals.
Material at TP3 marginally failed for zinc, whilst TP4 (not tested for metals) is unsuitable due
to the presence of asbestos – see Section 4.3.4.
SLR
Care UK 26 402-02498-00011-0018
Table 4-3
PPL1d Former Scrap Yard Area
Location Sample Depth Description Concentration in mg/kg
Copper Nickel Zinc
200 110 300
HP4 Ground level to MADE GROUND – 0m to 0.2m bgl: Vegetation over dark brown- 95 29 410
0.3m bgl grey slightly clayey SAND and GRAVEL with brick cobbles a nd
rare metalliferous waste. Gravel comprises fine to coarse
99.17m to brick, sandstone and limestone.
98.87m AD MADE GROUND – 0.2m to 0.25m bgl: Black to dark grey
slightly clayey SAND and GRAVEL with abundant
metalliferous waste. Gravel comprises fine to medium angular
brick.
MADE GROUND – 0.25m to 0.3m bgl: Light brown to grey
weakly cemented SAND and GRAVEL. Gravel comprises
limestone, sandstone and glass.
TP2 0.22m bgl MADE GROUND: Vegetation and leaf litter over dark brown- 640 190 3,100
black sandy, silty, clayey GRAVEL w ith metal and plastic
98.65m AD objects (car parts). Gravel comprises fine to medium,
occasionally coarse, angular to sub-angular crushed glass,
ceramics, clinker, plastic w ith occasional rounded non-
calcareous gravel.
TP3 0.55m bgl MADE GROUND: Firm, becoming soft to fir m, black CLAY with 99 50 350
occasional fine to medium occasionally coarse angular to sub-
99.23m AD rounded brick, slate, glass and cement gravel.
What the assessment above fails to mention is that ground levels will change as the
development if formed.
Future ground levels at TP2 and TP3 (and TP4) are due to rise to approximately
100.45m AD, meaning the materials tested are due to be covered by 1.58m (TP2) and
0.67m (TP3) of soil – this gives CUK the opportunity to provide a suitable depth and quality
of landscaping soils.
The development, taking account of advice from CDC’s Tree Officer, has been designed so
that ground levels beneath the oak tree are not change markedly. The levels within the
development have been designed to allow for up to 300mm of soil to be placed as surface
dressing across the root protection area. This means that the area of HP4, may be capped
by no more than 300mm of landscaping soil. Excavation would not be permitted within the
root protection area, in fact it will be fenced off during the entire construction period.
Scheme of Remediation: Voluntary Remedial Works & Preventative Actions
Given the need to control where clinker from the location of TP9 is used (if it is retained on
site), and the need to provide suitable landscaping soils across the entire site, CUK has
decided to volunteer remedial works around the location of HP4 and implement preventative
actions in recognition that in the absence of quality control mechanisms there is a chance
that site-won landscaping soils may contain phytotoxic metals at concentration harmful to
plants.
CUK are going to control the quality and depth of site-won landscaping soil by enforcing the
Specification for Soft Landscape Works which accompanied CUK’s planning application.
SLR
Care UK 27 402-02498-00011-0018
HP4
The material around HP4 cannot be removed due to the need to safeguard the protected
oak but CUK are volunteering to cap the area of soft landscape in the north-west corner of
the site (around HP4 and HP3) with the placement of a layer of imported topsoil measuring a
minimum of 150mm thick and a maximum of 300mm thick (the variation being allowed to
cope with the uneven current surface whilst not unduly loading the oak tree roots) as per
Clause 700. That imported topsoil will support the grass and bulbs planned for this area of
garden. Please note that the dimensions are for the depth of topsoil after settlement and
that the garden under the oak canopy is actually inaccessible to residents and provides
visual amenity only.
The imported topsoil cap will be placed on a non-woven geotextile as per Clause 550, to
prevent future mixing of ground horizons and the possible upward migration of contaminants
into the topsoil which will have been proven to be fit for purpose.
The area to be subject to capping is shown below in Figure 4-1 below. The green shaded
area which incorporates the root protection area is a straightforward cap which is to be
grassed and planted with bulbs (which need no more than 150mm depth of soil); the brown
shaded area is an extension of the cap but it thickens as the planted bed slopes up to meet
the retaining wall which supports the patio outside the care home.
Figure 4-1
Scheme of Remediation – “Oak Tree Garden”
SLR
Care UK 28 402-02498-00011-0018
Site Won Material at TP9 & Other Site Won Material being Considered for Reuse as
Landscaping Soil
The clinker material which will be encountered by the excavation to construction

commencement level around TP9, along with any other material being considered for reuse
as landscaping soil, will be checked for suitability in two ways.
Firstly, CUK will enforce Clause 670 which provides direction on contamination and says:
 General: Do not use topsoil contaminated with subsoil, rubbish or other

materials that are:
o Corrosive, explosive or flammable.
o Hazardous to human or animal life.
o Detrimental to healthy plant growth.
 Subsoil: In areas to receive topsoil, do not use subsoil contaminated with the
above materials.
 Give notice: If any evidence or symptoms of soil contamination are
discovered on the site, or in topsoil to be imported.
Secondly, site-won topsoil, in common with imported topsoil, is to be tested for compliance
with BS 3882:2007 7 as set out in Clause 340 of the Specification. That includes tests for
phytotoxic metals.
Although Table 1 of BS3882:2007 does require testing to confirm that soil is fit for its
proposed end use in terms of phytotoxicity, CUK is volunteering to provide CDC with specific
evidence that the chemical composition of any site won growing media / site won topsoil
used in the soft landscaping scheme is suitable for use. The developer or their
representative will:
 arrange for a UKAS and MCERTS accredited laboratory to test samples of the site-won
materials:
o at a rate of 1 test per 30m 3 (to be agreed with CDC); and for
o for a test suite comprising the three phytotoxic metals (and other CLEA metals,
speciated total petroleum hydrocarbons, speciated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
pH and soil organic matter – for human health risk compliance purposes – see
Section 4.3.5);
 arrange for additional samples (beyond those pre-agreed with CDC) to be collected and
tested should any uncertainty arise as to the quality of the material; and
 prepare and submit to CDC a Land Quality Validation Report to demonstrate that suitable
materials were placed - see Section 4.5.
CUK plan to appoint a suitable environmental consultant as soon as possible - certainly

before they or their representative begin using site-won sub-soil and topsoil in landscaping
work.
4.1.3 PPL 2b: Potential Building Damage from Hazardous Ground-Gases
PPL 2b is assessed in Section 4.3.3 in association with human health aspects.
7
SLR
Care UK 29 402-02498-00011-0018
4.2 Controlled Waters
PPL1c and PPL5b are assessed together.
4.2.1 PPL1c: Potential Impact to Controlled Waters by Contaminants in the Made

Ground and Natural Geology
PPL5b: Potential Impact to Controlled Waters from Potential Weathered

Hydrocarbons Associated with Former and Current Oil/Fuel Tanks.
The PLQRA listed PPL1c and PPL5b given the possibility for soluble contaminants and
weathered hydrocarbons to enter groundwater (surface water was considered too distant).
Groundwater was not viewed as being particularly sensitive, in fact:
 the underlying Lower Lias is classified as Unproductive Strata with low permeability;
 there are no potable groundwater abstractions within 1km of the Site; and
 there are no groundwater source protection zones within 500m of the Site.
Groundwater was encountered during the excavation of all the boreholes and TP1, TP3,
TP8b and TP10 8. Overall, groundwater flow direction is north-west, but SLR suspect that
the watertable is influenced to some degree by in-ground structures.
A slight hydrocarbon sheen was observed when water was struck in TP8b and TP3 (on top
of the clay). Importantly, no separate phase hydrocarbon was found within monitoring wells
during April 2014.
Four groundwater samples, obtained using a low flow peristaltic pump, were analysed for
pH, metals, PAH and TPH-CWG, with BH2 and BH4 also analysed for other SVOC and VOC
as those two wells targeted the locations of above ground fuel tanks. BH2 was drilled at the
location of an historic tank, and BH4 was drilled a few metres downgradient of a tank
observed during the PLQRA walkover.
As a first step it is considered appropriate to screen the groundwater chemistry results

