pwa geo environmental ltd · 2014. 8. 5. · calls wharf 2 the calls leeds west yorkshire ls2 7ju...

Calls Wharf 2 The Calls Leeds West Yorkshire LS2 7JU T.0113 2372929 F.0113 2372701

Phase 1 Geo‐Environmental

Assessment

Proposed Housing Site, Broadway Garage Site

Helmshore, Haslingden

Project No. 13186/G/1 December 2013

Geo‐Environmental Ltd Consul ng Geo‐Environmental Engineers pwa

[email protected] www.pwageo.co.uk

FS560612

Report No: 13186/G/1 Project Details: Broadway Garage Site, Helmshore, Haslingden, BB4 4HL Date: December 2013

Client

Barnfield Construction Ltd.

Kenyon Road,

Lomeshaye Industrial Estate,

Nelson, Lancashire.

BB9 5SP

Documents Revision Status

REVISION DATE COMMENTS

_Rev V1 December 2013


This brief summary should not be assumed to represent a complete account of all the potential geo‐environmental

issues that may exist at the site. As such it is strongly recommended that the report be read in its entirety.

Executive Summary

Background

The site is located at Broadway Garage Site off Broadway, Haslingden. Barnfield Construction Limited and Greenvale Homes Limited plan to construct residential units at the site. PWA Geo‐Environmental Ltd were commissioned to provide a geo‐environmental appraisal of the site. A summary of the salient geo‐environmental issues is provided in the table below.

A summary is provided in the table below.

Subject Remarks

Former uses The site was developed with garage units some time prior to 1961. Changes in the locations and number of units are recorded on historic map records.

Based upon an assessment of the site topography it is considered that initial development comprised excavation into existing natural deposits to create a development platform.

Current use The site is currently occupied by a garages, which are used by the surrounding residential housing.

Adjacent land uses Predominantly mixed residential and commercial uses.

Landfill sites There were no recorded landfill sites within 250m of the site.

Potential Contamination Sources

Identified sources include:

Localised hydrocarbon contamination (fuel, engine oil spillages, and

lubrications) associated with sites use as storage garages.

Made Ground associated with demolition of garage units may be

impacted by asbestos from roof sheeting.

Anticipated Ground Conditions

BGS records indicate that the site is underlain by Glacial Till deposits. The solid geology comprises Marsden Formation, interbedded mudstone and siltstones of the Millstone Grit Group.

Mining The report states that the site is not within the zone of likely physical influence on the surface from past, current or future underground workings.

Preliminary Assessment

No site investigation data has been provided and the presence and extent of any contamination is currently unknown.

The current and previous uses of the site are considered unlikely to have created site wide contamination, although localised occurrences may be present.


Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Proposed Development .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Report Format and Limitations ............................................................................................................... 1

2. SITE PROFILE ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Site Location ........................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Site Reconnaissance .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.3 Site Regulatory and Environmental Data ............................................................................................... 2

2.4 Site History ............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.5 Unexploded Ordnance ............................................................................................................................ 4

2.6 Potential Contamination Sources ........................................................................................................... 4

3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................................ 6

3.1 Geology................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Hydrogeology .......................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................ 6

3.4 Mining and Quarrying ............................................................................................................................. 7

3.5 Ecology ................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.6 Summary of Site Sensitivity .................................................................................................................... 7

4. PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 8

4.2 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model ........................................................................................................ 8

4.3 Geotechnical Hazard Identification ......................................................................................................... 9

4.4 Qualitative Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................ 10

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 13

5.1 Environmental Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Ground Engineering .............................................................................................................................. 14

5.3 Further Work ......................................................................................................................................... 14

6 UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 15

6.1 General Comments ......................................................... 15

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................... 16


APPENDICES

Appendix A ‐ General Notes

01 Environmental Setting

Appendix B– Drawings

Drawing No. Title

13186/G/150 Site Location Plan

13186/G/151 Schematic Conceptual Site Model

Day Architect Drawings

SP_004 Site Option 3 (Proposed Development Plan)

Appendix C‐ Site Photographs

Appendix D – Envirocheck Report

Appendix E – Historical Ordnance Survey Plans


FOREWORD (Geo‐environmental Investigation Report)

This report has been prepared for the sole use and reliance of Barnfield Construction Ltd and Greenvale Homes Limited (the Client) named above and cannot be relied upon by any other parties without the express written authorisation of PWA Geo‐Environmental Ltd. Any unauthorized third party relies on this report at their own risk and the authors owe them no duty of care.

