Site Condition Report PDF

DOCKLANDS DATA CENTRE
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT
APPLICATION
Site Condition Report

Prepared for: Telehouse International Corporation of
Europe Ltd
Client Ref: 410.04438.00003
SLR Ref: 410.04438.00003 SCR

Version No: Final
June 2018
Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd
Docklands Data Centre Environmental Permit Application SLR Ref No: 410.04438.00003 SCR
Site Condition Report June 2018
BASIS OF REPORT
This document has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited with reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the
manpower, timescales and resources devoted to it by agreement with Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd (the Client)
as part or all of the services it has been appointed by the Client to carry out. It is subject to the terms and conditions of that
appointment.
SLR shall not be liable for the use of or reliance on any information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document for any
purpose by any person other than the Client. Reliance may be granted to a third party only in the event that SLR and the third party
have executed a reliance agreement or collateral warranty.
Information reported herein may be based on the interpretation of public domain data collected by SLR, and/or information supplied
by the Client and/or its other advisors and associates. These data have been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.
The copyright and intellectual property in all drawings, reports, specifications, bills of quantities, calculations and other information
set out in this report remain vested in SLR unless the terms of appointment state otherwise.
This document may contain information of a specialised and/or highly technical nature and the Client is advised to seek clarification on
any elements which may be unclear to it.
Information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document should only be relied upon in the context of the whole
document and any documents referenced explicitly herein and should then only be used within the context of the appointment.
.
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 SITE CONDITION REPORT (H5) TEMPLATE ......................................................................... 2
DOCUMENT REFERENCES
TABLES
Table 1 Site Details ........................................................................................................................ 2
Table 2 Condition of the Land at Permit Issue .............................................................................. 3
Table 3 Permitted Activities .......................................................................................................... 7
APPENDICES
Appendix 01: Project Indigo Docklands Campus Sites 6 & 8 London Preliminary Land Quality Risk
Assessment
Appendix 02: Cundall Indigo Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment
Appendix 03: Subadra Site Investigation Report Telehouse West
Appendix 04: Baseline Site Investigation Report 2018 ref. 425.04438.00005/SI
.
1.0 Introduction
SLR Consulting Ltd (SLR) has been instructed by Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd (the
Operator) to prepare a Site Condition Report (SCR) in support of an application for a new bespoke
Environmental Permit (EP) for the Telehouse Docklands Data Centre.
This SCR has been prepared in accordance with the Environment Agency’s H5 Guidance Note on SCR1. The
objective of the SCR is to record and describe the condition of the land at the site at the time of the permit
application. The SCR will provide a point of reference and baseline environmental data so that when the permit
is surrendered it can be demonstrated that there has been no deterioration in the condition of the land as a
result of the proposed operations, and ensure that the condition of the land is in a ‘satisfactory state’ on
surrender of the permit.
Sections 1 to 3 of the EA’s SCR template have been completed in the preparation of this document, which
comprises the following:
 site details;
 condition of the land at permit issue;
o geology;
o hydrogeology;
o hydrology;
 pollution history;
 evidence of historic contamination; and
 permitted activities.
Section 4 to 7 of the SCR template will be maintained during the life of the permit and Sections 8 to 10 will be
completed and submitted in support of the application to surrender the permit.
______________________
1
EA Guidance; Site Condition Report – guidance and templates, Version 3, May 2013.
2.0 Site Condition Report (H5) Template

Table 1
Site Details
Name of the applicant Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd
Docklands Datacentre
Activity address Coriander Avenue
London
E14 2AA
National grid reference TQ 38770 81090
Document reference and dates for Site Condition

410.04438.00001 SCR (On Application 2018)
Report at permit application and surrender
Drawing 001 – Site Location

Drawing 002 – Site Layout and Emission Points
Drawing 003 – Sources, Pathways and Receptors
Drawing 004 – Cultural and Natural Heritage
Document references for site plans (including Drainage Plans:

location and boundaries)  MW.SLD.F00312.C3 (Drainage North Building)
 MW.SLD.F00312.C3.1 (Drainage East & West
Buildings)
 MW.SLD.F00312.C3.2 (Drainage North 2
Building)
Table 2
Condition of the Land at Permit Issue
Environmental setting including: Geology
 geology
British Geological Survey (BGS) data2 indicates the following general
 hydrogeology geological sequence beneath the site:
 surface waters  Fluvial sedimentary deposits of alluvium (clay, silt, sand, peat) that
is normally soft to firm consolidated, compressible silty clay, but
can contain layers of silt, sand, peat and basal gravel. A stronger,
desiccated surface zone may be present; and
 The bedrock beneath the site is a sedimentary combination of clay,
silt and sand of the London Clay Formation.
Hydrogeology
The EA’s What’s In Your Backyard (WIYBY) website shows:
The superficial geology beneath the site is classified as Secondary
(undifferentiated) aquifer, such that it has not been possible to attribute
that the bedrock comprises of either permeable layers capable of
supporting water supplies at a local level or predominantly lower
permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of
groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable
horizons and weathering. In most cases, this means that the layer in
question has previously been designated as both minor and non-aquifer in
different locations due to the variable characteristics of the rock type.
The bedrock is classified as unproductive strata with low permeability that
has negligible significance for water supply or river base flows (i.e. non-
aquifer).
Source Protection Zone
The site is not located within, or near, any Groundwater Source Protection
Zone.
Groundwater Vulnerability
The site is located within an area indicated as a “minor aquifer” with high
vulnerability, such that the superficial geology is able to easily transmit
pollution to groundwater, however the geology can provide only modest
amounts of water due to the nature of the rock or the aquifer’s structure.
It is noted that the EA is updating the Groundwater Vulnerability mapping
to reflect improvements in data mapping and understanding of the factors
affecting vulnerability. The aforementioned superficial geology is classified
as a Secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer that has previously been
designated as both minor and non-aquifer in different locations throughout
the area of Groundwater Vulnerability designated as “minor aquifer”.
______________________
2
http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html accessed July 2017
Hydrology
The River Lea, a tributary to the River Thames, is located approximately
130m east of the site (at its nearest point).
An artificial pond is located in the north eastern area of the site; one is also
located circa 50m to the south west, with further similarly artificial water
features approximately 130m to the west of the site.
Flooding
The Environment Agency flood map for planning3 identifies that the site is
located within a Flood Zone 3. These are areas of land which the
Environment Agency defines as ‘land having a 1 in 100 or greater annual
probability of river flooding or land having a 1 in 200 or greater annual
probability of sea flooding.’
However, more detailed analysis of site location4 shows that the flood risk
at the site is low.
The site does not benefit from protection by existing flood defences that
are offered to neighbouring land.
Pollution history including: Pollution History
 pollution incidents that
The Environment Agency’s What’s In Your Backyard (WIYBY) application has
may have affected land
been used to identify any pollution incidents recorded on-site and within
 historical land-uses and the immediate surrounding area.
associated contaminants
On site: There are no recorded pollution incidents within the site boundary
 any visual/olfactory that may have affected the land beneath the site.
evidence of existing
Off site: Within 1km of the site there have been no significant/major
contamination
recorded pollution incidents that could affect the land beneath the site.
 evidence of damage to
Historical Land-uses
pollution prevention
measures Section 2.4 (Site History) of the Project Indigo Preliminary Land Quality Risk
Assessment (SLR, May 2013) (Appendix 01 to this document), summarises
the history/former uses of the site prior to the construction and operation
of the data centre:
 The general area has historically comprised of industrial uses
associated with shipping (Eastern Docks) and road and rail
warehousing;
 The site formed the eastern end of the East Dock between
approximately 1803 and the mid 1980’s;
 The 28-feet deep (8.5m) East Dock was partly filled from the west
after World War II, with infilling completed in 1987-8 (the nature of
______________________
3
https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/summary/538786/181095
4
https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-
risk/map?easting=538786&northing=181095
material used to infill the former dock is unknown);

 Construction of the 350m long East India Dock Tunnel commenced
in 1989 and was completed in May 1993. The top and base
elevation of the tunnel is not known although possibly extended
down to the London Clay;
 The North building at the site was constructed in 1989 and the site
was developed in successive stages since this date.
The Baseline Site Investigation Report 2018 (SLR ref. 425.04438.00005/SI)
reveals the following additional details regarding the Site’s history:
 The dock ceased trading in 1967;
 The Site was developed in four phases. The north was developed in
the 1990s, the east and supporting areas were developed in the
early 2000s, the west was developed in the late 2000s and the
second northern development occurred in 2014.
Evidence of historic The Cundall Indigo Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Assessment
contamination, for example, (Cundall, March 2014) (Appendix 02 to this document) which covers the
historical site investigation, area currently occupied by North 2 Building, states that: “No significantly
assessment, remediation and elevated hydrocarbon or heavy metals concentrations have been identified
verification reports (where within the shallow depth soil materials at the site with respect human
available) health in the context of a commercial end use.”
The report continues, “Slightly elevated leachable concentrations of TPH
and dissolved phase TPH within groundwater samples have been identified
at the site. However, these elevated concentrations are not considered to
represent a significant risk to controlled waters due to the presence of an
aquiclude (London Clay) above the principal aquifer, and the anticipated
significant reduction in infiltration due to the proposed hard-surfacing and
construction proposed for the site.”
The Conceptual Site Model in the above report notes that there is a
negligible likelihood of a pollutant linkage between leachable mobile
contamination (e.g. TPH) and controlled waters (including the River Lea and
the River Thames). However, it is noted that new pathways could be
created by the creation of newly constructed piled foundations.
The Site Investigation Report for Telehouse West (Subadra, July 2008)
(Appendix 03 to this document) was undertaken, in part, to characterise
potentially contaminative substances in the shallow soil and groundwater
in the area of the site occupied by West building. The report, which
summarises the findings of the site investigation, states that observed
contamination within the soil was limited to clay in two boreholes which
was observed to contain “variable quantities of brick, clinker/slag, wood,
metal and/or plastic” which was noted as being “generally dark grey or
black wet, with an organic odour” and also that olfactory and visual
evidence in one borehole that was interpreted to be hydrocarbons. During
the initial purging of groundwater from three boreholes, the groundwater
from one borehole was initially noted to have an organic odour and one
had an “eggy” odour; no such odours of the purged groundwater were
observed during the subsequent monitoring round.

The Site Investigation undertaken by SLR in May 2018 (Appendix 04 to this
document) was undertaken to provide a baseline report for the Site prior to
development, inclusive of the fuel storage and generator operations that
are proposed for the site. Previous investigations had been limited to the
development of new buildings only.
Intrusive ground investigation was conducted between 19th April 2018 and
24th April 2018. Groundwater and gas monitoring was then carried out on
30th April 2018, with follow up gas monitoring rounds conducted on 8th May
2018 and 16th May 2018. Six boreholes were investigated.
The Site Investigation revealed that there were no significantly elevated
concentrations of any of the determinands in soil samples, with the
exception of Asbestos which was found in boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH5. In
the laboratory the levels of asbestos in samples from these boreholes were
found to be below the limit of detection.
The groundwater monitoring revealed that BH2 and BH6 exhibited
exceedances of Arsenic and Petroleum Hydrocarbons. The average
concentrations of Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Arsenic, and Naphthalene
were also in exceedance of Water Quality Standards.
Methane and Carbon Dioxide is recorded in low levels during monitoring of
gases beneath the site.
Baseline soil and groundwater Section 10 of the Cundall Indigo Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
reference data Assessment (Cundally, March 2014) (Appendix 02 to this document)
SLR Baseline Site Investigation Report 2018 (SLR ref. 425.04438.00005 SI)
(Appendix 04 to this document)
Supporting information  Project Indigo Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment (SLR, May
2013) (Appendix 01 to this document)
 Cundall Indigo Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Assessment
(Cundall, March 2014) (Appendix 02 to this document)
 Site Investigation Report Telehouse West, Coriander Avenue,
London, E14 (Subadra, July 2008) (Appendix 03 to this document)
 Environmental Risk Assessment (SLR Ref: 410.06577.00001 ERA)
 Baseline Site Investigation Report 2018 (SLR ref. 425.04438.00005
SI) (Appendix 04 to this document)
Table 3
Permitted Activities
Permitted activities Part A(1), Section 1.1, Part 2, Schedule 1:
“Burning any fuel in an appliance with a rated thermal
input of 50 or more megawatts”
Directly-associated activities (DAA):
Fuel oil storage
Non-permitted activities undertaken None
Document references for: Drawing 002 – Site Layout and Emission Points
 Plan showing activity layout; and Drainage Plans:
 Environmental risk assessment.  MW.SLD.F00312.C3 (Drainage North Building)
 MW.SLD.F00312.C3.1 (Drainage East & West
Buildings)
 MW.SLD.F00312.C3.2 (Drainage North 2
Building)
Environmental Risk Assessment Reference
410.04438.0000 ERA
APPENDIX 01
Project Indigo Docklands Campus Sites 6 & 8 London

Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment
PROJECT INDIGO
Docklands Campus
Sites 6 & 8
London
Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment
SLR Ref: 403.04438.00001
May 2013

Telehouse Consultancy Services i 403-04438-00001
Project Indigo – PLQRA May 2013
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Proposed Development ..................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Scope of Work .................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Data Sources ...................................................................................................... 6
2.0 SITE DETAILS, SETTING AND HISTORY ................................................................... 7
2.1 Site Vicinity Description .................................................................................... 7
2.2 Physical Site Setting .......................................................................................... 9
2.3 Environmental Search Data ............................................................................. 10
2.4 Site History ....................................................................................................... 12
3.0 OUTLINE CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND PRELIMINARY LAND QUALITY RISK
ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 15
3.1 Regulatory Context .......................................................................................... 15
3.2 Physical Conceptual Site Model ..................................................................... 17
3.3 Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment .................................................. 17
4.0 FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND ASSESSMENT .................................................... 24
4.1 PPL 1a ............................................................................................................... 25
4.2 PPL 1b and 2a&b .............................................................................................. 25
4.3 PPL 1c&d ........................................................................................................... 25
4.4 PPL 3 ................................................................................................................. 25
5.0 VOLUNTARY PREVENTATIVE AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND VALIDATION OF
THOSE WORKS .......................................................................................................... 27
5.1 Voluntary Preventative Action to Avoid PPL 4 (a-c) ..................................... 27
5.2 If Needed - Voluntary Remedial Action to Break PPL 5 ................................ 28
5.3 Land Quality / Remedial Works Validation Report ........................................ 28
6.0 CLOSURE .................................................................................................................... 29
DRAWINGS
Drawing 1 Site Layout Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A GroundSure EnviroInsight Report including Historical Ordnance
Survey Map Extracts, 3 May 2013
Appendix B GroundSure GeoInsight Report, 3 May 2013
Appendix C Site Photographs
Appendix D Intrusive Investigation Records from BGS
SLR
Telehouse Consultancy Services 1 403-04438-00001
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
SLR Consulting Ltd (SLR) was commissioned by Telehouse Consultancy Services on behalf
of Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd (Telehouse) in April 2013 to undertake
a Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment (PLQRA) for two development plots (Plot 6 and
Plot 8) adjacent to and east of Telehouse’s existing Docklands Campus at Coriander
Avenue, E14 2AA, which are together bounded as follows:
• North A13 East India Dock Road;

• South Aspen Way and the A1263 East India Dock Road Tunnel (which passes
beneath the southern development plot – Plot 8);
• East A1020 Leamouth Road; and
• West Oregano Drive.
The boundary of the site is shown on Drawing 1 and Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1
Overall View of Site1
Approximate alignment of A1263 East India Dock Road Tunnel (constructed in 1994)
1
Image from GroundSure – the overflow car park shown in Plot 6 has since been removed.
SLR
Figure 1-2
View of Existing Docklands Campus across Plot 8 (from the south east)
1.2 Proposed Development
Headquartered in London, Telehouse has grown since establishment in 1989 to become one
of the largest, global data centre providers, operating a network of 45 data centres. The firm
is preparing to seek permission to redevelop Plots 6 and 8 which are currently disused.
Telehouse are now looking to increase their data centre capacity in the UK by constructing a
new multi-storey data centre on the northern development plot, Plot 6. Adjacent to the data
centre building will be a power house containing resilient and redundant standby power
generation equipment.
In conjunction with the data centre building, on the southern plot (Plot 8) an office building
will be constructed that may in part be occupied by Telehouse. The office building frontage
will be onto the Lower Lea Crossing. The office building will comprise a ground floor
reception and upper floors of general office accommodation.
The final layout of the proposed facility is yet to be determined, but Figures 1-3 and 1-4
below indicate the concept that is being developed.
SLR
Figure 1-3
Indicative 3-D View (with proposed buildings on right of group)
Figure 1-4
Indicative Data Centre Ground Floor Plan (Plot 6)
SLR
The development will include low maintenance landscaping that, in common with existing
landscaping, has the unintended property of restricting human exposure to soil.
Figure 1-5
View of Existing Soft Landscaping
Figure 1-6
View of Existing Soft Landscaping
SLR
1.3 Objectives
This redevelopment project falls under the remit of the Town and Country Planning
Regulations and is likely to require an Environmental Impact Assessment.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) will be aware that part of the development site
was created by filling a dock basin. Their technical specialists will expect Telehouse to
satisfy local and national planning policies and show that the site is suitable for its new use
taking account of:
• ground conditions - considering both natural hazards and pollution arising from previous
uses (e.g. historic landfilling);
• the development proposals - including any proposals for mitigation / land remediation;
and
• impacts on the natural environment arising from the development / remediation
proposals.
The Council will also want the developer’s land quality advisor to consider whether the land,
once developed, would be capable of being determined as Contaminated Land under Part
2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Given the above, SLR recommended a stand alone PLQRA to inform the client’s
development team and support the planning application. We also advised that the PLQRA
may be the first in a series of risk assessments, allof which should follow guidance provided
by Defra and the Environment Agency in CLR11 Model Procedures for the Management of
Land Contamination.
The secondary objective of this PLQRA is to establish if there is any evidence of significant
subsurface contamination from past or present activities on or adjacent to the site which
could give rise to abnormal development costs i.e. expenditure on remedial works to deal
with unacceptable risks to the environment or Telehouse employees / visitors / contractors at
the proposed facility.
1.4 Scope of Work
SLR’s PLQRA report briefly considers the risks to controlled waters, human health and the
proposed infrastructure.
SLR’s scope is outlined below:
• site walk over inspection;

• review of historic OS mapping;
• purchase and review of environmental data pack;
• review of two or three borehole logs from the BGS database;
• review of geological map;
• preparation of a report presenting:
o the desk study data;
o site walk over notes / photographs;
o a site conceptual model with preliminary risk assessment; and
o recommendations for further assessment steps.
We have gone beyond our agreed original scope by reviewing some information contained
on the Tower Hamlets web site and downloading several BGS logs.
SLR
1.5 Data Sources
This report has been produced following consultation with the sources of information
summarised in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1:
Information Sources
Information Type Source
General topography and Site Google Earth
setting Bing Maps
www.streetmap.com
Site and background information GroundSure Enviro Insight including Historical Ordnance Survey
Map Extracts purchased 3 May 2013 (Appendix A).
GroundSure GeoInsight purchased 3 May 2013 (Appendix B)
Hydrogeology and Geology Environment Agency (EA) website.
British Geological Survey (BGS) Sheet 256, North London, Solid
& Drift Edition, 1:50,000 scale.
BGS website – various borehole and trial pit logs (Appendix D)
Previous Reports from Tower June 2008 Faber Maunsell/AECOM - Geotechnical and Geo-
Hamlets Planning Portal Environmental Desk Study Report – Telehouse South.
June 2008 Subadra – Site Investigation Report – Telehouse
West.
December 2008 Faber Maunsell/AECOM - Geo-Environmental
Interpretive Report– Telehouse South.
December 2008 Soil Mechanics – Factual Report on a Ground
Investigation – Telehouse West
December 2008 Faber Maunsell/AECOM – Remediation
Strategy– Telehouse West.
Jan-Feb 2009 BACTEC International Ltd Intrusive
Magnetometry Survey Report, Telehouse West, London E14.
SLR
2.0 SITE DETAILS, SETTING AND HISTORY
2.1 Site Vicinity Description
Figure 2-1 provides an aerial image, and Table 2-1 summarises the property details.
Information within the table has been derived from Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping and a
site walkover inspection undertaken on 15th May 2013. Photographs of the site are provided
in Appendix C and plans showing the site’s location, surrounds and layout are provided in
the Drawings section.
Figure 2-1
Aerial View of Site (Plot 6 on RHS and Plot 8 on left2
Table 2-1:
Site Details
Address Sites 6 & 8, Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd, Coriander Avenue,
London E14 2AA
The National Grid Reference for the site is 538857,181098.
Site Location The combined site is approximately 1.18 ha and occupies the eastern end of the
Telehouse Dockland Campus as described in Section 1.1.
Recent Site Plots 6 & 8 are currently vacant. Approximately 50m x 36m in the centre of the Plot
Activities 6 was in recent times used as an overflow parking area, the surfacing and any
perimeter fencing has since been removed.
Site Plots 6 & 8, which are fully enclosed by a short post and tube fence (see Appedix
Description 3) are divided by Sorrel Lane, which is a one way street linking Oregano Drive to
Leamouth Road. Plot 6 is approximately 91m x 56m and Plot 8 is 70m x 56m at its
widest point.
Each plot is raised approximately above the pavement with a slight berm structure
forming the outer edge, see Drawing 1 which is based on a topographic survey.
The vast majority of Plots 6 & 8 are rough grassland. The exception is an
unvegetated area of approximately 50m x 36m in the centre of the Plot 6 which
was in recent times used as an overflow parking area. It appears that all surfacing
and perimeter fences associated with the overflow car park were removed leaving
an unvegetated “scar”. Figure 2-2, page 9, illustrates the area and type of
material forming the surface.
2
From Bing Maps, note overflow car park has since been removed.
SLR
There are a couple of concrete “structures” on site, both are thought to be

abandoned bases for signage. In addition, six “monitoring wells” were noted,
these fall into two categories: 1) four relatively small diameter (19mm to 50mm)
wells with metal tube headworks; and 2) two large diameter (300mm) wells. SLR
has given these name codes for ease which are used in Drawing 1, Appendix 3
and the small table below which provides details.
Hole Diameter & Gas Tap Cover Water Base Notes
Material Level Level AOD
AOD AOD
BH1 50mm HDPE Needs 6.38m 1.279m -5.16m Not secure
replacement Possibly 1-
2mm LNAPL*
BH2 19mm No 6.51m Unknown** Not secure
BH3 50mm HDPE No 6.78m Dry 4.78m Not secure
BH4 300mm PVC No Unknown ‘- ‘- Secure –

(assumed) welded shut
BH5 300mm PVC No Unknown 16.2m Unknown Not secure
below rim
BH6 50mm Yes – Unknown Dry 5.23m Not secure,
HDPE labelled 10 below rim hidden in
base of shrub
* Light non-aqueous phase liquid (oils, etc)
**19mm well too narrow for interface probe
Fuel Storage There was no evidence of fuel / oil storage tanks on either plot
Tanks
Surrounding General The two plots are surrounded by pavement and roads
Land Use
Plot 6
North A13 (East India Dock Road), beyond which is a vacant plot with
evidence of building rubble derived from building demolition.
West Telehouse buildings
South Sorrel Lane and Plot 8 beyond
East Leamouth Road with an open plot that seems to be used for
storage of empty waste bins – Council perhaps (from Bing Maps)
Plot 8
North Sorrel Lane and Plot 6 beyond
West Telehouse buildings
South Saffron Ave/Leamouth Road/A1261/A1020 Roundabout, with

flats/apartment buildings beyond
East Leamouth Road with an ESSO filling station, car wash and ‘On
the Run’ convenience store (from Bing Maps)
Beneath The A1263 East India Dock Road Tunnel passes beneath Plot 8
from the NE corner to the SW corner of the plot at relatively
shallow depth.
SLR
Figure 2-2
View across gravelled surface of former overflow car park (looking south)
2.2 Physical Site Setting
A summary of the main physical features of the Site are given in Table 2-2. Information has
been derived from the GroundSure Report and other sources.
Table 2-2:
Summary of Physical Site Features
Geography Gradient Plot 6 & 8 are both flat apart from a slight berm around the
and Geology perimeter of each plot.
Elevation The pavements are at 4.3m to 5m AOD, the plots are at
approximately 6.3m AOD.
Made Ground A significant thickness of made ground is suspected on the
basis of historical land use (see Section 2.4) and the presence
of the A1263 Tunnel which passes beneath Plot 8.
A review of the BGS website indicates that several boreholes
have been drilled on the site indicating that between
approximately 3m and 12m of MADE GROUND exists beneath
both development plots depending on the exact location
relative to the former East India Dock boundary. Made ground
is described as a “fairly compact mixture of sandy silty clays
with concrete and brick rubble, gravel etc, becoming more
clayey and gravelly at depth”. In the former dock area the
made ground rests on the London Clay
SLR
Superficial Beneath areas of the site where made ground is thin (non-dock
Drift Geology areas), then the made ground rests upon the following
sequence:
ALLUVIUM (Silty organic CLAY with PEAT) with its base at a
depth of 7.6m (-2.9mAOD)
RIVER TERRACE GRAVELS (Sandy GRAVEL) at a depth of
7.6m (-6.9mAOD)
Borehole logs are included in Appendix D.
Solid Geology The solid geology on site is recorded as:
LONDON CLAY (very stiff Sandy CLAY) at a depth of 11.6m (-
6.9mAOD)
THANET SAND (dense, grey-green fine to coarse SAND) at a
depth of 25m (-20.5mAOD)
Radon Gas Project Indigo does not include the development of dwellings,
but in any case no radon protective measures are necessary.
Mining, and GroundSure suggests the site is not within a mining / coal
Ground mining affected area and that there are low to very low ground
Stability stability hazards from shrinking / swelling clay, landslides,
Hazards ground dissolution, collapsible ground and running sands.
Compressible ground on Site is defined as Moderate.
Hydrology Surface Water The two Plots lie between 100m and 200m west of a large
and River meander of the southerly flowing River Lea and 350m north of
Network the tidal River Thames at its closest point.
The mouth of the River Lea (Bow Creek) where it enters the
River Thames is 770m southeast of the Site.
Flood Risk The site, at around 4.3m to 5m AOD lies inside the Environment
Agency Flood Zone 2 (annual probability of flooding as 1:1000)
and some parts as Zone 3 (annual probability of flooding as
1:100) based on fluvial and tidal models
The River Lea (92m from the Site) and the River Thames
(150m from the Site) are both equipped with flood defences.
Surface Water There are no surface water abstractions within 2km of the Site.
Abstractions
Hydrogeology Aquifer The Environment Agency aquifer records record the site being
underlain by a Secondary (undifferentaited) Aquifer (previously
recorded as non aquifer or minor aquifer)
In SLR’s opinion, given the presence of a sandy gravel
beneath the site the Environment Agency would probably
designate this as a Secondary B Aquifer.
The London Clay is designated as unproductive
Groundwater There are no potable groundwater abstractions within 500m of
Abstractions the Site
There is 1 groundwater abstraction 245m east of the Site on
Limmo Peninsula. Records indicate it used for top up
purposes.
Source There are no groundwater source protection zones within
Protection 500m of the Site.
Zones
2.3 Environmental Search Data
The EnviroInsight report, presented in Appendix B, was reviewed to gain commercially

available environmental data for the site and its immediate vicinity. A summary of the search
information is provided below:
SLR
• Sites Determined as Contaminated Land – there are no Sites within 500m determined
as Contaminated Land under Part 2A EPA 1990.
• Discharge consents – there are 8 consents within 500m of the Site, all of which were
for discharges (miscellaneous or cooling water) to surface water to Bow Creek, River
Lea or the Thames. We understand all consents are revoked.
• Integrated Pollution Prevention and Controls– none within 500m.
• Local Authority Prevention & Controls – there are 4 Part B air discharge permits within
500m, and 1 within 50m. The closest relates to the ESSO Orchard Wharf Filling
Station east of the Site. The remainder relate to a furniture business (260m NE), foods
(416m E) and a galvanising process 468m NW).
• COMAH & NIHHS - There is 1 COMAH (Control of Major Accidents and Hazards) site
216m north of the Site. The site belongs to British Gas and is for a gas holder at the
Poplar holder station.
• EA recorded pollution incidents – there are 3 records within 250m of the Site, all of
relatively minor nature and occurring in 2002 and 2003. The closest incident is
recorded only 8m from the Site and relates to a minor diesel spillage. No further details
are available and the exact incident area is unknown.
• Landfill sites (Operational) – There are no operational landfill sites within 1,000m of the
Site.
• Landfill sites (Historic) – there are records of 6 historic landfill sites within 1,500m of
the Site.
o The main historic landfill site of relevance to the Site is present on Site and
relates to the filling of the former Eastern Dock. The in-filled dock extents
incorporate the entirety of Site 8 and the southern half of Site 6
o The Eastern Dock described above extended to the East India Dock south via
a channel, both of which have been in-filled.
o Additional historic landfills relate to additional in-filled docks southwest and
south east of the site
o There are no records of the waste type used to fill the former docks
Figure 3-3:
Historic Landfill Sites
SLR
• Other Waste Sites (Operational) – there is 1 ‘Difficult Waste’ operational transfer

station located at Moody Wharf 286m NE of the Site
• Other Waste Sites (Historic) – there are records of 7 former EA licensed waste sites
within 1500m of the Site, the closest being 293m NE of the Site
• Oil and Gas Pipelines - There are no records of high pressure oil and gas pipelines
within 500m of the Site
• Environmentally Sensitive Sites – 2 Local Nature Reserves (LNR) exist 2km NW of the
Site
Groundwater and surface water abstraction data was discussed in Section 2.2.
2.4 Site History
This section presents a summary of the site’s history from a review of OS map extracts and
a small amount of web based research. A summary of the findings is given in Table 2-3 and
the OS maps are provided in Appendix A. Whilst the age and general type of activity and
land use can often be determined from the type and layout of structures depicted on OS
maps, specific elements of site operations cannot normally be determined. Large scale
(1:2,500 and 1:10,560) historical map extracts were reviewed for selected years between
1867 and 2012.
Table 2-3:
Site History Summary
Map Dates Description
1867 - 70 On-site: The Site comprises the Eastern Dock with the dock basin boundary with the
1:1,056 & quay crossing the Site. Fill material within the dock will be significantly thicker in the
1:2,500 dock basin than the quay.
Off-site: The surrounding land use comprises road and rail fed warehousing to the
south and east, open farmland to the north.
SLR
Map Dates Description

1893 - 6 On-site: The Site remains unchanged from above.
1:1,056 Off-site: Farmland to the north has been developed with densely spaced terraced
1:2,500 housing along the north side of the Barking Road.
1916 On-site: No significant changes on site. Some buildings on the quayside have been
1:2,500 demolished and new warehousing constructed. The lock linking East Dock with the
East India Dock appears to have been enlarged.
Off-site: No significant changes to above. A tramway has been installed along the
Barking Road.
1949 – 54 On-site: No significant changes on site. Rail sidings pass east-west north of the
1:1,250 warehousing on the boundary of Plot 6
1:2,500 Off-site: Terrace housing to the north has been demolished next to East India Dock
Road (former Barking Rd). Warehousing to the east has been demolished – now
called Blackwall Goods Depot and Orchard Wharf (present day ESSO station). There
is some development north of site, possibly an omnibus depot and some housing.
The western half of East India Dock has been reclaimed and a ‘Works’ has been
constructed
1961 – 2 On-site: No significant changes on site
1:2,500 Off-site: No significant changes offsite
1967 – 70 On-site: No significant changes on site
1:1,250 Off-site: No significant changes offsite
1987 – 91 On-site: East Dock has been in-filled and the present day road layout is partially
1:1,250 complete (Coriander Avenue, Orchard Road etc)
Off-site: The Telehouse North building outline is in place but other Telehouse
development buildings are not present
The Blackwall Goods Depot to the east has been demolished. Orchard Wharf is still
present.
The roundabout south the Site is present
Redevelopment of residential property north of East India Dock Road seems to be
on-going
1992 – 3 On-site: The route of the East India Dock Road Tunnel beneath Leamouth Rd and
1:1,250 Plot 8 is shown. No further on Site development is shown.
Off-site: The East India Dock Road Tunnel route passes beneath and rises to ground
level on the former Blackwall Goods Depot.
No further development of the Telehouse properties is shown.
In summary, the Site formed the eastern end of the East Dock between approximately 1803
and the mid 1980’s. Other documentation (Internet search) states that the 28-feet deep
(8.5m) East Dock was partly filled from the west after WW2 and was completed in 1987-8.
The nature of material used to infill the former dock is unknown.
Construction of the 350m long East India Dock Tunnel was started in 1989 and completed
and opened in May 1993. It was designed by Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners and constructed
by a Balfour Beatty AMEC JV. The construction method is not known but given its shallow
depth is most likely to have been a cut and cover technique. The top and base elevation of
the tunnel is not known although possibly extended down to the London Clay.
The variable thickness of made ground on Site and the likely presence of dock walls to the
north and east will require special consideration by those designing foundations.
SLR
No foundation of any significance is allowed to bear on the tunnel roof so superstructures will
require alternative design. Others3 have previously stated that the depth of a bridging
structure would be at a depth of 2.6m and that bored piles should be 3m from the tunnel
structure to eliminate interaction.
3
East India Dock Road, Environmental Statement Volume 1, March 2007, URS Corporation Ltd.
SLR
3.0 OUTLINE CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND PRELIMINARY LAND QUALITY RISK

ASSESSMENT
3.1 Regulatory Context
3.1.1 The Contaminated Land Regime – Overhauled for 2012
Spring 2012 saw substantial changes in the UK’s Contaminated Land Regime with a
complete overhaul of the legal guidance4 and deletion of long-standing pollution control
policies5 in favour of the National Planning Policy Framework6.
The new Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance is very different from the 2006 issue and
consultation draft. Whilst the regime continues to advocate a precautionary approach to
dealing with contaminated land, there is clear direction to avoid the “excessive cost burdens”
of “wastefully expensive remediation”.
In their Impact Assessment Defra estimate that:
“20%-40% of current remediation work is "unnecessary" and that these costs can
be avoided through clearer Guidance and new technical tools to describe the
new Category 1-4 system”
For clarity:
• Category 1: describes land which is clearly problematic;

• Categories 2 and 3: cover the less straightforward land where detailed consideration is
needed before deciding whether it is Category 2 (contaminated land requiring remedial
action) or Category 3 (not contaminated land) - wider socio-economic factors come
into play if health risks assessment fails to produce a decision; and
• Category 4: describes land that is clearly not contaminated land.
The new Category 4 test is particularly important in defining when land is clearly not
contaminated land in the legal sense; it introduces the idea that it would be exceptional for
land: exhibiting normal background levels of contamination; or contaminant levels below
published assessment criteria (which are due to be augmented by new screening levels) to
be considered as contaminated land.
Importantly, the new guidance makes it clear that regulators can only require remediation to
a point where land is no longer contaminated land in the legal sense (i.e. the boundary
between Categories 2 and 3) and not require “unnecessary” clean up to attain Category 4
standards. This means some landowners / developers will choose a remedial end-point in
Category 3 whilst others will still volunteer to clean-up to Category 4 (to deal with perception
issues or to please funders, etc).
From this point on, exceedance of a Soil Guideline Value should simply trigger further risk
assessment.
4
Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance, Defra, April
2012.
5
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, ODPM, November 2004.
6
National Planning Policy Framework, DCLG, March 2012.
SLR
With the introduction of clearer legal guidance, the introduction of the concept of “normal”
background levels of contaminants and an emphasis on the use of science and risk
assessment to make better and more reasonable decisions about when land does (and does
not) need to be remediated and to what degree, the government predicts financial savings
to:
• businesses and other owners of land with a significant legacy of historical land
contamination;
• the construction sector and new home-buyers via a substantial reduction in deadweight
remediation costs; and
• the taxpayer from reduced costs for publicly-funded remediation projects.
National Planning Policy Framework
This redevelopment project falls under the remit of the Planning Act and is subject to both
local and national planning policies.
Annex 2 of PPS237 entitled Planning and Pollution Control advised on the circumstances
when it might have been be appropriate for local planning authorities to grant planning
permission for developments on land affected by contamination. Its replacement, the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of March 2012 has a core aim to:
• encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed
(brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.
Slightly modifying the messages of Annex 2, the new NPPF says the planning system
should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
• preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at
unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air,
water or noise pollution or land instability; and
• remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable
land, where appropriate.
Furthermore NPPF says that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that:
• a site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability,
including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from
previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on
the natural environment arising from that remediation; and that
• after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as
contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (meaning
Category 3 or 4).
In essence, these simple messages replace all 42 pages of Annex 2 including the example
planning conditions in Appendix 2B, and the Model Planning Conditions for development on
land affected by contamination set out in a letter to Chief Planning Officers by DCLG in May
2008.
It is clear that the national planning policy directs those involved in development to ensure
sites are suitable for use and not be capable of being determined as contaminated land
7
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, Annex 2: Development on Land Affected by
Contamination, ODPM, 2004.
SLR
under Part 2A – which means that the category of land, post remediation (if required) should
be considered.
3.2 Physical Conceptual Site Model
The physical Conceptual Site Model (CSM) can be simply split into three:
• In-filled East Dock areas;

• Former quayside areas; and
• East Dock Road Tunnel.
3.2.1 In-filled East Dock areas
The west side of both Plot 6 and Plot 8 will have geology corresponding with this land
description:
• Made ground to at least 8m and possibly >11m;

• London Clay from 11m to approximately 25m; and
• Thanet Sand below 25m.
We would expect groundwater to be present in the former dock basin to the approximately
elevation of the River Lea and River Thames, so around 0mAOD.
3.2.2 Former Quayside Area
The northern part of Plot 6 and the eastern part of Plot 6 and possibly Plot 8 will have
geology corresponding with this description:
• Made ground to approximately 3m

• Alluvium comprising soft silty organic Clay with Peat to approximately 7.6m (4.6m thick)
• River Terrace Gravels from 7.6m to approximately 11.6m (4m thick)
• London Clay from 11.6m to approximately 25m (13.4m thick)
• Thanet Sand below 25m and proven to at least 35m
We would expect groundwater to be present in the gravels with a groundwater level rising
within the Alluvium to about 4.7m below ground surface, field measurements in BH1 found
water at about 1.3m AOD.
3.2.3 East Dock Road Tunnel
The EDRT crosses and bisects Plot 8 and is a significant constraint on Plot 8 development.
To the north of the tunnel we can expect geology corresponding with in-filled East Dock and
south of the tunnel we might expect geology similar to that described for the Former
Quayside Area. The elevation for the base of the EDRT is unknown but probably extended
down to the top of the London Clay.
3.3 Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment
The normal procedure for assessing land dictates that potential contaminants, pathways and
receptors should be considered within the context of contaminant or pollutant linkages. An
evaluation of the risks associated with each linkage should drive decisions regarding the
status of the land as contaminated and requiring remediation, uncontaminated or requiring
further investigation.
SLR
The information summarised in the previous sections has been used to identify the likely
contaminant sources, receptors and pathways present at the Site. The elements of the
conceptual model built into Table 3-1, overleaf, have been used to consider the potential
pollutant linkages (PPL), their significance and acceptability.
It must be remembered that:
• the developer will instruct a ground investigation (most likely following receipt of planning
approval) and will have the chance to deploy protective measures (e.g. Protectaline water
supply pipe; etc) if needs be;
• the employees and visitors will have access to managed / landscaped gardens and the
landscaping specification will likely demand that:
o sub-soil will be prepared and topped with 150mm (grassed areas) to 450mm
(shrub beds) thickness of imported topsoil, which will be tested for compliance
with BS 3882:20078, or BSI PAS100 compost; and
o tree pits are expected to be a minimum of 1,200mm diameter and 1,000 mm
deep or allow to allow 300mm clearance between the rootball and the edge of
the pit.
Given the proposed use as commercial space and offices the most significant PPL appear to
be:
• PPL 1a: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Contaminants Entering Water
Supply Pipework
• PPL 1b: Potential Damage to Future Buildings from Exposure to Aggressive Ground
• PPL 1c&d: Potential Pollution of Surface Water and Groundwater by Contaminants in
Made Ground
• PPL 2a&b: Potential for Harm to Health and Building Damage from Hazardous Gases
• PPL 3: Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Airborne Asbestos
• PPL 4 (a-c): Potential Harm to Human Health from Potential Contaminants in Imported
Landscaping Soils
• PPL 5: Potential Risks to Health or the Environment from Unidentified Sources
In addition, soil quality should be assessed to facilitate appropriate waste disposal options in
the event of excavation and removal during building construction, piling etc.
8
Specification for topsoil and requirements for use
SLR
Table 3-1
Outline Conceptual Site Model
Source / Area of Concern Contaminant(s) Receptors Likelihood of PPL Forming & Comment on Next Step in Procedure
Consequence
Source 1 –Sediments at the base of If present, most likely weathered Humans – Indoors: PPL 1a: Potential harm to health from ingestion of PPL 1a: Further Investigation
the former East Dock and landfilled hydrocarbons, metals, etc Future workers & soluble contaminants entering water supply & Assessment – see Section
materials (Made Ground) used to visitors pipework 4.1
raise dock base levels to the existing Humans – Outdoors: Unlikely -
ground level. Solid phase. Future workers &
visitors
Humans – Neighbours Unlikely -
Property – Built PPL 1b: Possible that exposure to contaminants in PPL 1b: Further Investigation
Environment: Future Made Ground could result in deterioration of buried & Assessment – see Section
buildings concrete due to sulphate or acid attack 4.2
Property - Flora / Unlikely – crops will not be grown -
Fauna: Crops
Surface Water: River PPL 1c&d: Possible that soluble contaminants PPL 1c&d: Further
Lea migrate laterally via groundwater 70m to the off Investigation & Assessment –
Groundwater: site surface water. However, given the presence see Section 4.3
Secondary Aquifer, of the EDRT it seems extremely unlikely that a
flow to E or SE pathway exists since this subterranean structure
(towards River Lea and crosses the flow path.
Thames)
No potable
groundwater
abstractions between
site and rivers
Ecosystems Unlikely – none present within a reasonable -
distance from the site
SLR
Consequence
Source 2 – Hazardous gases / Fill may contain significant organic Humans – Indoors: PPL 2a: Some potential harm to health from PPL 2a: Further Investigation
vapours associated with the material and since peat deposits are Future workers & exposure to gases / vapours entering the building & Assessment – see Section
“landfilling” of the dock and peat. described in borehole logs, then there visitors via inhalation. 4.2
is a potential for generation of Humans – Outdoors: Unlikely given diffusion to atmosphere -
hazardous gases (e.g. methane) Future workers &
visitors
Humans – Neighbours Unlikely to be significantly impacted by on Site -
sources
Property – Built PPL 2b: Potential explosion risk from build-up of PPL 2b: ditto
Environment: Future gases / vapours under / within the building
buildings
Property - Flora / Unlikely – crops will not be grown on site -
Fauna: Crops
Surface Water: River See Source 1 See Source 1
Lea
Groundwater:
Secondary Aquifer,
flow to E or SE
(towards River Lea and
Thames)
No potable
groundwater
site and rivers
SLR
Consequence
Source 3 - Asbestos fibres in near Various forms of asbestos Humans – Indoors: Unlikely -
surface Made Ground Future workers &
visitors
Humans – Outdoors: Unlikely -
Future workers &
visitors
Humans – Neighbours PPL 3a: Potential Harm to Human Health from PPL 3: Further Investigation &
Exposure to Airborne Asbestos (esp. construction Assessment – see Section 4.4
stage)
Property – Built Possible, but of no consequence -
Environment: Future
buildings
Fauna: Crops
Surface Water: River Unlikely -
Lea
Groundwater: Unlikely -
Secondary Aquifer,
flow to E or SE
Thames)
No potable
groundwater
site and rivers
SLR
Consequence
Source 4 - Contaminants within (yet Various contaminants depending on Humans – Indoors: PPL 4a: Potential harm to human health from PPL 4a: Voluntary
to be) imported landscaping soils the import source – possibly metals, Future workers & exposure to contaminants within imported Preventative Action – in order
(subsoil & topsoil) hydrocarbons & PAH compounds visitors landscaping soils via ingestion, dermal contact and to prevent the risks the
inhalation indoors (from soil brought into building) developer will control the
Humans – Outdoors: PPL 4b: Potential harm to human health from quality of imported soils – see
Future workers & exposure to contaminants within imported Section 5.1
visitors landscaping soils via ingestion, dermal contact and
inhalation outdoors (from outdoor soil) PPL 4b: ditto
Humans – Neighbours PPL 4c Potential harm to human health from
PPL 4c: ditto
exposure to contaminants within imported
landscaping soils via ingestion, dermal contact and
inhalation (inc. construction stage)
Property – Built Possible but unlikely to be of consequence given -
Environment: Future Voluntary Protective Action for PPL4
buildings
Fauna: Crops
Surface Water: River Unlikely -
Lea
Groundwater: Unlikely -
Secondary Aquifer,
flow to E or SE
Thames)
No potable
groundwater
site and rivers
SLR
Consequence
Source 5 - Unidentified Unknown Humans – Indoors: PPL 5: Potential Harm to Health or the PPL 5: If Needed - Voluntary
Contaminant Sources Future workers & Environment from Unidentified Contaminant Remedial Action – see Section
visitors Sources – Exposure Mechanism Unknown. 5.2
Humans – Outdoors:
Future workers &
visitors
Humans – Neighbours
Property – Built
Environment: Future
buildings
Property - Flora /
Fauna: Crops
Surface Water: River
Lea
Groundwater:
Secondary Aquifer,
flow to E or SE
Thames)
No potable
groundwater
site and rivers
Ecosystems
SLR
4.0 FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND ASSESSMENT
This PLQRA has allowed the development of an outline conceptual model. Normally SLR
would recommend investigation of PPLs without further desk based research, but in this
case it is our opinion that intrusive work should be preceded by a second stage of data
gathering with the subsequent review of information relevant to ground conditions being
used to improve the conceptual model.
We have come to this conclusion after a few hours web research yielded multiple excavation
records, many of which were for the London Docklands Development Corporation, and we
suspect a number of ground investigation reports will be found - some for Telehouse’s own
developments. The walkover also “found” two deep 300mm diameter wells, these are very
expensive to drill and suggest that some organisation drilled in advance of a major
development on site (e.g. high rise development) or off site (e.g. CTRL, Crossrail, etc).
Figure 4-1 below shows the excavation records held by the BGS, a selection of which are
presented in Appendix D.
Figure 4-1:
Records held by BGS as illustrated on their Borehole Record Viewer
Making use of the existing ground information to produce a more detailed conceptual model
of ground conditions seems to be the most sensible approach, as it should allow
Telehouse’s application to proceed with minimal land quality fieldwork, and it will give the
development’s foundations designers a most useful resource.
From the list of PPL identified in Section 3, PPL1, PPL2 and PPL3 will require further
investigation if the enhancement of the conceptual model does not rule them out or allow the
developer to volunteer protective measures which were appropriate for neighbouring
developments on the same dock infill.
PPL 4 and PPL5 are discussed in Section 5.
SLR
4.1 PPL 1a
Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Contaminants Entering Water Supply
Pipework
This PPL concerns general ground conditions or conditions along the route of all proposed
water supply pipes (if routes are known).
SLR recommends an intrusive investigation to allow the developer to take account of the
chemistry of soils along the route of all proposed water supply pipes, so that they may make
an informed decision about the materials for new supply pipes and fittings.
4.2 PPL 1b and 2a&b
Potential Damage to Future Buildings from Exposure to Aggressive Ground
Potential for Harm to Health and Building Damage from Hazardous Gases
These PPL concern ground conditions across the area of all proposed foundations.
Subject to the findings of the extended research, SLR recommends an intrusive investigation
(with perhaps 8nr standpipes being installed) and environmental monitoring to provide the
scheme’s environmental consultant and (foundation) designers with information regarding
aggressive ground conditions and hazardous gases / vapours. The information should take
regard of guidance provided by the BRE in Special Digest 1 Concrete in Aggressive Ground,
and the various guidance documents available with respect to hazardous gases / vapours
and potential mitigation measures.
4.3 PPL 1c&d
Potential Pollution of Surface Water and Groundwater by Contaminants in Made Ground
These PPL concern ground conditions across the infilled dock and across the site in general.
SLR recommends an intrusive investigation and environmental monitoring to provide the

scheme’s environmental consultant with information regarding soil and groundwater
chemistry.
Subject to the findings of the extended research, SLR recommend ground investigation at
4nr locations and the installation of groundwater monitoring wells. Soils samples should be
collected and analysed to assess contaminant concentrations (and to assist with planning for
soil disposal). Groundwater geometry should be determined by monitoring groundwater
levels. Groundwater samples should be collected and submitted for laboratory analyses to
determine the degree of impact, if any within groundwater.
Collection of off-site surface water quality data is not recommended at this time.
The results of any investigation should be used to inform generic risk assessments, detailed
quantitative risk assessment may follow if required.
4.4 PPL 3
Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Airborne Asbestos
This PPL concerns ground conditions across all land that will be subject to earthworks.
SLR
Besides the soil validation evidence discussed in Section 5.1, below, SLR recommend an
intrusive investigation to collect evidence concerning the asbestos content of the material
which will:
• the material which will be disturbed by the development - as, if asbestos is present, fibres
may be released locally; and
• the material which will ultimately underlie landscaping soils – as, if asbestos is present,
mixing of in-situ and soil materials over many years could bring asbestos fibres into the
uppermost layers of soil and bring about human exposure.
For the second, it is anticipated that the regulator will accept an approach whereby the
developer proves that the subgrade on which imported soils are to be laid is free from
asbestos, hence SLR recommends testing each “panel” of proposed soft landscaping.
There should be no further inspection or requirement for remedial work if asbestos is absent.
SLR
Telehouse Consultancy Services 27
27 403-04438-00001
5.0 VOLUNTARY PREVENTATIVE AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND VALIDATION OF

THOSE WORKS
5.1 Voluntary Preventative Action to Avoid PPL 4 (a-c)
Potential Harm to Human Health from Potential Contaminants in Imported Landscaping Soils
SLR recommends that the developer submit a Specification for Soft Landscape Works as
part of the application saying:
“Do not use fill materials which would, either in themselves or in combination with
other materials or groundwater, give rise to a health hazard, damage to building
structures or instability in the filling, including material that is:
• frozen or containing ice;

• organic;
• contaminated or noxious;
• susceptible to spontaneous combustion;
• likely to erode or decay and cause voids;
• with excessive moisture content, slurry, mud or from marshes or bogs;
• clay of liquid limit exceeding 80 and/or plasticity index exceeding 55; or
• unacceptable, class U2 as defined in the Highways Agency 'Specification
for Highway works', clause 601”.
The specification should also sets out how the sub-soil should be prepared and placed to a
level allowing the later addition of:
• 150mm of topsoil – grassed areas; and

• 450mm of topsoil – shrub planting areas.
In terms of quality, site-won / imported topsoil should be tested for compliance with BS
3882:20079, and compost tested against BSI PAS100.
Tree pits should be a minimum of 1,200mm diameter and 1,000 mm deep or allow 300mm
clearance between the rootball and the edge of the pit.
The regulator may require some documentary evidence that the landscaping specification is
followed, and beyond that may require evidence that the chemical composition of any
imported growing media / soil is suitable for use. SLR predict that LBTH’s preferred soil
validation regime will depend on the source of the material and it is for Telehouse or their
representative to liaise with LBTH on this matter.
In advance of that liaison, it is thought likely the developer or their representative will need
to:
• obtain chemical test certificates from the supplier of proposed landscaping materials and
compare the results of the analyses to soil guideline values or generic health risk
assessment criteria applicable to a residential setting without plant uptake;
9
Specification for topsoil and requirements for use
SLR
28 403-04438-00001
• arrange for a UKAS and MCERTS accredited laboratory to test samples of the materials
actually delivered to site:
o at a rate to be agreed with LBTH; and for
o an analysis suite agreed by LBTH (most likely comprising CLEA metals,
speciated total petroleum hydrocarbons, speciated polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, pH and soil organic matter);
• arrange for additional samples (beyond those pre-agreed with LBTH) to be collected and
tested should any uncertainty arise as to the quality and / or origin of material brought
onto site; and
• prepare and submit to LBTH a Land Quality Validation Report to demonstrate that
suitable imported materials were placed - see Section 5.3.
5.2 If Needed - Voluntary Remedial Action to Break PPL 5
Potential Risks to Health or the Environment from Unidentified Sources
SLR has advised Telehouse that LBTH may use a planning condition whereby the developer
must set forward voluntary additional measures to deal with any contamination (beyond that
contamination previously identified) encountered as part of the redevelopment.
In practise, should the developer encounter potentially hazardous materials work should
cease and the matter be referred to an appropriate environmental consultant.
Any remedial actions should be agreed with LBTH and recorded in the Land Quality
Validation Report - see Section 5.3.
5.3 Land Quality / Remedial Works Validation Report
Any remedial works will follow a period of liaison with LBTH in which final details of the
remedial scheme will be agreed. LBTH may or may not want to be informed of progress
during the remedial works, but the regulator will require a report shortly after the remedial
works are complete. The Land Quality Validation Report, which should be submitted to
LBTH with an application to discharge the relevant condition, should:
• set out which organisations have been responsible for implementing and supervising the
remedial works (any environmental consultant used should be suitably experienced and
operate under an externally accredited quality assurance scheme e.g. ISO9001).
• provide the results of any inspection for contaminants and the remedial scheme;
• provide details for the suppliers of imported soils;
• present chemical test certificates from the supplier;
• make reference to the health risk assessment carried out prior to soil import and the
scope of quality assurance works agreed with LBTH (criteria & frequencies);
• present the results of laboratory tests on imported materials showing that:
o the rate agreed with LBTH was observed; and that
o the analysis suite agreed by LBTH was carried out;
• present the results of any additional testing (beyond that agreed with LBTH);
• demonstrate that quality assurance procedures relevant to soil sampling, storage and
testing were complied with (including the use of accredited laboratories and, where
possible, the use of MCERTS testing methods);
• form a record of the remedial activities (and any changes to the remedial design) using
as-built drawings, progress photographs, etc; and
• set out any additional remedial measures volunteered to deal with contamination (beyond
that previously identified) encountered as part of the redevelopment.
SLR
29 403-04438-00001
6.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited with all reasonable skill, care and
diligence, and taking account of the manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement
with the client.
Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected from various
sources which has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.
This report is for the exclusive use of Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd; no
warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties. This
report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from SLR.
SLR disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside
the agreed scope of the work.
SLR
Drawing
Appendices
Appendix A
EmapSite GroundSure EMS-204115-268687
Reference:
Masdar House, ,
Eversley, RG27 0RP Your Reference: EMS_204115-268687
Report Date: 3 May 2013
Report Delivery Email - pdf
Method:
Client Email: sales@emapsite.com
GroundSure EnviroInsight
Address: ,
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for placing your order with emapsite. Please find enclosed the GroundSure EnviroInsight as
requested
If you would like further assistance regarding this report then please contact the emapsite customer
services team on 0118 9736883 quoting the above report reference number.
Yours faithfully,
emapsite customer services team
Enc.
GroundSure EnviroInsight
GroundSure
EnviroInsight
Address: ,
Date: 3 May 2013
GroundSure Reference: EMS-204115-268687
Your Reference: EMS_204115-268687
Client: EmapSite
Brought to you by emapsite
Report Reference: EMS-204115-268687

Aerial Photograph of Study Site
▲
NW N NE
◄W E►
SW S SE
▼
Aerial photography supplied by Getmapping PLC .
© Copyright Getmapping PLC 2003. All Rights Reserved.
Site Name: ,
Grid Reference: 538857,181098
Size of Site: 1.18 ha

If you would like any further assistance regarding this report then please contact
emapsite on (T) 0118 9736883, (F) 0118 9730002 or email: sales@emapsite.com Page 2
Overview of Findings
For further details on each dataset, please refer to each individual section in the main report as
listed. Where the database has been searched a numerical result will be recorded. Where the
database has not been searched '-' will be recorded.
Report Section Number of records found within (X) m of the study site
boundary
1. Environmental Permits, Incidents and 0-50 51-250

251- 501- 1000-
Registers on-site 500 1000 1500
1.1 Industrial Sites Holding Environmental Permits and/or

Authorisations
Records of historic IPC Authorisations 0 0 0 0 - -
Records of Part A(1) and IPPC Authorised Activities 0 0 0 0 - -
Records of Water Industry Referrals (potentially harmful

0 0 0 0 - -
discharges to the public sewer)
Records of Red List Discharge Consents (potentially harmful

0 0 0 0 - -
discharges to controlled waters)
Records of List 1 Dangerous Substances Inventory sites 0 0 0 0 - -
Records of List 2 Dangerous Substances Inventory sites 0 0 0 0 - -
Records of Part A(2) and Part B Activities and Enforcements 0 1 0 3 - -
Records of Category 3 or 4 Radioactive Substances

0 0 0 0 - -
Authorisations
Records of Licensed Discharge Consents 0 0 1 7 - -
Records of Planning Hazardous Substance Consents and

0 0 0 0
Enforcements
1.2 Records of COMAH and NIHHS sites 0 0 1 0 - -
1.3 Environment Agency Recorded Pollution Incidents
National Incidents Recording System, List 2 0 2 1 - - -
National Incidents Recording System, List 1 0 0 0 - - -
1.4 Sites Determined as Contaminated Land under Part IIA EPA

0 0 0 0 - -
1990
251- 501- 1000-

2. Landfill and Other Waste Sites on-site 0-50 51-250
500 1000 1500
2.1 Landfill Sites
Environment Agency Registered Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 -
Landfill Data – Operational Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 -
Environment Agency Historic Landfill Sites 1 0 1 1 1 2
Landfill Data – Non-Operational Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 -
BGS/DoE Landfill Site Survey 0 0 0 0 0 0
GroundSure Local Authority Landfill Sites Data 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.2 Landfill and Other Waste Sites Findings
Operational Waste Treatment, Transfer and Disposal Sites 0 0 0 1 - -
Non-Operational Waste Treatment, Transfer and Disposal Sites 2 1 0 4 - -
Environment Agency Licensed Waste Sites 0 0 0 2 17 7

251- 501-
3. Current Land Uses on-site 0-50 51-250
500 1000
1000-1500
3.1 Current Industrial Sites Data 0 3 15 - - -
3.2 Records of Petrol and Fuel Sites 0 1 0 0 - -
3.3 Underground High Pressure Oil and Gas Pipelines 0 0 0 0 - -
4. Geology Description
4.1 Are there any records of Artificial Ground and Made Ground present beneath the Yes
study site? *
4.2 Are there any records of Superficial Ground and Drift Geology present beneath the Yes
study site? *
4.3 For records of Bedrock and Solid Geology beneath the study site* see the detailed
findings section.
Source: Scale: 1:50,000 BGS Sheet 256
* This includes an automatically generated 50m buffer zone around the site.
251- 501- 1001-

5. Hydrogeology and Hydrology on-site 0-50 51-250
500 1000 2000
5.1 Are there any records of Productive Strata in the Superficial

Yes
Geology within 500m of the study site?
5.2 Are there any records of Productive Strata in the Bedrock

Yes
Geology within 500m of the study site?
5.3 Groundwater Abstraction Licences (within 2000m of the study 0 0 1 0 1 17

site).
5.4 Surface Water Abstraction Licences (within 2000m of the 0 0 0 0 0 0

study site).
5.5 Potable Water Abstraction Licences (within 2000m of the study 0 0 0 0 0 3

site).
5.6 Are there any Source Protection Zones within 500m of the study site? No
5.7 River Quality on-site 0-50 51-250 251-500 501-1000 1001-1500
Is there any Environment Agency information on river quality No No No Yes Yes Yes
within 1500m of the study site?
5.8 Detailed River Network entries within 500m of the site 0 0 1 1 - -
5.9 Surface water features within 250m of the study site No Yes Yes - - -
6. Flooding
6.1 Are there any Environment Agency indicative Zone 2 floodplains within 250m of the Yes
study site?
6.2 Are there any Environment Agency indicative Zone 3 floodplains within 250m of the Yes
study site?
6.3 Are there any Flood Defences within 250m of the study site? Yes
6.4 Are there any areas benefiting from Flood Defences within 250m of the study site? Yes
6.5 Are there any areas used for Flood Storage within 250m of the study site? No
6.6 What is the maximum BGS Groundwater Flooding susceptibility within 50m of the High
study site?
6.7 What is the BGS confidence rating for the Groundwater Flooding susceptibility areas? High
7. Designated Environmentally Sensitive on-site 0-50 51-250

251- 501- 1001-
Sites 500 1000 2000
7.1 Records of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.2 Records of National Nature Reserves (NNR) 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.1 Records of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.3 Records of Local Nature Reserves (LNR) 0 0 0 0 0 2
7.4 Records of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.5 Records of Special Protection Areas (SPA) 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.6 Records of Ramsar sites 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.7 Records of World Heritage Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.8 Records of Environmentally Sensitive Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.9 Records of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.10 Records of National Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.11 Records of Nitrate Sensitive Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.12 Records of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones 1 0 0 0 0 1
7.13 Records of Ancient Woodlands 0 0 0 0 0 0
8. Natural Hazards
8.1 What is the maximum risk of natural ground subsidence?

Moderate
9. Mining
9.1 Are there any coal mining areas within 75m of the study site? No
9.2 What is the risk of subsidence relating to shallow mining within 150m of the study
Negligible
site?
9.3 Are there any brine affected areas within 75m of the study site? No

Using this Report
The following report is designed by Environmental Consultants for Environmental Professionals bringing together the
most up-to-date market leading environmental data. This report is provided under and subject to the Terms &
Conditions agreed between GroundSure and the Client. The document contains the following sections:
1. Environmental Permits, Incidents and Registers

Provides information on Regulated Industrial Activities and Pollution Incidents as recorded by Regulatory Authorities,
and sites determined as Contaminated Land. This search is conducted using radii up to 500m.
2. Landfills and Other Waste Sites

Provides information on landfills and other waste sites that may pose a risk to the study site. This search is conducted
using radii up to 1500m.
3. Current Land Uses

Provides information on current land uses that may pose a risk to the study site in terms of potential contamination
from activities or processes. These searches are conducted using radii of up to 500m. This includes information on
potentially contaminative industrial sites, petrol stations and fuel sites as well as high pressure underground oil and
gas pipelines.
4. Geology
Provides information on artificial and superficial deposits and bedrock beneath the study site.
5. Hydrogeology and Hydrology

Provides information on productive strata within the bedrock and superficial geological layers, abstraction licenses,
Source Protection Zones (SPZs) and river quality. These searches are conducted using radii of up to 2000m.
6. Flooding
Provides information on surface water flooding, flood defences, flood storage areas and groundwater flood areas. This
search is conducted using radii of up to 250m.
7. Designated Environmentally Sensitive Sites

Provides information on the Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserves (NNR), Special Areas
of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Ramsar sites, Local Nature Reserves (LNR), Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), National Parks (NP), Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Nitrate Sensitive Areas,
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones and World Heritage Sites and Scheduled Ancient Woodland. These searches are conducted
using radii of up to 2000m.
8. Natural Hazards
Provides information on a range of natural hazards that may pose a risk to the study site. These factors include
natural ground subsidence.
9. Mining
Provides information on areas of coal and shallow mining.