against the most stringent water quality assessment criteria.
Table 4-4 overleaf screens the recorded concentrations for the various analytes against
referenced water quality assessment criteria (WQAC). Where test results exceed the
WQAC the value is in bold.
Where the result is a Non-Detect (ND) i.e. the result was lower than the method detection
limit, SLR is assigning a “pass” as, in reality, there is no strong evidence to suggest that the
pollutant is actually present within the groundwater – the laboratory did not detect it.
No SPH was detected and, importantly, no traces of MTBE or BTEX compounds or aliphatic
or aromatic hydrocarbons were detected.
Slight traces of MTBE were detected in BH2 (historic fuel tank) and BH3 (historic scrap yard)
but the concentrations found were 20-30 times lower than the WQAC.
8
Water was also encountered in TP4, although this is likely to have been from the adjacent drain
c.1m away.
SLR
Care UK 30 402-02498-00011-0018
Several metals, including mercury and chromium, fell below detection limits. The
concentrations of metals that were present are noted to be approximately an order of
magnitude below the WQAC.
Table 4-4:
Groundwater Chemistry (mg/l)
Pollutant WQAC Source Location
BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4
9
SPH Thickness Nil Nil Nil Nil
Cadmium , Total Chromium, ND ND ND ND
Hexavalent Chromium,
Copper, Mercury &
Selenium
Arsenic 0.05 UK FW EQS 0.0045 0.0027 0.0046 0.0053
Boron 1.0 UK DWS (2000) 0.19 0.23 0.39 0.26
Lead 0.0072 UK EQS ( WFD 2010) 0.0006 ND ND 0.0012
Nickel 0.02 UK EQS ( WFD 2010) 0.0042 0.0032 0.0051 0.0078
Zinc 0.125 UK EQS ( WFD 2010) 0.0023 ND 0.003 0.0032
Methyl Ter tiary Butyl Ether 0.015 Taste/odour threshold ND 0.00048 0.00075 ND
BTEX Compounds - - ND ND ND ND
Aliphatic & Aromatic - - ND ND ND ND
Hydrocarbons
VOC 10 - - Not tested ND Not Tested ND
Naphthalene 0.0024 UK EQS ( WFD 2010) 0.00005 ND ND ND
Acenaphthylene NA
11 - 0.00004 ND 0.00004 ND
Acenaphthene NA11 - ND ND 0.00002 ND
Fluorene NA11 - 0.00004 ND 0.00003 ND
Phenanthrene NA11 - 0.00002 ND 0.00003 ND
Anthracene 0.0001 UK EQS ( WFD 2010) ND ND 0.00002 ND
Fluoranthene 0.0001 UK EQS ( WFD 2010) ND ND 0.00022 ND
Pyrene NA11 - ND ND 0.0002 ND
Benzo(a)anthracene NA11 - ND ND 0.00003 ND
Chrysene NA11 - ND ND 0.00004 ND
Benzo(bk) fluoranthene 0.00003 UK EQS ( WFD 2010) ND ND 0.00002 ND
Benzo(a)pyrene , - - ND ND ND ND
Indeno(123cd)pyrene,
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene NA11 - ND ND 0.000014 ND
Other SVOC - - Not tested ND Not tested ND
The vast majority of priority PAH compounds, those with EQS, exhibited concentrations
either below detection or below EQS, with naphthalene and anthracene at only 1/ 50 of EQS.
One compound, fluoranthene, was found to be at less than 0.0005 mg/l in BH2 and BH4,
less than 0.000012 mg/l in BH1 but at 0.00022 mg/l in BH3. That single detection exceeds
the annual average EQS of 0.0001 mg/l by a factor of two, and falls below the maximum
9
Separate Phase Hydrocarbon
10
Other than MTBE
11
NA - Not A vailable as regulators have set EQS for individual priority PAH compounds only
SLR
Care UK 31 402-02498-00011-0018
allowable EQS of 0.001 mg/l by a factor of five. Overall, the identification of just one priority
PAH at low concentration in one of four boreholes is considered to be easily tolerable,
especially when the WQAC values chosen for the screening exercise adopt a highly
conservative approach to the protection of the water environment - meaning that they can
generally be exceeded by large margins before significant pollution is recognisable.
Three non-priority compounds were detected in BH1 whilst BH3 had seven. Concentrations
ranged from 0.00001 mg/l to 0.00004 mg/l and are unlikely to pose a risk.
Given that: a) groundwater is not particularly sensitive at this location; b) that no

underground tanks or other potential sources of pollution have been found; and c) that water
quality directly beneath the site (as judged from the results of samples collected during a
single low-flow monitoring event) is relatively good and bears very little evidence of the site’s
former uses save for very slight traces of MTBE and PAH (not site wide), SLR suggests that
there is currently little evidence to support a (regulatory) decision pointing to significant
pollution of controlled waters or significant possibility of such pollution, and no reason to
further assess PPL1c and PPL5b. Furthermore, no groundwater remediation is warranted.
Looking forward to the construction, CUK’s contractor should be aware that excavations may
encounter water perched within buried foundations, trapped in old pipework, etc. The
contactor should also note the content of Table 5-1 which discusses groundwater levels.
SLR
Care UK 32 402-02498-00011-0018
4.3 Human Health
4.3.1 PPL1a: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Contaminants

Entering Water Supply Pipework
This PPL concerns ground conditions along the route of all proposed water supply pipes.
In January 2011, UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) published "Guidance for the
Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be used in Brownfield Sites" (Ref 10/WM/03/21; the
‘UKWIR Guidance’). Its aim is to ensure that the correct materials are selected for water
pipes and components to be used below ground in brownfield sites to protect the quality of
drinking water whilst taking into account the service life of the water distribution system. (It
superseded the Water Regulations Advisory Scheme (WRAS) Information and Guidance
Note 9-04-03 “Laying Pipes in Contaminated Land” which has been withdrawn).
The UKWIR Guidance was supplemented in January 2014 by "Contaminative Land

Assessment Guidance" published by Water UK which includes a risk assessment procedure
for water pipes. The guidance is to be applied to greenfield and brownfield sites, but " where
greenfield sites are not affected by contamination a preliminary risk assessment will suffice".
The 2014 guidance gives some direction about when testing is needed, stating:
There are normally only three pathways by which contamination may come into
contact with water pipes. These are direct contact with the soil or backfill, an
excessive vapour phase or a contaminated groundwater regime. If none of these
conditions exist on site (adopting the source, pathway, receptor concept) then it
is likely that extended and/or targeted soil testing will not be required and a
simple risk assessment will suffice. For those sites where land may be affected
by contamination appropriate testing shall be undertaken on the materials within
which the pipes are to be laid, whether that be existing ground materials,
remediated materials or imported capping materials.
The first step is to considering the potential pathway whereby the new pipe makes direct
contact with contaminated soil or backfill.
Although the precise route of the new section of potable water pipe is unknown it is clear that
the care home supply will be tapped into the existing Thames Water main in North Bar
Place. That 90mm main actually terminates at a single hydrant in what will be the car park
outside the care home entrance after running between TP7 and TP8, see Table 4-5. Those
locations have been tested for the contaminants of concern as the new pipe will cross one or
the other as it enters the building (most likely TP8 as the southern section of the building
contains the kitchens).
SLR
Care UK 33 402-02498-00011-0018
Table 4-5
PPL1a – Likely Route of Potable Water Connection
Location Sample Description Notes
Represents
TP7 0.7m to 1.2m MADE GROUND: Slightly clayey SAND and GRAVEL with brick
bgl cobbles. Gravel comprises fine to coar se angular brick and
concrete.
99.48m AD to
99.98m AD Vapour – 0ppm
The pipe is likely to be laid
TP8 0.3m to 1.0m MADE GROUND: Firm light brown-yellow friable CLAY with at approximately 99.55m
bgl occasional gravel and rare, fine gravel grade carbonised AD .
inclusions. Gravel comprises fine to coarse angular slate and
99.73m AD to brick.
100.43m AD Hydrocarbon staining with sheen on water below 0.55m bgl
(100.18m AD)
Vapour - 1ppm
The contaminants relevant to water pipes are organic, as per Table 4-6, which is an extract
of the guidance and presents the site-specific results.
Table 4-6:
Guidance published by Water UK & Results from Most Likely Route
Test Group PE threshold (mg/kg) Metal Pipes / TP7 TP8
Testing Required? Barrier Pipe
Total VOCs Where Preliminary 0.5 Pass Not detected Not detected
Risk Assessment
Total BTEX & MTBE 0.1 Pass Not detected Not detected
(PRA) has identified
Total SVOCs (excluding PAHs land potentially 2 Pass 0.116 Not detected
and those substances marked affected by
with an * contamination
EC5-EC10 aliphatic and 2 Pass Not detected 0.25
aromatic hydrocarbons
EC10-EC16 aliphatic and 10 Pass Not detected 130.1
aromatic hydrocarbons >PE Threshold
EC16-EC40 aliphatic and 500 Pass Not detected 1,052
aromatic hydrocarbons >PE Threshold
Phenols* ( from SVOC analysis) 2 Pass Not detected Not detected
Cresols and chlor inated 2 Pass Not detected Not detected
phenols* (from SVOC analysis)
Ethers* Only where identified 0.5 Pass - -
Nitrobenzene* 0.5 Pass - -
Ketones* 0.5 Pass - -
Aldehydes* 0.5 Pass - -
Amines Fail Pass - -
Corrosive Conductivity, Redox Pass Note 1 pH 8.2 pH 7.2
and pH
Note 1: Wrapped steel, corrosive if pH<7 and conductivity > 400uS/cm. Wrapped ductile iron, corrosive if pH<5, Eh not
neutral and conductivity > 400uS/cm. Copper, corrosive if pH <5 or >8 and Eh positive
SLR
Care UK 34 402-02498-00011-0018
Given the hydrocarbon present in TP8 and the visual observation of h ydrocarbon sheen on
water within that pit, SLR must conclude that the piped connection between the Thames
Water main and care home cannot be achieved in straightforward polyethylene pipework.
CUK will break PPL1a and ensure the quality of drinking water by incorporating pipework
and fittings which will completely separate the potable supply from the surrounding ground.
The final selection of pipe and fittings is beyond the scope of this report and lies with CUK's
contractor who is responsible for both the design and construction, but it is clear that the
pipe it will either have to be PE Barrier Pipe or metal.
The contractor, after the route is better defined, will have to complete the procedure set out
on UKWIR guidance and prepare a Site Assessment Report, select pipe material and liaise
with:
Developer Services (Clean Water), Thames Water, Clearwater Court,
Vastern Road, Reading, RG1 8DB
Tel: 0845 850 2777
Email: developer.services@thameswater.co.uk
CUK or their representative will prepare and submit to CDC a Land Quality Validation Report
to demonstrate that suitable materials were used - see Section 4.5. The report will include
correspondence with Thames Water and details of the protective pipework used.
4.3.2 PPL1ai: Potential Harm to Human Health from exposure to contaminants in the
Made Ground via inhalation, ingestion (direct) and dermal contact
PPL5a Potential Harm to Health from Potential Weathered Hydrocarbons