The report presents observations and factual data obtained during desk based study and our intrusive investigations, and provides an assessment of geo‐environmental issues with respect to information provided by the Client regarding the site.

The report should be read in its entirety, including all associated drawings and appendices. PWA Geo‐Environmental Ltd cannot be held responsible for any misinterpretations arising from the use of extracts that are taken out of context.

The findings and opinions conveyed in any Desk Study section of the report (including review of any third party reports) are based on information obtained from the sources listed, which PWA Geo‐Environmental Ltd understands are reliable. All reasonable skill, care and diligence has been applied in examining the information obtained. However, PWA Geo‐Environmental Ltd accepts no responsibility for inaccuracies in the data supplied or for opinions based on any such inaccurate data.

Where the report refers to the potential presence of invasive weeds such as Japanese Knotweed, or the presence of asbestos containing materials, it should be noted that the observations are for information only and should be verified by a suitably qualified expert.

PWA Geo‐Environmental Ltd reserves the right to amend their conclusions and recommendations in the light of further information that may become available.


1

1. INTRODUCTION

PWA Geo‐Environmental Ltd (PWAG), were commissioned by Barnfield Construction Limited to carry out a Phase 1 Desk Study of a parcel of land identified as the Broadway Garage Site off Broadway, Haslingden, BB4 4HL (the site). The proposal is to redevelop the Broadway garage site for 3 x 2 bedroom houses and 4 x 3 bedroom houses.

The site comprised a parcel of land with garage units. The site is located in a predominantly residential area with commercial and civic uses noted. The purpose of the study is to provide an assessment of the environmental liabilities associated with purchasing the site, provide preliminary recommendations for developing the site, determine suitability for the proposed end use and investigate ground conditions for foundation design.

General notes and limitations relevant to all PWA Geo‐Environmental Ltd preliminary investigations are described in the Foreword. These should be read in conjunction with this report. The text of the report draws specific attention to any modification to these procedures and to any other special techniques employed.

Standard definitions, procedures and guidance are contained within Appendix A, which includes background, generic information on assessment of the site's environmental setting.

1.1. Proposed Development

It is understood that the development will comprise 3 x 2 bedroom houses and 4 x 3 bedroom houses; an indicative design layout is shown on Day Architectural Limited drawing SP_004 presented in Appendix B.

1.2. Report Format and Limitations

Standard definitions, procedures and guidance are contained within Appendix A, which includes background, generic information on assessment of the site's environmental setting.

The desk study part of this investigation relied on published information and information provided by the client and other parties, including anecdotal information, during the given time period. Regulatory data from the public register and historical OS maps were obtained from an Envirocheck report prepared by Envirocheck Limited.

General notes and limitations relevant to all PWA Geo‐Environmental Ltd investigations are described in the Foreword and should be read in conjunction with this report. The text of the report draws specific attention to any modification to these procedures and to any other special techniques employed.


2

2. SITE PROFILE

2.1 Site Location

The site location is shown on Drawing No. 13186‐G‐150 presented in Appendix B to this report. Site details are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Site Details

Detail Remarks

Location Broadway Garage Site Off Broadway Haslingden, BB4 4HL

NGR NGR 378421,421592

Area O.25 Ha

Known services Electricity, gas and water all considered likely

2.2 Site Reconnaissance

A site reconnaissance was undertaken on 11th December 2013 and observations are summarised in Table 2 and below. In addition site photographs are provided in Appendix C.

At the time of the reconnaissance the site was accessible from all sides from public rights of way. It was accessed off Broadway and comprised a road and track that enclosed a set of red brick garage units with a corrugated roof, assumed to comprise asbestos cement/fibre boarding. Two separate garage units were present in the north and west of the site on rough grassland that occupied the northern half of the site.

Table 2 – Site Reconnaissance Findings

2.3 Site Regulatory and Environmental Data

Information regarding environmental regulatory controls and pollution incidents in proximity to the site is summarised in Table 3. This information is taken from the data provided by Groundsure, a copy of which is provided in Appendix D.

Feature Remarks

Current Access Public access to entire site.

Topography The site is generally flat and surrounded on all sides by residential properties.