10. Contacts
This section of the report provides contact points for statutory bodies and data providers that may be able to provide
further information on issues raised within this report. Alternatively, GroundSure provide a free Technical Helpline
(08444 159000) for further information and guidance.
Note: Maps
Only certain features are placed on the maps within the report. All features represented on maps found within this
search are given an identification number. This number identifies the feature on the mapping and correlates it to the
additional information provided below. This identification number precedes all other information and takes the
following format -Id: 1, Id: 2, etc. Where numerous features on the same map are in such close proximity that the
numbers would obscure each other a letter identifier is used instead to represent the features. (e.g. Three features
which overlap may be given the identifier “A” on the map and would be identified separately as features 1A, 3A, 10A
on the data tables provided).
Where a feature is reported in the data tables to a distance greater than the map area, it is noted in the data table as
“Not Shown”.
All distances given in this report are in Metres (m). Directions are given as compass headings such as N: North, E:
East, NE: North East from the nearest point of the study site boundary.

1. Environmental Permits, Incidents and
Registers Map
▲
NW N NE
◄W E►
SW S SE
▼
Authorisations,Incidents and Registers Legend © Crown copyright and database

rights 2013. Ordnance Survey
license 100035207.
Page 8
1.Environmental Permits, Incidents and
Registers
1.1 Industrial Sites Holding Licences and/or Authorisations
Searches of information provided by the Environment Agency and Local Authorities reveal the
following information:
Records of historic IPC Authorisations within 500m of the study site: 0
Database searched and no data found.
Records of Part A(1) and IPPC Authorised Activities within 500m of the study site: 0
Records of Water Industry Referrals (potentially harmful discharges to the public sewer) within 500m of
the study site: 0
Records of Red List Discharge Consents (potentially harmful discharges to controlled waters) within
500m of the study site: 0
Records of List 1 Dangerous Substances Inventory Sites within 500m of the study site: 0
Records of List 2 Dangerous Substance Inventory Sites within 500m of the study site: 0
Records of Part A(2) and Part B Activities and Enforcements within 500m of the study site: 4
The following Part A(2) and Part B Activities are represented as points on the Authorisations, Incidents and Registers
map:
ID Distance Direction NGR Details

12A 49.0 E 538959, Address: Orchard Wharf Service Station, Enforcement: No Enforcement
181064 Leamouth Road, London, E14 0JG Notified
Process: Unloading of Petrol into Storage at Date of Enforcement: No Enforcement
Petrol Stations Notified
Status: Current Permit Comment: No Enforcement Notified
Permit Type: Part B
Page 9
13 260.0 NE 539000, Address: Pj Lowe Furniture Lanrick Rd, E14 Enforcement: No Enforcement
181400 Process: Timber Process Notified
Status: Historical Permit Date of Enforcement: No Enforcement
Permit Type: Part B Notified
Comment: No Enforcement Notified
14 416.0 E 539300, Address: Pura Foods Ltd Orchard Place, E14 Enforcement: No Enforcement
181200 0jh Notified
Process: Oils/fat Process Date of Enforcement: No Enforcement
Status: Historical Permit Notified
Permit Type: Part B Comment: No Enforcement Notified
15 468.0 NW 538521, Address: London Galvanisers, Leven Road, Enforcement: No Enforcement
181548 London, E14 0LP Notified
Process: Galvanizing Process Date of Enforcement: No Enforcement
Status: Current Permit Notified
Permit Type: Part B Comment: No Enforcement Notified
Records of Category 3 or 4 Radioactive Substance Licences within 500m of the study site: 0
Records of Licensed Discharge Consents within 500m of the study site: 8
The following Licensed Discharge Consents records are represented as points on the Authorisations, Incidents and
Registers map:

4 93.0 E 539000, Address: Docklands Light Railway, Beckton Ex, Receiving Water: Bow Creek, River
181000 Docklands Light Railway, Beckton, Extension, Lee
London Status: Revoked - Unspecified
Effluent Type: Miscellaneous Discharges - Issue date: -
Surface Water Effective Date: -
Permit Number: CNTW.0097 Revocation Date: 8/4/1998
Permit Version: 1
5 321.0 E 539200, Address: Orchard Place, Canning Town, Receiving Water: River Lea (bow
181200 London, Orchard Place, Canning Town, Lon, Creek)
Don Status: Revoked - Unspecified
Effluent Type: Miscellaneous Discharges - Issue date: 13/1/1987
Surface Water Effective Date: 13/1/1987
Permit Number: CTWC.1396 Revocation Date: 27/6/1991
Permit Version: 1
6 326.0 NE 539100, Address: Ecostation Visitor Centre, Limmo Pe, Receiving Water: River Lee (bow
181400 Ecostation Visitor Centre, Limmo, Peninsula, Creek)
Wharfside Road, Cann, Ing Town, Status: Lapsed Under Schedule 23
Effluent Type: Sewage Discharges - Environment Act 1995
Final/treated Effluent - Not Water Company Issue date: 29/3/1996
Permit Number: CNTM.2217 Effective Date: 29/3/1996
Permit Version: 1 Revocation Date: 1/10/1996
7 385.0 E 539250, Address: Pura Foods, Orchard Place, London, Receiving Water: Bow Creek
181250 Pura Foods, Orchard Place, Londo, N Status: Revoked (wra 91, S88 &
Effluent Type: Trade Discharges - Cooling Sched 10 As Amended By Env Act
Water 1995)
Permit Number: CNTM.1680 Issue date: -
Permit Version: 1 Effective Date: -
Revocation Date: 20/9/2005
8 433.0 SE 539200, Address: East India Dock, East India Road, B, Receiving Water: River Thames
180700 East India Dock, East India Road, Blackwall, Status: Revoked - Unspecified
London Issue date: -
Effluent Type: Miscellaneous Discharges - Effective Date: -
Unspecified Revocation Date: 8/5/1990
Permit Number: CTWC.1950
Permit Version: 1
9 437.0 NE 539060, Address: Crown Wharf, Wharfside Road, Receiving Water: River Lea
181570 Cannin, Crown Wharf, Wharfside Road, Can, Status: Revoked - Unspecified
Ning Town, London, E16 4tb Issue date: 17/7/1985
Effluent Type: Miscellaneous Discharges - Effective Date: 17/7/1985
Surface Water Revocation Date: 4/11/1991
Permit Version: 1
Page 10
10 460.0 NE 539190, Address: Crown Wharf, Wharfside Road, Receiving Water: River Lea
181500 Cannin, Crown Wharf, Wharfside Road, Can, Status: Revoked - Unspecified
Ning Town, London, E16 4tb Issue date: 17/7/1985
Effluent Type: Miscellaneous Discharges - Effective Date: 17/7/1985
Surface Water Revocation Date: 4/11/1991
Permit Version: 1
11 496.0 N 538890, Address: West Ham Generating Station, Receiving Water: Bow Creek
181680 Bidder, West Ham Generating Station, Bid, Der Status: Revoked - Unspecified
Street, London Issue date: -
Effluent Type: Trade Discharges - Unspecified Effective Date: -
Permit Number: CLCR.0160 Revocation Date: 30/6/1991
Permit Version: 1
Records of Planning Hazardous Substance Consents and Enforcements within 500m of the study site: 1
The following records are represented as polygons on the Industrial Sites and Processes map.
Application Details of
Application Application
ID Distance [m] Direction Reference Address Details Enforcement
Status Date
Number Action
18 365.0 NW PA/01/012 Approved 15/08/200 Transco Plc., Continuation Enforcement: No
B 02 1 Poplar Gas Holder of Enforcement
Site, Leven Road, Hazardous Notified
London, E14 0LL Substances Date of
Consent Enforcement: No
following a Enforcement
change in Notified
control of Comment: No
part of the Enforcement
land. Notified
1.2 Dangerous or Hazardous Sites

Records of COMAH & NIHHS sites within 500m of the study site: 1
The following COMAH & NIHHS Authorisation records provided by the Health and Safety Executive are represented as
polygons or buffered points on the Authorisations, Incidents and Registers map:
ID Distance Direction NGR Address Type Update

16B 213.0 N 538600, british gas,poplar holder COMAH 2001
181500 station,leven
road,poplar,e14 0ll
1.3 Environment Agency Recorded Pollution Incidents

Records of National Incidents Recording System, List 2 within 250m of the study site: 3
The following NIRS List 2 records are represented as points on the Authorisations, Incidents and Registers Map:

1 8.0 E 538890, Incident Date: 26/6/2003 Water Impact: Category 4 (No
181130 Incident Identification: 168949 Impact)
Pollutant: Oils and Fuel Land Impact: Category 4 (No
Pollutant Description: Diesel Impact)
Air Impact: Category 4 (No Impact)
2A 50.0 E 538963, Incident Date: 6/3/2002 Water Impact: Category 4 (No
181050 Incident Identification: 62269 Impact)
Pollutant: Inert Materials and Wastes Land Impact: Category 3 (Minor)
Pollutant Description: Soils and Clay Air Impact: Category 4 (No Impact)
Page 11
3 185.0 NW 538681, Incident Date: 24/2/2003 Water Impact: Category 3 (Minor)
181314 Incident Identification: 139064 Land Impact: Category 4 (No
Pollutant: Contaminated Water Impact)
Pollutant Description: Firefighting Run-Off Air Impact: Category 3 (Minor)
Records of National Incidents Recording System, List 1 within 250m of the study site: 0
1.4 Sites Determined as Contaminated Land under Part IIA EPA

1990
How many records of sites determined as contaminated land under Section 78R of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 are there within 500m of the study site? 0
Page 12
2. Landfill and Other Waste Sites Map
▲
NW N NE
◄W E►
SW S SE
▼
Landfill & Other Waste Sites Legend © Crown copyright and database
license 100035207.
Page 13
2. Landfill and Other Waste Sites
2.1 Landfill Sites
Records from Environment Agency landfill data within 1000m of the study site: 0
Records of operational landfill sites sourced from Landmark within 1000m of the study site: 0
Records of Environment Agency historic landfill sites within 1500m of the study site: 6
The following landfill records are represented as either points or polygons on the Landfill and Other Waste Sites map:

10 0.0 On Site 538600, Site Address: Eastern Dock, South Licence Issue:
180900 Bromley, Tower Hamlets, London Licence Surrendered:
Waste Licence: - Licence Hold Address: -
Site Reference: 8TH002, TOW002 Operator: -
Waste Type: -
Regis Reference: -
11 72.0 SE 538900, Site Address: East India Dock, London Licence Issue:
180800 E14 Licence Surrendered:
Waste Type: -
Regis Reference: -
12 286.0 NE 539000, Site Address: Lanrick Road, London E14 Licence Issue:
181400 Waste Licence: - Licence Surrendered:
Site Reference: SHA046 Licence Hold Address: -
Waste Type: - Operator: -
Regis Reference: -
13 702.0 SW 538200, Site Address: Poplar Dock, Blackwall, Licence Issue:
180400 Tower Hamlets, London Licence Surrendered:
Waste Type: -
Regis Reference: -
Not 1034.0 SE 539900, Site Address: Western Entrance Lock, Licence Issue: 23-Nov-1981
shown 180400 Canning Town, Newham, London Licence Surrendered: 31-Dec-1982
Waste Licence: Yes Licence Hold Address: -
Site Reference: DL092, 8NE006 Operator: -
Waste Type: Inert
Regis Reference: -
Not 1180.0 SE 539300, Site Address: East Greenwich Site, Licence Issue: 12-Apr-1994
shown 179600 Greenwich Licence Surrendered:
Waste Licence: Yes Licence Hold Address: -
Site Reference: DL545 Operator: -
Waste Type: Inert
Regis Reference: -
Records of non-operational landfill sites sourced from Landmark within 1000m of the study site: 0
Records of BGS/DoE non-operational landfill sites within 1500m of the study site: 0
Page 14
Records of Local Authority landfill sites within 1500m of the study site: 0
2.2 Other Waste Sites

Records of operational waste treatment, transfer or disposal sites within 500m of the study site: 1
The following waste treatment, transfer or disposal sites records are represented as points on the Landfill and Other
Waste Sites map:

2B 286.0 NE 539030, Site Address: Moody Wharf, Lanrick Road, Record Date: 01-Oct-1994
181410 CANNING TOWN, London, E14 0JF Transfer Date: 01-Mar-1999
Landfill Licence: 17UAVTAL Modification Date: 01-Mar-1999
EA Reference: EAWML80138 Status: Operational as far as is known
Waste Type: Difficult Category: TRANSFER
Rating: Difficult Transfer Regulator: EA - Thames Region - North
Known Restrictions: No known restriction East Area (Hatfield-London N)
on source of waste Size: Large (< 250,000 tonnes/year)
Records of non-operational waste treatment, transfer or disposal sites within 500m of the study site: 7
Waste Sites map:

3A 0.0 On Site 538825, Site Address: Blackwall Goods Yard, East Record Date:01-Dec-1984
181175 India Dock Road, BLACKWALL, London, Transfer Date:
Landfill Licence: 17UALLAL Modification Date:
EA Reference: - Status: Licence
Waste Type: Non-Hazardous lapsed/cancelled/defunct/not
Waste Description: Non-Hazardous applicable/surrendered
Known Restrictions: No known restriction Category: TRANSFER
on source of waste Regulator: EA - Thames Region - North
East Area (Hatfield-London N)
Size: Medium (< 75,000 tonnes/year)
4A 0.0 On Site 538830, Site Address: Unit 92 East India Dock, Record Date:01-May-1985
181175 Blackwall, LONDON, Greater London, E14 Transfer Date:
Landfill Licence: 17UALXAL Modification Date: 01-Jun-1985
Waste Type: Putrescible lapsed/cancelled/defunct/not
Waste Description: Putrescible applicable/surrendered
5A 1.0 N 538825, Site Address: Blackwall Goods Yard, East Record Date:01-Jun-1982
181180 India Dock Road, BLACKWALL, London, Transfer Date:
E14 Modification Date: 01-Feb-1983
Landfill Licence: 17UAFWAL Status: Licence
EA Reference: - lapsed/cancelled/defunct/not
Waste Type: Non-Hazardous applicable/surrendered
Waste Description: Non-Hazardous Category: TRANSFER
Known Restrictions: No known restriction Regulator: EA - Thames Region - North
on source of waste East Area (Hatfield-London N)
6B 286.0 NE 539030, Site Address: Moody Wharf, Lanrick Road, Record Date:01-Sep-1988
181410 CANNING TOWN, London, E14 0JF Transfer Date:
Landfill Licence: 17UASJAL Modification Date: 01-Aug-1993
EA Reference: - Status: Record superseded
Waste Type: Non-Hazardous Category: TRANSFER
Waste Description: Non-Hazardous Regulator: EA - Thames Region - North
Known Restrictions: No known restriction East Area (Hatfield-London N)
on source of waste Size: Large (< 250,000 tonnes/year)
Page 15
7C 398.0 SW 538550, Site Address: Site A Scouler Street, Record Date:01-Dec-1984
180750 BLACKWALL, London, E14 Transfer Date: 01-Dec-1985
Landfill Licence: 17UAGDAL Modification Date:
8C 398.0 SW 538550, Site Address: Site B Scouler Street, Record Date:01-Oct-1981
180750 BLACKWALL, London, E14 Transfer Date:
Landfill Licence: 17UAGGAL Modification Date: 01-Dec-1985
9C 398.0 SW 538550, Site Address: Site A Quixley Street, Record Date:01-Jul-1982
180750 BLACKWALL, London, E14 Transfer Date:
Landfill Licence: 17UAFPAL Modification Date: 01-Oct-1985
Waste Type: Putrescible lapsed/cancelled/defunct/not
Waste Description: Putrescible applicable/surrendered
Records of Environment Agency licensed waste sites within 1500m of the study site: 26
Waste Sites map:

16B 292.0 NE 539030, Site Address: Joe Wilkinson, Moody Issue Date: 18/10/1994
181418 Wharf, Lanrick Road, Canning Town, Effective Date: -
London, E14 0JF Modified: 19/03/1999
Type: Household, Commercial & Surrendered Date: 06/01/2003
Industrial Waste T Stn Expiry Date: -
Size: >= 75000 tonnes Cancelled Date: -
Regis Licence Number: ERI001 Status: Surrendered
EPR reference: - Site Name: "Moody Wharf, Canning Town,
Operator: Erith Haulage Company Ltd London"
Waste Management licence No: 80138 Correspondence Address: Erith Haulage
Annual Tonnage: 0.0 Co Ltd, Riverside House, Darent Ind.Park,
Maypole Crescent, Erith, Kent, DA8 2JZ
17B 292.0 NE 539030, Site Address: Joe Wilkinson, Moody Issue Date: 18/10/1994
181418 Wharf, Lanrick Road, Canning Town, Effective Date: -
London, E14 0JF Modified: 19/03/1999
Type: Household, Commercial & Surrendered Date: 06/01/2003
Regis Licence Number: ERI001 Status: Surrendered
EPR reference: EA/EPR/BP3991NP/S003 Site Name: Moody Wharf, Canning Town,
Operator: Erith Haulage Company London
Limited Correspondence Address: -, -
Waste Management licence No: 80138
Annual Tonnage: 61868.0
18 540.0 NE 539166, Site Address: John Maynard, Mayer Issue Date: 05/11/1996
181626 Parry Recycling Ltd, 29, Bidder Street, Effective Date: -
Canning Town, London, E16 4SZ Modified: 11/12/2009
Type: Metal Recycling Site (mixed Surrendered Date: -
MRS's) Expiry Date: -
Regis Licence Number: MAY001 Status: Modified
EPR reference: EA/EPR/QP3796NY/V002 Site Name: Mayer Parry, Bidder Street
Operator: Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd Correspondence Address: -, -
Page 16
Not 684.0 N 539095, Site Address: 32, Stephenson Street, Issue Date: 11/08/2000
shown 181825 Canning Town, London, E16 4SA Effective Date: -
Type: Household, Commercial & Modified: 24/09/2010
Industrial Waste T Stn Surrendered Date: -
Size: >= 75000 tonnes Expiry Date: -
Regis Licence Number: IOD001 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/KP3597NZ/V005 Status: Modified
Operator: IOD Skip Hire Ltd Site Name: I O D Skip Hire Ltd
Waste Management licence No: 80515 Correspondence Address: -, -
Not 697.0 N 539091, Site Address: Oasis Park, 32, Issue Date: 11/08/2000
shown 181840 Stephenson Street, Canning Town, Effective Date: -
London, E16 4ST Modified: 16/10/2001
Type: Household, Commercial & Surrendered Date: -
Size: >= 25000 tonnes < 75000 tonnes Cancelled Date: -
Regis Licence Number: IOD001 Status: Modified
EPR reference: - Site Name: I O D Skip Hire Ltd
Operator: IOD Skip Hire Ltd Correspondence Address: -, Oasis Park,
Waste Management licence No: 80515 32, Stephenson Street, Canning Town,
Annual Tonnage: 74900.0 London, E16 4ST
Not 770.0 SW 538461, Site Address: Steven Pryor, Issue Date: 01/06/2012
shown 180350 Northumberland Wharf, Yabsley Street, Effective Date: -
Poplar, London, E14 9RG Modified: -
Regis Licence Number: COR149 Status: Tran Part
EPR reference: EA/EPR/GB3332AD/T001 Site Name: Northumberland Wharf
Operator: Cory Environmental Ltd Transfer Station
Poplar, London, E14 9RG Modified: 15/11/1999
Regis Licence Number: CLE007 Status: Modified
EPR reference: - Site Name: "Cleanaway Limited, Yabsley
Operator: Cleanaway Ltd Street"
Waste Management licence No: 80133 Correspondence Address: Cleanaway
Annual Tonnage: 0.0 Limited, The Drive, Warley, Brentwood,
Essex, CM13 3BE
shown 180350 Northumberland Wharf, Yabsley Street, Effective Date: 29/11/2010
Type: Household Waste Amenity Site Surrendered Date: -
Size: < 25000 tonnes Expiry Date: -
Regis Licence Number: VEO139 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/NP3395VV/T002 Status: Modified
Operator: Cory Environmental Ltd Site Name: Northumberland Wharf
Waste Management licence No: 80133 Transfer Station
Annual Tonnage: 24999.0 Correspondence Address: -, -
EPR reference: - Site Name: Yabsley Street
Operator: Veolia E S Cleanaway ( U K ) Correspondence Address: Cleanaway Ltd,
Ltd The Drive, Great Warley, Brentwood,
Waste Management licence No: 80133 Essex, CM13 3BE
Not 770.0 SW 538461, Site Address: Steven Pryor, Yabsley Issue Date: 23/09/1994
shown 180350 Street, Poplar, London, E14 9RG Effective Date: 29/11/2010
Type: Household, Commercial & Modified: 15/11/1999
Regis Licence Number: VEO139 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/NP3395VV/T001 Status: Transferred
Operator: Veolia Environmental Services Site Name: Northumberland Wharf
( U K ) Ltd Transfer Station
Page 17
Not 811.0 NW 538297, Site Address: - Issue Date: 27/03/2012
shown 181808 Type: HCI Waste TS + treatment Effective Date: -
Size: < 25000 tonnes Modified: -
Regis Licence Number: DRP003 Surrendered Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/FB3737WF/A001 Expiry Date: -
Operator: D R Plant Solutions Ltd Cancelled Date: -
Waste Management licence No: 104011 Status: Issued
Annual Tonnage: 74999.0 Site Name: D R Plant Solutions Ltd
Correspondence Address: -, -
Not 828.0 E 539724, Site Address: Wakelands Ltd, Unit 5c, Issue Date: 02/11/1994
shown 181213 Thames Road, Silvertown, London, E16 Effective Date: -
2EZ Modified: -
Size: < 25000 tonnes Cancelled Date: -
Regis Licence Number: WAK001 Status: Issued
EPR reference: EA/EPR/PP3891NC/A001 Site Name: Wakelands Canning Town,
Operator: Wakelands Ltd Shirley Street
Not 839.0 NW 538263, Site Address: Blackwall Marine Diesel Issue Date: 20/04/2012
shown 181817 Ltd, Unit 2, Ailsa Street, London, E14 Effective Date: -
0LE Modified: -
Type: Vehicle depollution facility Surrendered Date: -
Regis Licence Number: BMD002 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/FB3738AE/A001 Status: Issued
Operator: Blackwall Marine Diesel Site Name: Blackwall Marine Diesel Ltd
Not 872.0 N 538634, Site Address: Walter Reid, 9a Cody Issue Date: 13/10/1992
shown 182032 Business Centre, South Crescent, Effective Date: -
London, E16 4TL Modified: 18/05/2012
Type: Metal Recycling Site (mixed Surrendered Date: -
MRS's) Expiry Date: -
Size: >= 25000 tonnes < 75000 tonnes Cancelled Date: -
Regis Licence Number: REM001 Status: Modified
EPR reference: EA/EPR/QP3396NZ/V003 Site Name: Remet Canning Town, Cody
Operator: The Remet Company Ltd Road
Not 948.0 SE 539700, Site Address: Thames Wharf, Dock Road, Issue Date: 11/06/2007
shown 180500 Silvertown, London, E16 1AF Effective Date: -
Type: Household, Commercial & Modified: -
Regis Licence Number: DO001 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/UP3593EX/A001 Status: Issued
Operator: Docklands Waste Recycling Ltd Site Name: Docklands Waste Recycling,
Waste Management licence No: 80784 Dock Road
shown 180500 Silvertown, London, E16 1AF Effective Date: -
Regis Licence Number: BRE014 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/UP3393ES/A001 Status: Issued
Operator: Brewsters Waste Management Site Name: Brewsters, Dock Road
Ltd Correspondence Address: -, -
Not 974.0 SE 539800, Site Address: Mc Gee Bedrocl, Site 1, Issue Date: 09/10/2009
shown 180630 Thames Wharf, Dock Road, Silvertown, Effective Date: -
London, E16 1AF Modified: -
Type: Asbestos Waste Transfer Station Surrendered Date: -
Regis Licence Number: MCG013 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/EP3192SA/A001 Status: Issued
Operator: McGee Asbestos Removal Site Name: Mc Gee Asbestos Removal
Page 18
Not 975.0 NW 538177, Site Address: B Cox, Tunnel Approach Issue Date: 02/02/1990
shown 181923 Transfer Station, 40, Gillender Street, Effective Date: -
London, E14 6RH Modified: 21/04/1997
EPR reference: EA/EPR/PP3291NP/V004 Site Name: Gillender Street
Operator: Veolia E S Cleanaway ( U K ) Correspondence Address: -, -
Ltd
Not 975.0 NW 538177, Site Address: B Cox, Tunnel Issue Date: 02/02/1990
shown 181923 ApproachTransfer Station, 40, Gillender Effective Date: -
Street, London, E14 6RH Modified: 21/04/1997
EPR reference: - Site Name: "Cleanaway Limited, Gillender
Operator: Cleanaway Ltd Street"
Waste Management licence No: 80132 Correspondence Address: Cleanaway
Annual Tonnage: 0.0 Limited, The Drive, Warley, Brentwood,
Essex, CM13 3BE
Not 1010.0 SE 539807, Site Address: Land / Premises At, Dock Issue Date: 16/02/2009
shown 180562 Road, Silvertown, London, E16 2AT Effective Date: -
Type: Inert & excavation Waste TS + Modified: -
treatment Surrendered Date: -
Size: >= 25000 tonnes < 75000 tonnes Expiry Date: -
Regis Licence Number: KEL234 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/AP3292ES/A001 Status: Issued
Operator: Keltbray A W S Ltd Site Name: Thames Wharf
shown 180427 Silvertown, London, E16 2AT Effective Date: 03/12/2012
Type: Inert & excavation Waste TS + Modified: -
treatment Surrendered Date: -
Regis Licence Number: KEL318 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/MB3437RG/T001 Status: Transferred
Operator: Keltbray Environmental Ltd Site Name: Thames Wharf
Not 1071.0 SE 539870, Site Address: Unit 2 Thames Wharf, Issue Date: 11/06/2007
shown 180550 Dock Road, Silvertown, London, E16 4AF Effective Date: -
Size: >= 25000 tonnes < 75000 tonnes Expiry Date: -
Regis Licence Number: GAB001 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/MP3793ES/A001 Status: Issued
Operator: G & B Compressor Hire Ltd Site Name: G & B Compressor Hire, Dock
Waste Management licence No: 80780 Road
Not 1148.0 N 538416, Site Address: Unit J Prologis Park, Issue Date: 19/06/2006
shown 182253 Twelvetrees Crescent, Bow, London, E3 Effective Date: -
3JG Modified: 10/09/2012
Type: Special Waste Transfer Station Surrendered Date: -
Regis Licence Number: BYW004 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/SP3093EA/V004 Status: Modified
Operator: Bywaters ( Leyton) Ltd Site Name: Bywaters Recycling And
Waste Management licence No: 80744 Recovery Centre
Not 1148.0 N 538416, Site Address: Prologis Business Park, Issue Date: 19/06/2006
shown 182253 Unit J, Twelvetrees Crescent, Bromley By Effective Date: -
Bow, London, E3 3JH Modified: -
Type: Special Waste Transfer Station Surrendered Date: -
Regis Licence Number: BYW004 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: - Status: Issued
Operator: Bywaters (Leyton) Limited Site Name: Bywaters Bromley By Bow
Waste Management licence No: 80744 Correspondence Address: -, Gateway
Annual Tonnage: 0.0 Road, Leyton, London, E10 5BY
Page 19
Not 1293.0 NW 537923, Site Address: T Clifford, Clifford House, Issue Date: 20/12/1994
shown 182123 Towcester Road, Bow, London, E3 3ND Effective Date: -
Type: Special Waste Transfer Station Modified: -
Size: < 25000 tonnes Surrendered Date: -
Regis Licence Number: CLI001 Expiry Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/PP3191NJ/A001 Cancelled Date: -
Operator: Clifford Devlin Ltd Status: Issued
Waste Management licence No: 80134 Site Name: Towcester Road
Not 1472.0 S 539025, Site Address: Victoria Deep Water Issue Date: 19/06/2012
shown 179548 Terminal, Tunnel Avenue, Greenwich, Effective Date: -
London, SE10 0QE Modified: -
Type: Physical Treatment Facility Surrendered Date: -
Regis Licence Number: SIV008 Cancelled Date: -
EPR reference: EA/EPR/LP3395VN/A001 Status: Issued
Operator: H Sivyer ( Transport) Ltd Site Name: Victoria Deep Water Terminal
Page 20
3. Current Land Use Map
▲
NW N NE
◄W E►
SW S SE
▼
Current Land Use Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.
Page 21
3. Current Land Uses
3.1 Current Industrial Data
Records of potentially contaminative industrial sites within 250m of the study site: 18
The following records are represented as points on the Current Land Uses map.
ID Distance Direction Company Address Activity Category

1A 46.0 SE Gas Valve Compound E14 Gas Features Infrastructure
and Facilities
2 49.0 NW Electricity Sub Station E14 Electrical Infrastructure
Features and Facilities
3A 49.0 SE Gas Valve Compound E14 Gas Features Infrastructure
and Facilities
4B 55.0 E Orchard Wharf Otr Leamouth Road, Lower Lea Vehicle Cleaning Personal,
Service Station Crossing, Leamouth, London, E6 Services Consumer and
5SJ Other Services
5B 55.0 E Orchard Wharf Otr Leamouth Road, Lower Lea Petrol and Fuel Road and Rail
Service Station Crossing, Leamouth, London, Stations
Greater London, E6 5SJ
6B 58.0 E Esso Leamouth Road, London, E14 0JG Petrol and Fuel Road and Rail
Stations
7 66.0 SE Electricity Sub Station E14 Electrical Infrastructure
8 68.0 NE Electricity Sub Station E14 Electrical Infrastructure
9 92.0 E Orchard Wharf E14 Moorings and Water
Unloading
Facilities
10 99.0 E Wharf E14 Moorings and Water
C Unloading
Facilities
11 109.0 S Electricity Sub Station E14 Electrical Infrastructure
12 111.0 E Silvocea Wharf E14 Moorings and Water
C Unloading
Facilities
13 185.0 SW Gantry E14 Travelling Industrial
Cranes and Features
Gantries
14 211.0 SW Gantry E14 Travelling Industrial
Cranes and Features
Gantries
15 213.0 SE North Quay E14 Moorings and Water
Unloading
Facilities
16 215.0 SE West Quay E14 Moorings and Water
Unloading
Facilities
17 227.0 SW East India Station E14 Tram, Metro Public
(Docklands Light and Light Transport,
Railway) Railway Stations Stations and
and Stops Infrastructure
18 247.0 SE East India Dock Basin E14 Marine Industrial
Equipment Products
Including Boats
and Ships
3.2 Petrol and Fuel Sites

Records of petrol or fuel sites within 500m of the study site: 1
The following petrol or fuel site records provided by Catalist are represented as points on the Current Land Use map:
ID Distance Direction NGR Company Address LPG Status
Page 22
19 39.0 E 538952, Esso Orchard Wharf Otr No Open
181052 Service Station,
Leamouth Road,
Leamouth Road, Lower
Lea Crossing, Leamouth,
London, Greater London,
E14 0JG
3.3 Underground High Pressure Oil and Gas Pipelines

Records of high pressure underground pipelines within 500m of the study site: 0
Page 23
4. Geology
4.1 Artificial Ground and Made Ground
The database has been searched on site, including a 50m buffer.
LEX Code Description Rock Type

WMGR-MGRD INFILLED GROUND ARTIFICIAL DEPOSIT
(Derived from the BGS 1:50,000 Digital Geological Map of Great Britain)
4.2 Superficial Ground and Drift Geology

Lex Code Description Rock Type

ALV-CZPS ALLUVIUM SILTY PEATY SANDY CLAY
4.3 Bedrock and Solid Geology

LEX Code Description Rock Type

LC-CLSS LONDON CLAY FORMATION CLAY, SILT AND SAND
For more detailed geological and ground stability data please refer to the “GroundSure GeoInsight”. Available from our website.
Page 24
5a. Hydrogeology - Aquifer Within Superficial
Geology
▲
NW N NE
◄ W E►
SW S SE
▼
Aquifer Within Superficial Geology Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.
Page 25
5b. Hydrogeology - Aquifer Within Bedrock
Geology and Abstraction Licenses
▲
NW N NE
◄ W E►
SW S SE
▼
Aquifer Within Bedrock Geology Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.
Page 26
5c. Hydrogeology – Source Protection Zones
and Potable Water Abstraction Licenses
▲
NW N NE
◄ W E►
SW S SE
▼
SPZ and Potable Water Abstraction Licenses © Crown copyright and database
Legend license 100035207.
Page 27
5d. Hydrology – Detailed River Network and
River Quality
▲
NW N NE
◄ W E►
SW S SE
▼
Hydrology Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.
Page 28
5.Hydrogeology and Hydrology
5.1 Aquifer within Superficial Deposits
Are there records of productive strata within the superficial geology at or in proximity to the property?
Yes
From 1 April 2010, the Environment Agency's Groundwater Protection Policy has been using aquifer designations
consistent with the Water Framework Directive. For further details on the designation and interpretation of this
information, please refer to the GroundSure Enviroinsight User Guide.
The following aquifer records are shown on the Aquifer within Superficial Geology Map (5a):
ID Distance [m] Direction Designation Description

2 0.0 On Site Secondary (undifferentiated) Assigned where it is not possible to attribute either
category A or B to a rock type. In general these layers
have previously been designated as both minor and non-
aquifer in different locations due to the variable
characteristics of the rock type
1 434.0 SW Secondary A Permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at
a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases
forming an important source of base flow to rivers.
These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor
aquifers
5.2 Aquifer within Bedrock Deposits

Are there records of productive strata within the bedrock geology at or in proximity to the property? Yes
From 1 April 2010, the Environment Agency's Groundwater Protection Policy has been using aquifer designations
consistent with the Water Framework Directive. For further details on the designation and interpretation of this
information, please refer to the GroundSure Enviroinsight User Guide.
The following aquifer records are shown on the Aquifer within Bedrock Geology Map (5b):
ID Distance [m] Direction Designation Description

2 0.0 On Site Unproductive These are rock layers or drift deposits with low
permeability that have negligible significance for water
supply or river base flow
5.3 Groundwater Abstraction Licences

Are there any Groundwater Abstraction Licences within 2000m of the study site? Yes
The following Abstraction Licences records are represented as points, lines and regions on the Aquifer within Bedrock
Geology Map (5b):

3 245.0 E 539130, Licence No: 29/38/09/0162 Annual Volume (m³): 30000
181170 Details: Make-Up Or Top Up Water Max Daily Volume (m³): 146.4
Direct Source: Thames Groundwater Original Application No: -
Point: Limmo Peninsula Original Start Date: 28/7/1997
Data Type: Point Expiry Date: -
Issue No: 101
Version Start Date: 9/8/2001
Version End Date:
Page 29
Not 964.0 S 538900, Licence No: 28/39/44/0042 Annual Volume (m³): -
shown 180050 Details: General use relating to Max Daily Volume (m³): -
Secondary Category (Medium Loss) Original Application No: -
Direct Source: Thames Groundwater Original Start Date: 30/11/1999
Point: The Millennium Dome Borehole Expiry Date: 31/12/2004
Data Type: Point Issue No: 2
Version End Date:
Not 1114.0 S Licence No: 28/39/44/0025 Annual Volume (m³): -
shown Details: General use relating to Max Daily Volume (m³): -
Secondary Category (Medium Loss) Original Application No: G
Direct Source: Thames Groundwater Original Start Date: 14/6/1991
Point: 303 Tunnel Avenue, Greenwich, - Expiry Date: 31/12/2001
Borehole 'a' Issue No: 100
Data Type: Point Version Start Date: 14/6/1991
Version End Date:
shown Details: Mineral Washing Max Daily Volume (m³): -
Point: 303 Tunnel Avenue, Greenwich. Original Start Date: 7/11/1988
Issue No: 101
Version End Date:
shown Details: Process water Max Daily Volume (m³): -
Direct Source: Thames Groundwater Original Application No: WRA/S/1108
Point: 303 Tunnel Avenue, Greenwich. Original Start Date: 1/1/2002
Data Type: Point Expiry Date: 31/3/2013
Issue No: 1
Version End Date:
shown Details: Mineral Washing Max Daily Volume (m³): -
Point: 303 Tunnel Avenue, Greenwich, - Original Start Date: 7/11/1988
Borehole 'a' Expiry Date: -
Version End Date:
Not 1197.0 S Licence No: 28/39/44/0051 Annual Volume (m³): 1261440
shown Details: Heat Pump Max Daily Volume (m³): 3456
Direct Source: Thames Groundwater Original Application No: SE/WA/44/51
Point: Abstraction Point 'b' - Chalk, Original Start Date: 6/4/2009
Green Place, Greenwich Expiry Date: 31/3/2013
Version End Date:
Direct Source: Thames Groundwater Original Application No: SE/WA/44/51
Point: Abstraction Point 'a' - Chalk, Original Start Date: 6/4/2009
Green Place, Greenwich Expiry Date: 31/3/2013
Version End Date:
Not 1398.0 E Licence No: TH/037/0054/001 Annual Volume (m³): 61600
Direct Source: Thames Groundwater Original Application No: NPSWR000026
Point: 18 Western Gateway, Royal Original Start Date: 7/5/2009
Victoria Dock, London Expiry Date: 31/3/2013
Version End Date:
shown Details: Process Water Max Daily Volume (m³): 720
Direct Source: Thames Groundwater Original Application No: NPS/WR/011609
Point: Victoria Deep Water Terminal Original Start Date: 2/9/2004
Greenwich Se10- Borehole Expiry Date: 31/3/2016
Version End Date:
shown Details: Make-Up Or Top Up Water Max Daily Volume (m³): 300
Point: Boord Street, Greenwich - Original Start Date: 9/2/2005
Borehole Expiry Date: 31/3/2016
Version End Date:
Page 30
shown Details: Spray Irrigation - Direct Max Daily Volume (m³): 300
Point: Boord Street, Greenwich - Original Start Date: 9/2/2005
Borehole Expiry Date: 31/3/2016
Version End Date:
shown Details: Make-Up or Top Up Water Max Daily Volume (m³): -
Point: Blackwall Lane / Boord Street, Original Start Date: 18/6/1999
Greenwich - Borehole Expiry Date: 31/12/2004
Version End Date:
shown Details: Spray Irrigation - Direct Max Daily Volume (m³): -
Point: Blackwall Lane / Boord Street, Original Start Date: 18/6/1999
Greenwich - Borehole Expiry Date: 31/12/2004
Version End Date:
Not 1815.0 N Licence No: 29/38/09/0149 Annual Volume (m³): 107000
shown Details: Non-Evaporative Cooling Max Daily Volume (m³): 1963.6
Point: Canning Road - Borehole A Original Start Date: 1/11/1985
Issue No: 100
Version End Date:
Not 1832.0 N Licence No: 29/38/09/0149 Annual Volume (m³): 107000
shown Details: Non-Evaporative Cooling Max Daily Volume (m³): 1963.6
Point: Canning Road - Borehole B Original Start Date: 1/11/1985
Issue No: 100
Version End Date:
Not 1848.0 SW Licence No: 28/39/39/0234 Annual Volume (m³): 78840
shown Details: Drinking, Cooking, Sanitary, Max Daily Volume (m³): 216
Washing, (Small Garden) - Original Application No: GEN/39/210
Commercial/Industrial/Public Services Original Start Date: 30/4/2008
Direct Source: Thames Groundwater Expiry Date: 31/3/2013
Point: Britannia International Hotel, Isle Issue No: 1
Of Dogs E14- Borehole Version Start Date: 30/4/2008
Data Type: Point Version End Date:
Not 1848.0 SW Licence No: 28/39/39/0220 Annual Volume (m³): 78840
shown Details: Drinking, Cooking, Sanitary, Max Daily Volume (m³): 216
Washing, (Small Garden) - Original Application No: WRA/N/1369
Point: The International Hotel, Isle Of Issue No: 1
Dogs - Borehole Version Start Date: 9/10/2006
Not 1848.0 SW Licence No: 28/39/39/0179 Annual Volume (m³): -
shown Details: Drinking, Cooking, Sanitary, Max Daily Volume (m³): -
Point: The International Hotel, Isle Of Issue No: 100
Dogs - Borehole Version Start Date: 26/1/1998
5.4 Surface Water Abstraction Licences

Are there any Surface Water Abstraction Licences within 2000m of the study site? No
Page 31
5.5 Potable Water Abstraction Licences
Are there any Potable Water Abstraction Licences within 2000m of the study site? Yes
The following Potable Water Abstraction Licences records are represented as points, lines and regions on the SPZ and
Potable Water Abstraction Licences Map (5c):

Not 1848.0 SW 537350, Licence No: 28/39/39/0234 Annual Volume (m³): 78840
shown 179930 Details: Drinking, Cooking, Sanitary, Max Daily Volume (m³): 216
Washing, (Small Garden) - Original Application No: GEN/39/210
Point: Britannia International Hotel, Isle Of Issue No: 1
Dogs E14- Borehole Version Start Date:
Not 1848.0 SW 537350, Licence No: 28/39/39/0179 Annual Volume (m³): -
shown 179930 Details: Drinking, Cooking, Sanitary, Max Daily Volume (m³): -
Point: The International Hotel, Isle Of Dogs Issue No: 100
- Borehole Version Start Date:
Not 1848.0 SW 537350, Licence No: 28/39/39/0220 Annual Volume (m³): 78840
shown 179930 Details: Drinking, Cooking, Sanitary, Max Daily Volume (m³): 216
Point: The International Hotel, Isle Of Dogs Issue No: 1
- Borehole Version Start Date:
5.6 Source Protection Zones

Are there any Source Protection Zones within 500m of the study site? No
5.7 River Quality

Is there any Environment Agency information on river quality within 1500m of the study site? Yes
Biological Quality:
Chemical Quality:
Chemical quality data is based on the General Quality Assessment Headline Indicators scheme (GQAHI). In England,
each chemical sample is measured for ammonia and dissolved oxygen. In Wales, the samples are measured for
biological oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia and dissolved oxygen. The results are graded from A ('Very Good') to F
('Bad').
The following Chemical Quality records are shown on the Hydrology Map (5d):
Chemical Quality Grade (Headline Indicator)

ID Distance [m] Direction NGR River Details
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Page 32
7 467.0 NE 539200, River Name: Lee D E E D C
181500 Reach: Carpenters Road -
Thames
End/Start of Stretch:
Sample Point NGR
8 760.0 SE 539540, River Name: Lee D E E D C
180600 Reach: Carpenters Road -
Thames
End/Start of Stretch: End
of Stretch NGR
Not 1198.0 NW 538300, River Name: Lee E D D D C
shown 182260 (navigation `a')
Reach: Lea Bridge Weir -
Bow
End/Start of Stretch: End
of Stretch NGR
5.8 Detailed River Network

Are there any Detailed River Network entries within 500m of the study site? Yes
The following Detailed River Network records are represented on the Hydrology Map (5d):
ID Distance Direction Details

1 126.0 E River Name: - River Type: D/S of High Water Mark
Water Course Name: Bow Creek Catchment: -
Welsh River Name: - Drain: NO
Alternative Name: - Main River Status: Currently Undefined
2 498.0 S River Name: - River Type: D/S of High Water Mark
Water Course Name: Thames (Tidal) Catchment: -
Welsh River Name: - Drain: NO
Alternative Name: - Main River Status: Currently Undefined
5.9 Surface Water Features

Are there any surface water features within 250m of the study site? Yes
The following surface water records are not represented on mapping:
Distance to Surface Water (m) on-site 0-50 51-250

Surface water features within 250m of the study site No Yes Yes
Page 33
6. Environment Agency Flood Map
NW ▲ NE
N
◄W
E►
S
SW SE
▼
Environment Agency Flood Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.
Page 34
6. Flooding
6.1 Zone 2 Flooding
Zone 2 floodplain estimates the annual probability of flooding as one in one thousand (0.1%) or greater from rivers
and the sea but less than 1% from rivers or 0.5% from the sea. Alternatively, where information is available they
may show the highest known flood level.
Is the site within 250m of an Environment Agency indicative Zone 2 floodplain? Yes
The following floodplain records are represented as green shading on the Flood Map:
ID Distance Direction Update Type

1 0.0 On Site 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
3 0.0 On Site 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
6W 0.0 On Site 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models )
7 0.0 On Site 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
8 4.0 W 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
9A 44.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
10B 47.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
11C 51.0 W 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
12A 51.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
13 51.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Events )
14D 52.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
15B 53.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
16B 57.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
17 63.0 W 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
18C 64.0 W 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
19B 65.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
20A 71.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
21D 71.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
22E 76.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
23E 76.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
24F 79.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
25F 83.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
26G 84.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
27H 92.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
28 94.0 N 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
29F 95.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
30G 101.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
Page 35
31H 103.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
32H 115.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
33I 120.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
34I 122.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
35J 122.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
36CB 126.0 W 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
37K 134.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
38J 137.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
39P 146.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models )
40 149.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
41K 152.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
42L 156.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models )
43L 156.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
44M 165.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
45BD 171.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models )
46M 185.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
47BG 187.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
48 187.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models and Fluvial Events )
49O 188.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
50N 189.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models )
52N 199.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
53N 200.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
54N 202.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models )
55O 204.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models )
56P 205.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models )
57Q 208.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models )
58 208.0 S 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
59BH 210.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
60 213.0 W 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
61Q 220.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models )
62R 227.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
63Q 229.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
64 234.0 SW 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
66R 238.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models )
67T 243.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models and Fluvial Events )
68S 245.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models )
69S 246.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Tidal Models )
70R 246.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 2 - (Fluvial Models )
Page 36
6.2 Zone 3 Flooding

Zone 3 estimates the annual probability of flooding as one in one hundred (1%) or greater from rivers and a one in
two hundred (0.5%) or greater from the sea. Alternatively, where information is available they may show the highest
known flood level.
Is the site within 250m of an Environment Agency indicative Zone 3 floodplain? Yes
The following floodplain records are represented as blue shading on the Flood Map:
ID Distance Direction Update Type

244 0.0 On Site 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial / Tidal Models )
245A 11.0 N 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
246D 52.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
247G 58.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
249F 93.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
250G 103.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
252H 115.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
253J 117.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
254H 122.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
255J 129.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
256J 135.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
257I 148.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
259 152.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
260BE 153.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
261I 153.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
263BD 155.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
264BE 156.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
266 160.0 SE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
267L 163.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
268BF 165.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
269BF 168.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
270 175.0 SE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
Page 37
272M 184.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
274BG 187.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
276P 189.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
277N 199.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
278N 201.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
279P 205.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
280BH 211.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
281Q 220.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
282Q 227.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
283BH 231.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
284S 234.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
285T 243.0 NE 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Tidal Models )
286R 246.0 E 13-Mar-2013 Zone 3 - (Fluvial Models )
6.3 Flood Defences

Are there any Flood Defences within 250m of the study site? Yes
The following flood defence records are represented as lines on the Flood Map:
ID Distance Direction Update

399 92.0 E 13-Mar-2013
400 150.0 E 13-Mar-2013
6.4 Areas benefiting from Flood Defences

Are there any areas benefiting from Flood Defences within 250m of the study site? Yes
6.5 Areas used for Flood Storage

Are there any areas used for Flood Storage within 250m of the study site? No
6.6 Groundwater Flooding Susceptibility Areas

Are there any British Geological Survey groundwater flooding
susceptibility flood areas within 50m of the boundary of the study site? Yes
What is the highest susceptibility to groundwater flooding in

the search area based on the underlying geological conditions? High
Page 38
6.7 Groundwater Flooding Confidence Areas
What is the British Geological Survey confidence rating in this result? High
Notes:
Groundwater flooding is defined as the emergence of groundwater at the ground surface or the rising of groundwater into man-made
ground under conditions where the normal range of groundwater levels is exceeded.
The confidence rating is on a threefold scale - Low, Moderate and High. This provides a relative indication of the BGS confidence in the
accuracy of the susceptibility result for groundwater flooding. This is based on the amount and precision of the information used in the
assessment. In areas with a relatively lower level of confidence the susceptibility result should be treated with more caution. In other
areas with higher levels of confidence the susceptibility result can be used with more confidence.
Page 39
7.Designated Environmentally Sensitive Sites
Map
▲
NW NE
N
◄W E►
S
SW SE
▼
Designated Environmentally Sensitive © Crown copyright and database

Sites Legend license 100035207.
Page 40
7.Designated Environmentally Sensitive Sites
Presence of Designated Environmentally Sensitive Sites within 2000m of the study site? Yes
Records of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 2000m of the study site: 0
Records of National Nature Reserves (NNR) within 2000m of the study site: 0
Records of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) within 2000m of the study site: 0
Records of Special Protection Areas (SPA) within 2000m of the study site: 0
Records of Ramsar sites within 2000m of the study site: 0
Records of Local Nature Reserves (LNR) within 2000m of the study site: 2
The following Local Nature Reserve (LNR) records provided by Natural England/Countryside Council for Wales and
Scottish Natural Heritage are represented as polygons on the Designated Environmentally Sensitive Sites Map:
ID Distance Direction LNR Name Data Source

Not 1988.0 NW Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park Natural England
shown
Not 1998.0 NW Ackroyd Drive Natural England
shown
Records of World Heritage Sites within 2000m of the study site: 0
Records of Environmentally Sensitive Areas within 2000m of the study site: 0
Records of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) within 2000m of the study site: 0
Page 41
Records of National Parks (NP) within 2000m of the study site: 0
Records of Nitrate Sensitive Areas within 2000m of the study site: 0
Records of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones within 2000m of the study site: 2
The following Nitrate Vulnerable Zone records produced by DEFRA are represented as polygons on the Designated
Environmentally Sensitive Sites Map:
ID Distance Direction NVZ Type Data Source

3 0.0 On Site NVZ Area DEFRA
4 1116.0 SW NVZ Area DEFRA
Records of Ancient Woodland within 2000m of the study site: 0
Page 42
8. Natural Hazards Findings
8.1 Detailed BGS GeoSure Data
BGS GeoSure Data has been searched to 50m. The data is included in tabular format. If you
require further information on geology and ground stability, please obtain a GroundSure
GeoInsight, available from our website. The following information has been found:
8.1.1 Shrink Swell
What is the maximum Shrink-Swell* hazard rating identified on the study site? Low
The following natural subsidence information provided by the British Geological Survey is not represented on
mapping:
Hazard
Ground conditions predominantly medium plasticity. Do not plant trees with high soil moisture demands near to buildings. For
new build, consideration should be given to advice published by the National House Building Council (NHBC) and the Building
Research Establishment (BRE). There is a possible increase in construction cost to reduce potential shrink-swell problems. For
existing property, there is a possible increase in insurance risk, especially during droughts or where vegetation with high
moisture demands is present.
8.1.2 Landslides
What is the maximum Landslide* hazard rating identified on the study site? Very Low
mapping:
Hazard
Slope instability problems are unlikely to be present. No special actions required to avoid problems due to landslides. No special
ground investigation required, and increased construction costs or increased financial risks are unlikely due to potential problems
with landslides.
8.1.3 Soluble Rocks
What is the maximum Soluble Rocks* hazard rating identified on the study site? Null - Negligible
Soluble rocks are not present in the search area. 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.
8.1.4 Compressible Ground
What is the maximum Compressible Ground* hazard rating identified on the study site? Moderate
mapping:
Hazard
Page 43
Significant potential for compressibility problems. Avoid large differential loadings of ground. Do not drain or de-water ground
near the property without technical advice. For new build consider possibility of compressible ground in ground investigation,
construction and building design. Consider effects of groundwater changes. Extra construction costs are likely. For existing
property poss ible increase in insurance risk from compressibility, especially if water conditions or loading of the ground change
significantly.
8.1.5 Collapsible Rocks
What is the maximum Collapsible Rocks* hazard rating identified on the study site? Negligible
mapping:
Hazard
No indicators for collapsible deposits identified. No actions required to avoid problems due to collapsible deposits. No special
ground investigation required, or increased construction costs or increased financial risk due to potential problems with collapsible
deposits.
8.1.6Running Sand
What is the maximum Running Sand* hazard rating identified on the study site? Very Low
mapping:
Hazard
Very low potential for running sand problems if water table rises or if sandy strata are exposed to water. No special actions
required, to avoid problems due to running sand. No special ground investigation required, and increased construction costs or
increased financial risks are unlikely due to potential problems with running sand.
* This indicates an automatically generated 50m buffer and site.
Page 44
9.Mining
9.1 Coal Mining
Are there any coal mining areas within 75m of the study site? No
9.2 Shallow Mining

What is the subsidence hazard relating to shallow mining on-site*? Negligible
*Please note this data is searched with a 150m buffer.
9.3 Brine Affected Areas

Are there any brine affected areas within 75m of the study site? No
Guidance: No Guidance Required.
Page 45
10.Contacts
EmapSite
Telephone: 0118 9736883
sales@emapsite.com
British Geological Survey (England & Wales)

Kingsley Dunham Centre
Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG
Tel: 0115 936 3143. Fax: 0115 936 3276. Email:
enquiries@bgs.ac.uk
Web: www.bgs.ac.uk
BGS Geological Hazards Reports and general geological
enquiries
Environment Agency
National Customer Contact Centre
PO Box 544
Rotherham
S60 1BY
Tel: 08708 506 506
Web: www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
Health Protection Agency

Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0RQ
Tel: 01235 822622 www.hpa.org.uk/radiation
Radon measures and general radon information and
guidance
The Coal Authority

200 Lichfield Lane, Mansfield, Notts NG18 4RG
Tel: 0845 762 6848
DX 716176 Mansfield 5
Web: www.groundstability.com
Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
Local Authority
Authority: Tower Hamlets London Borough Council
Phone: 020 7364 5000
Web: www.towerhamlets.gov.uk
Address: Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent,
London, E14 2BG
Get Mapping PLC

Virginia Villas, High Street, Hartley Witney, Hampshire RG27
8NW
Tel: 01252 845444
Acknowledgements
This product includes map data licensed from Landmark Information Group Limited®.
© Crown Copyright 2003 and Landmark Information Group Limited® 2003. All Rights Reserved.
Site of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserve, Ramsar Site, Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation data is
provided by, and used with the permission of, English Nature who retain the Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights for the data.
PointX © Database Right/Copyright, Thomson Directories Limited © Copyright Link Interchange Network Limited © Database
Right/Copyright and Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright and/or Database Right. All Rights Reserved. Licence Number [03421028].
This report has been prepared in accordance with the GroundSure Ltd standard Terms and Conditions of business for work of this nature.
Page 46
Standard Terms and Conditions
1 Definitions
In these conditions unless the context otherwise requires:
“Beneficiary” means the Client or the customer of the Client for whom the Client has procured the Services.
“Commercial” means any building which is not Residential.
“Commission" means an order for Consultancy Services submitted by a Client.
“Consultancy Services” mean consultancy services provided by GroundSure including, without limitation, carrying out interpretation of third party and in-house environmental data,
provision of environmental consultancy advice, undertaking environmental audits and assessments, Site investigation, Site monitoring and related items.
“Contract” means the contract between GroundSure and the Client for the performance of the Services which arises upon GroundSure's acceptance of an Order or Commission and
which shall incorporate these conditions, the relevant GroundSure User Guide, proposal by GroundSure and the content of any subsequent report, and any agreed amendments in
accordance with clause 11.
“Client” means the party that submits an Order or Commission.
“Data Provider” means any third party providing Third Party Content to GroundSure.
“Data Report” means reports comprising factual data with no professional interpretation in respect of the level of likely risk and/or liability available from GroundSure.
“GroundSure” means GroundSure Limited, a company registered in England and Wales under number 03421028 and whose registered office is at GroundSure Ltd, c/o Top Right
Group Limited, The Prow, 1 Wilder Walk, London W1B 5AP, United Kingdom.
“GroundSure Materials” means all materials prepared by GroundSure as a result of the provision of the Services, including but not limited to Data Reports, Mapping and Risk
Screening Reports.
“Intellectual Property” means any patent, copyright, design rights, service marks, moral rights, data protection rights, know-how, trade mark or any other intellectual property
rights.
“Mapping” an historical map or a combination of historical maps of various ages, time periods and scales available from GroundSure.
“Order” means an order form submitted by the Client requiring Services from GroundSure in respect of a specified Site.
“Order Website” means online platform via which Orders may be placed.
“Report” means a Risk Screening Report or Data Report for commercial or residential property available from GroundSure relating to the Site prepared in accordance with the
specifications set out in the relevant User Guide.
“Residential” means any building used as or suitable for use as an individual dwelling.
“Risk Screening Report” means one of GroundSure’s risk screening reports, comprising factual data with interpretation in respect of the level of likely risk and/or liability, excluding
“Consultancy Services”.
“Services” means the provision of any Report, Mapping or Consultancy Services which GroundSure has agreed to carry out for the Client/Beneficiary on these terms and conditions in
respect of the Site.
"Site" means the landsite in respect of which GroundSure provides the Services.
“Third Party Content” means any data, database or other information contained in a Report or Mapping which is provided to GroundSure by a Data Provider.
"User Guide" means the relevant current version of the user guide, available upon request from GroundSure.
2 Scope of Services
2.1 GroundSure agrees to carry out the Services in accordance with the Contract and to the extent set out therein.
2.2 GroundSure shall exercise all the reasonable skill, care and diligence to be expected of experienced environmental consultants in the performance of the Services.
2.3 The Client acknowledges that it has not relied on any statement or representation made by or on behalf of GroundSure which is not set out and expressly agreed in the Contract.
2.4 Terms and conditions appearing on a Client’s order form, printed stationery or other communication, including invoices, to GroundSure, its employees, servants, agents or other
representatives or any terms implied by custom, practice or course of dealing shall be of no effect and these terms and conditions shall prevail over all others.
2.5 If a Client/Beneficiary requests insurance in conjunction with or as a result of the Services, GroundSure shall use reasonable endeavours to procure such insurance, but makes no
warranty that such insurance shall be available from insurers or offered on reasonable terms. GroundSure does not endorse or recommend any particular insurance product, policy
or insurer. Any insurance purchased shall be subject solely to the terms of the policy issued by insurers and GroundSure will have no liability therefor. The Client/Beneficiary
should take independent advice to ensure that the insurance policy requested and/or offered is suitable for its requirements.
2.6 GroundSure's quotations/proposals are valid for a period of 30 days only. GroundSure reserves the right to withdraw any quotation at any time before GroundSure accepts an Order
or Commission. GroundSure's acceptance of an Order or Commission shall be effective only where such acceptance is in writing and signed by GroundSure's authorised
representative or where accepted via GroundSure’s Order Website.
3 The Client’s obligations

3.1 The Client shall ensure the Beneficiary complies with and is bound by the terms and conditions set out in the Contract and shall provide that Groundsure may in its own right
enforce such terms and conditions against the Beneficiary pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third parties) Act 1999. The Client shall be liable for all breaches of the Contract by
the Beneficiary as if they were breaches by the Client. The Client shall be solely responsible for ensuring that the Report/Mapping ordered is appropriate and suitable for the
Beneficiary’s needs.
3.2 The Client shall (or shall procure that the Beneficiary shall) supply to GroundSure as soon as practicable and without charge all information necessary and accurate relevant data
including any specific and/or unusual environmental information relating to the Site known to the Client/Beneficiary which may pertain to the Services and shall give such
assistance as GroundSure shall reasonably require in the performance of the Services (including, without limitation, access to a Site, facilities and equipment as agreed in the
Contract).
3.3 Where Client/Beneficiary approval or decision is required, such approval or decision shall be given or procured in reasonable time as not to delay or disrupt the performance of any
other part of the Services.
3.4 The Client shall not and shall not knowingly permit the Beneficiary to, save as expressly permitted by these terms and conditions, re-sell, alter, add to, amend or use out of context
the content of any Report, Mapping or, in respect of any Services, information given by GroundSure. For the avoidance of doubt, the Client and Beneficiary may make the Report,
Mapping or GroundSure’s findings available to a third party who is considering acquiring the whole or part of the Site, or providing funding in relation to the Site, but such third
party cannot rely on the same unless expressly permitted under clause 4.
3.5 The Client is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of its user name and password if using GroundSure’s internet ordering service and accepts responsibility for all activity
that occurs under such account and password.
4 Reliance
4.1 Upon full payment of all relevant fees and subject to the provisions of these terms and conditions, the Client and Beneficiary are granted an irrevocable royalty-free licence to
access the information contained in a Report, Mapping or in a report prepared by GroundSure in respect of or arising out of Consultancy Services. The Services may only be used
for the benefit of the Client and those persons listed in clauses 4.2 and 4.3.
4.2 In relation to Data Reports, Mapping and Risk Screening Reports, the Client shall be entitled to make Reports available to (i) the Beneficiary, (ii) the Beneficiary's professional
advisers, (iii) any person providing funding to the Beneficiary in relation to the Site (whether directly or as part of a lending syndicate), (iv) the first purchaser or first tenant of the
Site (v) the professional advisers and lenders of the first purchaser or tenant of the Site. Accordingly GroundSure shall have the same duties and obligations to those persons in
respect of the Services as it has to the Client and those persons shall have the benefit of any of the Client's rights under the Contract as if those persons were parties to the
Contract. For the avoidance of doubt, the limitations of GroundSure's liability as set out in clauses 7 and 11.6 shall apply.
4.3 In relation to Consultancy Services, reliance shall be limited to the Client, Beneficiary and named parties on the Report.
4.4 Save as set out in clauses 4.2 and 4.3 and unless otherwise agreed in writing with GroundSure, any other party considering the information supplied by GroundSure as part of the
Services, including (but not limited to) insurance underwriters, does so at their own risk and GroundSure has no legal obligations to such party unless otherwise agreed in writing.
4.5 The Client shall not and shall not knowingly permit any person (including the Beneficiary) who is provided with a copy of any Report, (except as permitted herein or by separate
agreement with GroundSure) to,: (a) remove, suppress or modify any trade mark, copyright or other proprietary marking from the Report or Mapping; (b) create any product
which is derived directly or indirectly from the data contained in the Report or Mapping; (c) combine the Report or Mapping with, or incorporate the Report or Mapping into any
other information data or service; or (d) re-format or otherwise change (whether by modification, addition or enhancement) data or images contained in the Report or Mapping.
4.6 Notwithstanding clause 4.5, if the Client acts in a professional capacity, it may make reasonable use of a Report and/or findings made as a result of Consultancy Services to advise
Beneficiaries. However, GroundSure shall have no liability in respect of any opinion or report given to such Beneficiaries by the Client or a third party.
5 Fees and Disbursements

