Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 594
DOCKLANDS DATA CENTRE ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION Site Condition Report Prepared for: Telehouse International

DOCKLANDS DATA CENTRE

ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION

Site Condition Report Prepared for: Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd

Client Ref: 410.04438.00003

SLR Ref: 410.04438.00003 SCR Version No: Final June 2018

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report

SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR June 2018

BASIS OF REPORT

This document has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited with reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the manpower, timescales and resources devoted to it by agreement with Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd (the Client) as part or all of the services it has been appointed by the Client to carry out. It is subject to the terms and conditions of that appointment.

SLR shall not be liable for the use of or reliance on any information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document for any purpose by any person other than the Client. Reliance may be granted to a third party only in the event that SLR and the third party have executed a reliance agreement or collateral warranty.

Information reported herein may be based on the interpretation of public domain data collected by SLR, and/or information supplied by the Client and/or its other advisors and associates. These data have been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.

The copyright and intellectual property in all drawings, reports, specifications, bills of quantities, calculations and other information set out in this report remain vested in SLR unless the terms of appointment state otherwise.

This document may contain information of a specialised and/or highly technical nature and the Client is advised to seek clarification on any elements which may be unclear to it.

Information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document should only be relied upon in the context of the whole document and any documents referenced explicitly herein and should then only be used within the context of the appointment.

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report

SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR June 2018

CONTENTS

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1

2.0

SITE CONDITION REPORT (H5) TEMPLATE

2

DOCUMENT REFERENCES

TABLES

Table 1

Site Details

2

Table 2

Condition of the Land at Permit Issue

3

Table 3

Permitted Activities

7

APPENDICES

Appendix 01: Project Indigo Docklands Campus Sites 6 & 8 London Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment Appendix 02: Cundall Indigo Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment Appendix 03: Subadra Site Investigation Report Telehouse West Appendix 04: Baseline Site Investigation Report 2018 ref. 425.04438.00005/SI

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report

SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR June 2018

1.0

Introduction

SLR Consulting Ltd (SLR) has been instructed by Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd (the Operator) to prepare a Site Condition Report (SCR) in support of an application for a new bespoke Environmental Permit (EP) for the Telehouse Docklands Data Centre.

This SCR has been prepared in accordance with the Environment Agency’s H5 Guidance Note on SCR 1 . The objective of the SCR is to record and describe the condition of the land at the site at the time of the permit application. The SCR will provide a point of reference and baseline environmental data so that when the permit is surrendered it can be demonstrated that there has been no deterioration in the condition of the land as a result of the proposed operations, and ensure that the condition of the land is in a ‘satisfactory state’ on surrender of the permit.

Sections 1 to 3 of the EA’s SCR template have been completed in the preparation of this document, which comprises the following:

site details;

condition of the land at permit issue;

o

geology;

o

hydrogeology;

o

hydrology;

pollution history;

evidence of historic contamination; and

permitted activities.

Section 4 to 7 of the SCR template will be maintained during the life of the permit and Sections 8 to 10 will be completed and submitted in support of the application to surrender the permit.

1 EA Guidance; Site Condition Report guidance and templates, Version 3, May 2013.

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report

SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR June 2018

2.0 Site Condition Report (H5) Template

Table 1

Site Details

Name of the applicant

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd

Activity address

Docklands Datacentre Coriander Avenue London E14 2AA

National grid reference

TQ 38770 81090

Document reference and dates for Site Condition Report at permit application and surrender

410.04438.00001 SCR (On Application 2018)

 

Drawing 001 Site Location Drawing 002 Site Layout and Emission Points Drawing 003 Sources, Pathways and Receptors Drawing 004 Cultural and Natural Heritage

 

Document references for site plans (including location and boundaries)

Drainage Plans:

MW.SLD.F00312.C3 (Drainage North Building)

 
 

MW.SLD.F00312.C3.1

(Drainage

East

&

West

Buildings)

MW.SLD.F00312.C3.2

(Drainage

North

2

Building)

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report

SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR June 2018

Table 2 Condition of the Land at Permit Issue

Environmental setting including:

Geology

geology

British Geological Survey (BGS) data 2 indicates the following general

hydrogeology

geological sequence beneath the site:

surface waters

Fluvial sedimentary deposits of alluvium (clay, silt, sand, peat) that is normally soft to firm consolidated, compressible silty clay, but can contain layers of silt, sand, peat and basal gravel. A stronger, desiccated surface zone may be present; and

The bedrock beneath the site is a sedimentary combination of clay, silt and sand of the London Clay Formation.

Hydrogeology

The EA’s What’s In Your Backyard (WIYBY) website shows:

The superficial geology beneath the site is classified as Secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer, such that it has not been possible to attribute that the bedrock comprises of either permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local level or predominantly lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering. In most cases, this means that the layer in question has previously been designated as both minor and non-aquifer in different locations due to the variable characteristics of the rock type.

The bedrock is classified as unproductive strata with low permeability that has negligible significance for water supply or river base flows (i.e. non- aquifer).

Source Protection Zone

The site is not located within, or near, any Groundwater Source Protection Zone.

Groundwater Vulnerability

The site is located within an area indicated as a “minor aquifer” with high vulnerability, such that the superficial geology is able to easily transmit pollution to groundwater, however the geology can provide only modest amounts of water due to the nature of the rock or the aquifer’s structure.

It is noted that the EA is updating the Groundwater Vulnerability mapping to reflect improvements in data mapping and understanding of the factors affecting vulnerability. The aforementioned superficial geology is classified as a Secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer that has previously been designated as both minor and non-aquifer in different locations throughout the area of Groundwater Vulnerability designated as “minor aquifer”.

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report

SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR June 2018

 

Hydrology

The River Lea, a tributary to the River Thames, is located approximately 130m east of the site (at its nearest point).

An artificial pond is located in the north eastern area of the site; one is also located circa 50m to the south west, with further similarly artificial water features approximately 130m to the west of the site.

Flooding

The Environment Agency flood map for planning 3 identifies that the site is located within a Flood Zone 3. These are areas of land which the Environment Agency defines as ‘land having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding or land having a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of sea flooding.’

However, more detailed analysis of site location 4 shows that the flood risk at the site is low.

The site does not benefit from protection by existing flood defences that are offered to neighbouring land.

Pollution history including:

 

Pollution History

pollution incidents that may have affected land

The Environment Agency’s What’s In Your Backyard (WIYBY) application has been used to identify any pollution incidents recorded on-site and within

historical land-uses

and

the immediate surrounding area.

associated contaminants

On site: There are no recorded pollution incidents within the site boundary

visual/olfactory

any

that may have affected the land beneath the site.

evidence

of

existing

Off site: Within 1km of the site there have been no significant/major recorded pollution incidents that could affect the land beneath the site.

Historical Land-uses

contamination

 

evidence of damage to pollution prevention measures

Section 2.4 (Site History) of the Project Indigo Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment (SLR, May 2013) (Appendix 01 to this document), summarises the history/former uses of the site prior to the construction and operation of the data centre:

 

The general area has historically comprised of industrial uses associated with shipping (Eastern Docks) and road and rail warehousing;

The site formed the eastern end of the East Dock between approximately 1803 and the mid 1980’s;

The 28-feet deep (8.5m) East Dock was partly filled from the west after World War II, with infilling completed in 1987-8 (the nature of

3 https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/summary/538786/181095

4 https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-

risk/map?easting=538786&northing=181095

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report

SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR June 2018

 

material used to infill the former dock is unknown);

Construction of the 350m long East India Dock Tunnel commenced in 1989 and was completed in May 1993. The top and base elevation of the tunnel is not known although possibly extended down to the London Clay;

The North building at the site was constructed in 1989 and the site was developed in successive stages since this date.

