ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (ABP) PRAIRIE SITE, LONGSHIPS … · 2016-10-03 · Associated British Ports Prairie Site, Longships Road, Port of Cardiff Phase I Geo-environmental & Geotechnical

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (ABP)

PRAIRIE SITE, LONGSHIPS ROAD, PORT OF CARDIFF

PHASE I GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL DESK STUDY

SEPTEMBER 2016

Wardell Armstrong

22 Windsor Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BY, United Kingdom

Telephone: +44 (0)29 2072 9191 Facsimile: +44 (0)29 2038 7261

www.wardell-armstrong.com

Wardell Armstrong is the trading name of Wardell Armstrong LLP, Registered in England No. OC307138.

Registered office: Sir Henry Doulton House, Forge Lane, Etruria, Stoke-on-Trent, ST1 5BD, United Kingdom

UK Offices: Stoke-on-Trent, Cardiff, Carlisle, Edinburgh, Greater Manchester, London, Newcastle upon Tyne,

Sheffield, Taunton, Truro, West Bromwich. International Offices: Almaty, Moscow

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES

LAND AND PROPERTY

MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING

MINERAL ESTATES

WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

DATE ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 2016

JOB NUMBER: CA10948

REPORT NUMBER: 001

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (ABP)

PRAIRIE SITE, LONGSHIPS ROAD, PORT OF CARDIFF

PHASE I GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL DESK STUDY

PREPARED BY:

Sam Folarin Senior Geo-Environmental Engineer …………………………………

REVIEWED BY:

Louise Dow Associate Director …………………………………

APPROVED BY:

J Fox Regional Director …………………………………

DOCUMENT RECORD

Issue No. Date Details

1 27/04/2016 Draft issue for client review

2 21/09/2016 Final issue

This report has been prepared by Wardell Armstrong LLP with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the Contract

with the Client. The report is confidential to the Client and Wardell Armstrong LLP accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third

parties to whom this report may be made known.

No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Wardell Armstrong LLP.

Associated British Ports

Prairie Site, Longships Road, Port of Cardiff

Phase I Geo-environmental & Geotechnical Desk Study

CA10948-RPT-001

September 2016

Page i

CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2 INTRODUCTION 5

Instructions 5

Site Location & Description 5

Scope and Objectives 6

Proposed Site Use 7

3 SITE HISTORY AND CURRENT LAND USE 9

Data Sources 9

Site History 9

Review of Client Aerial Photographs 12

Current Site Use 19

Asbestos 21

Ecology 21

Environmental Management 23

4 GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTING 24

Geology 24

Hydrogeology 26

Soil Vulnerability Classification – Leaching Potential 27

Hydrology 27

5 MINING AND QUARRYING 29

General 29

Surface Workings 29

Underground Workings 29

6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSULTATIONS 30

Statutory Sources 30

Contaminated Land Register Entries and Notices 30

Waste Management 30

Radon 31

Environmental Issues 32

Archaeology 32

Unexploded Ordnance 33

7 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 35

Environmental Issues 35

8 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT 40

Introduction 40




CA10948-RPT-001

September 2016

Page ii

Qualitative Risk Assessment 41

9 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RISK REGISTER 44

10 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 65

General 65

Site Preparation and Enabling Works 65

Preliminary Foundation and Floor Slab Solution 65

Excavations and Formations 66

Protection of Buried Concrete 67

Soak Away Drainage 67

11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 69

12 REFERENCES 70

TABLES

Table I Executive Summary

Table II Summary of Relevant Geological Data

Table III Recorded Landfill Sites

Table IV Enforcements

Table V Conceptual Site Model & Potential Pollutant Linkages

Table VI Qualitative Risk Assessment

Table VII Impact Matrix

Table VIII Probability Matrix

Table IX Risk Rating

Table X Preliminary Geotechnical Risk Register

FIGURES

Figure 1 Aerial Image Showing the Approximate Site Boundary (not to scale)

Figure 2 Google Earth Imagery dated 01/11/2001 (not to scale)







Figure 9 Google Earth Imagery dated 2016 (not to scale)

DRAWINGS




CA10948-RPT-001

September 2016

Page iii

Drawing No Title Scale

CA10948-101 Site Location Plan 1:50,000

CA10948-102 Site Boundary Plan 1:2,500

CA10948-103 Flood Risk Map 1: 5000

CA10948-104 Potential Geotechnical/Geological Constraints 1: 10000

CA10948-105 Potential Environmental Constraints 1: 2500

CA10948-106 Conceptual Site Model NTS

CA10948-301 Masterplan Option A 1:1500

CA10948-302 Masterplan Option B 1:1500

CA10948-303 Masterplan Option C 1:1500

APPENDICES

Appendix I Standard Terms and Conditions and Limitations to Report

Appendix II Guidance on Contamination and Land Quality Statements

Appendix III Sources of Information

Appendix IV Site Visit Record

Appendix V Site Photographs

Appendix VI Data from Groundsure Report

Appendix VII Japanese Knotweed Management Plan

Appendix VIII Available Borehole Data

Appendix IX UXO Desktop Threat Assessment

Appendix X List of Land Uses and Associated Chemicals of Potential Concern




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 The Client, Associated British Ports (ABP), is proposing redevelopment of their site at

Longships Road, with construction of warehousing and offices. Wardell Armstrong LLP

(WA LLP) have been commissioned to undertake a geo-environmental and

geotechnical desk study to support outline planning requirements for potential

commercial redevelopment.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to identify and examine in broad terms readily available

information relating to the:

• past and current uses of the site and surrounding area;

• environmental setting including geology, mining, hydrogeology and hydrology;

• likely ground conditions beneath the site including soil/rock types, groundwater

and potential geohazards;

• potential contamination sources, pathways and receptors as part of a

preliminary conceptual model;

• potential stability and contamination constraints and liabilities that may arise

in connection with the present use or proposed use of the site; and

• potential geotechnical risks and tentative foundation, floor slab and

road/pavement design considerations for potential future development.

1.3 The site, known as the Prairie site, situates off Longships Road in the Port of Cardiff.

The site is located within the southern area of the Port of Cardiff, to the south of Roath

Dock and southeast of Queen Alexandra Dock.

1.4 A summary of the site historical, geological, hydrogeological setting and the

qualitative risk assessment is presented below;

TABLE I Executive Summary

Issue Summary

Qualitative Risk Category

Humans Property/

Environment

Present site use.

Two aggregate recycling facilities occupy the

northwest and southwest site areas. The

remainder of the site is Brownfield Land.

Moderate Moderate

Past site use.

Historical dockland with areas of site used for

landfill, coal washery, timber depot and

railway sidings purposes.

Moderate Moderate




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 2


Issue Summary


Humans Property/

Environment

Adjacent land uses.

Various historical land uses including, but not

limited to, docklands, timber yard, refuse

stockpiles, railway sidings, surrounding

commercial and industrial properties (see

section 7.2 for further details).

Moderate Moderate

Asbestos

Asbestos has not been identified on site

during our site walkover. However, asbestos

may be present in the made ground at the site

associated with past historical use.

Low to

Moderate Low

Geology and Mining

The site is expected to be underlain by Made

Ground, underlain by Tidal Flat Deposits,

further underlain by Glaciofluvial Sheet

Deposits. The underlying Bedrock geology

comprises rocks of the Mercia Mudstone

Group.

The site does not lie within the South Wales

coalfield.

- -

Groundwater

vulnerability.

This site is situated on a Secondary

Undifferentiated Aquifer with a Secondary B

Aquifer underlying. The closest licensed

groundwater abstraction location is 1.7km

north east.

Low Low

Surface water

vulnerability.

There are no river surface watercourses

identified within 500m of the study site. At its

closest point to the site, the Severn Estuary is

located approximately 30m to the south-east.

The closest licensed surface water abstraction

location is 1.1km north-west. A large shallow

pond of approximately 50m x 40m is present

in the north of the site.

Low to

Moderate

Low to

Moderate

Services. Pipelines, sewers, cables Low Low

Flooding. The site does not lie within a designated

floodplain (Flood Zone 1). Low Low

Ecology.

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been

carried out by Wardell Armstrong. Based on

this preliminary assessment, reptiles,

amphibians and birds are considered to be

potential ecological constraints. Refer to

Report CA10948/002 dated April 2016 for

more detailed information.

Moderate Moderate




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 3


Issue Summary


Humans Property/

Environment

Japanese Knotweed

A Japanese knotweed treatment area locates

within the central site area, surrounded by

Herras fencing. The Japanese knotweed itself

was translocated to the site for treatment, from

another site (Distribution Terminal) within

Cardiff Docks. The study site was treated as a

Waste Management Area (WMA) and the

subject of a Japanese Knotweed Management

Plan (JKMP), prepared by Japanese Knotweed

Solutions Ltd for Dawnus Construction.

A separate stand of Japanese Knotweed locates

within the southeast of the site.

Low Moderate

Geotechnical/geologi

cal hazards

Shrink/Swell Clays

Landslides

Ground dissolution

Compressible soils

Collapsible deposits

Running sands

Buried obstructions

Variable ground conditions

Running sands

Expansive (slag) soils

Aggressive ground conditions (sulphates, pH)

Low to

moderate

Very low

Negligible

High

Low -

moderate

Very low

Low –

moderate

Moderate

Low

Low to

moderate

Low to

moderate

Other risks Unexploded ordnance Medium

to high

Medium to

high

Further Works

Based on the available information, it is considered likely that the Local

Authority planning procedure and contaminated land officer will require a

Phase II intrusive investigation of the Prairie site.

Overall Risk

Low to Moderate - Based on the available information summarised in this

report the site is considered to present an overall Low to Moderate risk from

past use, adjacent operations, ground instability.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 4

1.5 Ground investigation is required to broadly determine if significant contamination is

present and if remediation is required, to determine the type, strength and bearing

characteristics of the shallow superficial and underlying solid geology and provide

recommendations for a suitable and economic foundation/floor slab solution for the

development.

1.6 The executive summary forms part of the overall report and should not be considered

in isolation.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 5

2 INTRODUCTION

Instructions

2.1 This report is prepared in accordance with written instruction from Haydn Dawson of

Associated British Ports (ABP) - Queen Alexandra House, Cargo Road, Cardiff, CF10 4LY

dated 15th March 2016. This follows a proposal (CA10948/JF/002) dated 11th

December 2015 by Wardell Armstrong LLP (WA LLP). Standard Terms of Engagement

were signed for and on behalf of ABP by Matthew Kennerley (Director of ABP South

Wales) dated 22nd March 2016.

2.2 WA LLP outlined required works to comprise a geo-environmental and geotechnical

desk study. This report was produced to assess the site and facilitate redevelopment

of the site for warehousing and office use.

2.3 The Standard Terms and Conditions and Limitations to this Report are presented in

Appendix I.

Site Location & Description

2.4 The site, known as the Prairie, situates off Longships Road in the Port of Cardiff. The

study area is located within the southern area of the Port of Cardiff, to the south of

Roath Dock and southeast of Queen Alexandra Dock.

2.5 The site location is shown on Drawing CA10948-001 and a more detailed site plan is

shown on Drawing CA10948-002.

2.6 The area of land being reviewed as part of this report is bounded by Longships Road

to the south beyond which lies Cardiff Flats and the Bristol Channel/Severn Estuary.

Longships Road also bounds the site to the east beyond which lie a number of depots.

The north of the site is bounded by Compass Road, its roundabout junction with

Longships Road and by adjacent commercial units to the west which front onto Cold

Stores Road.

2.7 The site occupies an approximate plan area of 38 acres (15.38 hectares) and comprises

two aggregate recycling facilities in the northwest and southwest with the remainder

of the site being brownfield land.

2.8 The majority of the ground is bare, with areas of rough grass and scrub vegetation and

areas of standing surface water especially within the northwest of the site.

2.9 A Japanese Knotweed treatment zone situates within the central site area.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 6

2.10 The site margins are marked by earth bunds, typically 1m to 2m in height. A fence line

locates at the base of the earth bund along the western site margin. The earth bund

along the western site margin is up to 4m to 5m in height based on visual assessment.

The earth bunds are typically vegetated with rough grass and scrub vegetation.

2.11 Typically the site lies at an elevation of 10m to 11m AOD.

2.12 There have been and still are significant earth moving activities on site, evidenced by

the presence of many mounds of soil/materials.

2.13 The south-western corner of the site is occupied by Neal Soil Supplies Ltd, an

aggregate transfer/recycling facility. The north-western corner of the site is occupied

by United Recycled Aggregates, a transfer station for construction and demolition

waste.