5.1 GroundSure shall charge the Client fees at the rate and frequency specified in the Contract together, in the case of Consultancy Services, with all proper disbursements incurred by
GroundSure in performing the Services. For the avoidance of doubt, the fees payable for the Services are as set out in GroundSure's written proposal, Order Website or Order
acknowledgement form. The Client shall in addition pay all value added tax or other tax payable on such fees and disbursements in relation to the provision of the Services.
5.2 Unless GroundSure requires prepayment, the Client shall promptly pay all fees disbursements and other monies due to GroundSure in full without deduction, counterclaim or set off
together with such value added tax or other tax as may be required within 30 days from the date of GroundSure’s invoice or such other period as may be agreed in writing between
GroundSure and the Client ("Payment Date"). GroundSure reserves the right to charge interest which shall accrue on a daily basis from 30 days after the date of Payment Date
until the date of payment (whether before or after judgment) at the rate of five per cent per annum above the Bank of England base rate from time to time.
5.3 In the event that the Client disputes the amount payable in respect of GroundSure’s invoice it shall notify GroundSure no later than 28 days after the date thereof that it is in
dispute. In default of such notification the Client shall be deemed to have agreed the amount thereof. As soon as reasonably practicable following receipt of a notification in respect
of any disputed invoice, a member of the management team at GroundSure shall contact the Client and the parties shall use all reasonable endeavours to resolve the dispute.
6 Intellectual Property and Confidentiality

6.1 Subject to the provisions of clause 4.1, the Client and the Beneficiary hereby acknowledge that all Intellectual Property in the Services and Content are and shall remain owned by
either GroundSure or the Data Providers and nothing in these terms purports to transfer or assign any rights to the Client or the Beneficiary in respect of the Intellectual Property.
6.2 The Client shall acknowledge the ownership of the Third Party Content where such Third Party Content is incorporated or used in the Client's own documents, reports, systems or
services whether or not these are supplied to a third party.
6.3 Data Providers may enforce any breach of clauses 6.1 and 6.2 against the Client or Beneficiary.
6.4 The Client acknowledges that the proprietary rights subsisting in copyright, database rights and any other intellectual property rights in respect of any data and information
contained in any Report are and shall remain (subject to clause 11.1) the property of GroundSure and/or any third party that has supplied data or information used to create a
Report, and that these conditions do not purport to grant, assign or transfer any such rights in respect thereof to a Client and/or a Beneficiary.
6.5 The Client shall (and shall procure that any recipients of the Report as permitted under clause 4.2 shall):
(i) not remove, suppress or modify any trademark, copyright or other proprietary marking belonging to GroundSure or any third party from the Services;
(ii) use the information obtained as part of the Services in respect of the subject Site only, and shall not store or reuse any information obtained as part of the Services provided in
respect of adjacent or nearby sites;
Page 47
(iii) not create any product or report which is derived directly or indirectly from the data contained in the Services (save that those acting in a professional capacity to the
Beneficiary may provide advice based upon the Services);
(iv) not combine the Services with or incorporate such Services into any other information data or service; and
(v) not reformat or otherwise change (whether by modification, addition or enhancement), data contained in the Services (save that those acting in a professional capacity to the
Beneficiary shall not be in breach of this clause 6.5(v) where such reformatting is in the normal course of providing advice based upon the Services),
in each case of parts (iii) to (v) inclusive, whether or not such product or report is produced for commercial profit or not.
6.6 The Client and/or Beneficiary shall and shall procure that any party to whom the Services are made available shall notify GroundSure of any request or requirement to disclose,
publish or disseminate any information contained in the Services in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 or any
associated legislation or regulations in force from time to time.
6.8 Save as otherwise set out in these terms and conditions, any information provided by one party ("Disclosing Party") to the other party ("Receiving Party") shall be treated as
confidential and only used for the purposes of these terms and conditions, except in so far as the Receiving Party is authorised by the Disclosing Party to provide such information
in whole or in part to a third party.
7 Liability
THE CLIENT’S ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THIS PROVISION
7.1Subject to the provisions of this clause 7, GroundSure shall be liable to the Beneficiary only in relation to any direct losses or damages caused by any negligent act or omission of
GroundSure in preparing the GroundSure Materials and provided that the Beneficiary has used all reasonable endeavours to mitigate any such losses.
7.2GroundSure shall not be liable for any other losses or damages incurred by the Beneficiary, including but not limited to:
(i) loss of profit, revenue, business or goodwill, losses relating to business interruption, loss of anticipated savings, loss of or corruption to data or for any special, indirect or
consequential loss or damage which arise out of or in connection with the GroundSure Materials or otherwise in relation to a Contract;
(ii) any losses or damages that arise as a result of the use of all or part of the GroundSure Materials in breach of these terms and conditions or contrary to the terms of the relevant
User Guide;
(iii) any losses or damages that arise as a result of any error, omission or inaccuracy in any part of the GroundSure Materials where such part is based on any Third Party Content or
any reasonable interpretation of Third Party Content. The Client accepts, and shall procure that any other Beneficiary shall accept, that it has no claim or recourse to any Data
Provider in relation to Third Party Content; and/or
(iv) any loss or damage to a Client’s computer, software, modem, telephone or other property caused by a delay or loss of use of GroundSure’s internet ordering service.
7.3 GroudSure’s total liability in contract, tort (including negligence or breach of statutory duty), misrepresentation, restitution or otherwise, arising in connection with the GroundSure
Materials or otherwise in relation to the Contract shall be limited to £10 million in total (i) for any one claim or (ii) for a series of connected claims brought by one or more parties.
7.4 For the duration of the liability periods set out in clauses 7.5 and 7.6 below, GroundSure shall maintain professional indemnity insurance in respect of its liability under these terms
and conditions provided such insurance is readily available at commercially viable rates. GroundSure shall produce evidence of such insurance if reasonably requested by the
Client. A level of cover greater than GroundSure’s current level of cover may be available upon request and agreement with the Client.
7.5 Any claim under the Contract in relation to Data Reports, Mapping and Risk Screening Reports, must be brought within six years from the date when the Beneficiary became aware
that it may have a claim and in no event may a claim be brought twelve years or more after completion of such a Contract. For the avoidance of doubt, any claim in respect of
which proceedings are notified to GroundSure in writing prior to the expiry of the time periods referred to in this clause 7.5 shall survive the expiry of those time periods provided
the claim is actually commenced within six months of notification.
7.6 Any claim under the Contract in relation to Consultancy Services, must be brought within six years from the date the Consultancy Services were completed.
7.7 he Client accepts and shall procure that any other Beneficiary shall accept that it has no claim or recourse to any Data Provider or to GroundSure in respect of the acts or omissions
of any Data Provider and/or any Third Party Content provided by a Data Provider.
7.8 Nothing in these terms and conditions:
(i) excludes or limits the liability of GroundSure for death or personal injury caused by GroundSure’s negligence, or for fraudulent misrepresentation; or
(ii) shall affect the statutory rights of a consumer under the applicable legislation.
8 GroundSure right to suspend or terminate

8.1 In the event that GroundSure reasonably believes that the Client or Beneficiary as applicable has not provided the information or assistance required to enable the proper
performance of the Services, GroundSure shall be entitled on fourteen days written notice to suspend all further performance of the Services until such time as any such deficiency
has been made good.
8.2 GroundSure may additionally terminate the Contract immediately on written notice in the event that:
(i)the Client shall fail to pay any sum due to GroundSure within 28 days of the Payment Date; or
(ii)the Client (being an individual) has a bankruptcy order made against him or (being a company) shall enter into liquidation whether compulsory or voluntary or have an
Administration Order made against it or if a Receiver shall be appointed over the whole or any part of its property assets or undertaking or if the Client is struck off the Register
of Companies or dissolved; or
(iii) the Client being a company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or being an individual appears unable to pay his debts
within the meaning of Section 268 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or if the Client shall enter into a composition or arrangement with the Client’s creditors or shall suffer distress or
execution to be levied on his goods; or
(iv)the Client or the Beneficiary breaches any material term of the Contract (including, but not limited to, the obligations in clause 4) incapable of remedy or if remediable, is not
remedied within 14 days of notice of the breach.
9 Client’s Right to Terminate and Suspend

9.1 Subject to clause 10.2, the Client may at any time after commencement of the Services by notice in writing to GroundSure require GroundSure to terminate or suspend immediately
performance of all or any of the Services.
9.2 The Client waives all and any right of cancellation it may have under the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (as amended) in respect of the Order of a
Report/Mapping. This does not affect the Beneficiary's statutory rights.
10 Consequences of Withdrawal, Termination or Suspension

10.1 Upon termination or any suspension of the Services, GroundSure shall take steps to bring to an end the Services in an orderly manner, vacate any Site with all reasonable speed
and shall deliver to the Client/Beneficiary any property of the Client/ Beneficiary in GroundSure’s possession or control.
10.2 In the event of termination/suspension of the Contract under clauses 8 or 9, the Client shall pay to GroundSure all and any fees payable in respect of the performance of the
Services up to the date of termination/suspension. In respect of any Consultancy Services provided, the Client shall also pay GroundSure any additional costs incurred in
relation to the termination/suspension of the Contract.
11 General
11.1 The mapping contained in the Services is protected by Crown copyright and must not be used for any purpose outside the context of the Services or as specifically provided in
these terms.
11.2 GroundSure reserves the right to amend these terms and conditions. No variation to these terms shall be valid unless signed by an authorised representative of GroundSure.
11.3 No failure on the part of GroundSure to exercise and no delay in exercising, any right, power or provision under these terms and conditions shall operate as a waiver thereof.
11.4 Save as expressly provided in clauses 4.2, 4.3, 6.3 and 11.5, no person other than the persons set out therein shall have any right under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act
1999 to enforce any terms of the Contract.
11.5 The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government acting through Ordnance Survey may enforce breach of clause 6.1 of these terms and conditions against the Client
in accordance with the provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
11.6 GroundSure shall not be liable to the Client if the provision of the Services is delayed or prevented by one or more of the following circumstances:
(i) the Client or Beneficiary’s failure to provide facilities, access or information;
(ii) fire, storm, flood, tempest or epidemic;
(iii) Acts of God or the public enemy;
(iv) riot, civil commotion or war;
(v) strikes, labour disputes or industrial action;
(vi) acts or regulations of any governmental or other agency;
(vii) suspension or delay of services at public registries by Data Providers; or
(viii) changes in law.
11.7 Any notice provided shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be properly given if delivered by hand or sent by first class post, facsimile or by email to the address, facsimile
number or email address of the relevant party as may have been notified by each party to the other for such purpose or in the absence of such notification the last known
address.
11.8 Such notice shall be deemed to have been received on the day of delivery if delivered by hand, facsimile or email and on the second working day after the day of posting if sent
by first class post.
11.9 The Contract constitutes the entire contract between the parties and shall supersede all previous arrangements between the parties.
11.10 Each of the provisions of the Contract is severable and distinct from the others and if one or more provisions is or should become invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity and
enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be tainted or impaired.
11.11 These terms and conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and any proceedings arising out of or connected with these terms and conditions
shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
11.12 If the Client or Beneficiary has a complaint about the Services, notice can be given in any format eg writing, phone, email to the Compliance Officer at GroundSure who will
respond in a timely manner.
© GroundSure Limited January 2012
Page 48
Site Details:
,
Client Ref: EMS_204115-268685

Report Ref: EMS-204115-268685
Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map Name: MasterMap
Map date: 2012
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
GroundSure Environmental Insight
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com
© Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey 100035207
Production date: 03 May 2013
To view map legend click here Legend

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map Name: National Grid
Map date: 1992-1994
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1992-1993
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1991-1992
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1991-1992
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1987-1991
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1981
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1974
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1967-1970
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1961-1962
Scale: 1:2,500
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1954
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1951-1953
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1953
Scale: 1:2,500
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1949-1951
Scale: 1:1,250
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1949-1951
Scale: 1:2,500
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map Name: County Series
Map date: 1916
Scale: 1:2,500
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1896
Scale: 1:2,500
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map Name: 1056 Scale Town Plan
Map date: 1893
Scale: 1:1,056
Printed at: 1:1,056
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1869-1870
Scale: 1:1,056
Printed at: 1:1,056
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1869
Scale: 1:1,056
Printed at: 1:1,056
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1869
Scale: 1:2,500
Printed at: 1:2,500
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1867
Scale: 1:1,056
Printed at: 1:1,056
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 2012
Scale: 1:10,000
Printed at: 1:10,000
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map Name: 1:10,000 Raster
Map date: 2002
Scale: 1:10,000
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1994-1995
Scale: 1:10,000
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1988-1990
Scale: 1:10,000
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1979-1982
Scale: 1:10,000
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1973-1974
Scale: 1:10,000
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map Name: Provisional
Map date: 1962-1967
Scale: 1:10,560
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1955
Scale: 1:10,560
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1948-1949
Scale: 1:10,560
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1920
Scale: 1:10,560
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1894-1899
Scale: 1:10,560
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1896
Scale: 1:10,560
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1894
Scale: 1:10,560
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1877
Scale: 1:10,560
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1866-1867
Scale: 1:10,560
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Site Details:
,

Grid Ref: 538857, 181098
Map date: 1867
Scale: 1:10,560
Produced by
www.groundsure.com
Supplied by:
www.emapsite.com
sales@emapsite.com

Appendix B
Report Reference: EMS-204115-
268686
EmapSite
Masdar House, Your Reference: EMS_204115-
Eversley, RG27 0RP 268686
Report Date 3 May 2013
Report Delivery Email - pdf
Method:
GroundSure GeoInsight
Address: ,
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for placing your order with GroundSure. Please find enclosed the GroundSure GeoInsight
as requested.
If you would like further assistance regarding this report then please contact the emapsite customer
services team on 0118 9736883 quoting the above report reference number.
Yours faithfully,
emapsite customer services team
Enc.
GroundSure GeoInsight
GroundSure
GeoInsight
Address: ,
Date: 3 May 2013
Your Reference: EMS_204115-268686
Brought to you by emapsite

Aerial Photograph of Study Site
▲
NW N NE
▲ W E▲
SW S SE
▲
Aerial photography supplied by Getmapping PLC.

© Copyright Getmapping PLC 2003. All Rights Reserved.
Site Name: ,
Grid Reference: 538857,181098
Size of Site: 1.18 ha

Overview of Findings
The GroundSure GeoInsight provides high quality geo-environmental information that allows
geo-environmental professionals and their clients to make informed decisions and be
forewarned of potential ground instability problems that may affect the ground investigation,
foundation design and possibly remediation options that could lead to possible additional costs.
The report is based on the BGS 1:50,000 Digital Geological Map of Great Britain, BGS Geosure
data; BRITPITS database; Shallow Mining data and Borehole Records, Coal Authority data
including brine extraction areas, PBA non-coal mining and natural cavities database, Johnson
Poole and Bloomer mining data and GroundSure's unique database including historical surface
ground and underground workings.
For further details on each dataset, please refer to each individual section in the report as
listed. Where the database has been searched a numerical result will be recorded. Where the
database has not been searched '-' will be recorded.
Report Section Number of records found within (X) m of the study site
boundary
1. Geology Description
1.1 Artificial Ground,
1.1.1 Is there any Artificial Ground /Made Ground present beneath the study
Yes
site?*
1.1.2 Are there any records relating to permeability of artificial ground within
Yes
the study site* boundary?
1.2 Superficial Geology & Landslips
1.2.1 Is there any Superficial Ground/Drift Geology present beneath the study
Yes
site?*
1.2.2 Are there any records relating to permeability of superficial geology

Yes
within the study site* boundary?
1.2.3 Are there any records of landslip within 500m of the study site boundary? No
1.2.4 Are there any records relating to permeability of landslips within the
No
study site* boundary?
1.3 Bedrock, Solid Geology & Faults
1.3.1 For records of Bedrock and Solid Geology beneath the study site* see the
detailed findings section.
1.3.2 Are there any records relating to permeability of bedrock within the study
Yes
site* boundary?
1.3.3 Are there any records of faults within 500m of the study site boundary? No
1.3.4 Is the property in a Radon Affected Area as defined by the Health The property is not in a Radon Affected Area, as
Protection Agency (HPA) and if so what percentage of homes are above the less than 1% of properties are above the Action
Action Level? Level
1.3.5 Is the property in an area where Radon Protection Measures are required
for new properties or extensions to existing ones as described in No radon protective measures are necessary
publication BR211 by the Building Research Establishment?
* This includes an automatically generated 50m buffer zone around the site
Source:Scale 1:50,000 BGS Sheet No:256

2. Ground Workings on-site 0-50 51-250 251-500 501-1000
2.1 Historical Surface Ground Working Features from Small Scale

12 8 23 - -
Mapping
2.2 Historical Underground Workings Features from Small Scale

1 0 0 6 8
Mapping
2.3 Current Ground Workings 0 0 1 0 1
3. Mining, Extraction & Natural Cavities on-site 0-50 51-250 251-500 501-1000
3.1 Historical Mining 0 0 0 1 0
3.2 Coal Mining 0 0 0 0 0
3.3 Johnson Poole and Bloomer Mining Area 1 1 2 0 4
3.4 Non-Coal Mining* 0 0 0 0 1
3.5 Non–Coal Mining Cavities 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Natural Cavities 0 0 0 0 3
3.7 Brine Extraction 0 0 0 0 0
3.8 Gypsum Extraction 0 0 0 0 0
3.9 Tin Mining 0 0 0 0 0
3.10 Clay Mining 0 0 0 0 0
*This includes an automatically generated 50m buffer zone around the site
4. Natural Ground Subsidence on-site* 0-50 51-250 251-500 501-1000
4.1 Shrink-Swell Clay Low - - - -
4.2 Landslides Very Low - - - -
4.3 Ground Dissolution of Soluble Rocks Null - - - -
4.4 Compressible Deposits Moderate - - - -
4.5 Collapsible Deposits Negligible - - - -
4.6 Running Sand Very Low - - - -
* This includes an automatically generated 50m buffer zone around the site
5. Borehole Records on-site 0-50 51-250 251-500 501-1000
5.1 BGS Recorded Boreholes 43 25 230 - -
6. Estimated Background Soil Chemistry on-site 0-50 51-250 251-500 501-1000
6.1 Records of Background Soil Chemistry 1 1 0 - -

1.1 Artificial Ground Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
Artificial Ground Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.
Geological information represented on the mapping is derived from the BGS Digital Geological map of Great Britain at
1:50,000 scale.

1.1 Artificial Ground
The following geological information represented on the mapping is derived from 1:50,000
scale BGS Geological mapping, Sheet No:256
1.1.1 Artificial/Made Ground

Are there any records of Artificial/Made Ground within 500m of the study site boundary? Yes
ID Distance (m) Direction LEX Code Description Rock Description

1 0.0 On Site WMGR-MGRD INFILLED GROUND ARTIFICIAL DEPOSIT
2 104.0 S WMGR-MGRD INFILLED GROUND ARTIFICIAL DEPOSIT
3 125.0 SE WMGR-MGRD INFILLED GROUND ARTIFICIAL DEPOSIT
4 131.0 SE WGR-OPEN WORKED GROUND VOID
(UNDIVIDED)
5 227.0 N LSGR-UNKN LANDSCAPED GROUND UNKNOWN/UNCLASSIFIED ENTRY
(UNDIVIDED)
6 258.0 SE WMGR-MGRD INFILLED GROUND ARTIFICIAL DEPOSIT
1.1.2 Permeability of Artificial Ground

Are there any records relating to permeability of artificial ground within the study site* boundary? Yes
Distance (m) Direction Flow type Maximum Permeability Minimum Permeability

0.0 On Site Intergranular Very High Very Low

1.2 Superficial Deposits and Landslips Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
Superficial and Landslips Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.
1:50,000 scale.

1.2 Superficial Deposits and Landslips
1.2.1 Superficial Deposits/Drift Geology
Are there any records of Superficial Deposits/Drift Geology within 500m of the study site boundary? Yes
ID Distance (m) Direction Lex Code Description Rock Description

1 0.0 On Site ALV-CZPS ALLUVIUM SILTY PEATY SANDY CLAY
2 434.0 SW KPGR-SAGR KEMPTON PARK GRAVEL SAND AND GRAVEL
FORMATION
1.2.2 Permeability of Superficial Ground

Are there any records relating to permeability of superficial ground within the study site* boundary? Yes

0.0 On Site Intergranular Moderate Very Low
1.2.3 Landslip
Are there any records of Landslip within 500m of the study site boundary? No
The geology map for the site and surrounding area are extracted from the BGS Digital Geological Map of Great Britain
at 1:50,000 scale.
This Geology shows the main components as discrete layers, these are: Artificial / Made Ground, Superficial / Drift
Geology and Landslips. These are all displayed with the BGS Lexicon code for the rock unit and BGS sheet number.
Not all of the main geological components have nationwide coverage.
1.2.4 Landslip Permeability

Are there any records relating to permeability of landslips within the study site* boundary? No
This includes an automatically generated 50m buffer zone around the site.
*

1.3 Bedrock and Faults Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
© Crown copyright and database

Bedrock & Faults Deposits Legend rights 2013. Ordnance Survey
license 100035207.
1:50,000 scale.

1.3 Bedrock, Solid Geology & Faults
The following geological information represented on the mapping is derived from 1:50,000
scale BGS Geological mapping, Sheet No:256
1.3.1 Bedrock/Solid Geology

Records of Bedrock/Solid Geology within 500m of the study site boundary:
ID Distance (m) Direction LEX Code Rock Description Rock Age

1 0.0 On Site LC-CLSS London Clay Formation - Clay, Eocene
Silt And Sand
1.3.2 Permeability of Bedrock Ground

Are there any records relating to permeability of bedrock ground within the study site* boundary? Yes

0.0 On Site Mixed Moderate Very Low
1.3.3 Faults
Are there any records of Faults within 500m of the study site boundary? No
The geology map for the site and surrounding area are extracted from the BGS Digital Geological Map of Great Britain
at 1:50,000 scale.
This Geology shows the main components as discrete layers, these are: Bedrock/ Solid Geology and linear features
such as Faults. These are all displayed with the BGS Lexicon code for the rock unit and BGS sheet number. Not all of
the main geological components have nationwide coverage.
1.3.4 Radon Affected Areas

Is the property in a Radon Affected Area as defined by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) and if so what
percentage of homes are above the Action Level?
The property is not in a Radon Affected Area, as less than 1% of properties are above the Action Level
1.3.5 Radon Protection

Is the property in an area where Radon Protection are required for new properties or extensions to
existing ones as described in publication BR211 by the Building Research Establishment?
No radon protective measures are necessary

2. Ground Workings Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
Ground Workings Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.

2. Ground Workings
2.1 Historical Surface Ground Working Features derived from
Historical Mapping
This dataset is based on GroundSure's unique Historical Land Use Database derived from
1:10,560 and 1:10,000 scale historical mapping.
Are there any Historical Surface Ground Working Features within 250m of the study site boundary? Yes
The following Historical Surface Ground Working Features are provided by GroundSure:
ID Distance (m) Direction NGR Use Date

1 0.0 On Site 538572,180774 Dock 1894
2B 0.0 On Site 538423,181011 Dock 1867
3 0.0 On Site 538421,181013 Dock 1894
4 0.0 On Site 584562,178674 Quay 1938
5C 0.0 On Site 538801,181032 Dock 1989
6A 0.0 On Site 538661,181079 Quay 1867
7 0.0 On Site 538902,181079 Quay 1940
8A 0.0 On Site 538663,181086 Quay 1940
9 0.0 On Site 538887,181080 Quay 1915
10 0.0 On Site 584307,178718 Quay 1938
11 0.0 On Site 584086,178623 Dock 1938
B
12 0.0 On Site 538837,181024 Dock 1981
C
13 17.0 E 538982,181226 Unspecified Wharf 1894
E
14 23.0 S 538888,180984 Quay 1940
D
15 24.0 E 538993,181217 Unspecified Wharf 1915
16 30.0 SE 539214,180839 Dock Basin 1973
17 31.0 S 538879,180984 Quay 1981
D
18 32.0 S 584367,178506 Quay 1938
19 35.0 S 538700,180926 Quay 1940
20 43.0 SE 539211,180858 Dock Basin 1894
21 67.0 S 584376,178396 Dock 1938
F
22 70.0 S 538713,180816 Dock 1894
23 70.0 NE 538994,181162 Unspecified Wharf 1894
E
24 71.0 S 538720,180784 Dock 1867
F
25 98.0 S 584513,178475 Quay 1938
G
26 107.0 S 538834,180866 Quay 1940
G
27 107.0 S 538728,180799 Dock 1940
F
28 108.0 SE 539073,180833 Dock Basin 1989
H
29 108.0 SE 539073,180833 Dock Basin 1981
H
30 112.0 S 538839,180873 Quay 1867
G
31 116.0 NE 538935,181282 Unspecified Heap 1867
32 123.0 SE 584870,178497 Quay 1938
33 131.0 S 538835,180848 Quay 1915
34 133.0 SE 539087,180852 Dock Basin 1867
H
35I 136.0 SE 539213,180873 Dock 1955
36I 136.0 SE 539213,180873 Dock 1940
37 136.0 SE 539198,180826 Dock Basin 1994
38 147.0 NE 539044,181196 Unspecified Wharf 1867
39 174.0 SE 539119,180907 Quay 1915
40 176.0 S 538978,180807 Quay 1867
41 197.0 SW 538654,180899 Pond 1994
42 205.0 S 584561,178335 Quay 1938
43 242.0 SW 538734,180744 Quay 1867
2.2 Historical Underground Workings Features derived from
Historical Mapping
This data is derived from the GroundSure unique Historical Land Use Database. It contains
data derived from 1:10,000 and 1:10,560 historical Ordnance Survey Mapping and includes
some natural topographical features (Shake Holes for example) as well as manmade features
that may have implications for ground stability. Underground and mining features have been
identified from surface features such as shafts. The distance that these extend underground is
not shown.
Are there any Historical Underground Working Features within 1000m of the study site boundary? Yes
The following Historical Underground Working Features are provided by GroundSure:
ID Distance (m) Direction NGR Use Date

44 0.0 On Site 538900,181090 Tunnel 1994
Not 435.0 E 539636,180839 Iron Workings 1894
shown
46J 462.0 SW 538747,180397 Tunnel 1989
47J 462.0 SW 538747,180397 Tunnel 1973
48J 462.0 SW 538747,180397 Tunnel 1994
49J 462.0 SW 538747,180397 Tunnel 1981
50 493.0 SW 538427,180396 Tunnel 1940
51 501.0 SW 538585,180237 Tunnel 1915
Not 506.0 SW 538418,180393 Tunnel 1989
shown
Not 506.0 SW 538418,180393 Tunnel 1965
shown
Not 506.0 SW 538418,180393 Tunnel 1973
shown
Not 506.0 SW 538418,180393 Tunnel 1994
shown
Not 506.0 SW 538418,180393 Tunnel 1981
shown
Not 506.0 SW 538418,180393 Tunnel 1955
shown
Not 783.0 SW 584563,177614 Tunnel 1938
shown
2.3 Current Ground Workings

This dataset is derived from the BGS BRITPITS database covering active; inactive mines;
quarries; oil wells; gas wells and mineral wharves; and rail deposits throughout the British
Isles.
Are there any BGS Current Ground Workings within 1000m of the study site boundary? Yes
The following Current Ground Workings information is provided by British Geological Society:
ID Distance (m) Direction NGR Commodity Pit Name Type of working Status
Produced
59 227.0 NE 5391 Crushed Rock Orchard Wharf Sea, river or canal Ceased
00,18 wharf where mineral
1200 commodities are
unloaded and stored
Not 840.0 S 5388 Marine Sand & Ordnance Wharf Sea, river or canal Ceased
shown 00,18 Gravel wharf where mineral
0180 commodities are
unloaded and stored

3. Mining, Extraction & Natural Cavities Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
Mining, Extraction & Natural Cavities © Crown copyright and database


3.Mining, Extraction & Natural Cavities
3.1 Historical Mining
This dataset is derived from GroundSure unique Historical Land-use Database that are
indicative of mining or extraction activities.
Are there any Historical Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? Yes
The following Historical Mining information is provided by Groundsure :
ID Distance (m) Direction NGR Details Date

5 435.0 E 539636,180 Iron Workings 1894
839
3.2 Coal Mining

This dataset provides information as to whether the study site lies within a known coal mining
affected area as defined by the coal authority.
Are there any Coal Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
3.3 Johnson Poole and Bloomer

This dataset provides information as to whether the study site lies within an area where JPB
hold information relating to mining.
Are there any JPB Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? Yes
The following information provided by JPB is not represented on Mapping:
Whilst outside of an area where The Coal Authority have information on coal mining activities, Johnson Poole &
Bloomer (JPB) have information such as mining plans and maps held within their archive of mining activities that have
occurred within 1km of this property. Further details and a quote for services can be obtained by emailing this report
to enquiries.gs@jpb.co.uk.
3.4 Non – Coal Mining

This dataset provides information as to whether the study site lies within an area which may
have been subject to non-coal historic mining.
Are there any Non-Coal Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? Yes
The following non-coal mining information is provided by the BGS:
ID Distance (m) Direction Name Commodity Assessment of likelihood

Not 557.0 S Not available Chalk Rare - Infrequent minor mining may
shown have occurred but restricted in extent.

3.5 Non – Coal Mining Cavities
This dataset provides information from the Peter Brett Associates (PBA) mining cavities
database (compiled for the national study entitled “Review of mining instability in Great
Britain, 1990” PBA has also continued adding to this database) on mineral extraction by
mining.
Are there any Non-Coal Mining cavities within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
3.6 Natural Cavities

This dataset provides information based on Peter Brett Associates natural cavities database.
Are there any Natural Cavities within 1000m of the study site boundary? Yes
The following Natural Cavities information provided by Peter Brett Associates:
ID Distance (m) Direction NGR Superficial Deposits Bedrock Deposits Cavity Type
and Number
2 666.0 SE TQ Alluvium Chalk Group, Scour Hollows x 1
Lambeth Group,
London Clay
Formation
Not 809.0 S TQ Alluvium Chalk Group, Scour Hollows x 1
shown Lambeth Group,
London Clay
Formation
Not 887.0 SW TQ Alluvium Chalk Group, Scour Hollows x 1
shown Lambeth Group
3.7 Brine Extraction

This dataset provides information from the Brine Compensation Board which has been
discontinued and is now covered by the Coal Authority.
Are there any Brine Extraction areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
3.8 Gypsum Extraction

This dataset provides information on Gypsum extraction from British Gypsum records.
Are there any Gypsum Extraction areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
3.9 Tin Mining

This dataset provides information on tin mining areas and is derived from tin mining records.
This search is based upon postcode information to a sector level. More detailed information on
potential Tin Mining may be found in Section 3.4 – Non-Coal Mining Hazards.
Are there any Tin Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
3.10 Clay Mining

This dataset provides information on Kaolin and Ball Clay mining from relevant mining records.
Are there any Clay Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No

4. Natural Ground Subsidence
4.1 Shrink-Swell Clay Map
▲
NW N NE
▲ W E▲
SW S SE
Shrink-Swell Clay Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.

4.2 Landslides Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
Landslides Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.

4.3 Ground Dissolution Soluble Rocks Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
Ground Dissolution Soluble Rocks © Crown copyright and database


4.4 Compressible Deposits Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
Compressible Deposits Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.

4.5 Collapsible Deposits Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
Collapsible Deposits Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.

4.6 Running Sand Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
Running Sand Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.

4.Natural Ground Subsidence
The National Ground Subsidence rating is obtained through the 6 natural ground stability
hazard datasets, which are supplied by the British Geological Survey (BGS).
The following GeoSure data represented on the mapping is derived from the BGS Digital
Geological map of Great Britain at 1:50,000 scale.
What is the maximum hazard rating of natural subsidence within the study site* boundary? Moderate
4.1 Shrink – Swell Clays

The following Shrink Swell information provided by the British Geological Survey:
Distance (m)
ID Direction Hazard Rating Details
*
1 0.0 On Site Low Ground conditions predominantly medium plasticity. Do not plant
trees with high soil moisture demands near to buildings. For new
build, consideration should be given to advice published by the
National House Building Council (NHBC) and the Building Research
Establishment (BRE). There is a possible increase in construction cost
to reduce potential shrink-swell problems. For existing property,
there is a possible increase in insurance risk, especially during
droughts or where vegetation with high moisture demands is
present.
4.2 Landslides
The following Landslides information provided by the British Geological Survey:
ID Distance (m)* Direction Hazard Rating Details

1 0.0 On Site Very Low Slope instability problems are unlikely to be present. No special
actions required to avoid problems due to landslides. No special
ground investigation required, and increased construction costs or
increased financial risks are unlikely due to potential problems with
landslides.
4.3 Ground Dissolution of Soluble Rocks
The following Soluble Rocks information provided by the British Geological Survey:
Distance (m)* Direction Hazard Rating Details

0.0 On site Null-Negligible Soluble rocks are not present in the search area. 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.
4.4 Compressible Deposits

The following Compressible Ground information provided by the British Geological Survey:
This includes an automatically generated 50m buffer zone around the study site boundary.
*

1 0.0 On Site Moderate Significant potential for compressibility problems. Avoid large
differential loadings of ground. Do not drain or de-water ground near
the property without technical advice. For new build - consider
possibility of compressible ground in ground investigation, construction
and building design. Consider effects of groundwater changes. Extra
construction costs are likely. For existing property - possible increase
in insurance risk from compressibility, especially if water conditions or
loading of the ground change significantly.
4.5 Collapsible Deposits

The following Collapsible Rocks information is provided by the British Geological Survey:

1 0.0 On Site Negligible No indicators for collapsible deposits identified. No actions required to
avoid problems due to collapsible deposits. No special ground
investigation required, or increased construction costs or increased
financial risk due to potential problems with collapsible deposits.
4.6 Running Sands

The following Running Sands information is provided by the British Geological Survey:

1 0.0 On Site Very Low Very low potential for running sand problems if water table rises or if
sandy strata are exposed to water. No special actions required, to
avoid problems due to running sand. No special ground investigation
required, and increased construction costs or increased financial risks
are unlikely due to potential problems with running sand.

5. Borehole Records Map
▲
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE
▲
Borehole Records Legend © Crown copyright and database

license 100035207.

5.Borehole Records
The systematic analysis of data extracted from the BGS Borehole Records database provides
the following information.
Records of boreholes within 250m of the study site boundary: 298
ID Distance (m) Direction NGR BGS Drilled Length (m) Borehole Name
Reference
1E 0.0 On Site 538880,18 TQ38SE2583 15.0 E. Z. ROAD PHASE 6 214
1130
2 0.0 On Site 538820,18 TQ38SE3526 15.5 EAST INDIA DOCK ESTATE SITES 6
1120 & 8 BE1
3J 0.0 On Site 538860,18 TQ38SE3437 2.4 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VI TP 6
1110
4N 0.0 On Site 538860,18 TQ38SE3379 0.9 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 20
1180
5 0.0 On Site 538870,18 TQ38SE3378 3.5 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 19
1150
6 0.0 On Site 538840,18 TQ38SE3433 2.8 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VI TP 2A
1150
7K 0.0 On Site 538890,18 TQ38SE3534 27.0 EAST INDIA DOCK ESTATE SITES 6
1020 & 8 LD5
8A 0.0 On Site 538860,18 TQ38SE3404 9.9 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
1160 SURVEY 16
9A 0.0 On Site 538860,18 TQ38SE5193 -1.0 EAST INDIA DOCK
1160 INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE 4 LONDON
DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION 1
10B 0.0 On Site 538900,18 TQ38SE3414 10.1 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
1040 SURVEY 26A
11B 0.0 On Site 538900,18 TQ38SE3439 2.2 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VIII TP 2
1040
12B 0.0 On Site 538900,18 TQ38SE3884 10.3 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1040 SURVEY 26A
13C 0.0 On Site 538820,18 TQ38SE3530 25.5 EAST INDIA DOCK ESTATE SITES 6
1160 & 8 LD1
14C 0.0 On Site 538820,18 TQ38SE3431 3.1 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VI TP 1
1160
15L 0.0 On Site 538870,18 TQ38SE3376 3.5 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 17
1100
16D 0.0 On Site 538850,18 TQ38SE3531 27.0 EAST INDIA DOCK ESTATE SITES 6
1140 & 8 LD2
17D 0.0 On Site 538850,18 TQ38SE3435 2.9 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VI TP 4
1140
18I 0.0 On Site 538850,18 TQ38SE3387 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VIII 1
1070
19F 0.0 On Site 538887,18 TQ38SE1697 35.0 A13 EAST INDIA LINK 322
1072
20H 0.0 On Site 538840,18 TQ38SE3432 0.4 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VI TP 2
1170
21E 0.0 On Site 538870,18 TQ38SE3885 9.4 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1120 SURVEY 27
22G 0.0 On Site 538840,18 TQ38SE3374 0.7 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 16
1030
23 0.0 On Site 538840,18 TQ38SE3533 26.5 EAST INDIA DOCK ESTATE SITES 6
1050 & 8 LD4
24F 0.0 On Site 538881,18 TQ38SE1698 10.2 A13 EAST INDIA LINK 322A
1075
25G 0.0 On Site 538850,18 TQ38SE3440 1.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VIII TP 3
1030
26H 0.0 On Site 538850,18 TQ38SE3875 10.1 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1170 SURVEY 16
27 0.0 On Site 538830,18 TQ38SE3434 3.2 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VI TP 3
1130
28I 0.0 On Site 538840,18 TQ38SE3878 13.0 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1060 SURVEY 20
29F 0.0 On Site 538880,18 TQ38SE3528 10.2 EAST INDIA DOCK ESTATE SITES 6
1070 & 8 322A
30F 0.0 On Site 538890,18 TQ38SE3438 2.9 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VIII TP 1
1070
31J 0.0 On Site 538850,18 TQ38SE3532 27.5 EAST INDIA DOCK ESTATE SITES 6
1110 & 8 LD3

32J 0.0 On Site 538850,18 TQ38SE3386 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VI 1
1110
33F 0.0 On Site 538880,18 TQ38SE3527 35.0 EAST INDIA DOCK ESTATE SITES 6
1070 & 8 322
34I 0.0 On Site 538850,18 TQ38SE3441 0.55 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VIII TP 4
1060
35 0.0 On Site 538900,18 TQ38SE3480 30.0 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 307
1070
36I 0.0 On Site 538850,18 TQ38SE3407 12.7 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
1060 SURVEY 20
37K 0.0 On Site 538880,18 TQ38SE3442 3.15 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VIII TP 5
1030
38I 0.0 On Site 538860,18 TQ38SE3529 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK ESTATE SITES 6
1070 &81
39E 0.0 On Site 538880,18 TQ38SE3377 2.0 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 18
1120
40E 0.0 On Site 538880,18 TQ38SE5194 -1.0 EAST INDIA DOCK
1120 INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE 4 LONDON
DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION 2
41 0.0 On Site 538860,18 TQ38SE3375 2.0 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 16A
1030
42B 0.0 On Site 538900,18 TQ38SE3479 30.0 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 306
1050
43L 0.0 On Site 538880,18 TQ38SE3415 9.2 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
1110 SURVEY 27
44M 1.0 E 538900,18 TQ38SE3481 11.3 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 308
1090
45 3.0 NE 538870,18 TQ38SE2678 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK 1
1170
46M 8.0 E 538910,18 TQ38SE758 24.69 EAST INDIA IMPORT DOCK POPLAR
1081 BH5
47N 9.0 NE 538862,18 TQ38SE756 24.69 EAST INDIA IMPORT DOCK POPLAR
1190 BH3
48Q 9.0 S 538840,18 TQ38SE3436 3.1 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE VI TP 5
1010
49P 11.0 S 538870,18 TQ38SE3478 25.0 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 305
1010
50O 11.0 W 538810,18 TQ38SE3403 12.7 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
1090 SURVEY 15
51O 11.0 W 538810,18 TQ38SE3874 12.9 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1090 SURVEY 15
52 11.0 SE 538920,18 TQ38SE2688 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK 11
1020
53P 12.0 S 538860,18 TQ38SE3373 1.9 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 15
1010
54P 20.0 S 538870,18 TQ38SE3882 13.7 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1000 SURVEY 24
55Q 23.0 SW 538830,18 TQ38SE3372 1.45 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 14
1000
56O 23.0 W 538800,18 TQ38SE3892 13.9 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1080 SURVEY FE203
57 27.0 S 538910,18 TQ38SE2546 10.3 EAST INDIA DOCK LOCK 3
0990
58 30.0 SE 538930,18 TQ38SE321/E 13.0 EAST INDIA DOCK, 5
1000
59 30.0 E 538900,18 TQ38SE3804 3.0 BLACKWALL GOODS DEPOT TP A
1170
60R 32.0 S 538860,18 TQ38SE3411 13.0 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
0990 SURVEY 24
61S 35.0 S 538890,18 TQ38SE3380 2.0 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 21
0980
62U 39.0 S 538840,18 TQ38SE3368 1.3 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 10
0980
63R 40.0 S 538870,18 TQ38SE3369 2.1 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 11
0980
64S 44.0 S 538890,18 TQ38SE3397 12.7 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
0970 SURVEY 09
65T 45.0 SW 538820,18 TQ38SE3366 0.7 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 9A
0980
66T 45.0 SW 538820,18 TQ38SE3365 0.7 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 9
0980
67V 50.0 E 538930,18 TQ38SE3879 10.6 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1140 SURVEY 21
68 50.0 NE 538900,18 TQ38SE2588 3.0 E. Z. ROAD PHASE 6 TP EZ
1210
69U 51.0 S 538830,18 TQ38SE3476 27.0 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 303
0970
70T 51.0 SW 538810,18 TQ38SE3367 2.1 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 9B
0980
71 52.0 SW 538800,18 TQ38SE3371 2.1 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 13
0990
72V 53.0 NE 538940,18 TQ38SE3408 10.2 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
1130 SURVEY 21
73 59.0 S 538840,18 TQ38SE3477 34.7 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 304
0960
74W 60.0 S 538895,18 TQ38SE761 24.69 EAST INDIA IMPORT DOCK POPLAR
0954 BH8
75 61.0 NE 538920,18 TQ38SE3483 35.0 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 310
1200
76 62.0 E 538930,18 TQ38SE3482 20.0 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 309
1180
77 63.0 S 538820,18 TQ38SE2567 15.5 EAST INDIA DOCK BE1
0960
78Y 64.0 W 538770,18 TQ38SE3873 12.5 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1040 SURVEY 14
79W 64.0 S 538900,18 TQ38SE2587 15.0 E. Z. ROAD PHASE 6 218
0950
80W 64.0 S 538890,18 TQ38SE3046 12.5 LEAMOUTH ROAD - LONDON 4
0950
81 65.0 E 538960,18 TQ38SE3806 3.0 BLACKWALL GOODS DEPOT TP C
1110
82Z 65.0 W 538760,18 TQ38SE3419 13.0 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
1070 SURVEY 31
83X 66.0 W 538780,18 TQ38SE3893 13.4 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1000 SURVEY FE205
84X 66.0 W 538780,18 TQ38SE3877 13.4 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1000 SURVEY 19
85Y 67.0 W 538770,18 TQ38SE3402 12.3 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
1030 SURVEY 14
86AA 67.0 E 538980,18 TQ38SE3883 11.0 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1040 SURVEY 25A
87Z 67.0 W 538760,18 TQ38SE3891 13.8 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1060 SURVEY FE202
88AB 68.0 S 538920,18 TQ38SE2544 10.3 EAST INDIA DOCK LOCK 1
0950
1220
90Z 74.0 W 538750,18 TQ38SE3889 13.2 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
1070 SURVEY 31
91 74.0 S 538900,18 TQ38SE3624 15.0 LEAMOUTH ROAD SEWER 9
0940
92AA 78.0 E 538990,18 TQ38SE3412 4.0 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
1030 SURVEY 25
93AA 78.0 E 538990,18 TQ38SE3413 10.8 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
1030 SURVEY 25A
0970
95 80.0 NE 538960,18 TQ38SE2584 25.0 E. Z. ROAD PHASE 6 215
1150
96 81.0 SE 538950,18 TQ38SE2586 15.0 E. Z. ROAD PHASE 6 217
0950
97AB 81.0 S 538930,18 TQ38SE2545 8.7 EAST INDIA DOCK LOCK 2
0940
98 83.0 NE 538925,18 TQ38SE2747 28.9 EAST INDIA DOCK SERVICES
1232 CULVERT 1
1210
100 86.0 E 538960,18 TQ38SE3805 2.6 BLACKWALL GOODS DEPOT TP B
1170
101A 89.0 S 538840,18 TQ38SE3886 9.1 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
D 0930 SURVEY 28
102A 92.0 SW 538760,18 TQ38SE3370 2.0 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 12
C 0980
103 92.0 W 538710,18 TQ38SE2679 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK 2
1140
104 96.0 E 539000,18 TQ38SE3134 29.95 BLACKWALL GOODS YARD 4
1090
105A 97.0 W 538750,18 TQ38SE3406 13.2 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
C 0990 SURVEY 19
106A 99.0 S 538840,18 TQ38SE3623 14.5 LEAMOUTH ROAD SEWER 8
D 0920
107A 99.0 S 538840,18 TQ38SE3416 9.0 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
D 0920 SURVEY 28
108 102.0 S 538820,18 TQ38SE2687 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK 10
0920
109A 102.0 SW 538760,18 TQ38SE3876 12.4 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
F 0960 SURVEY 18
110A 103.0 NE 538950,18 TQ38SE3486 30.0 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 313
E 1230
111A 104.0 NE 538953,18 TQ38SE1699 35.0 A13 EAST INDIA LINK 323
E 1227
112A 106.0 E 539000,18 TQ38SE3133 30.0 BLACKWALL GOODS YARD 3
G 1120
113A 106.0 NE 538940,18 TQ38SE3487 20.0 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 314
H 1250
F 0960
115A 110.0 SW 538750,18 TQ38SE3405 12.7 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
F 0960 SURVEY 18
116A 112.0 E 539010,18 TQ38SE3803 15.0 BLACKWALL GOODS DEPOT 2
G 1110
117A 113.0 S 538940,18 TQ38SE2553 0.5 BRUNSWICK POWER STATION 3
K 0910
118A 113.0 NE 538940,18 TQ38SE3073 8.0 EAST INDIA DOCK ROAD 2
H 1260
119A 113.0 SW 538768,18 TQ38SE1696 25.0 A13 EAST INDIA LINK 321A
J 0934
120A 116.0 SE 539000,18 TQ38SE3317 4.4 LOWER LEA CROSSING TP L
M 0950
121A 118.0 W 538710,18 TQ38SE3890 14.2 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
L 1050 SURVEY FE201
I 0980 SURVEY 13
I 0980 SURVEY 13
124A 122.0 SW 538760,18 TQ38SE1695 3.2 A13 EAST INDIA LINK 321
J 0930
125A 122.0 S 538940,18 TQ38SE3994 20.0 DLR BECKTON EXTENSION BH14
K 0900
126A 124.0 W 538710,18 TQ38SE3450 30.0 COMBINED COURT CENTRE EAST
O 1030 INDIA DOCK 6
L 1060 SURVEY 22
L 1060 INDIA DOCK TP 4
L 1060 SURVEY 23
L 1060 SURVEY 22
131A 126.0 NE 538957,18 TQ38SE1229 15.5 A13 ISLE OF DOGS 18
H 1260
132A 126.0 SE 539012,18 TQ38SE1512 6.95 MAIN DRAINAGE PHASE 1 39A
M 0950
133A 126.0 SE 539012,18 TQ38SE1511 22.0 MAIN DRAINAGE PHASE 1 39
M 0950
Q 1120 SURVEY 12
N 0960
136A 127.0 SW 538730,18 TQ38SE3362 1.6 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 6A
N 0960
137A 128.0 SE 539014,18 TQ38SE762 24.84 EAST INDIA IMPORT DOCK POPLAR
M 0950 BH9
S 1080 SURVEY 11
I 0980 INDIA DOCK TP 18
140 130.0 W 538710,18 TQ38SE3472 3.0 COMBINED COURT CENTRE EAST
1010 INDIA DOCK TP 19
141A 130.0 SW 538790,18 TQ38SE3622 15.0 LEAMOUTH ROAD SEWER 7
T 0900
142 131.0 S 538820,18 TQ38SE321/A 15.84 EAST INDIA DOCKS BLACKWALL
0890 -H
O 1030 INDIA DOCK TP 16
P 1060 INDIA DOCK 3
P 1060 INDIA DOCK 3A
P 1060 INDIA DOCK TP 11
147A 136.0 SW 538750,18 TQ38SE3475 20.1 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 302
R 0920
148A 136.0 W 538670,18 TQ38SE3421 3.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV TP 2
Q 1120
Q 1120 SURVEY 12
150A 136.0 SW 538740,18 TQ38SE3474 24.6 EAST INDIA DOCK A13 LINK 301
R 0930
151A 136.0 SW 538720,18 TQ38SE2568 9.0 EAST INDIA DOCK BE2
N 0960
V 0940
153A 138.0 W 538680,18 TQ38SE3423 3.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV TP 4
S 1080
S 1080 SURVEY 11
U 0980 INDIA DOCK 9B
156A 140.0 SW 538770,18 TQ38SE3045 11.0 LEAMOUTH ROAD - LONDON 3
T 0900
157A 142.0 W 538710,18 TQ38SE3028 8.0 EAST INDIA DOCK H9
U 0970
158A 142.0 NE 538970,18 TQ38SE3881 11.4 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
X 1270 SURVEY 23
159 144.0 S 538890,18 TQ38SE3995 20.0 DLR BECKTON EXTENSION BH15
0870
160A 144.0 S 538950,18 TQ38SE4688 1.45 BECKTON 11 EXTENSION D.L.R S1/4
W 0880
161A 145.0 SW 538718,18 TQ38SE1513 22.0 MAIN DRAINAGE PHASE 1 42
V 0946
162A 146.0 SW 538720,18 TQ38SE3027 8.0 EAST INDIA DOCK H8
V 0940
163 147.0 E 539020,18 TQ38SE3132 29.95 BLACKWALL GOODS YARD 2
1180
164A 148.0 S 538930,18 TQ38SE4689 40.0 BECKTON 11 EXTENSION D.L.R
W 0870 S1/4A
U 0980
166B 149.0 W 538660,18 TQ38SE5251 -1.0 DOCKLANDS TRAVELODGE TP2A
D 1110
167 150.0 SE 539010,18 TQ38SE1094 36.0 POPLAR EAST INDIA DOCK B13
0910
U 0970
169B 152.0 SE 539030,18 TQ38SE3992 3.6 DLR BECKTON EXTENSION BH13
B 0930
170 152.0 W 538650,18 TQ38SE755 24.38 EAST INDIA IMPORT DOCK POPLAR
1130 BH2
171A 153.0 NE 538988,18 TQ38SE2748 30.0 EAST INDIA DOCK SERVICES
X 1263 CULVERT 2
Y 1030 SURVEY 10
Y 1030 INDIA DOCK TP 5
174 155.0 W 538660,18 TQ38SE3382 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV 2
1090
175B 155.0 SW 538710,18 TQ38SE3023 8.5 EAST INDIA DOCK H4
E 0940
Y 1020 SURVEY 10
177A 156.0 W 538680,18 TQ38SE2685 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK 8
Y 1020
178A 159.0 E 539070,18 TQ38SE4655 40.0 GALLIONS ROAD BELTON
Z 1010 LONDON/LEAMOUTH ROAD LONDON
1
179A 161.0 E 539070,18 TQ38SE4690 40.0 BECKTON 11 EXTENSION D.L.R S2/1
Z 1000
180B 161.0 W 538690,18 TQ38SE3868 12.4 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
A 0970 SURVEY 09
181B 164.0 W 538690,18 TQ38SE4680 15.0 BECKTON 11 EXTENSION D.L.R
A 0960 L4/R1
182 164.0 NE 538960,18 TQ38SE3072 10.45 EAST INDIA DOCK ROAD 1
1310
183B 164.0 SE 539050,18 TQ38SE3320 5.0 LOWER LEA CROSSING TP Q
B 0940
184B 164.0 SW 538720,18 TQ38SE760 30.78 EAST INDIA IMPORT DOCK POPLAR
G 0910 BH7
Y 1020 INDIA DOCK TP 15
186B 166.0 W 538660,18 TQ38SE3463 3.9 COMBINED COURT CENTRE EAST
C 1050 INDIA DOCK TP 10
187B 166.0 W 538660,18 TQ38SE3425 3.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV TP 6
C 1050
188B 168.0 W 538640,18 TQ38SE5249 -1.0 DOCKLANDS TRAVELODGE 2A
D 1110
189B 168.0 SW 538690,18 TQ38SE2569 9.5 EAST INDIA DOCK BE3
E 0950

190B 170.0 W 538680,18 TQ38SE3385 15.5 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV 5
A 0970
A 0970 INDIA DOCK TP 17
A 0970 L4/R4
193 172.0 S 538810,18 TQ38SE3996 20.0 DLR BECKTON EXTENSION BH16
0850
194B 172.0 SW 538690,18 TQ38SE3360 4.0 EAST INDIA DOCK LAKE TP 5
F 0940
195B 173.0 W 538680,18 TQ38SE3024 8.5 EAST INDIA DOCK H5
A 0960
196B 173.0 W 538680,18 TQ38SE3025 6.55 EAST INDIA DOCK H6
A 0960
197B 174.0 SE 539050,18 TQ38SE3318 1.5 LOWER LEA CROSSING TP N
H 0920
J 1020 INDIA DOCK TP 6
C 1050 INDIA DOCK TP 3
200B 177.0 SW 538680,18 TQ38SE4681 15.5 BECKTON 11 EXTENSION D.L.R
F 0950 L4/R2
201 179.0 SE 538990,18 TQ38SE2554 0.35 BRUNSWICK POWER STATION 4
0860
G 0910
I 1100
204B 181.0 SW 538740,18 TQ38SE3887 11.2 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
L 0870 SURVEY 29
M 0960 L4/R3
206B 183.0 SE 539060,18 TQ38SE3993 20.0 DLR BECKTON EXTENSION BH13A
H 0920
207 183.0 W 538660,18 TQ38SE3430 3.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV TP 11
0990
F 0930
I 1110
J 1010 INDIA DOCK 5
J 1010 INDIA DOCK TP 14
K 1040 INDIA DOCK TP 9
K 1040 INDIA DOCK 2
214 188.0 E 539050,18 TQ38SE1177 14.02 BLACKWALL WHARF 1
1220
215B 189.0 SW 538740,18 TQ38SE3417 11.0 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
L 0860 SURVEY 29
216B 189.0 SW 538740,18 TQ38SE2552 15.0 BRUNSWICK POWER STATION 2
L 0860
217 190.0 SE 539058,18 TQ38SE1580 29.5 LOWER LEA CROSSING 16
0905
N 0940
M 0960 INDIA DOCK 8
N 0930 LS/R2
0860
222 196.0 W 538620,18 TQ38SE3424 2.3 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV TP 5
1080
0840
O 0920
225B 201.0 W 538630,18 TQ38SE3383 15.4 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV 3
K 1030
N 0930
N 0930
O 0920 LS/R3
P 0940 LS/R1
P 0940 LS/R4
231 209.0 SW 538720,18 TQ38SE3621 15.0 LEAMOUTH ROAD SEWER 6
0850
S 1000
233B 210.0 S 538820,18 TQ38SE5001 1.0 OPEN SPACE VIRGINIA QUAY
Q 0810 LONDON E14 WS7
P 0930
0910
237 215.0 SW 538740,18 TQ38SE3997 20.0 DLR BECKTON EXTENSION BH17
0830
T 1040 INDIA DOCK TP 2
V 0920
240B 217.0 SE 539110,18 TQ38SE1509 1.0 MAIN DRAINAGE PHASE 1 38B
R 0940
241B 217.0 SE 539110,18 TQ38SE1510 6.8 MAIN DRAINAGE PHASE 1 38C
R 0940
242B 217.0 SE 539110,18 TQ38SE1508 1.0 MAIN DRAINAGE PHASE 1 38A
R 0940
243B 217.0 SE 539110,18 TQ38SE1507 21.0 MAIN DRAINAGE PHASE 1 38
R 0940
244C 218.0 W 538590,18 TQ38SE5248 -1.0 DOCKLANDS TRAVELODGE 1A
B 1100
S 1000 INDIA DOCK TP 13
T 1030 INDIA DOCK TP 8
248C 224.0 W 538590,18 TQ38SE5253 -1.0 DOCKLANDS TRAVELODGE TP4A
C 1080
W 0800 LONDON E14 WS5
X 1010 INDIA DOCK TP 20
251B 226.0 E 539120,18 TQ38SE3195 12.0 LIMMO PENINSULA PUMPING TEST
Y 1140 TW
0870
253C 229.0 E 539110,18 TQ38SE3194 0.5 LIMMO PENINSULA 5
G 1180
U 0790 LONDON E14 WS9
U 0790 LONDON E14 WS8
V 0910
257C 231.0 W 538620,18 TQ38SE3428 3.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV TP 9
A 0960
258C 231.0 SW 538630,18 TQ38SE2574 4.3 EAST INDIA DOCK BE8
H 0930
260B 232.0 W 538600,18 TQ38SE3418 12.5 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
X 1020 SURVEY 30A
261B 232.0 E 539130,18 TQ38SE3071 10.0 LIMMO PENINSULA FINAL OW1
Y 1130
Z 1050
264B 233.0 W 538590,18 TQ38SE3394 11.8 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
Z 1050 SURVEY 07
265C 233.0 W 538620,18 TQ38SE3451 30.0 COMBINED COURT CENTRE EAST
A 0950 INDIA DOCK 7
266C 233.0 W 538620,18 TQ38SE3384 15.3 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV 4
A 0950
267C 235.0 SW 538680,18 TQ38SE2686 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK 9
J 0850
X 1000 INDIA DOCK 4A
269B 238.0 E 539130,18 TQ38SE3196 10.0 LIMMO PENINSULA PUMPING TEST
Y 1150 OW
E 1030 INDIA DOCK TP 1
271C 239.0 SW 538630,18 TQ38SE3863 12.5 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
F 0910 SURVEY 04
272C 241.0 W 538570,18 TQ38SE2680 15.0 EAST INDIA DOCK 3
B 1090
273C 241.0 W 538570,18 TQ38SE3420 2.65 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV TP1
C 1090
D 0990 INDIA DOCK 4
D 0990 INDIA DOCK TP 12
276 241.0 SE 539113,18 TQ38SE1579 29.5 LOWER LEA CROSSING 15
0895
277C 242.0 W 538590,18 TQ38SE3426 3.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV TP 7
E 1020
278C 242.0 W 538590,18 TQ38SE3888 12.7 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
E 1020 SURVEY 30A
E 1020 INDIA DOCK TP 7
E 1020 INDIA DOCK 1
0850
282 243.0 S 538800,18 TQ38SE4998 3.0 OPEN SPACE VIRGINIA QUAY
0780 LONDON E14 WS4
A 0950 SURVEY 05
284C 243.0 W 538570,18 TQ38SE3395 10.8 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
I 1080 SURVEY 08
D 0980 SURVEY 06
286C 244.0 W 538600,18 TQ38SE3393 12.5 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
D 0980 SURVEY 06
287C 244.0 SW 538630,18 TQ38SE3020 3.9 EAST INDIA DOCK HI
F 0900
288C 245.0 E 539130,18 TQ38SE3191 20.45 LIMMO PENINSULA 2
G 1170
289 246.0 NE 539120,18 TQ38SE3192 2.0 LIMMO PENINSULA TP 3
1200
290B 246.0 W 538580,18 TQ38SE3866 12.2 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
Z 1040 SURVEY 07
291C 246.0 W 538610,18 TQ38SE3494 7.5 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE II 3A
H 0940
292C 246.0 W 538570,18 TQ38SE3381 15.7 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE IV 1
I 1070
0810
294 248.0 SW 538710,18 TQ38SE4687 40.0 BECKTON 11 EXTENSION D.L.R S1/3
0810
295C 248.0 SW 538620,18 TQ38SE3391 12.3 EAST INDIA DOCK- GROUND WATER
F 0910 SURVEY 04
296 249.0 W 538560,18 TQ38SE1730 10.0 OLD FORD/LIMEHOUSE CUT 5
1095
297C 249.0 SW 538660,18 TQ38SE3861 11.0 EAST INDIA DOCK GROUND WATER
J 0850 SURVEY 02
298 250.0 W 538600,18 TQ38SE3490 11.0 EAST INDIA DOCK PHASE II 1
0960
Additional online information is available for the following boreholes listed above:
#1E: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576340
#2: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602453
#3J: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601951
#4N: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601806
#7K: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602464
#8A: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601840
#10B: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601874
#13C: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602460
#14C: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601916
#15L: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601803
#16D: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602461
#17D: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601949

#18I: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601816
#19F: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1034756
#20H: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601918
#22G: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601801
#25G: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602012
#26H: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736828
#37K: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602014
#43L: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601876
#44M: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602209
#46M: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1033714
#47N: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1033712
#48Q: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601950
#49P: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602206
#50O: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601839
#55Q: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601799
#60R: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601869
#61S: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601807
#62U: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601795
#63R: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601796
#64S: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601832
#65T: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601793
#67V: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736835
#69U: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602204
#72V: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601861
#74W: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1033717
#78Y: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736825
#82Z: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601885
#83X: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736859
#84X: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736831
#85Y: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601837
#86AA: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736845
#88AB: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576205
#97AB: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576208
#101AD: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736849
#102AC: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601797
#105AC: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601843
#109AF: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736830
#110AE: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602242
#111AE: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1034758
#112AG: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13598482
#113AH: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602245
#116AG: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13725931
#117AK: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576267
#119AJ: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1034755
#120AM: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601243
#121AL: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736855
#122AI: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736824
#124AJ: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1034754
#125AK: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/14287926
#126AO: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602123
#134AQ: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601835
#135AN: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601788
#138AS: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736820
#141AT: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602957
#143AO: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602152
#144AP: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602103
#147AR: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602203
#150AR: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602198
#152AV: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601785
#155AU: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602130
#156AT: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13594709
#158AX: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736841
#160AW: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15624169
#164AW: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15624170
#169BB: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/14287923
#171AX: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576649
#172AY: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736818
#175BE: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13594664
#178AZ: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15618807
#179AZ: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15624171
#180BA: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736817
#183BB: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601247
#184BG: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1033716
#186BC: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602145
#189BE: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576316
#194BF: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601787
#197BH: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601244
#198BJ: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602140
#202BG: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601784
#204BL: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736850
#205BM: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15624163
#206BH: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/14287925
#212BK: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602144
#218BN: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13594662
#219BM: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602128
#224BO: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13594660
#228BO: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15624159
#229BP: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15624157
#232BS: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601906
#233BQ: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/18359320
#238BT: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602134
#239BV: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576325
#240BR: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1034568
#245BS: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602148
#246BT: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602143
#249BW: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/18359314
#250BX: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602167
#251BY: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13600252
#253CG: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13600247
#254BU: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/18359324
#255BU: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/18359322
#256BV: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576322
#257CA: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601907
#258CH: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576323
#263BZ: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601899
#267CJ: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576514
#270CE: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602132
#271CF: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736808
#272CB: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576508
#273CC: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601893
#274CD: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602106
#284CI: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601830
#288CG: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13600242
#291CH: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13602315
#292CI: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13601808
#297CJ: http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13736803

6.Estimated Background Soil Chemistry
Records of background estimated soil chemistry within 250m of the study site boundary: 2
For further information on how this data is calculated and limitations upon its use, please see the GroundSure
GeoInsight User Guide, available on request.
Estimated Geometric Mean Soil Concentrations (mg/kg)

Sample
Distance (m)* Direction Arsenic (As) Cadmium (Cd) Chromium (Cr) Nickel (Ni) Lead (Pb)
Type
0.0 On Site London No data No data No data No data No data
14.0 S London No data No data No data No data No data
*As this data is based upon underlying 1:50,000 scale geological information, a 50m buffer has been added to the search radius.