Associated with Former Fuel Tank
PPLa1 addresses Mr Gregory’s comment about the need to consider the “Potential impact
from made ground on human receptors as a potential pollutant linkage, until further
justification for removal of this is provided”. It is fairly clear that Mr Gregory is looking for a
health risk assessment which considers a broad range of organic and inorganic
contaminants, hence SLR are assessing PPLai and PPL5 together (asbestos is dealt with
separately – see Section 4.3.4).
This section assesses the risks to health of the residents and workers from exposure to solid
phase contaminants in Made Ground. The potential exposure pathways are listed in
Table 4-7 overleaf.
SLR
Care UK 35 402-02498-00011-0018
Table 4-712:
Potential Human Exposure Pathways - Made Ground
Exposure Pathway Critical Medium
Ingestion of soil Soil
Ingestion of building dust Indoor dust
Ingestion of contaminated veget ables Vegetables
Ingestion of soil attached to vegetables Soil
Dermal contact with soil Soil
Dermal contact with building dust Indoor dust
Inhalation of fugitive soil dust Soil
Inhalation of fugitive building dust Indoor dust
The ingestion pathways concerning vegetables are not assessed here as apple trees and
any crops grown in the two planters for resident’s use will be nourished by imported soil /
compost the quality of which will be assured by enforcing the Specification for Soft
Landscape Works which also accompanied CUK’s application - see Section 4.3. No growth
of edible crops will be allowed aside from the apples and any produce grown in imported soil
within the pair of raised beds.
The pathways which remain concern ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of Made
Ground derived soil and soil dust. The opportunity for these pathways to operate is limited
to near surface / at surface areas of Made Ground within the future soft landscape.
The near surface / at surface materials forming the soft landscaped areas will either be:
 imported topsoil / compost; or
 site-won landscaping soils.
CUK will ensure that imported landscaping topsoil / compost and site-won landscaping soils
are suitable for use by enforcing the Specification for Soft Landscape Works which
accompanied their planning application. That voluntary action is protective of health and will
effectively mean that the soils forming the planted soft landscape are tested either before
being placed or once in position.
In theory there are only two areas of the site which may be untouched / untested following
implementation of the landscaping scheme:
 the narrow strip of the emergent woodland along the site’s southern boundary (HP1,
HP2 and HP5); and
 the land immediately beneath the protected oak tree which is within the triangle of land
in the site’s north-west corner (HP3).
HP1, HP2 & HP5 Area
At approximately 102.2m AD the area of landscape and emergent woodland is to be c. 1.7m

higher than the patio surrounding the care home. The area will not be used by residents and
access for maintenance is via a step of steps which will have a gate at their base.
12
This table was adapted from Defra Res earc h and Development Publication CLR 10: The
Cont aminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Model: Technical Basis and Algorithms.
SLR
Care UK 36 402-02498-00011-0018
This heavily vegetated area has 200mm to 300mm of reworked topsoil best described as
dark brown sandy silty clay with gravel of ironstone, sandstone or brick. The Made Ground
beneath is a brown, grey clay with occasional gravel of ironstone, sandstone, brick, concrete
clinker and slate.
This area was originally investigated by HP1 and HP2. These locations were supplemented
at a later date by HP1b and HP2b which were dug close to the original positions, and by
HP5 which was dug half way between the two original positions.
One sample from HP1 and HP2 were tested for metals, PAH and asbestos (both non-
detected), HP1 was also tested for MTBE plus aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon bands.
The original PAH analyses were repeated and are supplemented by six PAH suites across
HP1b, HP2b and HP5. Five locations in all.
Given the way in which this tree belt / wildlife strip is to be used (like the land around an
office or supermarket) the results have been screened against GAC (see Footnote 13)
relevant to a commercial land use where adults are the critical receptor. The cells shaded
red in Table 4-8, page 38 & 39, are in excess of the criteria, those in green indicate a
concentration above the limit of detection (LOD).
All results indicate that metals, aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, MTBE and BTEX
compounds are at acceptable concentrations.
Four PAH compounds have been found in excess of the GAC, however the key
contaminants are benzo(a)pyrene and dibenzo(ah)anthracene. The paragraphs below
discuss the concentration of these compounds in both the Made Ground and reworked
topsoil layer above.
Made Ground
The dibenzo(ah)anthracene GAC is 13mg/kg and these results represent the Made Ground
which is 200mm to 300mm below ground level:
 HP1 – 16 & 8.5 mg/kg;
 HP1b – 0.27 mg/kg;
 HP2 – 2.2 & <2 mg/kg;
 HP2b – 0.52 mg/kg; and
 HP5 – 5.8 mg/kg.
One of the seven results and one of the five locations (HP1) exceed the GAC.
The benzo(a)pyrene GAC is 14mg/kg and these results represent the Made Ground
 HP1 – 110 & 73 mg/kg;
 HP1b – 2.6 mg/kg;
 HP2 – 14 & 16 mg/kg;
 HP5 – 56 mg/kg.
Four of the seven results and three of the five locations exceed the GAC. The average is
over the GAC too but only by a factor of 2.8.
SLR
Care UK 37 402-02498-00011-0018
Reworked Topsoil – Ground level to 0.2m bgl
The benzo(a)pyrene GAC is 14mg/kg and these three results represent the reworked topsoil
in the uppermost 200mm of ground:
 HP1b – 3.7 mg/kg;

