Contaminated Land

Inspection Report

Dobby Drive &

St Nicholas Retail Park
King’s Lynn

December 2017

Reference no. S145100001250

Written by

Fabia Pollard
Scientific Officer

Reviewed by

Alex Grimmer
Senior Environmental Protection Officer

Approved by

Dave Robson
Environmental Health Manager

Please Note:

This report is the property of and confidential to Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West
Norfolk and its use by and disclosure to any other person without the expressed prior
consent of the council is strictly prohibited.

Environmental Quality Team

Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk
King’s Court
Chapel Street
King’s Lynn
Norfolk
PE30 1EX

Tel: 01553 616200

Email: [email protected]
Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 2
2 Desk Study Information ................................................................................. 2
Location ........................................................................................................ 2
Previous investigation .................................................................................. 2
Previous Site Use ......................................................................................... 2
Present Site Use .......................................................................................... 3
Ownership .................................................................................................... 4
Environmental Setting .................................................................................. 4
Geology ........................................................................................................ 4
Hydrogeology ............................................................................................... 4
Hydrology ..................................................................................................... 4
Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control ......................................... 4
The Environment Agency Web site records ................................................. 4
Historic Maps................................................................................................ 5
Planning and Redevelopment ...................................................................... 6
Environment Agency Records ...................................................................... 8
3 Site Walkover ................................................................................................ 9
Location of Receptors .................................................................................. 9
Humans ..................................................................................................... 9
Property ..................................................................................................... 9
Environment .............................................................................................. 9
Controlled Water - Groundwater & Surface water ..................................... 9
4 Contaminated Land Risk Assessment ........................................................ 10
Assessment of probability of a contamination event ................................... 10
Human health, property, & designated environmental receptors ............ 10
Controlled water - Groundwater .............................................................. 10
Controlled water - Surface water ............................................................. 10
Assessment of Hazard ............................................................................... 11
Human Health ......................................................................................... 11
Property ................................................................................................... 11
Environment ............................................................................................ 11
Controlled Water -Groundwater and Surface Water ................................ 11
Conceptual site model ................................................................................ 11
5 Outcome of Preliminary Risk Assessment .................................................. 12
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 12
Part 2A status ............................................................................................. 13
Further Action ............................................................................................. 13
Appendices .................................................................................................... 14
Appendix A: Site Photographs.................................................................... 15
Appendix B: Drawings ................................................................................ 22
Appendix D: Risk Assessment Methodology .............................................. 28
 Executive Summary

The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk (BCKLWN) has a statutory
duty to inspect its district for potentially contaminated land under Part 2A of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990). The Borough Council's Part 2A
inspection strategy has identified Dobby Drive & St Nicholas Retail Park, Kings
Lynn (the site) as being of high priority due to the historic use as a metal casting
foundry & engineering works and the presence of potentially sensitive receptors.

Given the former site use, an assessment of the site has been undertaken to
assess the potential for harm to human health, property, ground/surface water and
designated environmental receptors under Part 2A EPA1990.

To gather information of the site’s history a desk study and preliminary risk
assessment were carried out by the Environmental Quality Team. From the
evidence gathered during the desk study of the site history and a site walkover, the
following can be stated: The site was historically within the course of the River
Great Ouse. The land was reclaimed in the mid-19th century and developed in 1873
as St Nicholas Iron works. The northern part of the site was later developed as a
cannery. Following demolition of the iron works in 1975 and closure of the cannery
in 1991 the site was redeveloped for mixed retails and residential use. The site's
present use is predominantly retail with a small number of residential units in the
south.

The site has been subject to a number of previous investigations as part of

redevelopment. Remedial measures were agreed with the borough council and the
Environment Agency to address risks from hydrocarbon and metal contamination
from the former use and to protect buildings from gas and vapour ingress.

Plausible source pathway receptor linkages were assessed considering the

available visible and documentary evidence. A LOW risk from contamination was
assessed to human health, property and the wider environment as defined in the
statutory guidance. A VERY LOW risk was identified to surface water and
groundwater.