2.14 An aerial image of the site is illustrated in Figure 1;

Figure 1: Aerial Image Showing the Approximate Site Boundary (not to scale)

Image provided by ABP (Imagery Date 17/03/2016)

Scope and Objectives

2.15 The purpose of this report is to identify and examine in broad terms readily available

information relating to the:

• past and current uses of the site and surrounding area;




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 7

• environmental setting including geology, mining, hydrogeology and hydrology;

• likely ground conditions beneath the site including soil/rock types, groundwater

and potential geohazards;

• potential contamination sources, pathways and receptors as part of a

preliminary conceptual model;

• potential stability and contamination constraints and liabilities that may arise

in connection with the present use or proposed use of the site;

• potential geotechnical risks and tentative foundation, floor slab and

road/pavement design considerations for potential future development;

• requirement for future studies including intrusive site investigation prior to

redevelopment;

• design of preliminary/exploratory and main stage investigations; and

• information relevant to health and safety and environmental protection prior

to intrusive investigation.

2.16 The report has been produced in general accordance with the first incremental stage

of a Land Quality Statement as set out by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

(RICS) in their publication "Contamination, the Environment and Sustainability” dated

April 2010. The report also draws on Environment Agency Report 11 entitled “Model

Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination” dated September 2004.

Further background to government guidance on contamination and the purpose and

use of Land Quality Statements in assessing the risk of contamination at a site is

described at Appendix II.

2.17 The report does not constitute or contain a valuation nor is it a full rigorous

environmental audit or assessment of geotechnical risks and potential abnormal costs.

In this instance this report is prepared as a geo-environmental and geotechnical

desktop study which has been requested to support outline planning requirements for

potential commercial redevelopment. The report has been undertaken in accordance

with recognised UK best practice (including CLR11, BS 5930: 2015 and

BS10175:2011+A1:2013) and includes a review of existing data and a site walk over

appraisal. The site appraisal record is presented in Appendix IV.

Proposed Site Use

2.18 It is proposed that the site is redeveloped for B2 and B8 use classes together with

associated infrastructure including road access, car parking and landscaping. Outline




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 8

Masterplan Options A, B and C are presented in Drawings CA10948-301, 302 and 303

respectively.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 9

3 SITE HISTORY AND CURRENT LAND USE

Data Sources

3.1 The history of the site and the surrounding land has been investigated by consultation

with a range of archive sources as summarised at Appendix III. Historical Maps have

been sourced from Groundsure Insights (dated 21st March 2016) and the

topographical and environmental data is based primarily on Enviroinsight and

Geoinsight Reports prepared by Groundsure (dated 18th March 2016).

3.2 Groundsure Reports are presented in Appendix VI.

3.3 Aerial photographs provided by the Client have been reviewed to support the review

of past land use. For confidentiality purposes the aerial photographs are not

appended.

3.4 The Client has also provided a factual ground investigation report for an adjacent

development (Distribution Centre). Where pertinent to the current study site,

reference is made to the information contained therein.

Site History

3.5 Historic maps (1: 10560, 1:2500 and 1: 1250 scale) have been assessed to identify

previous land uses, including any significant potentially contaminative uses. Where

other features that may have an effect on development of the site have been

identified, they are described.

3.6 The history of the site and its immediate vicinity from 1879 - 1881 to the present day

is summarised below. All distances quoted are approximate.

3.7 1879 – 1881: The site lies within the Cardiff (Tidal Mud) Flats. The coastline and High

Water Mark of Ordinary Tides (HWMOT) situates between approximately 310m and

500m to the northwest and north of the site. The Low Water Mark of Ordinary Tides

(LWMOT) situates 360m to 650m south of the site. Areas of shingle (Orchard Ledges)

are illustrated along the LWMOT. Cardiff Docks locate 310m to 500m north and

northwest of the site (just beyond the HWMOT). The main features of the Dockland

are Roath Basin (550m west), Bute East Dock (550m to the northwest), Bute East Dock

Basin (840m west) and Reservoirs (940m to 960m northwest). The Boiler Works,

Terminus, Glamorgan Lime Works, Glamorgan Foundry, Tar & Resin Distillery,

Metropolitan Wagon Works locate between 550m and >1km northwest of the site.

Tharsis Copper Works locates 800m to the north of the site, adjacent to which is a Rifle

Range. Much of the Dockland is criss-crossed by a network of railway sidings.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 10

3.8 1889: There is no discernible change to the study site itself. The LWMOT locates

between 290m and 320m south and southeast of the site. The Cardiff (Mud) Flats has

been significantly reclaimed and the coastline and HWMOT now position 20m to the

west and 150m to the north of the site. The Dockland has expanded including the

construction of Roath Dock (280m northwest), Dry Dock (750m west), Crown Fuel

Works (480m northwest), numerous timber yards (500m north) and the expansion of

the railway network.

3.9 1915 – 1916: The site locates within Cardiff Docks and largely locates upon reclaimed

land with exception to the southeast corner and south of the site which still lie within

the Cardiff (Mud) Flats and Saltings. The edge of the coastline is marked by a seaward

sloping bank. The HWMOT and parts of the seaward sloping bank enter the southern

and south-eastern site areas. To the southwest of the site the HWMOT positions 30m

beyond the site margin. A number of slopes/embankments are illustrated within the

site indicative of earth moving activities/land reclamation. Railway sidings enter the

north of the site and travel to the central site area. A Coal Washery positions

immediately north and northwest of the site and may have slightly entered into the

northern site area. The Dockland has expanded including the construction of Queen

Alexandra Dock (90m west), Timber Yards/Saw Mill (480m west), Power Station (400m

north), Hydraulic Power Station (750m southwest), Tar Distilleries and Oil Tanks (900m

north) and significant expansion of the railway network. The LWMOT has moved

further south and positions between 500m and 650m south/southeast of the site.

3.10 1922: There is no discernible change to the study site itself or to the immediate

environ.

3.11 1938: There is no discernible change to the study site itself. Expansions within the

Dockland include a number of large buildings of unspecified use 600m to the north

and a number of large Transit Sheds 500m to the west of the site.

3.12 1947: The site now situates entirely upon reclaimed land and locates within a Timber

Yard. Numerous railway sidings travel through the site in a northeast to southwest

direction, connecting the northern and south-western Dockland areas. The seaward

sloping coastal bank and the High Water Mark of Medium Tides (HWMMT) positions

between 10m and 20m beyond the southern site boundary. The Low Water Mark of

Medium Tides (LWMMT) positions between 450m and 730m southeast and south of

the site. Discernible changes to the Docklands include the construction of a Cold Stores




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 11

(200m west) and the Iron and Steel Works (600m north). The Coal Washery directly

north of the site is no longer evident.

3.13 1963 – 1965: The railway sidings which traverse the site are known as the Beach

Sidings. There is no evidence of the Timber Yard which formerly occupied the site (and

immediate environ). Two Tracks traverse the central and southern site areas, leading

to various parts of the surrounding Docklands. The western, eastern and southern

areas of the site are illustrated as vegetated by scrub and rough ground. Further land

reclamation has taken place to the southeast and east of the site. Buildings in the

vicinity of Queen Alexandra Dock to the west of the site are noted to be Transit Sheds

and a Timber Shed. A building 500m to the north is noted to be a Mill. The Iron and

Steel Works (600m north) has expanded and is labelled as a Works. The LWMMT is

illustrated between 340m and 860m southeast and south of the site.

3.14 1970 – 1974: The site is no longer traversed by railway sidings. The site is illustrated

as vegetated with rough pasture and is traversed by a number of Tracks. The area

directly north of the site (former Coal Washery) is noted to be Fletchers Wharf. There

is no apparent change to the coastline since the previous historical map edition and

there is no evidence of further land reclamation. A Timber Depot and Ladder factory

have been constructed directly west of the site. An Oil Storage Terminal situates 100m

east of the site and twenty-five (25) Tanks are evident in total housed within three

separate areas together with a small number of buildings.

3.15 1883 – 1987: There is a hiatus in historical mapping during this period of time.

3.16 1989 – 1992: The site itself is shown to be vegetated by rough pasture and the Tracks

previously traversing the site are no longer evident. The Timber Depot directly west

of the site has been extended and the adjacent Ladder Factory is now a Depot of

unspecified use. The Oil Storage Terminal has been extended directly east of the site

and comprises an additional 7 above ground tanks and three buildings. Further east,

other Tanks with the terminal have been demolished and Depots constructed in their

place. A rectangular building of unspecified use has been constructed directly

southeast of the site. Additional buildings, also of unspecified use, have been

constructed to the southwest of the site adjacent to Queen Alexandra Dock.

3.17 1994 – 1995: There is a hiatus in historical mapping during this period of time.

3.18 2002: The site remains open undeveloped ground with some scrub vegetation. Areas

of embankment are indicated along the northern, eastern and western site margins.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 12

A number of new buildings, some indicated to be Depots, have been constructed

between 250m and 500m northeast of the site.

3.19 2010: A Drain is shown alongside the eastern and north-eastern site margins. The

remainder of the site is unchanged from the previous map edition and there is no

significant change to the immediate environs.

3.20 2014: The Drain is now only illustrated in the northeast of the site. The remainder of

the site is unchanged from the previous map edition and there is no significant change

to the immediate environs.

3.21 Anecdotal evidence from the Client confirms that during the 1990s, the site was used

as a race track by Wales Rally GP. In addition, between 2005 and 2012, Scoria/Slag

Made Ground from a 2-acre area of the site (under operation at the time by Cuddy

and later by Walters), was excavated and removed from the site. The Slag material

was used as engineered fill elsewhere. The resultant void was backfilled with material

scraped from the north and south quay sides of Roath Dock. It is understood that a

800mm thick layer of scoria/slag was placed as capping over the backfill. A void was

left within the northeast of the site which was more recently infilled with unknown

material. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Neal Soil Supplies was responsible for the

recent infilling.

Review of Client Aerial Photographs

3.22 Aerial photographs dated 28/09/2008, 30/10/2010 and 17/03/2016 have been

provided by the Client for review. The photographs are not reproduced here or

appended due to confidentiality purposes however a summary of the pertinent

features is provided.

3.23 Google Earth aerial imagery dated 2001, 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2016 has also been

reviewed and extracts are presented on the following pages.

3.24 Google Earth Imagery dated 01/11/2001: As seen in Figure 2, the eastern and central

site areas are dominated by the Wales Rally GP race track. The western site areas are

marked by numerous material/soil mounds and some plant/machinery is evident in

the central/west area indicating earthmoving activities.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 13

Figure 2: Google Earth Imagery dated 01/11/2001 (not to scale)

3.25 Google Earth Imagery dated 08/09/2006: As seen in Figure 3, the race track is more

clearly defined and there is much distinction between hardstanding areas and bare

ground that is vegetated with rough scrub. The earthmoving activities previously

identified within the central/west site area is no longer evident and a large vegetated

earth bund now exists. There is evidence of soil/material mounds and

plant/machinery within the southwest of the site. Material, possibly timber, appears

to be stored/stockpiled within the central and northern site areas.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 14


3.26 Client (Confidential) Aerial Photographs dated 18/09/2008: The aerial photographs

of the site taken during September 2008 show a large excavation within the southeast

of the site, presumably associated with the aforementioned slag/scoria extraction

undertaken by Cuddy. The excavation is seen to be partially infilled with water. Within

the southeast of the site are a number of stockpiles and plant/machinery. The

remainder of the site seems to be used for timber storage. Part of the former race

track is still evident.

3.27 Google Earth Imagery dated 01/01/2009: As seen in Figure 4, the vehicle race track

no longer exists and the majority of the northern, central and southern site areas are

used to store what appears to be timber/telegraph poles. It is not known if the timber

was a raw wood product or treated with preservative. Earthmoving activities are seen

in the eastern, western and south-western site areas. Neal Soil Supplies were awarded

a license in June of 2009 for aggregate recycling within the southwestern site area (see

Section 6).




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 15


3.28 Client (Confidential) Aerial Photographs dated 30/10/2010: The aerial photographs

of the site taken during October 2010 show a large excavation within the central/east

site area, roughly aligned north/south and rectangular in shape, presumably

associated with the aforementioned slag/scoria extraction undertaken by Cuddy. The

excavation is seen to be partially infilled with water. The southern site area is used to

store timber. Stockpiles and plant/machinery are seen elsewhere.

3.29 Google Earth Imagery dated 19/04/2011: As seen in Figure 5, there is no evidence of

timber storage within the site, the site appears as bare ground with a number of stock

piles and earthmoving activities. The large excavation identified on the confidential

aerial photographs from October 2010 appears to have been infilled.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 16


3.30 Google Earth Imagery dated 23/07/2012: As seen in Figure 6, there is some evidence

of timber/telegraph pole storage within the southern and south-eastern site areas.

The vast majority of the central site area is bare ground with stockpiles. Stockpiles and

earthmoving activities are indicated in the southwest of the site. A dark shaded area

within the north of the site is evident and this may reflect the Pond that can be seen

in this area today.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 17


3.31 Google Earth Imagery dated 14/03/2013 and 11/07/2013: As seen in Figures 7 and 8

below, there is further evidence of timber/telegraph pole storage and earthmoving

activities throughout the site. Plant/machinery and material stockpiles are no in

evidence in the northwest of the site in the location of the current United Recycled

Aggregates (See Section 6).