 HP5 – 17 mg/kg.
Two out of three fall well below the GAC for benzo(a)pyrene, the third is just 1.2 x GAC and
the average of 7.8 mg/kg is around half of the GAC.
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene concentrations of 0.39, 0.28 and <2 mg/kg fall well below the GAC
of 13 mg/kg.
Overall
The physical evidence and chemical results discussed above indicate that the Made Ground
has already been capped with soil. Whilst not “agricultural grade” those surface soils have a
good organic matter content and are already sustaining many plants on the woodland floor –
which is used by wildlife (as discussed in the Habitat Reports submitted with CUK’s original
application).
On balance, SLR’s recommendation is that this small area which won’t form part of
accessible landscaped gardens to the care home (and is to be used as a wooded wildlife
strip / visual amenity) should be left undisturbed. The health risks to residents and nurses
are judged insignificant, whilst the risk to maintenance workers carrying out occasional
works is low - as they will very likely only be exposed to the near surface soils. To protect
against the very infrequent occasions when digging is necessary, SLR further recommend
that the presence of Made Ground containing PAH 200mm to 300mm below ground level is
recorded in the care home’s Health and Safety File and that the manager ensure that
landscape maintenance contractors adopt a suitable methods of working with appropriate
personal protective equipment.
SLR
Care UK 38 402-02498-00011-0018
Table 4-8:
Results from HP1 etc v Generic Health Risk Assessment Criteria (Commercial)
Sample ID HP1 HP1 HP1B HP1B HP2 HP2 HP2B HP2B HP5 HP5
Depth to sample (mbgl) 0.3 0.3 0.00-0.20 0.20-0.35 0.3-0.55 0.3-0.55 0.00-0.25 0.25-0.40 0.00-0.20 0.20-0.35
Repeat repeat
Test Units LOD Selected GAC No. Above GAC
Arsenic mg/kg <0.5 640 0 50 - - - 45 - - - - -
Cadmium mg/kg <0.1 348 0 <0.1 - - - <0.1 - - - - -
Hexav alent Chromium mg/kg <0.3 35 0 <0.3 - - - <0.3 - - - - -
Chromium mg/kg <0.5 30400 0 79 - - - 86 - - - - -
Copper mg/kg <1 71700 0 36 - - - 39 - - - - -
Lead mg/kg <5 2330 0 230 - - - 200 - - - - -
Mercury mg/kg <0.1 3600 0 0.59 - - - 0.33 - - - - -
Nickel mg/kg <0.7 1800 0 37 - - - 32 - - - - -
Selenium mg/kg <1 13000 0 1.6 - - - 1.3 - - - - -
Zinc mg/kg <5 665000 0 170 - - - 160 - - - - -
Naphthalene mg/kg <0.04 200 0 5.9 4.6 0.15 0.095 0.9 <2.00 0.094 0.21 <2.00 3.2
Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.03 84000 0 41 22 0.93 0.73 5.5 5.6 0.63 1.4 6.6 16
Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.05 85000 0 7.2 <2.50 0.082 0.068 0.49 <2.50 <0.05 0.12 <2.50 <2.50
Fluorene mg/kg <0.04 64000 0 33 13 0.29 0.2 2.9 2.9 0.13 0.53 <2.00 7.3
Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.03 22000 0 240 160 4.5 3.5 31 42 2 6.6 31 90
Anthracene mg/kg <0.04 530000 0 80 46 1.5 1.2 12 13 0.92 2.3 10 30
Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.03 23000 0 310 210 8.6 6 38 44 5.4 13 60 160
Py rene mg/kg <0.03 54000 0 240 160 6.7 4.7 29 33 4.3 10 50 130
Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg <0.06 90 2 130 95 4.2 3 22 23 3.8 7.1 36 79
Chrysene mg/kg <0.02 140 0 130 86 4.1 2.8 17 22 2.7 6.3 27 77
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.07 200 120 6.4 4.2 26 26 4.4 9.7 36 100
Benzo(a)py rene mg/kg <0.04 14 5 110 73 3.7 2.6 14 16 2.8 6.3 17 56
Indeno(123cd)py rene mg/kg <0.04 60 0 47 33 2 1.3 7.2 7.4 1.3 2.7 9.6 26
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg <0.04 13 1 16 8.5 0.39 0.27 2.2 <2.00 0.28 0.52 <2.00 5.8
SLR
Care UK 39 402-02498-00011-0018
Sample ID HP1 HP1 HP1B HP1B HP2 HP2 HP2B HP2B HP5 HP5
Depth to sample (mbgl) 0.3 0.3 0.00-0.20 0.20-0.35 0.3-0.55 0.3-0.55 0.00-0.25 0.25-0.40 0.00-0.20 0.20-0.35
Repeat repeat
Test Units LOD Selected GAC No. Above GAC
Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg <0.04 650 0 42 26 1.6 1.1 6.2 6.4 1.3 2.7 9 23
Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.05 100 1 140 86 4.6 3 19 19 3.2 7 26 72
Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.02 140 0 56 34 1.8 1.2 7.3 7.3 1.2 2.7 10 28
Methy l Tertiary Buty l Ether mg/kg <0.006 7900 0 <0.006 - - - - - - - - -
Toluene mg/kg <0.003 869 0 0.0065 - - - - - - - - -
Ethylbenzene mg/kg <0.003 518 0 <0.003 - - - - - - - - -
m & p Xylene mg/kg <0.004 576 0 <0.004 - - - - - - - - -
o-Xy lene mg/kg <0.004 576 0 <0.004 - - - - - - - - -
Aliphatic >C5-C6 mg/kg <0.1 3400 0 <0.1 - - - - - - - - -
Aliphatic >C12-C16 mg/kg <4 61000 0 <4 - - - - - - - - -
Aromatic >EC5-EC7 mg/kg <0.1 28000 0 <0.1 - - - - - - - - -
Aromatic >EC12-EC16 mg/kg <4 36000 0 47 - - - - - - - - -
Organic Matter % <0.2 - 9.8 8.8 6.4 - 4.8 8.4 9.8 21 11
pH pH units <0.01 - 0 8.3 - - - 8.4 - - - - -
SLR
Care UK 40 402-02498-00011-0018
HP3 Area
When reading this section please note that CUK have volunteered to cap this area (and area
around HP4) as a precaution against PPL1d, see Section 4.1.2 and Figure 4-1.
The north-west corner of the site is dominated by a protected oak tree. Currently the land
beneath the oak is divided by a wall. The land to the west of the wall seems to have been
used as garden, whilst land to the east formed part of the scrap yard area.
This assessment has collected samples from HP3, the old garden area. The uppermost
300mm of ground in HP3 is described as follows: Made Ground - vegetation over brown to
dark brown sandy silty gravelly clay with occasional roots and rootlets. Gravel comprises fine
to medium sub-angular to sub-rounded limestone, brick and sandstone.
One sample from ground level to 0.3m bgl in HP3 was tested for metals, PAH and asbestos
(non-detect). The PAH analyses were repeated on SLR’s instruction; a second sub-sample
from the jar was used.
The results have been screened against generic assessment criteria13 (GAC) relevant to a
residential land use with no intake of home grown crops. The cells shaded red in Table 4-9
below are in excess of the criteria, those in green indicate a concentration above the limit of
detection (LOD).
Table 4-9:
Results from HP3 v Generic Health Risk Assessment Criteria
(Residential with No Crop Intake)
Test Units LOD Selected GAC Original Analysis ( mg/kg) Repeat PAH Analysis (mg/kg)
Arsenic mg/kg <0.5 35 64 -

Cadmium mg/kg <0.1 3 <0.1 -
Hexavalent Chromium mg/kg <0.3 4.3 <0.3 -
Chromium mg/kg <0.5 3000 95 -
Copper mg/kg <1 2330 33 -
Lead mg/kg <5 310 130 -
Mercury mg/kg <0.1 240 0.36 -
Nickel mg/kg <0.7 130 34 -
Selenium mg/kg <1 600 1.3 -
13
T he generic risk assessment criter ia are drawn from several sources of guidance, some from non-statutory guidance and
some infor mal. SLR uses a combination of assessment criteria that are currently available to assist in the screening of soil
data prior to deter mining whether further action is required. The following assessment criteria have been used for the
assessment of contaminant levels in soil:
 Soil Guideline Values (SGV’s) – since March 2002, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
and the Environment Agency have been involved in publishing a series of reports that provide a scientifically based
framework for the assessment of risks to human health from land contamination;
 LQM/CIEH – Land Quality Management and the Char tered Institute of Environmental Health have published GACs
derived following CLR technical guidance and using the Environment Agency’s CLEA U K model; and
 SLR’s own in-house screening criter ia derived following CLR technical guidance using the CLEA UK model, and
 CLAIRE / AGS / EIC – these institutions have published publically available GACs der ived following CLR technical
guidance and using the Environment Agency’s CLEA UK model
SLR
Care UK 41 402-02498-00011-0018
Test Units LOD Selected GAC Original Analysis ( mg/kg) Repeat PAH Analysis (mg/kg)
Zinc mg/kg <5 3750 150 -

Naphthalene mg/kg <0.04 1.5 2.2 <2.00
Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.03 170 9.7 4.9
Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.05 210 <1.00 <2.50
Fluorene mg/kg <0.04 160 5.2 <2.00
Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.03 92 62 33
Anthracene mg/kg <0.04 2300 19 8.3
Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.03 260 87 44
Pyrene mg/kg <0.03 560 71 37
Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg <0.06 3.1 38 23
Chrysene mg/kg <0.02 6 36 23
Benzo(bk) fluoranthene mg/kg <0.07 49 29
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg <0.04 0.83 31 18
Indeno(123cd)pyrene mg/kg <0.04 3.2 16 9
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg <0.04 0.76 3.4 <2.00
Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg <0.04 44 14 8.6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.05 5.6 35 21
Benzo(k) fluoranthene mg/kg <0.02 8.5 14 8.1
Organic Matter % <0.2 - 11
The results indicate that arsenic and several PAH compounds exceed the GAC. And, whilst
the repeat PAH analyses are lower a number of compounds were proven to exceed the
GAC.
Whilst arguments could be made for the use of GAC appropriate to commercial land (as the
GAC used above is protective of children rather than the adult care home residents and
workers), these would be futile as the benzo(a)pyrene concentrations which were 31mg/kg in
the original analysis and 18mg/kg in the repeat analysis are higher than the GAC for a
commercial development (14mg/kg).
HP3 Area
Whilst it may be possible to show that the soils under the tree are not a health risk via a
detailed quantitative risk assessment (focussed on exposure frequency and duration, etc)
CUK are offering to extend the landscaping works across this area and place a layer of
imported topsoil over the existing ground – SLR has advised that placement of a 150mm to
300mm soil cap is probably more economic than DQRA, will provide better amenity, and that
capping will avoid the complication of digging in the root protection area of the protected oak.
Details of the works and validation have already been set out in Section Section 4.1.2 and
Figure 4-1.
SLR
Care UK 42 402-02498-00011-0018
4.3.3 PPL2a: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Hazardous Ground-
Gases
PPL 2b: Potential Building Damage from Hazardous Ground-Gases
Monitoring wells were installed in four boreholes which spanned the footprint of the care
home building. Ground gas concentrations and flows in those wells and fifth “existing well”
discovered on site were monitored on three occasions in April 2014.
This section considers the monitoring data available to date and puts forward an assessment
of the ground gas regime at the site which takes account of its future residential land use,
and provides recommendations for the level of protective measures necessary.
The following semi-quantitative assessment of potentially hazardous soil gases and