There was no evidence of harm or of a significant possibility of significant harm to

the receptors identified in the conceptual site model. As the risk posed is low, the
site would be classified as Category 4 as set out in the Statutory Guidance. No
evidence was noted of significant pollution of controlled waters or of the significant
possibility of such pollution. Therefore the site is not considered to be contaminated
land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

1
1 Introduction
This report details a review of information about land at Dobby Drive & St
Nicholas Retail Park, King’s Lynn and provides a conclusion on the risk to
human health, property, groundwater and the wider environment.

The Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance (DEFRA, 2012) suggests that

where the authority has ceased its inspection and assessment of land as
there is little or no evidence to suggest that it is contaminated land the
authority should issue a written statement to that effect. This report forms that
written statement.

2 Desk Study Information

Location
The site is situated on Edward Benefer Way in King’s Lynn, postcode PE30
2HW. The location is shown in Appendix B. The grid reference for the centre
of the site is 562013 320900.

Previous investigation
The site has been subject to a number of investigations. Table 1 below lists
the reports used in compiling this written statement.

Table 1 Documents used in this report

Reference Date Author Title
23427 November Richard Jackson Ground Investigation
2000 Partnership Report
45986 May 1996 May Gurney Desk study (referred to in
Richard Jackson, Nov
2000 report)
23427 June 2003 Richard Jackson Contamination
Remediation Scheme
23427 August 2003 Richard Jackson Report on validation of
Remediation Works

Previous Site Use

The May Gurney desk study records that the western two thirds of the site
originally lay within the course of the River Great Ouse. In the 17th century, a
civil war ditch fortification lay on the line of Bawsey drain, with part of the
Town Wall to the east of the drain. In the mid-19th century a new cut was dug
to carry the river further to the west, after which the land including the site was
reclaimed.

The site was first developed in 1873 as St Nicholas Iron Works, occupied by
Savage Brothers. The company built fairground and traction engines, steam
wagons, ploughing engines and engines for steam yachts. A large house for
the owner was constructed on the southern end of the site. During World War
I the firm made aircraft. The northern part of the site later became a cannery.
The iron works site was demolished in 1975 and the cannery closed in 1991.

2
The nine-acre urban regeneration site was acquired in 2002 following grant of
planning permission for a £10m mixed-use development comprising 75,000
sq ft of retail warehouse units, a food store, a fast-food outlet and 30
residential units. Work was completed on the infrastructure and first phase of
the retail development in 2004.

Present Site Use

The site's present use is predominantly retail with a small number of
residential units in the south. Figure 1 below shows the site layout on 2006-09
aerial photography. Photographs of the site are in appendix A.

Boll
ard FAP
s

FB
SM
1

ta
ub S
Bollard

El S
Bollard 12
7

3
5 11
11
Bollard

4
10
107
8
Timber Yard

E
L OS
NSC
TPA

94
SAL

4
95
2

Elevator
AY

El
ain

2
RW

Dr
FE

84
ey

WB
ws
NE

The Loft
ST
Ba
BE

2a
IS

82 8

El
RD

83

a
LE

35
WA

32
ED

SI

34
all

a Oyster
1 to 6
nW

32

Retail Park
5

30
To

a
29
68

40

a 55
29

FB
51
57

46

23

6
1a
ET

45
RE

44
43

ST2

52

ET
LL 5

17
RE
WE

ST
53

1
ITT
S

16

30
E0S
31

C R4

RK

3
BU

DO
31

BB 5
58

YD
28

RIV
E
28
in

19
rion

21

2
Dra

1
9
Ma

6
6
ey

16
63
ws

16
30

13 8
Ba

11

alk

5
28

eW
b

4
17

1
68

Rop
2
1
17

21
14 1 19 33
25

6 13 31 47 49
1
91 53
9
5 7

7 4.3m
5.5m 21 D LB 36
Sl 50
24 OA 38 48 58
1

o5 R 26
1 tOKE 60
L
20
29

64
23
22 22b

30

31

12
27

Posts
34

19
4
24
29

Figure 1: Site layout and surroundings

3
Ownership
Enquiries have been made to establish land ownership. This report will be
made available to the site owners.

Environmental Setting
Geology
The site is predominantly hard surfaced. The geological map indicates that
superficial geology is tidal flat deposits. Bedrock geology is reported to be
Kimmeridge clay.

The site is approximately 5 metres above ordnance datum (m AOD). Previous

investigations have shown the geological strata encountered to be as set out
in table 2.