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 18



3.32 Google Earth Imagery dated 2016: The month during which this photograph was

taken is unknown. As seen in Figure 9 below, the Neal Soil Supplies and United

Recycled Aggregates activities are ongoing in the southwest and northwest

respectively. Numerous stock piles locate within the remainder of the site many of

which are vegetated. The large rectangular area evidence in the central site area is a

Japanese Knotweed Waste Treatment Area (see Subsection 3.40). Within the east of




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 19

the site a large excavation is evident, elongated roughly northwest/southeast and

partially water filled. This excavation may relate to scoria/slag extraction as discussed

in Section 3.20, although slag extraction was believed to have only taken place

between 2005 and 2012 by Cuddy, as previously mentioned. An elevation profile

retrieved from Google Earth indicates that the base of the excavation was circa. 2m to

4m OD. The site typically lies at an elevation of 10m to 11m OD (discounting stockpiles

and earth bunds) and therefore this excavation may have been between

approximately 6m and 9m deep.

Figure 9: Google Earth Imagery dated 2016 (not to scale)

3.33 Client (Confidential) Aerial Photographs dated March 2016: The aerial photographs

of the site taken during March of this year show that the large excavation in the east

of the site has been infilled. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Neal Soil Supplies

infilled the excavation with an unknown source and quantity of material. In addition,

a large Pond is seen in the northern site area.

Current Site Use

3.34 An initial site visit was undertaken on the 16th November 2015 and a more in-depth

site walk over survey was performed on the 30th March 2016.

3.35 A detailed site visit/record is attached in Appendix IV. The following points are of note:




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 20

• The site is brownfield land. The south-western corner of the site is occupied by

Neal Soil Supplies Ltd (NSS), an aggregate transfer/recycling facility. The north-

western corner of the site is occupied by United Recycled Aggregates (URA), a

transfer station for construction and demolition waste;

• The prevailing site elevation is typically 10m to 11m OD;

• The operational areas (NSS and URA) and are dominated by numerous large soil

and aggregates mounds, typically 10m to 15m in height based upon visual

assessment;

• The site margins are marked by earth bunds, typically 1m to 2m in height. A

fence line locates at the base of the earth bund along the western site margin.

The earth bund along the western site margin is up to 4m to 5m in height based

on visual assessment. The earth bunds are typically vegetated with rough grass

and scrub vegetation;

• Much of the site is bare ground and made ground is evident in the form of gravel

– cobble size concrete, brick and slag with inclusions of rebar and plastic. The

earthbunds surrounding the site similarly contain concrete, brick and slag

within a soil matrix;

• A large quantity of concrete railway bearers (circa. 550no) are stored in the

northern site area. There is fly tipping within the site itself, comprising

wood/timber, plastic, brick/concrete, rope, gas canisters (13kg and 47kg butane

and propane), vehicle tyres, car parts including a car bumper;

• During the site walk over survey, there was no evidence of utilities serving the

site;

• A Japanese knotweed treatment area locates within the central site area,

surrounded by Herras fencing. The fencing however is in a state of disrepair.

The knotweed itself was translocated to the site for treatment, from another

site (Distribution Terminal) within Cardiff Docks. The study site was treated as

a Waste Management Area (WMA) and the subject of a Japanese Knotweed

Management Plan;

• A separate, although significantly smaller, stand of Japanese Knotweed locates

in the southeast of the site;

• There are areas of standing water, especially within the northwest of the site;

• Surrounding land use is commercial and industrial in nature, including port

related operational land, timber depot, builder’s merchants, scrap metal

merchants, aggregate and construction material recycling,

transport/container/storage depots, moorings and unloading facilities, building




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 21

material suppliers, steel fabricator, commercial vehicle servicing, scaffolding

supplier and freight depot.

Asbestos

3.36 The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012

and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 impose duties upon

employers, site owners, their agents and contractors in respect of hazardous materials

including asbestos. Other health and safety and welfare regulations place duties on

Employers to undertake appropriate risk assessments. This could include the

commissioning of surveys, identification and management of hazardous materials

including any proposals for remedial work.

3.37 A site walkover survey has been completed. However, the walkover survey does not

constitute an asbestos survey and not all areas of the site may have been visited or

made available for inspection.

3.38 Asbestos has not been identified on site during our site walkover. However, asbestos

may be present in the made ground at the site associated with past historical use. In

the event that any asbestos is identified in the future or if it is considered that there

is a risk that asbestos exists on the site, a full asbestos survey should be carried out.

Guidance on the need for asbestos surveys and the method of carrying them out are

given in HSE Publication HSG264.

Ecology

3.39 There are a number of legal or planning constraints relating to wildlife habitats and

protected species on or adjacent to a site. The habitats and species can also be linked

via surface or groundwater and can be affected by activities on the site such as noise,

dust or pollution.

3.40 Reference to the Groundsure Insight reports indicate the presence of Sites of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas

(SPA), and Ramsar sites within 1km of the site. Other non-statutory sites (e.g. Sites of

Importance for Nature Conservation) which are protected by Local Planning Authority

(LPA) policy rather than statute are omitted, as are Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

habitats which are ‘protected’ by Planning Policy Wales (PPW, 8th Edition).

3.41 An ecological site visit has been carried out by Wardell Armstrong. Based on this

preliminary assessment the site is considered to contain sensitive ecological features

including flora and fauna. Further information on ecological features should be




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 22

obtained particularly in relation to designated sites of importance for nature

conservation and protected species.

3.42 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) has been undertaken by Wardell Armstrong

and as such, this document should form the basis of any further ecological

considerations, refer to CA10948 RPT-001 dated April 2016.

Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam and Giant Hogweed

3.43 Invasive plants such as Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed

have become aggressively dominant, creating serious problems in some areas. Giant

hogweed poses a serious health hazard and Japanese knotweed can cause physical

damage to pavements and structures. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states

that it is an offence to "plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild" any listed plant

species.

3.44 The site walkover survey and Ecological Appraisal carried out by Wardell Armstrong

found no evidence of Himalayan balsam or giant hogweed.

3.45 A Japanese knotweed treatment area locates within the central site area, surrounded

by Herras fencing. The fencing however is in a state of disrepair. The Japanese

knotweed itself was translocated to the site for treatment, from another site

(Distribution Terminal) within Cardiff Docks. The study site was treated as a WMA and

the subject of a Japanese Knotweed Management Plan (JKMP), prepared by Japanese

Knotweed Solutions Ltd for Dawnus Construction.

3.46 Stands of Japanese knotweed within the source site amounted to some 489 m2.

Applying a 4m extended boundary around the growth to include for roots/rhizome

spread and a 1.5m depth to the deepest root, the area of Japanese knotweed

infestation was estimated to be 4424 m3.

3.47 The WMA within the current study site was prepared and a ‘HSP3’ root barrier was

installed with the aim of preventing the contamination of areas below the barrier with

the Japanese knotweed. The Japanese knotweed was imported and spread in 250mm

layers across the WMA to a maximum of 500mm thick. The JKMP recommended that

a chemical herbicide was applied to both layers of the WMA in order to reduce the

viability of the plant rhizomes.

3.48 The JKMP notes that the WMA would receive further chemical applications over an 18

month to 2 year period as part of the treatment works.

3.49 It is understood that chemical treatment is ongoing.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 23

3.50 The JKMP was agreed with Natural Resources Wales and is presented in Appendix VII.

3.51 As previously mentioned, an Ecological Appraisal has been carried out by Wardell

Armstrong. In addition to the JK WMA, there is also a very small patch of Japanese

knotweed saplings present within the area of ephemeral/ short perennial vegetation

located near the eastern boundary of the site.

3.52 The reader should refer to CA10948 RPT-002 Rev A dated June 2016 for the findings

of the Ecological Appraisal and both Japanese knotweed areas have been mapped on

the Habitat Plan contained therein (CA10948-002).

Environmental Management

3.53 An assessment of NSS and URA environmental management systems and their

operations within the site has not been undertaken.

3.54 There is an above ground diesel container within the southwest area of the site

occupied by NSS. There are two above ground diesel containers within land occupied

by URA in the northwest of the site.

3.55 The tanks are neither bunded nor have the benefit of drip trays and appear temporary

/ towable by 4x4 or tractor. There was no visual evidence of spillage/leakages during

the site walk over survey.

3.56 There is fly tipping within the site itself, comprising wood/timber, plastic,

brick/concrete, rope, gas canisters (13kg and 47kg butane and propane), vehicle tyres,

car parts including a car bumper.

3.57 Fly tipping is evident in the northern site area, including 13kg and 47kg Calcor gas

canisters of propane and butane.

3.58 A large quantity of concrete railway bearers (circa. 550no) are stored in the northern

site area.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 24

4 GEOLOGICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTING

Geology

4.1 The assessment of the geology of the site is based on the published geological

mapping sheet (Sheet No 263, Cardiff, Solid and Drift Edition, 1:50,000 scale)

supplemented by the geological memoir, topographical plans and site visit. Online

data from the British Geological Survey (BGS) has been researched and reference has

been made to the factual ground investigation report for an adjacent site. Relevant

borehole records are attached (Appendix VIII). A summary of significant geological

information is provided below in Table II.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 25

TABLE II: Summary of Relevant Geological Data

Strata Description/comments

Made

ground

Historically, the site and surrounding area has been reclaimed from the Cardiff Tidal

Flats. Made ground is therefore expected.

Much of the site is bare ground and made ground is evident in the form of gravel –

cobble size concrete, brick and slag with inclusions of rebar and plastic. The

earthbunds surrounding the site similarly contain concrete, brick and slag within a

soil matrix.

Anecdotal evidence form the Client suggest that between 5m and 10m of Blast

Furnace Slag from the former Dowlais/East Moors Steelworks was deposited on

site during the 1870s’ as part of the land reclamation process.

Two borehole logs are available, both installed within the site itself and in relation

to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Studies during 1988 and 1989. One of the borehole logs

(CS43) records ground level as 10.46m OD which suggests a similar ground

elevation to that of today.

Borehole CS43, dated 28-29/02/1988: Made Ground comprises loose black ash fill

with occasional gravel to a depth of 6.20m. SPT ‘N’ Values range between 4 and 8,

indicating loose soil density.

Borehole ST27SW13/CS100, dated 02/02/1989: there is no log of the ground

conditions and this borehole was installed with a groundwater monitoring

piezometer only.

A third borehole was installed to the east of the study site within the former Gulf

Oil Depot, Borehole ST29SW1, dated 11-15/09/1970: Made Ground comprises

compact broken furnace slag mainly sand to 1” size to 8m depth. SPT N values range

between 16 and 60, increasing in value with depth, indicating a relative density of

medium dense to dense and very dense. This is underlain by soft fill of grey clay

with slag fragments to 9.5m, which is further underlain by compact fill of mainly

broken slag becoming clayey with depth to 13.3m.

Anecdotal evidence from the Client and evidence from aerial imagery confirm

excavations within the eastern and south-eastern site areas (for scoria/slag

extraction) which have been infilled with material scraped from Roath Dock.

In addition, the environmental search, as previously described, identifies landfilling

operations within the southern site area.

Factual ground investigation for an adjacent site identifies Made Ground

comprising ash, clinker and charcoal to 5.00 / 8.50m, underlain by Made Ground

comprising mudstone and slate gravels to 8.00 / 11.70m.

Natural

superficial

deposits

Superficial deposits in the Tidal Flat Deposits underlie the site. This deposit

comprises soft silty clay with layers of sand, gravel and peat. The available borehole

logs confirm the presence of Superficial Deposits to a depth of typically 14.1 to

17.2m.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 26

TABLE II: Summary of Relevant Geological Data

Strata Description/comments

Solid strata The Mercia Mudstone Group of rocks underlie the site and local area and is

characterised by a red, less commonly grey green, mudstone and subordinate

siltstone and sandstone. Thin beds of gypsum/anhydrite are widespread and thick

halite-bearing units are found in some basinal areas.

The available borehole logs describe the Mudstone a very stiff red brown silty Clay

and moderately weak red brown mudstone.

Hydrogeology

4.2 Hydrogeological information has been obtained from a review of:

• Groundsure Environmental Data Reports;

• Hydrogeological maps published by the British Geological Survey;

• Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (Environment Agency, 2006) and;

• Technical Report WD/00/04 (equivalent to the Environment Agency’s R&D Publication

68,) published by the British Geological Survey and entitled ‘The physical properties of

minor aquifers in England and Wales’.

4.3 This information indicates the site to be underlain by superficial deposits which are

classified as a Secondary Undifferentiated Aquifer. The underlying solid strata are

classified as a Secondary B Aquifer.

4.4 Secondary Undifferentiated aquifers typically have variable characteristics and may

be identified as Secondary A or B aquifers (minor or non-aquifers).

4.5 The rocks of the Mercia Mudstone Group are comprised of inter-bedded effectively

impermeable mudstone with slightly more permeable siltstone and sandstone units.

4.6 The groundwater sources that exist within the bedrock tend to be hydraulically

isolated by the mudstone within the more permeable sandstone and siltstone units.

Although the sandstone and siltstone horizons are usually thin (up to 1m,) laterally

discontinuous and well cemented, quantities of groundwater may be stored and

transmitted through fractures. With depth, fracture aperture decreases, as does by

consequence, the volume of stored/transmitted groundwater.