recommended mitigation measures to protect buildings and their occupants is based on the
guidance provided within:
 CIRIA Report C665, Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings,
2007;
 NHBC Report, Guidance on evaluation of development proposals on sites where
methane and carbon dioxide are present, March 2007;
 British Standard BS8485:2007, Code of Practice for the Characterisation and
Remediation from Ground Gas Affected Developments, 2007; and
 The Local Authority Guide to Ground Gas, CIEH, September 2008.
We also consider health risks with reference to Waste Management Paper No. 27 by the
Department of the Environment and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
Waste Management Paper No. 27 states that a concentration of greater than 1% methane in
a confined space is considered hazardous to health as the methane can act as an
asphyxiant when oxygen is depleted. The same paper states that carbon dioxide is a hazard
to health at 1.5% by volume in air. The HSE set a workplace long-term exposure limit (i.e. an
8-hour time weighted average reference period) of 30ppm for carbon monoxide and 5ppm
for hydrogen sulphide.
Site Characterisation
Tier 1
Methane concentrations have not been recorded above the Waste Management Paper No.
27 trigger levels.
Carbon dioxide levels were proven to exceed the trigger level on at least one occasion in all
but the existing well with a maximum recorded value of 8.2% in BH4.
Carbon monoxide was not recorded above 3ppm, while hydrogen sulphide was not detected.
The maximum borehole gas flow rate (0.2l/hr in BH3) is considered negligible, as is the
maximum borehole gas pressure (66Pa in BH1).
Organic vapour concentrations were measured too, these were found to be very low with the
maximum reading being 2.9ppm in BH4. Headspace readings dropped to 0ppm by the third
round of monitoring.
Given the above, the carbon dioxide concentrations recorded at the site require further
consideration in association with the, albeit negligible, positive flow rates – Tier 2.
SLR
Care UK 43 402-02498-00011-0018
Tier 2
There are currently two main methods by which consultants can determine ground gas
regimes; the method selected is dependent on the form of development. Proposals by
Wilson and Card (1999) are applicable to “Situation A” sites which include all development
and foundation types with the exception of those associated with conventional low-rise
housing (three storeys or less). For low-rise housing, “Situation B”, it is appropriate to use
proposals published by the NHBC (2007). The NHBC method assumes a residential
construction (excluding flats and apartments) with a footprint of 8m by 8m, with a suspended
floor slab and vented under floor void (minimum 150mm). Where low-rise housing is
proposed, but the building footprint differs from the area assumed in the published NHBC
Gas Screening Values, the NHBC Gas Screening Values can still be employed as it has
been shown that changes in the building footprint area do not change the Gas Screening
Values.
The proposed redevelopment is akin to flats or apartments; hence the site has been
classified as a Situation A type, with the gas regime to be based on the system proposed by
Wilson and Card.
Using the maximum recorded gas value (8.2% carbon dioxide – BH4) and the maximum flow
rate (0.2 l/hr – BH3) the Gas Screening Value (GSV) has been calculated as: 0.082 x 0.2 =
0.0164 l/hr (GSV)
A Gas Screening Value of 0.0164 l/hr represents a “Very Low” hazard potential gas regime
for the site as defined by BS8485:2007 14 and CIRIA C665 (excerpts of the guidance tables
referred to are provided in Appendix G). However, the guidance recommends that where
additional risk factors are present (i.e. typical carbon dioxide concentrations equal to or
greater than 5%), consideration should be given to increasing the risk ranking to ‘Low Risk’.
In this situation carbon dioxide concentrations were below 5%v/v within BH4 (i.e. the only
well to exceed 5%v/v) on two of the three monitoring occasions with concentrations of
1.8%v/v and 3.7%v/v. Furthermore, given the lack of significant flow rates and borehole gas
pressure (i.e. borehole flow rates in BH4 were found to be negative or neutral), it is unlikely
that a concentration of 8.2%v/v would be emitted at the surface; let alone be able to migrate
into the building.
Based on the above, the gas regime for the site has been determined as a Characteristic
Situation 1 15 Very Low Risk, which seems appropriate as typical source stated in CIRIA
C665 include “Natural soils with low organic content” and “Typical Made Ground”.
Having ascertained the Characteristic Situation for the Site, appropriate gas protection
measures should be selected for the buildings. A guide to the relative performances of the
various types of design and systems available are provided in BS8485:2007. G iven the gas
regime and risk factors, a preliminary Gas Protection Guidance Value of “0” has been
selected from BS8485:2007 – the “0” is for public buildings 16, which includes managed
apartments, schools and hospitals. The following gas protection measures have been
selected to achieve the required level of gas protection as described in BS8485:2007.
Excerpts of the guidance tables referred to are provided in Appendix G.
14
Table 1 (Page 9), BS8485:2007
15
Table 8.5 (Page 88), CIRIA C665.
16
Tables 2/3 (Page 10/12), BS8485:2007)
SLR
Care UK 44 402-02498-00011-0018
Conclusion & Preliminary Recommendations for Protective Measures
Three gas monitoring visits have been completed. Although concentrations of carbon
dioxide were recorded above trigger levels, significant concentrations of methane, carbon
monoxide, hydrogen sulphide and total organic vapours have not been recorded.
Furthermore, no significant gas flow rates or gas pressures have been recorded.
Based on the systems proposed by Wilson and Card, the gas regime has been determined
as a Characteristic Situation 1. Guidance given in CIRIA Report C665 recommends that ‘no
special precautions’ are required with respect to Characteristic Situation 1 17.
Although no formal remedial work is being recommended, the outline geotechnical

assessment (Section 5) does contain a recommendation that suspended floors be adopted
rather than ground bearing floor slabs. That type of construction will bring about voids
beneath the floor the majority of which vent to the atmosphere (further lowering the risk of
potential harm / damage).
Given this assessment, SLR must conclude that potential pollutant linkages 2a&b are
unlikely to be significant and that there is very low potential for hazardous ground gases to
cause significant harm to human health and / or property damage. SLR does not expect the
Planning Authority to require any further assessment or formal remedial action relating to
ground-gas.
4.3.4 PPL3a-c: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Airborne Asbestos
For the most part, the sampling strategy for this PPL focussed on gauging the asbestos
content of soils in the uppermost 0.5m of the ground in areas which will form gardens to the
care home. Eight locations were chosen to give a site-wide spread of samples.
Locations HP1, HP2, HP3 and HP4 are within tree root protection areas and the ground
should remain untouched by the development (although the area around HP3 and HP4 will
be capped – see Section 4.1.2). The sample taken from TP9 (from 0.5m below ground
level) was collected and screened as this area is to be lowered in elevation prior to the care
home construction – and the excavated soil may be re-used on site. TP1, TP2 and TP5 are
in due to be in gardens areas (rather than under the building).
Of the eight soil samples only that from TP2 was found to contain asbestos. TP2 was
positioned to investigate the former scrap yard area and the chysotile form of asbestos was
detected.
The only fragment of possible asbestos containing material (ACM) spotted by SLR during
the ground investigation was in demolition rubble near to TP2 in the north end of TP4. That
sample proved to be insulating board containing chrysoltile and amosite forms of asbestos.
More detail is provided in Table 4-10 overleaf.
17
Table 8.6 (Page 90), CIRIA C665
SLR
Care UK 45 402-02498-00011-0018
Table 4-10
PPL3a-c Former Scrap Yard Area
Location Sample Description Asbestos
Represents
TP2 Ground level MADE GROUND: Vegetation and leaf litter over dark brown-black Chrysotile detected,
to 0.22m bgl sandy, silty, clayey GRAVEL with metal and plastic objects (car quantifiable.
parts). Gravel comprises fine to medium, occasionally coarse,
98.87m AD to angular to sub-angular crushed glass, ceramics, clinker, plastic with
98.65m AD occasional rounded non-calcareous gravel.
TP4 0.32m bgl Suspected asbestos pipe conduit within MADE GROUND: Yellow Chrysotile & Amosite
to light yellow coarse SAND with brick cobbles and metal. detected,
99.05m AD quantifiable in board
debris.
TP4
The north end of TP4 is due to fall beneath the building and a patio area. The land across
this part of the old scrap yard is due to be raised to a building commencement level of
100.050m AD (building) and 100.23m AD (patio). This means that the pipe conduit debris
will eventually be covered by approximately 1m to 1.2m of fill and 0.25m to 0.3m of floor or
patio construction. Leaving the ACM pipe deep in the ground beneath the building and
robust patio is the least hazardous option as it minimises the potential for human exposure
to asbestos, most notably in the construction phase. The contractor must, however, be
made aware of the risks at this location and SLR recommends that a protocol for handling
any suspected ACM encountered within excavations (e.g. foundation trenches, service
trenches, etc) across the former scrap yard area and locally to the north end of TP4 is
incorporated in the contractor’s Construction Phase Health and Safety Plan.
TP2 & Other Areas of Soft Landscape
Land at TP2 currently has a ground level of 98.87m AD.
The position of TP2 itself and land to the east will be turned into an accessible garden north
of the care home, the soft landscape is due to change in level markedly and have a finished
level of approximately 100.45m AD – some 1.58m higher than existing ground. That land
raise will provide a relative flat garden for residents at approximately the same level as the
nearby patio which is to be built at 100.48m AD.
The land just to the west of the position of TP2, in the north-west corner of the site
containing the oak, will be turned into a garden which is not assessable to residents and is
due to be capped with geotextile and 150mm to 300mm of imported topsoil – see
Section 4.1.2.
It is proposed that the Made Ground in the old scrap yard containing asbestos at TP2 is
allowed to remain in-situ beneath a significant soil cap that would break PPL3. The cap
would give a general ground level of 100.45m AD and be around 1.6m thick in total and
comprise:
 approximately 1.45m of fill / subsoil and 0.15m of imported topsoil - grassed areas; or
 approximately 1.15m of fill / subsoil and 0.45m of topsoil – shrub planting beds (with
these areas to be 75mm higher than adjoining grass areas)
SLR
Care UK 46 402-02498-00011-0018
as per landscape specification Clause 700. Also note that as a minimum the uppermost
300mm of the landscape beds will be formed in imported topsoil (the lower 150mm may be
formed in site-won topsoil proven to be suitable for use), and that the dimensions are for the
depth of topsoil after settlement.
All topsoil (imported or site won) is to be underlain by a non-woven geotextile as per Clause
550, to prevent future mixing of ground horizons and the possible upward migration of
asbestos fibres (and other contaminants) into the topsoil which will have been proven to be
fit for purpose.
The old scrap yard area to be subject to this robust capping is illustrated below in Figure 4-2
shaded in pale brown.
Figure 4-2
Scheme of Remediation – “Northern Garden”
(The remedial capping will also deal with risks presented by metalliferous materials in the
vicinity of TP2 – see Section 4.1.2 concerning PPL 1d: Potential Harm to Landscape Plants
from Phytotoxic Elements in Made Ground).
The area of land shaded green, beyond the old scrap yard, which has an existing ground
level of around 100.5m AD and a future ground level of around 100.45m to 100.5m AD has
not been found to contain asbestos but will be subject to some excavation and placement of
a (thinner) soil cap as the soft landscape is constructed.
Site Won Material being Considered for Reuse as Landscaping Soil
As set out in Section 4.1.2, CUK are going to control the quality and depth of site-won
landscaping soil by enforcing the Specification for Soft Landscape Works which
accompanied CUK’s planning application. Any material being considered for reuse as
landscaping soil, will be checked for suitability in two ways.
Firstly, CUK will enforce Clause 670 which provides direction on contamination and says:

materials that are:
SLR
Care UK 47 402-02498-00011-0018

above materials.
Secondly, site-won topsoil, in common with imported topsoil, is to be tested for compliance
with BS 3882:2007 as set out in Clause 340 of the Specification.
proposed end use, CUK is volunteering to provide CDC with specific evidence that any site
won growing media / site won topsoil used in the soft landscaping scheme is free from
asbestos. The developer or their representative will:
 arrange for a laboratory to screen test samples of the site-won materials:

o at a rate of 1 test per 30m 3 (to be agreed with CDC); and for
materials were placed - see Section 4.5.
Note: in practise the test suite will comprise asbestos screening, the three phytotoxic metal
and other CLEA metals, speciated total petroleum hydrocarbons, speciated polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, pH and soil organic matter – for human health risk compliance
purposes – see Section 4.3.5.

before they or their contractor begins using site-won sub-soil and topsoil in landscaping
work.
If appointed, SLR will use Jones Environmental Forensics Limited of Deeside for laboratory
services. Asbestos fibre screening / asbestos identification will be carried out under ISO
17025 and HSG 248. Asbestos quantification, if needed, will adopt a Phased Contrast
Microscopy (PCM) approach and discriminating techniques as outlined in HSE contract
report 83/96.
SLR recommends that the chance discovery of suspected ACM anywhere on site is
managed via PPL6 and Condition 21.
4.3.5 PPL4a-c: Potential Harm to Human Health from Potential Contaminants in

Imported Landscaping Soils
It should be noted that the care home will have communal gardens which will be maintained
by a landscape contractor. The vast majority of the proposed planting is ornamental, but
CUK would like their residents to have, in Mr Gregory’s words, “...the possibility of gardening
and growing some of their own vegetables as recreational activities...”. Given the land
available, however, and the fact that this home will care for frail elderly residents the
opportunities for edible crop growth are to be severely restricted. The Planting Plan which
accompanied CUK’s planning application includes only seven apple trees (Bramley’s, Cox’s
Orange Pippin, James Grieve) along the site’s northern boundary and two raised curved
planters for residents’ own planting on its eastern boundary. The site’s management will not
allow edible crops to be grown elsewhere.
SLR
Care UK 48 402-02498-00011-0018
Given that:
 the trees are to be planted in imported soil;

 the curved planters (which could be used for vegetables) are to be filled with imported soil
/ compost;
 patio troughs are to be filled with imported soil / compost; and
 other shrub planting beds (beyond those subject to remedial capping set out above) are
to be filled created with imported soil / compost
CUK has decided to volunteer preventative actions to deal with this PPL in recognition that in
the absence of quality control mechanisms there is a chance that imported topsoil and
compost may contain contaminants known to be harmful to health. The actions being
offered are designed to prevent residents and staff from being exposed to contaminants
either directly, for example by touching soils placed in planters / trough / beds, or indirectly
via the consumption of produce grown in the imported soil.
Figure 4-3
Scheme of Remediation – Curved Planters, etc
CUK are going to control the quality of imported soil / compost by enforcing the Specification
for Soft Landscape Works which accompanied CUK’s planning application.
In terms of quality, imported topsoil is to be tested for compliance with BS 3882:2007, and
compost tested against BSI PAS100 as set out in Clauses 340 and 355 of the Specification.
Clause 660 of that document also requires sample loads of not less than 5m 3 to be provided
for inspection in advance of the bulk delivery, with the sample being retained for comparison
Clause 670 provides further advice on contamination and says:

materials that are:
SLR
Care UK 49 402-02498-00011-0018

above materials.
Clause 700 sets out how the sub-soil should be prepared and placed to a level allowing the
later addition of:
 150mm of topsoil – grassed areas; and

 450mm of topsoil – shrub planting areas.
(Note: in shrub planting areas the uppermost 300mm of soil will be imported as a minimum -
the lower 150mm could be site-won topsoil provided it has been tested and proven suitable
as set out elsewhere in this document).
Clause 505D deals with tree pits which are expected to be a minimum of 1,200mm diameter
and 1,000 mm deep or allow 300mm clearance between the rootball and the edge of the pit.
As an additional safeguard CUK are offering to:
 line all tree pits with a non-woven geotextile as per Clause 550; and
 place a non-woven geotextile as per Clause 550 beneath the imported (or site won)
topsoil
to prevent future mixing of topsoil with the surrounding or underlying ground.
proposed end use, CUK is volunteering to provide CDC with specific evidence that any
imported soil / compost used in the soft landscaping scheme suitable for use. The developer
or their representative will:
 arrange for a laboratory to test the Clause 660 sample load(s);

 arrange for imported soils placed in their final position to be sampled and tested:
o at a rate of 1 test per 50m 3 (to be agreed with CDC); and
imported materials were placed - see Section 4.5.
The test suite will comprise asbestos screening, the three phytotoxic metal and other CLEA
metals, speciated total petroleum hydrocarbons, speciated polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, pH and soil organic matter.
The chemical acceptability criteria are to mirror the generic criteria used in this document.