Table 2: Geological strata encountered

(from Richard Jackson 2000 report)
Strata Thickness range Range of depth to top
(m) of stratum (m)
Made ground 0.5-3.0
Marine Alluvium 0.9- 11.3
Glacial Till (in some locations) 8.2-9.8
Kimmeridge Clay 9.8-11.3

Hydrogeology
The superficial deposits and Kimmeridge Clay are designated by the
Environment Agency as unproductive for water abstraction. There are no
recorded licensed water abstractions within 1km of the site.

Hydrology
The nearest major water features are the Bawsey Drain which runs along the
eastern boundary of the site. The River Great Ouse is approximately 550m to
the west of the site. Gaywood River is approximately 430m to the south east.

Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control

The docks to the west contains three sites which are permitted for timber
treatment and processing and are located within 500m of the site. No
breaches have been recorded that have released substances that could have
contaminated the site.

The Environment Agency Web site records

The Environment Agency Web site records the following:
 No water abstraction licenses are recorded within 1km of the site.
 The site falls within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone due to the presence of
Gaywood River.
 Historic landfill over 700m to the east of the site.
 A number of environmental permits (current and historic) are recorded
within 1km of the site. A full list is included in appendix C.
 An environmental permit is recorded for the former Anglia Canners for
discharge to water.

4
The absence of water abstraction licenses demonstrates that there are no
relevant receptors via this groundwater or surface water migration pathway.
The environmental permit for the cannery suggests that some discharges
from this site were controlled.

Historic Maps

E-map Explorer
Enclosure Map 1800 – 1850 – no data available
Tithe map circa 1840 – no data available
Ordnance Survey 1st Ed. 1879-1886 – the site is labelled St Nicholas Iron
Works. The southern half of the site contains a number of large structures.

Historic Maps on file at the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West
Norfolk
Historic maps are presented in Appendix B and summarised below.

1843 – 1893: Map 1 shows the site to be labelled as St Nicholas Iron Works.
There are large buildings indicated in the southern half of the site. The
northern part of the site appears vacant. A Rope Walk, embankments and
ditches are indicated on the eastern boundary with housing beyond that.
Kings Lynn Docks are situated to the west and south and further houses are
also indicated. Land to the north is open fields.

1891 – 1912: The Ironworks site has been extended to include a saw mill in
the north, labelled Saw Mill and Timber Yard. A set of tracks are marked
which are likely to be a siding from the railway. A crane is noted to be present
in the southern part of the site. Further terraced housing is shown to the west.

1904 – 1939: As the previous edition. Estuary Road is labelled. Directly to the
north allotment gardens are indicated and some large tanks approximately
90m from the site boundary.

1919 – 1943: Not available.

1945 – 1970: Map 2 shows the site labelled as Engineering Works and Transit
Depot in the southern half and Fruit and Vegetable Cannery in the northern
half. A building on the southern boundary is labelled Estuary House. This is
likely to be the house originally built for the Ironworks’ owner. The drain to the
east is labelled Bawsey Drain. Land to the north of the site is labelled as a
Petroleum Depot and contains a large number of tanks.

1970 – 1996: Not available

Aerial Photographs
The aerial photograph for 1999 is presented in Appendix B and information
from aerial photographs summarised below.

1945 – 1946 MOD Aerial Photograph – There is some damage obscuring

parts of the photograph but the visible detail mostly matches the OS 3 rd
edition mapping. Much of the site contains buildings. An elongated circular
5
track appears to occupy the north western quarter of the site. The allotments
directly to the north of the site and the tanks approximately 90m to the north
are clearly shown.

1999 – Map 3 - The site has an open, predominantly hard-surfaced frontage

in the south (approximately 40m deep) with a tank structure in the south
eastern corner and a small area of soft landscaping in the south-western
corner. The remainder of the southern half of the site is covered with three
large shed type buildings. The northern half of the site appears to have been
cleared of buildings and is covered with the remaining concrete pads and one
remaining tank structure. The former allotments to the north appear to have
been concreted and the former tank farm further to the north has been
removed and appears to be rough grassland.

2006-2009 – Figure 1 (on page 3) shows the site laid out as it is currently. The
residential development is shown in the south of the site with small areas of
garden and soft-landscaping. The north of the site is occupied by retail units
and car-parking and some pads where retail units will be situated.