The Baseline Site Investigation Report 2018 (SLR ref. 425.04438.00005/SI) reveals the following additional details regarding the Site’s history:

The dock ceased trading in 1967;

The Site was developed in four phases. The north was developed in the 1990s, the east and supporting areas were developed in the early 2000s, the west was developed in the late 2000s and the second northern development occurred in 2014.

Evidence of historic contamination, for example, historical site investigation, assessment, remediation and verification reports (where available)

The Cundall Indigo Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Assessment (Cundall, March 2014) (Appendix 02 to this document) which covers the area currently occupied by North 2 Building, states that: “No significantly elevated hydrocarbon or heavy metals concentrations have been identified within the shallow depth soil materials at the site with respect human health in the context of a commercial end use.”

The report continues, “Slightly elevated leachable concentrations of TPH and dissolved phase TPH within groundwater samples have been identified at the site. However, these elevated concentrations are not considered to represent a significant risk to controlled waters due to the presence of an aquiclude (London Clay) above the principal aquifer, and the anticipated significant reduction in infiltration due to the proposed hard-surfacing and construction proposed for the site.”

The Conceptual Site Model in the above report notes that there is a negligible likelihood of a pollutant linkage between leachable mobile contamination (e.g. TPH) and controlled waters (including the River Lea and the River Thames). However, it is noted that new pathways could be created by the creation of newly constructed piled foundations.

The Site Investigation Report for Telehouse West (Subadra, July 2008) (Appendix 03 to this document) was undertaken, in part, to characterise potentially contaminative substances in the shallow soil and groundwater in the area of the site occupied by West building. The report, which summarises the findings of the site investigation, states that observed contamination within the soil was limited to clay in two boreholes which was observed to contain “variable quantities of brick, clinker/slag, wood, metal and/or plastic” which was noted as being “generally dark grey or black wet, with an organic odour” and also that olfactory and visual evidence in one borehole that was interpreted to be hydrocarbons. During the initial purging of groundwater from three boreholes, the groundwater from one borehole was initially noted to have an organic odour and one had an “eggy” odour; no such odours of the purged groundwater were

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report

SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR June 2018

 

observed during the subsequent monitoring round.

The Site Investigation undertaken by SLR in May 2018 (Appendix 04 to this document) was undertaken to provide a baseline report for the Site prior to development, inclusive of the fuel storage and generator operations that are proposed for the site. Previous investigations had been limited to the development of new buildings only.

Intrusive ground investigation was conducted between 19 th April 2018 and 24 th April 2018. Groundwater and gas monitoring was then carried out on 30 th April 2018, with follow up gas monitoring rounds conducted on 8 th May 2018 and 16 th May 2018. Six boreholes were investigated.

The Site Investigation revealed that there were no significantly elevated concentrations of any of the determinands in soil samples, with the exception of Asbestos which was found in boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH5. In the laboratory the levels of asbestos in samples from these boreholes were found to be below the limit of detection.

The groundwater monitoring revealed that BH2 and BH6 exhibited exceedances of Arsenic and Petroleum Hydrocarbons. The average concentrations of Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Arsenic, and Naphthalene were also in exceedance of Water Quality Standards.

Methane and Carbon Dioxide is recorded in low levels during monitoring of gases beneath the site.

Baseline soil and groundwater reference data

Section 10 of the Cundall Indigo Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Assessment (Cundally, March 2014) (Appendix 02 to this document)

SLR Baseline Site Investigation Report 2018 (SLR ref. 425.04438.00005 SI) (Appendix 04 to this document)

Supporting information

Project Indigo Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment (SLR, May 2013) (Appendix 01 to this document)

Cundall Indigo Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Assessment (Cundall, March 2014) (Appendix 02 to this document)

Site Investigation Report Telehouse West, Coriander Avenue, London, E14 (Subadra, July 2008) (Appendix 03 to this document)

Environmental Risk Assessment (SLR Ref: 410.06577.00001 ERA)

Baseline Site Investigation Report 2018 (SLR ref. 425.04438.00005 SI) (Appendix 04 to this document)

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report

SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR June 2018

Table 3 Permitted Activities

Permitted activities

Part A(1), Section 1.1, Part 2, Schedule 1:

 

“Burning any fuel in an appliance with a rated thermal input of 50 or more megawatts”

Directly-associated activities (DAA):

 

Fuel oil storage

Non-permitted activities undertaken

None

Document references for:

Drawing 002 Site Layout and Emission Points

 

Plan showing activity layout; and

Drainage Plans:

Environmental risk assessment.

MW.SLD.F00312.C3 (Drainage North Building)

 

MW.SLD.F00312.C3.1

(Drainage

East

&

West

Buildings)

MW.SLD.F00312.C3.2

(Drainage

North

2

Building)

Environmental

Risk

Assessment

Reference

410.04438.0000 ERA

 

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report

SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR June 2018

APPENDIX 01

Project Indigo Docklands Campus Sites 6 & 8 London Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment

PROJECT INDIGO Docklands Campus Sites 6 & 8 London

Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment

SLR Ref: 403.04438.00001

May 2013

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd

Land Quality Risk Assessment SLR Ref: 403.04438.00001 May 2013 Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

i

403-04438-00001

May 2013

CONTENTS

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1

1.1 Background

1

1.2 Proposed Development

2

1.3 Objectives

5

1.4 Scope of Work

5

1.5 Data Sources

6

2.0

SITE DETAILS, SETTING AND HISTORY

7

2.1 Site Vicinity Description

7

2.2 Physical Site Setting

9

2.3 Environmental Search Data

10

2.4 Site History

12

3.0

OUTLINE CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND PRELIMINARY LAND QUALITY RISK

ASSESSMENT

15

3.1 Regulatory Context

15

3.2 Physical Conceptual Site Model

17

3.3 Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment

17

4.0

FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND ASSESSMENT

24

4.1

PPL 1a

25

4.2

PPL 1b and 2a&b

25

4.3

PPL 1c&d

25

4.4

PPL 3

25

5.0

VOLUNTARY PREVENTATIVE AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND VALIDATION OF

THOSE WORKS

27

5.1 Voluntary Preventative Action to Avoid PPL 4 (a-c)

27

5.2 If Needed - Voluntary Remedial Action to Break PPL 5

28

5.3 Land Quality / Remedial Works Validation Report

28

6.0

CLOSURE

29

DRAWINGS

Drawing 1

Site Layout Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A

GroundSure EnviroInsight Report including Historical Ordnance Survey Map Extracts, 3 May 2013

Appendix B

GroundSure GeoInsight Report, 3 May 2013

Appendix C

Site Photographs

Appendix D

Intrusive Investigation Records from BGS

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

1

403-04438-00001

May 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

SLR Consulting Ltd (SLR) was commissioned by Telehouse Consultancy Services on behalf of Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd (Telehouse) in April 2013 to undertake a Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment (PLQRA) for two development plots (Plot 6 and Plot 8) adjacent to and east of Telehouse’s existing Docklands Campus at Coriander Avenue, E14 2AA, which are together bounded as follows:

A13 East India Dock Road;

North

Aspen Way and the A1263 East India Dock Road Tunnel (which passes beneath the southern development plot – Plot 8);

A1020 Leamouth Road; and

Oregano Drive.