4.7 The Mercia Mudstone, groundwater flow and storage may occur within the shallow

weathered bedrock zone, within cavities created by gypsum dissolution (Gordon et al,

1997) and within the subordinate Sandstone units.

4.8 Two separate water tables are therefore expected; a shallow perched water table

within the Made Ground and a deeper groundwater table within natural geological




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 27

strata, both hydraulically isolated, although localised seepage through the Alluvium

may occur, via fissures, sandy and peaty horizons.

4.9 A review of groundwater level information within an on-site borehole (BGS logs),

located at British National Grid ST 20641 74423, identifies groundwater at a depth of

8.5m below ground level, however the ground elevation of the borehole is unknown.

4.10 Factual ground investigation findings for an adjacent site identify a perched water

table within the Made Ground at depths of between 4.3m and 4.79m.

4.11 There are no active groundwater abstraction licences within influencing distance of

the site, however there are two within 2km of the site. The closest is 1.7km north-east

of site (NGR: 321323, 176141) and is operated by Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd which

is licensed to abstract 142,715m3 of groundwater per year for ‘Dust Suppression’ and

‘Evaporative Cooling’ purposes. A further two groundwater abstraction licences are

listed within 2km of the site but have been cancelled/revoked.

4.12 The site does not lie within a source protection zone.

Soil Vulnerability Classification – Leaching Potential

4.13 The soil vulnerability classification groups the many different soil types of England and

Wales into three soil vulnerability classes and six sub-classes. Each is based on the

physical and chemical properties of the soil, which affect the downward passage of

water and contaminants. This classification is not applied to soil above non-aquifers.

Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere. A

worst case vulnerability is therefore assumed until proved otherwise.

Hydrology

4.14 There are no graded surface watercourses within 500m of the study site. At its closest

point to the site, the Severn Estuary is located approximately 30m to the south-east.

A large shallow pond of approximately 50m x 40m is present in the north of the site

adjacent to a large poor semi-improved grassland supporting bund.

4.15 The Environment Agency maintains national flood maps based on ground levels,

predicted flood levels, information on flood defences and local knowledge. The flood

maps show the predicted likelihood of flooding in an area in the context of current

and also the proposed land use considered in development planning.

4.16 For existing land use purposes, the likelihood of flooding is classed as very low, low,

medium or high based on the Environment Agency map entitled Risk of Flooding from




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 28

Rivers and Sea. The site itself is within a Very Low risk area. The chance of flooding

each year is between less than 1 in 1000 (0.1%).

4.17 However, it should be noted that areas of High risk are in close proximity to the site,

with the closest area of High risk being identified 29m south-east of the site boundary.

The chance of flooding each year in these areas is greater than 1 in 30 (3.3%).

4.18 For planning purposes, the likelihood of flooding is categorised based on flood zone

risks identified in Technical Advice Note 15: Development & Flood Risk which is

attached to Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 8. The Tan15 Data Map identifies the

site to be Zone B, an area known to have been flooded in the past.

4.19 The Natural Resources Wales Flood Risk Map identifies that various areas of the site

are at low, medium and high risk of surface water flooding.

4.20 The Flood Risk Map also confirms that the site lies within a Flood Zone 1; land assessed

as having Flood Zone 1 - land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual

probability of river or sea flooding (<0.1%) .

4.21 The Flood Risk Map identifies that coastline to the south of the site does not benefit

from flood defence and is designated Flood Zone 2 and 3. Flood Zone 2 - land assessed

as having between a 1 in 200 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of sea flooding (0.5% –

0.1%) in any year. Flood Zone 3 is land assessed as having a 1 in 200 or greater annual

probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year. An extract of the Flood Risk

Map is presented in Drawing CA10948-103.

4.22 There is one active surface water abstraction licence within 2km of the site. This is

1.1km north-west of the site boundary (NGR 319491, 175241) and is operated by Celsa

Manufacturing (UK) Ltd, which is licensed to abstract 208,190m3 of surface water per

year for Evaporative Cooling purposes. A further surface water abstraction licence is

listed within 2km of the site but has ‘historical’ status, meaning it is no longer active

and has been either revoked, cancelled, or is now expired.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 29

5 MINING AND QUARRYING

General

5.1 Research of the mining setting is based on examination of the published topographical

and geological information as described in Sections 2 and 4 of this report along with

other mining archive information. Examination has also been made of the Mining

Instability Study of Great Britain for any evidence of past mining relating to workings

other than coal. Data within Groundsure’s unique ‘Historical Land-use Database’ does

not identify any mining or extraction activities.

5.2 The Groundsure report indicates the study site is not within any known coal mining

affected area as defined by the coal authority.

Surface Workings

5.3 Research of Groundsure, topographical, geological, and other archive mining records

has indicated evidence of historical surface ground working features. The Groundsure

GeoInsight report specifically identifies historical evidence of potential surface

extraction including cutting, docks, stockpiles, etc.

Underground Workings

5.4 Published geological information indicates that this site is not in an area of

underground mining.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 30

6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSULTATIONS

Statutory Sources

6.1 Selected information from various statutory sources has been summarised from the

Groundsure Insight reports prepared specifically for this site and its presented in

Appendix VI.

Contaminated Land Register Entries and Notices

6.2 There are no contaminated land entries or notices identified within 500m of the site.

Waste Management

6.3 Information supplied has indicated that there is no evidence of current Environment

Agency landfill data within 1km of the site. However, it should be noted that there are

eight sites within 500m of the site which are registered as Environment Agency

licensed waste sites.

6.4 Review of the gathered information indicates the presence of eleven Environment

Agency historic recorded landfill sites, and eleven records of other types of waste

management or landfill sites located within 500m of the site (i.e. waste treatment,

transfer or disposal sites). The closest recorded facility of each type is shown in

Table III.

6.5 In addition to the recorded/licensed landfilling activities in the vicinity of the site, the

possibility, although remote of there being unrecorded landfilling activities within

influencing distance of the site cannot be entirely discounted. If at some time in the

future, the presence of such an unrecorded landfill is revealed then its potential

influence on the site may need to be investigated and dealt with as necessary.

TABLE III: Recorded Landfill Sites

Location Details

Environment Agency historic landfill site: Queen

Alexandra Dock

Active: 01-Aug-1993 to 31-Aug-1994

Licence Holder: Associated British Ports

Grid Ref: NGR 320500, 174100

Distance from Site: On Site

Site Location: South Side Queen Alexandra Dock,

Longships Road, Queen Alexandra

Licence Number / Site Reference: 93/06

Site Category: Industrial – Port

Waste Type: Industrial, Household, Liquid sludge

Licence Status: Surrendered on 10-Jun-1997




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 31

TABLE III: Recorded Landfill Sites

Location Details

Licenced Environment Agency Licensed Waste

Site: Longships Road

Licence Holder: Cuddy Mike / Neal Soil Suppliers

Ltd

Grid Ref: NGR 320368, 174034


Site Location: Land / Premises At, Longships

Road, Cardiff Docks, Cardiff, Glamorgan, CF10

4LU

Licence Number: CUD005 / NEA068

Site Category: Industrial – Port

Waste Type: Material Recycling Treatment

Facility / Transfer Station taking Non-

Biodegradable Wastes

Licence Status: Issued on 01-Jun-2009

Licenced Waste Management Facility: Longships

Road

Grid Ref: NGR 320346, 174022


Site Location: Waste Transfer Station at

Longships Road

Planning Application reference: 00/1187R

Further Details: Scheme comprises use of land for

the recycling of bricks, tiles and concrete waste

to produce concrete fill.

6.6 As previously mentioned, anecdotal evidence from the Client confirms that between

2005 and 2012, Scoria/Slag Made Ground from a 2-acre area of the site (under

operation at the time by Cuddy and later by Walters), was excavated and removed

from the site. The Slag material was used as engineered fill elsewhere. The resultant

void was backfilled with material scraped from the north and south quay sides of

Roath Dock. It is understood that a 800mm thick layer of scoria/slag was placed as

capping over the backfill. A void was left within the northeast of the site which was

more recently infilled with unknown material. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Neal

Soil Supplies was responsible for the recent infilling.

Radon

6.7 Radon can be a hazard within built developments and especially within enclosed or

confined spaces. The Health Protection Agency and British Geological Survey

document "Indicative Atlas of Radon in England and Wales" (2007) provides a

summary of the number of homes in a given area above the “Action Level” for radon.

Although the radon atlas relates directly to measurements taken from homes or

dwellings, it is also relevant to employers assessing risks for enclosed underground

and groundfloor work places.

6.8 The BRE document "Radon: guidance on protective measures for new buildings"

(2015) provides guidance for reducing the concentration of radon in new buildings and

a two stage procedure using accompanying maps needed to determine the level of

protection for a given site.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 32

6.9 These documents have been consulted and the site is shown to lie in an area where

no protection against radon is needed should development of residential dwellings or

new structures of similar form of construction and compartmentation occur.

Environmental Issues

6.10 As a result of research mainly via the Groundsure reports, there are no records of

pollution incidents, Red List discharge consents, pollution controls, or prosecutions

within a distance of 250m from site.

6.11 The Environment Agency data via the Groundsure report records the following

environmental issues at or within 250m of the site:

1 No. of recorded enforcement notification (Table IV below).

TABLE IV: Enforcements

Operator and Location Details

Operator: Cardiff Wood-Waste Recycling

Process: Timber Activity

Location: Coldstores Road, Queen Alexandra

Dock, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff, CF10 4LU

Grid Ref: NGR 320263, 174305

Distance from Site: 101m south-west

Permit Type: Part B

Permit Status: Historical Permit

Enforcement: Enforcement Notified

Date of Enforcement: 19/09/2008

6.12 The Groundsure report has identified a record of a current COMAH (Control of Major

Accident Hazards) site within 250m of the site. This record is in relation to Valero

Logistics, who are an international manufacturer and a marketer of transportation

fuels, other petrochemical products, and power. The site is situated approximately

100m north-east and is identified as a COMAH Top Tier Operator.

6.13 The Groundsure report also identifies one historical NIHHS (Notification of

Installations Handling Hazardous Substances) site within 250m of the site. This record

relates to the Texaco Oil Ltd site at Roath Dock Oil Terminal which is located

approximately 7m north-east of site. The operational status is confirmed as historical.

Archaeology

6.14 Preliminary examination of historical maps indicate no apparent features of significant

archaeological interest in the general vicinity of the site.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 33

6.15 A search of British archaeological sites using the ‘ARCHI UK’ database (over 190,000

British archaeological sites are listed) also indicates there are no recorded

archaeological / ancient sites of interest within 1km of site.

Unexploded Ordnance

6.16 A preliminary UXO threat assessment has been commissioned as part of this desk

study. The assessment was undertaken by Dynasafe BACTEC Ltd (via Groundsure) who

are a specialist in risk mitigation and the removal and management of UXO.

6.17 The findings of the preliminary review indicated a medium UXO risk at the site

(indicative British / Allied UXO risk and indicative German UXO risk) and a Stage 2

Detailed UXO Desktop Threat Assessment was recommended. The Detailed

Assessment is presented in Appendix IX.

6.18 The detailed assessment considers the site to be at Medium to High risk from UXO.

The key considerations and findings are outlined below;

6.19 Cardiff was subjected to 23 air raids during WWII, including one Blitz scale raid

involving 100 bombers. The docks were identified by the Luftwaffe as the primary

bombing target in the city and therefore the study area occupied an area of high

bombing density, approximately 294 bombs / 1,000 acres.

6.20 The railway infrastructure on site would have been heavily utilised throughout the

war, transporting goods to and from the engineering works which would have been

vital to the war effort, remaining operational for its duration. Note however that

undeveloped land and the peripheral areas away from the sidings would have been of

little importance and would most likely have been neglected.

6.21 Consequently, the possibility cannot be discounted that a UXB may have fallen

unobserved and gone unrecorded on site, especially as the heaviest raids over the city

occurred at night.

6.22 Had the vacant areas of the site actually been undeveloped during 1941-42, it is

possible that a UXB falling here could have remained undetected. Note, that the entry

hole of an SC50 HE UXB (the most commonly deployed German HE bomb) could have

been as little as 20cm in diameter and therefore easily obscured in such ground

conditions.

6.23 Furthermore, the possibility cannot be entirely discounted that a UXB penetrated the

ground adjacent to rail sidings and came to rest beneath them due to the ‘J-Curve’

Effect.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 34

6.24 It has been assessed that a 500kg bomb would have had an approximate maximum

bomb penetration depth of between 10-12m below WWII ground level. Penetration

depth could potentially have been greater if the UXB was larger (though only 4% of

German bombs used in WWII over Britain were of that size). Note that UXBs may be

found at any depth between just below the WWII ground level and the maximum

penetration depth.