2017 - Google maps satellite imagery dated 2017 (www.google.co.uk/maps)

shows the existing layout of the site.

Planning and Redevelopment

There are several applications for redevelopment of the site which were
permitted, significant applications are summarised below:

Date Application Description

permitted ref
11/02/1997 2/96/1614/CU HL Foods Site (formerly Anglia Canners)
Change of use of land and building from B2
manufacturing (ancillary) to B8 storage and
distribution
13/03/1997 2/96/1615/LD Processing and manufacturing of canned
products falling under Class B2 of the Town
and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order
1987
14/02/2001 2/99/0052/O Site for Class A1(food/non-food retail) Class A3
(hot food and drink)residential (42 flats &
residential home) industrial units car parking
public open space and associated works
(revised proposal)
23/07/2002 2/01/1985/F Construction of a food retail outlet and a fast
food outlet
13/09/2002 2/02/0715/F Mixed use development incorporating a DIY
store garden centre 2 no. food retail units a
non-food retail unit a class A3 food and drink

6
Date Application Description
permitted ref
23/04/2003 2/02/1225/F Construction of 20 houses 8 flats and 2
bungalows (revised scheme)
29/06/2004 04/00832/F Construction of food store (amended design)
04/12/2008 08/02212/F Construction of 2 A5 food units

Planning permission 2/02/0715/F included a condition (11) which required that

any contamination encountered during construction should be reported and a
remediation strategy agreed. Condition 12 required that the development
should be protected against the ingress of landfill gas.

Planning permission 2/02/1225/F included a condition (16) which required a

‘scheme for provision and implementation of site contamination investigation
and remediation’ to be agreed and completed.

Planning permission 04/00832/F included conditions 9 & 10 relating to

contamination encountered during construction and ground gas investigation
& remedial measures.

The contamination remediation scheme dated June 2003 (revision A) was

agreed with the Borough Council. A letter on borough council files dated 6
February 2004 from Environmental Protection to Richard Jackson plc refers to
correspondence during 2003, a site meeting and the Contamination
Remediation Scheme. The letter indicates that remediation and validation has
been largely agreed for both the retail and residential developments, including
gas protection. Remediation was required due to concentrations of total
petroleum hydrocarbons exceeding the agreed screening values.

Details of the gas protection and validation of the remediation works were
discussed in email correspondence and telephone conversations with CNC
Building Control during November 2017. A copy of the Validation of
Remediation Works Report was obtained from building control files. The
validation report dated August 2003 provides details of:
 The objectives of the remediation works;
 Details of further investigation works;
 Details of validation sampling;
 Conclusions on the effectiveness of remediation;
 Advice on additional remediation.

Reported remediation measures included:

 excavation of contaminated materials where TPH exceeded screening
criteria;
 raising ground levels in the residential areas;
 provision of 1m of clean imported soil in gardens;
 0.5m clean imported soil in landscaped areas;
 Passive gas venting of granular fill or proprietary void-former in
commercial units;
7
  Gas proof membrane in commercial units;
 Gas and hydrocarbon vapour resistant membrane in the northern-most
commercial unit;
 Gas protection for residential units to be agreed with future developer.

An email on borough council files dated 16 May 2005 (ref to EP letter dated 6
May 2005) confirms that condition 11 of 2/02/0715/F and condition 9 of
04/00832/F are discharged. The same email records that Building Control had
accepted and signed off gas protection measures. Recent discussions with
CNC Building Control confirmed that gas proof membranes and venting were
agreed as protection in all buildings and additional sub-floor venting in the
residential properties.

Environment Agency Records

Correspondence from the Environment Agency dated 18 June 2004 regarding
planning permission 02/0715/F states that concerns regarding contaminated
land and landfill gas have been previously addressed.

8
3 Site Walkover
A site walkover was carried out in October 2017. Photographs are presented
in Appendix A.

The site is fully developed. Photographs 1, 2 and 11 show the houses on

Dobby Drive. Photographs 3 to 9 show the retail park. The site is
predominantly hard surfaced with small residential gardens and limited areas
of soft landscaping. Vegetation on site appears healthy and with no visible
signs of damage or distress. There were no visible indicators of contamination
within exposed soil.