South

East

West

The boundary of the site is shown on Drawing 1 and Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1 Overall View of Site 1

1 and Figure 1-1 . Figure 1-1 Overall View of Site 1 Approximate alignment of A1263

Approximate alignment of A1263 East India Dock Road Tunnel (constructed in 1994)

of A1263 East India Dock Road Tunnel (constructed in 1994) 1 Image from GroundSure – the

1 Image from GroundSure – the overflow car park shown in Plot 6 has since been removed.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

2

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Figure 1-2 View of Existing Docklands Campus across Plot 8 (from the south east)

Docklands Campus across Plot 8 (from the south east) 1.2 Proposed Development Headquartered in London, Telehouse

1.2 Proposed Development

Headquartered in London, Telehouse has gro

of the largest, global data centre providers, operating a network of 45 data centres. The firm

is preparing to seek permission to redevelop Plots 6 and 8 which are currently disused.

wn since establishment in 1989 to become one

Telehouse are now looking to increase their data centre capacity in the UK by constructing a new multi-storey data centre on the northern development plot, Plot 6. Adjacent to the data centre building will be a power house containing resilient and redundant standby power generation equipment.

In conjunction with the data centre building, on the southern plot (Plot 8) an office building will be constructed that may in part be occupied by Telehouse. The office building frontage will be onto the Lower Lea Crossing. The office building will comprise a ground floor reception and upper floors of general office accommodation.

The final layout of the proposed facility is yet to be determined, but Figures 1-3 and 1-4 below indicate the concept that is being developed.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

3

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Figure 1-3 Indicative 3-D View (with proposed buildings on right of group)

3-D View (with proposed buildings on right of group) Figure 1-4 Indicative Data Centre Ground Floor

Figure 1-4 Indicative Data Centre Ground Floor Plan (Plot 6)

3-D View (with proposed buildings on right of group) Figure 1-4 Indicative Data Centre Ground Floor

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

4

403-04438-00001

May 2013

The development will include low maintenance landscaping that, in common with existing landscaping, has the unintended property of restricting human exposure to soil.

Figure 1-5 View of Existing Soft Landscaping

human exposure to soil. Figure 1-5 View of Existing Soft Landscaping Figure 1-6 View of Existing

Figure 1-6 View of Existing Soft Landscaping

human exposure to soil. Figure 1-5 View of Existing Soft Landscaping Figure 1-6 View of Existing

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

5

403-04438-00001

May 2013

1.3 Objectives

This redevelopment project falls under the remit of the Town and Country Planning Regulations and is likely to require an Environmental Impact Assessment.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) will be aware that part of the development site was created by filling a dock basin. Their technical specialists will expect Telehouse to satisfy local and national planning policies and show that the site is suitable for its new use taking account of:

ground conditions - considering both natural hazards and pollution arising from previous uses (e.g. historic landfilling);

the development proposals - including any proposals for mitigation / land remediation; and

remediation

impacts

on

the

natural

environment

arising

from

the

development

/

proposals.

The Council will also want the developer’s land quality advisor to consider whether the land, once developed, would be capable of being determined as Contaminated Land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Given the above, SLR recommended a stand alone PLQRA to inform the client’s development team and support the planning application. We also advised that the PLQRA may be the first in a series of risk assessments, allof which should follow guidance provided by Defra and the Environment Agency in CLR11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination.

The secondary objective of this PLQRA is to establish if there is any evidence of significant subsurface contamination from past or present activities on or adjacent to the site which could give rise to abnormal development costs i.e. expenditure on remedial works to deal with unacceptable risks to the environment or Telehouse employees / visitors / contractors at the proposed facility.

1.4 Scope of Work

SLR’s PLQRA report briefly considers the risks to controlled waters, human health and the proposed infrastructure.

SLR’s scope is outlined below:

site walk over inspection;

review of historic OS mapping;

purchase and review of environmental data pack;

review of two or three borehole logs from the BGS database;

review of geological map;

preparation of a report presenting:

o

the desk study data;

o

site walk over notes / photographs;

o

a site conceptual model with preliminary risk assessment; and

o

recommendations for further assessment steps.

We have gone beyond our agreed original scope by reviewing some information contained on the Tower Hamlets web site and downloading several BGS logs.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

6

403-04438-00001

May 2013

1.5 Data Sources

This report has been produced following consultation with the sources of information summarised in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1:

Information Sources

Information Type

Source

General topography and Site setting

Google Earth Bing Maps www.streetmap.com

Site and background information

GroundSure Enviro Insight including Historical Ordnance Survey Map Extracts purchased 3 May 2013 (Appendix A). GroundSure GeoInsight purchased 3 May 2013 (Appendix B)

Hydrogeology and Geology

Environment Agency (EA) website. British Geological Survey (BGS) Sheet 256, North London, Solid & Drift Edition, 1:50,000 scale. BGS website – various borehole and trial pit logs (Appendix D)

Previous Reports from Tower Hamlets Planning Portal

June 2008 Faber Maunsell/AECOM - Geotechnical and Geo- Environmental Desk Study Report – Telehouse South. June 2008 Subadra – Site Investigation Report – Telehouse West. December 2008 Faber Maunsell/AECOM - Geo-Environmental Interpretive Report– Telehouse South. December 2008 Soil Mechanics – Factual Report on a Ground Investigation – Telehouse West December 2008 Faber Maunsell/AECOM – Remediation Strategy– Telehouse West. Jan-Feb 2009 BACTEC International Ltd Intrusive Magnetometry Survey Report, Telehouse West, London E14.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

7

403-04438-00001

May 2013

2.0 SITE DETAILS, SETTING AND HISTORY

2.1 Site Vicinity Description

Figure 2-1 provides an aerial image, and Table 2-1 summarises the property details. Information within the table has been derived from Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping and a site walkover inspection undertaken on 15 th May 2013. Photographs of the site are provided in Appendix C and plans showing the site’s location, surrounds and layout are provided in the Drawings section.

Figure 2-1 Aerial View of Site (Plot 6 on RHS and Plot 8 on left 2

Aerial View of Site (Plot 6 on RHS and Plot 8 on left 2 Table 2-1:

Table 2-1:

Site Details

Address

Sites 6 & 8, Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd, Coriander Avenue, London E14 2AA The National Grid Reference for the site is 538857,181098.

Site Location

The combined site is approximately 1.18 ha and occupies the eastern end of the Telehouse Dockland Campus as described in Section 1.1.

Recent Site

Plots 6 & 8 are currently vacant. Approximately 50m x 36m in the centre of the Plot 6 was in recent times used as an overflow parking area, the surfacing and any perimeter fencing has since been removed.

Activities

Site

Plots 6 & 8, which are fully enclosed by a short post and tube fence (see Appedix 3) are divided by Sorrel Lane, which is a one way street linking Oregano Drive to Leamouth Road. Plot 6 is approximately 91m x 56m and Plot 8 is 70m x 56m at its widest point. Each plot is raised approximately above the pavement with a slight berm structure forming the outer edge, see Drawing 1 which is based on a topographic survey. The vast majority of Plots 6 & 8 are rough grassland. The exception is an unvegetated area of approximately 50m x 36m in the centre of the Plot 6 which was in recent times used as an overflow parking area. It appears that all surfacing and perimeter fences associated with the overflow car park were removed leaving an unvegetated “scar”. Figure 2-2, page 9, illustrates the area and type of material forming the surface.

Description

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

8

403-04438-00001

May 2013

There are a couple of concrete “structures” on site, both are thought to be abandoned bases for signage. In addition, six “monitoring wells” were noted, these fall into two categories: 1) four relatively small diameter (19mm to 50mm) wells with metal tube headworks; and 2) two large diameter (300mm) wells. SLR has given these name codes for ease which are used in Drawing 1, Appendix 3 and the small table below which provides details.