6.25 The following risk mitigation measures are recommended;

• Site Specific Explosive Ordnance Safety and Awareness Briefings should be

given to all personnel conducting intrusive works;

• The provision of Unexploded Ordnance Site Safety Instructions for the site;

• Down-hole Intrusive Magnetometer Survey of all borehole and pile locations

down to a maximum bomb penetration depth;

• Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Engineer presence on site to support

shallow intrusive works (brownfield land alternative to Non-Intrusive

Magnetometer Survey).




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 35

7 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

Environmental Issues

7.1 Conclusions are drawn from the preceding information in terms of potential sources

of contamination, possible receptors that may be affected by any sources of

contamination and the pathways that exist between source and receptor. This basic

risk assessment allows identification of the suitability of the site for its current and

future use and evaluation of any potential environmental liability that may attach to

the site. A description of past or existing uses and any chemicals of potential concern

is attached at Appendix X. The issues can be broadly addressed as follows: land

contamination, groundwater contamination, surface water contamination, ground

gases and air pollution.

7.2 The land use history has identified the following potentially significant sources of

contamination both on the site and adjacent to the site.

Potentially Significant Contamination Source On Site:

1. Unspecified historical tank.

2. Historical timber depot & yard.

3. Unspecified historical ground workings, cuttings and heaps / stockpiles (i.e.

excavation for railway line access) associated with docklands and wharfs.

4. Historical landfill.

5. Historical coal washery.

6. Historical railway sidings.

7. Reclaimed land (Made Ground).

Potentially Significant Contamination Source Off Site (within 250m of site):

8. Historical land use including:

o Unspecified historical pit.

o Historical dockland and unspecified wharf.

o Unspecified historical tanks.

o Unspecified historical ground workings.

o Historical timber yard.

o Unspecified historical depot.

o Former ladder factory.

o Historical refuse heap.

o Historical cold stores.

o Historical railway sidings.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 36

o Historical industrial chimney stacks.

o Historical cuttings (i.e. excavation for railway line access).

o Historical unspecified warehouse.

o Historical electricity substations.

o Historical tank cleaning plant.

9. Surrounding commercial and industrial properties including:

o Wincanton - Distribution and Haulage, 5m west of site boundary.

o Unspecified depots and travelling cranes at various locations within 250m of

the site (closest is 20m west of site boundary).

o Ascus S L - Construction Completion Services, 26m north-east of site

boundary.

o Unspecified tanks located at various locations within 250m of the site (closest

is 38m north-east of site boundary).

o Fletcher's Wharf - Moorings and Unloading Facilities, 40m north-west and

199m west of site boundary.

o D & A Media Bristol Ltd - Distribution and Haulage, 52m east of site boundary.

o John Ford & Sons Ltd - Scrap Metal Merchants, 63m east of site boundary.

o Unspecified factory/works at various locations within 250m of the site

(closest is 64m north of site boundary).

o Freight depots at various locations within 250m of the site (closest is 80m

west of site boundary).

o Oil storage terminals/depots at various locations within 250m of the site

(closest is 88m north-east of site boundary).

o Timber depot, 93m west of site boundary.

o King’s Wharf - Moorings and Unloading Facilities, 173m north-west of site

boundary.

10. Surrounding infrastructure and facilities including:

o Electricity substations, pylons and masts at various locations within 250m of

the site (closest is 103m north-east of site boundary).

7.3 As a result of the land use history presented in previous sections of this report the site

may have a number of sources of contamination. For land or groundwater to be

designated as polluted a linkage must exist between:

• a source of contamination capable of causing significant harm;

• human or environmental receptors; and




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 37

• a pathway by which the contamination can reach the receptor.

7.4 The conceptual site model presented in Table V details an initial assessment of all

potential pollutant linkages. Identified geological and environmental constraints are

presented in Drawings CA10948-104 and 105 respectively. Drawing CA10948-106

presents a schematic conceptual site model based on the information presented in

Table V.

TABLE V: Conceptual Site Model & Potential Pollutant Linkages

Source (Contaminant) Pathway Receptor

No. 1

Historical underground /

above ground storage

tanks. Possibly with

associated pipe-work,

pumps, storage barrels,

etc. Contents unknown

(given the historic

industrial land use, most

likely to be hydrocarbon

of some form)

1. Inhalation.

2. Dermal contact.

3. Ingestion.

4. Surface runoff.

5. Groundwater migration.

6. Direct contact

(aggressive attack).

7. Vapour/Gas migration.

1. Current occupiers.

2. Future occupiers.

3. Construction workers.

4. Groundwater.

5. Surface water.

6.Subsurface building materials [sulphur]

and plastic service pipes [phenol].

7. Flora and Fauna.

No. 2

Historic timber depot &

yard (hydrocarbons,

phenols, solvents,

polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), metals)

1. Inhalation.

2. Dermal contact.

3. Ingestion.

4. Surface runoff.


6. Direct contact






4. Groundwater.

5. Surface water.

6. Subsurface building materials [sulphur]


7. Flora and Fauna.

No. 3

Historical ground

workings, cuttings and

stockpiles (dockyards

and docklands associated

with potential

contamination from

sulphates, asbestos,

phenols, hydrocarbons,

polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs),

chlorinated

hydrocarbons, PCBs

metals and also

hexachloro-cyclohexane)

1. Inhalation.

2. Dermal contact.

3. Ingestion.

4. Surface runoff.


6. Direct contact



8. Disturbance &

Inhalation.




4. Groundwater.

5. Surface water.



7. Flora and Fauna.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 38



No. 4

Historic landfill (leachate

– industrial, household,

liquid sludge waste,

ammoniacal nitrogen,

metals, pH, solids, COD

etc.).

1. Inhalation.

2. Dermal contact.

3. Ingestion.

4. Surface runoff.


6. Direct contact






4. Groundwater.

5. Surface water.



7. Flora and Fauna.

No. 5

Coal Washery.

Coal sludge, also known

as slurry, is the liquid

coal waste generated by

washing coal (metals

including vanadium,

cyanide, sulphate,

asbestos, phenols,

hydrocarbons, PAHs, and

also sulphur).

2. Dermal contact.

3. Ingestion.

4. Surface runoff.


6. Direct contact



8. Disturbance &

Inhalation.




4. Groundwater.

5. Surface water.



7. Flora and Fauna.

No. 6

Railway sidings.

Ash ballast found on

railway tracks, may

possibly contain heavy

metals, phenols,

sulphates and PAHs.

Leakage of fuel oils,

lubricating oils, greases

and antifreeze liquids

may cause localised

contamination of railway

tracks (metals including

vanadium, sulphates,

asbestos, PAHs,

chlorinated

hydrocarbons and PCBs).

1. Inhalation.

2. Dermal contact.

3. Ingestion.

4. Surface runoff.


6. Direct contact



8. Disturbance &

Inhalation.




4. Groundwater.

5. Surface water.



7. Flora and Fauna.

No.7

Reclaimed land.

Formation of new land

from reclaimed Severn

Estuary material by likely

means of dredging

and/or infilling with Slag.

The infilling process

inevitably creates an

area of Made Ground

(heavy and phytotoxic

metals, PAH).

2. Dermal contact.

3. Ingestion.

4. Surface runoff.


6. Direct contact





4. Groundwater.

5. Surface water.



7. Flora and Fauna.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 39



No.8

Historical surrounding

land use e.g. historical

pit, tanks, timber yard,

railway sidings, tank

cleaning plant, etc. ( a

wide array of potential

contaminants including,

but not limited to,

metals, cyanide, nitrates,


phenols, acetone,

hydrocarbons, PAHs,

chlorinated

hydrocarbons, PCBs,

etc.)

1. Inhalation.

2. Dermal contact.

3. Ingestion.

4. Surface runoff.


6. Direct contact



8. Disturbance &

Inhalation




4. Groundwater.

5. Surface water.



7. Flora and Fauna.

No.9

Current surrounding

commercial and

industrial properties e.g.

timber depots, haulage

yards, freight depots, oil

storage terminals, etc. ( a

wide array of potential

contaminants including,

but not limited to,

metals, cyanide, nitrates,


phenols, solvents,

hydrocarbons, PAHs,

chlorinated

hydrocarbons, PCBs,

etc.)

1. Inhalation.

2. Dermal contact.

3. Ingestion.

4. Surface runoff.


6. Direct contact



8. Disturbance &

Inhalation.




4. Groundwater.

5. Surface water.



7. Flora and Fauna.

No.10

Current surrounding

infrastructure features

e.g. electricity

substations, pylons and

masts (Cooling oil in old

electrical sub-station

hydrocarbons, PCBs)

1. Inhalation.

2. Dermal contact.

3. Ingestion.

4. Surface runoff.


6. Direct contact





4. Groundwater.

5. Surface water.

7. Flora and Fauna.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 40

8 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Introduction

8.1 The main issues considered in the risk assessment are:

• The environmental risks identified, if any, that may have implications for the

current the proposed use of the site.

• How likely it is that the environmental risks identified may affect the site. This is

considered against a background of continuation of the current use and potential

for the site to be redeveloped in accordance with the proposed use.

• Other areas of primary concern from a ground engineering and environmental

viewpoint that may have been revealed as a result of the research carried out.

These features are limited to the scope of work/research carried out and may not

cover such factors as the wider planning constraints, archaeology, ecology etc.

8.2 For ease of reference and understanding the risks are assessed against 3 possible

levels/categories:

• Low risk - site considered suitable for use and environmental setting.

Contaminants may be present but unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on key

targets. Action unlikely to be needed;

• Moderate risk - site may not be suitable for use and environmental setting.

Contaminants probably or certainly present and likely to have an unacceptable

impact on key targets. Action may be needed in the medium term; and

• High risk - site probably or certainly not suitable for use and environmental setting.

Contaminants probably or certainly present and very likely to have an

unacceptable impact on key targets. Urgent action needed in short term.

8.3 Under each of the categories the environmental issues which have been identified

have been assessed with regard to a wide range of topics including (where

appropriate):

• the 'source-pathway-receptor' concept;

• the behaviour of potential contaminants within the environment;

• environmental processes;

• industrial operations and best practice;

• current environmental legislation;

• the views and practices of the environmental regulators;

• the likelihood of environmental notices, orders or other enforcement action;




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 41

• any requirements to remove waste, contaminated or hazardous materials;

• the health and safety of occupiers or neighbours;

• any redevelopment plans for the site;

• effects on the fabric of buildings caused by contamination; and

• financial and cost implications.

Qualitative Risk Assessment

8.4 From the combination of the foregoing information a qualitative assessment of the

potential geo-environmental risk is provided in Table VI. Where indicated, these risks

may need to be considered for any future redevelopment of the land.

8.5 The effect of the present site use on the surrounding area is assessed with regard to

the possible contaminant migration from the site off site and with regard to the

general environmental setting and land quality of the surrounding area in order to put

the on site assessment in context.

Table VI - Qualitative Risk Assessment

Issue Summary

Risk Category

Humans Property/

Environment

Contamination Potential:

Present site use. Brownfield Land Moderate Moderate

Past site use.

Historical dockland with areas of site used

for landfill, coal washery, timber depot

and railway sidings purposes.

Moderate Moderate

Impact to site from past

and present adjacent land

uses.

Various historical land uses including, but

not limited to, docklands, timber yard,

refuse stockpiles, railway sidings,

surrounding commercial and industrial

properties (see section 7.2 for further

details).

Moderate Moderate

Mining history.

No records of historic underground

mining. No mine entries within the

vicinity.

Low Low

Emissions, pollution

incidents, discharges etc.

There is one recorded enforcement

notification relating to timber activity

within influencing distance of the site.

Low Low

Asbestos

Asbestos has not been identified on site

during our site walkover. However,

asbestos may be present in the made

ground at the site associated with past

historical use.

Low to

Moderate Low




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 42


Issue Summary

Risk Category

Humans Property/

Environment

Other issues.

The integral containment capacity of all

storage tanks should be checked against

relevant guidelines for full compliance.

If required, a drainage survey should be

undertaken to assess potential

contamination of controlled waters.

Low to

Moderate

Low to

Moderate

Environmental Sensitivity:

Geology.

Made ground of an unknown nature,

thickness and extent overlying Superficial

deposits in the form of Tidal Flat Deposits.

The Mercia Mudstone Group of rocks are

identified as the underlying bedrock.

n/a n/a

Groundwater vulnerability.

This site is situated on a Secondary

Undifferentiated Aquifer with a Secondary

B Aquifer underlying. The closest licensed

groundwater abstraction location is

1.7km north east.

Low Low

Surface water

vulnerability.

There are no river surface watercourses

identified within 500m of the study site.

At its closest point to the site, the Severn

Estuary is located approximately 30m to

the south-east. The closest licensed

surface water abstraction location is

1.1km north-west.

Low to

Moderate

Low to

Moderate

Risks relating to other constraints (miscellaneous):

Services. Pipelines, sewers, cables Low Low

Flooding. The site does not lie within a designated

floodplain (Flood Zone 1). Low Low

Ecology.

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has

been carried out by Wardell Armstrong.

Based on this preliminary assessment,

reptiles, amphibians and birds are

considered to be potential ecological

constraints. Refer to Report CA10948/002

Rev A dated June 2016 for more detailed

information.