7. Contacts
EmapSite
Telephone: 0118 9736883
sales@emapsite.com
British Geological Survey Enquiries

Kingsley Dunham Centre
Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG
Tel: 0115 936 3143. Fax: 0115 936 3276.
Email: enquiries@bgs.ac.uk
Web: www.bgs.ac.uk
BGS Geological Hazards Reports and general geological
enquiries
British Gypsum
British Gypsum Ltd, East Leake, Loughborough, Leicestershire,
LE12 6HX
Tel: www.british-gypsum.com
The Coal Authority

200 Lichfield Lane, Mansfield, Notts NG18 4RG
Tel: 0845 762 6848
DX 716176 Mansfield 5 www.coal.gov.uk
Johnson Poole & Bloomer Limited

Harris and Pearson Building, Brettel Lane, Brierley Hill, West
Midlands DY5 3LH
Tel: +44 (0) 1384 262 000
Email: enquiries.gs@jpb.co.uk
Website: www.jpb.co.uk
Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road, Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505
Getmapping PLC
Virginia Villas, High Street, Hartley Witney,
Hampshire RG27 8NW
Tel: 01252 845444
Peter Brett Associates

Caversham Bridge House, Waterman Place, Reading
Berkshire RG1 8DN
Tel: +44 (0)118 950 0761 E-mail: reading@pba.co.uk
Acknowledgements
PointX © Database Right/Copyright, Thomson Directories Limited © Copyright Link Interchange Network Limited ©
Database Right/Copyright and Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright and/or Database Right. All Rights Reserved.
Licence Number [03421028].
This report has been prepared in accordance with the GroundSure Ltd standard Terms and Conditions of business for
work of this nature.

Standard Terms and Conditions
1 Definitions
In these conditions unless the context otherwise requires:
“Beneficiary” means the Client or the customer of the Client for whom the Client has procured the Services.
“Commercial” means any building which is not Residential.
“Commission" means an order for Consultancy Services submitted by a Client.
“Consultancy Services” mean consultancy services provided by GroundSure including, without limitation, carrying out interpretation of third party and in-house environmental data,
provision of environmental consultancy advice, undertaking environmental audits and assessments, Site investigation, Site monitoring and related items.
“Contract” means the contract between GroundSure and the Client for the performance of the Services which arises upon GroundSure's acceptance of an Order or Commission and
which shall incorporate these conditions, the relevant GroundSure User Guide, proposal by GroundSure and the content of any subsequent report, and any agreed amendments in
accordance with clause 11.
“Client” means the party that submits an Order or Commission.
“Data Provider” means any third party providing Third Party Content to GroundSure.
“Data Report” means reports comprising factual data with no professional interpretation in respect of the level of likely risk and/or liability available from GroundSure.
“GroundSure” means GroundSure Limited, a company registered in England and Wales under number 03421028 and whose registered office is at GroundSure Ltd, c/o Top Right
Group Limited, The Prow, 1 Wilder Walk, London W1B 5AP, United Kingdom.
“GroundSure Materials” means all materials prepared by GroundSure as a result of the provision of the Services, including but not limited to Data Reports, Mapping and Risk
Screening Reports.
“Intellectual Property” means any patent, copyright, design rights, service marks, moral rights, data protection rights, know-how, trade mark or any other intellectual property
rights.
“Mapping” an historical map or a combination of historical maps of various ages, time periods and scales available from GroundSure.
“Order” means an order form submitted by the Client requiring Services from GroundSure in respect of a specified Site.
“Order Website” means online platform via which Orders may be placed.
“Report” means a Risk Screening Report or Data Report for commercial or residential property available from GroundSure relating to the Site prepared in accordance with the
specifications set out in the relevant User Guide.
“Residential” means any building used as or suitable for use as an individual dwelling.
“Risk Screening Report” means one of GroundSure’s risk screening reports, comprising factual data with interpretation in respect of the level of likely risk and/or liability, excluding
“Consultancy Services”.
“Services” means the provision of any Report, Mapping or Consultancy Services which GroundSure has agreed to carry out for the Client/Beneficiary on these terms and conditions in
respect of the Site.
"Site" means the landsite in respect of which GroundSure provides the Services.
“Third Party Content” means any data, database or other information contained in a Report or Mapping which is provided to GroundSure by a Data Provider.
"User Guide" means the relevant current version of the user guide, available upon request from GroundSure.
2 Scope of Services
2.1 GroundSure agrees to carry out the Services in accordance with the Contract and to the extent set out therein.
2.2 GroundSure shall exercise all the reasonable skill, care and diligence to be expected of experienced environmental consultants in the performance of the Services.
2.3 The Client acknowledges that it has not relied on any statement or representation made by or on behalf of GroundSure which is not set out and expressly agreed in the Contract.
2.4 Terms and conditions appearing on a Client’s order form, printed stationery or other communication, including invoices, to GroundSure, its employees, servants, agents or other
representatives or any terms implied by custom, practice or course of dealing shall be of no effect and these terms and conditions shall prevail over all others.
2.5 If a Client/Beneficiary requests insurance in conjunction with or as a result of the Services, GroundSure shall use reasonable endeavours to procure such insurance, but makes no
warranty that such insurance shall be available from insurers or offered on reasonable terms. GroundSure does not endorse or recommend any particular insurance product, policy
or insurer. Any insurance purchased shall be subject solely to the terms of the policy issued by insurers and GroundSure will have no liability therefor. The Client/Beneficiary
should take independent advice to ensure that the insurance policy requested and/or offered is suitable for its requirements.
2.6 GroundSure's quotations/proposals are valid for a period of 30 days only. GroundSure reserves the right to withdraw any quotation at any time before GroundSure accepts an Order
or Commission. GroundSure's acceptance of an Order or Commission shall be effective only where such acceptance is in writing and signed by GroundSure's authorised
representative or where accepted via GroundSure’s Order Website.
3 The Client’s obligations

3.1 The Client shall ensure the Beneficiary complies with and is bound by the terms and conditions set out in the Contract and shall provide that Groundsure may in its own right
enforce such terms and conditions against the Beneficiary pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third parties) Act 1999. The Client shall be liable for all breaches of the Contract by
the Beneficiary as if they were breaches by the Client. The Client shall be solely responsible for ensuring that the Report/Mapping ordered is appropriate and suitable for the
Beneficiary’s needs.
3.2 The Client shall (or shall procure that the Beneficiary shall) supply to GroundSure as soon as practicable and without charge all information necessary and accurate relevant data
including any specific and/or unusual environmental information relating to the Site known to the Client/Beneficiary which may pertain to the Services and shall give such
assistance as GroundSure shall reasonably require in the performance of the Services (including, without limitation, access to a Site, facilities and equipment as agreed in the
Contract).
3.3 Where Client/Beneficiary approval or decision is required, such approval or decision shall be given or procured in reasonable time as not to delay or disrupt the performance of any
other part of the Services.
3.4 The Client shall not and shall not knowingly permit the Beneficiary to, save as expressly permitted by these terms and conditions, re-sell, alter, add to, amend or use out of context
the content of any Report, Mapping or, in respect of any Services, information given by GroundSure. For the avoidance of doubt, the Client and Beneficiary may make the Report,
Mapping or GroundSure’s findings available to a third party who is considering acquiring the whole or part of the Site, or providing funding in relation to the Site, but such third
party cannot rely on the same unless expressly permitted under clause 4.
3.5 The Client is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of its user name and password if using GroundSure’s internet ordering service and accepts responsibility for all activity
that occurs under such account and password.
4 Reliance
4.1 Upon full payment of all relevant fees and subject to the provisions of these terms and conditions, the Client and Beneficiary are granted an irrevocable royalty-free licence to
access the information contained in a Report, Mapping or in a report prepared by GroundSure in respect of or arising out of Consultancy Services. The Services may only be used
for the benefit of the Client and those persons listed in clauses 4.2 and 4.3.
4.2 In relation to Data Reports, Mapping and Risk Screening Reports, the Client shall be entitled to make Reports available to (i) the Beneficiary, (ii) the Beneficiary's professional
advisers, (iii) any person providing funding to the Beneficiary in relation to the Site (whether directly or as part of a lending syndicate), (iv) the first purchaser or first tenant of the
Site (v) the professional advisers and lenders of the first purchaser or tenant of the Site. Accordingly GroundSure shall have the same duties and obligations to those persons in
respect of the Services as it has to the Client and those persons shall have the benefit of any of the Client's rights under the Contract as if those persons were parties to the
Contract. For the avoidance of doubt, the limitations of GroundSure's liability as set out in clauses 7 and 11.6 shall apply.
4.3 In relation to Consultancy Services, reliance shall be limited to the Client, Beneficiary and named parties on the Report.
4.4 Save as set out in clauses 4.2 and 4.3 and unless otherwise agreed in writing with GroundSure, any other party considering the information supplied by GroundSure as part of the
Services, including (but not limited to) insurance underwriters, does so at their own risk and GroundSure has no legal obligations to such party unless otherwise agreed in writing.
4.5 The Client shall not and shall not knowingly permit any person (including the Beneficiary) who is provided with a copy of any Report, (except as permitted herein or by separate
agreement with GroundSure) to,: (a) remove, suppress or modify any trade mark, copyright or other proprietary marking from the Report or Mapping; (b) create any product
which is derived directly or indirectly from the data contained in the Report or Mapping; (c) combine the Report or Mapping with, or incorporate the Report or Mapping into any
other information data or service; or (d) re-format or otherwise change (whether by modification, addition or enhancement) data or images contained in the Report or Mapping.
4.6 Notwithstanding clause 4.5, if the Client acts in a professional capacity, it may make reasonable use of a Report and/or findings made as a result of Consultancy Services to advise
Beneficiaries. However, GroundSure shall have no liability in respect of any opinion or report given to such Beneficiaries by the Client or a third party.
5 Fees and Disbursements

5.1 GroundSure shall charge the Client fees at the rate and frequency specified in the Contract together, in the case of Consultancy Services, with all proper disbursements incurred by
GroundSure in performing the Services. For the avoidance of doubt, the fees payable for the Services are as set out in GroundSure's written proposal, Order Website or Order
acknowledgement form. The Client shall in addition pay all value added tax or other tax payable on such fees and disbursements in relation to the provision of the Services.
5.2 Unless GroundSure requires prepayment, the Client shall promptly pay all fees disbursements and other monies due to GroundSure in full without deduction, counterclaim or set off
together with such value added tax or other tax as may be required within 30 days from the date of GroundSure’s invoice or such other period as may be agreed in writing between
GroundSure and the Client ("Payment Date"). GroundSure reserves the right to charge interest which shall accrue on a daily basis from 30 days after the date of Payment Date
until the date of payment (whether before or after judgment) at the rate of five per cent per annum above the Bank of England base rate from time to time.
5.3 In the event that the Client disputes the amount payable in respect of GroundSure’s invoice it shall notify GroundSure no later than 28 days after the date thereof that it is in
dispute. In default of such notification the Client shall be deemed to have agreed the amount thereof. As soon as reasonably practicable following receipt of a notification in respect
of any disputed invoice, a member of the management team at GroundSure shall contact the Client and the parties shall use all reasonable endeavours to resolve the dispute.
6 Intellectual Property and Confidentiality

6.1 Subject to the provisions of clause 4.1, the Client and the Beneficiary hereby acknowledge that all Intellectual Property in the Services and Content are and shall remain owned by
either GroundSure or the Data Providers and nothing in these terms purports to transfer or assign any rights to the Client or the Beneficiary in respect of the Intellectual Property.
6.2 The Client shall acknowledge the ownership of the Third Party Content where such Third Party Content is incorporated or used in the Client's own documents, reports, systems or
services whether or not these are supplied to a third party.
6.3 Data Providers may enforce any breach of clauses 6.1 and 6.2 against the Client or Beneficiary.
6.4 The Client acknowledges that the proprietary rights subsisting in copyright, database rights and any other intellectual property rights in respect of any data and information
contained in any Report are and shall remain (subject to clause 11.1) the property of GroundSure and/or any third party that has supplied data or information used to create a
Report, and that these conditions do not purport to grant, assign or transfer any such rights in respect thereof to a Client and/or a Beneficiary.
6.5 The Client shall (and shall procure that any recipients of the Report as permitted under clause 4.2 shall):
(i) not remove, suppress or modify any trademark, copyright or other proprietary marking belonging to GroundSure or any third party from the Services;

(ii) use the information obtained as part of the Services in respect of the subject Site only, and shall not store or reuse any information obtained as part of the Services provided in
respect of adjacent or nearby sites;
(iii) not create any product or report which is derived directly or indirectly from the data contained in the Services (save that those acting in a professional capacity to the
Beneficiary may provide advice based upon the Services);
(iv) not combine the Services with or incorporate such Services into any other information data or service; and
(v) not reformat or otherwise change (whether by modification, addition or enhancement), data contained in the Services (save that those acting in a professional capacity to the
Beneficiary shall not be in breach of this clause 6.5(v) where such reformatting is in the normal course of providing advice based upon the Services),
in each case of parts (iii) to (v) inclusive, whether or not such product or report is produced for commercial profit or not.
6.6 The Client and/or Beneficiary shall and shall procure that any party to whom the Services are made available shall notify GroundSure of any request or requirement to disclose,
publish or disseminate any information contained in the Services in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 or any
associated legislation or regulations in force from time to time.
6.8 Save as otherwise set out in these terms and conditions, any information provided by one party ("Disclosing Party") to the other party ("Receiving Party") shall be treated as
confidential and only used for the purposes of these terms and conditions, except in so far as the Receiving Party is authorised by the Disclosing Party to provide such information
in whole or in part to a third party.
7 Liability
THE CLIENT’S ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THIS PROVISION
7.1Subject to the provisions of this clause 7, GroundSure shall be liable to the Beneficiary only in relation to any direct losses or damages caused by any negligent act or omission of
GroundSure in preparing the GroundSure Materials and provided that the Beneficiary has used all reasonable endeavours to mitigate any such losses.
7.2GroundSure shall not be liable for any other losses or damages incurred by the Beneficiary, including but not limited to:
(i) loss of profit, revenue, business or goodwill, losses relating to business interruption, loss of anticipated savings, loss of or corruption to data or for any special, indirect or
consequential loss or damage which arise out of or in connection with the GroundSure Materials or otherwise in relation to a Contract;
(ii) any losses or damages that arise as a result of the use of all or part of the GroundSure Materials in breach of these terms and conditions or contrary to the terms of the relevant
User Guide;
(iii) any losses or damages that arise as a result of any error, omission or inaccuracy in any part of the GroundSure Materials where such part is based on any Third Party Content or
any reasonable interpretation of Third Party Content. The Client accepts, and shall procure that any other Beneficiary shall accept, that it has no claim or recourse to any Data
Provider in relation to Third Party Content; and/or
(iv) any loss or damage to a Client’s computer, software, modem, telephone or other property caused by a delay or loss of use of GroundSure’s internet ordering service.
7.3 GroudSure’s total liability in contract, tort (including negligence or breach of statutory duty), misrepresentation, restitution or otherwise, arising in connection with the GroundSure
Materials or otherwise in relation to the Contract shall be limited to £10 million in total (i) for any one claim or (ii) for a series of connected claims brought by one or more parties.
7.4 For the duration of the liability periods set out in clauses 7.5 and 7.6 below, GroundSure shall maintain professional indemnity insurance in respect of its liability under these terms
and conditions provided such insurance is readily available at commercially viable rates. GroundSure shall produce evidence of such insurance if reasonably requested by the
Client. A level of cover greater than GroundSure’s current level of cover may be available upon request and agreement with the Client.
7.5 Any claim under the Contract in relation to Data Reports, Mapping and Risk Screening Reports, must be brought within six years from the date when the Beneficiary became aware
that it may have a claim and in no event may a claim be brought twelve years or more after completion of such a Contract. For the avoidance of doubt, any claim in respect of
which proceedings are notified to GroundSure in writing prior to the expiry of the time periods referred to in this clause 7.5 shall survive the expiry of those time periods provided
the claim is actually commenced within six months of notification.
7.6 Any claim under the Contract in relation to Consultancy Services, must be brought within six years from the date the Consultancy Services were completed.
7.7 he Client accepts and shall procure that any other Beneficiary shall accept that it has no claim or recourse to any Data Provider or to GroundSure in respect of the acts or omissions
of any Data Provider and/or any Third Party Content provided by a Data Provider.
7.8 Nothing in these terms and conditions:
(i) excludes or limits the liability of GroundSure for death or personal injury caused by GroundSure’s negligence, or for fraudulent misrepresentation; or
(ii) shall affect the statutory rights of a consumer under the applicable legislation.
8 GroundSure right to suspend or terminate

8.1 In the event that GroundSure reasonably believes that the Client or Beneficiary as applicable has not provided the information or assistance required to enable the proper
performance of the Services, GroundSure shall be entitled on fourteen days written notice to suspend all further performance of the Services until such time as any such deficiency
has been made good.
8.2 GroundSure may additionally terminate the Contract immediately on written notice in the event that:
(i)the Client shall fail to pay any sum due to GroundSure within 28 days of the Payment Date; or
(ii)the Client (being an individual) has a bankruptcy order made against him or (being a company) shall enter into liquidation whether compulsory or voluntary or have an
Administration Order made against it or if a Receiver shall be appointed over the whole or any part of its property assets or undertaking or if the Client is struck off the Register
of Companies or dissolved; or
(iii) the Client being a company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or being an individual appears unable to pay his debts
within the meaning of Section 268 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or if the Client shall enter into a composition or arrangement with the Client’s creditors or shall suffer distress or
execution to be levied on his goods; or
(iv)the Client or the Beneficiary breaches any material term of the Contract (including, but not limited to, the obligations in clause 4) incapable of remedy or if remediable, is not
remedied within 14 days of notice of the breach.
9 Client’s Right to Terminate and Suspend

9.1 Subject to clause 10.2, the Client may at any time after commencement of the Services by notice in writing to GroundSure require GroundSure to terminate or suspend immediately
performance of all or any of the Services.
9.2 The Client waives all and any right of cancellation it may have under the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (as amended) in respect of the Order of a
Report/Mapping. This does not affect the Beneficiary's statutory rights.
10 Consequences of Withdrawal, Termination or Suspension

10.1 Upon termination or any suspension of the Services, GroundSure shall take steps to bring to an end the Services in an orderly manner, vacate any Site with all reasonable speed
and shall deliver to the Client/Beneficiary any property of the Client/ Beneficiary in GroundSure’s possession or control.
10.2 In the event of termination/suspension of the Contract under clauses 8 or 9, the Client shall pay to GroundSure all and any fees payable in respect of the performance of the
Services up to the date of termination/suspension. In respect of any Consultancy Services provided, the Client shall also pay GroundSure any additional costs incurred in
relation to the termination/suspension of the Contract.
11 General
11.1 The mapping contained in the Services is protected by Crown copyright and must not be used for any purpose outside the context of the Services or as specifically provided in
these terms.
11.2 GroundSure reserves the right to amend these terms and conditions. No variation to these terms shall be valid unless signed by an authorised representative of GroundSure.
11.3 No failure on the part of GroundSure to exercise and no delay in exercising, any right, power or provision under these terms and conditions shall operate as a waiver thereof.
11.4 Save as expressly provided in clauses 4.2, 4.3, 6.3 and 11.5, no person other than the persons set out therein shall have any right under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act
1999 to enforce any terms of the Contract.
11.5 The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government acting through Ordnance Survey may enforce breach of clause 6.1 of these terms and conditions against the Client
in accordance with the provisions of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
11.6 GroundSure shall not be liable to the Client if the provision of the Services is delayed or prevented by one or more of the following circumstances:
(i) the Client or Beneficiary’s failure to provide facilities, access or information;
(ii) fire, storm, flood, tempest or epidemic;
(iii) Acts of God or the public enemy;
(iv) riot, civil commotion or war;
(v) strikes, labour disputes or industrial action;
(vi) acts or regulations of any governmental or other agency;
(vii) suspension or delay of services at public registries by Data Providers; or
(viii) changes in law.
11.7 Any notice provided shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be properly given if delivered by hand or sent by first class post, facsimile or by email to the address, facsimile
number or email address of the relevant party as may have been notified by each party to the other for such purpose or in the absence of such notification the last known
address.
11.8 Such notice shall be deemed to have been received on the day of delivery if delivered by hand, facsimile or email and on the second working day after the day of posting if sent
by first class post.
11.9 The Contract constitutes the entire contract between the parties and shall supersede all previous arrangements between the parties.
11.10 Each of the provisions of the Contract is severable and distinct from the others and if one or more provisions is or should become invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity and
enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be tainted or impaired.
11.11 These terms and conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and any proceedings arising out of or connected with these terms and conditions
shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
11.12 If the Client or Beneficiary has a complaint about the Services, notice can be given in any format eg writing, phone, email to the Compliance Officer at GroundSure who will
respond in a timely manner.
© GroundSure Limited January 2012

Appendix C
Site Photographs
______________________________________________________________
Photo 1 – Track in north-west of site Photo 2 – Concrete base in north-east of site
Photo 3 – Close-up on gravel surface (£1 coin in view) Photo 4 – Sorrel Lane, boundary fencing & bunds
Photo 5 – Nearby Esso Photo 6 – Borehole 1

Site Photographs
______________________________________________________________
Photo 7 – View into Borehole 2 Photo 8 – Borehole 3
Photo 9 – Borehole 4 Photo 10 – Close up on Borehole 4
Photo 11 – Borehole 5 Photo 12 – Close up on Borehole 5 (welded shut)

Site Photographs
______________________________________________________________
Photo 14 – View of Telehouse East. Plot 8 and

Photo 13 – Borehole 6 – obscured by shrub “Heritage” wall in foreground
Appendix D
Page 1 | Borehole TQ38SE2583 | Borehole Logs Page 1 of 2
BGS ID: 13576340 : BGS Reference: TQ38SE2583

British National Grid (27700) : 538880,181130
Report an issue with this borehole
z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 6
z Next >
z >>
http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/13576340/images/13343516.html 07/05/2013

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 2
z Next >
z >>

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 2
z Next >
z >>

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 5
z Next >
z >>

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 4
z Next >
z >>

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 4
z Next >
z >>

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 3
z Next >
z >>

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 3
z Next >
z >>

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 3
z Next >
z >>

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 2 of 3
z Next >
z >>

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 5
z Next >
z >>

z <<
z < Prev
z Page 1 of 4
z Next >
z >>
AYLESBURY EDINBURGH NOTTINGHAM
7 Wornal Park, Menmarsh Road, No. 4 The Roundal, Roddinglaw Aspect House, Aspect Business Park,
Worminghall, Aylesbury, Business Park, Gogar, Edinburgh Bennerley Road, Nottingham NG6 8WR
Buckinghamshire HP18 9PH EH12 9DB T: +44 (0)115 9647280
T: +44 (0)1844 337380 T: +44 (0)131 3356830
BELFAST EXETER ST. ALBANS

24 Ballynahinch Street, Hillsborough, 69 Polsloe Road, Exeter EX1 2NF White House Farm Barns, Gaddesden
Co. Down, BT26 6AW Northern Ireland T: + 44 (0)1392 490152 Row, Hertfordshire HP2 6HG
T: +44 (0)28 9268 9036 T: +44 (0)1582 840471
BRADFORD?ON?AVON FARNBOROUGH SHEFFIELD

Treenwood House, Rowden Lane, The Pavilion, 2 Sherborne Road, South STEP Business Centre, Wortley Road,
Bradford+on+Avon, Wiltshire BA15 2AU Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 6JT Deepcar, Sheffield S36 2UH
T: +44 (0)1225 309400 T: +44 (0)1252 515682 T: +44 (0)114 2903628
BRISTOL GLASGOW SHREWSBURY

Langford Lodge, 109 Pembroke Road, 4 Woodside Place, Charing Cross, Mytton Mill, Forton Heath, Montford
Clifton, Bristol BS8 3EU Glasgow G3 7QF Bridge, Shrewsbury SY4 1HA
T: +44 (0)117 9064280 T: +44 (0)141 3535037 T: +44 (0)1743 850170
CAMBRIDGE HUDDERSFIELD STAFFORD

8 Stow Court, Stow+cum+Quy, Westleigh House, Wakefield Road, 8 Parker Court, Staffordshire Technology
Cambridge CB25 9AS Denby Dale, Huddersfield HD8 8QJ Park, Beaconside, Stafford ST18 0WP
T: + 44 (0)1223 813805 T: +44 (0)1484 860521 T: +44 (0)1785 241755
CARDIFF LEEDS WARRINGTON

Fulmar House, Beignon Close, Ocean Suite 1, Jason House, Kerry Hill, Suite 9 Beech House, Padgate Business
Way, Cardiff CF24 5HF Horsforth, Leeds LS18 4JR Park, Green Lane, Warrington WA1 4JN
T: +44 (0)29 20491010 T: +44 (0)113 2580650 T: +44 (0)1925 827218
CHELMSFORD MAIDSTONE WORCESTER

Unit 77, Waterhouse Business Centre, 19 Hollingworth Court, Turkey Mill, Suite 5, Brindley Court, Gresley Road,
2 Cromar Way, Chelmsford, Essex Maidstone, Kent ME14 5PP Shire Business Park, Worcester
CM1 2QE T: +44 (0)1622 609242 WR4 9FD
T: +44 (0)1245 392170 T: +44 (0)1905 751310
DUBLIN NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

7 Dundrum Business Park, Windy Sailors Bethel, Horatio Street,
Arbour, Dundrum, Dublin 14 Ireland Newcastle+upon+Tyne NE1 2PE
T: + 353 (0)1 2964667 T: +44 (0)191 2611966
APPENDIX 02
Cundall Indigo Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment

Telehouse Inter. Corp of Europe Ltd
Indigo
Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment
Job No: 1007895
Doc No: 1007895-RPT-00082
Latest Revision: -
Date: 24/03/2014
Cundall Johnston and Partners LLP Saffron House 6-10 Kirby Street London EC1N 8TS Tel +44 (0)20 7438 1600 www.cundall.com
Project name Indigo Job Number
Report Name Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment 1007895
Document Revision History
Revision Issue Date Purpose of issue / description of revision

Ref
Document Validation (latest issue)
Revision Issue Date Purpose of issue / description of revision / version
- 24/03/2014 Final Issue
Prepared by Checked by Verified by
Initials EP/KM/YI JA JA
Signature
Indigo – Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment

Document no 1007895-RPT-00082
Executive Summary
Scheme
Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd. (Telehouse) propose to construct a new 8 storey data
centre with associated infrastructure at the subject site. In addition, it is also proposed that an office
building may be constructed in the southern part of the subject site in the future.
Scope
Cundall Geotechnical was commissioned by Telehouse to commission, manage and report on a ground
investigation for the proposed development.
Previously, a Land Quality Risk Assessment (equivalent to a Phase I Desk Study) was carried out for the
proposed development by SLR Consulting Ltd in November 2013.
Cundall procured the services of ground investigation specialists (ground investigation contractor and
geophysical surveyor) to undertake the intrusive ground investigation and geophysical survey works and
provided technical supervision of the investigation works.
This report summarises the findings of the ground investigation and presents a geotechnical and
geoenvironmental assessment of ground conditions revealed by the investigation. This report also presents
a Tier 1/2 generic risk assessment and conceptual site model for assessment of site contamination and an
outline remediation strategy, based on the results of the investigation.
Ground Conditions
Data Centre Site (Plot 6)
Within the infilled dock area, made ground is generally between 10.5m to 12.8m thick, whereas outside the
dock area, made ground is generally between 4.8m and 6.3m thick. Outside the dock area, the made
ground is underlain by Alluvium (soft to firm clay) over Kempton Park Gravel (dense sand and gravel) to a
depth of about 10m.
Made ground/Kempton Park Gravel is underlain by stiff to very stiff, high to very high strength, London Clay
to a depth of about 25m overlying the Harwich Formation strata comprising stiff slightly sandy clay (3 to 5m
thick) over the Lambeth Group strata comprising interbedded stiff to hard clay and dense to very dense
sand to a depth of 41.8m to 44.5m bgl. Lambeth Group strata is underlain by the Thanet Sand comprising
very dense sand to a depth of about 58m bgl overlying the low becoming medium density Chalk. No soft
zones or voids were recorded in the Chalk to a depth of 65m bgl.
Indigo – Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment i

Future Office Development Site (Plot 8)
Available historical boreholes recorded the made ground in this area to a depth of 12.5m bgl overlying
London Clay to a depth of about 26.5m bgl. The current investigation (trial pits only) recorded made ground
to extend below 4.0m.
Groundwater
Based on the monitoring records and site observations, the recorded shallow groundwater level of 4.0m to
4.3m bgl (about 1.3m to 2.0m AOD) within made ground in the infilled dock may be artificially raised as a
consequence of water being in hydraulic continuity with the nearby Rivers Lea and Thames. Based on the
monitoring records and available information from the EA, it is considered the piezometric level of (-)12m
AOD may be appropriate for the aquifers underlying the London Clay at the site.
Relict Dock Wall and Obstructions in Data Centre Site
The trial pitting and geophysical survey have confirmed the alignment and depth of the relict dock wall and
identified a number of (underground) obstructions within the site. Details of these obstructions including the
relict dock wall location are given in the text. These should be taken into account in relation to proposed
excavation and pile foundation design at the site.
Existing Road Tunnel and Obstructions in Future Proposed Office Building Site
The East India Dock Road Tunnel crosses the southern part of the site, running in a northeast to southwest
direction. The tunnel location has been confirmed by the tunnel survey undertaken by Greenhatch Group
(2011) and the geophysical survey undertaken by Bentham Geoconsulting (2013). With the exception of the
existing tunnel, no evidence of other large obstructions were identified west of the tunnel by the geophysical
survey.
Relict Wells and Current Monitoring Wells
As part of the development scheme, both relict wells and current monitoring wells have to be
decommissioned prior to commencement of the foundation works. The decommissioning works must be
undertaken in accordance with ‘Good practice for decommissioning redundant wells and boreholes’
published by the Environment Agency (2012).
UXO Risk
A detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment was carried out for the site by Bactec in 2013,
who considered the UXO risk at the site to be medium to high.
The mitigation measures recommended by the detailed UXO report should be followed during site
redevelopment in order to reduce risk from potential UXOs.
Indigo – Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment ii

Engineering Considerations and Recommendations
General
As the detailed scheme design has not yet been completed, only the preliminary loads and general scheme
layout provided by the design team have been used in this assessment.
Foundation Design Recommendations – Data Centre Development
Based on the proven ground conditions revealed by this investigation, the proposed building layout and the
anticipated structural loads, it is considered that large diameter bored piles taken into the Thanet Sand are
likely to be the most suitable foundation solution for the proposed 8 storey data centre.
A preliminary piling assessment has been carried out in this report for bored piles to assess the likely piling
depths/capacities in different parts of the site due to the significantly varying ground conditions across the
development area.
Due to the presence of a significantly varying thickness of made ground underlying the building footprint
area and in view of possibly currently ongoing consolidation settlement considerations, it is recommended
that a suspended ground floor slab is adopted for the proposed structure.
Foundations for Underground Tanks
Based on the proven ground conditions revealed by this investigation, the proposed layouts and the
anticipated applied loads, it is considered that a CFA/bored pile foundation (750mm diameter) taken to
London Clay is likely to be the most suitable foundation solution for the proposed underground tanks.
Gas Protection Measures
No radon protective measures are required for the proposed development. Based on the monitoring results
to date and the revealed ground conditions, the gas regime at the site classifies as Characteristic Gas
Situation 2 (CS2 – low hazard potential) in accordance with Table 1, BS 8485:2007.
In accordance with Table 2 in BS8485 the required gas protection value for a commercial building is 2. The
guidance given in Table 3 of BS should be used in choosing an appropriate combination of protective
measures for the proposed structures at the site.
Ongoing consolidation of the relatively recent made ground in the dock area is likely to result in voids or
pockets of voids forming below the slab long term and hence the risk of methane and or carbon dioxide
accumulating in the void(s) under the membrane. However, it is considered that subfloor ventilation with
active abstraction/pressurization is not required for a number of reasons as explained in the text.
Indigo – Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment iii

Ground Aggressivity
Pile caps, concrete slabs, concrete beams and underground concrete tanks are all anticipated to be
founded in shallow made ground well above 1m AOD. Based on the test results, the site soils are classified
as ACEC class AC-2 and the design sulphate class for buried concrete in contact with the ground as DS-2
in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1:2005. Based on the test results, it is considered the design class
for the concrete piles to be DS-2 in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1:2005.
Excavations and Groundwater Control
It is possible that limited quantities of perched groundwater will be encountered in shallow excavations, less
than 4m deep and this would be able to be managed by traditional sump pumping methods.
Due to the nature of the made ground, it is anticipated that the excavations are likely to be unstable even in
the short term and that suitable protection techniques like shoring, trench sheets or benching should be
adopted to ensure the stability of the side walls during excavation.
Reuse of Site Won Soils
At this stage, no cut and fill figures are available. It is anticipated the excavated materials will be largely
taken off site. However, if it is proposed to use site won soils within the scheme, these materials should be
classified and engineered in accordance with the Highways Agency Specification for Highway Works,
Series 600 – Earthworks.
Contamination Constraints to Development
Site Contamination and Risk Assessment
No significantly elevated hydrocarbon or heavy metals concentrations have been identified within the
shallow depth soil materials at the site with respect human health in the context of a commercial end use.
However, localised amosite asbestos was identified at a single location at a concentration only just above
the detection limits. Only one sample out of 17 detected any asbestos fibres, and, the location at which the
asbestos has been detected is beneath a proposed structure. Therefore, it is considered that this will break
the pollutant linkage to future site users. It is recommended that appropriate control measures are
employed during the enabling and construction works (including potential excavation/handling of asbestos
containing soils) to mitigate the identified potential risk to site workers.
Slightly elevated leachable concentrations of TPH and dissolved phase TPH within groundwater samples
have been identified at the site. However, these elevated concentrations are not considered to represent a
significant risk to controlled waters due to the presence of an aquiclude (London Clay) above the principal
aquifer, and the anticipated significant reduction in infiltration due to the proposed hard-surfacing and
construction proposed for the site.
Indigo – Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment iv

The risk to human health resulting from the attack and permeation of new water supply pipes from potential
contaminants in made ground (TPH) is considered low (for PE pipe material only). However, it is
recommended that all the chemical tests results are forwarded to the relevant water supplier to determine
their requirements for upgraded pipe material or services protection.
An outline remediation strategy has been proposed to render the site suitable for a ‘commercial’ end use.
Disposal of Soil Waste
Based on the soil test results and the preliminary soil waste classification assessment undertaken, it is
considered that the majority of the made ground materials at the site are likely to classify as ‘inert’ waste for
offsite disposal purposes, with some of the made ground materials likely to classify as ‘non-hazardous’ or
possibly as ‘hazardous’ waste. This preliminary assessment will require confirmation prior to any disposal
of soil materials from site.
It should be noted that the above conclusions relate to the specific samples of made ground tested during
this investigation, and therefore, material excavated during re-development may not necessarily have the
same classification. It is recommended that soil waste materials varying from the samples tested (and that
are intended for offsite disposal) are analysed individually to determine the classification of the waste.
Indigo – Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment v

Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Scheme ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 The Brief.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 1
Site Description and Proposed Development ...................................................................... 3

2.1 Site Description and Topography ........................................................................................ 3
2.2 Proposed Development ....................................................................................................... 3
Background Information ...................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Sources of Information ........................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Summary of SLR Land Quality Risk Assessment Previous Phase 1 Desk Study Report ..... 4
Ground Investigation ........................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Fieldwork ............................................................................................................................. 7
4.2 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................................. 8
Ground Conditions and Properties..................................................................................... 10

5.1 Findings of the Current Ground Investigation .................................................................... 10
5.2 Dock Walls, Road Tunnel and Obstructions ...................................................................... 15
5.3 Relict Dock Wall and Obstructions in Data Centre Site ...................................................... 16
5.4 Relict wells and monitoring wells ....................................................................................... 18
5.5 UXO Survey ...................................................................................................................... 18
5.6 Engineering Properties and Behaviour .............................................................................. 18
5.7 Ground Aggressivity .......................................................................................................... 26
5.8 Gas Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 27
5.9 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 27
Geoenvironmental Assessment ......................................................................................... 29

6.1 Environmental Sampling and Testing Strategy .................................................................. 29
6.2 Risk Assessment Framework and Methodology ................................................................ 30
6.3 Discussion of Analytical Test Results ................................................................................ 31
6.4 Risk Assessment Discussion and Summary ...................................................................... 33
6.5 Conceptual Site Model ...................................................................................................... 35
6.6 Waste Acceptance Criteria and Soil Disposal .................................................................... 37
6.7 Outline Remediation Strategy and Control Measures During Construction Works ............. 37

Geotechnical Assessment and Engineering Considerations .............................................. 40
7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 40
7.2 Ground Model ................................................................................................................... 40
7.3 Relict Dock Wall and Obstructions in Data Centre Site ...................................................... 42
7.4 Road Tunnel in Future Office Building Site ........................................................................ 43
7.5 Relict Wells and Current Monitoring Wells ......................................................................... 43
7.6 UXO Risk .......................................................................................................................... 43
7.7 Archaeology ...................................................................................................................... 44
7.8 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 44
7.9 Soil Volume Change Potential ........................................................................................... 45
7.10 Foundation Design Considerations of Data Centre Development ................................... 45
7.11 Ground Gas Risk Assessment ....................................................................................... 53
7.12 Ground Aggressivity ....................................................................................................... 55
7.13 Excavations and Groundwater Control ........................................................................... 57
7.14 Reuse of Materials ......................................................................................................... 57
Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 58

8.1 Ground Conditions ............................................................................................................ 58
8.2 Engineering Considerations and Recommendations ......................................................... 59
8.3 Contamination Constraints to Development....................................................................... 61
References ........................................................................................................................ 63
Tables ............................................................................................................................... 64
Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 79
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 91
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................... 142
© This report is the copyright of Cundall Johnston & Partners LLP. It has been prepared for the sole and
confidential use of Telehouse Inter. Corp of Europe Ltd and cannot be reproduced in whole or in part or
relied upon or used by any third party without the express written authorisation of Cundall Johnston &
Partners LLP. If any third party whatsoever comes into possession of this report, they rely on it at their own
risk and Cundall accepts no duty or responsibility (including in negligence) to any such third party.

Introduction
1.1 The Scheme
The Client (Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd. [Telehouse]) propose to construct a new 8
storey data centre with associated infrastructure at the subject site. In addition, it is also proposed that an
office building may be constructed in the southern part of the subject site in the future.
A site location plan is presented as Figure 1.
1.2 The Brief
Cundall Geotechnical was commissioned by Telehouse to commission, manage and report on a ground
investigation for the proposed development. Cundall procured the services of ground investigation
specialists (ground investigation contractor and geophysical surveyor) to undertake the intrusive ground
investigation and geophysical survey works and provided technical supervision while these works were
carried out.
Previously, a Land Quality Risk Assessment (analogous to a Phase I Desk Study) was carried out for the
proposed development by SLR Consulting Ltd.
This report summarises the findings of the ground investigation and presents a geotechnical and
geoenvironmental assessment of ground conditions revealed by the investigation. This report also presents
a Tier 1/2 generic risk assessment and conceptual site model for assessment of site contamination and an
outline remediation strategy, based on the results of the investigation.
1.3 Limitations
The investigation of the site has been carried out to provide sufficient information on the geotechnical and
geoenvironmental characteristics of the ground at the development site and to provide a reasonable
assessment of the environmental risks together with engineering and development implications.
The opinions provided and recommendations given in this report are based on a visual site inspection,
reference to accessible referenced historical records, the information provided by the third parties, the
results of ground investigations as detailed in the text and the factual data provided by the specialist ground
investigation contractor and geophysical surveyor. Whilst every effort has been made to interpret the
conditions between the investigation locations, such information is only indicative and liability cannot be
accepted for its accuracy. There may be exceptional ground conditions elsewhere on the site which have
not been disclosed by the investigation and which have therefore not been taken into account in this report.
The test results obtained can only be regarded as a limited but likely representative sample range,
Indigo – Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Assessment Page 1 of 147

assessed against current guidelines. The possibility of the presence of contaminants, possibly in higher
concentrations elsewhere on the site or the presence of encountering ground conditions at variance with the
logs elsewhere on the site cannot be discounted.
The scope of the investigation was selected based on the preliminary development proposals provided by
the design team and may be inappropriate to another form of development. The assessments carried out
and recommendations made in this report with regard to foundation and infrastructure design are based on
the preliminary details provided by the design team and the results of ground investigation at discrete
locations. If the ground conditions are found to vary from those revealed by the investigation, or the
structural details and layout of the proposed buildings, structures and infrastructure are revised, Cundall
reserves the right to carry out further assessments and revise their recommendations in line with the
revised scheme details.
The ground investigation was conducted and this report has been prepared for the private and confidential
use of the Client (Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd.) only and cannot be reproduced in
whole or in part or relied upon by any third party for any use whatsoever without the express written
authorisation of Cundall. If any third party whatsoever comes into possession of this report, they rely on it at
their own risk and Cundall accepts no duty or responsibility (including in negligence) to any such third party.

Site Description and Proposed Development
2.1 Site Description and Topography
The subject site (incorporating both Plots 6 and 8) occupies the eastern extent of the Telehouse Docklands
Campus. The site is bounded to the west by Oregano Drive and to the east by Lemouth Road. Plots 6 and
8 are separated by Sorrel Lane. The approximate National Grid Reference for the site is 538857 E, 181098
N.
The two plots are predominantly grass covered with the exception of the central area of the site to the north
(Plot 6) of Sorrel Lane which is covered with granular hardcore / gravel. Both sites lie approximately 1m
above surrounding road/footpath levels but are generally flat lying. Earth bunds some 2m higher than levels
within the two sites are present around the perimeter of both plots to prevent unauthorised access.
2.2 Proposed Development
Telehouse propose to construct an 8 storey data centre and associated infrastructure on Plot 6 (north of the
site) and also in the future to construct an office building and associated infrastructure on Plot 8 (south of
the site).
Details of the proposed scheme are presented as Figure 2.

Background Information
3.1 Sources of Information
The following reference sources, providing background information, were reviewed, with relevant
information utilised during the preparation of this report:
1. SLR Consulting Ltd. (November 201r). ‘Land Quality Risk Assessment, Project Indigo, Docklands
Campus, London’,. SLR Ref: 403.04550.00001.
2. Concept (March 2014) Project Indigo, London - Site Investigation Report (Final) Report No. 13/2591 – FR
03.
3. BACTEC International Ltd (August 2013) Project Indigo London - Explosive Ordnance Threat
Assessment. Report No 5080TA.
4. Bentham Geoconsulting (January 2014) Site: Oregano Drive London – Project Indigo, Geophysical
Survey of Southern Site, Report No. BGC591_South.
5. Bentham Geoconsulting (January 2014) Site: Oregano Drive London – Project Indigo, Geophysical
Survey of Northern Site, Report No. BGC591_North.
References 1 to 3 should be read in conjunction with this report in order to understand its context.
References 4 and 5 are appended to this report in Appendix A.
3.2 Summary of SLR Land Quality Risk Assessment Previous Phase 1 Desk
Study Report
In November 2012, SLR Consulting Ltd. prepared a ‘Land Quality Risk Assessment’ (LQRA) for the
proposed development. This report fundamentally meets the requirements of a Phase I Desk Study with
respect to model planning requirements.
The scope of the LQRA was as follows:
 Determination of the site’s historical, environmental and geological setting by undertaking:

 Site walkover inspection;
 Review of historic mapping;
 Review of environmental data;
 Review of geological data and previous GI reports;
 Production of a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) and associated preliminary risk assessment
identifying potential pollutant linkages.

The key findings of the SLR LQRA are briefly summarised below. Should further detail pertaining to the
environmental geological or historical setting of the site, reference should be made to the SLR LQRA:
Land Use History
From at least 1867 until sometime between 1970 and 1987, the majority (west and central parts) of the site
occupied the north eastern extent of the Eastern Dock. The dock wall is indicated to pass along the
northern and the eastern part of the site. Following the infilling of the dock the present layout of the site is
recorded and at some point recently, it appears that the central part of Plot 6 (north of Sorrel Lane) appears
to have been used as a temporary car park although this was decommissioned by the time of the SLR
LQRA.
The East India Dock Road Tunnel is recorded as passing below Plot 8 (south of Sorrel Lane) by 1992.
Site Geology
SLR indicated that within the infilled dock the ground conditions comprised made ground directly underlain
by London Clay, in turn, underlain by water bearing sands and gravels.
Outwith the infilled dock, the made ground present to ground surface was indicated to be underlain by
Alluvium and River Terrace Gravels, in turn, underlain by the London Clay.
Hydrology and Hydrogeology
The nearest surface water feature is the River Lea, between 100m and 200m east of the site. The River
Thames is located some 350m south of the site.
No groundwater abstraction points or groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs) are recorded within
500m of the site.
Landfills
A historic landfill site (Eastern Dock) is recorded on site.
Risk Assessment
SLR identified the following potential pollutant linkages at the development site:
1. Human health risk via contaminants entering new water supply infrastructure.
2. Built environmental damage via ground aggressivity to buried concrete.
3. Pollution of Controlled Waters.

4. Human health and built environment risk from hazardous gases.
5. Human health risk from airborne asbestos.
6. Human health risk from contamination imported to site in an uncontrolled manner during construction.
7. Human health risks from unidentified sources of contamination.
The above potential pollutant linkages were used to target the current intrusive investigation.

Ground Investigation
4.1 Fieldwork
A ground investigation was scoped based on a review of all available information and taking into
consideration the preliminary layout and general details of the proposed scheme and site access conditions.
The investigation and laboratory testing was carried out in general accordance with BS 5930:1999+A2
2010, BS 1377, BS EN 1997, BS EN 14688-2, BS EN 14689-1, BS 1377, BS10175:2011 and BS EN ISO
22475-1. In addition, ground aggressivity tests were undertaken in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1.
Groundwater sampling was undertaken in accordance with BS6068-6.11:2009. The fieldwork was carried
out between 12 November and 20 December 2013 by Concept Engineering Consultants Ltd.
A down hole magnetic UXO survey/supervision by UXO specialist was undertaken in all exploratory hole
locations during the fieldworks.
The ground investigation comprised the following:
 5 No. cable percussive boreholes (CBH1, CBH2, CBH3B, CBH4 to CBH5, inclusive), extended to a
maximum depth of 26.3m, excluding CBH2 which was abandoned at 8.7m bgl due to encountering
a strong magnetic (possible UXO) anomaly at this depth. Borehole CBH2 was re-drilled twice in
adjacent positions (within 3m), but stopped on both occasions at 2.5m depth due to concrete
obstructions. In addition, CBH3 was also re-drilled twice due to concrete obstructions at a shallow
depth of 1.4 and 2.4m;
 3 No. boreholes (CBH1, CBH4 and CBH5) were extended to a depth of 65m into the Chalk
formation by rotary drilling using Wireline Geobore S technique. Borehole CBH3B was terminated
at a shallower depth of 52.5m bgl within the Thanet Sand formation due to drilling difficulties (casing
lost at 52.5m bgl);
 4 No. rotary cored holes (C1, C3, C5 and C7), using ODEX technique, was undertaken to a
maximum depth of 15m to define the geometry and base of the dock wall structure identified in
historical records;
 13 No. machine dug trial pits (CTP1 to CTP7 in the data centre site and CTP8, CTP8a to CTP12 in
the office building site) were undertaken to a maximum depth of 4.2m to inspect the shallow soils
and to collect environmental samples;
 7 No. machine dug trial trenches (CTT1 to CTT7) were undertaken to a maximum depth of 6.5m to
locate and inspect the relict dock wall and other possible obstructions at the site.
 Hand dug inspection pits excavated to 1.2m were completed prior to commencing all cable
percussion and rotary core holes;
 Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were generally carried out at regular intervals in the boreholes;

 3 No. 50mm combined gas/groundwater monitoring standpipes were installed in selected cable
percussion holes (CBH1, CBH3 and CBH5), with response zones generally between 2.2.m and
8.2m in the made ground, to allow for the measurement of groundwater levels, ground gas
concentrations (oxygen, carbon dioxide, methane) and gas flow rates;
 2 No. 19mm piezometers were installed in selected boreholes (BH1 and BH4), with tips at 45.5m
and 47m bgl, to allow for the measurement of piezometric levels in the Thanet Sand formation;
 6 No. gas and groundwater monitoring visits were undertaken between 9 January and 7 March
2014.
Detailed engineering logs for the exploratory holes, as well as the gas and groundwater monitoring results
are contained in the Factual Report produced for the site by Concept Engineering Consultants Ltd. The
exploratory hole location plan is presented as Figure 3.
In addition, a geophysical survey was undertaken by a specialist company (Bentham Geoconsulting Ltd.) to
define the alignment and depth of the existing road tunnel in the southern (proposed office building) part of
site and to confirm the location of relict dock wall and to identify possible obstructions in the northern
(proposed data centre) part of the site. the results and findings of the geophysical survey are given in the
reports produced for the site by Bentham Geoconsulting Ltd. and included as Appendix A of this report.
4.2 Laboratory Testing
The following laboratory tests were undertaken on selected soil and groundwater samples in order to
assess the engineering properties of the site soils and to assess the contamination status of the site.
Geotechnical Testing:
 Atterberg limits, natural moisture content determination and Particle Size Distribution (PSD) tests
for the general classification of soils;
 Undrained shear strength tests on U100 samples in triaxial compression without the measurement
of pore pressure;
 Geochemical tests of soil and groundwater samples to determine ground aggressivity to concrete;
 Natural water content, intact dry density/ saturation moisture content test on chalk.

Chemical (Contamination) Testing:
A total of 14 soil samples were subjected to laboratory analysis for some or all of the following
determinants:
 Metals [arsenic, cadmium, chromium (III and VI), copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, zinc],
cyanide (free), pH, sulphate (total and water soluble), sulphide, soil organic matter (SOM), phenol,
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH total and speciated USEPA 16), Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon (C5-C40 aliphatic/aromatic split in accordance with TPHCWG) and asbestos.
A single sample was subject to asbestos quantification test due to the asbestos screen test result returning
a positive result.
Four soil leachate samples and two groundwater samples were subjected to laboratory testing for the
following determinants:
 Metals [arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, zinc], pH, cyanide,
phenol, sulphate, sulphide, and PAH (USEPA 16 speciated) and TPH (banded as GRO, DRO and
MRO).
In addition, five Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) tests were undertaken on samples of made ground
Geotechnical laboratory testing was carried out by Concept, a UKAS accredited laboratory, in accordance
with BS 1377:1990 and BS EN 1997 Part 2. The geochemical testing and testing for ground aggressivity to
concrete in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1:2005 was subcontracted to Derwentside Environmental
Testing Services (DETS), a UKAS and MCERTS accredited laboratory. Chemical testing was also
subcontracted to DETS. Copies of the test results sheets are included in the Concept Factual Report.

Ground Conditions and Properties
5.1 Findings of the Current Ground Investigation
A summary of the ground conditions encountered during the current ground investigation is given below:
Data Centre Site – outwith the infilled dock (CBH1, CBH2, CTP2):
Strata From To Thickness General Description

(m bgl) (m bgl) (m)
Made Ground GL 4.8 – 6.3 4.8 – 6.3 Sandy, silty gravel to gravelly clay with
inclusions of brick, concrete, chalk, flint,
rubble and reinforced bar. Occasional
cobbles and/or boulders of brick and
asphalt.
Alluvium 4.8 – 6.3 7.2 2.4 Firm, gravelly clay with pockets of very
soft clay, silt, sand and rare pyrite.
Kempton Park 7.2 10.0 2.8 Dense, grey, sandy gravel with localised
Gravel stiff, gravelly, sandy clay.
London Clay 10.0 25.9 15.9 Stiff to very stiff, very closely fissured,
greyish brown, slightly silty clay with
occasional thin sand/silt bands. Rare
pyrite in CBH1.
Harwich Formation 25.9 28.9 3.0 Stiff, slightly sandy clay with pockets of
sand and well-rounded pebbles.
Occasional shell fragments and lignite
materials.
Lambeth Group – 28.9 32.9 4.0 Dense, grey, fine sand with occasional
Woolwich thin laminations of light grey, silty clay and
Formation rare shell fragments and lignite materials.
Lambeth Group – 32.9 36.4 3.5 Hard, grey to green, shelly to silty clay
Reading Formation with frequent calcrete nodules.
Lambeth Group – 36.4 42.0 5.6 Dense, green, slightly silty sand with clay
Upnor Formation bands.
Thanet Sand 42.0 57.9 15.9 Dense to very dense, greenish grey sand
with rare shell fragments and fine pebbles
.
Chalk 57.9 >65 Not proven Chalk

Data Centre Site – within the infilled dock (CBH3B, CBH4, CBH5, C1, C3, C5, C7, CTP1 to CTP7, CTT1 to
CTT7):

(m bgl) (m bgl) (m)
Made Ground GL 10.5 – 12.8 10.5 – 12.8 Sandy to silty gravel, gravelly sand to
gravelly clay with inclusions of brick,
concrete and occasional chalk, flint, wood,
metal, shell, glass, plastic, pipe, wire and
geotextile. Occasional cobbles and/or
boulders of brick, concrete and asphalt.
London Clay 10.5 – 12.8 25.0 – 25.5 12.2 – 15.0 Stiff to very stiff, very closely fissured,
slightly silty clay with occasional thin
sand/silt bands. Rare pyrite noted in
CBH3B and CBH4.
Harwich Formation 25.0 – 25.5 29.9 – 30.3 4.4 – 5.3 Stiff, slightly sandy clay to dense slightly
silty, shelly, find sand with pockets of
pebbles. Occasional shells and pyrite.
Lambeth Group – 29.9 -30.3 35.4- 35.8 5.5 – 5.6 Interbedded, dense sand and stiff to very
Woolwich stiff, thinly laminated clay. Occasional
Formation shells noted.
Lambeth Group – 35.4 – 35.8 36.0 – 36.5 0.5- 0.7 Stiff to hard silty clay with abundant
Reading Formation calcrete nodules and occasional shells.
Lambeth Group – 36.0- 36.5 41.8 – 44.5 5.3 – 8.4 Dense to very dense, slightly silty sand
Upnor Formation with clay bands and well-rounded pebbles
and flint.
Thanet Sand 41.8 – 44.5 57.8 – 58.0 13.8 – 16.2 Very dense, slity sand to fine sand with
rare clay bands.
Chalk 57.8 – 58.0 >65 Not proven Chalk

Office Building Site – (CTP8 to CTP11):

(m bgl) (m bgl) (m)
Topsoil GL 0.1 0.1
Made Ground GL >4.0 >4.0 Gravelly, sandy clay to gravelly sand with
gavel of flint, brick and concrete.
Occasional cobbles of brick and concrete
noted. Localised relict tarmac over type 1
subbase in CTP10.
Ground Conditions
The following descriptions of various strata identified at the site have been based on the exploratory hole
logs from the current investigation undertaken at the subject site by Concept in November/December 2013.
Representative geotechnical cross sections A-A’ to D-D’ are presented as Figures 4a to 4d, including the
borehole records from the previous ground investigation undertaken in 2006. The locations of the cross
sections are shown in Figure 3. A summary of the dock wall details and other obstructions indicated by the
intrusive investigation and geophysical surveys is given in Figure 5.
Made Ground
Outwith the infilled dock area, made ground was generally between 4.8m and 6.3m deep.
Within the infilled dock area, the recorded made ground was generally found to extend to a depth of
between 10.5m and 12.8m bgl. Immediately behind the dock wall (outwith the infilled dock), the rotary probe
holes recorded made ground backfill to a depth of between 9m and 10.5m bgl.
In the southern part of the site (future office building development, within the infilled dock area), made
ground was proven to be in excess of 4.0m bgl. However, available historical boreholes in this area
recorded made ground thickness to a depth of 11.7m.
The made ground (excluding the topsoil) at the site was found to predominately comprise gravelly sand to
gravelly sandy clay with inclusions of concrete, brick, flint and occasional chalk, wood, metal, shell, glass,
plastic, pipe, shell, wire and geotextile. Occasional cobbles and/or boulders of brick, concrete and asphalt
were recorded within the made ground.
Localised cohesive made ground comprising soft to very soft, dark to grey, sandy, gravelly clay with
occasional decayed wood fragments/organic substance was recorded at 6.1m and 7.7m bgl in CBH3 and

CBH5, respectively. In addition, made ground of soft clay was also encountered at a depth of 11.2m in
CBH4.
In the southern part of the site, localised 200mm thick relict tarmac over type 1 sub-base was recorded at
0.5m bgl in CTP10.
Information relating to the relict dock wall and concrete obstructions encountered within the made ground
are given in Sections 5.2 and 5.3.
Alluvium
Outwith the infilled dock area, made ground was found to be underlain by a layer of gravelly clay (Alluvium)
in CBH1 and CBH2 at 4.8m and 6.3m, respectively.
Alluvium generally comprised firm, locally very soft, dark brown to greenish grey mottled light brown,
gravelly clay with pockets of sand, silt and rare pyrite. The base of this unit was proven at 7.2m bgl in
CBH1.
Alluvium, between 1.3m to 2.9m thick, was recorded at depths between 3.8m and 5.0m in available
historical boreholes.
Kempton Park Gravel
The Kempton Park Gravel formation was encountered at between 7.2m and 10.0m depth in CBH1. This
unit comprised dense sandy gravel over a thin layer of stiff gravelly sandy clay. The gravel comprised
angular to well-rounded find to coarse flint.
A single historical borehole in the northeast of the site recorded the Kempton Park Gravel unit, 2.2m thick,
at 6.7m bgl.
London Clay
Beneath the made ground/Kempton Park Gravel, London Clay was recorded in all deep boreholes (CBH1,
CBH3B, CBH4 and CBH5) at depths of between 10.0m and 12.8m bgl. London Clay was generally found to
comprise stiff to very stiff, very closely fissured greyish brown slightly silty clay, with occasional thin
sandy/silt bands and rare bioturbation, foraminifera. In addition, rare pyrite was recorded at 25.7m bgl in
CBH1, at 18.5m bgl CBH3B and at 12.8m in CBH4.
The base of the London Clay was determined at depths between 25.0m and 25.9m bgl in the northern part
of the site (proposed Data Centre site). The findings of the current investigation generally correlate well with
the base of London Clay at about 25m and 27m depth recorded in historical boreholes.

Harwich Formation
The London Clay was found to be underlain by the Harwich Formation. The thickness of this unit varied
from about 3.0m in the north to 5.3m in the south of the data centre site. This unit comprised stiff, brownish
grey, slightly sandy clay to dark grey/green, slightly silty, shelly, fine sand with pockets of black well
rounded pebbles, occasional bioturbation, foraminifera, shell fragments and lignite materials. In addition,
rare pyrite was recorded at 29.5m bgl in CBH4.
Lambeth Group
The Harwich Formation is underlain by the Lambeth Group. The base of this this unit was determined at
depths between 41.8m and 44.5m bgl. At the site, the Lambeth Group comprises three distinct geological
units: the Woolwich, Reading and Upnor formations.
The upper unit of the Lambeth Group, the Woolwich Formation, generally comprised interbedded, dense,
grey sand and stiff to very stiff, grey thinly laminated clay with occasional shell, bioturbation and lignite
materials. The thickness of this unit was found to be from 4.0m in the north to 5.6m in the south at the data
centre site.
The underlying Reading Formation comprises stiff to hard, greenish grey to mottled dark grey, silty clay with
abundant calcrete nodules and occasional shells and bioturbation. This unit was found to be 3.5m thick in
the north of the site but it was only 0.5m to 0.7m thick in the central and southern parts of the data centre
site.
The lower unit of Lambeth Group, Upnor Formation, was recorded as dense to very dense, green, slightly
silty sand with clay bands and well-rounded pebbles and flint. The thickness of this unit was recorded
between 5.3m and 8.4m at the data centre site.
None of the historical exploratory holes at the subject site extended more than 1m below the London Clay.
However, the Faber Maunsell investigation (2008) recorded the base of Lambeth group at a depth of about
41m and 42m bgl at the adjacent site (Telehouse West) which is slightly shallower than the findings of the
current investigation.
Thanet Sand
The Lambeth Group was found to be underlain by the Thanet Sand, comprising very dense, green, slightly
silty sand to fine sand with rare thin clay bands. The top of this unit was between 41.8m and 44.5m bgl at
the data centre site. Where proven, the base of this unit was determined at between 57.8m and 58.0m bgl.
The thickness of the Thanet Sand was found to be generally between 13.8m and 16.2m across the data
centre site. None of the available historical boreholes in the subject site and surrounding area were
extended below the Thanet Sand formation.