Hole

Diameter &

Gas Tap

Cover

Water

Base

Notes

Material

Level

Level

AOD

 

AOD

AOD

BH1

50mm HDPE

Needs

6.38m

1.279m

-5.16m

Not secure

 

replacement

Possibly 1-

 

2mm LNAPL*

BH2

19mm

No

6.51m

Unknown**

Not secure

BH3

50mm HDPE

No

6.78m

Dry

4.78m

Not secure

BH4

300mm PVC

No

Unknown

‘-

‘-

Secure –

(assumed)

welded shut

BH5

300mm PVC

No

Unknown

16.2m

Unknown

Not secure

 

below rim

BH6

50mm

Yes –

Unknown

Dry

5.23m

HDPE

labelled 10

below rim

Not secure, hidden in base of shrub

* Light non-aqueous phase liquid (oils, etc) **19mm well too narrow for interface probe

Fuel Storage

There was no evidence of fuel / oil storage tanks on either plot

Tanks

Surrounding

General

The two plots are surrounded by pavement and roads

Land Use

 

Plot 6

North

A13 (East India Dock Road), beyond which is a vacant plot with evidence of building rubble derived from building demolition.

West

Telehouse buildings

South

Sorrel Lane and Plot 8 beyond

East

Leamouth Road with an open plot that seems to be used for storage of empty waste bins – Council perhaps (from Bing Maps)

Plot 8

North

Sorrel Lane and Plot 6 beyond

West

Telehouse buildings

South

Saffron Ave/Leamouth Road/A1261/A1020 Roundabout, with flats/apartment buildings beyond

East

Leamouth Road with an ESSO filling station, car wash and ‘On the Run’ convenience store (from Bing Maps)

Beneath

The A1263 East India Dock Road Tunnel passes beneath Plot 8 from the NE corner to the SW corner of the plot at relatively shallow depth.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

9

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Figure 2-2 View across gravelled surface of former overflow car park (looking south)

surface of former overflow car park (looking south) 2.2 Physical Site Setting A summary of the

2.2 Physical Site Setting

A summary of the main physical features of the Site are given in Table 2-2. Information has been derived from the GroundSure Report and other sources.

Table 2-2:

Summary of Physical Site Features

Geography

Gradient

Plot 6 & 8 are both flat apart from a slight berm around the perimeter of each plot.

and Geology

 

Elevation

The pavements are at 4.3m to 5m AOD, the plots are at approximately 6.3m AOD.

Made Ground

A significant thickness of made ground is suspected on the basis of historical land use (see Section 2.4) and the presence

of the A1263 Tunnel which passes beneath Plot 8.

A review of the BGS website indicates that several boreholes

have been drilled on the site indicating that between approximately 3m and 12m of MADE GROUND exists beneath

both development plots depending on the exact location relative to the former East India Dock boundary. Made ground

is described as a “fairly compact mixture of sandy silty clays

with concrete and brick rubble, gravel etc, becoming more clayey and gravelly at depth”. In the former dock area the made ground rests on the London Clay

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

10

403-04438-00001

May 2013

 

Superficial

Beneath areas of the site where made ground is thin (non-dock

Drift Geology

areas), then the made ground rests upon the following sequence:

 

ALLUVIUM (Silty organic CLAY with PEAT) with its base at a depth of 7.6m (-2.9mAOD) RIVER TERRACE GRAVELS (Sandy GRAVEL) at a depth of 7.6m (-6.9mAOD) Borehole logs are included in Appendix D.

 

Solid Geology

The solid geology on site is recorded as:

 

LONDON CLAY (very stiff Sandy CLAY) at a depth of 11.6m (-

6.9mAOD)

THANET SAND (dense, grey-green fine to coarse SAND) at a depth of 25m (-20.5mAOD)

 

Radon Gas

Project Indigo does not include the development of dwellings, but in any case no radon protective measures are necessary.

Mining, and

GroundSure suggests the site is not within a mining / coal mining affected area and that there are low to very low ground stability hazards from shrinking / swelling clay, landslides, ground dissolution, collapsible ground and running sands. Compressible ground on Site is defined as Moderate.

Ground

Stability

Hazards

Hydrology

Surface Water

The two Plots lie between 100m and 200m west of a large meander of the southerly flowing River Lea and 350m north of the tidal River Thames at its closest point. The mouth of the River Lea (Bow Creek) where it enters the River Thames is 770m southeast of the Site.

and River

Network

Flood Risk

The site, at around 4.3m to 5m AOD lies inside the Environment Agency Flood Zone 2 (annual probability of flooding as 1:1000) and some parts as Zone 3 (annual probability of flooding as 1:100) based on fluvial and tidal models The River Lea (92m from the Site) and the River Thames (150m from the Site) are both equipped with flood defences.

Surface Water

There are no surface water abstractions within 2km of the Site.

Abstractions

Hydrogeology

Aquifer

The Environment Agency aquifer records record the site being underlain by a Secondary (undifferentaited) Aquifer (previously recorded as non aquifer or minor aquifer) In SLR’s opinion, given the presence of a sandy gravel beneath the site the Environment Agency would probably designate this as a Secondary B Aquifer. The London Clay is designated as unproductive

Groundwater

There are no potable groundwater abstractions within 500m of the Site There is 1 groundwater abstraction 245m east of the Site on Limmo Peninsula. Records indicate it used for top up purposes.

Abstractions

Source

There are no groundwater source protection zones within 500m of the Site.

Protection

Zones

2.3 Environmental Search Data

The EnviroInsight report, presented in Appendix B, was reviewed to gain commercially available environmental data for the site and its immediate vicinity. A summary of the search information is provided below:

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

11

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Sites Determined as Contaminated Land – there are no Sites within 500m determined as Contaminated Land under Part 2A EPA 1990.

Discharge consents – there are 8 consents within 500m of the Site, all of which were for discharges (miscellaneous or cooling water) to surface water to Bow Creek, River Lea or the Thames. We understand all consents are revoked.

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Controlsnone within 500m.

Local Authority Prevention & Controls – there are 4 Part B air discharge permits within 500m, and 1 within 50m. The closest relates to the ESSO Orchard Wharf Filling Station east of the Site. The remainder relate to a furniture business (260m NE), foods (416m E) and a galvanising process 468m NW).

COMAH & NIHHS - There is 1 COMAH (Control of Major Accidents and Hazards) site 216m north of the Site. The site belongs to British Gas and is for a gas holder at the Poplar holder station.

EA recorded pollution incidents – there are 3 records within 250m of the Site, all of relatively minor nature and occurring in 2002 and 2003. The closest incident is recorded only 8m from the Site and relates to a minor diesel spillage. No further details are available and the exact incident area is unknown.

Landfill sites (Operational) – There are no operational landfill sites within 1,000m of the Site.

Landfill sites (Historic) – there are records of 6 historic landfill sites within 1,500m of the Site.

o

The main historic landfill site of relevance to the Site is present on Site and relates to the filling of the former Eastern Dock. The in-filled dock extents incorporate the entirety of Site 8 and the southern half of Site 6

o

The Eastern Dock described above extended to the East India Dock south via a channel, both of which have been in-filled.

o

Additional historic landfills relate to additional in-filled docks southwest and south east of the site

o

There are no records of the waste type used to fill the former docks

Figure 3-3:

Historic Landfill Sites

site o There are no records of the waste type used to fill the former docks

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

12

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Other Waste Sites (Operational) – there is 1 ‘Difficult Waste’ operational transfer station located at Moody Wharf 286m NE of the Site

Other Waste Sites (Historic) – there are records of 7 former EA licensed waste sites within 1500m of the Site, the closest being 293m NE of the Site

Oil and Gas Pipelines - There are no records of high pressure oil and gas pipelines within 500m of the Site

Environmentally Sensitive Sites 2 Local Nature Reserves (LNR) exist 2km NW of the Site

Groundwater and surface water abstraction data was discussed in Section 2.2.