Moderate Moderate

Topographical features

Drainage

Infrastructure

Landscape designation

Buried features

Planning designations

None identified

or

Restrictions to development may include:

Low

Low

or

Moderate to

High




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 43


Issue Summary

Risk Category

Humans Property/

Environment

Japanese Knotweed

A Japanese knotweed treatment area

locates within the central site area,

surrounded by Herras fencing. The

Japanese knotweed itself was translocated

to the site for treatment, from another site

(Distribution Terminal) within Cardiff

Docks. The study site was treated as a WMA

and the subject of a Japanese Knotweed

Management Plan (JKMP), prepared by

Japanese Knotweed Solutions Ltd for

Dawnus Construction.

A separate stand of Japanese Knotweed

locates within the southeast of the site.

Low Moderate

Unexploded Ordnance

A detailed desktop threat assessment

confirms that the docks area in general was

a primary bombing target and

consequently the possibility of

unobserved/unrecorded UXO cannot be

discounted.

Moderate

to high

Moderate to

high

Liability Issues:

Risk of liability with past

use of site.

Potential contamination associated with

historical land use (i.e. historical dockland

with areas of site used for landfill, coal

washery, railway sidings, etc.).

Moderate Moderate

Risk of liability with current

use of site.

Brownfield land (potentially associated

with legacy of contaminated land). Moderate Moderate

Risk of liability for

proposed use of site.

It is proposed that the site is redeveloped

for B1, B2 and B8 commercial use

Low to

Moderate

Low to

Moderate

Overall Risk for Site: Low to Moderate




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 44

9 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RISK REGISTER

9.1 A Preliminary Geotechnical Risk Register has been prepared, based upon the desktop

findings. The purpose of the register is to provide a preliminary assessment of

identified hazards, potential likely cause, the consequence or impact of the hazard and

identification of the design controls to be implemented in order to reduce the

probability to a tolerable level.

9.2 The overall application of the risk register will allow the management of geotechnical

risk. The probability of a hazard occurring can be reduced to a minimum by ground

investigation and informed geotechnical design, however the probability cannot be

reduced below negligible.

9.3 The Preliminary Geotechnical Risk Register should be amended as required following

ground investigation and further assessment and throughout the life time of the

project going forward.

9.4 Whilst the preliminary risk register is qualitative at this stage, the likelihood of a hazard

occurring has been judged on a quantitative scale, derived from Clayton (2001) and

summarised in the tables below:

Table VII - Impact Matrix

Time and/or Cost Impact Impact

>20% Very high 5

5 – 20% High 4

2 – 5% Moderate 3

0.5 – 2% Low 2

<0.5% Very low 1

Table VIII - Probability Matrix

Probability

Very likely 1 in 10 5

Likely 1 in 100 4

Probable 1 in 1000 3

Unlikely 1 in 10000 2

Negligible 1 in 100000 1




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 45

Table IX - Risk Rating

Risk Rating Risk P x I = R Response

Intolerable - work must not start

until the risk has been reduced. If

the risk cannot be reduced the

project must not proceed

13 – 25 Unacceptable

Substantial - work must not start

until the risk has been reduced

9 – 12 Early attention

Tolerable - must consider more

cost effective solutions or

improvements at no additional

cost

5 – 8 Regular attention

Trivial – monitor / no further action

is required

1 - 4 Monitor

9.5 The preliminary geotechnical risk register is presented on the following page:




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 46

TABLE X - Preliminary Geotechnical Risk Register

Aspect Hazard Cause Potential impact Existing risk Comments and design controls

required to reduce risk Residual risk

P I R

Co

nta

min

ate

d l

an

d

Contaminated

land

Previous land use Slows down construction

progress, design changes

required. Increased

costs. Pollution requiring

remediation. Health &

safety implications.

4 3 12 Ground investigation is required to

inform environmental and human

health risk assessments and

requirements for remediation.

Refer to environmental risk

assessment for further

information on significant

contaminant linkages identified.

An overall low to moderate risk

level was concluded.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, chemical

testing of soils and

contaminated land

assessment.

Un

de

rgro

un

d v

oid

s

Coal mining –

workings and

mine entries

Ground

instability/subsiden

ce, workings

consolidation,

crown hole

subsidence, mine

entry collapse

Surface deformation,

structural damage,

health and safety risk

1 4 4 The site does not lie within a coal

field. No risk, no further action.

No risk, no further action

Ground

dissolution

Unstable natural

ground,

collapse/subsidenc

e, soft spots


structural damage,


2 2 4 BGS data confirms that soluble

rocks are present but unlikely to

cause problems except under

exceptional circumstances. A

negligible hazard rating is given.

No special actions required to

avoid problems due to

soluble rocks. No special ground

investigation required, and

increased construction costs or

increased financial risks are

unlikely due to potential

problems with soluble rocks.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 47




P I R

The PBA dataset has assessed the

presence of cavities or voids

related to non-coal mining related

cavities, natural cavities, brine

extraction, gypsum extraction, tin

mining and clay mining. There are

no such features located within

the site itself or within a 1km

radius of the site.

The Mercia Mudstone Group

contains evaporate minerals,

mainly halite (sodium, chloride)

and gypsum (hydrous calcium

sulphate). These lithologies can

cause problems for construction

due to dissolution, however only

under exceptional circumstances.

Other voids, e.g.

basements,

tanks, wells,

infilled ground

etc

Unstable natural

ground


structural damage,


3 3 9 A review of historical maps and

current/past land use has not

identified the presence of any

structures. Basements and below

ground tanks are not expected.

The site and surrounding area is

infilled land and excavations on

site have been infilled in the past

and recently. There is potential

therefore potential for voids

within infilled ground that is not

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 48




P I R

appropriately engineered. We

anticipate a low to moderate risk.

Ground investigation and in-situ

geotechnical testing is required to

determine the prevailing ground

conditions.

Slo

pe

s a

nd

ea

rth

wo

rks

Slope instability Encountering slip

planes,

encountering

weaker zones of

soil/rock,

unexpected

variability in ground

conditions/permea

bility, over-

steepened slopes.

Structural deformation.

Slowing down of

construction works.

Additional materials to

be excavated/re-

compacted. Health &

safety implications.

2 3 6 The site is unaffected by landslides

and slope instability issues are

unlikely to be present, giving a very

low level of risk. Increased

construction costs or increased

financial risks are unlikely due to

potential problems with

landslides.

Soil/material stockpiles locate

within the site especially within

the areas occupied by NSS and

URA. Also, earth bunds surround

the site, the largest and steepest of

which locate along the western

site margin. There was no evidence

of slope instability during the walk

over survey however over

steepened slopes are at potential

risk of localised slippage.

Ground investigation and

geotechnical testing should be

undertaken to confirm the ground

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil

geotechnical analysis and

assessment of

geotechnical properties.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 49




P I R

conditions and appropriate

geotechnical parameters for

embankment/slope design to

ensure long term stability of such

features.

Difficulties in

excavation

Variable ground

conditions, in-situ

density of

soil/made ground

underestimated,

Buried

obstructions, rebar.

Delays to work.

Increased noise levels

due to additional

breaking requirements.

3 3 6 Potential buried obstructions may

occur due to historic land use and

infilled ground. We anticipate a

low to moderate risk.

Ground investigation is required to

confirm the anticipated ground

engineering conditions.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil


assessment of


Material

quantities

Insufficient material

for fill, large

quantities of

unsuitable

materials

Additional materials to

be imported to and

exported from the site.

Delays to schedule.

Increased costs.


determine ground condition,

material types, suitability for

material reuse and classification of

material for offsite disposal.

Careful cut and balance should be

achieved. We anticipate a low -

moderate risk of material

shortage.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation and

assessment of cut and fill

balance.

Failure of

excavated

surfaces

Materials too soft

and too wet to be

trafficked. Strength

parameters of

trafficking surface

underestimate.

Over trafficking.

Loss of access to areas of

work, slowing down of

excavation and

construction. Loss of

access leading to traffic

congestion, and health &

safety implications to

construction staff.


inform geotechnical engineering

design, requirement for capping

layer and geotextile to deal with

low CBR values if required,

protection of formations etc

Areas of the ground surface are

wet and soft, largely due to wet

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil


assessment of





CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 50




P I R

Formations are not

protected.

weather and poor surface

drainage. We anticipate a low risk.

Fo

un

da

tio

ns,

su

bst

ruct

ure

s

Unexploded

ordnance (UXO)

Unidentified UXO

encountered during

excavations,

drilling, piling etc

Health and safety

implications to

construction staff and

wider Port users.

3 5 15 A desktop detailed threat

assessment identifies a medium to

high risk. Site specific UXO

awareness briefings, down hole

magnetometer survey of borehole

and pile positions, explosive

ordnance disposal engineer

presence on site to support

shallow intrusive works

To be determined

following specialist

advise

Limited

knowledge of

ground

conditions,

unexpected

ground

conditions,

variable ground

conditions

Lack of / limited

ground

investigation,

variable ground

conditions

Unsuitable strata for the

chosen foundation

solution (time and cost

impact) and geotechnical

risk.

Slowing down of

construction process,

design changes required,

project delayed, time and

cost implications.

Variable engineering

properties and behaviour

leading to unacceptable

settlement.

Obstructions in the

ground leading to design

3 4 12 Made Ground/infilled ground by

its very nature can be variable in

composition, geotechnical (and

chemical) parameters and

engineering behaviour.

Mercia Mudstone may vary

between classification as soil or

rock depending on its detailed

lithology and state of weathering.

As a result of this, in some cases,

weaker material may be found

below stronger material.

Consequently, sampling and

testing is difficult because the

material may not be suited to

either soil- or rock-specific

techniques.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil


assessment of





CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 51




P I R

changes, time and cost

impact to project.



engineering conditions.

Foundations should be designed

upon the findings of ground

investigation.

Weak and/or

compressible

ground

Unacceptable total

and/or differential

settlement

Unacceptable settlement

can cause failure of or

disturbance to the

infrastructure beyond

tolerable limits

5 4 20 The Tidal Flat Deposits that

underlie the site are highly

compressible and will consolidate

over a long period of time due to

changes in loading and

groundwater condition.

Factual ground investigation data

for an adjacent site confirmed the

Tidal Flat Deposit has low to very

low shear strength (13 to 25 KPa).

The land should not be loaded or

dewatered without technical

advice. Extra construction costs

are likely.



conditions. Foundations should be

designed upon the findings of

ground investigation.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil


assessment of


Shrinking and

swelling clay/silt

Shrinkable soils are

subject to changes

in volume as their

Soil movement can cause

subsidence and heave,

leading to failure of or

3 3 6 The BGS data concludes that the

ground conditions are

predominantly of low plasticity

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 52




P I R

moisture content is

altered. Influenced

by seasonal effects,

tree roots.

disturbance to the

infrastructure

and at very low risk from

shrinkable soils. Increased

construction costs or increased

financial risks are unlikely.

However, from past experience,

Tidal Flat Deposits can display

medium to high plasticity.

Factual ground investigation data

for an adjacent site confirmed a

very high plasticity.

Some parts of the Mercia

Mudstone may be subject to

shrinking and swelling; with

changes in moisture content to a

sufficient degree that structural

damage to buildings or disruption

in some types of construction

works is caused.

A ground investigation and







assessment of


Collapsible

deposits

Ground loss and

excessive

settlements.

Structural damage,


2 3 6 The BGS data concludes a

negligible risk of collapsible

deposits.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 53




P I R

However, the site and surrounding

area is infilled land and

excavations on site have been

infilled in the past and recently.

There is potential therefore

potential for voids within infilled

ground that is not appropriately

engineered and potential collapse

upon a change in loading and/or

groundwater regime, e.g.

inundation collapse settlement. A

low to moderate risk is

anticipated.


determine the ground condition

and presence of potentially

collapsible soils.


assessment of


High water table /

water logged soils

Soft/weak soils,

buoyancy effects,

water ingress into

excavations

Ground loss, structural

deformation, excessive

settlements.

3 3 9 A high groundwater table is not

anticipated. A perched water table

is predicted at the junction

between the Slag Made Ground

and underlying relatively

impermeable Tidal Flat Deposits. A

deeper groundwater table is

expected within Glaciofluvial

Sheet Deposits which underlie the

Tidal Flat Deposits.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation,

determination of water

levels of soil parameters




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 54




P I R

Water tables might be tidally

influenced and therefore water

levels will vary. Excavations below

HWT may not be possible without

specialist dewatering.

A Pond situates in the northwest

site area, believed to be the result

of surface water pooling. During

the walk over survey many areas

were noted to collect

rainfall/surface water runoff.



conditions and groundwater

regime.

Running sand Excavations in

saturated ground,

high groundwater

ingress into sandy

soils.

Difficult excavations, soil

loss / ground collapse

2 3 6 There is very low potential for

running sand problems and

increased financial

risk/construction costs are

unlikely.



conditions.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil


assessment of


Buried

obstructions

Land use Unsuitable strata for the

chosen foundation

solution / service

installation (time and

4 2 8 A review of historical maps and

current/past land use has not

identified the presence of any

structures on site and buried

obstructions such as historic

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil





CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 55




P I R

cost impact) and

geotechnical risk

foundations, basements and floor

slabs are not expected.