Approximate

Areas

0.25Ha

Surrounding land uses North – Residential

South – Commercial/residential

West – Residential

East – Residential


3

Table 3 – Summary of Environmental Data.

Data Source On/off site? Details Potential for Impact on‐site?

Landfill Sites, Waste Management Facilities & Waste Transfer Sites

Off site

No EA or operational Landfill sites within 250m of the site. No non‐operational landfill sites recorded within 250m of the site

N/A

Historic Landfill sites Off site

No EA historic landfill sites recorded within 250m of the site:

N/A

IPC, LAPPC authorisations and IPPC permits

Off site

No permits identified within 250m of the site. N/A

Part A(2) and Part B Activities

Off site Brooklands Dry Cleaners was recorded 211m east of the site. All other records greater than 250m from the site.

Impact unlikely in consideration of distance to site and activities concerned.

Trade directory entries

Off site 6 entries within 250m of the site. Active entries include published goods, electrical sub stations, and a tank.

Impact unlikely in consideration of distance to site and activities concerned.

Water abstractions Off site None recorded within 250m of the site. N/A

Recorded pollution incidents to controlled waters

Off site None recorded within 500m of the site. N/A

IPC = Integrated Pollution Control; IPPC = Integrated Pollution Prevention & Control; LAPPC = Local Authority Pollution Prevention & Controls; APC = Air Pollution Control

2.4 Site History

The site history has been determined from a review of OS historical maps. The text below describes significant historical activities on the site and surrounding area. The on‐site history focuses on the 1:1,056 and 1:2,500 scale maps, with the off‐site history concentrating on the 1:10,560 scale maps. All the scale maps have been used in some instances to describe relevant features. Table 4 summarises salient points relating to site history. The maps are included in Appendix E.

Table 4 ‐ Site History Summary

Date(s) On –Site Surrounding Land

1846 The site is undeveloped. The surrounding land use is generally open fields. Helmshore Road is marked approximately 80m west of the site.

1891 ‐ 1892 The site remains undeveloped. Brickhouse Farm is marked approximately 100m north of the site. Residential type properties are noted on Helmshore Rd, west of the site.

1909‐1910 No significant changes. No significant changes.

1911 No significant changes. No significant changes noted. Some limited further development seen on land adjacent to Helmshore Rd.


4


1930 No significant changes. No significant changes.

1938 A footpath appears to cross the site.

No significant changes.

1950 No significant changes. Residential type properties marked to the north east of the site.

1961 Buildings marked on site with a similar footprint to the present day garages.

Residential type properties are marked to the north, east of the site. Commercial type properties marked south of the site. A vacant plot is marked west of the site.



1969‐1970 Several new units marked. No significant changes.

1976‐1981 One unit removed. New residential type developments noted to the west of the site.


1980 Partial coverage. Some reworking of Gas Works site indicated.

1981‐85 Partial coverage. No significant changes.



1987‐1991 Partial coverage. No significant changes.

2002 Present day site layout noted. No significant changes.


2.5 Unexploded Ordnance

In general accordance with CIRIA report C681 (Stone et al 2009) a non‐UXO specialist screening exercise has been carried out for the site. This indicates:

there is no indication of former military use from the desk study; and

the Zetica UXB map (Lancashire) indicates the site to be in an area where the bomb risk is unverified.

The site and adjoining land has been developed through the two world wars with no significant demolition of buildings during these periods.

2.6 Potential Contamination Sources

Currently the site is occupied by a set of brick constructed garage units with an asbestos cement/fibre boarded roof and two standalone units that appeared to be of prefabricated concrete construction.


5

The northern part of the site is of rough grass with a track crossing behind the main block of garage units.

Made Ground may be present from the demolition of past developments may include heavy metals, poly aromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons and asbestos.

It is considered that there is potential for localised hydrocarbon contamination (fuel, engine oil spillages, and lubrications) related to the use of the site as garages.


6

3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 Geology

The 1:50,000 scale geological map indicates that the site is underlain by Glacial Till deposits.

The solid geology comprises Marsden Formation, interbedded mudstone and siltstones of

the Millstone Grit Group.

Publically available ground investigation records taken from the National Geoscience Data

Centre by the British Geological Survey may be used for commercial purposes providing their

source is identified. No records that are considered to add additional detail to the

conceptual model were noted.

The nearest fault was an inferred normal fault 184m north of the site.