2.4 Site History

This section presents a summary of the site’s history from a review of OS map extracts and a small amount of web based research. A summary of the findings is given in Table 2-3 and the OS maps are provided in Appendix A. Whilst the age and general type of activity and land use can often be determined from the type and layout of structures depicted on OS maps, specific elements of site operations cannot normally be determined. Large scale (1:2,500 and 1:10,560) historical map extracts were reviewed for selected years between 1867 and 2012.

Table 2-3:

Site History Summary

Map Dates

Description

1867 - 70 1:1,056 &

On-site: The Site comprises the Eastern Dock with the dock basin boundary with the quay crossing the Site. Fill material within the dock will be significantly thicker in the dock basin than the quay.

1:2,500

thicker in the dock basin than the quay. 1:2,500 Off-site : The surrounding land use comprises

Off-site: The surrounding land use comprises road and rail fed warehousing to the south and east, open farmland to the north.

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

13

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Map Dates

Description

1893 - 6

On-site: The Site remains unchanged from above. Off-site: Farmland to the north has been developed with densely spaced terraced housing along the north side of the Barking Road.

1:1,056

1:2,500

1916

1:2,500

On-site: No significant changes on site. Some buildings on the quayside have been demolished and new warehousing constructed. The lock linking East Dock with the East India Dock appears to have been enlarged. Off-site: No significant changes to above. A tramway has been installed along the Barking Road.

1949 – 54

1:1,250

1:2,500

On-site: No significant changes on site. Rail sidings pass east-west north of the warehousing on the boundary of Plot 6 Off-site: Terrace housing to the north has been demolished next to East India Dock Road (former Barking Rd). Warehousing to the east has been demolished – now called Blackwall Goods Depot and Orchard Wharf (present day ESSO station). There is some development north of site, possibly an omnibus depot and some housing. The western half of East India Dock has been reclaimed and a ‘Works’ has been constructed

1961 – 2

1:2,500

On-site: No significant changes on site Off-site: No significant changes offsite

1967 – 70

1:1,250

On-site: No significant changes on site Off-site: No significant changes offsite

1987 – 91

1:1,250

On-site: East Dock has been in-filled and the present day road layout is partially complete (Coriander Avenue, Orchard Road etc) Off-site: The Telehouse North building outline is in place but other Telehouse development buildings are not present The Blackwall Goods Depot to the east has been demolished. Orchard Wharf is still present. The roundabout south the Site is present Redevelopment of residential property north of East India Dock Road seems to be on-going

1992 – 3

1:1,250

On-site: The route of the East India Dock Road Tunnel beneath Leamouth Rd and Plot 8 is shown. No further on Site development is shown. Off-site: The East India Dock Road Tunnel route passes beneath and rises to ground level on the former Blackwall Goods Depot. No further development of the Telehouse properties is shown.

In summary, the Site formed the eastern end of the East Dock between approximately 1803 and the mid 1980’s. Other documentation (Internet search) states that the 28-feet deep (8.5m) East Dock was partly filled from the west after WW2 and was completed in 1987-8. The nature of material used to infill the former dock is unknown.

Construction of the 350m long East India Dock Tunnel was started in 1989 and completed and opened in May 1993. It was designed by Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners and constructed by a Balfour Beatty AMEC JV. The construction method is not known but given its shallow depth is most likely to have been a cut and cover technique. The top and base elevation of the tunnel is not known although possibly extended down to the London Clay.

The variable thickness of made ground on Site and the likely presence of dock walls to the north and east will require special consideration by those designing foundations.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

14

403-04438-00001

May 2013

No foundation of any significance is allowed to bear on the tunnel roof so superstructures will require alternative design. Others 3 have previously stated that the depth of a bridging structure would be at a depth of 2.6m and that bored piles should be 3m from the tunnel structure to eliminate interaction.

3 East India Dock Road, Environmental Statement Volume 1, March 2007, URS Corporation Ltd.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

15

403-04438-00001

May 2013

3.0

OUTLINE CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND PRELIMINARY LAND QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENT

3.1

Regulatory Context

3.1.1

The Contaminated Land Regime – Overhauled for 2012

Spring 2012 saw substantial changes in the UK’s Contaminated Land Regime with a complete overhaul of the legal guidance 4 and deletion of long-standing pollution control policies 5 in favour of the National Planning Policy Framework 6 .

The new Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance is very different from the 2006 issue and

consultation draft. Whilst the regime continues to advocate a precautionary approach to dealing with contaminated land, there is clear direction to avoid the “excessive cost burdens”

of

“wastefully expensive remediation”.

In

their Impact Assessment Defra estimate that:

“20%-40% of current remediation work is "unnecessary" and that these costs can be avoided through clearer Guidance and new technical tools to describe the new Category 1-4 system”

For clarity:

Category 1: describes land which is clearly problematic;

Categories 2 and 3: cover the less straightforward land where detailed consideration is needed before deciding whether it is Category 2 (contaminated land requiring remedial action) or Category 3 (not contaminated land) - wider socio-economic factors come into play if health risks assessment fails to produce a decision; and

Category 4: describes land that is clearly not contaminated land.

The new Category 4 test is particularly important in defining when land is clearly not contaminated land in the legal sense; it introduces the idea that it would be exceptional for land: exhibiting normal background levels of contamination; or contaminant levels below published assessment criteria (which are due to be augmented by new screening levels) to be considered as contaminated land.

Importantly, the new guidance makes it clear that regulators can only require remediation to

a point where land is no longer contaminated land in the legal sense (i.e. the boundary

between Categories 2 and 3) and not require “unnecessary” clean up to attain Category 4 standards. This means some landowners / developers will choose a remedial end-point in Category 3 whilst others will still volunteer to clean-up to Category 4 (to deal with perception issues or to please funders, etc).

From this point on, exceedance of a Soil Guideline Value should simply trigger further risk assessment.

4 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance, Defra, April

2012.

5 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, ODPM, November 2004.

6 National Planning Policy Framework, DCLG, March 2012.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

16

403-04438-00001

May 2013

With the introduction of clearer legal guidance, the introduction of the concept of “normal” background levels of contaminants and an emphasis on the use of science and risk assessment to make better and more reasonable decisions about when land does (and does not) need to be remediated and to what degree, the government predicts financial savings to:

businesses

and

contamination;

other owners

of

land

with

a

significant

legacy

of

historical

land

the construction sector and new home-buyers via a substantial reduction in deadweight remediation costs; and

the taxpayer from reduced costs for publicly-funded remediation projects.

National Planning Policy Framework

This redevelopment project falls under the remit of the Planning Act and is subject to both local and national planning policies.

Annex 2 of PPS23 7 entitled Planning and Pollution Control advised on the circumstances when it might have been be appropriate for local planning authorities to grant planning permission for developments on land affected by contamination. Its replacement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of March 2012 has a core aim to:

encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.

Slightly modifying the messages of Annex 2, the new NPPF says the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and

remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

Furthermore NPPF says that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that:

a site 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; and that

after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (meaning Category 3 or 4).

In essence, these simple messages replace all 42 pages of Annex 2 including the example planning conditions in Appendix 2B, and the Model Planning Conditions for development on

land affected by contamination set out in a letter to Chief Planning Officers by DCLG in May

2008.

It is clear that the national planning policy directs those involved in development to ensure sites are suitable for use and not be capable of being determined as contaminated land

7 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by Contamination, ODPM, 2004.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

17

403-04438-00001

May 2013

under Part 2A – which means that the category of land, post remediation (if required) should be considered.

3.2 Physical Conceptual Site Model

The physical Conceptual Site Model (CSM) can be simply split into three:

In-filled East Dock areas;

Former quayside areas; and

East Dock Road Tunnel.