The Beach Sidings traversed the

site historically and there is

therefore potential for buried

railway sidings/tracks.




and recently. There is therefore a

potential for buried obstructions

within infilled/made ground and

we anticipate a low – moderate

risk.

Slag made ground may be hard

digging depending upon the

density of the material and the

presence of fused ‘skulls’ of slag.




conditions.

assessment of


Expansive soils Soil movement can

cause subsidence

and heave

Structural deformation,

unacceptable settlement

3 3 9 Slag is expected to underlie the

site. Slag may be expansive

depending upon its origin,

depositional

history/weathering/age and

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil





CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 56




P I R

chemical composition. If slag is

expansive, this can result in

increased construction costs and

financial risk.

It is understood that Slag has been

extracted from the site for reuse

elsewhere. This might suggest that

the Slag beneath the site does not

have the propensity to expand.



conditions and expansive slag

testing should be undertaken to

confirm.

assessment of


Adjacent

structures

Works on site

affecting adjacent

structures

Works on site affecting

stability of adjacent

structures, e.g

excavations, vibration

etc

2 2 4 There are adjacent structures to

the west of the site. Ground

investigation is required to confirm

the ground model and likely

foundation solution. For a piled

foundation solution, checks will be

required to confirm vibration

levels are reduced to acceptable

levels. Design of

cuts/slopes/excavations should

take into account proximity to

other structures. A low risk is

anticipated.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation and

evaluation of

foundation/engineering

options.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 57




P I R

Aggressive

ground chemistry

Land use, prevailing

ground conditions

Attack of buried

concrete, attack of

buried steel

3 2 6 Naturally occurring sulphate could

be present within several strata

beneath the site and this might

require more resistant concrete

mix designs to be used to protect

concrete in the ground.

Mercia Mudstone may contain

aqueous solutions of sulphate and

sulphuric acid in the ground in

sufficient quantity for potential

chemical attack on concrete.

A low – moderate risk is

anticipated.


confirm the ground model and

strata properties to assist with

concrete design.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation and soil

chemical assessment.

Japanese

Knotweed

Use of an area of

the site as a

Japanese Knotweed

WMA.

Small patch of

Japanese Knotweed

in eastern site area

Structural damage,

spread within the site

and off site onto land and

water.

3 4 12 A Japanese Knotweed

Management Plan is in place for

the waste treatment area.

Chemical treatment is continuing.

Specialist advice and treatment is

required for the smaller stand of

knotweed identified din the east of

the site. It would also be prudent

to have an in-depth specialist

survey of the entire site.

To be confirmed

following specialist input.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 58




P I R

A moderate risk is anticipated.

A specialist should be consulted as

to the final treatment and disposal

method, either offsite at landfill or

within a cell on site.

Flo

or

sla

bs,

ro

ad

s a

nd

pa

ve

me

nts

Soft,

compressible

soils at/near

surface

Unsuitable ground

for a ground

bearing floor slab.

Low CBR value for

roads and

pavements.

Unacceptable settlement

can cause failure of or

disturbance to the

infrastructure beyond

tolerable limits.

Alternative designs.

4 3 12 The near surface soils depending

upon their composition may be

soft. During the site walk over

survey, near surface soils in areas

were found to be wet and soft

especially where well trafficked.

A moderate risk ia anticipated.






To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil


assessment of


Frost susceptible

soils

Frost heave Surface

damage/structural

deformation

3 2 6 A low risk is anticipated. Ground

investigation is required to confirm

the anticipated ground conditions.

Floor slab and road/placement

design and construction thickness

should be based upon the

investigation findings and

incorporate this risk.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil


assessment of


Expansive soils Soil movement can

cause subsidence

and heave

Structural deformation,

unacceptable settlement

3 3 9 Slag is expected to underlie the

site. Slag may be expansive

depending upon its origin,

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 59




P I R

depositional

history/weathering/age and

chemical composition. If slag is

expansive, this can result in

increased construction costs and

financial risk. Low to moderate risk

is anticipated.

It is understood that Slag has been

extracted from the site for reuse

elsewhere. This might suggest that

the Slag beneath the site does not

have the propensity to expand.



conditions and expansive slag

testing should be undertaken to

confirm.


assessment of


Dra

ina

ge

an

d f

loo

din

g

Highly permeable Ineffective storm

water

storage/attenuatio

n

Attenuation structures

may require lining if

required.

3 3 9 Shallow near surface soils are

expected to be of low permeability

and pooling water from rainfall has

been encountered on site.

However, Slag made ground is

anticipated and one might expect

this deposit to have a high

permeability and unlikely to retain

water.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil


assessment of drainage

characteristics




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 60




P I R



levels will vary.



conditions and strata properties.

Impermeable

ground

Ineffective

soakaways,

saturation of the

ground

Alternative drainage

solutions required if

soakaways are not

suitable.

3 3 9 Surface water ponding was noted

during the site walk over survey in

areas of the site and a Pond locates

in the northwest of the site,

indicating low permeability

shallow soil conditions.

Whilst the Slag made ground may

exhibit good permeability, the

underlying Tidal Flat Deposits are

relatively impermeable.


determine the prevailing round

conditions and strata properties.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil


assessment of drainage

characteristics

High levels of

groundwater,

tidal ranges

Soft/weak soils,

buoyancy effects,

water ingress into

excavations

Ground loss, structural

deformation, excessive

settlements.

Excavations

3 3 9 A high groundwater table is not

anticipated. A perched water table

is predicted at the junction

between the Slag Made Ground

and underlying relatively

impermeable Tidal Flat Deposits. A

deeper groundwater table is

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation,


levels, soil geotechnical

analysis and assessment




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 61




P I R

expected within Glaciofluvial

Sheet Deposits which underlie the

Tidal Flat Deposits.






A Pond situates in the northwest








conditions and groundwater

regime.

of drainage

characteristics

Nearby water

courses

Flood risk Flood protection

required

3 3 9 Severn Estuary is located

approximately 30m to the south-

east.

Areas of high flood risk are in close

proximity to the site, with the

closest area of High risk being

identified 29m south-east of the

site boundary. The chance of

To be confirmed

following flood risk

assessment




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 62




P I R

flooding each year in these areas is

greater than 1 in 30 (3.3%).

Earthworks which

require drainage

Attenuation/accom

modation of

earthworks

drainage

Flooding, drainage or

attenuation required

3 3 9 Drainage designs to accommodate

expected drainage from

earthworks slopes and cutting

drains in addition to hard

standings and highways surface

water runoff. Ground investigation

is required to confirm the ground

model and strata properties.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, soil


assessment of

earthworks required.

Te

mp

ora

ry w

ork

s, c

on

stru

ctio

n c

on

stra

ints

Contaminated

land

Land use Precautions for ground

workers, disposal costs,

increased costs/delay,

health and safety

requirements


inform environmental and human

health risk assessments and

requirements for remediation.

Refer to environmental risk

assessment for further

information on significant

contaminant linkages identified.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation, chemical

testing of soils and

contaminated land

assessment.

Ground gas Organic/peaty Tidal

Flat Deposits

Inhalation and human

health risk, via gas

ingress into in confined

spaces/excavations/buil

dings

3 3 9 Tidal Flat Deposits are organic and

typically contain Peat horizons.

Ground gases generated typically

include carbon dioxide and

methane.

Changes in tide levels result in rises

and falls in water table. This can

affect soil gas ingress and increase

the potential for migration or

ingress into excavations/buildings

(piston effect).

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation,

determination of gas

levels and completion of

a gas risk assessment.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 63




P I R

Shallow

groundwater

Inundation of

excavations

Ground/excavation

instability, health and

safety implications

3 3 9 A Pond situates in the northwest











Allowances for pumping water out

of excavations.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation,


levels, soil geotechnical

analysis and assessment

of drainage

characteristics

Presence of

recorded and

unrecorded

underground/ove

rhead services

Damage during site

works

Damage during site

works, health and safety

implications, increased

costs, delays.

2 3 6 Obtain up to date service plans

from statutory providers. Vigilance

during site works. Scan before

excavating.

To be confirmed

following collection of

services information and


Hard ground,

buried

obstructions

Hard digging Increased cost and delay,

increase in excavation

dimensions

3 3 9 The Beach Sidings traversed the

site historically and there is


railway sidings/tracks.




and recently. There is potential


obstructions within infilled/made

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation and

geotechnical assessment.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 64




P I R

ground. Slag made ground may be

hard digging depending upon the

density of the material and the

presence of fused ‘skulls’ of slag.

A low to moderate risk is

anticipated.




conditions.

Loose, unstable

ground at shallow

depth

Excavation

instability

Collapse of excavations,

support required for

excavations, health and

safety requirements.

3 3 9 Excavation support/battering back

of excavations. Ground

investigation required to confirm

ground conditions and strata

properties. Low to moderate risk

is anticipated.

To be confirmed

following ground

investigation and

geotechnical assessment.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 65

10 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

General

10.1 The preliminary recommendations given in the following sections are based on the

available desk study information and should be confirmed by the recommended scope

of site investigation highlighted in Section 11.

Site Preparation and Enabling Works

10.2 A specialist should be consulted as to the ongoing treatment of the Japanese

Knotweed Waste Treatment Area and the newly identified stand of knotweed in the

southeast of the site.

10.3 All buried structures/obstructions identified should be broken out and removed.

10.4 All scrub vegetation including roots should be grubbed up and removed from beneath

the proposed structures, access roads and car parking areas.

10.5 The reduced levels should be brought up to the required levels with well-compacted

imported granular materials. Department of Transport (DoT) type 2 sub base or similar

should be used and should be compacted in layers to the requirements of the

Specification for Highway Works. Alternatively, appropriate selected inert imported

fill could be used.

10.6 Allowances should be made for removing any soft spots/areas and their replacement

with well-compacted imported granular materials as previously described.

10.7 Allowances should be made for temporary structural support to the surrounding roads

and services made necessary as a result of the proposed works.

10.8 Allowances should be made for rerouting existing buried services and the isolation and

cutting back to the boundary of any non-essential or redundant services.

10.9 In accordance with EC Regulation 1272/2008 and Environment Agency Guidance WM3

soils and other materials destined for off-site disposal should be classified on the basis

of their hazard phrases prior to disposal. Soils are classified as a mirror entry waste

and should be classified on the basis of their specific chemical properties.

Preliminary Foundation and Floor Slab Solution

10.10 The site is expected to be underlain by a significant thickness of Slag Made Ground.

The Made Ground is underlain by Tidal Flat Deposits which are highly compressible.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 66

10.11 Depending upon the thickness and in-situ relative density of the Slag Made Ground

and the required loading intensity of the proposed structures, shallow reinforced

strip/pad foundations may be suitable.

10.12 Should the Slag Made Ground be expansive in nature or should predicted total and

differential settlements of the underlying Tidal Flat Deposits exceed structural

tolerances, then a piled foundation solution would be most appropriate.

10.13 In order to avoid damages to the piles during installation, the piling method and

installation equipment should be carefully selected by a piling specialist.

10.14 Information from the Client confirms that a precast concrete piled foundation solution

was used for an adjacent development (Distribution Centre). The piles, 235mm square

and 19m in length, were installed and designed for a safe working load of 400kN.

10.15 A similar precast piled methodology is envisaged for the current study site. The piles

should end-bear within the competent Mercia Mudstone Bedrock and the design

should take into account negative skin friction from the Made Ground and Tidal Flat

Deposits.

10.16 Allowances should be made for monitoring levels of vibrations and monitoring local

structures.

10.17 The type of pile, pile length, estimated working loads and settlements should be

determined by a specialist piling contractor.

10.18 It may also be prudent to drive a number of test piles at selected locations to confirm

the anticipated safe working loads.

10.19 Depending upon the density of the Slag Made Ground and the presence of ‘skulls’ of

slag and/or buried obstructions, driven precast concrete piles may be unsuitable.

Bored piles may therefore be required.

10.20 The floor slabs should be designed and constructed as suspended. In the event of

expansive slag, an appropriate under-slab void will be required. The use of clayboard

or another proprietary measure may be required.

Excavations and Formations

10.21 Most of the very shallow excavations should be possible with normal soil excavating

machinery. However allowances should be made for the use of hydraulic breaker

attachments when excavating buried obstructions or in the event of encountering

‘skulls’ of slag.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 67

10.22 Shallow excavations are likely encounter perched water/groundwater flows. It should

be noted that during times of heavy rainfall a higher water table will be encountered.

10.23 Water tables might be tidally influenced and therefore water levels will vary.

Excavations below the HWT may not be possible without specialist dewatering.

10.24 It should also be noted that changes in water levels due to tides can affect soil gas

ingress and increase the potential for migration or ingress into excavations/buildings

(what is known as the piston effect).