3.2 Hydrogeology

According to Environment Agency data the solid strata beneath the site are indicated to be

classed as a Secondary A Aquifer, this relates to the Marsden Formation. The Glacial Till

deposits are indicated to be unproductive and likely to act as an aquiclude to the aquifer in

the Marsden Formation.

According to Environment Agency data the solid strata beneath the site are indicated to be

classed as Unproductive, these are rock layers or drift deposits with low permeability that

have negligible significance for water supply or river base flow.

There is one recorded groundwater abstraction point and one surface water abstraction

located within 500m of the site, relating to non‐potable extractions and the site is not within

a Source Protection Zone (SPZ).

The Secondary A Aquifer is likely to have a low sensitivity given its productivity and the

presence of low permeability Glacial Till limiting vertical migration.

3.3 Hydrology

The nearest surface water feature is the River Odgen located over 500m west of the site.

Reference to the Environment Agency web site shows there are no surface water bodies

within 500m of the site.

No pollution incidents to controlled waters have been recorded within 500m of the site.

The site is further than 250m from a Flood Zone 2 as designated by the Environment Agency.

The groundwater flooding susceptibility is considered as low.

No further consideration of flood risk is undertaken in this report. Specialist flood risk advice

should be sought with regards to drainage and flooding.


7

3.4 Mining and Quarrying

The site is not located in an area where shallow coal mining has been undertaken. The

hazard potential of subsidence relating to shallow mining on‐site is assessed to be low.

The historical maps do not indicate any historical earthworks or quarrying onsite or within

the vicinity of the site.

3.5 Ecology

There are no recorded ecological sensitive sites within 1 km of the site.

3.6 Summary of Site Sensitivity

The sensitivity of each of the identified receptors in the vicinity of the site to potential contamination sources are summarised in Table 7.

Table 5 ‐ Sensitivity of Environmental Receptors in the Vicinity of the Site

Receptor Type Receptor(s) Sensitivity Reasoning

Groundwater Unproductive

Low No potable abstractions within the vicinity of the site. .

Surface Water River Ogden Very Low

Located over 500m from the site.


8

4. PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Introduction

Environmental Risk has been addressed by adopting a site‐specific qualitative approach to identify the risk of environmental harm. The guiding principle of this approach is an attempt to establish connecting links between a hazardous source, via an exposure pathway to a potential receptor. This is in accordance with the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) guidance on Contaminated Land (Ref.1) and the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (Ref. 2).

This assessment will identify where pollutant linkages may exist by considering where a viable pathway may exist which connects a potential source with a receptor. A pollutant linkage is the term used by the DETR in their standard procedure on risk assessment. If there is no pollutant linkage, then there is no risk. Our risk assessment is based on the proposed residential end‐use.

4.2 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model

Contaminated land risk assessment is based on development of a conceptual model for the site. This is a representation of the relationship between potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors. A preliminary conceptual site model is based on the inferred ground conditions and environmental data obtained from existing data sources. A conceptual site model is discussed in the following sections and a schematic preliminary conceptual site model is shown on Drawing 13186‐G‐151 presented in Appendix B.

4.2.1 Identified Potential Sources

The following potential sources of contamination have been identified from historic uses of the site and surrounding area.

The identified potential contamination sources are summarised below:

On Site Sources

Identified sources which require further investigation include:

Localised hydrocarbon contamination (fuel, engine oil spillages, and lubrications)

associated with sites use as storage garages.

Made Ground associated with possible infilling of site (heavy metals, poly aromatic

hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons and asbestos).


9

Off Site Sources

No potential sources of contamination have been identified in the immediate site surroundings that are relevant to the site.

Receptors

The following receptors have been identified:

Future site users;

Construction workers during redevelopment works;

Controlled Waters – groundwater, Secondary A aquifer;

The River Ogden has been assessed as being beyond the zone of influence of the site and therefore is not considered further as a potential receptor.

The following pathways link the potential contaminants with the sensitive receptors:

Contact, ingestion and inhalation of contaminated soil and dust.

Leaching and migration via soil mass and rock discontinuities;

Humans: Ingestion, skin contact, inhalation of dust and outdoor air.

Buildings: Direct contact.

Buildings: Ingress via permeable soils and/or construction gaps.

Underlying groundwater: Migration of contaminant via direct contact.