3.2.1 In-filled East Dock areas

The west side of both Plot 6 and Plot 8 will have geology corresponding with this land description:

Made ground to at least 8m and possibly >11m;

London Clay from 11m to approximately 25m; and

Thanet Sand below 25m.

We would expect groundwater to be present in the former dock basin to the approximately elevation of the River Lea and River Thames, so around 0mAOD.

3.2.2 Former Quayside Area

The northern part of Plot 6 and the eastern part of Plot 6 and possibly Plot 8 will have geology corresponding with this description:

Made ground to approximately 3m

Alluvium comprising soft silty organic Clay with Peat to approximately 7.6m (4.6m thick)

River Terrace Gravels from 7.6m to approximately 11.6m (4m thick)

London Clay from 11.6m to approximately 25m (13.4m thick)

Thanet Sand below 25m and proven to at least 35m

We would expect groundwater to be present in the gravels with a groundwater level rising within the Alluvium to about 4.7m below ground surface, field measurements in BH1 found water at about 1.3m AOD.

3.2.3 East Dock Road Tunnel

The EDRT crosses and bisects Plot 8 and is a significant constraint on Plot 8 development.

To the north of the tunnel we can expect geology corresponding with in-filled East Dock and south of the tunnel we might expect geology similar to that described for the Former Quayside Area. The elevation for the base of the EDRT is unknown but probably extended down to the top of the London Clay.

3.3 Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment

The normal procedure for assessing land dictates that potential contaminants, pathways and receptors should be considered within the context of contaminant or pollutant linkages. An evaluation of the risks associated with each linkage should drive decisions regarding the status of the land as contaminated and requiring remediation, uncontaminated or requiring further investigation.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

18

403-04438-00001

May 2013

The information summarised in the previous sections has been used to identify the likely contaminant sources, receptors and pathways present at the Site. The elements of the conceptual model built into Table 3-1, overleaf, have been used to consider the potential pollutant linkages (PPL), their significance and acceptability.

It must be remembered that:

the developer will instruct a ground investigation (most likely following receipt of planning approval) and will have the chance to deploy protective measures (e.g. Protectaline water supply pipe; etc) if needs be;

the employees and visitors will have access to managed / landscaped gardens and the landscaping specification will likely demand that:

o

sub-soil will be prepared and topped with 150mm (grassed areas) to 450mm (shrub beds) thickness of imported topsoil, which will be tested for compliance with BS 3882:2007 8 , or BSI PAS100 compost; and

o

tree pits are expected to be a minimum of 1,200mm diameter and 1,000 mm deep or allow to allow 300mm clearance between the rootball and the edge of the pit.

Given the proposed use as commercial space and offices the most significant PPL appear 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&d: Potential Pollution of Surface Water and Groundwater by Contaminants in Made Ground

PPL 2a&b: Potential for Harm to Health and Building Damage from Hazardous Gases

PPL 3: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Airborne Asbestos

PPL 4 (a-c): Potential Harm to Human Health from Potential Contaminants in Imported Landscaping Soils

PPL 5: Potential Risks to Health or the Environment from Unidentified Sources

In addition, soil quality should be assessed to facilitate appropriate waste disposal options in the event of excavation and removal during building construction, piling etc.

.

8 Specification for topsoil and requirements for use

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

19

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Table 3-1 Outline Conceptual Site Model

Source / Area of Concern

Contaminant(s)

Receptors

Likelihood of PPL Forming & Comment on Consequence

Next Step in Procedure

Source 1 –Sediments at the base of the former East Dock and landfilled materials (Made Ground) used to raise dock base levels to the existing ground level. Solid phase.

If present, most likely weathered hydrocarbons, metals, etc

Humans – Indoors:

PPL 1a: Potential harm to health from ingestion of soluble contaminants entering water supply pipework

PPL 1a: Further Investigation

Future workers & visitors

&

Assessment – see Section

 

4.1

Humans – Outdoors:

Unlikely

-

Future workers & visitors

 

Humans – Neighbours

Unlikely

-

Property – Built Environment: Future buildings

 

PPL 1b: Possible that exposure to contaminants in Made Ground could result in deterioration of buried concrete due to sulphate or acid attack

PPL 1b: Further Investigation

&

Assessment – see Section

4.2

Property

-

Flora

/

Unlikely – crops will not be grown

-

Fauna: Crops

Surface Water: River Lea

PPL 1c&d: Further Investigation & Assessment – see Section 4.3

Groundwater:

Secondary Aquifer, flow to E or SE (towards River Lea and Thames) No potable groundwater abstractions between site and rivers

PPL 1c&d: Possible that soluble contaminants migrate laterally via groundwater 70m to the off site surface water. However, given the presence of the EDRT it seems extremely unlikely that a pathway exists since this subterranean structure crosses the flow path.

Ecosystems

Unlikely – none present within a reasonable distance from the site

-

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

20

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Source / Area of Concern

Contaminant(s)

Receptors

Likelihood of PPL Forming & Comment on Consequence

Next Step in Procedure

Source 2 – Hazardous gases / vapours associated with the “landfilling” of the dock and peat.

Fill may contain significant organic material and since peat deposits are described in borehole logs, then there is a potential for generation of hazardous gases (e.g. methane)

Humans – Indoors:

 

PPL 2a: Some potential harm to health from exposure to gases / vapours entering the building via inhalation.

PPL 2a: Further Investigation & Assessment – see Section

4.2

Future workers & visitors

 

Humans – Outdoors:

 

Unlikely given diffusion to atmosphere

-

Future workers & visitors

 
 

Humans – Neighbours

 

Unlikely to be significantly impacted by on Site sources

-

Property – Built Environment: Future buildings

 

PPL 2b: Potential explosion risk from build-up of gases / vapours under / within the building

PPL 2b: ditto

Property

-

Flora

/

Unlikely – crops will not be grown on site

-

Fauna: Crops

 

Surface Water: River Lea

 

See Source 1

See Source 1

Groundwater:

 

Secondary Aquifer, flow to E or SE (towards River Lea and Thames) No potable groundwater abstractions between site and rivers

 
 

-

Ecosystems

Unlikely – none present within a reasonable distance from the site

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

21

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Source / Area of Concern

Contaminant(s)

Receptors

Likelihood of PPL Forming & Comment on Consequence

Next Step in Procedure

Source 3 - Asbestos fibres in near surface Made Ground

Various forms of asbestos

Humans – Indoors:

Unlikely

-

Future workers & visitors

 

Humans – Outdoors:

Unlikely

-

Future workers & visitors

Humans – Neighbours

PPL 3a: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Airborne Asbestos (esp. construction stage)

PPL 3: Further Investigation & Assessment – see Section 4.4

Property – Built Environment: Future buildings

 

Possible, but of no consequence

-

Property

-

Flora

/

Unlikely – crops will not be grown on site

-

Fauna: Crops

 

Surface Water: River Lea

 

Unlikely

-

Groundwater:

 

Unlikely

-

Secondary Aquifer, flow to E or SE (towards River Lea and Thames) No potable groundwater abstractions between site and rivers

 

Ecosystems

 

Unlikely – none present within a reasonable distance from the site

-

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

22

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Source / Area of Concern

Contaminant(s)

Receptors

Likelihood of PPL Forming & Comment on Consequence

Next Step in Procedure

Source 4 - Contaminants within (yet to be) imported landscaping soils (subsoil & topsoil)

Various contaminants depending on the import source – possibly metals, hydrocarbons & PAH compounds

Humans – Indoors:

PPL 4a: Potential harm to human health from exposure to contaminants within imported landscaping soils via ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation indoors (from soil brought into building)

PPL 4a: Voluntary Preventative Action – in order to prevent the risks the developer will control the quality of imported soils – see Section 5.1

Future workers & visitors

 

Humans – Outdoors:

Future workers & visitors

PPL 4b: Potential harm to human health from exposure to contaminants within imported landscaping soils via ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation outdoors (from outdoor soil)

 

PPL 4b: ditto

Humans – Neighbours

 

PPL 4c Potential harm to human health from exposure to contaminants within imported landscaping soils via ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation (inc. construction stage)

PPL 4c: ditto

Property – Built Environment: Future buildings

 

Possible but unlikely to be of consequence given Voluntary Protective Action for PPL4

-

Property

-

Flora

/

Unlikely – crops will not be grown on site

-

Fauna: Crops

 

Surface Water: River Lea

 

Unlikely

-

Groundwater:

 

Unlikely

-

Secondary Aquifer, flow to E or SE (towards River Lea and Thames) No potable groundwater abstractions between site and rivers

 
 

-

Ecosystems

Unlikely – none present within a reasonable distance from the site

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

23

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Source / Area of Concern

Contaminant(s)

Receptors

Likelihood of PPL Forming & Comment on Consequence

Next Step in Procedure

Source 5 - Unidentified Contaminant Sources

Unknown

Humans – Indoors:

PPL 5: Potential Harm to Health or the Environment from Unidentified Contaminant Sources – Exposure Mechanism Unknown.

PPL 5: If Needed - Voluntary

Future workers & visitors

Remedial Action – see Section

 

5.2

Humans – Outdoors:

Future workers & visitors

Humans – Neighbours

Property – Built Environment: Future buildings

Property

-

Flora

/

Fauna: Crops

Surface Water: River Lea

Groundwater:

Secondary Aquifer, flow to E or SE (towards River Lea and Thames) No potable groundwater abstractions between site and rivers

Ecosystems

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

24

403-04438-00001

May 2013

4.0 FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND ASSESSMENT

This PLQRA has allowed the development of an outline conceptual model. Normally SLR would recommend investigation of PPLs without further desk based research, but in this case it is our opinion that intrusive work should be preceded by a second stage of data gathering with the subsequent review of information relevant to ground conditions being used to improve the conceptual model.

We have come to this conclusion after a few hours web research yielded multiple excavation records, many of which were for the London Docklands Development Corporation, and we suspect a number of ground investigation reports will be found - some for Telehouse’s own developments. The walkover also “found” two deep 300mm diameter wells, these are very expensive to drill and suggest that some organisation drilled in advance of a major development on site (e.g. high rise development) or off site (e.g. CTRL, Crossrail, etc).

Figure 4-1 below shows the excavation records held by the BGS, a selection of which are presented in Appendix D.

Figure 4-1:

Records held by BGS as illustrated on their Borehole Record Viewer

held by BGS as illustrated on their Borehole Record Viewer Making use of the existing ground

Making use of the existing ground information to produce a more detailed conceptual model of ground conditions seems to be the most sensible approach, as it should allow Telehouse’s application to proceed with minimal land quality fieldwork, and it will give the development’s foundations designers a most useful resource.

From the list of PPL identified in Section 3, PPL1, PPL2 and PPL3 will require further investigation if the enhancement of the conceptual model does not rule them out or allow the developer to volunteer protective measures which were appropriate for neighbouring developments on the same dock infill.

PPL 4 and PPL5 are discussed in Section 5.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

25

403-04438-00001

May 2013

4.1 PPL 1a

Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Contaminants Entering Water Supply Pipework

This PPL concerns general ground conditions or conditions along the route of all proposed water supply pipes (if routes are known).

SLR recommends an intrusive investigation to allow the developer to take account of the chemistry of soils along the route of all proposed water supply pipes, so that they may make an informed decision about the materials for new supply pipes and fittings.

4.2 PPL 1b and 2a&b

Potential Damage to Future Buildings from Exposure to Aggressive Ground

Potential for Harm to Health and Building Damage from Hazardous Gases

These PPL concern ground conditions across the area of all proposed foundations.

Subject to the findings of the extended research, SLR recommends an intrusive investigation (with perhaps 8nr standpipes being installed) and environmental monitoring to provide the scheme’s environmental consultant and (foundation) designers with information regarding aggressive ground conditions and hazardous gases / vapours. The information should take regard of guidance provided by the BRE in Special Digest 1 Concrete in Aggressive Ground, and the various guidance documents available with respect to hazardous gases / vapours and potential mitigation measures.

4.3 PPL 1c&d

Potential Pollution of Surface Water and Groundwater by Contaminants in Made Ground

These PPL concern ground conditions across the infilled dock and across the site in general.

SLR recommends an intrusive investigation and environmental monitoring to provide the scheme’s environmental consultant with information regarding soil and groundwater chemistry.

Subject to the findings of the extended research, SLR recommend ground investigation at 4nr locations and the installation of groundwater monitoring wells. Soils samples should be collected and analysed to assess contaminant concentrations (and to assist with planning for soil disposal). Groundwater geometry should be determined by monitoring groundwater levels. Groundwater samples should be collected and submitted for laboratory analyses to determine the degree of impact, if any within groundwater.

Collection of off-site surface water quality data is not recommended at this time.

The results of any investigation should be used to inform generic risk assessments, detailed quantitative risk assessment may follow if required.

4.4 PPL 3

Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Airborne Asbestos

This PPL concerns ground conditions across all land that will be subject to earthworks.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

26

403-04438-00001

May 2013

Besides the soil validation evidence discussed in Section 5.1, below, SLR recommend an intrusive investigation to collect evidence concerning the asbestos content of the material which will:

the material which will be disturbed by the development - as, if asbestos is present, fibres may be released locally; and

the material which will ultimately underlie landscaping soils – as, if asbestos is present, mixing of in-situ and soil materials over many years could bring asbestos fibres into the uppermost layers of soil and bring about human exposure.

For the second, it is anticipated that the regulator will accept an approach whereby the developer proves that the subgrade on which imported soils are to be laid is free from asbestos, hence SLR recommends testing each “panel” of proposed soft landscaping.

There should be no further inspection or requirement for remedial work if asbestos is absent.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

27

27

403-04438-00001

May 2013

5.0 VOLUNTARY PREVENTATIVE AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND VALIDATION OF THOSE WORKS

5.1 Voluntary Preventative Action to Avoid PPL 4 (a-c)

Potential Harm to Human Health from Potential Contaminants in Imported Landscaping Soils

SLR recommends that the developer submit a Specification for Soft Landscape Works as part of the application saying:

“Do not use fill materials which would, either in themselves or in combination with other materials or groundwater, give rise to a health hazard, damage to building structures or instability in the filling, including material that is:

frozen or containing ice;

organic;

contaminated or noxious;

susceptible to spontaneous combustion;

likely to erode or decay and cause voids;

with excessive moisture content, slurry, mud or from marshes or bogs;

clay of liquid limit exceeding 80 and/or plasticity index exceeding 55; or

unacceptable, class U2 as defined in the Highways Agency 'Specification for Highway works', clause 601”.

The specification should also 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.

In terms of quality, site-won / imported topsoil should be tested for compliance with BS 3882:2007 9 , and compost tested against BSI PAS100.

Tree pits should 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.

The regulator may require some documentary evidence that the landscaping specification is followed, and beyond that may require evidence that the chemical composition of any imported growing media / soil is suitable for use. SLR predict that LBTH’s preferred soil validation regime will depend on the source of the material and it is for Telehouse or their representative to liaise with LBTH on this matter.