10.25 The sides of any excavations deeper than 1.0m should be supported by planking and

strutting or other proprietary means.

10.26 The sub-formations/formations will be highly susceptible to loosening, softening and

deterioration by exposure to weather (rain, frost and drying conditions), the action of

water (flood water or removal of groundwater) and site traffic.

10.27 Formations should never be left unprotected and continuously exposed to rain

causing degradation, or left exposed/uncovered overnight.

10.28 Construction plant and other vehicular traffic should not be operated on unprotected

formations.

10.29 Allowances should be made for the removal of soft spots/areas and their replacement

with well compacted granular materials.

10.30 It is recommended that approval be gained from a qualified engineer of the formation

condition before covering them with any subsequent construction.

Protection of Buried Concrete

10.31 Within BRE Special Digest 1 the chemical agents that aggressively attack concrete are

sulphate, sulphides, magnesium ions, ammonium ions, carbon dioxide, chloride ions

and phenols.

10.32 At this stage it is recommended that, all buried concrete can as a minimum conform

to ACEC Class AC-1 of BRE Special Digest 1 (2001), however, this is dependent on

chemical testing.

Soak Away Drainage

10.33 The design of soakaway drainage will be dependent upon factors including the Made

Ground thickness, geotechnical/permeability characteristics and chemical

composition and leaching potential.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 68

10.34 Soakaway drainage may be unsuitable due to the presence of underlying relatively

impermeable Tidal Flat Deposits or if contaminated ground is encountered.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 69

11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 Based on the available information summarised in this report the site is considered to

present an overall Low to Moderate risk from past use, adjacent operations, ground

instability.

11.2 If redevelopment is proposed in the future, an investigation of the geological

conditions will be required and it may be anticipated that some made ground or other

unsuitable materials could be encountered. Further to this, some minor remedial

measures may be necessary depending on the nature and extent of the made ground

and any future more sensitive land use.

11.3 The site has a variety of historical occupiers some of which are of potentially

contaminative uses.

11.4 Based on the available information, it is considered likely that the Local Authority

planning procedure and contaminated land officer will require a Phase II intrusive

investigation of the Prairie site. The Phase II investigation is likely to comprise:

• Drilling and testing of soil, groundwater and ground gas to target potential sources

of contamination across the site;

• A quantitative risk assessment to determine if significant contamination is present;

and;

• If significant contamination is identified, calculation of site specific remedial

targets, liaison with the regulators and remediation.

11.5 A Geotechnical Assessment should be undertaken to:

• Determine the type, strength and bearing characteristics of the shallow superficial

and underlying solid geology;

• Determine the risk from karstic features and the requirement for stabilisation

works;

• Provide recommendations for a suitable and economic foundation/floor slab

solution for the development; and

• Provide recommendations with regard to any other geo-technical aspects

pertaining to the development

11.6 The UXO desktop threat assessment considers the UXO risk to be medium to high and

recommendations have been made for site specific explosive ordnance safety and

awareness briefings, an onsite presence to support shallow excavations and down

hole intrusive magnetometer survey of borehole and pile positions.




CA10948-RPT-002

September 2016

Page 70

12 REFERENCES

• BGS, 2000. The physical properties of minor aquifers in England and Wales.

Nottingham: BGS, (Technical Report WD/00/4), 127-139.

• BRE Special Digest 1. SD1: 2001. Concrete in aggressive ground.

• British Standards. Code of Practise for ground investigations. BS 5930: 2015.

BSI.

• British Standards. Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – Code of

practise. BS11075: 2011+A1:2013. BSI.

• Clayton, C.R.I. (2001) Managing geotechnical risk: improving productivity in UK

building and construction, Thomas Telford, 80pp. (Institution of Civil

Engineers). Contamination, the environment and sustainability: Implications

for chartered surveyors and their clients. Royal Institution of Chartered

Surveyors. April 2010

• Geological Survey of England and Wales. Sheet No 263, Cardiff, Solid and Drift

Edition, 1:50,000 scale

• Gordon, T. et al, 1997. Urban geology of Cardiff centre and the Bay Region. The

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 30 (1), 13-22.

• Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice. Environment Agency. 2006

• Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CPR11).

Environment Agency. September 2004.

• Sutton, J. S., et al, 1997. Hydrogeology and groundwater control, Cardiff Bay

Barrage. The Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 30 (1), 213-221.

• Technical Guidance WM3: waste classification – guidance on the classification

and assessment of waste. Environment Agency. 2015.

• The Health Protection Agency. RPD-003. Indicative Atlas of Radon in England

and Wales. 2007. HPA and BGS.

D R A W I N G S

REFERENCE

Site boundary

Copyright Reservedc

DRG No. SCALE

CHECKED BY APPROVED BYDRAWN BY

CLIENT

PROJECT

DRAWING TITLE

DATE

TAUNTON TEL 01823 703100

(HEAD OFFICE)

STOKE-ON-TRENT TEL 0845 111 7777 CARDIFF TEL 029 2072 9191

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TEL 0191 232 0943 SHEFFIELD TEL 0114 245 6244

WEST BROMWICH TEL 0121 580 0909 EDINBURGH TEL 0131 555 3311

LONDON TEL 020 7287 2872

LEIGH TEL 01942 260101

DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING A3

SJLDRJH

18/04/161:25,000 @ A3CA10948-101

SITE LOCATION

PORT OF CARDIFFLONGSHIPS ROAD,THE PRAIRIE SITE,

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS

319 320 321

173

174

175

176

322

© Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2016.Licence No.100035207.

318

REFERENCE

Site boundary

Copyright Reservedc

DRG No. SCALE


CLIENT

PROJECT

DRAWING TITLE

DATE


(HEAD OFFICE)




LONDON TEL 020 7287 2872

LEIGH TEL 01942 260101


SJLDRJH

18/04/16N.T.S.CA10948-102

SITE BOUNDARY PLAN



REFERENCE

NOTE :-

Flood Risk Data sourced from theEnvironment Agency flood map for planning(from rivers & the sea).

Copyright Reservedc

DRG No. SCALE


CLIENT

PROJECT

DRAWING TITLE

DATE


(HEAD OFFICE)




LONDON TEL 020 7287 2872

LEIGH TEL 01942 260101


LDLDRJH

20/09/161:5,000 @ A3CA10948-103

FLOOD RISK MAP




REFERENCE

Site boundary

High water mark c1881



Large excavation from c2016aerial photograph (Approx.)



Japanese Knotweed

Pond

Large excavations identified on ABPaerial photographs dated 30/10/2010,presumed scoria/slag extractions. Laterinfilled with scrapings from Roath Dock.

Large excavations identified on GoogleEarth images dated 2016. Infilled byMarch 2016 with unknown materials.Feature estimated to be 6 to 9m deep.

ABP aerial photographs dated18/09/2008 identify large excavation,presumed scoria/slag extraction. Laterinfilled with scrapings from Roath Dock.

POTENTIAL GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS

1. Variable made ground

2. Expansive slag

3. Compressible tidal flat deposits

4. Shrinking/swelling tidal flat deposits

5. Buried obstructions

6. Variable weathering grade/Mercia Mudstone

7. Aggressive ground conditions

8. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)

Copyright Reservedc

DRG No. SCALE


CLIENT

PROJECT

DRAWING TITLE

DATE


(HEAD OFFICE)




LONDON TEL 020 7287 2872

LEIGH TEL 01942 260101


SJLDRJH

18/04/161:10,000 @ A3CA10948-104

CONSTRAINTS PLANPOTENTIAL GEOLOGICAL/GEOTECHNICAL




Cardiff Flats

Trav

ellin

g Cra

ne

Depot

Depot

King's Wharf

COMPASS ROAD

Mud

Sand

LONGSHIP

S ROAD

LC

CO

LD S

TO

RE

S R

OA

D

REFERENCE

Site boundary

Part A(2) and Part B AuthorisedProcesses

EA Licensed waste sites

EA historic landfill

Historic & planned waste sites

Local Authority/Historicalmapping landfill records

Wincanton - Distribution &haulage

39

40

1

5

4

2

4

4

4

4

2

6

1

3

7

39

1

4

4

REFERENCE

Site boundary

Part A(2) and Part B AuthorisedProcesses

EA Licensed waste sites

EA historic landfill

Historic & planned waste sites

Local Authority/Historicalmapping landfill records

Wincanton - Distribution &haulage

Unspecified historical tank

Historical timber depot & yard

Unspecified historical groundworkings

Landfill & other waste sites

Historical coal washery

Historical railway sidings

Reclaimed land (made ground)

Japanese Knotweed WMTA

Stand of Japanese Knotweed

Pond

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

39

1

Copyright Reservedc

DRG No. SCALE


CLIENT

PROJECT DRAWING TITLE

DATE

LIVERPOOL TEL 0151 494 5431

(HEAD OFFICE)




LONDON TEL 020 7287 2872

LEIGH TEL 01942 260101


ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTSSJLDRJH

18/04/161:2500 @ A3CA10948-105

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTSPOTENTIAL



1 2 34 5 6

46

5

1 2 35 6 7

4

1

1 2 35 6 7

4

Oilstoragedepot

2

3 3 44

5

6

7 7

8 9 8 9

ElectrictySub

Station

10

1 2 35 6 7

42 3 45 6

1 2 34 5 6

1 2 34 5 6

1 2

3

44

5

2

77

Made Ground

SiteBoundary

SiteBoundary

Possible infilledexcavations.

This schematic conceptual model is to be reviewed in conjunction with Table V of the Desk Study Report -- CA10948 RPT-001.

Surroundingcommercial &

industrial propoerties

Historic storageTank

Historic timber depot &yard, historic coal washery

Surroundingcommercial &

industrial propoerties

Pylon

Tidal Flat Deposits(Superficial Deposits)

Mercia Mudstone Group(Bedrock)

8

8

8

1

3

1

2

4

5

6

3

1

7

4

5

8

2

3

4

5

6

7

6

2

7

8

9

10

Source

1

Pathway

1 1

Receptor

Historic landfill (leachate - industrial, household, liquidsludge waste, ammoniacal nitrogen, metals, pH, solids,COD etc.).

Coal washery. Coal sludge, also known as slurry is theliquid coal waste generated by washing coal (metalsincluding vanadium, cyanide, sulphate, asbestos,phenols, hydrocarbons, PAH's and also sulphur).

Railway sidings. Ash ballast found on railway tracksmay possibly contain heavy metals phenols, sulphatesand PAH's. Leakage of fuel oils, lubricating oils,greases and antifreeze liquids may cause localisedcontamination of railway tracks (metals includingvanadium, sulphates, asbestos, PAH's, chlorinatedhydrocarbons and PCB's).

Inhalation.

Dermal contact.

Ingestion.

Surface water run-off

Groundwater migration.

Direct contact (aggressive attack).

Vapour/Gas migration.

Disturbance and inhalation.

Future occupiers.

Construction workers.

Groundwater.

Surface water.

Subsurface building materials(sulphur) and plastic servicepipes (phenol).

Flora and Fauna.

Current occupiers.Historical underground/above ground storage tanks.possibly with associated pipe-work, pumps, storagebarrels etc. Contents unknown (given the historicindustrial land use most likely to be hydrocarbon ofsome form).

Historical ground workings, cuttings and stockpiles(dockyards and docklands associated with potentialcontamination from sulphates, asbestos, phenols,hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,PCB's, metals and also hexachloro-cyclohexane).

Historic timber depot & yard (hydrocarbons, phenols,solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), metals).

Reclaimed land. Formation of new land from reclaimedSevern Estuary material by likely means of dredgingand/or infilling with slag. The infilling process inevitablycreates an area of Made Ground (heavy and phytotoxicmetals, PAH's).

Historical surrounding land use e.g. historical pit, tanks,timber yard, railway sidings, tank cleaning plant, etc. (awide array of potential contaminants including, but notlimited to, metals, cyanide, nitrates, sulphates,asbestos, phenols, acetone, hydrocarbons, PAH's,chlorinated hydrocarbons, PCB's etc.)

Current surrounding commercial and industrialproperties e.g. timber depots, haulage yards, freightdepots,oil storage terminals, etc. (a wide array ofpotential contaminants including, but not limited to,metals, cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, asbestos, phenols,solvents, hydrocarbons, PAH's, chlorinatedhydrocarbons, PCB's etc.)

Current surrounding infrastructure features e.g.electricity substations, pylons and masts (cooling oil inold electrical sub-station hydrocarbons, PCB's)

SITE LOCATION

DRG No. SCALE


CLIENT

PROJECT

DRAWING TITLE

DATE


(HEAD OFFICE)




LONDON TEL 020 7287 2872

LEIGH TEL 01942 260101


SJLDRJH

28/04/16N.T.S.CA10948-106

SITE MODELSCHEMATIC CONCEPTUAL

PORT OF CARDIFFLONGSHIPS ROAD,THE PRAIRE SITE,



Documents

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (ABP) PRAIRIE SITE, LONGSHIPS … · 2016-10-03 · Associated British Ports Prairie Site, Longships Road, Port of Cardiff Phase I Geo-environmental & Geotechnical