The preliminary risk assessment process has identified potential risks to site demolition and redevelopment workers. However, consideration of occupational health and safety issues is beyond the scope of this report and need to be considered separately in the Construction Phase Health and Safety Plan.

4.3 Geotechnical Hazard Identification

Potential geotechnical hazards are listed below:

Made Ground ‐ excessive settlement (creep and inundation settlement or differential settlement of foundations, roads and infrastructure elements).

Attack of buried concrete by aggressive ground conditions –and potentially sulfate bearing soils.


10

4.4 Qualitative Risk Assessment

A qualitative risk assessment has been undertaken for these potential source‐pathway‐receptor linkages. This is based on consideration of both:

The likelihood of an event (probability – takes into account both the presence of the hazard and receptor and the integrity of the pathway);

The severity of the potential consequence (takes into account both the potential severity of the hazard and the sensitivity of the receptor).

The risk assessment has been based on development of the site with a proposed residential end use (Table 6).


11

Table 6 Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment – Proposed Residential End Use

Source Pollutant / Hazard Receptors Pathways to Receptor Associated Hazard [Potential severity]

Likelihood of Occurrence Potential

Risk

Historic spillages

Site spillages, unauthorised disposal of waste oils.

Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons.

Future Site Occupiers

Contact, ingestion, inhalation

Effect on human health [Moderate]

Possible – Given previous site use. No significant visual or olfactory evidence noted during walkover, if spillages have occurred likely to be small and localised and limited to shallow soils.

No existing site investigation data to confirm absence or presence of contamination.

Low to moderate

Neighbours Contact, ingestion, inhalation


Possible – Given previous site use. No significant visual or olfactory evidence noted during walkover, if spillages have occurred likely to be small and localised and limited to shallow soils.


Low to moderate

New in ground services and construction materials.

Direct contact Degradation (Slight)

Possible – Given previous site use. No significant visual or olfactory evidence noted during walkover, if spillages have occurred likely to be small and localised and limited to shallow soils


The use of oversized service trenches and appropriately designed materials should reduce the risk to low.

Low to moderate

Plant Life Contact Effect on plant life [Low]

Landscaped areas may require use of clean topsoil to limit any potential risk. Low

Controlled Waters (Groundwater)

Leaching and lateral migration of any leachable contaminants in soils and rock mass.

Pollution of controlled waters [Slight]

The overlying low permeability Glacial Till is likely to limit vertical migration.

Aquifer likely to have a low sensitivity.


Moderate

Made Ground associated with historic infilling

Heavy metals, poly aromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons.

Future Site Occupiers

Contact, ingestion, inhalation


Possible – Given site setting. No significant visual or olfactory evidence noted during reconnaissance.


Low to moderate


12

Source Pollutant / Hazard Receptors Pathways to Receptor Associated Hazard [Potential severity]

Likelihood of Occurrence Potential

Risk

Neighbours Contact, ingestion, inhalation



The surrounding area is predominantly residential.


Low to moderate

New in ground services and construction materials.

Direct contact Degradation (Slight)


No existing site investigation data to confirm absence or presence of contamination. The use of oversized service trenches and appropriately designed materials should reduce the risk to low.

Low to moderate

Plant Life Contact Effect on plant life [Low]

Landscaped areas may require importation of clean topsoil limiting any potential risk. Low

Controlled Waters (Groundwater)

Leaching and lateral migration of any leachable contaminants in soils and rock mass.

Pollution of controlled waters [Slight]

The overlying low permeability Glacial Till is likely to limit vertical migration.

Aquifer likely to have a low sensitivity.


Low

Asbestos Future Site Occupiers

Ingestion, inhalation Effect on human health [Severe]

Possible.


Moderate

Neighbours Ingestion, inhalation Effect on human health [Severe]

Moderate

Ground Gas from Made Ground

Ground Gas Future Site Occupiers

Migration through soils or groundwater to indoor air.

asphyxiation or explosion(Severe)

Nature and extent of Made Ground not known at this stage. Intrusive investigations required.

Moderate

Buildings Explosion (Severe) Moderate


13

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Environmental Risk Assessment

The geo‐environmental assessment undertaken for the site has identified:

The site is located in a mixed residential and urban area. The site was developed with garage units some time prior to 1961. Changes in the locations and number of units are recorded on historic map records.