In advance of that liaison, it is thought likely the developer or their representative will need to:

obtain chemical test certificates from the supplier of proposed landscaping materials and compare the results of the analyses to soil guideline values or generic health risk assessment criteria applicable to a residential setting without plant uptake;

9 Specification for topsoil and requirements for use

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

28

28

403-04438-00001

May 2013

arrange for a UKAS and MCERTS accredited laboratory to test samples of the materials actually delivered to site:

o

at a rate to be agreed with LBTH; and for

o

an analysis suite agreed by LBTH (most likely comprising CLEA metals, speciated total petroleum hydrocarbons, speciated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pH and soil organic matter);

arrange for additional samples (beyond those pre-agreed with LBTH) to be collected and tested should any uncertainty arise as to the quality and / or origin of material brought onto site; and

prepare and submit to LBTH a Land Quality Validation Report to demonstrate that suitable imported materials were placed - see Section 5.3.

5.2 If Needed - Voluntary Remedial Action to Break PPL 5

Potential Risks to Health or the Environment from Unidentified Sources

SLR has advised Telehouse that LBTH may use a planning condition 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 LBTH and recorded in the Land Quality Validation Report - see Section 5.3.

5.3 Land Quality / Remedial Works Validation Report

Any remedial works will follow a period of liaison with LBTH in which final details of the remedial scheme will be agreed. LBTH 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. The Land Quality Validation Report, which should be submitted to LBTH with an application to discharge the relevant condition, 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;

present chemical test certificates from the supplier;

make reference to the health risk assessment carried out prior to soil import and the scope of quality assurance works agreed with LBTH (criteria & frequencies);

present the results of laboratory tests on imported materials showing that:

o

the rate agreed with LBTH was observed; and that

o

the analysis suite agreed by LBTH was carried out;

present the results of any additional testing (beyond that agreed with LBTH);

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, etc; and

set out any additional remedial measures volunteered to deal with contamination (beyond that previously identified) encountered as part of the redevelopment.

SLR

Telehouse Consultancy Services Project Indigo – PLQRA

29

29

403-04438-00001

May 2013

6.0

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 from various sources which has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.

This report is for the exclusive use of Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd; 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

Drawing

Appendices

Appendix A

EmapSite Masdar House, , Eversley, RG27 0RP GroundSure EnviroInsight Address: , Dear Sir/Madam, GroundSure
EmapSite Masdar House, , Eversley, RG27 0RP GroundSure EnviroInsight Address: , Dear Sir/Madam, GroundSure

EmapSite Masdar House, , Eversley, RG27 0RP

GroundSure EnviroInsight

Address:

,

Dear Sir/Madam,

GroundSure

EMS-204115-268687

Reference:

Your Reference:

EMS_204115-268687

Report Date:

3 May 2013

Report Delivery

Email - pdf

Method:

Client Email:

sales@emapsite.com

Thank you for placing your order with emapsite. Please find enclosed the GroundSure EnviroInsight as requested

If you would like further assistance regarding this report then please contact the emapsite customer services team on 0118 9736883 quoting the above report reference number.

Yours faithfully,

quoting the above report reference number. Yours faithfully, emapsite customer services team Enc. GroundSure EnviroInsight

emapsite customer services team

Enc. GroundSure EnviroInsight

quoting the above report reference number. Yours faithfully, emapsite customer services team Enc. GroundSure EnviroInsight
Report Reference: EMS-204115-268687 GroundSure EnviroInsight Address: , Date: 3 May 2013 GroundSure Reference:
Report Reference: EMS-204115-268687 GroundSure EnviroInsight Address: , Date: 3 May 2013 GroundSure Reference:
Report Reference: EMS-204115-268687 GroundSure EnviroInsight Address: , Date: 3 May 2013 GroundSure Reference:

Report Reference: EMS-204115-268687

GroundSure

EnviroInsight

Address: ,

Date: 3 May 2013

GroundSure Reference: EMS-204115-268687

Your Reference: EMS_204115-268687

Client: EmapSite

2013 GroundSure Reference: EMS-204115-268687 Your Reference: EMS_204115-268687 Client: EmapSite Brought to you by emapsite

Brought to you by emapsite

2013 GroundSure Reference: EMS-204115-268687 Your Reference: EMS_204115-268687 Client: EmapSite Brought to you by emapsite
Aerial Photograph of Study Site ▲ NW N NE ◄W E ► SW S SE
Aerial Photograph of Study Site ▲ NW N NE ◄W E ► SW S SE

Aerial Photograph of Study Site

▲ NW N NE ◄W E ► SW S SE ▼
NW
N
NE
◄W
E ►
SW
S
SE

Site Name: , Grid Reference: 538857,181098 Size of Site: 1.18 ha

Report Reference: EMS-204115-268687

Aerial photography supplied by Getmapping PLC. © Copyright Getmapping PLC 2003. All Rights Reserved.

If you would like any further assistance regarding this report then please contact emapsite on (T) 0118 9736883, (F) 0118 9730002 or email: sales@emapsite.com

Page 2

Overview of Findings For further details on each dataset, please refer to each individual section
Overview of Findings For further details on each dataset, please refer to each individual section

Overview of Findings

For further details on each dataset, please refer to each individual section in the main report as listed. Where the database has been searched a numerical result will be recorded. Where the database has not been searched '-' will be recorded.

Report Section

Number of records found within (X) m of the study site boundary

1.

Environmental Permits, Incidents and

0-50

51-250

251-

501-

1000-

Registers

on-site

500

1000

1500

1.1

Industrial Sites Holding Environmental Permits and/or

Authorisations

 

Records of historic IPC Authorisations

0

0

0

0

-

-

Records of Part A(1) and IPPC Authorised Activities

0

0

0

0

-

-

Records of Water Industry Referrals (potentially harmful discharges to the public sewer)

0

0

0

0

-

-

Records of Red List Discharge Consents (potentially harmful discharges to controlled waters)

0

0

0

0

-

-

Records of List 1 Dangerous Substances Inventory sites

0

0

0

0

-

-

Records of List 2 Dangerous Substances Inventory sites

0

0

0

0

-

-

Records of Part A(2) and Part B Activities and Enforcements

0

1

0

3

-

-

Records of Category 3 or 4 Radioactive Substances Authorisations

0

0

0

0

-

-

Records of Licensed Discharge Consents

0

0

1

7

-

-

Records of Planning Hazardous Substance Consents and Enforcements

0

0

0

0

1.2 Records of COMAH and NIHHS sites

0

0

1

0

-

-

1.3 Environment Agency Recorded Pollution Incidents

 
 

National Incidents Recording System, List 2

0

2

1

-

-

-

National Incidents Recording System, List 1

0

0

0

-

-

-

1.4

Sites Determined as Contaminated Land under Part IIA EPA

0

0

0

0

 

-

-

1990

2.

Landfill and Other Waste Sites

 

251-

501-

1000-

on-site

0-50

51-250

500

1000

1500

2.1

Landfill Sites

Environment Agency Registered Landfill Sites

0

0

0

0

0

-

Landfill Data – Operational Landfill Sites

0

0

0

0

0

-

Environment Agency Historic Landfill Sites

1

0

1

1

1

2

Landfill Data – Non-Operational Landfill Sites

0

0

0

0

0

-

BGS/DoE Landfill Site Survey

0

0

0

0

0

0

GroundSure Local Authority Landfill Sites Data

0

0

0

0

0

0

2.2

Landfill and Other Waste Sites Findings

Operational Waste Treatment, Transfer and Disposal Sites

0

0

0

1

-

-

Non-Operational Waste Treatment, Transfer and Disposal Sites

2

1

0

4

-

-

Environment Agency Licensed Waste Sites

0

0

0

2

17

7

Report Reference: EMS-204115-268687

If you would like any further assistance regarding this report then please contact emapsite on (T) 0118 9736883, (F) 0118 9730002 or email: sales@emapsite.com

Page 3

3. Current Land Uses   2 5 1 - 501- on-site 0-50 51-250 500 1