before they or their representative buy sub-soil and topsoil and carry out landscaping work.
SLR
Care UK 50 402-02498-00011-0018
4.4 Unidentified Sources – Condition 21
4.4.1 PPL 6: Potential Risks to Health or the Environment from Unidentified Sources
CDC has use a planning condition, Condition 21 – see Section 1.1, whereby the developer
must set forward voluntary additional measures to deal with any contamination (beyond that
contamination previously identified) encountered as part of the redevelopment. In practise,
should the developer encounter potentially hazardous materials work should cease and the
matter be referred to an appropriate environmental consultant.
Any remedial actions should be agreed with CDC and recorded in the Land Quality
Validation Report - see Section 4.5.
4.5 Land Quality / Remedial Works Validation Report - Condition 20
Any remedial works will follow a period of liaison with CDC in which final details of the
remedial scheme will be agreed. CDC may or may not want to be informed of progress
during the remedial works, but the regulator will require a report shortly after the remedial
works are complete – as per Condition 21 – see Section 1.1. The Land Quality Validation
Report, which should be submitted to CDC with an application to discharge Condition 20,
should:
 set out which organisations have been responsible for implementing and supervising the
remedial works (any environmental consultant used should be suitably experienced and
operate under an externally accredited quality assurance scheme e.g. ISO9001).
 provide the results of any inspection for contaminants and the remedial scheme;
 provide details for the suppliers (of imported soils)
 provide products details including manufacturer’s name for geotextiles and water pipes ;
 present chemical test certificates from the topsoil supplier;
 make reference to the health risk assessment carried out and the scope of quality
assurance works agreed with CDC (criteria & frequencies);
 present the results of laboratory tests on imported / site won materials showing that:
o the rate agreed with CDC was observed; and that
o the analysis suite* agreed by CDC was carried out;
 present the results of any additional testing (beyond that agreed with CDC);
 demonstrate that quality assurance procedures relevant to soil sampling, storage and
testing were complied with (including the use of accredited laboratories and, where
possible, the use of MCERTS testing methods);
 form a record of the remedial activities (and any changes to the remedial design) using
as-built drawings, progress photographs, hand pits to prove the presence of geotextile,
etc; and
 set out any additional remedial measures volunteered to deal with contamination (beyond
that identified herein) encountered as part of the redevelopment.
*SLR propose that the chemical acceptability criteria are to mirror the generic criteria used in
this document, and that no asbestos is to be detected in samples screened for asbestos.
SLR
Care UK 51 402-02498-00011-0018
5.0 OUTLINE GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
In the words of the NPPF, planning decisions should ensure that sites are suitable for their
new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability – i.e. that the ground is
physically capable of supporting the proposed development. So, setting contamination
matters to one side, this outline geotechnical assessment primarily seeks to demonstrate to
the local authority (who in this case have already granted consent) that ground conditions
are capable of supporting the new care home building. Secondarily, the factual information
herein may assist CUK’s chosen building contractor who will also be fully responsible for any
supplementary geotechnical ground investigation, and the full geotechnical assessment
required to design and construct the foundations.
Very simply, the outline geotechnical assessment has found that concrete pad or strip
foundations are considered to be appropriate for the proposed development, with the base of
those foundations either being formed in the underlying natural soils or bearing on
engineered fill (clean inert granular or lean mix concrete) placed in excavations which
extended into the natural ground (i.e. through the Made Ground). The presence of a
significant depth of variable Made Ground beneath the footprint of the proposed building has
lead to an outline recommendation that suspended floors should be adopted rather than
ground bearing floor slabs.
5.1 Development Layout and Recorded Ground Conditions
The comments and recommendations contained below are based on the data obtained from
the recent exploratory boreholes and hand pits. Extrapolation between and to other parts of
the site is considered possible given the geological setting as interpreted, but no
responsibility can be accepted for geological and geotechnical conditions which vary from
those on which the report is based. It should be noted that the solutions are discussed in
principle only and must be subject to a more complete assessment at the detailed design
stage of the project.
The exploratory locations excavated as part of this investigation have broadly confirmed the
anticipated sequence of geological strata, see Section 3.
5.2 Foundation Solution
The site investigation has broadly confirmed favourable engineering properties for soils
underlying the site.
Shallow ground conditions were shown to be relatively consistent across the site with either
poor quality topsoil or Made Ground present from ground level. Made Ground was of
variable thickness (maximum of 3.30m) and comprised concrete and limestone sand and
gravel overlying firm (locally soft) clay with occasional gravel.
Directly underlying the Made Ground (and Topsoil), natural soils were proven to comprise
firm sandy clay with rare gravel and medium dense sand. Within BH1, firm, slightly sandy
clay was proven from 0.40m to 4.20m bgl. Within BH2, BH3 and BH4, stiff locally sandy silt
was proven from between 2.60m to 4.70m, extending to a maximum depth 10.00m bgl in
BH4. BH1 and BH3 proved dense cobbles and gravel from 4.20m and 7.40m, respectively.
SPT N values of between 2 and 7 were determined within the Made Ground, indicating a
very loose to loose relative density. N values within the underlying natural soils, immediately
underlying the Made Ground ranged from between 13 and 22 indicating a relative density of
medium dense, which was proven to increase with depth to between 18 and >50. An N
Value of 14 (BH4 at 3.0m within shallow sand) corresponds to an equivalent angle of
SLR
Care UK 52 402-02498-00011-0018
shearing resistance (Ø’) of approximately 30o, as determined by Peck et al 18. This

conservative value has been used in determining the allowable foundation capacity on
granular soils.
Due to the variable nature of the shallow natural soils, it is considered possible that
foundations may cross between cohesive and non-cohesive soils. However, due to generally
firm to stiff shear strengths in the cohesive soils and adequate relative density within the
granular soils, traditional shallow foundations are likely to be suitable.
Groundwater monitoring has recorded equilibrium levels beneath the site of up to 0.49m bgl
(BH1 on 4/4/14).
Plasticity tests have been carried out on selected shallow cohesive samples recovered from
the boreholes and trial pits. The results indicate plasticity of between 8% and 21%, indicating
a low to medium volume change potential 19.
Anticipated loads have not been supplied for the proposed development; however, based on
loads for similar developments, the proposed building loads are likely to be as follows:
 120-140kN/m beneath 3 storey building areas;

 90-110kN/m beneath 2 storey building areas; and
 500-750kN loads upon pad foundations.
The generally favourable ground conditions indicate that bearing capacity will not be an
issue and providing foundations are appropriately sized, settlement should remain within
serviceability limits.
Concrete pad or strip foundations are considered to be appropriate for the proposed
development and should be founded wholly within the underlying natural soils at a minimum
depth of 1.0m below existing ground level.
Strip foundations are required to support maximum loads of 140kN per linear metre. For
these anticipated high loads, a strip foundation constructed at a minimum depth of 0.90m bgl
will require a minimum width of 1.20m to maintain an acceptable factor of safety on the worst
case shallow firm clay soils.
Pad foundations are require to support loads of up to 750kN. Outline calculations indicate
that pad foundations located on the worst case firm clay soils should be constructed at a
minimum depth of 0.9m bgl with a minimum dimension of 2.50m x 2.50m.
The foundation dimensions outlined above consider the worst case loads applied to the
weakest shallow ground conditions encountered in the ground investigation. It is not clear at
this stage where the exact foundation locations will be and what loading will be required. As
such, the above recommendations should be taken as the worst case and foundation
dimensions and depths should be adjusted to suit the actual imposed load and the ground
conditions encountered during construction.
Although we have referred to a minimum depth of 0.90m bgl, it should be clear that the base
of any foundation excavation should be extended to the top of natural soils, which has been
18 nd
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E. And Thornburn, T. H., Foundation Engineering, 2 Edn, John Wiley,
New York, p310, 1967.
19
NHB C Standards Part 4 - Foundations
SLR
Care UK 53 402-02498-00011-0018
recorded at up to 3.30m bgl. The resultant void should be backfilled with clean inert granular
fill or lean mix concrete to allow construction of foundations at the proposed level.
Shallow groundwater was recorded within BH1 and the existing well (in the current car
parking area) during monitoring visits – see Table 5-1 below which provides water elevation
data allowing a comparison to the anticipated commencement level. The highest water
levels in BH1 and the existing well are above 100.050m AD and hence it is expected that
groundwater will be encountered during the cross-site excavation and within the foundation
excavations. This will necessitate the use of groundwater control during construction. Where
excavations are undertaken in granular soils (BH4), they are considered to be susceptible to
collapse, particularly during periods of wet weather or below groundwater level. Foundation
excavations should be backfilled as soon as possible and the use of trench support may be
necessary to prevent instability and/or collapse of the shallow soils.
Table 5-1:
Groundwater Monitoring Data v. 100.050m AD Commencement Level
Location Groundwater Strikes Groundwater Elevation (m AD)
(approx m AD)
4/4/14 10/4/14 25/4/14
BH1 98.595 96.495 - 100.206 100.048 99.816