The current land use for the site is with garage units.

Based upon an assessment of the site topography it is considered that initial development comprised excavation into existing natural deposits to create a development platform.

No site investigation data has been provided and the presence and extent of any contamination is currently unknown.

The current and previous uses of the site are considered unlikely to have created site wide contamination, although localised occurrences may be present.


14

5.2 GroundEngineering

At present no geotechnical ground investigation data for the site is available and consequently it is only possible to estimate and give an indication of the likely ground conditions. An intrusive ground investigation would be required to provide firm foundation recommendations. However, tentative recommendations are provided below.

The published geological data suggest that superficial deposits comprise glacial till (boulder clay) beneath the site. Limited made ground may also be present locally. Solid strata are likely to comprise mudstone siltstone deposits.

Made ground (if present) is not generally considered a suitable founding material and foundations should generally be taken through it into underlying natural strata of adequate bearing capacity.

It is anticipated that the Glacial Till will provide a suitable bearing strata for the proposed residential housing, with shallow strip/trench fill foundations likely to provide the most economical foundation solution.

It is likely that the Glacial Till will be classified as shrinkable and further deepening of foundations will be required locally where foundations are within the zone of influence of existing trees. These zones depend on the soil shrinkage potential, and the ratio of the tree mature height (H) and distance from the tree to the foundation (D) in accordance with Chapter 4.2 of NHBC Standards.

New foundation positions that conflict with relict foundations should be taken to greater depths than the relict foundations and into natural ground of adequate bearing capacity.

Where service trenches cross the site foundations should be placed below a line drawn up at 45o from the base of any service excavations.

5.3 FurtherWork

It is recommended that intrusive investigations are undertaken to confirm whether there are any potential contamination sources onsite and to provide geotechnical information for substructure design. In line with NHBC Guidance it is recommended that ground gas monitoring standpipes are installed and monitored on a minimum of six visits over a three month period.

It is therefore recommended that one days (up to 8 locations) window sampling is undertaken to provide information on the shallow soils, allow the recovery of samples for geotechnical and chemical laboratory testing and allow the installation of ground gas monitoring standpipes.


15

6 UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS

6.1 General Comments

This report details the findings of work carried out in December 2013. The report has been prepared by PWAG on the basis of available information obtained during the study period. Although every reasonable effort has been made to gather all relevant information, all potential environmental constraints or liabilities associated with the site may not have been revealed.

The report has been prepared for the exclusive benefit of Barnfield Construction Limited, Greenvale Homes Limited and those parties designated by them for the purpose of providing geotechnical and geo‐environmental recommendations for the site. The report contents should only be used in that context. Furthermore, new information, changed practices or new legislation may necessitate revised interpretation of the report after the date of its submission.

PWAG has used reasonable skill, care and diligence in the design of the investigation of the site. The inherent variation of ground conditions allows only definition of the actual conditions at the locations and depths of trial pits and boreholes at the time of the investigation. At intermediate locations, conditions can only be inferred and Groundwater findings described are only representative of the dates on which they were made and levels may vary.

Information provided by third parties has been used in good faith and is taken at face value; however, PWAG cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness.

The work has been carried out in general accordance with recognised best practice as detailed in guidance documents such as the CLR 11 Model Procedures (Environment Agency 2004), BS5930:1999 +A2:2010 and BS10175:2011. Important aspects of the risk assessment process are transparency and justification. Unless otherwise stated, no assessment has been made for the presence of radioactive substances or unexploded ordnance.

Unless otherwise stated, the chemical testing carried out for this report was not scoped to comply with the requirements of the water supply company and further work may be required.

The preliminary risk assessment process may identify potential risks to site demolition and redevelopment workers. However, consideration of occupational health and safety issues is beyond the scope of this report.

Please note that notwithstanding any site observations concerning the presence or otherwise of archaeological sites, asbestos‐containing materials or invasive weeds such as Japanese knotweed, this report does not constitute a formal survey of these potential hazards.

Any site boundary line depicted on plans does not imply legal ownership of land.


16

7.0 REFERENCES

1. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Environment Agency, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination. Contaminated Land Report 11.

2. Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). Contaminated Land Risk Assessment. A Guide to Good Practice. CIRIA C552 2001.