Chalk
Chalk was encountered at about 57.8m to 58.0m bgl in three boreholes (CBH1, CBH4 and CBH5). The
base of the Chalk was proven to a maximum depth of 65m bgl, however its full thickness remained
unproven.
No soft zones or voids were recorded in the Chalk to depths up to 65m bgl. In addition, SPT tests
undertaken in the Chalk unit all recorded refusal. No recovery was recorded at 60.9m to 62.4m bgl in CBH1
and 61m to 65m bgl in CBH4. This may be related to the presence of coarse flint gravels, preventing
recovery during drilling.
Some Chalk sections in boreholes CBH1 and CBH4 were described as ‘structureless’ Chalk. However, this
may be due to the disturbance of the strata during drilling rather than the insitu condition (Grade) of the
Chalk. The SPT results recorded refusal above or below the zones described as structureless Chalk,
indicating Grade A Chalk in these depth ranges.
In the sections with good recovery, RQD was recorded to be between 31% and 80%. In addition, the strata
in these units were generally described as ‘weak’.
5.2 Dock Walls, Road Tunnel and Obstructions
The existing East India Dock Road Tunnel crosses the southern part of the Project Indigo site (proposed
future office building location), running in a northeast to southwest direction.
Initially, three hand dug inspection pits (CHTT1 to CHTT3, up to 2m deep) were proposed to define the
location and level of the west edge of the East India Dock Road Tunnel. However, these inspection pits
were cancelled due to the top of the tunnel potentially being over 2m bgl as indicated by Figure 2-3 in Land
Quality Risk Assessment report (SLR, 2013). Instead, a geophysical survey was proposed to define the
exact location of the west edge of the tunnel and any possible obstructions west of the existing tunnel in the
southern part of the site. The survey was undertaken by Bentham Geoconsulting Ltd. (Bentham) on 27 and
28 November 2013, using electromagnetic conductivity and resistivity methods. A copy of the geophysical
report prepared by Bentham Geoconsulting is presented in Appendix A.
The conductivity data plan prepared by Bentham (Appendix A) indicates that the tunnel location identified
by the geophysical survey agrees with the location identified on the survey plan prepared by Greenhatch
Group (August 2011).
Three resistivity profiles were undertaken in a general north to south direction, across the tunnel. The edges
of the tunnel (including coordinates) have been indicated on the resistivity cross section profiles. The tunnel
edges shown on the resistivity profiles agreed with those indicated by the conductivity survey data. The top
of the tunnel, estimated to be at 2.5m to 3.0m bgl, agrees with the tunnel survey undertaken by Greenhatch
Group (2011), which recorded the internal tunnel roof level at about 3.0m to 4.3m bgl (2.9m AOD in the east

and 3.2m AOD on the west). Available records (Mott Macdonald drawing number 2065/S/300 dated 5/93)
indicate an RC tunnel roof slab of about 1.2m thick.
The resistivity survey indicated potentially two different infill types west of the tunnel. Except for the existing
tunnel, no evidence of other large obstructions were identified within the future office building site (west of
the tunnel).
5.3 Relict Dock Wall and Obstructions in Data Centre Site
In order to investigate the relict dock wall and survey the location, nature of construction and dimensions of
the wall, five machine dug trenches (CTT1 to CTT5) were undertaken using a JCB to a maximum depth of
4.5m. Based on the findings of the machine dug trenches, four drill cores, using ODEX technique, were
carried out to prove the depth and extent of the relict dock wall. In addition, a geophysical survey was
undertaken to confirm the dock wall alignment and to detect other possible obstructions within the northern
(data centre) site. Following the geophysical survey, supplementary trial pitting using a 3600 tracked
excavator to a maximum depth of 6m was undertaken (CTT6 and CTT7). Figure 5b within the Bentham
Consulting Report (presented in this report as Appendix A) indicates the conductivity data overlain with the
trial pitting data for the northern site.
A plan indicating the obstructions identified from the intrusive investigation and geophysical surveys is
provided in Figure 5.
Northern section of the dock wall
Three trial trenches (CTT1, CTT2 and CTT4) extended to a maximum depth of 4m bgl, recorded that the
dock wall is of brick construction. The top of the wall was encountered at a depth of between 1.3m and
1.6m bgl (about 4.8m to 5.1m AOD) with the width recorded as 1.8m. In addition, a brick buttress (about
0.9m wide and 1.0m long) was recorded in CTT1 at about 1.4m depth immediately behind the dock wall.
Rotary probe hole C01 (extended down through the dock wall) recorded that the brick dock wall extended to
a depth of 11m, founded on London Clay. Two other rotary probe holes, C03 and C05, were undertaken at
2.5m and 3.0m from the external wall surface and another probe hole, C07, was undertaken at 2.0m from
the internal surface (Figure 3). Drill holes C03, C05 and C07 were extended to a depth of 15m bgl and no
evidence of the relict dock wall was identified.
Eastern section of the dock wall
Trial trench CTT3, extended to a maximum depth of 4.0m, recorded that the upper section of the dock wall
comprised 200mm thick concrete over brick. The dock wall was encountered at a depth of 1.4m bgl (about
4.9m AOD) with the width recorded as 1.0m. No buttressing was recorded in CTT3, however, a brick
buttress (about 0.9m wide and 1.0m long) was recorded in CTT1 at about 1.4m depth immediately behind
the dock wall.

Obstructions
A relict concrete structure (former hardstanding/slab?), between 200mm and 300mm thick, was
encountered between 0.5m and 1.4m in CTT1, CTT2, CTT3, CTT4 and CTT5. In addition, concrete
obstructions were recorded at shallow depths, between about 1.5 and 2.7m bgl, in CBH2A, CBH2B, CBH3A
and CBH3B.
A large relict concrete structure (3.1m wide) was recorded about 9.8m south of the brick dock wall at a
depth of between 2.3m and 4.0m bgl in CTT5. The base of this structure was deeper than 4.5m bgl and
remained unproven. However, this concrete structure was not observed in the adjacent trial trench CTT6.
CTT7 recorded two vertical concrete piles at depth of 2.8m bgl (about 3.1m AOD) with pile to pile spacing of
7m. These two piles were about 1m in diameter and about 5m south of the dock wall. The pile was proven
to over 6.5m depth in CTT6. Resistivity Line 1 of the geophysical survey recorded a high resistivity anomaly
on chainage 29m at about 2.5m depth. The findings of both the geophysical survey and trial trench
excavations suggest a possible a line of piles (possibly at 7m spacings centre to centre) approximately 7m
south of the dock wall.
It is possible that a similar line of piles is also present in front (west) of the eastern section of the relict dock
wall, although not investigated during the current investigation.
A concrete beam (400mm wide, 300mm thick), running north to south, was recorded at 2.7m bgl (about
3.6m AOD) in CTT3, whereas another concrete beam (500mm wide, 300mm thick), running east to west
direction, was founded to be at 2.5m depth (about 3.4m AOD) in CTT4.
In addition, the geophysical survey suggested a possible obstruction between about 0.8m and 2.8m depth
at Chainage 49m to 55m of Resistivity line 1 based on recorded high resistivity (see Figure 3 in the relevant
Bentham Geoconsulting Report in Appendix A).
A summary of the dock wall details and other obstructions encountered by the intrusive investigation and
geophysical surveys is given in Figure 5.
In addition, a 1945 historical aerial photograph from Google Earth, enclosed in the geophysical survey
report prepared by Bentham Geoconsulting (Appendix A) for the subject site, indicates vague shape
structures sitting in the north-east corner and the east of the East India Dock (centre of the Data Centre
site). This may add further weight to the possibility of possible obstructions (slabs/hardstanding) within the
building footprint. However, trial pit CTT7 up to 6m bgl did not record any evidence related to this possible
relict structure.

5.4 Relict wells and monitoring wells
There are six relict/pre-existing wells within the Project Indigo Site (2 No. in the data centre site and 4 No.
within the future office site) the relict wells are detailed in the SLR LQRA Report dated November 2013. The
location of the wells is indicated on Figure 5.
Three wells within the future office site (plot 8) are recorded as 50mm diameter with base at 1.45 to (-
)5.16m AOD with a single well recorded to be 19mm diameter with the base was unknown.
The two wells within the data centre site (Plot 6) are recorded as 300mm diameter but the depth of these
wells was not stated.
5.5 UXO Survey
The UXO assessment undertaken by Bactec (2013) indicated that the UXO risk is medium to high for the
subject site. A UXO down hole survey was undertaken in all boreholes and all trial pitting/trenching were
undertaken in the presence of a UXO banksman.
No magnetic anomalies or any possible UXO threats were identified in the exploratory holes with the
exception of a strong magnetic anomaly recorded in CBH2 at 8.7m bgl.
5.6 Engineering Properties and Behaviour
Laboratory and in situ test results from the ground investigation have been used to determine the
geotechnical properties of the soils encountered within the site.
Table 1 summarises the laboratory and in situ results obtained during the ground investigation. The
characteristic geotechnical parameters recommended for the design of foundations and infrastructure for
the proposed development are summarised in Table 2.
Detailed test results are included in the Concept Factual Report.
Made Ground
In Situ Testing
Thirty eight SPT’s undertaken in the made ground at between 1.2m and 10.2m depth in the cable
percussion holes recorded SPT N values between 5 and 39, excluding a single refusal recorded in CBH2 at
1.2m depth, generally indicating made ground of highly variable strength/density. Refusal and high SPT N
values may be related to the presence of boulders or cobbles within this unit. A plot of SPT N value versus
depth for made ground is presented as Figure 6.

Classification Tests
No classification tests were undertaken on made ground samples except some chemical tests to determine
the aggressivity of the ground (described separately). Due to the heterogeneity of the made ground, a
conservative bulk density of 18 kN/m³ may be considered appropriate for the made ground for design
purposes.
Angle of Shearing Resistance
A characteristic angle of shearing resistance of 28° is considered appropriate for the cohesive/granular
made ground in the site area for retaining structure and underground tank design based on SPT results.
Alluvium
The Alluvium was described firm, locally soft, gravelly clay in the exploratory hole logs.
In Situ Testing
Three SPT’s undertaken in the Alluvium (gravelly clay) at between 6.2m and 8.2m depth in cable
percussion holes recorded N values between 7 and 15.
Laboratory determined moisture contents on two Alluvium samples collected from 5.2m to 7.2m depth were
44% and 65%. Atterberg limit tests scheduled on the same samples recorded plasticity indices (PI) of 52%
and 56%. Based on the results, the alluvial clay can be classified as very high to extremely high plasticity.
A bulk density of 17 kN/m³ may be considered appropriate for the alluvium materials for design purposes.
A characteristic angle of shearing resistance of 22° is considered appropriate for the Alluvium in the site
area for design based on the SPT results.
Undrained Shear Strength
Equivalent undrained shear strength (Cu) ranged between 29 kPa and 63 kPa, based on SPT N values
generally between 7 and 15, using a correlation coefficient of 4.2 based on a characteristic plasticity index
of over 50%, after Stroud (1975).

Kempton Park Gravel
The Kempton Park Gravel unit was described as dense, sandy gravel.
In Situ Testing
Three SPT’s undertaken in the Kempton Park Gravel unit of gravelly sand at between 7.2m and 9.2m depth
in CBH1 recorded a single SPT N value of 30 and two refusals.
It is considered that a representative bulk density of 21 kN/m³ may be adopted for the sand and gravel units
of the Kempton Park Gravel, based on the recommended values for ‘dense well graded sand and gravel’ in
accordance with Table 1 of BS 8002.
Although no laboratory tests were undertaken to determine the angle of shearing resistance in the sand and
gravel strata, values ranging from 36° to 41° were derived from the relationship between N values and
angle of shearing resistance after Peck et al (1967), based on N values of generally between 30 and 50
recorded in the boreholes.
A characteristic angle of shearing resistance 36° has been recommended for the sand and gravel unit,
based on a characteristic N value of 30.
London Clay
The London Clay unit is generally described as stiff to very stiff, grey, very closely fissured silty clay.
In Situ Testing
A total of twenty six SPTs undertaken in the London Clay recorded ‘N’ values between 13 and 47 (generally
between 25 and 47), from 11m to 24.5m depth, excluding a single refusal value. The relatively low N value
of 13 recorded in CBH5 at 12.5m depth is likely to be a result of water softening of the clay at this location.
In addition, the refusal value may be related to the presence of flint cobbles within this stratum.
A plot of SPT N value versus depth for London Clay is presented as Figure 6. The N values were observed
to generally increase with depth.
The moisture content of eleven samples of London Clay obtained from between 10.5m and 24m depth
ranged from 23% to 32%. Atterberg limit tests on the same samples recorded a plasticity index (PI)

between 42% and 57%, with an average PI of 49%. Based on these results the London Clay can generally
be classified as being of high to very high plasticity.
The bulk density values determined on eleven samples were between 19 kN/m³ and 20.2 kN/m³, whereas
the dry density determined on the same samples ranged from 14.3 kN/m³ to 16.2 kN/m³.
A bulk density of 19.5 kN/m³ may be considered as appropriate for London Clay underlying the site
comprising stiff, slightly silty clay.
Eleven U100 samples of London Clay (from 10.5m to 24m bgl) were scheduled for laboratory triaxial
testing. The laboratory determined undrained shear strength (Cu) values ranged from 78 kPa to 227 kPa.
Undrained shear strength values determined from the current investigation generally agreed with the Cu of
74 kPa to 225 kPa reported by the previous URS investigation (2006) based on laboratory testing and CPT
derived parameters.
Equivalent undrained shear strength values (Cu) ranged between 55 kPa and 197 kPa, based on SPT N
values ranging from 13 to 47 (excluding values >50), using a correlation coefficient of 4.2 based on a
characteristic plasticity index of 49%, after Stroud (1975).
A plot of undrained shear strength versus depth in London Clay is given in Figure 7. A characteristic depth
dependent Cu value can be determined from the following approximate relationship (based on approximate
hand drawn curve in Figure 7):
Cu (kPa) = 10 x Depth – 30 (m bgl), with a maximum value applicable of 200kPa;
Or, to relate to Ordnance Datum: Cu = 70 + 10 x (- D-4) where D is m AOD, also with a maximum limiting
value of 200kPa.
Harwich Formation
This unit variably comprises stiff, slightly sandy clay to dense, silty sand.
In Situ Testing
All seven SPTs undertaken in the Harwich Formation, from 26.3 to 29.5m bgl, recorded refusal (i.e. SPT N
>50).
The moisture content of two samples of the Harwich Formation obtained from between 25m and 25.5m
depth ranged from 24% to 26%. Atterberg limit tests on the same samples recorded a plasticity index (PI)

between 44% and 49% and liquid limits between 68% and 74%. Based on these results the cohesive
materials within the Harwich Formation can generally be classified as high plasticity clay.
Two PSD analysis by wet sieve were carried out on cohesive materials of this unit to illustrate the typical
grading. The charts demonstrate the nature of the unit and shows that the material, described as slightly
sandy clay, incorporates 89.8% to 93.1% of clay/silt, 6.9% to 10.2% of sand and no gravel.
A bulk density of 20 kN/m³ may be considered as appropriate for the Harwich Formation comprising stiff,
slightly silty clay and dense silty sand.
Although no laboratory tests were undertaken to determine the angle of shearing resistance in the granular
materials of the Harwich Formation, a value of 41° was derived from the relationship between N values and
angle of shearing resistance after Peck et al (1967), based on N value of 50.
A conservative characteristic angle of shearing resistance 33° has been recommended for the Harwich
Formation silty sand units.
An equivalent undrained shear strength value (Cu) of 210 kPa is based on an SPT N value of 50, using a
lower bound of correlation coefficient of 4.2 after Stroud (1975).
A conservative characteristic undrained shear strength of 150kPa has been recommended for the silty clay
units within the Harwich Formation based on the SPT test results and log description of ‘stiff.’
Lambeth Group – Woolwhich Formation
The Woolwhich Formation strata variably comprises interbedded stiff to very stiff, sandy clay to dense silty
sand.
In Situ Testing
Ten SPTs undertaken in this unit all recorded refusal.
The natural moisture content of three samples of Woolwich Formation strata obtained from between 30.5m
and 34.5m depth ranged from 24% to 30%. Atterberg limit tests on the same samples recorded a plasticity
index (PI) between 29% and 42% and liquid limits between 45% and 69%. Based on these results the
cohesive materials within the Woolwich Formation can generally be classified as intermediate to high
plasticity clay.

Three PSD analyses by wet sieve were carried out on cohesive materials of this unit to illustrate the typical
grading. The charts demonstrate the nature of the unit and shows that the material, described as sandy clay
incorporates 35.4% to 98.3% of clay/silt, 1.7% to 64.6% of sand and 0% to 6.4% of gravel.
A bulk density of 20 kN/m³ may be considered appropriate for the Woolwich Formation comprising stiff,
slightly silty clay and dense silty sand.
materials of the Woolwich Formation, a friction value of 410 was derived from the relationship between N
values and angle of shearing resistance after Peck et al (1967), based on N value of 50.
A conservative characteristic angle of shearing resistance 350 has been recommended for the Woolwich
Formation, taking into account the cohesive materials within this unit.
A conservative characteristic undrained shear strength of 180kPa has been recommended for the silty clay
units within the Woolwich Formation based on the SPT results and engineers description of ‘stiff to very
stiff.’
Lambeth Group – Reading Formation
The Reading Formation strata variably comprises stiff to hard, silty clay.
In Situ Testing
Two SPTs undertaken in this unit both recorded refusal.
The moisture content of a single sample obtained at 33.1m depth was 21%. Atterberg limit tests on the
same sample recorded a plasticity index (PI) 39% with a liquid limit of 64%. Based on this single result the
cohesive materials within the Reading Formation can generally be classified as high plasticity clay.
A single PSD analysis by wet sieve was carried out on this material to illustrate the typical grading. The
chart demonstrate the nature of the unit and shows that the material, described as silty, sandy clay,
incorporates 55.8% of clay/silt, 26.2% of sand and 18% of gravel.

A bulk density of 21 kN/m³ may be considered appropriate for the Reading Formation comprising stiff to
hard clay.
A characteristic undrained shear strength of 180kPa has been recommended for the silty clay within the
Reading Formation based on the SPT test results and engineers description of ‘stiff to hard.’
Lambeth Group – Upnor Formation
The Upnor formation comprises dense to very dense, slightly silty sand with locally very stiff clay.
In Situ Testing
Fifteen SPTs undertaken in this unit all recorded refusal.
A bulk density of 21 kN/m³ may be considered appropriate for the Upnor Formation generally comprising
dense sand.
materials of the Upnor Formation, a friction value of 41° was derived from the relationship between N values
and angle of shearing resistance after Peck et al (1967), based on an N value of 50.
A conservative characteristic angle of shearing resistance 35° is recommended for the Upnor Formation,
taking into account the cohesive materials within this unit.
An equivalent undrained shear strength value (Cu) of 210 kPa is based on SPT N value of 50, using a lower
bound of correlation coefficient of 4.2 after Stroud (1975).
A characteristic undrained shear strength of 200 kPa is recommended for the silty clay within the Reading
Formation based on the SPT test results and engineers description of ‘very stiff.’

Thanet Sand
This unit predominately comprises very dense sand.
In Situ Testing
Thirty one SPTs undertaken in this unit between 42.9m and 56.5m bgl all recorded refusal.
The natural moisture contents of six samples of Thanet Sand obtained from 43m to 56.9m depth were
between 22% and 33%.
The bulk density values determined on four samples were between 18.4 kN/m³ and 20.2 kN/m³, whereas
the dry density determined on the same samples ranged from 14.1 kN/m³ to 16.6 kN/m³.
A bulk density of 19.5 kN/m³ may be considered appropriate for the Thanet Sand comprising very dense
sand.
materials of the Thanet Sand, a friction value of 410 was derived from the relationship between N values
and angle of shearing resistance after Peck et al (1967), based on N value of 50.
Based on available published data in the London area, a conservative characteristic angle of shearing
resistance 36° has been recommended for the Thanet Sand for design purposes, based on some published
and unpublished test results.
Chalk
In Situ Testing
Eleven SPTs undertaken in the Chalk unit all recorded refusal.
Classification of Chalk
A geomechanical classification system developed for a site at Mundford by Ward et al (1968), known as the
Mundford Classification, was used by the engineers to grade Chalk until replaced by the grading system of
CIRIA (1994). The revised classification scheme proposed by CIRIA (1994) has been adopted in this report.
However, as it is not possible to assess the aperture thickness, discontinuity characteristics and percentage
of matrix from cable percussion boreholes in Chalk, the grades of Chalk in this investigation has been
assessed by approximate N value ranges (by comparison with Wakeling 1970 chart of N value versus
Chalk Grade).

Laboratory determined moisture contents of eight samples of Chalk obtained from depths between 59.4m
and 64.9m bgl recorded natural moisture contents ranging from 24% to 28%. No significant change in the
natural moisture content of Chalk was observed to occur within the depth range assessed. Laboratory
determined saturated moisture contents of the same samples recorded values ranging from 25% to 30%,
about 1-2% higher than the natural moisture contents.
The bulk density values determined on the Chalk samples from 58m - 59.2m bgl ranged from 1.93 to 1.97
Mg/m3, where higher density values of 1.97 Mg/m³ to 2.03 Mg/m³ were determined on samples from 59.4m
– 64.9m bgl. The dry density values determined on the Chalk samples from 58m - 59.2m bgl ranged from
1.48 to 1.55 Mg/m³ where higher density values of 1.55 Mg/m³ to 1.62 Mg/m³ were determined on samples
from 59.4m – 64.9m bgl.
Based on the saturated moisture content of 27.3% to 30.4% and the dry density of 1.48 to 1.55 Mg/m³, the
Chalk shallower than 59.4m bgl can generally be classified as low density Chalk in accordance with CIRIA
Project Report 11, 1994, ‘Foundations in Chalk’. Based on the saturated moisture content of 24.6% to
29.5% and the dry density of 1.55 to 1.62 Mg/m³, the Chalk strata below 59.4m depth can generally be
classified as medium density Chalk.
5.7 Ground Aggressivity
BRE Special Digest 1:2005 indicates that London Clay is one of the sedimentary clays most likely to contain
sulphides (e.g. pyrite).
Rare pyrite was recorded as present within the made ground at the site.
In the current investigation, twenty five samples (13 No. made ground, 2 No. Alluvium, 10 No. London Clay)
were tested in accordance with the procedures for brownfield sites where pyrite is present. The test results
are summarised in Table 3.
The water soluble sulphate concentration in thirteen made ground samples ranged from 90 mg/l to 2250
mg/l with pH ranging from 7.5 to 9.1. Tests on the same made ground samples indicated acid soluble
sulphate (total) concentrations between 0.03% and 1.7% and total potential sulphate concentrations
between 0.1% and 3.2%. The oxidisable sulphide content ranged between 0.1% and 2.78%.
The water soluble sulphate concentration in two Alluvium samples were 267mg/l and 283 mg/l with pH
values of 7.5 and 8.1. Tests on the same samples indicated an acid soluble sulphate (total) concentration of
0.11% and a total potential sulphate concentration of 0.31% to 0.46%. The oxidisable sulphide content
ranged between 0.20% and 0.35%.
The water soluble sulphate concentration in ten London Clay soil samples ranged from 249 mg/l to 1050
mg/l, with pH ranging from 7.1 to 8.1. Acid soluble sulphate (total) concentrations ranged between 0.06%

and 0.28% and total potential sulphate concentrations between 0.88% and 3.48%. The oxidisable sulphide
contents ranged between 0.82% and 3.46%.
In addition, two groundwater samples collected during the first return visit (10/01/14) were subjected to
ground aggressivity tests. The total dissolved sulphate concentration in these samples were 620 and 1100
mg/l with corresponding pH values of 7.5 and 7.6.
5.8 Gas Monitoring
Gas monitoring was carried out on six occasions between 10 January and 07 March 2014 at atmospheric
pressures ranging between 991 and 1030 mbars.
The monitoring results are summarised in Table 4. Recorded methane concentrations were negligible (less
than 0.1%v/v) with the exception of 6.4v/v% recorded in CBH5 on 10/01/14 and 0.5v/v% recorded in CBH1
on 07/03/14.
Steady state carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations ranged from <0.1%v/v to 3.3%v/v. The steady gas flow
rates were negligible (0.1 l/hr or less than detection limit) with the exception of 0.9 l/hr recorded in CBH3B
on 31/01/14. The recorded oxygen concentrations varied between 13.7 % and 21.0 %v/v.
5.9 Groundwater
During the investigation, groundwater strikes were recorded in a number of exploratory holes (CBH1,
CBH3B, CBH4 and CBH5) within the made ground and Kempton Park Gravel at shallow depths between
4.7m and 7.5m bgl. In addition, a seepage was recorded at 6.5m depth in a trial trench CTT6.
A groundwater strike was also recorded at 25.5m bgl within the Harwich Formation (sand) in CBH5. The
water level did not rise after 20minutes.
A summary of the groundwater strikes recorded during the ground investigation is presented in Table 5a.
Groundwater monitoring has been undertaken in the five monitoring wells installed during the investigation.
Three standpipes were installed to depths between 2.1m and 8m bgl with response zones located within the
made ground. Two piezometers were installed with response zones located with the Thanet Sand.
Monitoring was undertaken on six occasions on 10/01/14 and 07/03/14. The results of the monitoring are
summarised in Table 5b.
The standpipe in CBH1 remained dry, whereas water levels of 4.0m and 4.6m bgl (about 1.3 - 2.0m AOD)
were recorded in CBH3 and CBH5.

A piezometric level between 18.4m and 19.0m bgl (about (-)12.2 to (-)12.8m AOD) was recorded in the
piezometer installed in CBH1, with the exception of 11.7m (about (-)5.4m AOD) recorded during the last
monitoring visit on 07/03/14. A level of 28.6 – 31.0m depth (about (-)23.4m to (-)24.8m AOD) was recorded
in the piezometer installed in CBH4.

Geoenvironmental Assessment
6.1 Environmental Sampling and Testing Strategy
Soil sampling for environmental testing was required within the existing made ground, aimed at providing a
good coverage of the site on the basis of both the proposed commercial end-use without extensive soft
landscaping, and, to provide information in the event of soils being removed from the site during the
preparation of a suitable development platform.
In the context of the presence of the underlying ‘Principal’ Aquifer (Chalk), a number of soil leachability and
groundwater tests were undertaken to provide data for controlled waters risk assessment for the site.
Volatile Organic Hydrocarbons (VOCs) Screening
Environmental soil samples recovered during the fieldwork were screened for Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) using a hand-held Photo Ionising Detector (PID).
Low concentrations of VOCs were detected only at the following limited locations within the made ground
soils:
 CTT01, Length 13-16m at 1.50m: 1.50ppm;

 CTT01, Length 13-16m at 2.00m: 2.00ppm;
 CTP01 at 2.50m: 0.20ppm;
 CTP07 at 1.00m: 0.40ppm;
 CTP07 at 1.50m: 1.60ppm;
 CTP07 at 2.50m: 0.10ppm;
 CBH02 at 1.00m: 0.10ppm;
 CBH03B at 1.00m: 0.10ppm;
 CBH03B at 1.50m: 0.10ppm;
 CBH44 at 0.80m: 0.20ppm; and,
 CBH04 at 1.50m: 0.30ppm.
The readings, are in general, considered to be negligible and at such low concentrations could have been
subject to atmospheric or other interference. Further details of the PID results are given in the Concept
factual report.

Visual and/or Olfactory Evidence of Potential Contamination
During the current investigation, the following visual and/or olfactory evidence of possible contamination
were observed at the site:
 Hydrocarbon/organic odour in CTT03 length 0-16m.
Representative samples of made ground where visual and/olfactory evidence of potential contamination
was recorded (detailed above) were scheduled for environmental testing.
6.2 Risk Assessment Framework and Methodology
Reference should be made to the detailed information on the geoenvironmental risk assessment framework
and methodology presented in Appendix B. The risk assessment undertaken is based on current UK
legislative framework.
In order to put the laboratory measured chemical analysis results for the development site into context, the
chemical data obtained during this site investigation has been assessed in relation to guideline values and
other criteria commonly used for the assessment of land contamination, as summarised below.
Land (Soil) Quality
The proposed use of the site following development will comprise a commercial end use. In undertaking the
Tier 1/2 assessment for ‘commercial’ land use, reference was initially made to the published CLEA SGVs by
the Environment Agency. In the absence of published SGVs, the LQM/CIEH GACs were used. The
ATRISKsoil SSVs were only utilised for contaminants that do not currently have either a CLEA SGV or
LQM/CIEH GAC published.
Controlled Waters
 In order to assess the recorded soil leachate concentrations, the following Level 1 assessment
criteria have been used;
 The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, amended 2007 and 2010 (the
UK Drinking Water Standards, DWS); and;
 Environment Agency (2002) ‘Technical advice to third parties on pollution of controlled waters for
part IIA of the EPA 1990’, Freshwater Environmental Quality Standards (EQS).
The solid strata underlying the site at depth (Chalk) is classified as a ‘Principal’ aquifer, which is considered
a sensitive groundwater receptor. The nearest surface water feature (the River Lea) is located
approximately 150m east of the site and the River Thames is located some 350m south of the site.
Consequently, the Level 1 Controlled Waters risk assessment has been undertaken using both the DWS
and EQS (Freshwater) threshold values.

6.3 Discussion of Analytical Test Results
This section provides a discussion of the chemical test results obtained by the current ground investigation.
During the investigation 20 samples recovered from the exploratory holes within the site were subjected to a
range of analytical suites as detailed in Section 4.2. The results of laboratory chemical analysis carried are
presented in Table 6, which also include a comparison of the test results against the adopted ‘commercial’
land use threshold values, where present.
In addition, three soil leachate tests and two groundwater analyses were undertaken for the determinants
given in Section 4.2. The soil leachate test results and their corresponding Tier 1 assessment criteria values
are presented in Table 7 and the groundwater analysis in Table 8.
Soil Test Results
Tier 1/2 Assessment for ‘Commercial’ Land Use
All of the soil test results returned determinant concentrations below either the laboratory limit of detection
or their respective generic assessment criteria for ‘commercial’ land use, aside from a single asbestos
detection which is discussed below.
Asbestos Screening and Quantification Testing
Seventeen soil samples (all made ground) were subjected to laboratory screening for asbestos fibres.
Asbestos fibres (amosite) were recorded in a single sample in CTP03 at 2.50 m. The results of the asbestos
screening are summarised in Table 6 of this report.
In order to further clarify the risk from the asbestos identified at the site, asbestos quantification testing was
undertaken on the sample (CTP03 at 2.50 m) to determine the percentage (by weight) of asbestos within
the soil sample.
The quantification test on a single sample (CTP03 at 2.5m) recorded the total mass of 0.002%. The risks
from the identified asbestos are discussed further in Section 6.4.

Soil Leachate Test Results
The majority of the determinants tested recorded results that are below either the laboratory detection limits
or the relevant assessment criteria (Table 7). However, elevated concentrations of TPH (DRO and MRO)
were recorded in all three samples, as summarised below:
Determinant Elevated Threshold Remarks

Concentrati value
ons
(DWS)
TPH (DRO, C10-C24) 28 µg/l to 10 µg/l All four samples were within the
made ground, however, no
54 µg/l
olfactory or visual evidence of
hydrocarbon contamination was
TPH (MRO, C24-C40) 78 µg/l to 10 µg/l noted within the sample range.
130 µg/l
The elevated leachate concentrations of TPH are discussed further in Section 6.4 of this report.
Groundwater Test Results
Groundwater sampling was undertaken on water within boreholes CBH03 and CBH05. The majority of the
determinants tested recorded results that are below either the laboratory detection limits or the relevant
assessment criteria (Table 8). However, elevated concentrations Sulphate and TPH (DRO and MRO) were
recorded in all four samples, as summarised below:
Determinant Elevated Threshold Remarks

Concentrati value
ons
(DWS)
Sulphate 620 – 1100 250 mg/l Correlates well with soil ground
mg/l aggressivity testing results
TPH (DRO, C10-C24) 180 µg/l to 10 µg/l Both samples were collected within
the groundwater, however, no
300 µg/l
olfactory or visual evidence of
hydrocarbon contamination was
TPH (MRO, C24-C40) 230 µg/l to 10 µg/l noted within the sample range.
1700 µg/l
The elevated groundwater concentrations are discussed further in Section 6.4 of this report.

6.4 Risk Assessment Discussion and Summary
Introduction
This risk assessment considers both parcels of land that comprise the Project Indigo site as a single entity.
It is considered that due to the generally undifferentiated and homogenous nature of the made ground, the
consistent historical land use of both parcels that form the site (plots 6 and 8), and, that both parcels are
proposed for a commercial end use without the use of significant soft landscaping, that the contaminative
status is generally consistent across the site.
Land (Soil) Quality
Summary
All of the soil test results returned determinant concentrations below either the laboratory limit of detection
or their respective generic assessment criteria for ‘commercial’ land use, and, additionally, significant VOC
concentrations were not encountered in the near-surface soils during the intrusive fieldworks. It is
considered, therefore, that the soils at the site do not present a significant risk to human health, and are
therefore not discussed further within this report.
It is also assumed that construction workers will adopt the appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE)
and following correct occupational hygiene practices during the works to avoid exposure to any unidentified
contamination that may be present at the site.
Risk Assessment for Asbestos
Localised amosite asbestos was identified at a single location (CTP03 at 2.50m at a mass of 0.002% v/v)
and represents a mass only just above the detection limits. Only one sample out of 17 detected any
asbestos fibres, and, the location at which the asbestos has been detected is beneath a proposed structure,
therefore, it is considered that this will break the pollutant linkage to future site users. However, it is
recommended that appropriate control measures are employed during the enabling and construction works
(including potential excavation/handling of asbestos containing soils) to mitigate the identified potential risk
to site workers.
An outline remediation strategy, indicating the measures to be employed in order to mitigate the risk from
asbestos within the shallow soil is presented in Section 6.7 of this report.
Controlled Waters
As indicated in Section 6.4 of this report, slightly elevated leachable concentrations of TPH and sulphate
have been recorded at the site above the DWS threshold value. However, these elevated concentrations
are not considered to represent a significant risk to controlled waters due to the following:

 Although the underlying solid strata (Chalk) is classified as a ‘Principal’ aquifer, the overlying
cohesive London Clay (about 15.9m thick where proven) create an impermeable zone (aquiclude)
separating the overlying made ground (potential leachate source) and the underlying aquifer
receptor;
 The DWS threshold values used in the risk assessment are considered extremely conservative as
they represent acceptable concentrations at consumers’ taps, not acceptable concentrations within
the groundwater prior to treatment;
 Following site development, the majority of the site will be covered by building footprint /
hardstanding and will include a surface water drainage system, which will mitigate any downward
infiltration in such areas, and, this is considered to offer significant betterment when compared to
the current site condition.
Based on the above, no significant risk to controlled waters have been identified at the site. Consequently,
it is considered that the risk to controlled waters (Principal Aquifer) is negligible. The leachate test results
are therefore not discussed further.
No plausible risk to the Rivers Lea or Thames has been identified, as no elevated determinant
concentrations have been identified above the EQS (freshwater) threshold values.
Assessment of Risk through New Water Supply Pipes
The risk to human health resulting from the attack and permeation of new water supply pipes has been
undertaken using the threshold concentrations given by the UKWIR Report Ref. No. 10/WM/03/21. The soil
chemical test results indicate detectable TPH concentrations for aliphatic/aromatic C5-C10 concentrations
below laboratory detection levels, and, C10 to C21 and C21 – C35 below the threshold value for PE pipe
material of 10 mg/kg and 500 mg/kg respectively. Therefore, it is considered that water supply pipe
materials would not require barrier protection.
Some of the parameters listed by UKWIR (i.e., VOCs, SVOCs, BTEX, MTBE) have not been tested for.
However, it should be noted that VOC screening during the intrusive fieldworks generally recorded
concentrations below detection limits, or, very low/negligible concentrations. In addition, only localised
visual and/or olfactory evidence of slight hydrocarbon contamination was observed at the site.
It is therefore considered that the risk to human health resulting from the attack and permeation of new
water supply pipes is generally low (for PE pipe material only). However, it is recommended that all the
chemical tests results are forwarded to the relevant water supplier to determine their preferred pipe
material.

Assessment of Risk from Ground/Soil Gas
The risk posed to human health (site users) from hazardous ground gases, due to the accumulation of
toxic/asphyxiant and explosive gases in confined spaces is assessed are not fully quantified at this stage as
ground gas monitoring is on-going. However, preliminary monitoring indicates that with the exception of a
single elevated methane concentration of 6.4% v/v in BH5, only low/negligible concentrations of methane
and carbon dioxide, and no appreciable flow rates are present at the site. Accordingly, the risk to future site
users from hazardous ground gasses is at this stage, considered to be low to moderate (taking account of
the single elevated methane concentration), though it should be noted that a complete gas risk assessment
will be presented in the final report upon completion of the gas monitoring period.
Built Environment
It is considered that the risk to built environment / structures arising from compounds aggressive to buried
concrete is moderate to high based upon the ground aggressivity test results as discussed in Section 7 of
this report.
6.5 Conceptual Site Model
A semi-quantitative risk assessment (Tier 1/2) approach has been undertaken for the site, based on the
available site information. This is based upon the “source – pathway – receptor” conceptual risk model in
accordance with current UK guidelines and establishes the likelihood and severity of potentially active
pollutant linkages at the subject site.
The conceptual site model presented below is based on the site’s continued ‘commercial’ end use. A
diagrammatic representation of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is presented as Figure 8. The risks
identified at the site as a result of the proposed development (assuming no remedial action is implemented)
are summarised as follows:

Conceptual Site Model (‘Commercial’ End Use)
Contaminant Source Pathway Receptor Consequen Likelihoo Overa

ce of d of ll
Pollutant Pollutant Risk
Linkage Linkage
Localised amosite recorded Uptake of asbestos Construction H L/M M

in a single sample from fibres Workers
CTP03 at 2.50m
Site Users H N L
Potential contaminant Permeation of new Site users M/H L L

concentrations above the water supply pipes
UKWIR threshold value (for (for PE pipe
PE pipe material only) material only)
Slightly elevated leachable Leaching of mobile Controlled Waters M/H N N

and dissolved phase TPH contamination (the underlying
concentrations (above DWS ‘Principal’ aquifer,
threshold values) Chalk)
Controlled Waters M/H N N

(Rivers Lea and
Thames)
Mobile contamination in the Migrating via newly Controlled Waters M/H L/M M
made ground constructed piled (the underlying
foundations ‘Principal’ aquifer,
Chalk)
Compounds aggressive to Direct attack of Built environment / M M/H M/H

buried concrete buried structures Structures
Recorded ground gas Accumulation in Construction H L L

concentrations confined spaces workers / Site
and/or explosion users / Built
environment
Notes: H (High), M (Moderate) L (Low), N (Negligible)
An outline remediation strategy for the site (based on this risk assessment and revised CSM) is given in
Section 6.7.

6.6 Waste Acceptance Criteria and Soil Disposal
Five made ground soil samples were subjected to Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing. The WAC test
results are summarised in Table 9.
The WAC test results indicate that a single Mineral Oil (C10-C4) concentration in the sample from CTP07 at
0.50m sample (750 mg/kg) exceeds the inert waste threshold value of 500 mg/kg. The sample from CTP07
at 0.50m also recorded slightly elevated sulphate concentrations. All other determinant concentrations are
below their corresponding inert waste threshold values and the remaining four samples all recorded
leachate concentrations below the Inert Waste upper threshold.
Given the above, it is considered in this preliminary assessment that:
 The majority of the made ground soil materials at the site are likely to classify as ‘inert’ waste for
off-site disposal purposes;
 Some of the made ground materials are likely to classify as non-inert (Stable Non-Reactive
Hazardous Waste – SNRHW, commonly termed ‘Non-Hazardous’ or possibly Hazardous Waste) as
a result of localised hydrocarbons and sulphates and asbestos.
It should be noted that the above conclusions relate to the specific samples of made ground tested during
this investigation, and therefore, material excavated during re-development may not necessarily have the
same classification. It is recommended that soil waste materials varying from the samples tested (and that
are intended for offsite disposal) are analysed individually to determine the classification of the waste.
6.7 Outline Remediation Strategy and Control Measures During Construction

Works
One made ground sample (from CTP03 at 2.50m) has been found to contain asbestos at a concentration of
0.002% w/w. Although there is some risk to human health during construction, upon completion of the
proposed development, the site will be covered largely by buildings or hardstand areas, breaking the
linkage with any asbestos impacted soils and therefore minimising risk.
In addition, a single elevated methane concentration has been recorded at the site to date.
The following outline remediation strategy is proposed in order to make the site suitable for a ‘commercial’
end use.

A health and safety plan and method statement for the handling of the asbestos impacted made ground
soils at the site may be required by the Local Planning Authority (LPA), prior to any works commencing at
the site.
 Prior to remedial works being carried out, all site workers should be briefed in the form of a toolbox
talk on good environmental working practice at the site, Health and Safety protocols and the
procedures to be followed if previously unidentified contamination is encountered during the works,
this should include advice on identifying asbestos in soils;
 All site works should be undertaken with due consideration of the Control of Asbestos Regulations
(2012);
 During site works, generation of dust and mobilisation of asbestos fibres should be prevented by
damping/wetting the made ground materials in the area identified as containing the localised
presence of asbestos. All workers should wear adequate personal protection equipment (PPE) at
all times;
 During the works, any made ground materials visually observed to be impacted with asbestos
containing materials (ACMs e.g. asbestos tiles/cement) should have the ACMs carefully removed
and then disposed off site to a suitably licensed waste disposal facility capable of receiving this kind
of waste. Such materials should be carefully excavated, segregated, stockpiled separately (or
preferably placed immediately into covered skips) from other arisings and covered immediately to
prevent mobilisation of asbestos fibres prior to their disposal;
 Piled foundations are proposed for the development. Given the likely depth of the piled foundations
(penetrating the London Clay aquiclude), the sensitivity of the deeper hydrogeological setting of the
site (Principal Aquifer - Chalk) and the marginally elevated leachable and dissolved phase
contaminant concentrations recorded. Any piling proposed for the site should be designed following
reference to the guidance provided in the Environment Agency document ‘Piling and Penetrative
Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination’: Guidance on Pollution
Prevention National Groundwater & Contaminated Land Centre Report NC/99/73;
 To date, the gas regime at the site potentially classifies as Characteristic Gas Situation 2 (CS2),
consequently, given the proposed ‘commercial’ end use of the site and in accordance with Table 2
BS 8485:2007, mitigation measures sufficient to obtain 2 points (as detailed in Table 3 BS
8485:2007) are recommended for new buildings constructed at the site;
 Any topsoil, subsoil or fill (unless from a natural rock source) materials imported to site as part of
the development should be sampled and tested for a range of commonly occurring contaminants at
a UKAS and MCERTS accredited laboratory to ensure their chemical suitability for use. This
testing will not detract from any other testing required to prove the materials suitability, i.e.
earthworks classification testing etc.;
 Previously unidentified contamination arising during the site development is always a possibility. In
recognition of this, the Contractor has a responsibility to notify the Resident Engineer / Contract
Administrator should any unusual ground conditions or previously unidentified contamination (e.g.

evidence of visual or olfactory contamination) be revealed during the redevelopment of the site. If
such conditions are encountered, work in the area of the contamination should stop until expert
advice has been sought and appropriate action (agreed with the Local Planning Authority) taken.
In addition, a Detailed Remediation and Verification Strategy may be required by the LPA to be produced
for the site, based on the outline remediation strategy given above. If required, the detailed strategy should
be submitted to the regulators/LPA for approval before commencement of the works on site.
A ‘Verification Report’ will be required to provide confirmation that the remedial works have been carried out
in accordance with the agreed Remediation Strategy.

Geotechnical Assessment and Engineering
Considerations
7.1 Introduction
Based on the findings of the current ground investigation and other data (including previous SI by
URS 2006) reviewed in this report, the following section provides a geotechnical assessment of the
ground conditions at the site, in relation to the geotechnical design aspects of the proposed Data
Centre development. A preliminary ground model for the future office building in the south of the site
is also given based on the findings of the current investigation.
General guidance is provided in this report on foundation solutions for the proposed scheme (Data
Centre only) based on the revealed ground conditions and the building layout and preliminary
structural loads provided by the Cundall structural design team. Further assessments will be required
if the structural details, layout of the proposed buildings and structural loadings are revised. No
Eurocode compliant load details have yet been provided, therefore no geotechnical analysis has
been undertaken in accordance with Eurocode 7- Geotechnical Design in this report. However, a
preliminary assessment of pile capacity for various feasible pile diameters has been undertaken for
both the proposed building and underground tank structures.
7.2 Ground Model
The data centre site (Plot 6):
The data centre development site (Plot 6) is currently unoccupied, predominately covered by grass,
typically at 4.0m to 7.1m above Ordnance Survey datum. The changes in levels largely reflect a bund
surrounding the perimeter of the site to prevent unauthorised access. The site within the bund area is
generally flat lying. The site is approximately 0.5m (main site area) to 2.0m (bund) higher than the
adjoining footways and roads, which surround it.
The geotechnical cross sections A-A’ to C-C’ (Figure 4) illustrate the representative ground conditions
at the main development area in Plot 6. The identified obstructions and dock wall details are shown
in Figure 5.
Within the infilled dock area (including backfill area behind the dock wall), made ground is generally
between 10.5m to 12.8m thick, whereas outside the dock area, made ground is generally between
4.8m and 6.3m thick.
The made ground (excluding topsoil) is described in borehole logs as predominantly comprising
sandy gravel, gravelly sand and gravelly clay with inclusions of brick, concrete and occasional chalk,
flint, wood, metal and shell, glass, plastic, pipe, shell, wire, geotextile and occasional cobbles and/or

boulders of brick, concrete and asphalt. Outside the infilled area, the made ground is underlain by
Alluvium of soft to firm gravelly clay (about 2.4m thick) over dense grey sandy gravel (Kempton Park
Gravel). The base of the Kempton Park Gravel was recorded at a depth of 10m bgl (about (-)5m
AOD).
The made ground (including dock infill materials) and the Kempton Park Gravel are underlain by
London Clay to depths of generally between 25.0m and 25.9m bgl (about (-)19.5m and (-)20m AOD)
overlying the Harwich Formation. The London Clay at the site is generally described as stiff to very
stiff, high to very high strength, very closely fissured, slightly silty clay of high to very high plasticity.
The London Clay is underlain by the Harwich Formation to depths of generally between 28.9m and
30.3m bgl (about (-)23.5 to (-)24.0m AOD). This unit predominately comprises stiff, slightly sandy clay
with high plasticity.
The Harwich Formation is underlain by the Lambeth Group comprising Woolwich, Reading and
Upnor formations, from top to base. The Woolwich Formation comprises interbedded dense sand and
stiff to very stiff, thinly laminated clay, the Reading Formation comprises stiff to hard, silty clay and
the Upnor Formation comprises dense to very dense sand with clay bands. The base of the Lambeth
Group was recorded at a depth between 41.8m bgl – 44.5m bgl (typically between about (-)36 and (-
)38m AOD) in Data Centre site, overlying the Thanet Sand.
The Thanet Sand comprises very dense silty to fine sand to depths of generally between 57.8m and
58m bgl (about (-)52m to (-)53m AOD) overlying the Chalk.
The Chalk comprises low becoming medium density type. The base of the Chalk was proven to a
maximum depth of 65m bgl, however its full thickness remains unproven. No soft zones or voids
were recorded in the Chalk to a depth of 65m bgl.
The future office development site (Plot 8):
The future office site is currently unoccupied, predominately covered by grass, typically at 5.0m to
6.3m above Ordnance Survey datum. Again, the change in levels reflects a bund placed around the
site perimeter to prevent unauthorised access. The site area within the bund is generally flat lying.
The site is approximately 0.2m to 1.5m higher than the adjoining footways and roads, which surround
both sites thus isolating them from each other.
The geotechnical cross sections A-A’ to B-B’ (Figure 4) illustrate the representative ground conditions
at the proposed office site. The identified underground road tunnel is shown in Figure 5.
Available historical boreholes recorded the made ground in this area to a depth of 12.5m bgl (about (-
)6m AOD). The current investigation (trial pits only) proved that the made ground extended to below

4.0m depth and comprised gravelly, sandy clay to gravelly sand with inclusions of gavel of flint, brick
and concrete. The made ground also contains cobbles of brick and concrete.
The made ground is underlain by stiff to very stiff London Clay to a depth of about 26.5m bgl (about (-
)20m AOD). No deep boreholes are available in this area to prove the strata immediately below the
London Clay.
Design of the future office development should consider the possible impact of foundations to the
existing tunnel and allow the foundations of the building to be located a safe distance from the tunnel
so as to mitigate this risk.
7.3 Relict Dock Wall and Obstructions in Data Centre Site
The northern section of the former dock wall (about 1.8m wide) was recorded at a depth of about
4.8m to 5.1m AOD in trial trenches during the current investigation, located in the central north of the
proposed building footprint in an east to west direction (Figure 5). In addition, a brick buttress (0.9m
wide and 1.0m long) was recorded in a trial trench. Rotary probing proved the base of the wall at 11m
bgl (about (-)5m AOD) and no evidence of the relict dock wall was recorded beyond 2.5m to both
external/internal wall faces. Two 1m diameter relict concrete piles, spaced at about 7m were
recorded at about 5m south of the northern section dock wall.
The findings of both the geophysical survey and trial trench excavations suggest a possible line of
piles (possibly at 7m spacing) at about 7m south of the dock wall, within the building footprint. It is
anticipated that similar line of pile structures may also be present in front (west) of the eastern wall
section. Based on the trial pit records, and historical aerial photograph of 1945, there appears to be
an extensive area of buried slab/hardstanding in the north eastern and possibly in the eastern parts
of the site behind the line of piles.
The eastern section of the dock wall was recorded at a depth of about 4.9m AOD with the width
recorded as 1.0m in trial trench CTT3. The east section of the wall is anticipated to be approximately
below the eastern extent of the building footprint.
In addition, there are a number of other obstructions that were identified by the current trial pitting and
the geophysical survey. Details of these obstructions including the relict dock wall location are given
in Figure 5. These should be taken into account in relation to proposed excavation and pile
foundation design for the development.
The piling layout should consider the identified obstructions including the relict dock wall, if these are
to be left in situ, and allowance should be made for other possible obstructions which may not have
been identified by the current ground investigation. It is recommended that pre-boring to at least 1m
below the made ground should be undertaken at the proposed pile locations prior to installation of
the new piled foundations.

7.4 Road Tunnel in Future Office Building Site
The East India Dock Road Tunnel crosses the southern (proposed office building location) part of the
Project Indigo site, running in a northeast to southwest direction. The tunnel location is shown in
Figure 5, based on the tunnel survey undertaken by Greenhatch Group (2011) and the geophysical
survey undertaken by Bentham (2013). The top of the tunnel roof is estimated to be at 2.5m to 3.0m
bgl based on the geophysical survey. The tunnel survey undertaken by Greenhatch Group (2011)
indicates the internal tunnel roof at about 3.0m to 4.3m bgl. No evidence of large obstructions were
identified within the office building site (west of the tunnel) by the geophysical survey.
7.5 Relict Wells and Current Monitoring Wells
Four relict wells (3 No. 50mm diameter with base between 1.45m and (-5) 5.16m AOD and 1 No.
19mm diameter with base unknown) are recorded in the proposed future office building site and two
relict wells (2 No. 300mm diameter with base unknown) are recorded in the data centre site (Figure
5).
In addition, three gas/groundwater monitoring wells (up to 8m bgl) and two piezometric wells (up to
47m bgl) were installed in the current investigation.
With respect to the two 300mm relict wells in the data centre site, further investigation into the
construction and nature of these wells should be completed and appropriate decommissioning should
undertaken prior to construction of the new data centre.
The decommissioning works must be undertaken in accordance with ‘Good practice for
decommissioning redundant wells and boreholes’ published by the Environment Agency (October
2012).
7.6 UXO Risk
The assessment undertaken by Bactec (2013) indicated that the UXO risk is medium to high for the
subject site. An UXO down hole survey was undertaken in all boreholes and all trial pitting /
trenching was undertaken in the presence of an UXO banksman. No magnetic anomalies or possible
UXO threats were identified in the exploratory holes, with the exception of a strong magnetic anomaly
recorded in CBH2 at 8.7m bgl.

The mitigation measures recommended by the detailed UXO report should be followed during the site
redevelopment in order to reduce the risk from UXOs. These include;
1. Explosive Ordnance Safety and Awareness Briefings to all personnel conducting intrusive
works and the Provision of Unexploded Ordnance Site Safety Instructions prior to all works;
2. Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Engineer presence on site to support shallow intrusive
works during the shallow intrusive works;
3. Intrusive Magnetometer Survey of pile locations down to a maximum bomb penetration depth
for deep intrusive works.
7.7 Archaeology
An archaeology impact assessment undertaken by Museum of London Archaeology Service ( 2003)

indicates that both Plots 6 and 8 lie in an ‘archaeological priority zone’, and the assessment has
shown that the sites lie in an area of archaeological potential for the prehistoric and post medieval
periods.
The principal impact of a development on surviving archaeology would be on Plot 6 with the
truncation of the East India Dock wall, the truncation of potential remains of a 17th century Copperas
dye works and intrusion by piles into the prehistoric environmental sequence/remains.
The archaeology report (MLAS, 2003) recommends that any necessary geotechnical pits that are
excavated for engineering purposes should be closely monitored by a competent archaeological
organisation. Further archaeological field evaluation may be necessary, especially in the northeast
corner of the site to determine the presence of any remains relating to the Copperas works; In
addition, the report recommends that an archaeologist should be present during the main data centre
construction works for the excavation works, particularly for buried tanks, structures and services.
7.8 Groundwater
The groundwater observations recorded during the fieldwork and monitoring results to date are
summarised in Tables 5a and 5b, respectively.
During the current investigation, groundwater strikes were recorded in four boreholes within the made
ground and the Kempton Park Gravel at shallow depths between 4.7m and 7.5m bgl. In addition, a
groundwater strike was also recorded deeper at a depth of 25.5m bgl in the Harwich Formation
(sand) in a single borehole.
Monitoring to date in two shallow combined gas and groundwater standpipes (CBH3B and CBH5)
recorded groundwater levels at 4.0m and 4.6m bgl (about 1.3m to 2.0m AOD) within the made

ground. This groundwater level may be artificially raised as a consequence of water being in
hydraulic continuity with water held in the River Thames.
In addition, monitoring to date in two piezometer standpipes (CBH1 and CBH4) recorded piezometric
levels within the Thanet Sand and Lambeth Group at 18.4m to 19.0m bgl (about (-12.2m to (-)12.8m
AOD) in CBH1, with the exception of a higher level of 11.7m bgl (about (-)5.4m AOD) recorded on
07/03/14 and at 28.6m to 31.0m bgl (about (-)23.4m to (-)24.8m AOD) in CBH4.
Based on the monitored groundwater levels recently published by the Environment Agency (January
2013), the piezometric level in the Lambeth Group is anticipated to be at about (-)12m AOD at the
subject site.
7.9 Soil Volume Change Potential

The combination of shrinkable soils and trees represents a hazard due to volume changes resulting
in ground moment. However, based on the thickness of the made ground (predominately granular)
present at the site and the recommended piled foundation solution (Section 7.10), the risk presented
by shrinkable soils, soil volume change and proposed tree planting to the proposed structure is
considered negligible.
7.10 Foundation Design Considerations of Data Centre Development
Proposed Data Centre Building
Structural Details
The proposed data centre will be an eight storey building. Preliminary structural calculations indicate
typical column loads in the region of 6,000kN to 10,000 kN. The proposed finished floor level is
generally at 6.3m AOD over ground floor slab of 250- 300mm thick (with ground beams).
Ground Conditions
The entire building footprint is currently unoccupied. The made ground outside the infilled dock area
is up to about 6.3m thick, whereas it is anticipated to be up to about 12.8m thick within the dock area.
Between the made ground and London Clay, a layer of Alluvium over Kempton Park Gravel was
recorded in the area outside the infilled dock. London Clay was recorded to a depth of about 25m bgl
(about (-)20m AOD) overlying the Harwich Formation (generally 3 - 4m thick) over the Lambeth
Group strata of interbedded sand and clay to a depth of about 43m bgl (about (-)38m AOD).
The Lambeth Group strata is underlain by the Thanet Sand comprising very dense silty to fine sand
(14m to 16m thick) to a depth of about 58m bgl, about (-)53m AOD), over Chalk (proven to over 65m
bgl).

Shallow groundwater table was recorded at about 4m depth (2m AOD), whereas the piezometric
level within the Thanet Sand/Lambeth Group strata is considered to be at about -12m AOD.
Foundation Design Recommendations
Shallow foundations constructed to bear upon natural soil are considered unsuitable for this site as
design loads would induce significant settlements which could not economically be overcome by a
shallow foundation solution. Furthermore, the depth of made ground across the site varies from
about 6m to 12m.
It is considered that bored piles will be the most suitable foundation type for the proposed data
centre, based on the revealed ground conditions and site constraints.
Driven piles are considered unfeasible / impractical given the frequency of cobble and/or boulder
sized obstructions encountered in the made ground within the infilled dock and the very high building
loads proposed.
Based on the very high column loads proposed (generally over 5,000kN per pile), large diameter
bored piles (say between 1.2m to 2.1m diameter) would be required. Due to the presence of frequent
clay units/bands identified in the Lambeth Group strata (including the generally granular lowermost
Upnor Formation), it is considered that piles founded within the Lambeth Group strata are unlikely to
meet the bearing and settlement requirements for the proposed structure. Therefore, it is considered
that the large diameter piles should be taken (penetrating at least 2m) into the competent granular
Thanet Sand strata.
Piled Foundations
A preliminary piling assessment (for a single vertical pile) has been carried out based on 1.2m to
2.1m diameter (bored) piles, using the traditional global factor of safety approach based on the
following criteria and assumptions:
Allowable working load = ultimate pile capacity / FoS – negative skin friction (Note: FoS = 3.5
adopted to limit pile settlement)
Allowable working load = ultimate shaft resistance / FoS – negative skin friction (Note: FoS = 1.2)
The allowable working load for the pile is taken as the lower of the two values obtained from the
above relationships.
(Note: A reasonably high global FoS has been adopted to limit the pile settlement to around 10mm
based on some published and unpublished pile test records).
In addition, the following assumptions have been made in undertaking the preliminary pile analysis:

 Negative skin friction is allowed in both made ground and Alluvium units as negative skin
friction = 25% of (0.3 x effective stress) (This is due to the relatively recent nature of the
made ground at the site, where consolidation settlement is considered to be taking place
both in the made ground and the soft to firm Alluvium);
 The Woolwich Formation, comprising interbedded cohesive and granular units, is assumed
to comprise cohesive units only (conservative for calculating end bearing resistance);
 The shaft resistance in the lower strata of the Lambeth Group, the Upnor Formation, is
calculated assuming it comprises granular materials only, whereas the shaft resistance in
the Reading and Woolwich Formations of the Lambeth Group strata, is calculated
assuming they comprise cohesive materials only;
 Design groundwater level for the shallow groundwater table within the made ground is at
2m AOD (about 4m bgl);
 Design piezometric water level for the deeper aquifer of Thanet Sand/Lambeth Group at -
12m AOD.
The geotechnical models (including the recommended characteristic geotechnical parameters for pile
design- Section 5.6) adopted for piling assessment is given below.

Within the infilled dock
Stratum Depth Undrained Shear Angle of Note

Strength Shearing
Resistance
Cu
(degrees)
(kPa)
(m AOD)
6 to (-)6 - - Negative skin friction

Made Ground
included
(-)6) to (-)19 Cu = 70+10 x (-D- - Max Cu = 200kPa

4) where D is m
London Clay Limiting ultimate
AOD
shaft resistance =
110kPa*
(-)19 to (-)24 150 - Limiting ultimate

Harwich Formation shaft resistance =
110kPa*
Lambeth Group (-)24 to (-)29 180 - Limiting ultimate

shaft resistance =
Woolwich
110kPa*
Formation
Lambeth Group (-)29 to (-)30 180 - Limiting ultimate

shaft resistance =
Reading Formation 110kPa*
(-)30 to (-)38 200 35 Limiting ultimate

Lambeth Group
shaft resistance =
(for end bearing) (for shaft
Upnor Formation 140kPa*
resistance)
(-)38 to (-)53 - 36 Limiting ultimate

shaft resistance =
Thanet Sand 140kPa*
Max ultimate base
resistance = 12MPa*

Outwith the infilled dock
Stratum Depth Undrained Angle of Notes

Shear Strength Shearing
Resistance
Cu
Degrees)
(kPa)
(m AOD)
6 to 0 - - Negative skin friction

Made Ground
included
Alluvium 0 to (-)2 - -
Kempton Park (-)2 to (-5) - 36

Gravel
(-)5 to (-)20 Cu = 70+10 x (-D- - Max Cu = 200kPa

London Clay 4) where D is m
Limiting ultimate shaft
AOD
resistance = 110kPa*
(-)20 to (-)24 150 - Limiting ultimate shaft

Harwich Formation
Lambeth Group (-)24 to (-)27 180 - Limiting ultimate shaft

Woolwich
Formation
Lambeth Group (-)27 to (-)30 180 - Limiting ultimate shaft

Reading Formation
(-)30 to (-)38 200 35 Limiting ultimate shaft

Lambeth Group
(for end bearing) (for shaft
Upnor Formation
resistance)
(-)38 to (-)53 - 36 Limiting ultimate shaft

Thanet Sand
Max ultimate base
resistance = 12MPa*
*-Limiting ultimate unit base resistance in Thanet Sand and ultimate unit shaft resistance in Upnor
Formation and Thanet Sand are based on published and unpublished pile test results, including
CIRIA C583 (2004), Tomlinson (1994) and Nicholson (2002).
The tables below indicate potential bored pile lengths correlated with ‘safe working loads’, SWL.