The Bawsey Drain (photograph 10) at the east of the site has well vegetated
banks and clear-looking water. However, the Bawsey Drain is subject to fly-
tipping in this area and items of household and other general waste (paper,
card, plastic, garden waste and shopping trolleys) were observed on the
banks and in the water. However, there were no visible signs of contamination
from the site affecting the water quality. Part of the retaining wall in the
eastern part of the site contains drainage holes at the base. There was no
evidence of staining which could suggest that contaminated water is draining
from here towards the Bawsey Drain.

Regularly spaced gas vents were observed in the houses on Dobby Drive
(photograph 11). The Dobby Drive site is elevated above the Bawsey drain
and surrounding land with retaining walls on the eastern side. This suggests
that the land was raised as recommended in the remediation plan.

Location of Receptors

Humans
Dobby Drive is a residential area, therefore people live on the site. There are
also houses within 20m to the east of St Nicholas Retail Park. The retail park
is a commercial area and is occupied during business hours by shop-workers
and customers.

Property
There are houses and commercial property both on site and adjacent to the
site.

Environment
There are no relevant types of receptor as set out in Table 1 of the statutory
guidance within 1km of the site.

Controlled Water - Groundwater & Surface water

The site is not situated on an aquifer. Bawsey Drain runs directly along the
eastern boundary of the site. The River Great Ouse is approximately 550m to
the west of the site. Gaywood River is approximately 430m to the south east.

9
4 Contaminated Land Risk Assessment

The Council has used a process adapted from CIRIA C552 (Contaminated
Land Risk Assessment, a guide to good practice) to produce the conceptual
site model and estimate the risks to defined receptors. This involves the
consideration of the probability, nature and extent of exposure and the
severity and extent of the effects of the contamination hazard should
exposure occur. Further explanation is provided in Appendix C.

Earlier reports in section 2 above identified risks to sensitive receptors and set
out recommended remediation measures. Although there is incomplete
evidence of validation of all remediation measures, the evidence collected
suggests that that the risks have been mitigated to an acceptable level.

Assessment of probability of a contamination event

From the information gathered it is considered that there is the potential for
some residual contamination to be present on the site. The potential source
is hydrocarbon contamination from the previous engineering works on site
and from the former petroleum depot to the north. Elevated methane was
detected in the earlier site investigation, however the source was not fully
characterised. Areas of metal contamination and asbestos containing
materials are reported to have been excavated and removed as part of
remediation works.

Human health, property, & designated environmental receptors

There are people living, working and shopping on site. The remediation which
has taken place removed the most contaminated soils and has provided
predominantly hard cover across the retail site and additional cover material
to raise levels in the residential site. This has broken the potential direct
contact pathway. Membranes and venting were installed to reduce the entry
and build-up of gas and vapours into buildings. The probability of a
contamination event affecting human health, property, and designated
environmental receptors is LOW

Controlled water - Groundwater

The superficial deposits and Kimmeridge Clay are designated by the
Environment Agency as unproductive for water abstraction. Therefore
probability of a contamination event to groundwater is assessed as
UNLIKELY.

Controlled water - Surface water

The site is predominantly hard-surfaced with surface water drains provided.
Therefore water infiltration is minimised and run-off is to a formal drainage
system. The drainage at the base of the retaining wall did not show signs of
contaminated water draining to the adjacent surface water. The probability of
contamination to surface water is assessed as UNLIKELY.

10
Assessment of Hazard
The reports reviewed in the preceding sections refer to laboratory analysis of
selected samples against available assessment criteria and agreed remedial
target values. While the methodology for derivation of these values would not
be appropriate for a current risk assessment, it is likely that the reported and
validated remediation has removed the areas of highest TPH concentrations
and addressed risks to controlled waters from leachable metals.

Human Health
Remediation is reported to have taken place to address concentrations of
TPH, PAH and metals in soil. Remedial target values were agreed with the
borough council with regard to human health. The hazard is assessed as
LOW

Property
Residual contamination was considered in building design and selection of
construction materials. Harm, should it occur to buildings is not expected to be
significant as defined in the statutory guidance. The hazard is assessed as
LOW

Environment
In considering environmental receptors, the statutory guidance states that the
authority should only regard certain receptors (described in Table 1 of the
Statutory Guidance) as being relevant for the purposes of Part 2A. Harm to an
ecological system outside that description should not be considered to be
significant harm. The site and surrounding area do not contain any of the
receptors stipulated in Table 1 of the Statutory Guidance.