Project No. 13186/G/1 Project Details. Broadway Garage Site, Helmshore, Haslingden, BB4 4HL Date December 2013

APPENDIX A Legal Framework


Legislative Background

Environmental liabilities and risks have been evaluated in terms of a source – pathway ‐

target relationship in accordance with the approach set out in the 1995 Environment Act,

The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2000 and the DETR circular 02/2000

Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land. Contaminated land is

defined within the legislative framework as land which is in such condition by reason of

substance in, on or under the land that:

a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused;

b) significant pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused.

The potential for harm is based on the presence of three factors:

Source: Substances that are potential contaminants or pollutants that may cause harm:

Pathway: A potential route by which contaminants can move from the source to the receptor; and

Receptor or target: A receptor that may be harmed, for example the waters environment, humans, water, flora and fauna.

Where a source, pathways and target are all present a pollutant linkage exists and there is

potential for harm to be caused. Therefore, the presence of measurable concentrations of

contaminants within the ground and subsurface environment does not automatically imply

that a contamination problem exists, since contamination must be defined in terms of

pollutant linkages and unacceptable risk of harm.

The nature and importance of both pathways and receptors, which are relevant to a

particular site, will vary according to the intended use of the site, its characteristics and its

surroundings.

The key principle which underpins this approach is the “suitable for use” criterion. This

requires remedial action only where contamination is considered to pose unacceptable

actual or potential risks to health or the environment and appropriate and cost effective

remediation techniques exist, taking into account the actual or intended use of the site.


Guidance

PWA Geo‐Environmental Ltd (PWAG) is part of a registered Engineering Practice which is a

member of the Association of Consulting Engineers (ACE).

This report has been prepared in accordance with:

CLR11 – Model Procedures

Contamination and Environmental Matters – Their implications for Property Professionals (2nd Edition RICS Nov 2003)

Brownfields – Managing the development of previously developed land – A client’s guide, CIRIA 2002

DEFRA and Environment Agency (EA) publications CLR7 – 10, (subsequently withdrawn) supported by the TOX guides and SGV guides, dated March 2002

DETR Circular 02/2000, Contaminated Land: Implementation of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

Environment Agency technical advice to third parties on Pollution of Controlled Waters for Part IIA of the EPA1990, May 2002

And any other protocols advised by DEFRA and the EA and guidance’s prepared by BSI,

CERTA, BURA, and other industry advisory bodies including BS5930 and BS10175.

Judicial Precedents and Legislation

The following non‐exhaustive list of the legislative framework documents has been

considered in the compliance of this document.

The Environment Act (1995)

The Environment Protection Act (1990)

The Water Resources Act (1991)

The Radioactive Substances Act (1993)

The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations (2007)

The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations (2006)

The Environment Act 1995 (Commencement No.16 and Saving Provision) (England) Order (2000)

The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations (2006)

The Landfill Regulations (England and Wales) Regulations (2002)

The Landfill (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations (2004)

Rylands v Fletcher – Private Nuisance, Escape

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

The Building Regulations 2011, Part C of Schedule 1

The Controlled Waste Regulations 1992

Special Waste Regulations 1996


Neither the list of guidance nor the list of judicial precedents and legislation should be

considered exclusive or comprehensive. There are approximately 85 individual items of

legislation regulating contaminated land work. PWAG makes every effort to ensure that all

are adhered to in the preparation and presentation of this report.

Technical Competence

PWAG is a leading specialist multi‐disciplinary engineering practice working in the

contaminated land market. Most of the workload undertaken by PWAG is within the

property development market dealing with brownfield re‐development and associated

environmental and geotechnical issues.

Established in 2009 PWAG is at the forefront of environmental asset management providing

expertise in environmental risk assessments, environmental site investigations, geotechnical

site investigations and remediation strategies.

PWAG’s staff come from a wide variety of backgrounds within the geotechnical and

environmental sectors and are all degree qualified. Specialists include geotechnical

engineers, geologists, chartered environmentalists and chartered engineers.

PWAG’s technical protocols are described in our reports and are strictly adhered to by

quality control checks in the field and in the laboratory. PWAG only uses UKAS and MCERTS

accredited laboratories for all methods used to derive determinant concentrations.

PWAG is working towards a quality assurance process under ISO9001:2000 which facilitates

rigorous in‐house administrative and technical protocols. PWAG also initiates a robust

health and safety program for each site and ensures the regular training of staff in new

guidance’s and techniques.