Within the infilled dock – MG to about 12m bgl
Pile Length Pile SWL (kN)

Base
(m) Bored Pile Diameter (m)
Level
(m AOD)
1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1
20 (London Clay) -15 770 1120 1530 2000
25 (Harwich) -20 1160 1580 2070 2600
30 (Lambeth Group) -25 1625 2190 2830 3530
35 (Lambeth Group) -30 2060 2740 3480 4290
40(Lambeth Group) -35 2730 3600 4530 5540
45 (Thanet Sand) -40 6700 9600 12960 15400

Outwith the infilled dock – MG to about 6m bgl
Pile Length Pile SWL (kN)

Base
(m) Bored Pile Diameter (m)
Level
(m AOD)
1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1
20 (London Clay) -15 1613 2170 2790 3470
25 (London Clay) -20 2170 2900 3690 4560
30 (Lambeth Group) -25 2490 3280 4130 5050
35 (Lambeth Group) -30 2930 3820 4780 5800
40 (Lambeth Group) -35 3600 4680 5830 7050
45 (Thanet Sand) -40 7560 10660 14240 17340

The above results indicate that the safe working load (pile capacity) increases significantly when the
pile is founded at least 2m into the Thanet Sand Formation. In addition, the safe working load within
the infilled dock area is about 10% less than that outwith the dock area .
It is recommended that the piles are founded in the upper part of the Thanet Sand, as there is
evidence of the lower layers being weaker from published literature (Nicholson, 2002) and also being
underlain by the Chalk strata which has lower base and shaft friction capacity. The piles should be
constructed under bentonite drilling fluid (or equivalent) as the Lambeth Group and Thanet strata are
water bearing. Base grouting following boring, as undertaken in similar strata in London area for high
load bearing bored piles, may be required to improve the pile base area/capacity (and reduce the
settlement as appropriate).
The Environment Agency may require a piling risk assessment to be carried out in accordance with
‘Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination’: Guidance
on Pollution Prevention National Groundwater & Contaminated Land Centre Report NC/99/73,
particularly if the pile base is founded below the London Clay.
In order to reduce the negative skin friction within the made ground/Alluvium, sleeving of piles in
these units may be considered in the detailed design.
In the design of the piling layout, the locations of the obstructions identified during the current
investigation, including the relict dock wall, and other unidentified obstructions (if not to be removed
prior to piling) should be taken into account. It is recommended that pre-boring to at least 1m below
the base of the made ground should be undertaken at the proposed pile locations prior to installation
of the foundation piles.

It is recommended that preliminary static pile load tests (at least one) should be carried out in
accordance with current guidance and the design revised as necessary before installation of the
working piles.
Ground Floor Slabs
Due to the presence of a variable thickness of made ground present within the building footprint and
ongoing consolidation settlement considerations, it is recommended that a suspended floor slab
should be adopted for the proposed structure.
Water storage tanks (about 2.3m diameter plastic pipes) and surface water attenuation tanks
(concrete tanks) are proposed to be constructed along the western and the eastern boundaries of the
site, respectively. The bases of the water storage and surface water attenuation tanks are proposed
to be at about 1.6m AOD and 1.9m AOD, respectively.
Shallow foundations are not considered feasible as a thick layer of unengineered and variable made
ground is present underneath the footprint of these tanks.
It is considered that CFA/bored piles will be the most suitable piling technique based on the revealed
ground conditions and site constraints. Driven piles are not considered feasible given the frequency
of cobble and/or boulder sized obstructions encountered in the made ground within the infilled dock.
Preliminary structural calculations indicate typical loads in the region of 925kN per pile for the water
storage tanks and 750kN per pile for the attenuation tanks.
A preliminary piling assessment has been carried out based on 0.75m (CFA) piles, using the
traditional global factor of safety approach (FoS = 2.5).
In addition, the following assumptions have been made in the preliminary pile assessment:
 Negative skin friction is allowed in both made ground and alluvium units (negative skin
friction = 25% of (0.3 x effective stress).
 Design water level for the shallow groundwater within the made ground is at 2m AOD
(about 4m bgl).
 Design piezometric water level for the Thanet Sand/Lambeth Group at -12m AOD.
The geotechnical model within the infilled dock (including the recommended characteristic
geotechnical parameters for pile design) was adopted for preliminary piling analysis (refer to Data
Centre Foundation Section).

Preliminary piling assessment indicates that a 21m long CFA/bored pile (750mm) founded at -19m
AOD within the London Clay is adequate for a safe working load of 925kN for storage tank
development, whereas a 19m long CFA/bored pile (750mm) founded at -17m AOD within the London
Clay is adequate for a safe working load of 750kN for attenuation tank development. The total
settlement of these piles under the working load is anticipated to be less than 15mm.
Alternatively, the building piles can be designed to take up the additional loading from these tanks to
be located in the eastern and western parts of the building footprint.
7.11 Ground Gas Risk Assessment
No radon protective measures are required for the development at the site.
Gas monitoring of three installations was undertaken on six occasions between 10 January and 07
March 2014.
Recorded methane concentrations were negligible (below or equal the detection level of 0.1%v/v),
with the exception of a single value of 6.4%v/v recorded in CBH5 on the first return visit and 0.5v/v%
recorded in CBH1 on the last return visit.
Steady state carbon dioxide concentrations were all below 5%v/v. The steady state and peak gas
flow rates were also negligible (either below or equal the detection level of 0.1 l/hr), with the
exception of 0.9 l/hr recorded in CBH3B on 31/01/14.
The recorded oxygen concentrations varied between 13.7% and 21.0%v/v. The recorded
atmospheric pressure ranged between 991 and 1030 mbars over the monitoring period.
The maximum gas screening value (GSV) calculated from the current monitoring results are
significantly below 0.07 l/hr for both CO2 and CH4 (Table 4). Also, the carbon dioxide concentrations
were all below 5%.
However a single concentration of 6.4% v/v methane was recorded in CBH5 during the first return
visit and detectible concentration of 0.5%v/v was recorded in CBH1 during the last return visit. The
high level of methane recorded in CBH5 may be related to the presence of clay with abundant
organic substance recorded at 8.7-to 11.50 depth. This organic rich layer is likely to represent the
accumulated clay/silt at the bottom of the dock before filling took place. No further gas was recorded
in this borehole during subsequent visits.
Based on the monitoring results to date and proven ground conditions, the gas regime at the site is
considered likely to classify as Characteristic Gas Situation 1 (CS1 – very low hazard potential) in
accordance with Table 1, BS 8485:2007, but will need to be increased to CS2 due to the methane

being in excess of 1% on a single occasion, although the flow rate was negligible throughout the
monitoring period in accordance with the current guidance.
The gas protection measures appropriate for each Characteristic Situation for different building types
are prescribed in BS 8485. A guidance value (between 0 and 7) is selected from Table 2 for different
building types. Then a combination of mitigation measures is chosen from Table 3 to meet that
requirement. In accordance with Table 2 the required gas protection value for a commercial building
is 2. The guidance given in Table 3 of BS should be used in choosing an appropriate combination of
protective measures for the proposed structures at the site in order to achieve the 2 points required.
These protective measures may include;
 Reinforced concrete cast in situ suspended slab with minimal service penetrations – 1.5
points;
 Taped and sealed membrane to reasonable levels of workmanship in line with current good
practice with validation – 0.5 points;
 Passive subfloor ventilation (venting layer can be a clear void or formed using gravel,
geocomposites, etc.) – good performance – 1 point.
Based on the ground conditions, the dock infill material, especially the organic rich layer at the bottom
of the made ground, have the potential to gas, particularly if the construction activity (excavations and
bored pile) is likely to allow oxygen or more importantly pre water pressure into the building footprint,
which may increase the gassing potential. Piling through the infilled made ground may create a
migration pathway linking the reservoir of gas within the infill and the underside of the building. In
addition, the decomposition of organic deposits and consequent consolidation of made ground within
the infilled dock is likely to be ongoing. This is likely to result in voids or pockets of voids forming
below the slab long term and hence the risk of methane and or carbon dioxide accumulating in the
void(s) under the membrane.
Subfloor ventilation with active abstraction/pressurization has been considered in order to mitigate
against this risk. However, it is considered that active subfloor ventilation is not required due to the
following reasons:
 A thick granular layer of 6F2 or similar grading in the region of 1m will be present
underneath the slab (the site levels will be reduced to about 5.0m AOD and will be brought
up to 5.3m AOD with placement of 6F2 material as part of the enabling works. Further
stone layer (6F2 or similar) will be placed as part of the piling platform construction to at
least the formation level of about 6.0m AOD);
 Flow rates were all negligible, even at low atmospheric pressures, less than 1000 mbars;

 Elevated methane was only encountered on one occasion in a single borehole and may
represent a gas pocket at depth, which appears to have been released by the formation of
the borehole. Therefore, penetration of the organic clay layer containing gas pockets by
large diameter piles may release the gas pockets during piling, further reducing gas
generation potential during the operation of the building.
7.12 Ground Aggressivity
During the current investigation, twenty five samples (13 No made ground, 2 No Alluvium, 10 No.
London Clay) plus two groundwater samples were tested in accordance with the requirements for a
brownfield site with pyrite bearing strata.
Magnesium and chloride contents of the soil / groundwater samples were not determined during the
recent ground investigation as the soluble sulphate contents were measured well below the trigger
level of 3000 mg/l on the samples tested.
Ground aggressivity analysis for sulphate attack to concrete has been carried out in accordance with
BRE Special Digest 1, using the results of the chemical tests as detailed below.
Made Ground
Water soluble sulphate concentration in the made ground samples ranged from 90 mg/l to 2250 mg/l.
Based on above, the characteristic sulphate concentration in the made ground is 1,434 mg/l (based
on a mean of the highest 20% of the sulphate test results in accordance with BRE guidance). The
recorded pH values were all well over 6.5.
Based on the rare pyrite recorded in the made ground and five out of thirteen total oxidisable sulfide
values being greater than 0.3%, it is considered that the made ground at the site contains pyrite.
Total potential sulphate in the made ground samples ranged from 0.1% to 3.2%, with a characteristic
value of 2.3%.
However, BRE (2005) states that total potential sulphate test results are only appropriate if the
natural ground is to be substantially disturbed, for example, by cutting and filling to terrace a site, or
by excavation and backfilling, so that air can enter and oxidise any pyrite contained therein. Cutting
through ground without opening up the ground beyond the cut face (e.g. piling operations or
excavation without backfill) does not generally result in disturbed ground.
It is anticipated all ground beams/pile caps and in-situ concrete tank to be founded within 5m bgl (say
above 1m AOD). Total potential sulphate in the made ground samples collected within 5m bgl ranged
from 0.1% to 0.84%, with a characteristic value of 0.6%. Therefore, made ground soils (within about
5m depth or 1m AOD) at the site should be classified as ACEC Class AC-2 and the design sulphate

class for buried concrete in contact with the made ground is DS-2 assuming brownfield land and
mobile groundwater.
Alluvium
The water soluble sulphate concentration in two Alluvium samples were 267mg/l and 283 mg/l with
pH values well over 6.5.
Tests on the same Alluvium samples indicated an acid soluble sulphate (total) concentrations of
0.11% and a total potential sulphate concentration of 0.31% to 0.46%. The oxidisable sulphide
contents ranged between 0.2% and 0.35%.
Based on the test results, Alluvium at the site should be classified as ACEC Class AC-2 and the
design sulphate class for buried concrete in contact with Alluvium is DS-2 assuming mobile
groundwater using the worst case scenario of following ground disturbance.
London Clay
Water soluble sulphate concentration in the London Clay samples ranged from 249 mg/l to 1050 mg/l
with pH values all well over 6.5. Based on above, the characteristic sulphate concentration in the
London Clay is 992 mg/l (based on a mean of the highest 20% of the sulphate test results in
accordance with BRE guidance).
Based on the rare pyrite recorded in this unit and oxidisable sulphides being all greater than 0.3%
SO4, it is considered that pyrite is potentially present in the London Clay. Based on these test results,
the London Clay would be classified as AC-4 (static water conditions) and DS-4, mainly based on the
high total potential sulphate content of 0.88 to 3.48% (characteristic value of 3.1%). However, both
the water soluble and acid soluble sulphate contents in the clay samples are generally low.
London Clay at the site is recorded at over 10m depth, where the natural ground is unlikely to be
substantially disturbed based on the proposed development scheme.
Based on the advice included in BRE (2005) it is considered that assigning a design sulphate class of
DS-4 for the London Clay is not appropriate for the pile foundations driven through the clay for the
proposed structures at the site. Therefore, in accordance with the guidelines provided by BRE (2005),
concrete piles can be designed for ACEC Class AC-2 and design sulphate class DS-2 (taking into
ground aggressivity results in both made ground and groundwater) as the deeper London Clay is not
going to be disturbed (resulting in oxidation of pyrite) by piling activities.
Summary
founded in made ground well above 1m AOD. Based on the test results (including characteristic

water soluble sulphate value 1250 mg/l for all soil samples), as discussed above, it is recommended
that the site soils are classified as ACEC class AC-2 and the design sulphate class for buried
concrete in contact with the ground as DS-2.
7.13 Excavations and Groundwater Control
It is expected that shallow excavations in made ground and Alluvium will be achievable by means of
normal hydraulic excavating plant.
A hydraulic breaker should be allowed due to the presence of obstructions (relict concrete structures,
slab, piles and brick dock wall etc.) within the building footprint area.
For shallow excavations (say less than 4m deep) undertaken within the data centre site, groundwater
is anticipated to be below the base of excavation. Groundwater may rise to shallower depths during
wet periods or following heavy prolonged rainfall. If groundwater is encountered in shallow
excavations during construction works, it is considered likely that any groundwater flows will be of
limited volume and be able to be managed by traditional sump pumping methods.
Due to the nature of the made ground, it is anticipated that the excavations are likely to be unstable
even in the short term and that suitable protection techniques like shoring, trench sheets or benching
should be adopted to ensure the stability of the side walls during excavation.
In order to prevent damage to adjacent roads and structures, the design of the temporary retaining
structures and shallow excavations must address the risk of stability for the temporary and
permanent conditions, to ensure that the soil deformation (vertical and horizontal) around and below
the excavation remain within acceptable levels.
7.14 Reuse of Materials
At this stage, no cut and fill figures are available. If it is proposed to use site won made ground and
natural soil strata within the scheme, these materials should be engineered in accordance with the
Highways Agency Specification for Highway Works, Series 600 – Earthworks. It is recommended
that confirmatory tests be carried out prior to carrying out the earthworks if the site-won materials are
to be used as engineering fill.

Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1 Ground Conditions

Data Centre Site (Plot 6)
Within the infilled dock area, made ground (predominately granular) is generally between 10.5m to
12.8m thick, whereas outside the dock area, made ground is generally between 4.8m and 6.3m thick.
Outside the dock area, the made ground is underlain by Alluvium (soft to firm clay) over Kempton
Park Gravel (dense sand and gravel) to a depth of about 10m.
Made ground/Kempton Park Gravel is underlain by stiff to very stiff, high to very high strength,
London Clay to a depth of about 25m overlying the Harwich Formation strata comprising stiff slightly
sandy clay (3 to 5m thick) over the Lambeth Group strata comprising interbedded stiff to hard clay
and dense to very dense sand to a depth of 41.8m to 44.5m bgl.
Lambeth Group strata is underlain by the Thanet Sand comprising very dense sand to a depth of
about 58m bgl overlying the low becoming medium density Chalk. No soft zones or voids were
recorded in the Chalk to a depth of 65m bgl.
Future Office Development Site (Plot 8)
Available historical boreholes recorded the made ground in this area to a depth of 12.5m bgl
overlying London Clay to a depth of about 26.5m bgl. Current investigation (trial pits only) recorded
made ground over 4.0m deep and no deep boreholes are available in this area to prove the strata
immediately below the London Clay.
Groundwater
The recorded shallow groundwater level of 4.0m to 4.3m bgl (about 1.3m to 2.0m AOD) within the
infill made ground may be artificially raised as a consequence of water being in hydraulic continuity
with the nearby River Thames. Based on the monitoring records and available information from the
EA, it is considered the piezometric level of (-)12m AOD may be appropriate for the aquifers
underlying the London Clay at the site.
Relict Dock Wall and Obstructions in Data Centre Site
The trial pitting and geophysical survey have confirmed the alignment and depth of the relict dock
wall and identified a number of (underground) obstructions within the site. Details of these
obstructions including the relict dock wall location are given in the text. These should be taken into
account in relation to proposed excavation and pile foundation design at the site.

Existing Road Tunnel and Obstructions in Future Proposed Office Building Site
The East India Dock Road Tunnel crosses the southern part of the site, running in a northeast to
southwest direction. The tunnel location has been confirmed by the tunnel survey undertaken by
Greenhatch Group (2011) and the geophysical survey undertaken by Bentham Geoconsulting (2013)
during this investigation. Except for the existing tunnel, no evidence of other large obstructions were
identified within the office building site (west of the tunnel) by the geophysical survey.
Relict Wells and Current Monitoring Wells
As part of the development scheme, both relict wells and current monitoring wells should be
decommissioned. The decommissioning works must be undertaken in accordance with ‘Good
practice for decommissioning redundant wells and boreholes’ published by the Environment Agency
(2012).
UXO Risk
A detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment was carried out for the site by Bactec in
2013, who considered the UXO risk at the site to be medium to high.
The mitigation measures recommended by the Detailed UXO report should be followed during site
redevelopment in order to reduce risk from potential UXOs.
8.2 Engineering Considerations and Recommendations

General
As the detailed scheme design has not yet been completed, only the preliminary loads and general
scheme layout provided by the design team have been used in this assessment.
Foundation Design Recommendations – Data Centre Development
Based on the proven ground conditions revealed by this investigation, the proposed building layout
and the anticipated structural loads, it is considered that large diameter bored piles taken into the
Thanet Sand is likely to be the most suitable foundation solution for the proposed 8 storey data
centre. Preliminary piling assessment has been carried out in this report for bored piles to assess the
likely piling depths/capacities in different parts of the site due to the significantly varying ground
conditions across the development area.
Due to the presence of a significantly varying thickness of made ground underlying the building
footprint area and in view of possibly currently ongoing consolidation settlement considerations, it is
recommended that a suspended ground floor slab is adopted for the proposed structure.

Based on the proven ground conditions revealed by this investigation, the proposed layouts and the
anticipated applied loads, it is considered that a CFA/bored pile foundation (750mm diameter) taken
to London Clay is likely to be the most suitable foundation solution for the proposed underground
tanks.
Gas Protection Measures
No radon protective measures are required for the proposed development. Based on the monitoring
results to date, the gas regime at the site classifies as Characteristic Gas Situation 2 (CS2 – low
hazard potential) in accordance with Table 1, BS 8485:2007. In accordance with Table 2 in BS8485
the required gas protection value for a commercial building is 2. The guidance given in Table 3 of BS
should be used in choosing an appropriate combination of protective measures for the proposed
structures at the site.
Ongoing consolidation of the relatively recent made ground in the dock area is likely to result in voids
or pockets of voids forming below the slab long term and hence the risk of methane and or carbon
dioxide accumulating in the void(s) under the membrane. However, it is not considered that subfloor
ventilation with active abstraction/pressurization is required for a number of reasons as explained in
the text.
Ground Aggressivity
founded in shallow made ground well above 1m AOD. Based on the test results, the site soils are
classified as ACEC class AC-2 and the design sulphate class for buried concrete in contact with the
ground as DS-2 in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1:2005. Based on the test results, it is
considered the design class for the concrete piles to be DS-2 in accordance with BRE Special Digest
1:2005.
Excavations and Groundwater Control
It is possible that limited quantities of perched groundwater will be encountered in shallow

excavations, less than 4m deep and this would be able to be managed by traditional sump pumping
methods. Due to the nature of the made ground, it is anticipated that the excavations are likely to be
unstable even in the short term and that suitable protection techniques like shoring, trench sheets or
benching should be adopted to ensure the stability of the side walls during excavation.

Reuse of Site Won Soils
At this stage, no cut and fill figures are available. It is anticipated the excavated materials will be
largely taken off site. However, if it is proposed to use site won soils within the scheme, these
materials should be classified and engineered in accordance with the Highways Agency Specification
for Highway Works, Series 600 – Earthworks.
8.3 Contamination Constraints to Development

Site Contamination and Risk Assessment
No significantly elevated hydrocarbon or heavy metals concentrations have been identified within the
shallow depth soil materials at the site with respect human health in the context of a commercial end
use. However, localised amosite asbestos was identified at a single location at a concentration just
above the detection limits. Only one sample out of 17 detected any asbestos fibres, and, the location
at which the asbestos has been detected is beneath a proposed structure, therefore, it is considered
that this will break the pollutant linkage to future site users. It is recommended that appropriate
control measures are employed during the enabling and construction works (including potential
excavation/handling of asbestos containing soils) to mitigate the identified potential risk to site
workers.
Slightly elevated leachable concentrations of TPH and dissolved phase TPH within groundwater
samples have been identified at the site. However, these elevated concentrations are not considered
to represent a significant risk to controlled waters due to the presence of an aquiclude, and the
anticipated significant reduction in infiltration due to the proposed hard-surfacing and construction
proposed for the site.
The risk to human health resulting from the attack and permeation of new water supply pipes from
potential contaminants in made ground (TPH) is considered moderate (for PE pipe material only). It
is therefore recommended that all the chemical tests results are forwarded to the relevant water
supplier to determine their requirements for upgraded pipe material or services protection.
An outline remediation strategy has been proposed (Section 6.7) to render the site suitable for a
‘commercial’ end use.
Disposal of Soil Waste
Based on the soil test results and the preliminary soil waste classification assessment undertaken, it
is considered that the majority of the made ground materials at the site are likely to classify as ‘inert’
waste for offsite disposal purposes, with some of the made ground materials likely to classify as ‘non-
hazardous’ or possibly as ‘hazardous’ waste. This preliminary assessment will require confirmation
prior to any disposal of soil materials from site.

It should be noted that the above conclusions relate to the specific samples of made ground tested
during this investigation, and therefore, material excavated during re-development may not
necessarily have the same classification. It is recommended that soil waste materials varying from
the samples tested (and that are intended for offsite disposal) are analysed individually to determine
the classification of the waste.

References
1. BRE (2005). Special Digest 1:2005 Concrete in Aggressive Ground.
2. BS (2010). BS5930:1999+A2:2010 Code of Practice for Site Investigation.
3. BS (1994). BS8002 Code of Practice for Earth Retaining Structures.
4. BS (2011) BS 10175 Code of Practice for Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites.
5. BS (2003) BS EN ISO 14689-1 Geotechnical Investigation and Testing – identification and Classification of
Rock - Part 1: Identification and Description.
6. BS (2004) BS EN ISO 14688-2 Geotechnical Investigation and Testing – identification and Classification of
Soil - Part 2: Principles for a classification.
7. BS (2007) BS EN ISO 1997-2 Eurocode 7 — Geotechnical design — Part 2: Ground investigation and testing.
8. BS (2007). BS 8485 Code of Practice for the characterization and remediation from ground gas in affected
developments.
9. CIRIA (2004). Engineering in the Lambeth Group Report No. C583.
10. CIRIA (2002). Engineering in Chalk Report No. C574.
11. CL:AIRE / CIEH (2008). Guidance on Comparing Soil Contamination Data with a Critical Concentration.
12. Land Quality Management Ltd / Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH). (2008). Generic
Assessment Criteria (GACs) for Human Health Risk Assessment (Land Quality Press, 2nd edition 2009).
13. Nicholson (2005) Pressuremeter Proves ins worth in London’s Docklands.
14. Stroud M.A. (1975). “The Standard Penetration Test in Insensitive Clays and Soft Rocks”, Proceedings of the
European Symposium on Penetration Testing, 2, 367-375.
15. Tomlinson M. J. (2001). Foundation Design and Construction, 7th edition, Longman, Singapore.
16. Tomlinson (1994) Pile Design and Construction Practice, 4th Edition
17. UKWIR (2010). Guidance for the Selection of Water Supply Pipes to be Used in Brownfield Sites (UKWIR
Report Ref. No.: 10/MW/03/21).

Tables

Table 1: Summary of Engineering Properties of Soils
Stratum Index properties Bulk Saturated Intact dry density SPT N values Undrained Shear Undrained Shear Angle of Shearing
moisture content Strength* Strength** Resistance***
Density (chalk) (chalk)
w PI γ w γ ‘N’ Cu Cu ∅’
(%) (%) (kN/m ) 3 (%) (kN/m ) 3 (kPa) (kPa) (degrees)
5- 39 (38) plus
Made Ground - - - - - - - -
1No refusal
Alluvium 44–65(2) 52-56(2) - - - 7 – 15 (3) 38 - 86 (2) 29 – 86 (5) -
30(1) plus 2No

Kempton Park Gravel - - - - - - - 41 (N=50)
refusals
37-57(11) 19–20.2(11) 13–47(26) plus 54 – 227

London Clay 23-32(11) - - 78 – 227 (11) -
49 19.6 1No refusal (37)
Harwich Formation 24–26 (2) 44-49 (2) - - - 7No refusals 210 (N=50) 41 (N=50)
Lambeth Group –
24-30(3) 29-42(3) - - - 10No refusals 210 (N=50) 41 (N=50)
Woolwich Formation
Lambeth Group –
21(1) 39(1) - - - 2No refusals 210 (N=50) 41 (N=50)
Reading Formation
Lambeth Group –
- - - - - 15No refusals - 210 (N=50) 41 (N=50)
Upnor Formation
Thanet Sand 22-33 (5) - 18.4-20.2(4) - - 31No refusals - 210 (N=50) 41 (N=50)
19.3-19.7 (4) 25-30(8) 14.8-15.5 (4)

(58-59.2m bgl) (58-59.2m bgl)
Chalk 24-28(8) - 11No refusals - - -
19.7-20.3 (8) 15.5-16.2 (8)
(59.4-64.9) (59.4-64.9)

Table 1 Notes: 12-16: range of values; (7): total number of results. * Based on results of laboratory
undrained triaxial tests.
** Based on results of laboratory undrained triaxial tests and values derived from SPT tests; Cu derived
from SPT N values (Stroud & Butler method). A factor of 4.2 for natural clay with PI over 30%

Table 2: Summary of Characteristic Geotechnical Parameters.
Stratum Strength Weight Density Undrained Angle of

Shearing
Description Shear Strength
Resistance
γ
(degrees)
(kN/m³) Cu
(kPa)
Made Ground - 18 - 28
Alluvium Firm clay 17 - 22
Kempton Park
Dense sand 21 - 36
Gravel
Cu (kPa) = 70+10 x
London Clay Stiff clay 19.5 (- D-4) where D is in -
m AOD <200 kPa
Interbedded with
(33 for granular
Harwich Formation stiff clay and dense 20 150
units)
silty sand
Lambeth Group stiff clay with dense (35 for granular
20 180
Woolwich Formation sand units)
Lambeth Group
Stiff to hard clay 21 180 -
Reading Formation
Lambeth Group Very dense with (35 for granular

21 200
Upnor Formation very stiff clay units)
Thanet Sand Very dense sand 19.5 - 38
Low Density Chalk

Weak rock 19.5 - -
Over 59.4m bgl
Medium Density
Chalk Weak rock 20.0 - -
Below 59.4m bgl

Table 3: Ground Aggressivity Test Results
Soil Type BH No Depth Water Acid Total pH Oxidisable

Soluble Soluble Potential Sulfides
Sulphate Sulphate Sulphate
m bgl) 2:1
soil/water (%)
extract (%) (%)
(mg/l)
Made Ground
Cohesive CBH1 1.2 982 0.29 0.41 7.5 0.12
Granular CBH1 3.2 334 0.07 0.13 8.3 0.06
Cohesive CBH2 0.8 512 0.14 0.25 8.0 0.11
Granular CBH2 3.2 90 0.03 0.1 9.1 0.07
Granular CBH3B 2.2 195 0.11 0.22 8.5 0.11
Cohesive CBH3B 7.2 514 1.70 1.8 8.5 0.10
Granular CBH4 2.2 87 0.08 0.18 9.2 0.10
Granular CBH4 6.2 584 0.17 0.68 8.1 0.51
Cohesive CBH4 9.2 201 0.08 0.4 8.4 0.32
Granular CBH5 1.2 102 0.07 0.17 9.0 0.10
Cohesive CBH5 5.5 2250 0.42 3.2 7.8 2.78
Cohesive CBH5 8.2 317 0.08 0.84 8.6 0.76
Cohesive CBH5 10.2 1070 0.30 1.89 8.6 1.59
Range 90-2250 0.03-1.7 0.1-3.2 7.5-9.1 0.1-2.78
Alluvium
Alluvium CBH1 6.2 267 0.11 0.46 8.1 0.35
Alluvium CBH2 6.2 283 0.11 0.31 7.5 0.20
Range 267-283 0.11 0.31-0.46 7.5-8.1 0.2-0.35
London Clay
London CBH1 12.0 580 0.16 1.16 7.6 1.00

Clay
London CBH3B 10.6 249 0.06 0.88 8.1 0.82

Clay

Soil Type BH No Depth Water Acid Total pH Oxidisable
Soluble Soluble Potential Sulfides
Sulphate Sulphate Sulphate
m bgl) 2:1
soil/water (%)
extract (%) (%)
(mg/l)
London CBH3B 16.0 929 0.25 1.63 7.6 1.38

Clay
London CBH3B 20.5 641 0.17 1.47 7.8 1.30

Clay
London CBH4 12.0 852 0.23 1.10 7.6 0.87

Clay
London CBH4 14.0 493 0.21 1.85 7.5 1.64

Clay
London CBH4 18.0 516 0.20 1.27 7.2 1.07

Clay
London CBH4 22.0 404 0.16 1.30 7.6 1.13

Clay
London CBH5 14.0 1050 0.28 2.75 7.2 2.47

Clay
London CBH5 18.0 934 0.24 3.48 7.1 3.46

Clay
Range 249-1050 0.06-0.28 0.88-3.48 7.1-8.1 0.82-3.46
Groundwater Exploratory Hole Depth Sulphate pH Chloride

(m bgl) (mg/l) (mg/l)
- BH3 - 1100 7.5 130
- BH5 - 620 7.6 230
Range 620 - 1100 7.5 - 7.6 130 - 230

Table 4: Gas Monitoring Results
BH No CBH1
Date Atmospheric CO2 O2 CH4 H2S CO Gas Flow Gas screening value
(l/hr) (Note 1)
pressure (%v/v) (%v/v) (%v/v) (ppm) (ppm) Rate (l/hr)
(mbars) CO2 CH4
10/01/14 1021 0.6 16.1 <0.1 ND ND 0.1 0.0006 <0.0001
20/01/14 1012 <0.1 18.8 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001
31/01/14 1007 1.5 16.4 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.0015 <0.0001
13/02/14 993 2.1 16.4 <0.1 ND ND 0.1 0.0021 <0.0001
25/02/14 1006 3.3 13.7 <0.1 ND ND 0.1 0.0033 <0.0001
07/03/14 1030 1.6 16.0 0.5 ND ND <0.1 <0.0016 <0.0005
BH No CBH3B
(l/hr) (Note 1)
(mbars) CO2 CH4
10/01/14 1021 <0.1 20.9 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001
20/01/14 1012 <0.1 19.7 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001
31/01/14 1007 0.2 19.2 <0.1 ND ND 0.9 0.0018 <0.0009
13/02/14 992 0.1 20.3 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001
25/02/14 1006 0.1 20.3 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001
07/03/14 1029 <0.1 20.2 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001
BH No CBH5
(l/hr) (Note 1)
(mbars) CO2 CH4
10/01/14 1021 0.2 17.4 6.4 ND ND 0.1 0.0002 0.0064
20/01/14 1012 <0.1 20.9 <0.1 ND ND 0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001
31/01/14 1007 <0.1 20.9 <0.1 ND ND 0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001
13/02/14 991 <0.1 20.8 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001
25/02/14 1006 <0.1 21.0 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001
07/03/14 1029 <0.1 20.6 <0.1 ND ND <0.1 <0.0001 <0.0001

Table 5a: Groundwater Observations during Fieldwork
Exploratory Water Strike Level Remarks

Hole
Stratum Depth
(m bgl)
CBH1 Kempton Park Gravel 7.5 Strike (rose to 7.2m after 20minutes)
CBH3B Made Ground 6.0 Strike (rose to 5.5m after 20minutes)
CBH4 Made Ground 6.2 Strike (rose to 5.6m after 20minutes)
CBH5 Made Ground 4.7 Strike (rose to 4.6m after 20minutes)
Made Ground 7.5 Strike (rose to 7.2m after 20minutes)
Harwich Formation 25.5 No rise
CTT6 Made Ground 6.5 Seepage

Table 5b: Groundwater Monitoring Results
Date BH No CBH1 CBH4 CBH1 CBH3B CBH5
Installation piezometer tip 50mm standpipe

type
Response Thanet Thanet MG MG MG

Zone Sand Sand
Pipe/Tip 47 45.5 2.1 8 8

Depth (mbgl)
10/01/14 GW m bgl
18.8 28.6 4.0 4.6
Depth Dry
(m
(-12.6) (-23.4) (2.0) (1.3)
AOD)
20/01/14 GW m bgl
19.0 29.4 4.3 4.3
Depth Dry
(m
(-12.8) (-23.2) (1.7) (1.6)
AOD)
31/01/14 GW m bgl
18.4 29.1 4.4 4.2
Depth Dry
(m
(-12.2) (-22.9) (1.6) (1.6)
AOD)
13/02/14 GW m bgl
18.7 29.7 4.4 4.2
Depth Dry
(m
(-12.4) (-23.5) (1.7) (1.7)
AOD)
25/02/14 GW m bgl
18.8 30.5 4.3 4.3
Depth Dry
(m
(-12.5) (-24.3) (1.7) (1.6)
AOD)
07/03/14 m bgl
GW 11.7 31.0 4.3 4.3
(m Dry
Depth (-5.4) (-24.8) (1.7) (1.6)
AOD)

Table 6: Summary of Soil Chemical Test Results and Tier 1 Assessment (‘Commercial’ Land Use)
Test Results Mean No. of Threshold No. of Test Results Does

Contaminant Units Range Value Tests Value for above Threshold US95 Exceed
Test ‘Commercial’ Threshold Value
(US95) Land Use (YES/NO)?
Metals, semi-metals, pH
Arsenic mg/kg 10-24 N/A 17 6401 None N/A
Cadmium mg/kg 0.2-2.5 -- 17 2301 -- --
Chromium (III) mg/kg 12-54 -- 17 88402 -- --
Chromium (VI) mg/kg <1.0 -- 17 352 -- --
Copper mg/kg 4.2-230 -- 17 717002 -- --
Mercury mg/kg <0.05-1.30 -- 17 261 -- --
Nickel mg/kg 5.1-35 -- 17 18001 -- --
Lead mg/kg 6.9-430 -- 17 64903 -- --
Selenium mg/kg <0.5 -- 17 130001 -- --
Zinc mg/kg 12-330 -- 17 6650002 -- --
Cyanide (free) mg/kg <0.1-0.3 -- 17 343 -- --
PAHs
Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.1-0.5 -- 14 1000002 -- --
Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.1-0.4 -- 14 1000002 -- --
Anthracene mg/kg <0.1-1.3 -- 14 5400002 -- --
Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg <0.1-2.7 -- 14 972 -- --
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg <0.1-2.3 -- 14 142 --
Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.1-1.8 -- 14 1002 -- --
Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg <0.1-1.3 -- 14 6602 -- --
Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.1-1.1 -- 14 1402 -- --
Chrysene mg/kg <0.1-2.3 -- 14 1402 -- --
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg <0.1-0.2 -- 14 132 -- --
Indeno(123cd)pyrene mg/kg <0.1-2.0 -- 14 622 -- --
Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.1-9.0 -- 14 230002 -- --
Fluorene mg/kg <0.1-0.5 -- 14 710002 -- --
Naphthalene mg/kg <0.1 -- 14 11002 -- --
Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.1-6.1 -- 14 230002 -- --
Pyrene mg/kg <0.1-6.8 -- 14 540002 -- --
TPHs
TPH Aliphatic C5-C6 mg/kg <0.001 -- 7 130002 -- --
TPH Aliphatic C16-C35 mg/kg <5-20 -- 7 18000002 -- --
TPH Aromatic C5-C7 mg/kg <0.001 -- 7 90002 -- --
TPH Aromatic C10- mg/kg <0.9 -- 7 345002 -- --
C12
TPH Aromatic C12- mg/kg <0.5-3.4 -- 7 378002 -- --
C16
2
TPH Aromatic C16- mg/kg <0.6-11 -- 7 28000 -- --
C21
2
TPH Aromatic C21- mg/kg <1.4-93 -- 7 28000 -- --
C35
Others
Phenol mg/kg <0.3-0.5 -- 13 32001 -- --
Asbestos Screen -- Single identification of amosite in -- 17 Presence 1 --
CTP03 at 2.50 m 0.002% w/w
Notes:
N/A – Not applicable / No threshold value exists.
1 – Refers to CLEA Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) for ‘Commercial’ land use.
2 – Refers to the LQM/CIEH Generic Assessment Criteria (GACs) for ‘Commercial’ land use.
3 – Refers to ATRISK Soil Screening Values (SSVs) for ‘Commercial’ land use.
Mercury concentrations have been assessed based on the CLEA SGV for elemental mercury
(conservative).

Table 7: Summary of Soil Leachate Test Results and Tier 1 Assessment
Test No of Threshold Value Locations of Threshold

Results Tests Value Exceedances
Contaminant Units
Range DWS EQS
(Freshwater)
Metals, pH, Cyanide
pH units 8.1-9.1 4 N/A 6–9 ?
Arsenic ug/l <0.16-1.9 4 10 50 --
Chromium ug/l <0.25 – 1.20 4 50 5 – 250 --
Cadmium ug/l <0.03 4 5 5 --
Copper ug/l <0.4 – 0.96 4 2000 1 – 28 --
Lead ug/l <0.09 – 0.72 4 25 4 – 250 --
Nickel ug/l <0.5 – 1.20 4 50 50 – 200 --
Zinc ug/l <1.25 4 5000 8 – 500 --
Mercury ug/l <0.01 4 1 1 --
Selenium ug/l <0.25 – 0.81 4 10 N/A --
Cyanide ug/l <40 4 50 N/A --
Phenol, Sulphate
Phenol ug/l <0.5 4 0.5 30 --
Sulphate mg/l 2.3 – 22 4 250 400 --
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PAH (total)1 ug/l <0.04-0.07 4 0.11 N/A --
Naphthalene ug/l <0.01 4 N/A 10 --
Benzo(a)pyren ug/l <0.01 4 0.01 N/A --

e
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs)
GRO (C5-C10) ug/l <10 4 10 N/A --
DRO (C10- ug/l 28-130 4 10 N/A 4

C24)
MRO (C24- ug/l 78-200 4 10 N/A 4

C40)

Table 7 Notes:
DWS – UK Drinking Water Standards.
EQS (Freshwater) – Environmental Quality Standards (Freshwater).
1 – The PAH (total) concentrations and the DWS for PAH are based on the sum of the 4 PAHs [benzo(b)
fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene].
? – Exceedance of the Tier 1 threshold value cannot be determined with certainty because either the
laboratory limit of detection exceeds the Tier 1 threshold value, or the corresponding EQS (freshwater)
threshold value is presented as a range.

Table 8: Summary of Groundwater Test Results and Tier 1 Assessment
Test Results No of Threshold Value Locations of Threshold

Range Tests Value Exceedances
Contaminant Units
DWS EQS
(Freshwater)
Metals, pH, Cyanide
pH units 7.5 – 7.6 2 N/A 6–9 ?
Arsenic ug/l 1.7 – 4.2 2 10 50 --
Chromium ug/l <0.25 – 0.5 2 50 5 – 250 --
Cadmium ug/l 0.04 – 0.12 2 5 5 --
Copper ug/l 0.7 – 4.0 2 2000 1 – 28 --
Lead ug/l 1.1 – 1.9 2 25 4 – 250 --
Nickel ug/l 4.9 – 11 2 50 50 – 200 --
Zinc ug/l 48.9 – 124 2 5000 8 – 500 --
Mercury ug/l <0.01 2 1 1 --
Selenium ug/l 1.7 – 3.0 2 10 N/A --
Cyanide ug/l <40 2 50 N/A --
Phenol, Sulphate
Phenol ug/l <0.1 2 0.5 30 --
Sulphate mg/l 620 - 1100 2 250 400 2 – CBH3 & CBH5
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PAH (total)1 ug/l <0.04 2 0.11 N/A --
Naphthalene ug/l <0.01 – 0.13 2 N/A 10 --
Benzo(a)pyren ug/l <0.01 – 0.01 2 0.01 N/A --

e
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs)
GRO (C5-C10) ug/l <1 2 10 N/A --
DRO (C10- ug/l 180 - 300 2 10 N/A 2 – CBH3 & CBH5

C24)
MRO (C24- ug/l 230 - 1700 2 10 N/A 2 – CBH3 & CBH5

C40)

Table 8 Notes:
DWS – UK Drinking Water Standards.
EQS (Freshwater) – Environmental Quality Standards (Freshwater).
1 – The PAH (total) concentrations and the DWS for PAH are based on the sum of the 4 PAHs [benzo(b)
fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene].

Table 9: Waste Acceptance Criteria Test Results
Sample Location CTP2 CTP6 CTP7 CTP9 CBH5 Landfill waste acceptance criteria for
Sample Depth (m 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 granular wastes
bgl)
Non-
Inert Hazardous
reactive
Amount leached at L:S 10:1 waste waste
haz. Waste
landfill landfill
landfill
Waste analysis
Total
%
Organic 0.6 1.5 1.1 1 0.6 3 5 6
w/w
Carbon
Loss on %
2.3 3.8 2.1 3.4 2.2 - - 10
Ignition w/w
BTEX mg/kg <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 6 - -
PCBs
(7congeners mg/kg <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1 - -
)
Mineral Oil
mg/kg <10 330 750 120 63 500 - -
(C10-C40)
PAH (total) mg/kg <1.6 45 9.2 <1.6 <1.6 100 - -
pH Units 8.4 8.9 11.1 8.0 8.7 - >6 -
Acid
Neutralisatio mol/k To be evaluated by landfill
<1 1.2 1.9 <1 <1 -
n Capacity g operator
(pH4)
Acid
Neutralisatio mol/k To be evaluated by landfill
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -
n Capacity g operator
(pH7)
Eluate analysis BS EN12457-3 Limit values at L:S 10:1 (Amount leached at L:S 10:1)
Arsenic (As) mg/kg 0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.5 2 25
Barium (Ba) mg/kg 0.32 0.28 0.8 0.62 0.35 20 100 300
Cadmium
mg/kg <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 1 5
(Cd)
Chromium
mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 10 70
(Cr)
Copper (Cu) mg/kg <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 2 50 100
Mercury (Hg) mg/kg <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.01 0.2 2
Molybdenum
mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 10 30
(Mo)
Nickel (Ni) mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 10 40
Lead (Pb) mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.5 10 50
Antimony
mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 0.7 5
(Sb)
Selenium
mg/kg <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.1 0.5 7
(Se)
Zinc (Zn) mg/kg <0.01 <0.01 0.032 0.022 0.027 4 50 200
Chloride (Cl) mg/kg <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 800 15000 25000
Fluoride (F) mg/kg 2.27 1.58 2.99 1.97 2.21 10 150 500
Sulphate
mg/kg 147 133 1205 485 <100 1000 20000 50000
(SO4)
Total
Dissolved mg/kg 551 518 2111 959 539 4000 60000 100000
Solids (TDS)
Phenol Index mg/kg <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1 - -
Dissolved
Organic
mg/kg 50 <50 <50 <50 <50 500 800 1000
Carbon
(DOC)

Figures

1007895 A4
North THE SITE
Date Centre
Site (Site 6)
Future Office
Site (Site 8)
Project Title Scale NTS

Crown Copyright Licence No. Project Indigo, London
Site Location Plan Date 23-01-14
Consulting Engineers
AL 100002608
Client Telehouse International Drawn EP
Horsley House, Regent Centre
Approximate centre of the site is at Cooperation of Europe ltd Stage Drawing No. Rev. Checked YI Gosforth, Newcastle NE3 3LU
Telephone: (0191) 213 1515
NGR 538856E 181109N
Architect Nicholas Webb Architects - Figure 1 - Verified JA Facsimile: (0191) 213 1701
1007895 A4
North
Date Centre Building
Future Office Building

Source: Site Layout Plan Drawing Project Indigo, London
Proposed Development Layout Date 23-01-14
No. 0393-00/00_002 Rev P01 Client Telehouse International Drawn EP
prepared by Nicholas Webb Horsley House, Regent Centre
Cooperation of Europe ltd Stage Drawing No. Rev. Checked YI Gosforth, Newcastle NE3 3LU
Architects Plc (08/11/2013) Telephone: (0191) 213 1515
1007895 A4

Project Indigo, London
SPT N Value versus Depth Plot Date 23-01-14
Client Telehouse International Made Ground & London Clay Drawn EP
Telephone: (0191) 213 1515
1007895 A4
In-filled dock Outside the in-filled area
Made Ground up to 12m bgl Made Ground up to 6m bg

overlying alluvium, over Kempton
Park Gravel to 10m bgl
Characteristic Cu value:
Cu (kPa) = 10 x Depth (m bgl) – 30

or, to relate to Ordnance Datum:
Cu (kPa) = 70 + 10 x (- Depth (m
AOD) -4) with maximum Cu limited
to 200kPa
Harwich Formation
over Lambeth Group

Project Indigo, London
Undrained Shear Strength versus Date 23-01-14
Client Telehouse International Depth, London Clay Drawn EP
Telephone: (0191) 213 1515
Appendix A
Bentham Geoconsulting Geophysical Reports

Site: Oregano Drive London Project Indigo.
Project Title: Geophysical survey of the southern site.
Survey Date: 27-28th November 2013
Client: Cundall
Horsley House
Regent Centre
Gosforth
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE3 3LU
Bentham Geoconsulting Report Number: BGC591_South
Report Author: Dr S J Openshaw

Bentham Geoconsulting Limited,
6 Nether View, Wennington,
Lancashire, LA2 8NP.
t: 01524 222122
w: www.benthamgeoconsulting.co.uk
e: info@benthamgeoconsulting.co.uk
________________________________________________________________Page 2 of 19
THIS REPORT REPRESENTS THE BEST PROFESSIONAL

OPINION OF THE AUTHOR(S). EVERY EFFORT HAS
BEEN MADE TO ENSURE ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY.
THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY OF LOCALISED
INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE DATA WHEN USING
NON-DESTRUCTIVE METHODS.
THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED,

EXCEPT IN FULL, WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM
BENTHAM GEOCONSULTING LIMITED
Cover: Google Earth Image of the Project Indigo Southern Site.
bgc591 cundall oregano dr south rpt 1601a14 (issue 2).doc

________________________________________________________________Page 3 of 19
CONTENTS
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4
Site Details ........................................................................................................................... 5
Survey Methodology .............................................................................................................. 6
Electromagnetic (EM) measurements.............................................................................. 6

Electromagnetic equipment ........................................................................................... 7
Electromagnetic data processing .................................................................................... 8
Resistivity measurements ............................................................................................. 8
Resistivity imaging - equipment ..................................................................................... 9
Resistivity imaging - data processing ............................................................................ 11
Survey layout ..................................................................................................................... 12
Results ............................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 16
Survey limitations ...................................................................................................... 16
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site topographic plan and resistivity line locations...................................................... 17
Figure 2: Conductivity data overlain upon the site topographic data with the predicted East India
Dock Road Tunnel alignment and the location of the resistivity survey lines. ............................... 18
Figures 3-5: Resistivity data and line positions overlain on the site topographic plan and
conductivity data. ................................................................................................................ 19

________________________________________________________________Page 4 of 19
Introduction
This survey was commissioned by Cundall on behalf of their client (Telehouse International
Corporation of Europe Ltd). This report contains the results of a geophysical survey conducted in
the southern part of the Project Indigo site at Oregano Drive, London. The purpose of the survey
was to confirm the alignment of the East India Dock Tunnel which runs under the site.
The site is proposed as the location for a future development. Prior to its current form the site lay
at the eastern end of the former East India Dock Basin. The entire dock area has been infilled and
the majority of the area to the west has now been developed. The Project Indigo southern site is
one of the last undeveloped areas.
Figure 1 shows the site topographic plan and the predicted route of the East India Dock Tunnel.
Currently there have been some intrusive works to verify ground conditions to the north and
south of the tunnel but no attempts have been made to verify the tunnel intrusively. This is
primarily due to the need to safeguard the structural integrity of the tunnel.
The purpose of the geophysical survey was to attempt to indicate the location of the tunnel as far
as is practically possible using non-intrusive methods. This approach would verify the tunnel
position allowing some initial development design works to be undertaken. The required intrusive
works will be initiated at a later date.

________________________________________________________________Page 5 of 19
Site Details
The Project Indigo southern site is enclosed within a road system comprising Leamouth Road to
the east, Sorrel Lane to the north, Oregano Drive to the west and Saffron Avenue to the south.
The coordinates of the site centre are 538878 181053.
The Project Indigo southern site area comprised a near flat lying area elevated above anti-
intrusion bunds. The extents of the site measured some 74m north to south and 57m east to
west. The site was entered from the north off Sorrel lane via a break in the anti-intrusion bunds.
At the time of the survey the site was not in use by any other site investigation equipment. As
such there were no obstructions and the survey area covered the entire site within the anti-
intrusion bunds.

________________________________________________________________Page 6 of 19
Survey Methodology
The aims of the geophysical survey were to determine the following-
1. To determine the exact location and alignment of the East India Dock Road Tunnel
2. To estimate the depth to the upper surface of the tunnel roof slab.
3. To report on the location of any other possible structures or obstructions in the northern
area of the site.
In order to meet the requirements of the survey two complimentary geophysical methods were
used. A mobile walk-over method was deployed to provide data over the site as a whole.
Subsequently a static test method was deployed over three locations to provide vertical profiles of
the subsurface to aid in understanding the sub-surface situation. The combination of both
geophysics and intrusive investigations would be used to form an assessment of the East India
Dock Tunnel.
The geophysical techniques used were:-

1. An electromagnetic (EM) ground conductivity survey to measure the changes in
conductivity related to localised sub-surface structures, materials and moisture distribution
which can be caused by in-situ structures such as walls, concrete debris and variations in
infill materials.
2. Resistivity imaging surveys were deployed to produce vertical cross-sections to show the
distribution of the electrical properties of the sub-surface which can be interpreted through
modelling to show layering, the location of deeper structures and debris.
Electromagnetic (EM) measurements

Electromagnetic measurements of ground conductivity are useful for mapping out the variations
in near-surface materials. The method is used frequently to attempt the location of sub-surface
structures. A site can be characterised at high resolution relatively quickly using this approach.
Electromagnetic (EM) surveys utilise the changing response of the sub-surface to the propagation
of alternating electromagnetic waves comprising of two orthogonal vector components, intensity
(E) and magnetic moment (H), in a plane perpendicular to the travel direction (see diagram).
D ia g r a m t o illu s t r a t e t h e t w o p r in c ip a l
c o m p o n e n t s o f a n e le c t r o m a g n e t ic w a v e . E a n d H
r e p r e s e n t t h e e l e c t r i c a n d m a g n e t ic c o m p o n e n t s
r e s p e c t iv e ly . A f t e r B e c k ( 1 9 8 1 )
A transmitter coil generates the primary electromagnetic field of which part propagates into the
ground surface. Depending upon the properties of the sub-surface, the electromagnetic field is

________________________________________________________________Page 7 of 19
modified. If for example, a conductive media is present the electro-magnetic field will induce eddy
currents within the conductor. Changes in the conductivity around voids, shafts, differing
materials, faults and structures can produce widely differing EM responses.
A receiver coil detects the secondary EM field generated by these eddy currents. Because the
receiver coil also detects the remaining primary field which does not propagate into the ground,
the receiver coils detects the resultant of the primary and secondary fields. Thus, the phase and
amplitude of the resultant field will be different to the unmodulated primary field. The degree by
which these responses differ can provide information about the relative geometry, size and
electrical properties of the sub-surface media. In a homogenous material the value is the true
conductivity but on sites where there is a mix of materials the value is the bulk value.
It should be noted that within the limits of instrumentation, any variation of the resultant ground
conductivity would be detected. When a signal from single target is combined with signals from
bulk materials and items of debris, it is frequently impossible to interpret anomalies in terms of
their identity until pinpointed excavation is conducted.
Electromagnetic equipment
The equipment used for the surveys at the Project Indigo southern site was a Geonics EM31 with
an Allegro field computer which recorded both EM31 data and differential GPS (dGPS) position
data. The EM31 has a configuration allowing it to obtain data over a depth range to about 5m
when carried.
The control software on the Allegro field computer allows for automatic collection of data at set
time intervals making a walking survey possible. At this site the instrument was set to record
conductivity data at a rate of 5Hz which is equivalent to a sample every linear 0.2m, locally
dependent upon the walking speed of the operator.
The EM31 comprises two booms one of which is the transmitter coil and the other a receiver coil.
The control electronics are housed in the blue console, see photograph1 below.
Photograph 1: The Geonics EM31 with DGPS system.

________________________________________________________________Page 8 of 19
Electromagnetic data processing

EM31 data were stored upon a battery powered data logger in real time. The data for each survey
line or area are given a unique notation and each data point is assigned a dGPS position in
latitude and longitude.
The data stored by the Allegro field computer was ground conductivity values in milliSiemens per
meter (mS/m). After completion of each section of the survey, the data were transferred to PC
for storage.
In the office the data are processed to remove bad data points, to remove the effects of striping
caused by surveying in alternate directions, a correction is made for the offset between the GPS
and the EM31 and further filtering is applied to enhance features of interest. The dGPS
coordinates were converted to GB Ordnance Survey National Grid eastings and northings.
The survey data were converted to a grid system using Golden Software Surfer after applying the
natural neighbour method.
For presentation appropriate contour levels are chosen to further illustrate the conductivity
characteristics of the site and the data were then interpreted for reporting purposes.
Resistivity measurements
Vertical profiles / cross-sections of the sub-surface at the Project Indigo southern site were
collected using the resistivity imaging method.
The electrical properties of a material are usually expressed in terms of its resistivity. The SI unit
of resistivity is ohm meter (Ohm-m) and the resistivity (R) between opposite faces of a
conducting body of uniform cross-sectional area (A) and length (l) is expressed as:-
  RA l
The resistivity technique requires that an electric current be driven into the ground using a
current electrode and the resulting potential difference be measured at the potential electrode. In
traditional resistivity measurements the current is driven into the ground and potential
differences are measured using an array of electrodes connected via cables to a resistivity meter.
The number of electrodes varies according to the array type and configuration.
The configuration of the electrodes depends on the type of survey being conducted. A common
configuration is the Wenner array which has a high vertical resolution and is particularly suited to
resolving horizontally layered lithology whilst achieving a high signal to noise ratio. In this
method four electrodes are spaced equally with the current electrodes on the extremes. The
diagram below shows the basic Wenner array and its current flow.

________________________________________________________________Page 9 of 19
Wenner array current flow and electrode arrangement
The diagram above shows the situation for a single measurement. In order to build a profile along
a particular survey line the array is typically traversed the desired distance after each
measurement with the first electrode being moved to the position of the second and the second
electrode being moved to the position of the third and so on. The spacing of the electrodes
dictates the depth of investigation and the wider the spacing the more resistivity information is
obtained from depth. If the method above was followed then the survey would obtain traverse
data from a single depth horizon. To collect deeper traverse data the process would be repeated
with increased electrode spacings until many layers of data had been collected involving a huge
amount of manual labour.
An alternative survey method can be achieved by gradually increasing the electrode spacing
about a midpoint. This approach allows a single resistivity depth profile to be built up over one
fixed location. This is the resistivity sounding method and is suitable for low resolution studies.
In order to build up a profile which has both depth and lateral extent modern equipment allows
geophysicists to obtain resistivity data from many electrodes whilst removing the need to
regularly move the equipment after individual measurements. This is the resistivity imaging
technique.
Resistivity imaging - equipment

The system used at the southern Project Indigo site was an Allied Tigre 128 resistivity system.
This unit uses up to 128 addressable electrodes connected by multicore cable. Measurements are
sequenced by a control unit with control software and data storage managed by software on a
field laptop. Depending upon the type of survey a single profile can be collected in 1 to 5 hours
depending upon the line length and the test setup used.

________________________________________________________________Page 10 of 19
Photograph 3: Allied Tigre resistivity equipment in use.
In the diagram below the general arrangement of the survey system is shown together with the
sequence of measurements taken along a single survey line which applies to the Wenner
configuration. Note that the first measurements obtain traverse readings from successive sets of
electrodes (station 1 - electrodes 1-4 followed by 2-5 and so on). To obtain deeper
measurements the system increases the electrode separation by 2 then 3 and so on (station 32).
The corresponding depth spread of readings with each separation is shown by layers n1, n2 n6.
The overall distribution of data points is an inverse trapezoid under each survey line.

________________________________________________________________Page 11 of 19
At the Project Indigo southern site we used 64 electrodes with a spacing of 1m. The theoretical
depth achievable with this spacing was around 9m with the Wenner electrode configuration. The
resolution was considered to be more than sufficient to image a large target such as a tunnel
which was thought to be buried at a depth of between 2 and 5m.
The survey parameters are controlled by software installed on a field laptop. This software
controls the current injected into the ground, the current on and off times and the number of
repeat measurements as well as making sure the data meet basic quality control criteria. These
criteria centre around the repeatability of the apparent resistivity recorded during each cycle of
each measurement. The equipment was set up to take the average measurement over four
cycles.
During data collection the results from each measurement are displayed in a table. The raw data
table gives a good idea as to the nature of the ground and also allows repeat measurements to be
taken once automatic data collection has finished. Occasionally measurements fail due to
polarisation or bad contact during a particular combination of electrodes. Repeat measurements
can be made after the main measurement process has been completed by examination of the raw
data table.
In summary, the site provided good ground contact for each electrode, primarily due to the damp
ground materials. Repeatability between readings was excellent with errors typically less than 2%
over a 4 measurement average.
Resistivity imaging - data processing

Individual resistivity measurements were stored as files on hard disk whilst the system completed
its measurement process. Data were stored in ASCII text format and were subsequently
converted via software utilities so as to be readable by our processing software package,
Res2DINV.
Using the raw resistivity data the Res2DINV software divides the depth profile into a number of
rectangular blocks and subsequently determines the resistivity distribution within each block that
fits an apparent resistivity pseudosection which agrees with the actual measurements on site. For
the Wenner array, the thickness of the first layer of blocks is set at 0.5 times the electrode
spacing. The thickness of each subsequent deeper layer is normally increased by 10% or 25%.
The depths of the layers can also be changed manually by the user to allow for information on
layering from boreholes or trial pits. The optimisation method tries to reduce the difference
between the calculated and measured apparent resistivity values by adjusting the resistivity of
the model blocks. A measure of this difference is given by the root-mean-squared (RMS) error. In
general the most prudent approach is to choose the model at the iteration after which the RMS
error does not change significantly. This usually occurs between the 3rd and 5th iterations.
Prior to any form of modelling clearly outlying data points are removed from the data. Such bad
data points could be due to the failure of the relays at one of the electrodes, poor electrode
ground contact due to dry ground, or shorting across the cables due to very wet ground
conditions.
Various parameters can be set to optimise the model for each site including vertical and
horizontal filters and the type of inversion method. We have also used the robust inversion
method which tends to highlight sharp boundaries more clearly. Various smoothing constraints
have also been applied.

________________________________________________________________Page 12 of 19
Survey layout
Conductivity survey data were collected along survey lines orientated north to south. This
orientation was required in order to survey perpendicularly over the tunnel which was known to
run along a near east to west orientation. By surveying perpendicularly to the tunnel orientation
one could expect the clearest definition of the boundary between the tunnel wall and the
surrounding fill.
Conductivity survey lines were spaced at around 2m apart whilst recording data at a linear
separation of 0.2m depending on the local walking speed.
Resistivity data were collected along the western, central and eastern parts of the site. The
survey lines ran along a north-west to south-east or north to south orientation. The electrode
spacing was 1m. The 0m datum was located at the northern end of each line. The survey line
locations are indicated on Figure 1.