Controlled Water -Groundwater and Surface Water

Reported concentrations of leachable contaminants were below ageed
screening criteria in selected samples. Therefore the hazard is assessed as
LOW.

Conceptual site model

The conceptual site model (Table 3 below) shows the sources, pathways and
receptors identified and the subsequent risk classification.

11
Table 3: Conceptual site model
Source Pathway Receptor Probability Hazard Risk
Heavy metals, Direct Humans LOW LOW LOW
polyaromatic contact, (adults and
hydrocarbons ingestion, children)
petroleum dust
hydrocarbons inhalation
asbestos Gas &
containing vapour
materials migration
within the made Direct Property LOW LOW LOW
ground contact (buildings)
Gas &
Hazardous vapour
ground gas migration
within the made Direct Environment* LOW LOW LOW
ground and contact
alluvial deposits Direct Controlled UNLIKELY LOW VERY
contact water LOW
(surface and
groundwater)
Moderate/Low risk - It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from
an identified hazard. However, if any harm were to occur it is more likely that harm
would be relatively mild.
Low risk - It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an
identified hazard, but it is likely that this harm, if realised, would at worst normally be
mild.
Very low risk - There is a low possibility that harm could arise to a receptor. In the
event of such harm being realised it is unlikely to be severe.

*Ecological systems as set out in Table 1 of the contaminated land statutory

guidance

5 Outcome of Preliminary Risk Assessment

Conclusion
Evidence from the planning, building control and environmental health files
indicates that a remediation scheme was agreed and implemented for both
the retail and residential sites to address risks from land contamination and
hazardous ground gas and vapours. Reports and correspondence referred to
in this report demonstrate that, in consultation with the Environment Agency
and the borough council Environmental Health department, the retail park
development had a number of conditions relating to contamination discharged
by the Local Planning Authority.

Documentary evidence of all the remediation actions could not be found on

the borough council files. Some additional information was provided by CNC
Building Control. The site walkover provided additional evidence of

12
remediation measures such as gas venting and provision site drainage and
soft and hard cover materials.

Plausible source pathway receptor linkages were identified and assessed. A

LOW risk from contamination was assessed to human health, property and
the wider environment as defined in the statutory guidance. A VERY LOW risk
was identified to surface water and groundwater.

There was no evidence of harm or of a significant possibility of significant

harm to the receptors identified in the conceptual site model. As the risk
posed is low, the site would be classified as Category 4 as set out in the
Statutory Guidance (Appendix D contains the categorisations from the
Statutory Guidance).

No evidence was noted of significant pollution of controlled waters or of the

significant possibility of such pollution.

Part 2A status
Statutory Guidance states that 'If the authority considers there is little reason
to consider that the land might pose an unacceptable risk, inspection activities
should stop at that point.' In such cases the authority should issue a written
statement to that effect. This report forms that written statement.

On the basis of its assessment, the authority has concluded that the land
does not meet the definition of contaminated land under Part 2A and is not
considered contaminated land.

Further Action
This assessment is based on the site's current use and is valid providing no
changes are made to the cover material, to surface water conditions or to the
site's use.

No further assessment of the site is considered necessary under Part 2A

unless additional information is discovered or if changes are made to the site.
Any redevelopment would require an assessment of contamination as part of
the application for planning permission.