100.695mAD
BH2 95.554 93.554 - 98.724 98.631 98.572
99.754mAD
BH3 99.13 95.13 93.53 97.802 97.698 97.656
99.430mAD
(Ground Level)
BH4 98.362 95.262 93.462 98.522 98.464 98.459
100.562mAD
Existing Well - - - 100.112 100.032 99.820
100.675mAD
It is recommended that the base of all foundation excavations are compacted using a small
vibrating roller or wacker plate, bearing in mind safe access requirements for personnel.
5.3 Shrinkage and Swelling of Soils
Laboratory testing has revealed that the shallow cohesive natural soils underlying the site
are of low to intermediate plasticity and have a low to medium volume change potential,
meaning that the soils may be susceptible to shrinkage and swelling. According to NHBC
guidance 20 the minimum foundation depth within these soils should be 0.90m bgl. This
assumes no trees are to be planted on the site within influencing distance of foundations as
part of the development. However, should any development plans include the planting of
new trees, the NHBC guidance should be consulted prior to planting or the construction of
foundations.
5.4 Buried Concrete
This is discussed in Section 4.1.1.
20
NHB C Standards, Chapter 4.2 Building Near Trees, 2011
SLR
Care UK 54 402-02498-00011-0018
5.5 Ground Floor Slabs
The subgrade ground conditions indicate a significant depth of variable Made Ground
beneath the footprint of the proposed buildings. Therefore, ground bearing floor slabs will not
be appropriate and suspended floors should be adopted.
5.6 Pavement Design
The investigation has recorded CBR values of between 1% and 1.5% within the shallow
Made Ground underlying the site. As such, a design CBR value of 1% should be used for the
design of paving and access roads. The actual value may be subject to improvement after
proof rolling the subgrade formation at the time of construction and the addition of a well
compacted clean granular material to any loose or very soft pockets. Verification of any
higher design value will require in-situ CBR or plate bearing tests.
5.7 Earthworks
Any imported or on site soils used in earthworks construction should be classified and
placed in accordance with an approved specification.
It is strongly recommended that all design and construction works be carried out in
accordance with recognised engineering codes of practice including BS 8004 (1986: Code of
Practice for Foundations) and BS 6031 (1981: Code of Practice for Earthworks).
SLR
Care UK 55 402-02498-00011-0018
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As explained in Section 1, SLR was commissioned in by Care UK to provide consultancy

services to address planning Conditions 18 and 19, the first of four conditions relevant to
land quality. Conditions 18 and 19 state:

comprehensive intrusive investigation in order to characterise the type, nature
and extent of contamination present, the risks to receptors and to inform the
remediation strategy proposals shall be documented as a report undertaken by a
competent person and in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment
Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR
11' and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No
development shall take place unless the Local Planning Authority has given its
written approval that it is satisfied that the risk from contamination has been
adequately characterised as required by this condition.
19 If contamination is found by undertaking the work carried out under

Condition 18, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted,
a scheme of remediation and/or monitoring to ensure the site is suitable for its
proposed use shall be prepared by a competent person and in accordance with
DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management
of Land Contamination, CLR 11' and submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. No development shall take place until the Local
Planning Authority has given its written approval of the scheme of remediation
and/or monitoring required by this condition.
SLR believe that the intrusive activities carried out to date (which included the excavation of
10 large trial trenches, 4 hand pits and 4 boreholes), when combined with the subsequent
analysis of soil and groundwater samples and environmental monitoring (gas and water),
have characterised the type, nature and extent of contamination present and allowed those
risk assessments needed to inform the remediation strategy proposals.
We submit this report to CDC and trust that the planning authority will: a) view this
report and the work it documents as satisfactory to meet the requirements of
Condition 17; and b) provide written approval.
SLR’s investigation has shown that the following PPL are not significant:
 PPL 1b: Potential Damage to Future Buildings from Exposure to Aggressive Ground
 PPL 1c: Potential Pollution of Groundwater by Contaminants in Made Ground / Natural
Geology
 PPL 2a&b: Potential for Harm to Health and Building Damage from Hazardous Gases
 PPL 5a&b: Potential Harm to Health or the Environment from Potential Weathered
Hydrocarbons Associated with the Former and Current Oil/Fuel Tanks
The site is not suitable for its proposed new use, however, without measures to address
risks to property and human health via.
 PPL1d: Potential Harm to Landscape Plants from Phytotoxic Elements and Compounds
in Made Ground (Section 4.1.2)
 PPL 1a: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Contaminants Entering Water
Supply Pipework (Section 4.3.1)
SLR
Care UK 56 402-02498-00011-0018
 PPL1a(i): Potential Harm to Human Health from exposure to contaminants in the Made
Ground via inhalation, ingestion (direct) and dermal contact (Section 4.3.2 HP3 Area).
 PPL 3a-c: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Airborne Asbestos
(Section 4.3.4)
 PPL 4a-c: Potential Harm to Human Health from Potential Contaminants in Imported
Landscaping Soils (Section 4.3.5)
SLR has considered remedial options for PPL1d, PPL1a, PPL1a(i), PPL3a-c and PPL4a-c
and set out a Scheme of Remediation in this document to deal with the risks . With the
exception of PPL1a, which involves installing pipework and fittings which will completely
separate the potable supply from the surrounding ground, the preventative actions involve
ensuring the suitability of imported and site-won landscaping soils which will form a cover /
cap across all of the soft landscaped gardens open to residents and nursing staff – hence
the Scheme of Remediation builds on the Specification for Soft Landscape Works which
accompanied CUK’s planning application. In fact the Scheme augments the Specification by
adding to the chemical testing and reporting requirements therein, and by including a
requirement for all soils used in the soft landscaping scheme (whether imported or site won)
to be underlain, or in the case of tree pits underlain and surrounded, by geotextile to prevent
future mixing.
In effect all soft landscape soils will be have been tested and proven to be suitable for use in
this care home context whether they be in tree pits, curved planted, patio troughs, grassed
areas or shrub planting beds. The soils in combination with the geotextile will form a cap
across 100% of the soft landscape, with the cap thickness varying depending on the
proposed use (e.g. min.150mm grass, 450mm shrub planting bed, etc) and nature of the
hazard beneath (e.g. the cap is thicker across the accessible garden area being created
across/above the old scrap yard area).
The full Scheme of Remediation is set out in the sections referred to in the bulleted list
above and is summarised in Table 4-1.
We submit this report to CDC and trust that the planning authority will: a) view this
report and the work it documents as satisfactory to meet the requirements of
Condition 19; and b) provide written approval.
CUK should note that the remedial works must be completed prior to occupation of the
development and that there is a requirement to provide a Verification Report, as described in
Section 4.5, within Condition 20.
CUK and their building contractor should also anticipate the discovery of “contamination not
previously identified” and make plans for a scenario where PPL6 and Condition 21 come into
play.
SLR
Care UK 57 402-02498-00011-0018
7.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited with all reasonable skill, care and
diligence, and taking account of the manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement
with the client. Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected
and has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.
This report is for the exclusive use of Care UK; no warranties or guarantees are expressed
or should be inferred by any third parties. This report may not be relied upon by other parties
without written consent from SLR.
SLR disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside
the agreed scope of the work.
SLR

7799682

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7799682

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Demolition of a Commercial Building, Redevelopment to provide a

73 Bedroom Care Home with associated Landscaping and Parking

Conditions 18 & 19 of Application No: 13/01643/F

Site Investigation, Land Quality Risk Assessment

SLR Ref: 402-02498-00011-018

1.1 Planning Background

17 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a

In order to address Draft Condition 17, SLR chose to:

Mr Gregory had stated:

I’ve reviewed the SLR Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment

I would like further consideration given to the following maters as part of

-Potential impact from made ground on human receptors as a potential

-Potential impact on flora e.g. phytotoxicity should be considered as a

-Care homes sometimes offer the possibility of gardening and growing

18 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a

19 If contamination is found by undertaking the work carried out under

20 If remedial works have been identified in Condition 19, the development

21 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found

The ground investigation locations referred to herein are presented on Drawing 1.

1.2 The Development

 demolition of a derelict workshop;

Overall, this “precautionary” approach is designed to give confidence to future residents,

1.4 PLQRA Findings and SLR’s Approach to this Investigation

In summary, the PLQRA identified that:

Built Environment / Property

1.4.1 Scope of Field Work

The fieldwork carried out is detailed in Section 2, but in summary comprised;

 health and safety planning and project management;

2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES

2.1 Utility Clearance

2.2 Trial Pits

The trial pits were backfilled on 11th April 2014.

2.3 Hand-Dug Pits

2.5 Ground-Gas Monitoring

The ground-gas monitoring records are presented in Appendix C.

2.6 Groundwater Sampling

The groundwater monitoring records are presented in Appendix D.

2.7 Laboratory Analysis - Environmental

Copies of the original test certificates are contained in Appendix E.

 the north-west “corner”- 98m to 99m above datum (AD);

3.2.2 Trial Pits

3.2.3 Hand Pits

3.3 Field / Visual Observations

3.4 Groundwater Regime

BH1 0.489 0.647 0.879 Nil

*No Separate Phase Hydrocarbon was found

3.5 Ground-Gas Regime

No hydrogen sulphide or methane was detected in any of the wells.

4.0 LAND QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENTS & SCHEME OF REMEDIATION

4.1 Built Environment / Property

HP4, TP2 and TP3

Scheme of Remediation: Voluntary Remedial Works & Preventative Actions

The clinker material which will be encountered by the excavation to construction

 General: Do not use topsoil contaminated with subsoil, rubbish or other

CUK plan to appoint a suitable environmental consultant as soon as possible - certainly

4.1.3 PPL 2b: Potential Building Damage from Hazardous Ground-Gases

PPL 2b is assessed in Section 4.3.3 in association with human health aspects.

4.2 Controlled Waters

PPL1c and PPL5b are assessed together.

4.2.1 PPL1c: Potential Impact to Controlled Waters by Contaminants in the Made

PPL5b: Potential Impact to Controlled Waters from Potential Weathered

As a first step it is considered appropriate to screen the groundwater chemistry results

Given that: a) groundwater is not particularly sensitive at this location; b) that no