________________________________________________________________Page 13 of 19
Results
Figure 2 shows a topographic plan of the site with the conductivity data overlain upon it. Also
shown on this plan is the predicted route of the East India Dock Road Tunnel. From this plan we
can summarise the conductivity data as follows:-
1. The conductivity levels range between 14mS/m and 85mS/m. The typical background
conductivity is of the order 35-40 mS/m (Greens on the figure).
2. The conductivity distribution clearly shows a low to intermediate conductivity zone running
along the predicted tunnel alignment. The boundaries of this zone are abrupt indicating
the likelihood that the target is a man-made structure. We assume that this anomaly
represents the location of the East India Dock Road Tunnel. The conductivity changes will
be the caused by the concrete forming the tunnel walls and roof slab.
3. To the north of the assumed tunnel location the conductivity is lowest in the northwest of
the area with values of <30mS/m. The remaining area to the north of the tunnel contains
conductivities in the range 40-50mS/m with a maximum conductivity in a single location
of 57mS/m. Despite there being two distinct conductivity zones to the north of the tunnel
their relative variations within each zone are low. There appear to be no linear conductivity
anomalies suggestive of in-situ structures.
4. To the south of the tunnel the conductivity range lies between 35 and 55mS/m. Again
there is no evidence for any linear anomalies which might indicate in-situ structures. We
again assume that the infill in this locality is relatively homogenous and free of large
obstructions within the 5m working depth range of the EM31 equipment.
5. There is a clear area of high conductivity located on the eastern boundary of the site (reds
on Figure 2). The reason for this cannot be determined from the data. However the
anomalous area is located behind the brick dock wall and may therefore be related to a
localised change in the original infill.
Figures 3 to 5 show the resistivity profiles for survey lines 1 to 3. These figures show the profiles
in detail at the top of the page. At the bottom of each figure we show the resistivity profile
superimposed over the site topographic plan and the conductivity plan of Figure 2. The locations
of the resistivity lines are also shown on Figure 2.
The following information can be obtained from the resistivity data:-
Resistivity Line 1 Figure 3

1. This survey line ran from north west to south east between coordinates 538846, 181067
and 538891, 181023. The line was 63m in length with electrode spacings of 1m and an
estimated depth of investigation of around 9m.
2. At chainage 25m we note a near-vertical feature within the resistivity values. This is likely
to represent the northern wall of the East India Dock Road Tunnel. This agrees well with
the conductivity plan shown at the bottom of the figure and shown in detail on Figure 2.
3. The southern wall of the tunnel is less well defined. This may be due to the fact that the
survey line was positioned specifically to preference the northern wall and the number of
data points over the southern wall is reduced. However the profile suggests a probable
vertical resistivity feature at chainage 49m which again agrees with the conductivity data
at the bottom of the figure.

________________________________________________________________Page 14 of 19
4. At chainage 38m the resistivity distribution at depths >5m may be showing the tunnel
parapet dividing the two bores.
5. In terms of depth to the top of the tunnel roof slab structure, the resistivity data show a
low resistivity layer at an average depth of around 2-2.5m. We assume this represents the
upper surface of the concrete slab forming the tunnel roof. The apparent change in depth
may be due to the electrical pathways being somewhat complex in the presence of large
quantities of steel reinforcement.
6. To the north of the tunnel wall between chainage 0m and 25m we note a high resistivity
zone. This agrees with the low conductivity in this area.

1. This survey line ran from north west to south east between coordinates 538864, 181079
and 538902, 181028. The line was 63m in length with electrode spacings of 1m. A
maximum depth of investigation to around 9m was achieved.
2. At chainage 20m we note a near-vertical feature within the resistivity values. This is likely
to represent the northern wall of the East India Dock Road Tunnel. Between chainage 20
and 43m there is a clear low resistivity zone which will be the tunnel itself. This agrees
well with the conductivity plan shown at the bottom of the figure and shown in detail on
Figure 2.
3. There is no evidence for the central parapet between the tunnel bores in this profile.
4. The southern wall of the tunnel is less well defined. The profile suggests that the southern
wall lies at chainage 43m which agrees well with the conductivity data. We cannot
determine the cause for the incursion of an intermediate resistivity zone but this may be
due to a localised obstruction in the overlying infill which has influenced the modelled
data.
5. In terms of depth to the top of the tunnel structure, the resistivity data show a change
from a high to low resistivity layer at a depth of around 2-2.5m. We assume this
represents the upper surface of the concrete slab forming the tunnel roof.
6. To the north of the tunnel wall the resistivity data show a low resistivity layer overlying a
higher resistivity layer at depths >2.5-3.75m. This may suggest some layering of differing
infill types.

1. This survey line ran from north to south between coordinates 538887, 181088 and
538887, 181088. The line was 63m in length with electrode spacings of 1m. A maximum
depth of investigation to around 9m was achieved.
2. This profile shows the tunnel location less clearly. This may suggest a more mixed
overlying infill in this area which has added noise to the data and has complicated the
modelled output. Nevertheless the northern wall of the tunnel is not seen within the
profile. This indicates that the wall is at the very northern corner of the site as indicated by
the conductivity data at the base of figure 5 and more clearly on Figure 2.
3. The southern wall of the tunnel appears to be shown by the low resistivity zone at
chainage 36m. However we would expect the southern tunnel wall to lay at a chainage of
33m. In this instance we speculate that the brick dock wall may be influencing the data in

________________________________________________________________Page 15 of 19
this location. The coincidence of the resistivity line and the wall can be seen most clearly
on Figure 2.
4. The depth to the tunnel is also somewhat unclear in this profile. Whether the brick dock
wall is influencing the data here is uncertain at present. Our best estimate of the depth to
the upper surface of the tunnel roof slab is made by assuming a boundary between a more
chaotic upper lower resistivity layer between chainage 0 and 32m and a lower
intermediate resistivity. Using this assumption the depth to the upper surface of the tunnel
roof slab is around 2.5-3m.
5. To the south of the tunnel the resistivity data show a higher resistivity material. Whether
this is a combination of the in-situ dock wall and surrounding infill can only be determined
by intrusive works at a later date.

________________________________________________________________Page 16 of 19
Conclusions and recommendations

The geophysical survey performed by Bentham Geoconsulting Ltd has provided a non-intrusive
means to gain some indicative information upon the tunnel location under the Project Indigo
southern site. The main interest was in the location of the northern wall of the tunnel due to the
proposed location of a new building.
The conductivity data and the predicted tunnel alignment provided to us by Cundall on
topographic plans agree very closely and therefore this aspect of the survey requirement appears
to have been answered. There are some interesting variations in conductivity to the north of the
tunnel but these appear most likely to be changes in infill rather than any buried structure
although the possibility for undetected structures cannot be discounted.
The resistivity data also show the northern tunnel wall with reasonable clarity. In some areas the
data are not as clear as one might expect. This may be due to the complex electrical pathways
generated within a heavily reinforced concrete structure or may also result from the ground
conditions themselves. Despite these uncertainties in the modelled data, the northern wall of the
tunnel is shown most clearly on lines 1 and 2. The locations agree with both the conductivity data
and the predicted tunnel alignment, again helping to increase the confidence in location of the
tunnel. The location of resistivity line 3 was restricted by the site dimensions and the northern
tunnel wall fell outside the measurable range of the resistivity profile in this case.
As all geophysical data require confirmation we recommend that some intrusive investigations to
confirm the plan position of the northern wall and the depths to the upper surface of the tunnel
roof slab. The clearest resistivity profile is line 2 and from this profile we estimate the depth to
the top surface of the roof slab to be 2.5m. The range of estimates of the depth to the upper
surface of the tunnel roof slab from all three profiles lies between 2 and 3m.
Survey limitations
Any geophysical investigation should be viewed as a part of a full site investigation and should be
combined with suitable intrusive methods to form a definitive model for any site. Our data can be
used to target initial investigations to help with confirmation but should be considered indicative
without further intrusive confirmation.
Geophysical methods rely on changes in materials properties. Where complex geometries exist or
where there is an insufficient geophysical contrast between materials, the detection of sub-
surface targets may lie beyond the capabilities of current instrumentation.
Author
Dr Steven Openshaw (BSc, PhD, FGS)
Principal Consultant
For Bentham Geoconsulting Limited
January 16th 2014

________________________________________________________________Page 17 of 19
Figure 1: Site topographic plan and resistivity line

locations.

INFILLED DOCK
l
Resistivity 3
nne
Tu
Resistivity 2
da
Ro
Resistivity 1
ck
Do
a
di
In
st
Ea
50m 50.0000
181000N
Figure 1: Site topographic plan and the predicted tunnel route.

Key
Site: Project Indigo, Oregano Drive, London
Resistivity Line
N
Environmental & Engineering Geophysical
Services & Consultancy Predicted tunnel alignment
6 Nether View, Wennington, Lancashire, LA2 8NP. UK
Tel +44 (0) 1524 222122
e-mail: info@benthamgeoconsulting.co.uk
web: www.benthamgeoconsulting.co.uk.
Scale 1:500 @ A3
________________________________________________________________Page 18 of 19
Figure 2: Conductivity data overlain upon the site

topographic data with the predicted East India Dock
Road Tunnel alignment and the location of the
resistivity survey lines.

181100
INFILLED DOCK
l
181090
Resistivity 3
nne
Tu
181080
Resistivity 2
ad
Ro
181070
Resistivity 1
ck
Low and intermediate conductivity
in the north west may relate to changes
Do
in the infill type. 181060
a
di
In
181050
High conductivity zone - possible
st
change of infill to east of brick dock
Ea
Note clearly defined and abrupt change 181040 wall?
in conductivity confirming the tunnel
alignment.
181030
50m 50.0000
181020
538840 538850 538860 538870 538880 538890 538900 538910
181000N
Figure 2: Conductivity data overlain upon the site topographic

Conductivity (mS/m) Key data and predicted tunnel route.
Resistivity Line Site: Project Indigo, Oregano Drive, London

Services & Consultancy
N Predicted tunnel alignment
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Tel +44 (0) 1524 222122

Scale 1:500 @ A3
________________________________________________________________Page 19 of 19
Figures 3-5: Resistivity data and line positions

overlain on the site topographic plan and conductivity
data.

Oregano Drive, London Geophysical Survey BGC591South
Estimated depth to upper surface

North 538846, 181067 South 538891, 181023
Estimated depth (m) of tunnel roof slab 2.5-3m .
High resistivity infill Likely northern edge of tunnel Likely southern edge of
material - corresponds at 538865, 181048. tunnel at 538881, 181033.
Corresponds with conductivity Central tunnel parapet?
with low conductivity. Corresponds with
data and the predicted tunnel conductivity data and the
alignment. predicted tunnel alignment.
Resistivity line 1
overlain in
position with
topographic plan.
The OS
coordinates for
the start/end of
the line are
shown above.
30m
Bentham Geoconsulting Ltd

6 Nether View, Wennington
Figure 3. Resistivity profile line 1 showing the suspected tunnel extents.
Lancashire, LA2 8NP, UK
Tel 01524 222122 The line is shown in position on the Google Earth and SI plan imagery below.
Mob 07977 410177
Mail info@benthamgeoconsulting.co.uk
Site : Project Indigo, Oregano Drive, London
Web www.benthamgeoconsulting.co.uk Survey Date : 27-28th November 2013
Figure 3.xls
Estimated depth to upper surface of

North 538864, 181079 tunnel roof slab 2.5m . South 538902, 181028
Estimated depth (m)
Apparent layering in infill Likely northern edge of tunnel Likely southern edge of Increased resistivity .
materials to the north of at 538876, 181063. tunnel at 538889, 181045. Suggests a drier perhaps
the tunnel alignment. Corresponds with conductivity Corresponds with conductivity mixed infill south of the
Corresponds with the data and the predicted tunnel data and the predicted tunnel tunnel.
conductivity data. alignment. alignment.
Resistivity line 2
overlain in
position with
topographic plan.
The OS
coordinates for
the start/end of
the line are
shown above.
30m

Figure 4. Resistivity profile line 2 showing the suspected tunnel edges.
Mob 07977 410177
Figure 4.xls
Estimated depth to upper surface of

North 538887, 181088 tunnel roof slab 2.5-3m .
Estimated depth (m) South 538887, 181088
Likely southern edge of tunnel at 538895, 181053. Broadly corresponds with Increased resistivity. Suggests a drier, mixed
conductivity data and the predicted tunnel alignment. The position of the tunnel infill south of the tunnel or possibly represents
wall shown by the resistivity may be influenced by the presence of the brick dock the effect of the dock wall.
wall in this test location. See below or Figure 2 for the dock wall position.
Resistivity line 3
overlain in
position with
topographic plan.
The OS
coordinates for
the start/end of
the line are
shown above.
30m

Figure 5. Resistivity profile line 3 showing the suspected tunnel edges.
Mob 07977 410177
Figure 5.xls
Site: Oregano Drive London Project Indigo.
Project Title: Geophysical survey of the northern site.
Survey Date: 16-17th December 2013
Client: Cundall
Horsley House
Regent Centre
Gosforth
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE3 3LU
Bentham Geoconsulting Report Number: BGC591_North
Report Author: Dr S J Openshaw

Bentham Geoconsulting Limited,
6 Nether View, Wennington,
Lancashire, LA2 8NP.
t: 01524 222122
w: www.benthamgeoconsulting.co.uk
e: info@benthamgeoconsulting.co.uk
________________________________________________________________Page 2 of 21
THIS REPORT REPRESENTS THE BEST PROFESSIONAL

OPINION OF THE AUTHOR(S). EVERY EFFORT HAS
BEEN MADE TO ENSURE ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY.
THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY OF LOCALISED
INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE DATA WHEN USING
NON-DESTRUCTIVE METHODS.
THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED,

EXCEPT IN FULL, WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM
BENTHAM GEOCONSULTING LIMITED
Cover: Google Earth Image of the Project Indigo Northern Site.
bgc591 cundall oregano dr north rpt 1601a14 (issue 2).doc

________________________________________________________________Page 3 of 21
CONTENTS
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4
Site Details ........................................................................................................................... 5
Survey Methodology .............................................................................................................. 6
Electromagnetic (EM) measurements.............................................................................. 6

Electromagnetic equipment ........................................................................................... 7
Electromagnetic data processing .................................................................................... 8
Resistivity measurements ............................................................................................. 8
Resistivity imaging - equipment ..................................................................................... 9
Resistivity imaging - data processing ............................................................................ 11
Survey layout ..................................................................................................................... 12
Results ............................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 16
Survey limitations ...................................................................................................... 18
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site plan, trial pit locations and initial interpretations. ................................................ 19
Figure 2: Conductivity data overlain upon the site investigation data obtained via trial pits. .......... 20
Figures 3-5: Resistivity data and line positions overlain upon the site topographic plan and
conductivity data. ................................................................................................................ 21

________________________________________________________________Page 4 of 21
Introduction
This survey was commissioned by Cundall on behalf of their client (Telehouse International
Corporation of Europe Ltd). This report contains the results of a geophysical survey conducted in
the northern part of the Project Indigo site at Oregano Drive, London. The purpose of the survey
was to provide additional data as to the location of and potential for sub-surface obstructions and
in-situ structures which may hinder subsequent construction operations.
The site is proposed as the location for a data centre. Prior to its current form the site lay in the
north-eastern corner of the former East India Dock Basin. The entire dock has been infilled and
the majority of the area to the west has now been developed. The Project Indigo site is the last
remaining undeveloped area.
Figure 1 shows the site investigation plan and findings provided by Cundall prior to our
involvement with Project Indigo. In summary intrusive site investigations had confirmed the
location of the former brick dock wall (Green hatch on Figure 1). This wall runs along the eastern
site boundary before turning west and then running across the northern area of the site. The
location of this wall matched the historic location of the dock wall.
Further trial pits excavated within what would have been the dock basin encountered some
concrete beams and also what appeared to be a section of concrete wall. This apparent wall
section was encountered in one location. Its identity, whether it was continuous and its alignment
were therefore not proven. The speculated alignment of this structure is shown by the orange
hatching on Figure 1.
The purpose of the geophysical survey was to attempt to indicate possible sub-surface structures
by collecting survey data over the site as a whole. It was hoped that this approach would indicate
the existence and extent of unknown sub-surface structures allowing subsequent intrusive works
to be targeted.

________________________________________________________________Page 5 of 21
Site Details
The Project Indigo site is enclosed within a road system comprising Leamouth Road to the east,
Sorrel Lane to the south, Oregano Drive to the west and East India Dock Road to the north. The
coordinates of the site centre are 538842 181137.
The Project Indigo northern site comprised a near flat lying area within anti-intrusion bunds. The
extents of the site measured some 90m north to south and 54m east to west. The site was
entered from the south off Sorrel Lane via a break in the anti-intrusion bund.
Within the site area the ground surface appears to be largely a type 1 surface probably remaining
from the previous compound located at the site. However the muddy nature of the surface made
this impossible to verify extensively. At the edges of the site the ground was softer and was
surfaced with grass. The northern quarter of the site was elevated slightly above the typical site
level. At the east of the site the bunds formed a steep ditch to the level of Leamouth Road.
At the time of the survey the site was in use by two drilling rigs. These were located to the north
of the survey area. The geophysical survey area covered the central areas of the site as this area
was accessible and covered a sufficient volume of the site to be able to attempt to determine the
location of any concrete wall if it existed and if it was detectable.

________________________________________________________________Page 6 of 21
Survey Methodology
The aims of the geophysical surveys were to determine the following:-
1. To determine the presence and alignment of a possible concrete wall found in part during
the initial intrusive works.
2. To determine the likelihood for the presence of other obstructions under the site.
In order to meet the requirements of the survey we used two complimentary geophysical
methods. A highly mobile walk-over method was deployed to provide data over the site as a
whole. Subsequently a static test method was deployed over key locations to provide vertical
profiles of the subsurface to aid in understanding the sub-surface situation. The results of the
survey data were to be used to locate further intrusive investigations. The combination of both
geophysics and intrusive investigations would be used to form an assessment of the sub-surface
conditions and to provide data which may be used to assess the risk to construction from sub-
surface obstructions, as far as was practically possible.
The geophysical techniques used were:-

1. An electromagnetic (EM) ground conductivity survey to measure the changes in
conductivity related to localised sub-surface structures, materials and moisture distribution
which can be caused by in-situ structures such as walls, concrete debris and variations in
infill materials.
2. Resistivity imaging surveys were deployed to produce vertical cross-sections to show the
distribution of the electrical properties of the sub-surface which can be interpreted through
modelling to show layering, the location of deeper structures and debris.
Electromagnetic (EM) measurements

Electromagnetic measurements of ground conductivity are useful for mapping out the variations
in near-surface materials. The method is used frequently to attempt the location of sub-surface
structures. A site can be characterised at high resolution relatively quickly suing this approach.
Electromagnetic (EM) surveys utilise the changing response of the sub-surface to the propagation
of alternating electromagnetic waves comprising of two orthogonal vector components, intensity
(E) and magnetic moment (H), in a plane perpendicular to the travel direction (see diagram).
D ia g r a m t o illu s t r a t e t h e t w o p r in c ip a l
c o m p o n e n t s o f a n e le c t r o m a g n e t ic w a v e . E a n d H
r e p r e s e n t t h e e l e c t r i c a n d m a g n e t ic c o m p o n e n t s
r e s p e c t iv e ly . A f t e r B e c k ( 1 9 8 1 )

________________________________________________________________Page 7 of 21
A transmitter coil generates the primary electromagnetic field of which part propagates into the
ground surface. Depending upon the properties of the sub-surface, the electromagnetic field is
modified. If for example, a conductive media is present the electro-magnetic field will induce eddy
currents within the conductor. Changes in the conductivity around voids, shafts, differing
materials, faults and structures can produce widely differing EM responses.
A receiver coil detects the secondary EM field generated by these eddy currents. Because the
receiver coil also detects the remaining primary field which does not propagate into the ground,
the receiver coils detects the resultant of the primary and secondary fields. Thus, the phase and
amplitude of the resultant field will be different to the unmodulated primary field. The degree by
which these responses differ can provide information about the relative geometry, size and
electrical properties of the sub-surface media. In a homogenous material the value is the true
conductivity but on sites where there is a mix of materials the value is the bulk value.
It should be noted that within the limits of instrumentation, any variation of the resultant ground
conductivity would be detected. When a signal from single target is combined with signals from
bulk materials and items of debris, it is frequently impossible to interpret anomalies in terms of
their identity until pinpointed excavation is conducted.
Electromagnetic equipment
The equipment used for the surveys at the Project Indigo site was a Geonics EM31 with an Allegro
field computer which recorded both EM31 data and differential GPS (dGPS) position data. The
EM31 has a configuration allowing it to obtain data over a depth range to about 5m when carried.
The control software on the Allegro field computer allows for automatic collection of data at set
time intervals making a walking survey possible. At this site the instrument was set to record
conductivity data at a rate of 5Hz which is equivalent to a sample every linear 0.2m, locally
dependent upon the walking speed of the operator.
The EM31 comprises two booms one of which is the transmitter coil and the other a receiver coil.
The control electronics are housed in the blue console, see photograph1 below.
Photograph 1: The Geonics EM31 with DGPS system.

________________________________________________________________Page 8 of 21
Electromagnetic data processing

EM31 data were stored upon a battery powered data logger in real time. The data for each survey
line or area are given a unique notation and each data point is assigned a dGPS position in
latitude and longitude.
The data stored by the Allegro field computer was ground conductivity values in milliSiemens per
meter (mS/m). After completion of each section of the survey, the data were transferred to PC
for storage.
In the office the data are processed to remove bad data points, to remove the effects of striping
caused by surveying in alternate directions, a correction is made for the offset between the GPS
and the EM31 and further filtering is applied to enhance features of interest. The dGPS
coordinates were converted to GB Ordnance Survey National Grid eastings and northings.
The survey data were converted to a grid system using Golden Software Surfer after applying the
natural neighbour method.
For presentation appropriate contour levels are chosen to further illustrate the conductivity
characteristics of the site and the data were then interpreted for reporting purposes.
Resistivity measurements
Vertical profiles / cross-sections of the sub-surface at the Project Indigo site were collected using
the resistivity imaging method.
The electrical properties of a material are usually expressed in terms of its resistivity. The SI unit
of resistivity is ohm meter (Ohm-m) and the resistivity (R) between opposite faces of a
conducting body of uniform cross-sectional area (A) and length (l) is expressed as:-
  RA l
The resistivity technique requires that an electric current be driven into the ground using a
current electrode and the resulting potential difference be measured at the potential electrode. In
traditional resistivity measurements the current is driven into the ground and potential
differences are measured using an array of electrodes connected via cables to a resistivity meter.
The number of electrodes varies according to the array type and configuration.
The configuration of the electrodes depends on the type of survey being conducted. A common
configuration is the Wenner array which has a high vertical resolution and is particularly suited to
resolving horizontally layered lithology whilst achieving a high signal to noise ratio. In this
method four electrodes are spaced equally with the current electrodes on the extremes. The
diagram below shows the basic Wenner array and its current flow.

________________________________________________________________Page 9 of 21
Wenner array current flow and electrode arrangement
The diagram above shows the situation for a single measurement. In order to build a profile along
a particular survey line the array is typically traversed the desired distance after each
measurement with the first electrode being moved to the position of the second and the second
electrode being moved to the position of the third and so on. The spacing of the electrodes
dictates the depth of investigation and the wider the spacing the more resistivity information is
obtained from depth. If the method above was followed then the survey would obtain traverse
data from a single depth horizon. To collect deeper traverse data the process would be repeated
with increased electrode spacings until many layers of data had been collected involving a huge
amount of manual labour.
An alternative survey method can be achieved by gradually increasing the electrode spacing
about a midpoint. This approach allows a single resistivity depth profile to be built up over one
fixed location. This is the resistivity sounding method and is suitable for low resolution studies.
In order to build up a profile which has both depth and lateral extent modern equipment allows
geophysicists to obtain resistivity data from many electrodes whilst removing the need to
regularly move the equipment after individual measurements. This is the resistivity imaging
technique.
Resistivity imaging - equipment

The system used at Project Indigo was an Allied Tigre 128 resistivity system. This unit uses up to
128 addressable electrodes connected by multicore cable. Measurements are sequenced by a
control unit with control software and data storage managed by software on a field laptop.
Depending upon the type of survey a single profile can be collected in 1 to 5 hours depending
upon the line length and the test setup used.

________________________________________________________________Page 10 of 21
Photograph 3: Allied Tigre resistivity equipment in use.
In the diagram below the general arrangement of the survey system is shown together with the
sequence of measurements taken along a single survey line which applies to the Wenner
configuration. Note that the first measurements obtain traverse readings from successive sets of
electrodes (station 1 - electrodes 1-4 followed by 2-5 and so on). To obtain deeper
measurements the system increases the electrode separation by 2 then 3 and so on (station 32).
The corresponding depth spread of readings with each separation is shown by layers n1, n2 n6.
The overall distribution of data points is an inverse trapezoid under each survey line.

________________________________________________________________Page 11 of 21
At the Project Indigo site we used 64 electrodes with a spacing of 0.75m to 1m where possible.
The theoretical depth achievable with either spacing lay between 5 and 6m. The resolution of
either setup was considered to be more than sufficient to image a target such as a wall and of
determining layering boundaries.
The survey parameters are controlled by software installed on a field laptop. This software
controls the current injected into the ground, the current on and off times and the number of
repeat measurements as well as making sure the data meet basic quality control criteria. These
criteria centre around the repeatability of the apparent resistivity recorded during each cycle of
each measurement. The equipment was set up to take the average measurement over four
cycles.
During data collection the results from each measurement are displayed in a table. The raw data
table gives a good idea as to the nature of the ground and also allows repeat measurements to be
taken once automatic data collection has finished. Occasionally measurements fail due to
polarisation or bad contact during a particular combination of electrodes. Repeat measurements
can be made after the main measurement process has been completed by examination of the raw
data table.
In summary the site provided good ground contact for each electrode, primarily due to the damp
ground materials. Repeatability between readings was excellent with errors typically less than 2%
over a 4 measurement average.
Resistivity imaging - data processing

Individual resistivity measurements were stored as files on hard disk whilst the system completed
its measurement process. Data were stored in ASCII text format and were subsequently
converted via software utilities so as to be readable by our processing software package,
Res2DINV.
Using the raw resistivity data the Res2DINV software divides the depth profile into a number of
rectangular blocks and subsequently determines the resistivity distribution within each block that
fits an apparent resistivity pseudosection which agrees with the actual measurements on site. For
the Wenner array, the thickness of the first layer of blocks is set at 0.5 times the electrode
spacing. The thickness of each subsequent deeper layer is normally increased by 10% or 25%.
The depths of the layers can also be changed manually by the user to allow for information on
layering from boreholes or trial pits. The optimisation method tries to reduce the difference
between the calculated and measured apparent resistivity values by adjusting the resistivity of
the model blocks. A measure of this difference is given by the root-mean-squared (RMS) error. In
general the most prudent approach is to choose the model at the iteration after which the RMS
error does not change significantly. This usually occurs between the 3rd and 5th iterations.
Prior to any form of modelling clearly outlying data points are removed from the data. Such bad
data points could be due to the failure of the relays at one of the electrodes, poor electrode
ground contact due to dry ground, or shorting across the cables due to very wet ground
conditions.
Various parameters can be set to optimise the model for each site including vertical and
horizontal filters and the type of inversion method. We have also used the robust inversion
method which tends to highlight sharp boundaries more clearly. Various smoothing constraints
have also been applied.

________________________________________________________________Page 12 of 21
Survey layout
Data from conductivity survey lines were collected in both east to west and north to south
orientations. This was due to the need to survey perpendicularly over any linear trending
structure. After collection of each dataset the data were combined and re-gridded to average the
bi-directional data over the survey area.
Conductivity survey lines were spaced at around 2m apart whilst recording data at a linear
separation of approximately 0.2m, depending on the local walking speed.
In the time available on site resistivity data from three survey lines were collected. Resistivity line
1 was collected along the western site boundary running north to south. This line was installed to
try to confirm any continuation of the concrete wall to the west towards Telehouse. The electrode
spacing was 1m.
Resistivity data from two further lines were collected across the west to east site axis. These lines
were installed to attempt to detect any north to south continuation of the potential concrete wall.
The electrode spacing was 0.75m in both lines due to space limitations.
The survey line locations are indicated on Figure 2. The 0m datum for each line is located nearest
the line label.

________________________________________________________________Page 13 of 21
Results
Figure 2 shows the topographic plan of the site with the conductivity data and original trial pit and
trench locations overlain upon it. Also shown are the locations of the additional trial trenches dug
following the geophysical investigation. From this plan we can summarise the conductivity data as
follows:-
The conductivity levels range between 25mS/m and 40mS/m. The typical background
conductivity is of the order 33mS/m.
In the site centre there is a regularly shaped and high conductivity zone. Here conductivities are
all near the site maximum of 40mS/m (pinks). The zone is most extensive across the east to west
extent of the site. There is some indication of a more intermittent and narrow north to south
continuation at the eastern side of the site. The extents of this high conductivity zone terminate
relatively abruptly.
On Figure 2 we indicate the location of two trial trenches, CTT6 and CTT7, excavated following
the supply of this geophysical data. Trial trench CTT6, running north to south, found no evidence
for the presence of a concrete wall running along the possible alignment suggested on the figure.
There is also no indication of a continuous wall in the conductivity data on this alignment.
However, in the northern section of CTT6 a 1m diameter pile was located at a depth of 2.8m. This
location is north of the hatched area on figure 2. No conductivity anomaly was noted in this area
probably due to the relationship between the target size, its depth and covering materials.
Trial trench CTT7 was excavated perpendicularly to CTT6 (Figure 2). A further pile with an
associated beam running to the east was noted at 538840 181138. This pile lay 7m to the east of
the pile in CTT6. Again no evidence for this pile was noted in the conductivity data probably due
to the relationship between the target size, its depth and covering materials.
At the eastern boundary of the site there is a further high conductivity zone running along the
embankment adjacent to Leamouth Road. This zone lies directly east of the proven brick dock
wall and may represent some differing infill behind the wall. It may also be caused by services
running under the pavement.
The conductivity data do not indicate with any clarity the brick dock wall itself. This may be due
to overlapping conductivity values between the brick wall and surrounding materials.
There are a number of localised changes in conductivity scattered mainly over the northern and
eastern areas of the site. These are shown as greens and blues (~30 and 25mS/m respectively).
These may represent smaller singular obstructions although this has not been confirmed
intrusively.
Figures 3-5 show the resistivity profiles for survey lines 1 to 3. These figures show the profiles in
detail at the top of the page. At the bottom of the figure we show the resistivity profile
superimposed over the site investigation plan and the conductivity plan of Figure 2.
The following information can be obtained from the resistivity data:-

1. This survey line ran from north to south adjacent to the western site boundary between
coordinates 538815, 181161 and 538836, 181102. The line was 63m in length with
electrode spacings of 1m and an estimated depth of investigation of around 5m using the
dipole-dipole collection method.

________________________________________________________________Page 14 of 21
2. At chainage 16m we note a clear near-vertical break in the resistivity values. This may
represent the northern extent of infilling behind the original brick dock wall.
3. There is no clear evidence for the brick dock wall at chainage 23m which would be the
point where the resistivity profile crossed the known position of the wall. This may be due
to some overlapping of the resistivity properties between the brick wall and surrounding
materials.
4. At chainage 29m and a depth of around 2m there is a high resistivity anomaly. This may
represent an obstruction which may be a pile. This location would be on a similar
alignment as the piles found in trial trenches CTT6 and CTT7.
5. At chainage 34m we note a low resistivity anomaly at 5m depth which may represent an
obstruction.
6. At chainage 43.5.m there is a low resistivity anomaly at 4m depth which may be a

possible obstruction.
7. At chainage 52m there is a high resistivity anomaly which may be an obstruction at a

depth of 1m. It is possible that the anomaly is related to the recently disturbed ground in
trial pit CTP04.
8. The profile does not show any clear evidence for layering of infill materials. This suggests
a chaotic distribution of materials.

1. This survey line ran from west to east across the site centre between coordinates 538828,
181121 and 538873, 181136. The line was 47.5m in length with electrode spacings of
0.75m. A maximum depth of investigation to around 6m was achieved.
2. At chainage 32.5m we note a low resistivity anomaly at a depth of around 5m. This may
be a localised obstruction. The agreement with the conjectured alignment of the concrete
wall shown on Figure 2 may be coincidental.
3. Another possible near surface obstruction may be located at chainage 2.5m.
4. Other possible localised obstructions may be located at chainage 16m, 28m and 38m all at
a depth of around 3m.
5. Note the high resistivities form a variable thickness of between 2.25m and 5m overlying a
lower resistivity material at the profile base. As such the profile suggests a partly layered
infill in this location.
6. The brick dock wall will be crossed by the resistivity survey line at chainage 43.5m. As this
location would lie close to the edge of the modelled cells an anomaly from the wall is not
seen in this profile.

1. This survey line ran from west to east across the site centre approximately 15m south of
resistivity line 2 between coordinates 538828, 181121 and 538873, 181136.
2. The line was 47.5m in length with electrode spacings of 0.75m. A maximum depth of
investigation to around 6m was achieved.

________________________________________________________________Page 15 of 21
3. This profile suggests that the sub-surface materials are relatively clean in this area as
there are no localised changes in resistivity.
4. There is a clear change in resistivity values which forms an abrupt boundary at depths
between 0.75m and 2m. At this depth the overlying lower resistivity materials change to a
higher resistivity material. This may reflect a change in the infill material type or perhaps a
horizon where the water content increases.
5. At chainage 41m there is a vague anomaly corresponding to the location of the outer brick
dock wall.

________________________________________________________________Page 16 of 21
Conclusions and recommendations

The geophysical survey performed by Bentham Geoconsulting Ltd has provided a non-intrusive
means to gain some indicative information upon the ground conditions under the Project Indigo
northern site. The main concern at this site is the potential for unexpected obstructions within the
sub-surface that may have an effect on the installation of piles during the development stage.
Whilst no investigation can reduce the risk of encountering obstructions and difficult ground
conditions to zero, the geophysical data and the intrusive works provide a useful means to assess
the likelihood of such events occurring at this site.
The outer brick dock wall appears to be present in the locations indicated on historic plans and
aerial photographs. The dock outer wall has been proven by Cundall using trial pits. The
geophysical data did not show this wall with any clarity possibly due to overlapping ranges of
conductivity and resistivity between the wall and surrounding materials.
The initial trial pit investigation undertaken for Cundall indicated the possibility of a concrete wall
at a depth of between 2.3m and 4m. The wall was conjectured following the discovery of a large
section of wall-like concrete in trial pit CTT5. Various other concrete structures encountered in
other trial pits gave rise to a concern that there was an intact concrete wall paralleling the
original brick dock wall as conjectured on Figure 1. The difficulty in excavating to depths in excess
of 4-5m meant that it was not possible to confirm the presence of this wall initially.
The geophysical data provided in this report were intended to assist in the sub-surface
interpretation. The geophysical data appear to suggest that the potential for obstructions exists
although intrusive works to date have only verified the geophysical data in parts of the site.
The main feature of interest within the conductivity data is a high conductivity zone which covers
the central east to west axis of the site with a narrow north to south arm of a more intermittent
nature at the eastern side of the site. Figure 2 shows the location of this zone.
Based on the geophysical data trial pit CTT6 was excavated at the west of the site to cross the
northern boundary of this high conductivity zone. No evidence for an east to west aligned
concrete inner wall was found in this trial pit. However a 1m diameter pile was located just north
of the conjectured concrete wall location immediately on the northern boundary of the high
conductivity zone.
Trial pit CTT7 was dug along the northernmost boundary of the high conductivity zone and
overlapped CTT6 at the pile position (see Figure 2). A further pile and an associated beam
extending eastwards were noted in CTT7. This pile lay some 7m to the east of the pile in CTT6.
The coincidence between the proven pile locations and the northern boundary of the high
conductivity zone suggests that the potential for further structural remains and possible piles
should be factored into the overall assessment of the site.
The north to south aligned, narrow and intermittent arm of high conductivity at the eastern side
of the site may again relate to in-situ obstructions which may be piles. We note a number of
localised changes in the conductivity values. The beams noted during the original intrusive works
(particularly in CTT3) may also be related to these anomalies. No further trial pits have been
excavated in this area and as such the geophysical data remain unconfirmed.
Based on the conductivity data and the intrusive works to date, the regular shaped conductivity
zone cannot be fully characterised. However, it may be related to an in-situ structure supported
by piles and beams as these have both been noted in CTT3, CTT5, CTT6 and CTT7. The northern
boundary of the conductivity zone aligns remarkably well with the proven pile locations noted in

________________________________________________________________Page 17 of 21
CTT7. It is also possible that the higher conductivity zone is caused by a change in the fill
materials used to infill the dock rather than an extensive in-situ structure. In this case the
supported structure may have been removed leaving only the piles in-situ. A further possibility is
that the higher conductivity is caused by the in-situ remains of some near-surface hard standing.
We note that until recently the site was used as car parking within a compound. The conductivity
and the compound extents when compared do not coincide particularly well and the lack of any
well defined evidence for in-situ hard standing in the resistivity data also reduces the likelihood of
this scenario in our opinion. However, no intrusive works have been conducted in the central
parts of the high conductivity zone at the present time.
The Google Earth aerial photograph library contains imagery from 1945 in this location. From this
photograph it is possible to see a vague shape of what appears to be a structure in the north-east
corner of the East India Dock which now lies under the Project Indigo site. This may add further
weight to the possibility of there being a structure in this corner of the dock and the obstructions
noted in the geophysical data and proven using trial pits may relate to it. This image is
reproduced below.
Aerial Photograph 1:- East India Dock aerial photograph taken in 1945.
The corroborative data collected using resistivity tomography also indicates that there is a strong
potential for in-situ obstructions at depths of between 2 and 5m. The nature of the resistivity
testing provided data from greater depths than the conductivity survey but only from discrete
areas. Resistivity data from lines 1 and 2, collected along the western and central parts of the
site, certainly appear to suggest that these areas have a more chaotic mix of infill materials
including larger obstructions which may be piles. Data from resistivity line 3, collected at the

________________________________________________________________Page 18 of 21
south of the site, appear to suggest that this area is infilled with a relatively clean and layered
infill.
Localised obstructions were noted within the resistivity data but the static nature of this test
means that there was no means to confirm their extent. The coordinates of these localised
anomalies are listed in the table below for record purposes.
Target ID Notes Coordinates

1 Resistivity Line 1 chainage 29m possible pile? 538825 181134
2 Resistivity Line 1 chainage 34m possible pile? 538826 181128
3 Resistivity Line 1 chainage 43.5m 538830 181120
4 Resistivity Line 1 chainage 52m 538833 181112
5 Resistivity Line 2 chainage 2.5m 538830 181122
Table 1: Coordinates of possible obstructions noted in the resistivity profiles.
In summary both the intrusive and geophysical data suggest that there is a risk of buried
obstructions under this site. This possibility seems to be particularly strong across the central
east to west axis of the site (central axis on coordinates 538828 181127 to 538861 181137) and
also along the corridor between 538861 181137 and 538865 181117. This is the area with the
highest conductivities at the site within which piles have also been confirmed.
Neither the geophysical nor the intrusive investigations can fully characterise the distribution of
structural remains or the number of in-situ piles at this site. At the time of writing the only
additional trial pits excavated to confirm the geophysical data were CTT6 and CTT7. In addition,
the geophysical survey has not covered the entire site due to surface obstructions and operational
requirements at the time of the survey.
Survey limitations
Any geophysical investigation should be viewed as a part of a full site investigation and should be
combined with suitable intrusive methods to form a model for any site. Our data can be used to
target initial investigations to help with confirmation but should be considered indicative without
further intrusive confirmation.
Geophysical methods rely on changes in materials properties. Where complex geometries exist or
where there is an insufficient geophysical contrast between materials, the detection of sub-
surface targets may be beyond the capabilities of current instrumentation and interpretation.
Author
Dr Steven Openshaw (BSc, PhD, FGS)
Principal Consultant
For Bentham Geoconsulting Limited
January 16th 2014

________________________________________________________________Page 19 of 21
Figure 1: Site plan, trial pit locations and initial

interpretations.

4.2m
d Bdy
ar Concrete slab (0.2m thick) at 1.2m Concrete slab (0.25m thick) at 1.1m
Brick Wall 1.8m wide NORTH

Brick Buttress Top of wall at 1.6m bgl
0.9m wide x 1.0m long
Brick Wall 1.8m wide Top of buttress at 1.2m bgl
Top of wall at 1.2m bgl
Base of wall at 11m bgl
CTT1
Wall not encountered to 3.8m bgl
CTT5
Brick Wall 1.25m wide
Base of wall unknown
Concrete Wall 3.1m wide

Concrete beam at 2.5m bgl Top of wall at 2.3m bgl (north) Concrete slab (0.2m thick)
(1.0m wide x 0.3m thick) and 4.0m (south) at 1.4m bgl
Base of wall unknown
Concrete beam at 2.7m bgl
PROPOSED
(0.4m wide x 0.3m thick)
DATA CENTRE
INFILLED DOCK
l
n ne
Tu
d
a
Ro
Figure 1: Site plan, trial pit locations and initial interpretation
k Key prior to the geophysical survey.
oc
Trial Trench
Tel +44 (0) 1524 222122
N Geophysics Survey Area
Based on drawing 1007895 - G004 provided by Cundall and
dated 20 11 13
Scale 1:500 @ A3
________________________________________________________________Page 20 of 21
Figure 2: Conductivity data overlain upon the site

investigation data obtained via trial pits.

4.2m
Bdy
181170 NORTH
Resistivity 1 Proven by excavation.
181160
Base of wall at 11m bgl
Proven by excavation. 181150
CTT1
CTT5 High conductivity adjacent to brick dock wall.

181140 CTT6 Suggests wall in-situ.
CTT6:- No additional evidence for a concrete
wall along the alignment shown by CTT7
the red hatching. Instead CTT6 and CTT7 High conductivity (pinks). May suggest intermittent
located two 1m diameter piles at 7m centres 181130 obstructions aligned on assumed concrete wall location.
on the same alignment as CTT7. High conductivities (reds) surrounding this area may
The eastern pile is associated with a suggest further obstructions / infill. Not proven by
concrete beam running eastwards. excavation.in this location.
181120 Resistivity 2
Pile locations are indicated.
181110
538810 538820 538830 538840 538850 538860 538870 538880
Regularly shaped high conductivity zone. Resistivity 3
Possible buried structure, a change of infill
material or the remains of hard standing.
INFILLED DOCK
el
nn
Tu
ad
Ro
Key Figure 2: Conductivity data overlain upon the site investigation
Conductivity (mS/m) data obtained via trial pits.
Pile proven by excavation

N Resistivity Line
Trial Trench
Survey Date: 16-17 December 2013
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Tel +44 (0) 1524 222122

Scale 1:500 @ A3
________________________________________________________________Page 21 of 21
Figures 3-5: Resistivity data and line positions

overlain upon the site topographic plan and
conductivity data.

Oregano Drive, London Geophysical Survey BGC591North
North 538815, 181161 South 538836, 181102

Estimated depth (m)
Near vertical No clear evidence High resistivity anomaly on

Low resistivity anomaly Anomalies - Possible Possible obstruction
boundary. Limit of for brick quay wall chainage 29m. Coincides
on chainage 34m. piles/obstructions or may be related to
original excavations in this location with northern edge of high
Possible trial pit CTP04
behind brick dock (although located in conductivity zone -possible
obstruction/pile. disturbance.
nearby trial pit). obstruction/pile?
Resistivity line 1
overlain in
position with SI
plan. The OS
coordinates for
the start/end of
the line are
shown above.
30m
Figure 3. Resistivity profile line 1 running along the western site boundary.
Mob 07977 410177
Web www.benthamgeoconsulting.co.uk Survey Date : 16-17 December 2013
Figure 3.xls
West 538828, 181121 East 538873, 181136

Estimated depth (m)
Low resistivity zone at ~5m depth. Brick dock wall (probably

Possible near-surface Possible too close to the profile
Resistivity variations suggest a mixed infill Coincides with high conductivity
obstruction obstruction modelling boundary to be
with possible obstructions linear feature seen in conductivity
data. clear).
Possible obstruction?
Resistivity line 2
overlain in
position with SI
plan. The OS
coordinates for
the start/end of
the line are
shown above.
30m
Figure 4. Resistivity profile line 2 running west to east across the site.
Mob 07977 410177
Figure 4.xls
West 538828, 181121 East 538873, 181136

Estimated depth (m)
X X
Profile indicates a lower resistivity material overlying a higher resistivity material. The relationship suggests a Brick dock wall? (probably
clear layering of two relatively clean materials with few obstructions in this location (within the resolution of too close to the profile
the resistivity equipment). The low resistivity anomalies at the base of the profile(X) may be modelling artefacts modelling boundary to be
due to the sparsity of data points at this depth, rather than an obstruction. clear).
Resistivity line 3
overlain in
position with SI
plan. The OS
coordinates for
the start/end of
the line are
shown above.
30m
Figure 5. Resistivity profile line 3 running west to east across the site.
Mob 07977 410177
Figure 5.xls
Appendix B
GEOENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
For ‘contaminated land’ to exist a valid contaminant linkage must be present. That is, there should be a
source of contamination, a receptor where ‘significant harm’ or ‘significant possibility of harm’ may be
caused; or pollution of controlled waters is being, or likely to be caused, and a pathway which connects the
two. Should any element of this contaminant linkage not be present (or severed) then the land may not be
regarded as contaminated land, as defined in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (amended).
Land Quality
Where contaminated land is suspected, the risk assessment should take into account site specific hazards
(i.e. chemical composition of the soil and/or groundwater) and conceptual model for the site. Within the UK,
DEFRA have produced a human toxicological risk assessment known as the Contaminant Land Exposure
Assessment (CLEA) Model (Contaminated Land Research report series (CLR Report No’s 7, 9 and 10). It
should be noted that with effect from August 2008, CLR Report No’s 9 and 10 were replaced by
Environment Agency’s Science Reports SC050021/SR2 and SC050021/SR3, respectively. Also, CLR 7 has
been withdrawn and no replacement has been published to date.
The CLEA model is used to derive site specific Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) based upon the current or
proposed land use of the site, which are utilised as ‘intervention values’ within the regulatory framework.
Some of the inputs of the CLEA model are the physical, chemical and toxicological properties of the
contaminant. As the toxicology of contaminants can vary significantly, the Environment Agency (EA) has
published guidance on toxicology for a limited number of contaminants and intends to publish other
toxicological guidance for other selected contaminants in future.
The SGVs are derived using the CLEA model according to three typical land uses and are applicable to
long-term human exposure to soil contaminants (i.e. Residential, Allotments and Commercial land uses).
The EA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had previously released ten
SGVs. In December 2006, DEFRA issued a discussion paper entitled Soil Guideline Values: The Way
Forward. The paper sought views from key organisations and groups on various ideas for how non-
statutory technical guidance might be amended to make it more useful to assessors carrying out risk
assessments, and to make it clearer when land qualifies as contaminated land under Part 2A of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 in England and Wales. This exercise

culminated in the publication by DEFRA of Improvements to contaminated land guidance. Outcome of the
“Way Forward” exercise (DEFRA, 2008). Based on the outcome of the “Way Forward” document, the EA
released an “updated CLEA package” in August 2008 which included the CLEA Software version 1.04 and
updates on the CLR Reports No’s 9 and 10 (replaced by Science Reports SC050021/SR2 and
SC050021/SR3, respectively) for use in contaminated land risk assessment. Due to the release of the
“updated CLEA package”, the previously issued SGVs were withdrawn. In September 2009, the EA
released a new version of the CLEA Software (version 1.06).
Since March 2009, the EA has released new and/or revised SGVs for a number of contaminants and are in
the process of preparing SGVs for other contaminants using the new CLEA Guidance. Where available,
the current SGVs for ‘commercial’ land use have been used in the geoenvironmental risk assessment for
the site.
Given the proposed continued commercial use of the site, the ‘commercial’ threshold values have been
adopted for the purpose of generic quantitative risk assessment.
Where an SGV is not available for a specific contaminant, Site-Specific Assessment Criteria (SSAC) can be
derived using the current CLEA Software which follows the methodology laid out in the following reports:
 Contaminated Land Report (CLR 7) (now withdrawn and has not been replaced);
 Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants in soil (replaces CLR 9); and
 Updated technical background to CLEA model (replaces CLR 10).
LQM/CIEH GACs
In the absence of CLEA derived SGVs for some of the contaminants of concern, other sources of guidance
can also be used as screening tools. These include Generic Assessment Criteria published by Land
Quality Management Ltd (LQM) / Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) in the document
‘Generic Assessment Criteria (GACs) for Human Health Risk Assessment (Land Quality Press, 2nd edition
2009)’. The LQM CIEH GACs have been derived using the current CLEA model and are in accordance
with the current CLEA guidance. The LQM/CIEH GACs for ‘commercial’ land use have been used in
undertaking geoenvironmental risk assessment for the site, where no CLEA SGVs are available.
ATRISKSOIL Soil Screening Values (SSVs)
Standard Land Uses
Atkins have derived ATRISKsoil SSVs based on the current CLEA Guidance (Science Reports
SC050021/SR3 (the CLEA Report) and SC050021/SR2 (the TOX report)) for ‘allotment’, ‘commercial’, and
‘residential (with and without home-grown produce)’ land uses.

Atkins have based the SSVs on the default assumptions provided in the current CLEA Guidance which are
being used in the development of further SGVs by Defra and the Environment Agency. Atkins have
produced SSVs for a number of contaminants using the CLEA software. The Soil Screening Values (SSVs)
produced by Atkins are generally applicable to the UK for common contaminants not currently covered by
CLEA SGVs. The SSVs are commercially available and have been widely promoted for use by Local
Authority Officers. The SSVs for ‘commercial’ land use have been used in the risk assessment of the site,
where no CLEA SGVs or LQM/CIEH GACs are available.
Applicability of Screening Values
The application of screening values enables auditable, consistent evaluation of land contamination
problems. Screening values designed to be consistent with SGVs, provide a preliminary, generic
assessment of the risks to human health arising from the presence of contamination within the soil. The
practical application of screening values is the facility to compare site data, which informs decision-making
with regard to the need or otherwise for further site evaluation and/or remediation measures. Guideline (or
Screening) values, if appropriately used, can reduce the cost of risk assessment and simplify decision-
making. They are easy to understand and interpret by a wide variety of stakeholders.
Non-exceedance of any of the screening values described above will indicate that the soil contaminant
levels are such as not to compromise human health thereby the risk is acceptable and that land is suitable
for its proposed end use, with regard to the specific contaminants assessed. However, exceedance of a
screening value can indicate that further assessment or remedial action may be needed. Note: exceedance
of any of the relevant screening values does not constitute evidence of a significant possibility of significant
harm (SPOSH).
Controlled Waters
Based upon current UK guidance, risk assessment of groundwater contamination should follow staged
assessment and management (called Levels 1 to 4). The Environment Agency’s (EA, 2006), ‘Remedial
Targets Methodology – Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Contaminated Land’ presents a
recommended methodology for undertaking groundwater risk assessment. The EA document also provides
a methodology for deriving site-specific remedial objectives for contaminated soils and/or groundwater to
protect the aquatic environment. The approach is underpinned by progressive data collection and analysis,
structured decision making and cost-benefit assessment. The remedial target derived for each Level of
assessment is compared with the target concentration to determine the need for remedial action.

For the purpose of this risk assessment, a Level 1 risk assessment has been carried out by comparing the
measured soil leachate and groundwater concentrations with the adopted threshold values, as discussed
below.
Level 1 Risk Assessment
Where the risk may involve pollution of groundwater resources, the risk assessment should be performed in
accordance with the guidance from the document “Remedial Targets Methodology: Hydrogeological Risk
Assessment for Land Contamination”, published by the EA.
In this risk assessment, the soil leachability and groundwater test results have been compared with two UK
standards, namely; the UK Drinking Water Standards (DWS) and the Environmental Quality Standard
(EQS) (Freshwater) threshold values.
UK Drinking Water Standards (DWS)
The DWS threshold values, taken from the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000, provide a
means of assessing groundwater and leachable soil concentrations. The DWS threshold values provide an
interpretation of the risk to controlled waters as well as the risk to human health via the ingestion of
groundwater pathway. The underlying ‘Principal’ aquifer (Chalk) is considered a sensitive groundwater
receptor. Therefore, the DWS threshold values have been used in the controlled waters risk assessment
for the site.
However, it should be noted that the use of the DWS values to assess the risk to controlled waters
underlying the site is considered extremely conservative as they represent concentrations acceptable at the
consumers’ taps (not determinant concentrations prior to treatment).
Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)
Where a local surface water is present, the concentrations of contaminants dissolved in groundwater or
leachable soil concentrations are compared to the EQS threshold values. The EQS threshold values for
various contaminants are dependent on a number of factors including if the receiving surface water is
freshwater or saltwater. The nearest surface water feature (the River Lea) is located east of the site and
the River Thames is located further to the south. The rivers are considered sensitive receptors, given their
proximity to the site. Subsequently, the EQS (freshwater) threshold values have also been used in the
controlled waters risk assessment for the site.

Risk Assessment
In carrying out this risk assessment, reference has been made to the following documents in addition to the
guidance documents aforementioned:CIRIA (2001). Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – A Guide to
Good Practice Publication Code C552;
 DETR (July 2000). Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. HMSO;
 DoE (1994). Contaminated Land Report (CLR 1). A Framework for Assessing the Impact of
Contaminated Land on Groundwater and Surface Water.
The following factors have been used to rank the potential consequence of a contaminant – pathway –
receptor linkage and the potential significance for current and future land use.
Potential Consequence of Hazard – Receptor Linkage (in accordance with CIRIA

C552)
Severe Short-term (acute) risk to human health likely to result in significant

harm. Short-term risk of pollution of sensitive water resource.
Catastrophic damage to buildings/property. A short-term risk to a
particular ecosystem, or organism forming part of such ecosystem.
Medium Long-term (chronic) damage to human health. Pollution of sensitive

water resources. A significant in change in a particular ecosystem, or
organism forming part of such ecosystem. Damage to sensitive
buildings and structures.
Mild Slight short term health effects to humans. Slight pollution of non-
sensitive water resources. Some change to population densities but
with no negative effects on the function of the ecosystem. Slight
damage to sensitive buildings, structures and services.
Minor (Negligible) Non-permanent effects to human health (easily prevented by means

such as personal protective clothing etc.). Easily repairable effects of
damage to buildings, structures and services (e.g. discolouration of
concrete).

Potential Significance: Risk Classification (in accordance with CIRIA C552)
Very High Risk There is a high probability that severe harm could arise to a designated
receptor from an identified hazard, or, there is evidence that severe harm to a
designated receptor is currently happening.
High Risk Harm is likely to arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard at the
site. Realisation of the risk is likely to present a substantial liability. Urgent
investigation (if not undertaken already) is required and remedial works may be
necessary in the short term and are likely over the longer term.
Moderate Risk It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified
hazard. However, it is either relatively unlikely that any such harm would be
severe, or if any harm were to occur it is more likely that the harm would be
relatively mild. Investigation (if not undertaken already) is normally required to
clarify the risk and to determine the potential liability. Some remedial works
may be required in the long term.
Low Risk It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified
hazard, but it is likely that this harm, if realised, would at worst normally be mild.
Negligible (Very There is a low possibility that harm could arise to a receptor. In the event of
Low) Risk such harm being realised it is not likely to be severe.

APPENDIX 03
Subadra Site Investigation Report Telehouse West

Unit 13, Triangle Business Park
Wendover Road, Stoke Mandeville
Bucks HP22 5BL
Tel. 01296 739400
Fax. 01296 739401
e-mail: consultants@subadra.com
www.subadra.com
SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
Telehouse West
Coriander Avenue, London, E14
Report No: In08712 CL 004
July 2008
Client: Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd
Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By:
James Edley James Skinner
Subadra Consulting Ltd Registered in England No.4586038.