13
Appendices

14
Appendix A: Site Photographs

7
Boll
a rds FAP

FB
SM
1 8

ta
El Sub Sta

ub S
Bollard

El S
To
Bollard
6 12wn
7 1W
29a
ll

7
5 11
11
Bollard

4
9

107

10
12
8
5
Timber Yard

SE
CLO
NS
T PA

94
SAL

4
95
2
Elevator
Y
WA

in
Sub Sta

2
ra
ER

D
84
ey
EF

WB ws
The Loft
4
EN

ST
Ba

2a
DB

IS

82 8
El

83

5a
AR

LE

34 3
W

R 32
SI
ED

a Oyster

1 to 6
32
Retail Park
5

30
a
10
69

29
68

55

40
a

29

b
FB

51
57

46

23
6
1a
T
EE

45

44
52TR
43

T
52

E
S

RE
17
LL

ST
WE

53

1
ITT
4E0SS

16

30
31

RK

3
CR

DO
BU

31

BB 5
YD
58

28

RIV
3 E
28
in

rion

19

21

2
Dra

1
9
Ma

6 6
sey

16
63
w

16
30

13 8
Ba

11

alk

5
28

eW
b

4
17

2
68

Ro p
2
1
17

WB
21
14 1 19 33
25

6 13 31 47 49
1
91
9
5 7

7
25.5m 11 4.3m
20 Sl LB 36 38 48 50
24 o5
1

1t 26 60
28

20
29

64
23
22 22b

30

31

12
27

Posts
34

19
4
24
29

37

10
16
1
21
15

40

Works

Location of photographs

15
Photograph 1:

Photograph 2:

16
Photograph 3:

Photograph 4:

17
Photograph 5

Photograph 6:

18
Photograph 7:

Photograph 8:

19
Photograph 9:

Photograph 10

20
 Gas vents

Photograph 11

21
Appendix B: Drawings

22
Plan 1 – Site extent and location

23
24
25
26
Appendix C: Environmental Permits

27
Appendix D: Risk Assessment Methodology
The Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR111)
provide the technical framework for applying a risk management process when
dealing with contaminated land.

The Borough Council’s Contaminated Land Strategy has identified priority sites
based on mapping and documentary information. The Contaminated Land
Inspection Report collates all the existing information on the site and develops a
conceptual site model to identify and assess potential pollutant linkages and to
estimate risk.

The risk assessment process focuses on whether there is an unacceptable risk,

which will depend on the circumstances of the site and the context of the decision.
The Council has used a process adapted from CIRIA C552, Contaminated Land
Risk Assessment, a guide to good practice2 to produce the conceptual site model
and estimate the risk of harm to defined receptors. This involves the consideration
of the probability, nature and extent of exposure and the severity and extent of the
effects of the contamination hazard should exposure occur.

The probability of an event can be classified as follows:

 Highly likely: The event appears very likely in the short term and almost
inevitable over the long term, or there is evidence at the receptor of harm or
pollution;
 Likely: It is probable that an event will occur, or circumstances are such that
the event is not inevitable, but possible in the short term and likely over the long
term;
 Low likelihood: Circumstances are possible under which an event could
occur, but it is not certain even in the long term that an event would occur and it is
less likely in the short term;
 Unlikely: Circumstances are such that it is improbable the event would occur
even in the long term.

The severity of the hazard can be classified as follows:

 High: Short term (acute) risk to human health likely to result in ‘significant
harm’ as defined by the Environment Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. Short term risk
of pollution of sensitive water resources. Catastrophic damage to buildings or
property. Short term risk to an ecosystem or organism forming part of that
ecosystem (note definition of ecosystem in ‘Contaminated Land Statutory
Guidance, April 2012’);
 Medium: Chronic damage to human health (‘significant harm’ as defined in
‘Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance, April 2012’), pollution of sensitive water
resources, significant change in an ecosystem or organism forming part of that
ecosystem (note definition of ecosystem in ‘Contaminated Land Statutory
Guidance, April 2012’);
 Low: Pollution of non-sensitive water resources. Significant damage to
crops, buildings, structures and services (‘significant harm’ as defined in

1
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/land-contamination-risk-management
2
https://www.brebookshop.com/samples/142102.pdf

28
 ‘Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance, April 2012’). Damage to sensitive
buildings, structures or the environment.

Once the probability of an event occurring and hazard severity has been classified,
a risk category can be assigned from the table below:

Hazard
High Medium Low
High Very High Moderate
Probability

High Risk
Probability Risk Risk
Moderate Moderate/Low
Likely High Risk
Risk Risk
Low Moderate/Low
Moderate risk Low Risk
Probability Risk
Moderate/Low Very Low
Unlikely Low Risk
Risk Risk
Very High There is a high probability that severe harm could
Risk arise to a designated receptor from an identified
hazard, OR, there is evidence that severe harm to a
designated receptor is currently happening

This risk, if realised, is likely to result in a substantial

liability.

Urgent investigation (if not undertaken already) and

remediation are likely to be required.
High Risk Harm is likely to arise to a designated receptor from
an identified hazard.

Realisation of the risk is likely to present a substantial

liability.

Urgent investigation (if not undertaken already) if

required to clarify the risk and to determine the
potential liability. Some remedial work may be
required in the longer term.
Moderate risk It’s possible that harm could arise to a designated
receptor from an identified hazard. However, it is
relatively unlikely that any such harm would be severe,
or if any harm were to occur it is more likely that harm
would be relatively mild.
Moderate/Low It is possible that harm could arise to a designated
risk receptor from an identified hazard. However, if any
harm were to occur it is more likely that harm would be
relatively mild.
Low Risk It is possible that harm could arise to a designated
receptor from an identified hazard, but it is likely that
this harm, if realised, would at worst normally be mild.
Very Low There is a low possibility that harm could arise to a
Risk receptor. In the event of such harm being realised it is
unlikely to be severe.

29
 Determination of contaminated land
Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance, April 2012

Human Health

Category
1 The local authority should assume that a significant possibility of significant
harm exists in any case where it considers there is an unacceptably high
probability, supported by robust science-based evidence that significant harm
would occur if no action is taken to stop it. For the purposes of this Guidance,
these are referred to as “Category 1: Human Health” cases.
Land should be deemed to be a Category 1: Human Health case where:

(a) The authority is aware that similar land or situations are known, or
are strongly suspected on the basis of robust evidence, to have
caused such harm before in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; or

(b) The authority is aware that similar degrees of exposure (via any
medium) to the contaminant(s) in question are known, or strongly
suspected on the basis of robust evidence, to have caused such
harm before in the United Kingdom or elsewhere;

(c) The authority considers that significant harm may already have
been caused by contaminants in, on or under the land, and that
there is an unacceptable risk that it might continue or occur again if
no action is taken. Among other things, the authority may decide
to determine the land on these grounds if it considers that it is likely
that significant harm is being caused, but it considers either: (i) that
there is insufficient evidence to be sure of meeting the “balance of
probability” test for demonstrating that significant harm is being
caused; or (ii) that the time needed to demonstrate such a level of
probability would cause unreasonable delay, cost, or disruption and
stress to affected people particularly in cases involving residential
properties.

2 Land should be placed into Category 2 if the authority concludes, on the basis
that there is a strong case for considering that the risks from the land are of
sufficient concern, that the land poses a significant possibility of significant
harm, with all that this might involve and having regard to Section 1. Category
2 may include land where there is little or no direct evidence that similar land,
situations or levels of exposure have caused harm before, but nonetheless the
authority considers on the basis of the available evidence, including expert
opinion, that there is a strong case for taking action under Part 2A on a
precautionary basis.

3 Land should be placed into Category 3 if the authority concludes that the strong
case described in 4.25(a) does not exist, and therefore the legal test for
significant possibility of significant harm is not met. Category 3 may include
land where the risks are not low, but nonetheless the authority considers that
regulatory intervention under Part 2A is not warranted. This recognises that
placing land in Category 3 would not stop others, such as the owner or occupier
of the land, from taking action to reduce risks outside of the Part 2A regime if
they choose. The authority should consider making available the results of its
inspection and risk assessment to the owners/occupiers of Category 3 land.

30
 Human Health
Category
4 The local authority should consider that the following types of land should be
placed into Category 4: Human Health:

(a) Land where no relevant contaminant linkage has been established.

(b) Land where there are only normal levels of contaminants in soil, as
explained in Section 3 of this Guidance.

(c) Land that has been excluded from the need for further inspection
and assessment because contaminant levels do not exceed
relevant generic assessment criteria in accordance with Section 3
of this Guidance, or relevant technical tools or advice that may be
developed in accordance with paragraph 3.30 of this Guidance.

(d) Land where estimated levels of exposure to contaminants in soil

are likely to form only a small proportion of what a receptor might
be exposed to anyway through other sources of environmental
exposure (e.g. in relation to average estimated national levels of
exposure to substances commonly found in the environment, to
which receptors are likely to be exposed in the normal course of
their lives).

31