Registered at Unit 13 Triangle Business Park, Wendover Road, Stoke Mandeville, HP22 5BL
In08712 CL 004 Page 2
Site Investigation Report – Telehouse West, Coriander Avenue, London, E14
Summary
We have been commissioned by Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd (Telehouse) to
carry out an environmental site investigation at the Telehouse Europe site on Coriander Avenue in
London (E14) comprising the construction of boreholes, groundwater sampling, chemical analysis of
soil and groundwater samples and hazardous gas monitoring.
We understand that the purpose of these works is primarily to characterise any potentially
contaminative substances that may be present within shallow soil and groundwater and to provide
chemical analysis data to assist with waste classification process.
Faber Maunsell have been commissioned by Telehouse to act as design engineer for the proposed
development works. As part of their on-going schedule of works Faber Maunsell requested that we
undertake an intrusive ground investigation, on behalf of Telehouse, to assist with foundation design
and waste classification.
Faber Maunsell specified the scope of works for the investigation we have completed. A summary of
the works that we completed and all results are provided within this report.
In08712 CL 004 Page 3
Contents
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 2
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.2 The Scope of Our Investigation......................................................................................... 4
2 RESULTS OF OUR INVESTIGATION.......................................................................................... 5
2.1 Description of Investigation Area....................................................................................... 5
2.2 Buried Utilities Survey ....................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Borehole Investigation ....................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Gas Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 8
2.5 Chemical Analysis Results – Soil Samples ....................................................................... 10
2.6 Chemical Analysis Results – Groundwater Samples ........................................................ 18
List of Attachments
Attachment One: Notice to Interested Parties
Attachment Two: Diary or Works
Attachment Three: Site Drawings
Attachment Four: Borehole Logs
Attachment Five: Groundwater Sampling Data
Attachment Six : Gas Monitoring Data
Attachment Seven: Chemical Analysis Certificates
In08712 CL 004 Page 4
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
We have been commissioned by Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd (Telehouse) to
carry out an environmental site investigation at the Telehouse Europe site on Coriander Avenue in
London (E14) comprising the construction of boreholes, groundwater sampling, chemical analysis of
soil and groundwater samples and hazardous gas monitoring.
The investigation area is predominantly landscaped with some car parking. We understand that the
Client proposes constructing a new multi-storey building at the site.
We understand that the purpose of these works is primarily to characterise any potentially
contaminative substances that may be present within shallow soil and groundwater and to provide
chemical analysis data to assist with waste classification process. A summary of the works completed
and all results are provided within this report.
All the activities comprising this assessment were carried out in accordance with the procedures set
out in our Quality Manual.
1.2 The Scope of Our Investigation

We understand that Faber Maunsell have been commissioned by Telehouse to act as design engineer
for the proposed development works. As part of their on-going schedule of works Faber Maunsell
requested that we undertake an intrusive ground investigation, on behalf of Telehouse, to assist with
foundation design and waste classification.
Faber Maunsell specified the required scope of works within the following document:
Ø Tender Documents and Specification for Geo-environmental Ground Investigation: Telehouse
th
West, 14 April 2008 (Ref. GKK/spec/001).
In summary, Faber Maunsell specified the following works be carried out:
Ø Locate three existing groundwater-monitoring standpipes at the site, purge and develop each well
and fit gas taps for future monitoring purposes.
Ø Determine a total of 11 borehole locations based upon their site drawing (Ref. No.
60043813/GEIR/FIGURE 2).
Ø Carry out a review of all available underground services drawings provided by Telehouse to
confirm that no known services were present beneath the proposed drill locations. Each location to
be surveyed using a Cable Avoidance Tool.
Ø Construct inspection pits to a target depth of 1.2m at each location using hand digging techniques.
Recover soil samples from spoil brought up from each inspection pit at depths of 0.3m, 0.5m and
1.0m below surface levels.
Ø Construct boreholes at each location using a Dando Terrier Window Sampling system. Boreholes
to be constructed to a target depth of 6.0m. Boreholes to be logged onsite by a suitably qualified
site engineer and preliminary logs e-mailed to Faber Maunsell at the end of each day with a brief
summary of works completed. Photos of each sample core to be provided where practicable.
Ø Recover soil samples from the core barrel with a frequency of one sample per metre drilled, where
practicable. Additional samples were to be recovered from depths where visible or olfactory signs
of potential contamination noted. Selected samples to be monitored for the presence of volatile
organic compounds using a Photo Ionisation Detector (PID). Sub-samples to be preserved in a
variety of containers, suitable for the testing suite, and stored in cool boxes during transportation
to the laboratory.
Ø Boreholes to be back-filled with bentonite, subject to approval from Faber Maunsell that no further
works were required at each location.
Ø Record the location of the eleven boreholes constructed and the three pre-existing monitoring
standpipes using a Leica GPS unit.
In08712 CL 004 Page 5
Ø Recover groundwater samples from the three pre-existing standpipes by low-flow purging and
sampling procedures. Samples to be collected in a variety of containers suitable for the testing
suite and stored in cool boxes during transportation to the laboratory.
Ø Soil and groundwater samples to be submitted to a UKAS accredited laboratory (Alcontrol
Laboratories) for a range of analysis. Faber Maunsell to select samples and analysis suite based
upon boreholes logs provided by us.
Ø Undertake Waste Classification Criteria (WAC) testing on underlying soils.
Ø Carry out gas monitoring for parameters including methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and
hydrogen sulphide at each of the three pre-existing well locations on three separate occasions.
2 Results of our Investigation

2.1 Description of Investigation Area
The investigation area is L-shaped and comprises two distinct areas. The majority of the investigation
area is formed by a raised landscaped mound, which forms the western boundary of the Telehouse
plot. The second section forms part of the car park area, mid-way along the southern boundary. A site
layout plan is shown below.
Figure One: Site Layout Plan showing Investigation Area
2.2 Buried Utilities Survey

Our review of the underground services drawings provided by Telehouse did not identify any services
shown at or within 1.0m of the proposed borehole locations.
Our survey of each borehole location using a Cable Avoidance Tool did not identify any additional
services.
In08712 CL 004 Page 6
2.3 Borehole Investigation

th th
We undertook our intrusive investigation of the site from 13 to 16 May 2008.
Prior to constructing boreholes we hand dug inspection pits at each location to ensure no services
were present within shallow soils. We were able to achieve a target depth of 1.2m in six of the pits.
The depth of the remaining pits was limited to depths ranging from 0.7 to 1.1m due to the presence of
rubble and hardcore. Where hardcore was encountered drilling was commenced from the base of the
inspection pit.
We investigated the soil and groundwater quality at the site by constructing eleven boreholes using
our Dando Terrier Window Sampling system.
Eight of the boreholes were constructed to the target depth of 6.0m. We encountered obstructions in
two boreholes, Borehole 505 and 507, at depths of 4.6 and 4.5m respectively. We constructed
Borehole 501 to a depth of 6.5m to allow sufficient sample recovery at depth of >5.0m. We
constructed Borehole 509 to a depth of 7.0m to prove a potential change in soil stratigraphy at depths
of approximately 5.8-6.0m.
We logged all inspection pits and boreholes, copies of which were e-mailed to Faber Maunsell at the
end of each day. A brief summary of works completed was also included with the logs.
We took photographs of spoil brought up from each inspection pit and of sample core were where
practicable.
We recovered soil samples from spoil brought up from each inspection pit at depths of 0.3m, 0.5m and
1.0m below surface levels, apart from Borehole 502 where samples were recovered from 0.3m, 0.5m
and 1.1m. We recovered soil samples from the core barrel with a frequency of one sample per metre
drilled, where practicable. Additional samples to be recovered from depths where visible or olfactory
signs of potential contamination noted.
We monitored selected samples for the presence of volatile organic compounds using a Photo
Ionisation Detector (PID). Samples were subsequently preserved in a variety of containers, suitable for
the required testing suite, and stored in cool boxes during transportation to the laboratory.
As per the investigation specification we did not install groundwater or gas monitoring standpipes in
any of the boreholes constructed. Boreholes were sealed with bentonite upon completion. We
recorded the location of the eleven boreholes constructed and the three pre-existing monitoring
standpipes using a Leica GPS unit prior to leaving site.
2.3.1 Soil Stratigraphy

We make the following comments regarding the nature of soils encountered during our investigation:
Ø We encountered Made Ground to termination depth in every borehole.
Ø Across the northern half of the site (Boreholes 502-506) the Made Ground generally comprised
soft or firm sandy clay with gravels and variably small fragments of brick, clinker/slag, wood,
and/or plastic. The composition of this layer was relatively heterogeneous in nature.
Ø This was overlain in Boreholes 502, 504 and 506 with a layer of sands and gravels to depths of
between 1.2 and 1.9m. The clay was present from near surface in Boreholes 503 and 505.
Ø The Made Ground recorded within Borehole 501 was similar in consistency with that found in
Boreholes 502-506 although was recorded as being slightly clayey sand at shallower depth
grading to clay at termination depth.
Ø The Made Ground within Boreholes 508 and 509, located to the southern end of the raised
mound, comprised a layer of sandy clay with small fragments of brick, clinker/slag, wood, metal
and/or plastic to depths of 1.3 and 1.7m respectively. Below this we encountered a relatively
homogeneous layer of sand with gravels.
Ø The sand layer was present to 6.0m below surface in Borehole 508. We noted a fragment of
concrete in the base of the core sample retrieved from 5.0 to 6.0m in Borehole 509. We extended
this borehole to 7.0m, which showed that the sand in this borehole is underlain by gravels with
fragments of red brick.
In08712 CL 004 Page 7
Ø We recorded topsoil in Boreholes 510 and 511, located in the car parking section of the
investigation area, to depths of 1.3 and 1.4m respectively. The topsoil was underlain with a layer
of sand with gravels similar in composition to that found in Boreholes 508 and 509. The sand
layer was present to termination depth (6.0m below ground level) in Borehole 510. We
encountered a layer of gravels with concrete and brick fragments in Borehole 511 at depths of 4.3
to 6.0m, similar in nature to that found at the base of Borehole 509.
Borehole logs are included as Attachment Two.
2.3.2 Observed Contamination in Soil

The clay in Boreholes 502 to 506 that contained variable quantities of brick, clinker/slag, wood, metal
and/or plastic was noted as being generally dark grey or black wet, with an organic odour.
We also recorded olfactory and visual evidence of what we interpreted to be hydrocarbons in Borehole
501 at a depth of 4.9m. Detectable concentrations of volatile organic compounds were also recorded
from these soils.
2.3.3 Groundwater
We recorded an initial groundwater strike in eight out of the eleven boreholes constructed. Excluding
Borehole 502 and 504 strike depths ranged from 3.0m to 5.0m. In Borehole 502 strike was recorded at
depths of 1.8m, although noted as being ‘damp only’. We noted two strikes in Borehole 504 at depth of
0.4, which we interpret as being perched, and at 3.8m, which is likely to be in continuity with
groundwater across the remainder of the site.
As part of our intrusive site investigation we measured the depth to groundwater in the three pre-
existing standpipes at the site. Prior to attending site Faber Maunsell informed us that there should be
a fourth standpipe, Borehole D, located in the southeastern corner of the investigation area adjacent to
the proposed location of WS511. However, on inspection, this well had been destroyed.
Depth to water was measured relative to top of standpipe casing using a dip meter. We also purged
approximately 60litres of water from each well and made observations on the purged water.
Groundwater strike and rest levels are included in the table below.
Initial Groundwater
Strike Groundwater Level –
Borehole Comment
(meters below At Rest
ground level)
501 4.5 -
502 1.8 - Damp only
503 3.0 -
504 0.4-0.8 and 3.8-4.0 -
505 - - None recorded
506 4.5 -
509 4.4 -
510 4.4 -
511 5.0 -
th th
Table One: Groundwater Data – 13 to 16 May 2008 (continued on next page)
In08712 CL 004 Page 8
Continued…
Groundwater Level –
Initial Strike Groundwater Level –
Borehole Comment
ground level)
Total well depth 11.95m. Casing above
ground measured at 0.62m.
A - 5.053 Purge water noted as initially dark
grey/black with strong organic odour
changing to light grey
Total well depth 13.30m. Casing above
ground measured at 0.30m
B - 3.642 Purge water noted as silty dark grey
changing to light grey after purging.
Slight ‘eggy’ odour.
Total well depth 12.27m. Top of casing
at ground level.
C - 3.904
Purge water noted as grey and slightly
silty changing to light grey
Groundwater measured from top of casing
Table One: Groundwater Data – 13th to 16th May 2008
nd
We returned to the site on the 22 May 2008 to obtain groundwater samples from each of the three
standpipes using low-flow purging and sampling procedures. The results of our groundwater survey
are provided in the table below:
Groundwater Level –
Initial Strike Groundwater Level –
Borehole Comment
ground level)
Purge water noted as initially clear
A - 4.045
changing to ‘slightly cloudy’
B - 5.112 Purge water noted as clear
C - 3.917 Purge water noted as clear
Groundwater measured from top of casing
nd
Table Two: Groundwater Data– 22 May 2008
The results of our groundwater monitoring are included as Attachment Three. Samples were collected
in a variety of containers suitable for the chemical testing suite requested and stored in cool boxes
during transportation to the laboratory.
2.4 Gas Monitoring

During the course of our investigation we monitored for the presence of gases in each of the
standpipes using a gas analyser. Gases monitored included methane, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, hydrogen sulphide and oxygen. We made return visits to site on three occasions to carry
out additional gas monitoring. The results of the monitoring are summarised in the following tables.
In08712 CL 004 Page 9
Carbon Carbon Hydrogen
Average Flow Rate

Depth to water (m)
Monitoring period
Methane Oxygen
Pressure (unit)
dioxide monoxide sulphide
Atmospheric
Conc. (%) Conc. (%)
(minutes)
Conc. (%) (ppm) (ppm)
Borehole
(l/h)
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
A 5.05 0.0 0.7 1 2.4 NR NR 1.5 11.2 0 0 1016 18 NSR
B 3.64 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.1 NR NR 17 20.4 0 0 1015 15 NSR
C 3.90 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 NR NR 21.2 21.5 0 0 1016 7 NSR

Min = minimum reading over monitoring period. Max = peak reading over monitoring period.
NR – not recorded.
NSR – We were unable to record stable reading.
Table Three: Gas Monitoring Results – 14th May 2008
Average Flow Rate

Depth to water (m)
Monitoring period
Methane Oxygen
Pressure (unit)
Atmospheric
Conc. (%) Conc. (%)
(minutes)
Borehole
(l/h)
A NR 0.0 0.2 2.6 2.7 2 4 4.1 5.5 0 0 1013 12 0
B NR 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.9 0 6 17 19.6 0 0 1013 19 0
C NR 0.0 0.1 0.3 2.6 0 4 13 20.4 0 0 1014 16.5 0

Table Four: Gas Monitoring Results – 5th June 2008

Average Flow Rate
Depth to water (m)
Monitoring period
Methane Oxygen
Pressure (unit)

Atmospheric
Conc. (%) Conc. (%)

(minutes)

Borehole
(l/h)
A NR 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0 0 1.1 20.7 0 0 1007 22.5 0
B NR 0.0 0.0 4.4 5.1 0 0 9.4 11.6 0 0 1007 16.6 0
C NR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 19.5 19.7 0 0 1007 15 0

th
Table Five: Gas Monitoring Results – 19 June 2008
In08712 CL 004 Page 10
Average Flow Rate

Depth to water (m)
Monitoring period
Methane Oxygen
Pressure (unit)
Atmospheric
Conc. (%) Conc. (%)
(minutes)
Borehole
A 4.98 0.0 0.1 2.6 2.6 0 0 3.8 6.2 0 0 1015 30 0
B 4.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0 0 13.1 20 0 0 1015 30 0
C 3.92 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0 1 16.7 20.6 0 0 1014 30 0

th
Table Six: Gas Monitoring Results – 4 July 2008
The results of this analysis are included as Attachment Four.
2.5 Chemical Analysis Results – Soil Samples

Faber Maunsell selected soil samples for analysis based upon our borehole log data. We then
submitted the selected samples Alcontrol Laboratories for analysis. The chain of custody forms
provided by Faber Maunsell and forwarded to the laboratory are included in Attachment Seven.
Detection Limit Number of Number of

Detection
Analysis Description (LD) for samples samples
Technique
analysis analysed exceeding LD
Speciated Phenols: Phenol,
Cresols, Ethyls & Xylenols, HPLC - EChem 0.02 mg/kg 22 5
Trimethyls & Butyls
a
Speciated PAH 16 (US EPA) GC-MS 0.1 mg/kg 33 25
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Headspace
(CWG suite) C5-C35: Includes extraction and 0.01* 22 22
BTEX/MTBE GC-FID finish
Inorganic compounds
Various. -
including: Arsenic, Cadmium,
ranging from
Chromium, Lead, Mercury, ICP-OES 22 22
0.6 to 10
Selenium, Copper, Nickel, Zinc
mg/kg
and Water Soluble Boron
Skalar
Cyanide (Total) continuous flow
1 mg/kg 22 20
Ion Selective
Sulphide Electrode
10 mg/kg 22 22
Total (Acid Soluble) Sulphate ICP-OES 200 mg/kg 22 22

pH Potentiometric N/A 22 N/A
Waste Acceptance Criteria -
Full Solid Suite and Leachate Various Various 11 11
Suite
* - apart from C21-35 = 5mg/kg. N/A – not applicable. a – includes results from Waste Acceptance Criteria suite
Table Seven: Soils and Leachate Analytical Strategy

In08712 CL 004 Page 11
The results of the analysis completed is summarised in the following tables. Full chemical analysis
certificates have been included in Attachment Seven.
Concentration (mg/kg)
Depth (m)
Sampling
Location
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Volatile Hydrocarbons Extractable Total Hydrocarbons

(C16-C21) Hydrocarbons (C16-C21) (C16-C21)
WS501 0.3 < 0.01 300 300
WS501 4.0 0.7 480 480
WS502 0.3 0.1 20 20
WS502 2.0 0.07 430 430
WS503 1.0 < 0.01 44 44
WS503 4.0 2.4 160 170
WS504 0.5 < 0.10 140 140
WS504 3.0 0.15 190 190
WS505 0.3 0.12 25 26
WS505 2.0 0.11 140 140
WS506 0.5 < 0.10 34 34
WS506 3.0 0.05 49 49
WS507 0.3 0.03 110 110
WS507 4.0 < 0.01 <5 <5
WS508 1.0 < 0.01 46 46
WS508 5.7 0.01 19 19
WS509 0.5 < 0.01 140 140
WS509 3.0 0.05 <5 <5
WS510 0.5 0.05 74 74
WS510 4.5 0.06 40 40
WS511 0.5 0.03 110 110
WS511 5.0 < 0.01 180 180
Table Eight: TPH Analysis Results - Soil Samples

In08712 CL 004 Page 12
Sampling Location Concentration (mg/kg)
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Aromatics
Depth (m)
Aromatic C10-C12
Aromatic C12-C16
Aromatic C16-C21
Aromatic C21-C35
Aromatic C8-C10
Aromatic C6-C7
Aromatic C7-C8
Total Aromatic
WS501 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 5.9 30 110 150
WS501 4.0 <0.01 <0.01 0.09 0.27 19 90 110 220
WS502 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <1 1.9 6.2 8.1
WS502 2.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.9 21 200 230
WS503 1.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.7 6.9 21 29
WS503 4.0 0.13 0.03 0.25 1.1 17 22 26 65
WS504 0.5 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 2 9.2 48 60
WS504 3.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 0.04 4.7 19 49 72
WS505 0.3 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 0.03 <1 2.5 6.7 9.3
WS505 2.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 0.02 2.5 11 65 78
WS506 0.5 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 <1 2.5 8.6 11
WS506 3.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 1.1 5.8 18 25
WS507 0.3 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 1.8 9.2 43 54
WS507 4.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <1 1.3 <5 <5
WS508 1.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <1 2.1 18 20
WS508 5.7 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <1 1.4 <5 <5
WS509 0.5 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 1.4 4.3 58 63
WS509 3.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <1 1.1 <5 <5
WS510 0.5 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 2 9.6 32 43
WS510 4.5 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <1 1.6 7.2 8.8
WS511 0.5 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 1.8 8 40 50
WS511 5.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 2.8 25 89 120
Nine: UKAS Accredited TPH Analysis Results – Soil

In08712 CL 004 Page 13
Sampling Location
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Aliphatics
Depth (m)
Aliphatic C10-C12
Aliphatic C12-C16
Aliphatic C16-C21
Aliphatic C21-C35
Aliphatic C8-C10
Aliphatic C5-C6
Aliphatic C6-C8
Total Aliphatic
WS501 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.8 32 120 150
WS501 4.0 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.18 39 100 110 250
WS502 0.3 0.03 0.05 <0.1 <0.1 1.6 3.4 7 12
WS502 2.0 0.03 0.04 <0.1 <0.1 5.3 20 180 200
WS503 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 3.3 11 15
WS503 4.0 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.71 28 36 36 100
WS504 0.5 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 3.2 15 61 78
WS504 3.0 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 8.4 26 82 120
WS505 0.3 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 1.9 4.5 9.7 16
WS505 2.0 0.04 0.02 < 0.01 0.01 3.1 8.2 51 62
WS506 0.5 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 1.3 3.7 17 22
WS506 3.0 0.02 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 1.4 5.6 17 24
WS507 0.3 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 2.1 8.6 50 60
WS507 4.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <1 1.3 <5 <5
WS508 1.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <1 4.2 22 26
WS508 5.7 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 <1 2.3 16 18
WS509 0.5 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 2.4 11 63 76
WS509 3.0 0.03 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 <1 1.4 <5 <5
WS510 0.5 0.03 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 2.7 5 23 30
WS510 4.5 0.04 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 2.9 5.1 23 31
WS511 0.5 0.02 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 1.5 9.1 54 65
WS511 5.0 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 2.6 13 52 68
Table Ten: UKAS Accredited TPH (Aliphatic) Analysis Results – Soil

In08712 CL 004 Page 14
Sampling Location
Depth (m)
Group Sum)
(Speciated
Trimethyl
Benzene
benzene
benzene
Toluene
Phenols
Xylenes
MTBE
Ethyl-
Total
Total
WS501 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 0.04
WS501 4.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 0.024 <0.01 0.2
WS502 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS502 2.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 0.04
WS503 1.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS503 4.0 0.13 0.025 0.026 0.052 0.21 <0.01 ND
WS504 0.5 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 ND
WS504 3.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS505 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS505 2.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS506 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.1 ND
WS506 3.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS507 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 0.04
WS507 4.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS508 1.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS508 5.7 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 0.06
WS509 0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS509 3.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS510 0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS510 4.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS511 0.5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND
WS511 5.0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 ND

ND – Concentration below detection levels
Table Eleven: BTEX, Trimethylbenzene, MTBE and Phenols Analysis Results – Soils
In08712 CL 004 Page 15
Depth (m)
Total Cyanide
Chromium
Cadmium
Selenium
Mercury
Arsenic
Nickel
Lead
WS501 0.3 15 0.7 19 150 <0.6 15 <2.5 <1
WS501 4.0 55 1.8 46 920 33 28 <2.5 <1
WS502 0.3 16 1 43 120 <0.6 33 <2.5 <1
WS502 2.0 16 1.2 23 340 0.9 22 <2.5 <1
WS503 1.0 22 1.1 47 180 3.4 31 <2.5 <1
WS503 4.0 14 0.7 26 290 0.8 20 <2.5 <1
WS504 0.5 15 1.1 23 27,000 1.1 19 <2.5 1.2
WS504 3.0 14 2 40 210 2.2 19 <2.5 <1
WS505 0.3 11 0.5 24 96 <0.6 20 <2.5 <1
WS505 2.0 22 0.9 27 430 1 22 <2.5 <1
WS506 0.5 14 <0.5 <10 38 <0.6 7.8 <2.5 <1
WS506 3.0 37 1.1 27 440 0.7 22 <2.5 <1
WS507 0.3 14 0.6 23 130 <0.6 15 <2.5 <1
WS507 4.0 20 <0.5 <10 14 <0.6 5.6 <2.5 <1
WS508 1.0 13 <0.5 <10 33 <0.6 7.1 <2.5 <1
WS508 5.7 17 <0.5 <10 13 <0.6 8.6 <2.5 <1
WS509 0.5 12 0.6 18 150 <0.6 13 <2.5 <1
WS509 3.0 16 <0.5 <10 <10 <0.6 7.4 <2.5 <1
WS510 0.5 14 0.7 24 170 <0.6 20 <2.5 <1
WS510 4.5 12 <0.5 <10 11 <0.6 7 <2.5 <1
WS511 0.5 16 1.2 24 190 <0.6 24 <2.5 1
WS511 5.0 11 0.6 18 220 <0.6 15 <2.5 <1
Table Twelve: Inorganic Compounds Analysis Results – Soil Samples

In08712 CL 004 Page 16
Depth (m)
Sampling
Location Water Soluble Sulphate Acid Soluble Sulphide
pH
(g/l) (mg/kg)
WS501 0.3 1.1 16 8.9
WS501 4.0 1.8 180 9.1
WS502 0.3 0.1 <10 7.8
WS502 2.0 1.7 20 8.7
WS503 1.0 0.36 <10 7.5
WS503 4.0 1.1 130 8.8
WS504 0.5 1.5 <10 8.9
WS504 3.0 1.7 72 9.8
WS505 0.3 0.5 <10 8.0
WS505 2.0 1.5 <10 7.9
WS506 0.5 0.05 <10 8.6
WS506 3.0 1.4 <10 9.5
WS507 0.3 0.04 <10 8.0
WS507 4.0 0.04 <10 8.6
WS508 1.0 0.2 34 10.9
WS508 5.7 0.11 <10 8.9
WS509 0.5 0.32 <10 9.1
WS509 3.0 0.04 <10 8.5
WS510 0.5 0.11 <10 10.5
WS510 4.5 0.07 <10 8.6
WS511 0.5 0.06 <10 8.1
WS511 5.0 0.48 <10 9.5
Table Thirteen: Sulphate, Sulphide and pH Analysis Results - Soil Samples

In08712 CL 004 Page 17
Depth (m)
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Total PAHs
Chrysene
Benzo(a)
Fluorene
pyrene
WS501 0.3 0.28 0.34 0.7 1.8 0.7 0.63 11.1
WS501 1.0 0.35 1.5 4.3 16 6 5.9 83.69
WS501 4.0 1.9 0.7 0.7 2.8 0.79 0.47 16.72
WS502 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ND
WS502 2.0 0.21 0.28 0.5 3.5 1.1 0.91 16.56
WS502 4.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.14 0.66 0.23 0.2 2.9
WS503 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.28 1.0 0.42 0.44 5.29
WS503 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.93 0.38 0.26 4.01
WS503 4.0 1.5 0.31 0.21 0.77 0.27 0.17 5.88
WS504 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.12 0.75 0.36 0.31 3.94
WS504 1.0 <0.1 0.2 0.45 1.9 0.71 0.68 9.6
WS504 3.0 0.59 0.13 0.14 0.88 0.36 0.23 4.78
WS505 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ND
WS505 2.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.11 0.67 0.32 0.38 3.73
WS505 2.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.44 0.32 0.26 2.52
WS506 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.16 <0.1 0.11 ND
WS506 3.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.39 0.15 <0.1 ND
WS506 5.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.18 <0.1 <0.1 ND
WS507 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 1.7 0.82 0.77 8.97
WS507 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.51 0.31 0.23 2.78
WS507 4.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ND
WS508 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.15 <0.1 <0.1 ND
WS508 3.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ND

ND – Concentration below detection levels.
Includes analysis from WAC analysis suite.
Table Fourteen: PAH Analysis Results – Soil (continued on next page)

In08712 CL 004 Page 18
Continued…
Depth (m)
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Total PAHs
Chrysene
Benzo(a)
Fluorene
pyrene
WS508 5.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ND
WS509 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.34 0.27 0.31 2.54
WS509 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.21 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
WS509 3.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
WS510 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.14 1.1 0.58 0.38 5.32
WS510 2.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
WS510 4.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
WS511 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.17 1.3 0.7 0.5 6.86
WS511 3.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ND
WS511 5.0 <0.1 0.15 0.42 4.1 1.9 1.3 19.28

Includes analysis from WAC analysis suite.
Table Fourteen: PAH Analysis Results – Soil
2.6 Chemical Analysis Results – Groundwater Samples

We have completed the following analysis on representative groundwater samples from the site:

Detection
Technique
HPLC -
Phenol suite: Phenol and Total
electrochemical 0.5 ug/l 3 1
monohydric phenol detector
Speciated PAH 16 (US EPA) GC-MS 0.1 ug/l 3 3

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Headspace
(CWG suite) C5-C35: Includes extraction and 10 ug/l 3 1
BTEX/MTBE GC-FID finish
Inorganic compounds
including: Arsenic, Cadmium, Various. -
Chromium, Lead, Mercury, ICP-OES ranging from 3 3
Selenium, Copper, Nickel, Zinc 0.05 to 5 ug/l
and Water Soluble Boron
Table Fifteen: Groundwater Analytical Strategy (continued on next page)

In08712 CL 004 Page 19
Continued…
Detection
Technique
Skalar
Cyanide (Total) continuous flow
20 ug/l 3 3
DPD
Sulphide colorimetric
50 ug/l 3 0
Sulphate Dionex IC 0.01 g/l 3 3

pH Potentiometric N/A 3 N/A
N/A – not applicable.
Table Fifteen: Groundwater Analytical Strategy
The results of the analysis completed is summarised in the following tables. Analysis certificates have
been included in Attachment Seven.
Concentration (ug/l)
Sampling
Location
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Volatile Hydrocarbons Extractable Hydrocarbons Total Hydrocarbons
(C16-C21) (C16-C21) (C16-C21)
BH-A 50 270 320
BH-B < 10 < 10 < 10
BH-C < 10 < 10 < 10
Table Sixteen: TPH Analysis Results – Groundwater
Sampling Location
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Aromatics

Aromatic C10-C12
Aromatic C12-C16
Aromatic C16-C21
Aromatic C21-C35
Aromatic C8-C10
Aromatic C6-C7
Aromatic C7-C8
Total Aromatic
BH-A < 10 < 10 < 10 30 190 80 < 10 300
BH-B < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
BH-C < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
Table Seventeen: TPH (Aromatic) Analysis Results – Groundwater

In08712 CL 004 Page 20
Sampling Location Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Aliphatics
Aliphatic C10-C12
Aliphatic C12-C16
Aliphatic C16-C21
Aliphatic C21-C35
Aliphatic C8-C10
Aliphatic C5-C6
Aliphatic C6-C8
Total Aliphatic
BH-A < 10 < 10 < 10 20 < 10 < 10 < 10 20
BH-B < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
BH-C < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
Table Eighteen: TPH (Aliphatic) Analysis Results – Groundwater

Sampling Location
Monohydric
Trimethyl
Benzene
benzene
benzene
Toluene
Phenols
Xylenes
Phenol
MTBE
Ethyl-
Total
Total
Total
BH-A 5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 530
BH-B <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10
BH-C <5 <5 <5 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10

ND – Concentration below detection levels
Nineteen: BTEX, Trimethylbenzene, MTBE and Phenol Analysis Results – Groundwater
Sampling Location
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Chromium
Cadmium
Selenium
Mercury
Arsenic
Nickel
Lead
BH-A 28 <1 <5 <5 <0.05 6 <5 20 50
BH-B 9 <1 8 <5 <0.05 5 8 <20 50
BH-C <5 <1 5 <5 <0.05 <5 12 20 80
Table Twenty: Inorganic Compounds Analysis Results – Groundwater

In08712 CL 004 Page 21
Water Total
Sampling
Location
Soluble Sulphide Ammoniacal Ammoniacal
Alkalinity as Nitrogen as N Nitrogen as
Sulphate pH
(ug/l) CaCO3 (ug/l) NH4 (ug/l)
(g/l) (ug/l)
BH-A 1,400,000 <50 76,000 15,000 19,000 8.8
BH-B 970,000 <50 400,000 5,300 6,900 7.5
BH-C 20,0000 <50 250,000 6,400 8,200 8.1
Table Twenty-one: Sulphate, Sulphide, Alkalinity, Nitrogen and pH Results – Groundwater

Sampling Location
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Total PAHs
Chrysene
Benzo(a)
Fluorene
pyrene
BH-A <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1
BH-B <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ND
BH-C 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2

Table Twenty Two: PAH Analysis Results – Groundwater
Results of all the chemical analyses carried out as part of our assessment are included in Attachment
Seven.
ATTACHMENT ONE: NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES
In08712 CL 004 Attachment One
Site Investigation Report - Telehouse West, Coriander Avenue, London, E14
NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES

The purpose of our site assessment is to provide general information on the environmental and/or
geotechnical conditions existing at the site and related to soil or groundwater. Where the Client or
others specified the scope of the investigation, the validity of our conclusions may be limited by the
scope of work completed. We are not responsible for any such limitations imposed by the scope of
work.
Where stated in this report, we have used information supplied by third parties. While we have
evaluated as far as possible the validity of this information, we cannot guarantee its accuracy in any
way whatsoever.
No investigation technique is capable of completely identifying all of the contaminants that might be
present in the soil or groundwater under a site. Where specified in our report, we have examined the
ground by constructing a number of boreholes and/or trial pits. We recovered samples of soil and/or
groundwater from available exposures.
The depth and spacing of our sampling locations were selected to ensure with a reasonable
probability that they would be representative of the actual conditions across the whole site. However,
safety considerations relating to existing site infrastructure may have restricted our ability to
investigate all potential contaminant sources. Specifically, we were unable to investigate the soil and
groundwater condition immediately adjacent to the underground petroleum installation and other
buried services. These limitations must be borne in mind when considering the conclusions reached in
this report.
Soil is intrinsically variable and the spread of contaminants within the soil is therefore subject to a
degree of non-uniformity. For these reasons no sampling technique can completely eliminate the
possibility of obtaining samples that are not representative of the actual conditions. Our sampling
techniques are intended to reduce the possibility to an acceptable level.
Groundwater levels and soil vapour levels that we report were accurate at the time of the investigation.
Groundwater and soil vapour levels are variable. Long term monitoring may be required to ensure that
the levels recorded during our investigation are representative of long term and possible ‘worst case’
conditions.
This investigation was carried out to assess the significance of contamination resulting from use of the
site as identified in this report. Unless we have indicated otherwise, no assessment of the potential
impact of any other previous uses has been made. No investigation was carried out to determine
whether or not any deleterious or hazardous materials have been used in the construction of the
buildings present on the site.
We do not accept any responsibility for the cost of remedial works or other costs incurred in whatever
way whatsoever as a result of any omissions, errors or other shortcomings in this report unless we
have been given reasonable opportunity to verify ourselves that such faults exist and we have been
given a reasonable opportunity to carry out works to remedy such faults ourselves using the most
practicable means available to us. We do not accept liability for any consequential losses incurred by
you while we carry out any remedial works we deem necessary.
This report has been prepared for Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd. Use of, and
reliance on, this report by other third parties will be at such third parties own risk, and we are unable to
accept any liability or responsibility to third parties.
Neither the whole nor any part of this report, or any reference to it, may be included in any published
document circular or statement or published in any way without our prior written approval.
This report and its contents, together with any supporting correspondence or other documentation,
remain the property of Subadra Consulting Limited until paid for in full.
ATTACHMENT TWO: SITE DRAWINGS
ATTACHMENT THREE: DIARY OF WORKS
In08712 CL 004 Attachment Three
Site Investigation Report - Telehouse West, Coriander Avenue, London, EC14
Diary of Works for Geo-Environmental Investigation at Telehouse West
Date Works Completed

We marked out borehole locations, as proposed by Faber Maunsell. A site plan
showing borehole locations is provided as Figure One.
We constructed inspection pits at the following locations: WS501, 502, 503, 505
and 508.
th
13 May 2008 We constructed WS505 to a depth of 4.6m below surface. We were unable to
penetrate beyond this depth due to an obstruction. We constructed WS502 to a
depth of 5.0m.
Soil samples were recovered from each location and PID testing and photographs
carried out as required.
We constructed inspection pits at the following locations: WS506 and 507.
We completed drilling at location WS502, terminating at the required target depth
of 6.0m. We constructed WS501 to a depth of 6.5m below surface. Sample
recovery was limited from depths of 5.0 to 6.0m so this borehole was terminated
at a depth 0.5m below target depth to provide sufficient sample volume. We
th constructed WS503 to the required target depth of 6.0m below surface.
14 May 2008
We carried out gas monitoring at the following locations: BH-A, BH-B and BH-C.
At the request of Telehouse we relocated WS510 from the car park to a
landscaped area approximately 1.5m to the east.
We constructed boreholes to the required target depth of 6.0m below surface at
the following locations: WS504, 506, 508 and 509. We constructed WS507 to a
depth of 4.6m below surface. We were unable to penetrate beyond this depth due
th to an obstruction.
15 May 2008
We back-filled the following borehole locations: WS501- 503 and 505.
We constructed boreholes to the required target depth of 6.0m below surface at
the following locations: WS510 and 511.
th
16 May 2008
We back-filled the following borehole locations: WS504, 506-511.
We recorded the location of all eleven boreholes constructed and the three pre-
existing monitoring standpipes using our Leica GPS. Borehole and monitoring
well locations are shown on Figure One (see Attachment One).
We recovered groundwater samples from the three pre-existing standpipes by
low-flow purging and sampling procedures. Samples were collected in a variety of
22
nd
May 2008 containers suitable for the testing suite and stored in cool boxes during
transportation to the laboratory.
The results of our groundwater monitoring are included as Attachment Three.
th th We carried out gas monitoring for parameters including methane, carbon dioxide,
5 June, 19
th carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulphide at each of the three pre-existing well
June and 4 July
locations on three separate occasions. The results of this analysis are included as
2008
Attachment Four.
ATTACHMENT FOUR: BOREHOLE LOGS
SUBADRA
Consultants in the Earth Sciences
Borehole No. 501 ___________________________________________________________________________
Unit 13, Triangle Business Park, Stoke Mandeville
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.
Project Name Telehouse West Date 13-14th May 2008

Project Code IN08712 Ground Level 51.869
Coordinates 538698.286, 181057.589 Equipment Window Sampling (Dando Terrier)
Depth (m)
Monitoring
Chemical Geotech SPT ('N')

Water VOCs Description
Log Sample Analysis Analysis or
Well
Level (ppm)
Scheduled Scheduled Su (kPa)
0
0.0-0.1m MADE GROUND
S1 @ 0.3m -
LOOSE brown / beige medium
S2 @ 0.5m 0 rounded GRAVELS
(peak = 0.2)
MEDIUM DENSE brown SAND
S3 @ 1.0m 0
1 with frequent fine / medium
gravels and small fragments of
red brick. Becoming slightly
clayey >0.4m and clayey > 0.9.
MEDIUM DENSE grey brown /
S4 @ 2.0m 0
2 (peak = 0.2)
dark grey / black slightly clayey
SAND with frequent fine /
medium gravels, small red
brick fragments and glass /
concrete fragments. Layer
grades to sandy clay / clay 6.0-
S5 @ 3.0m 0.3
6.5m. Hydrocaron odour noted
3 (peak = 0.7)
in small band at 4.9m. Damp /
wet 4.5-6.5m.
Drillers note: Poor sample

Strike at 4.5m
recovery 5.0 to 6.0m, borehole

S6 @ 4.0m 0.6 re-drilled to 6.5m.
4 (peak = 5.6)
4.5
S7 @ 4.9m
(peak = 16)
5 S8 @ 5.0m 1.5
(peak = 8.2)
0
S9 @ 6.5m
(peak = 0.7)
Inspection pit hand-dug to: 1.0m Odour/staining: Hydrocarbon odour noted 4.9m
Borehole terminated at: 6.5m Date / time of sampling: S1-3 13/05/08 (PM)
Groundwater encountered at: 4.5 to 6.5m S4-9 14/05/08 (PM)
Groundwater monitoring well to: None installed Dwn: JE Ckd: JS
SUBADRA
Borehole No. 502 ___________________________________________________________________________
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.

Coordinates 538733.079,181069.660 Equipment Window Sampling (Dando Terrier)
Depth (m)
Monitoring

Well
Level (ppm)
0 - 0.0-0.1m MADE GROUND

S1 @ 0.3m
SOFT brown slightly sandy
S3 @ 1.1m 0 CLAY with occasional fine /
1
medium gravels
MEDIUM DENSE brown grey
slightly clayey SAND with fine
0 gravels and small fragments of
S4 @ 2.0m
2 (peak = 0.2) red brick.
FIRM grey sandy CLAY with
occasional fine / medium
gravels. Damp from 1.8m.
0
S5 @ 3.0m
3 (peak = 0.3)
SOFT dark grey / black sandy
CLAY with occasional large
fragments of brick and clinker /
slag and wood. Layer damp /
1.1
S6 @ 4.0m wet throughout. Organic odour
4 (peak = 1.8)
throughout.
S7 @ 4.5m -
0
S8 @ 5.0m
5 (peak = 0.9)
0.3
S9 @ 5.8m
(peak = 0.6)
6
Inspection pit hand-dug to: 0.9m Odour/staining: Organic odour noted 3.0-6.0m
Groundwater encountered at: Damp only >1.8m S9 14/05/08 (AM)
SUBADRA
Borehole No. 503 ___________________________________________________________________________
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.

Depth (m)
Monitoring

Well
Level (ppm)
0
- 0.0-0.2m MADE GROUND
S1 @ 0.3m
SOFT brown sandy CLAY with
S3 @ 1.0m 0
occasional fine / medium
1
gravels and small fragments of
red brick
FIRM grey slightly sandy CLAY
with occasional small gravels
S4 @ 2.0m 0
2 1.4-2.4m MADE GROUND
MEDIUM DENSE brown / grey
/ black clayey SAND with
frequent fine / medium gravels
and large fragments of bric,
0 chalk and small fragments of
S5 @ 3.0m
3 (peak = 0.1) metal, glass and plastic.
FIRM grey CLAY
VERY SOFT grading to SOFT
0.8 dark grey / black very sandy /
S6 @ 4.0m
4 (peak = 2.2)
CLAY with gravels, small
fragments of red brick, wood
and plastic. Damp / wet
throughout. Organic odour
throughout .
0.2
S8 @ 5.0m
5 (peak = 1.2)
0.4
S9 @ 6.0m
6 (peak = 1.2)
Inspection pit hand-dug to: 1.2m Odour/staining: Organic odour noted 3.0-6.0m
Groundwater encountered at: >3.0m S4 14/05 (AM) S5 14/05 (PM)
SUBADRA
Borehole No. 504 ___________________________________________________________________________
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.

Depth (m)
Monitoring

Well
Level (ppm)
0
S1 @ 0.3m -
Strike at 0.4m
(peak = 0.2)
S3 @ 1.0m 0
with gravels
1
MEDIUM DENSE brown
slightly clayey very sandy
GRAVELS with red brick
fragments (small). Wet to 0.8m
S4 @ 2.0m 0
2 (perched on band of clayey
sand). Terminated 1.2m on
obstruction. Borehole moved
appoximately 300mm ( within
same inspection pit).
S5 @ 3.0m 0
Strike at 3.8m
3 SOFT grey / brown / dark grey

very sandy CLAY with frequent
gravels and small / large red
and yellow brick / concrete
fragments. Layer noted as
clayey sand in places. Crushed
S6 @ 4.0m 0
brick noted 5.7-6.0m. Wet 3.8-
4 (peak = 0.1)
4.0m. Slight organic odour in
places.
S7 @ 5.0m 0.2
5 (peak = 0.6)
S8 @ 5.6m 0.3
(peak = 0.4)
6
Inspection pit hand-dug to: 1.1m Odour/staining: Organic odour in places (1.2-6.0m)
Borehole terminated at: 6.0m Date / time of sampling: S1-3 14/05/08 (AM)
Groundwater encountered at: 0.4-0.8m and 3.8-4.0m S4-8 15/05/08 (AM)
SUBADRA
Borehole No. 505 ___________________________________________________________________________
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.
Project Name Telehouse West Date 13th May 2008

Depth (m)
Monitoring

Well
Level (ppm)
0
S1 @ 0.3m -
FIRM brown slightly sandy
S3 @ 1.0m 0
CLAY with occasional fine /
1
medium gravels and small
fragments of red brick.
S4 @ 2.0m 0
2
S5 @ 2.5m -
S6 @ 3.0m 0 2.8-4.6m MADE GROUND

3 SOFT black grey slightly sandy
CLAY with very occasional
gravels and brick fragments (>
50mm) and pieces of wood and
rubber. Organic odour
S7 @ 4.0m 0 throughout layer.
4 (peak = 0.1)
Borehole terminated at 4.6m on
obstruction.
S8 @ 4.6m 0
6
Inspection pit hand-dug to: 1.0m Odour/staining: Organic odour noted 2.8 to 4.6m
Borehole terminated at: 4.6m (on obstruction) Date / time of sampling: S1-8 13/05/08 (AM)
Groundwater encountered at: None recorded
SUBADRA
Borehole No. 506 ___________________________________________________________________________
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.

Depth (m)
Monitoring

Well
Level (ppm)
0
S1 @ 0.3m -
LOOSE brown SAND with
S3 @ 1.0m 0
frequent gravels. Slightly clayey
1
in places.
MEDIUM DENSE beige /
yellowy brown SAND with
gravels.
S4 @ 2.0m 0
2 (peak = 0.1) 1.4-6.0m MADE GROUND
FIRM grey / dark grey sandy
CLAY with gravels, small
fragment of red brick and glass.
Plastic and clinker noted >
0
3.0m. Band of soft-firm grey
S5 @ 3.0m
3 clay clay 3-4.9m (re-worked
London Clay). Wet >4.5m.
Strike at 4.5m
S6 @ 4.0m 0
4 (peak = 0.2)
S7 @ 5.0m 0.6
5 (peak = 0.9)
S8 @ 6.0m 0
6
Inspection pit hand-dug to: 1.2m Odour/staining: Organic odour >3.0m
Groundwater encountered at: 4.5m S4-8 15/05/08 (AM)
SUBADRA
Borehole No. 507 ___________________________________________________________________________
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.

Depth (m)
Monitoring

Well
Level (ppm)
0
S1 @ 0.3m 0
MEDIUM DENSE brown / beige
S3 @ 1.0m 0
SAND with frequent gravels
1
with small fragments of red
brick. Slightly clayey in parts.
S4 @ 1.6m 0
Sands and gravels only (i.e. no
clay or brick) 2.5-4.0m.
Borehole terminated at 4.5m.
Drillers note: concrete
2 fragments in cutting shoe.
S5 @ 3.0m 0
3
S6 @ 4.0m 0
4
S7 @ 4.5m 0
(peak= 0.1)
6
Inspection pit hand-dug to: 0.9m Odour/staining: None recorded
Borehole terminated at: 4.5m (on concrete obstruction) Date / time of sampling: S1-7 15/05/08 (AM)
Groundwater encountered at: None recorded
SUBADRA
Borehole No. 508 ___________________________________________________________________________
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.
Project Name Telehouse West Date 13 / 15th May 2008

Depth (m)
Monitoring

Well
Level (ppm)
0
S1 @ 0.3m -
rounded GRAVELS
FIRM brown sandy CLAY with
S2 @ 1.0m 0
occasional fine gravels and
1
small fragments of red brick /
metal and plastic. Layer of
concrete 0.5-0.9m.
MEDIUM DENSE orange brown
2 S3 @ 2.1m 0 / beige SAND with occasional
gravels. No recovery 1.5-2.0m /
2.8-3.0m.
3 S4 @ 3.1m 0
S5 @ 4.0m 0
4
S6 @ 5.0m 0
5
S7 @ 5.7m 0
6
Borehole terminated at: 6.0m Date / time of sampling: S1 13/05/08 (AM)
Groundwater encountered at: None recorded S2-7 15/05/08 (PM)
SUBADRA
Borehole No. 509 ___________________________________________________________________________
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.

Depth (m)
Monitoring

Well
Level (ppm)
0
S1 @ 0.3m - 0.0-0.05m MADE GROUND
0 LOOSE brown / beige medium
S2 @ 0.5m
rounded GRAVELS
S3 @ 1.0m 0 0.05-1.4m MADE GROUND

1 SOFT brown / dark brown very
sandy CLAY with frequent fine /
medium gravels with small red
S4 @ 1.7m 0
brick and concrete fragments.
SOFT orange brown / beige
slightly sandy CLAY.
No recovery 1.7-2.0m
3 MEDIUM DENSE orange brown
Strike at 4.4m
/ beige SAND with occ.

medium rounded gravels and
occ. shells. Wet >4.4m.
S6 @ 4.0m 0
4 Note: possible high proportion
of re-drive in sample barrel.
No recovery 4.7-5.0m.
S7 @ 4.6m 0 Note: large fragment of

5 concrete stuck in end of
sample barrel at 6.0m.
S8 @ 6.0m 0
6
MEDIUM DENSE orange brown
/ beige SAND. Note: possible
S9 @ 6.8m -
re-drive?
MEDIUM DENSE brown / black
medium angular GRAVELS
with red brick fragents. No
odour / wet.
8
Groundwater encountered at: Wet at 4.4m S9 16/05/08 (AM)
SUBADRA
Borehole No. 510 ___________________________________________________________________________
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.

Coordinates 538781.182, 181021.024 Equipment Window Sampling (Dando Terrier)
Depth (m)
Monitoring

Well
Level (ppm)
0
0.0-1.3m TOPSOIL
S1 @ 0.3m -
LOOSE becoming MEDIUM
S2 @ 0.5m 0 DENSE brown slightly clayey
SAND with occasional fine
gravels. Small rootlets to 1.0m.
S3 @ 1.0m 0
1

with frequent medium rounded
S4 @ 2.0m 0
gravels. Wet below 4.4m.
2 Sample lost from barrel 4.5-
5.0m and 5.0-5.4m.
S5 @ 3.0m 0
3
S6 @ 3.5m -
Strike at 4.4m
S7 @ 4.0m 0
4
S8 @ 4.5m 0
S9 @ 6.0m 0
6
Groundwater encountered at: Wet at 4.4m S4-9 16/05/08 (PM)
SUBADRA
Borehole No. 511 ___________________________________________________________________________
Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401.

Depth (m)
Monitoring

Well
Level (ppm)
0
0.0-0.3m GRASS / TOPSOIL
S1 @ 0.3m -

MEDIUM DENSE brown SAND.
Frequent gravels and
S3 @ 1.0m - occasional small/medium
1 fragments of red brick and
concrete >0.3m. Rootlets to
0.8m.
with frequent medium rounded
2 S4 @ 2.1m 0
gravels.
S5 @ 3.0m 0
3
S6 @ 4.0m 0
4
Strike at 5.0m

with frequent medium gravels.
S7 @ 5.0m 0 Slightly clayey in parts with
5 frequent small/medium
fragments of concrete and
red/yellw brick. Wet below
5.0m.
Poor recovery 5.0-6.0m.
S8 @ 6.0m 0
6
Groundwater encountered at: Wet at 5.0m S4-8 16/05/08 (PM)
ATTACHMENT FIVE: GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA
In08712 CL 004 Attachment Five
Site Name: Telehouse

Project No. In08712
SUBADRA
rd
Date 23 May 2008 _________________________________________________________________
Unit 12, Triangle Business Park, Stoke Mandeville HP22 5BL
Site Engineer MJ Tel. 01296 739400 Fax. 01296 739401
Monitoring Well and Water Level Data Well description/name: BHA
Water table depth: 4.045 Sampling depth 6.0m
Depth to base of well: 12.90 PID reading: -

(immediately after opening well)
Casing diameter / material: 50mm Additional notes:
Free product detected: No
Well Purging and Sampling Data

Data measured from: Top of casing
Sampling method: Low Flow
Spec.
Water Temp DO DO ORP Colour/odour/
Time pH Cond
Level (0C) (mV) (%) (mV) comments
(us/cm)
9:20 4.045 - - - - - - -
9:21 - 12.38 8.13 2.49 7.59 - 128 Sample clear
9:24 4.085 12.15 9.04 2.49 4.22 30.2 86 -
9:27 4.103 12.29 8.88 2.50 4.81 34.1 58 Sample clear
9:30 4.116 12.39 8.77 2.53 3.99 28.5 45 -
9:33 4.128 12.45 8.74 2.59 2.83 20.5 33 -
9:36 4.139 12.48 8.74 2.66 2.77 20.0 24 Sample slightly cloudy
9:39 4.147 12.53 8.74 2.73 2.63 19.3 14 -
9:42 4.151 12.57 8.77 2.78 2.37 16.8 2 Sample slightly cloudy
9:45 4.162 12.61 8.77 2.87 1.99 14.8 -11 -
Water depth after
Sampling start time: 9.45am -
sampling:
Sampling end time: 9.53am Sampling rate: -
Sample ID Container Type No of containers Preservation

o
BHA 40ml 2 4C
o
BHA 1L glass 2 4C
o
BHA 1L plastic 1 4C

Project No. In08712
SUBADRA
rd
Date 23 May 2008 _________________________________________________________________
Monitoring Well and Water Level Data Well description/name: BHB


Spec.
Time pH Cond
(us/cm)
10:20 5.112 - - - - - - -
10:23 5.144 13.49 8.43 3.79 3.65 27.9 -37 Sample clear
10:26 5.139 13.50 7.96 3.61 3.25 24.4 -43
10:29 5.139 13.63 8.01 3.40 2.78 20.5 -43 Sample clear
10:32 5.140 13.65 7.86 3.33 2.68 20.1 -43
10:25 5.140 13.52 7.82 3.19 2.61 19.4 -39
10:28 5.140 13.49 7.69 3.19 2.52 19.4 -40
10:41 5.140 13.57 7.91 3.04 2.28 17.2 -40 Sample clear
10:44 5.140 13.54 7.72 3.00 2.16 16.1 -39
10:47 5.140 13.54 7.63 3.00 2.16 15.7 -41
10:52 5.140 13.50 7.45 2.96 2.01 15.0 -40 Sample clear
Water depth after
sampling:
Sampling end time: 10.58am Sampling rate: -

o
BHB 40ml 2 4C
o
BHB 1L glass 2 4C
o
BHB 1L plastic 1 4C

Project No. In08712
SUBADRA
rd
Date 23 May 2008 _________________________________________________________________
Monitoring Well and Water Level Data Well description/name: BHC


Spec.
Time pH Cond
(us/cm)
11:30 3.917 - - - - - - -
11:33 3.962 13.30 8.60 2.19 2.48 19.0 -66 Sample clear
11:36 4.014 13.30 8.19 2.18 1.96 14.3 -72 Sample clear
11:39 4.061 13.42 7.96 2.19 1.96 16.3 -75 -
11:42 4.099 13.41 7.90 2.19 1.64 12.8 -76 Sample clear
11:45 4.143 14.39 7.70 2.18 - - -10 -
11:48 4.195 14.91 7.71 2.18 - - -5 -
11:51 4.261 13.67 7.77 2.17 2.58 19.3 -73 Sample clear
11:54 4.297 13.68 7.84 2.16 2.15 16.2 -76 -
11:57 4.342 13.68 7.77 2.15 1.92 13.7 -78 -
Water depth after
sampling:
Sampling end time: 12.06pm Sampling rate: -

o
BHC 40ml 2 4C
o
BHC 1L glass 2 4C
o
BHC 1L plastic 1 4C
ATTACHMENT SIX: GAS MONITORING DATA
Site Name: Telehouse Site Engineer: James Edley Page SUBADRA
Project Code: In08712 Date of Sampling: 14th May 2008 1 of 3 Consultants in the Earth Sciences
PEAK
ID Time CH4 CO2 O2 CH4 %LEL PEAK CH4 MIN O2 BARO CO H2S H2
CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-A 09:20:15 0.7 1 11.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:20:30 0 1 10 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:20:45 0 1 10.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:21:00 0 1 10.1 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:21:15 0 1 9.6 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:21:30 0 1 9.8 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:21:45 0 1 9.8 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:22:00 0 1 9.7 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:22:15 0 1 9.6 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:22:30 0 1 9.6 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:22:45 0 1 9.4 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:23:00 0 1.1 9.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:24:00 0 1.2 8.9 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:25:00 0 1.3 7.4 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:27:00 0 1.7 5.3 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:29:00 0 1.8 3.3 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:31:00 0 2 2.6 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:33:00 0 2.1 1.5 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:35:00 0 2.1 2.1 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-A 09:38:00 0 2.4 2.1 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
CH4 PEAK PEAK

ID Time CH4 CO2 O2 MIN O2 BARO CO H2S H2
%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-B 10:42:15 0 1 17 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:42:30 0 0.8 20.4 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:42:45 0 0.8 20.4 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:43:00 0 0.9 20.4 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:43:15 0 0.8 20.3 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:43:30 0 1.1 20.2 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:43:45 0 1.3 20 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:44:00 0 1.4 19.9 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:44:15 0 1.6 19.8 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:44:30 0 1.7 19.6 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:44:45 0 1.7 19.5 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:45:00 0 1.8 19.5 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:46:00 0 1.8 19.4 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:47:00 0 1.9 19.3 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:49:00 0 2 19.9 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:51:00 0 2.1 18.7 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:53:00 0 2.1 18.5 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:55:00 0 2.1 18.4 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
BH-B 10:57:00 0 2.1 18.4 NR 0 NR NR 1015 NR 0 NR
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-C 10:05:15 0 0.1 21.5 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:05:30 0 0.3 21.3 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:05:45 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:06:00 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:06:15 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:06:30 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:06:45 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:07:00 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:07:15 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:07:30 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:07:45 0 0.2 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:08:00 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:09:00 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:10:00 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
BH-C 10:12:00 0 0.3 21.2 NR 0 NR NR 1016 NR 0 NR
Site Name: Telehouse Site Engineer: Tom Anderson Page SUBADRA
Project Code: In08712 Date of Sampling: 5th June 2008 1 of 3 Consultants in the Earth Sciences
PEAK
CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-A 09:31:45 0 0 19.4 0 ---- 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-A 09:32:00 0.1 2.6 5.5 2 0.1 2.6 11.6 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-A 09:32:15 0 2.6 5.5 0 0 2.6 5.4 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:32:30 0.1 2.6 5.1 2 0.1 2.6 5.2 1013 3 0 LOW
BH-A 09:32:45 0.1 2.6 4.9 2 0.1 2.6 4.9 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:33:00 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:33:15 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.7 4.6 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:33:30 0 2.6 4.5 0 0 2.7 4.5 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:33:45 0.1 2.6 4.5 2 0.1 2.7 4.4 1013 4 0 LOW
BH-A 09:34:00 0 2.6 4.5 0 0.1 2.6 4.5 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:34:15 0 2.6 4.4 0 0.1 2.7 4.4 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:34:30 0 2.6 4.4 0 0.1 2.7 4.4 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:34:45 0 2.6 4.4 0 0.1 2.7 4.3 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:35:00 0 2.6 4.3 0 0.1 2.7 4.3 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:36:00 0 2.6 4.2 0 0.2 2.6 4.2 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-A 09:37:00 0 2.6 4.2 0 0.1 2.6 4.2 1013 4 0 LOW
BH-A 09:38:00 0 2.6 4.3 0 0 2.6 4.1 1013 1 0 LOW
BH-A 09:39:00 0 2.6 4.1 0 0 2.7 4.1 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:40:00 0 2.6 4.2 0 0 2.6 4.1 1013 3 0 LOW
BH-A 09:41:00 0 2.7 4.2 0 0 2.7 4.1 1013 3 0 LOW
BH-A 09:42:00 0 2.6 4.3 0 0 2.6 4.1 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-A 09:43:00 0 2.7 4.2 0 0 2.7 4.1 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-A 09:44:00 0 2.6 4.3 0 0 2.6 4.2 1013 2 0 LOW
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-B 09:51:00 0 0.3 19.6 0 0 0.3 19.5 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:51:15 0 0.3 19.5 0 0 0.3 19.5 1013 3 0 LOW
BH-B 09:51:30 0 0.3 19.6 0 0 0.3 19.4 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:51:45 0 0.3 19.6 0 0 0.3 19.4 1013 1 0 LOW
BH-B 09:52:00 0 0.3 19.6 0 0 0.3 19.5 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:52:15 0 0.3 19.6 0 0 0.3 19.4 1013 1 0 LOW
BH-B 09:52:30 0 0.3 19.4 0 0 0.3 19.4 1013 4 0 LOW
BH-B 09:52:45 0 0.3 19.5 0 0 0.3 19.4 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:53:00 0 0.3 19.5 0 0 0.3 19.4 1013 6 0 LOW
BH-B 09:53:15 0 0.3 19.4 0 0 0.3 19.4 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-B 09:53:30 0 0.4 19.5 0 0 0.4 19.4 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:53:45 0 0.4 19.4 0 0 0.4 19.3 1013 6 0 LOW
BH-B 09:54:00 0 0.6 19.2 0 0 0.6 19.1 1013 3 0 LOW
BH-B 09:55:00 0 0.8 18.8 0 0 0.8 18.8 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:56:00 0 0.9 18.5 0 0 0.9 18.5 1013 1 0 LOW
BH-B 09:57:00 0 1.1 18.2 0 0 1.1 18.1 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:58:00 0 1.2 17.9 0 0 1.2 17.9 1013 1 0 LOW
BH-B 09:59:00 0 1.4 17.5 0 0 1.4 17.5 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-B 10:00:00 0 1.5 17.5 0 0 1.5 17.4 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-B 10:01:00 0 1.5 17.4 0 0 1.5 17.3 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-B 10:02:00 0 1.6 17.2 0 0 1.6 17.2 1013 4 0 LOW
BH-B 10:03:00 0 1.7 17.1 0 0.1 1.7 17 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-B 10:04:00 0 1.6 17.2 0 0 1.7 17 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-B 10:05:00 0 1.6 17.4 0 0 1.6 17 1013 0 0 LOW
BH-B 10:06:00 0 1.7 17.2 0 0 1.7 17.2 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-B 10:07:00 0 1.7 17.2 0 0 1.7 17 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-B 10:09:00 0 1.8 17.1 0 0 1.8 16.9 1013 2 0 LOW
BH-B 10:10:00 0 1.9 17 0 0 1.9 16.8 1013 5 0 LOW
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-C 09:08:30 0 0.3 20.4 0 0 0.3 20.2 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:08:45 0 1.2 18.2 0 0 1.1 18.2 1014 2 0 LOW
BH-C 09:09:00 0 1.3 17.3 0 0 1.3 17.3 1014 4 0 LOW
BH-C 09:09:15 0 1.4 17 0 0 1.4 16.9 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:09:30 0 1.4 16.6 0 0 1.4 16.6 1014 3 0 LOW
BH-C 09:09:45 0 1.5 16.4 0 0 1.5 16.4 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:10:00 0 1.6 16.2 0 0 1.6 16.2 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:10:15 0 1.7 16 0 0 1.7 15.9 1014 3 0 LOW
BH-C 09:10:30 0 1.8 15.7 0 0 1.8 15.7 1014 1 0 LOW
BH-C 09:10:45 0 1.9 15.6 0 0 1.9 15.5 1014 1 0 LOW
BH-C 09:11:00 0 2.1 14.8 0 0.1 2.1 14.8 1014 1 0 LOW
BH-C 09:12:00 0 2.3 14.2 0 0 2.3 14.2 1014 4 0 LOW
BH-C 09:13:00 0 2.4 13.8 0 0 2.4 13.8 1014 2 0 LOW
BH-C 09:14:00 0 2.4 13.6 0 0 2.5 13.4 1014 1 0 LOW
BH-C 09:15:00 0 2.5 13.5 0 0 2.4 13.2 1014 1 0 LOW
BH-C 09:16:00 0 2.4 13.3 0 0 2.4 13.3 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:17:00 0 2.5 13.3 0 0 2.5 13.1 1014 3 0 LOW
BH-C 09:18:00 0 2.5 13 0 0 2.5 13 1014 4 0 LOW
BH-C 09:19:00 0 2.6 13 0 0 2.6 12.9 1014 3 0 LOW
BH-C 09:20:00 0 2.6 12.9 0 0.1 2.6 12.9 1014 1 0 LOW
BH-C 09:21:00 0 2.6 12.9 0 0 2.6 12.8 1014 2 0 LOW
BH-C 09:22:00 0 2.6 12.8 0 0.1 2.6 12.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:23:00 0 2.6 12.9 0 0.1 2.6 12.8 1014 5 0 LOW
BH-C 09:25:00 0 2.5 13 0 0 2.6 12.6 1014 0 0 LOW
PEAK
CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-A 10:58:30 0 0 20.7 0 0 0 20.7 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 10:58:45 0 0.9 18.9 0 0 0.9 19.8 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 10:59:00 0 2.2 8 0 0 2.2 8 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 10:59:15 0 2.2 7 0 0 2.2 7 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 10:59:30 0 2.2 6.8 0 0 2.2 6.8 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 10:59:45 0 2.2 6.7 0 0 2.3 6.7 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:00:00 0 2.2 6.6 0 0 2.3 6.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:00:15 0 2.2 6.6 0 0 2.3 6.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:00:30 0 2.3 6.6 0 0 2.3 6.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:00:45 0 2.3 6.5 0 0 2.3 6.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:01:00 0 2.3 6.5 0 0 2.3 6.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:01:15 0 2.3 6.4 0 0 2.3 6.4 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:01:30 0 2.3 6.4 0 0 2.3 6.4 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:03:00 0 2.3 6.4 0 0 2.3 6.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:03:30 0 2.3 6.3 0 0 2.3 6.3 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:05:00 0 2.3 6.1 0 0 2.3 6.1 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:05:30 0 2.3 6.3 0 0 2.3 6.1 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:06:00 0 2.3 5.9 0 0 2.3 5.9 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:07:00 0 2.3 5.7 0 0 2.3 5.7 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:08:00 0 2.4 5.5 0 0 2.4 5.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:10:00 0 2.5 4.7 0 0 2.5 4.7 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:12:00 0 2.6 3.6 0 0 2.6 3.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:14:00 0 2.7 2.4 0 0 2.7 2.4 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:16:00 0 2.8 1.8 0 0 2.8 1.8 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:19:00 0 2.9 1.3 0 0 2.9 1.3 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-A 11:21:00 0 2.9 1.1 0 0 2.9 1.1 1007 0 0 LOW
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-B 11:24:30 0 4.4 11.6 0 0 4.4 11.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:24:45 0 4.4 11.1 0 0 4.4 11.1 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:25:00 0 4.4 11 0 0 4.4 11 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:25:15 0 4.5 11 0 0 4.5 11 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:25:30 0 4.4 10.9 0 0 4.5 10.9 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:25:45 0 4.5 11 0 0 4.5 10.9 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:26:00 0 4.5 10.9 0 0 4.5 10.9 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:26:15 0 4.5 10.9 0 0 4.5 10.9 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:26:30 0 4.5 10.9 0 0 4.5 10.9 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:26:45 0 4.5 10.8 0 0 4.5 10.8 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:27:00 0 4.5 10.8 0 0 4.5 10.8 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:27:15 0 4.5 10.8 0 0 4.5 10.8 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:27:30 0 4.5 10.7 0 0 4.6 10.7 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:28:00 0 4.7 10.3 0 0 4.7 10.3 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:29:00 0 4.9 10.1 0 0 4.9 10.1 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:30:00 0 4.9 9.9 0 0 4.9 9.9 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:31:00 0 5 9.8 0 0 5 9.8 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:32:00 0 4.9 9.9 0 0 5 9.8 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:33:00 0 4.9 10.1 0 0 4.9 10 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:34:00 0 4.9 10 0 0 4.9 10 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:36:00 0 5 9.6 0 0 5 9.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:38:00 0 5.1 9.4 0 0 5.1 9.4 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:40:00 0 5.1 9.4 0 0 5.1 9.4 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-B 11:41:00 0 5.1 9.5 0 ---- ---- ---- 1007 0 0 LOW
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-C 11:45:00 0 1.1 19.6 0 0 1.5 17.7 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:45:15 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:45:30 0 1.2 19.5 0 0 1.2 19.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:45:45 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:46:00 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:46:15 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:46:30 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:46:45 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:47:00 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:47:15 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:47:30 0 1.2 19.5 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:47:45 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:48:00 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.6 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:49:00 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:50:00 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:51:00 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:52:00 0 0.9 19.8 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:53:00 0 1.2 19.5 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:54:00 0 1 19.7 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:55:00 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:56:00 0 1.2 19.6 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 11:58:00 0 1.2 19.5 0 0 1.2 19.4 1007 0 0 LOW
BH-C 12:00:00 0 1.1 19.5 0 0 1.2 19.5 1007 0 0 LOW
Project Code: In08712 Date of Sampling: 4th July 2008 1 of 10 Consultants in the Earth Sciences
PEAK
CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-A 08:09:40 0 2.6 6.2 0 0 2.5 6.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:10:00 0 2.6 5 0 0 2.6 5 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:10:20 0 2.6 4.9 0 0 2.6 4.9 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:10:40 0 2.6 4.8 0 0 2.6 4.8 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:11:00 0 2.6 4.8 0 0 2.6 4.8 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:11:20 0 2.6 4.8 0 0 2.6 4.8 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:11:40 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:12:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:12:20 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:12:40 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:13:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:13:20 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:13:40 0 2.6 4.7 0 0.1 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:14:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:14:20 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:14:40 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:15:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:15:15 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:15:30 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:15:45 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:16:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:16:15 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:16:30 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:16:45 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:17:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:17:15 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:17:30 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:17:45 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:18:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
PEAK
CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-A 08:18:15 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:18:30 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:18:45 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:19:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:19:15 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:19:30 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:19:45 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:20:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:20:15 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:20:30 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:20:45 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:21:00 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:21:15 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:21:30 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:21:45 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:22:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:22:15 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:22:30 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:22:45 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:23:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:23:15 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:23:30 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:23:45 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:24:00 0 2.6 4.7 0 0 2.6 4.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:24:15 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:24:30 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:24:45 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:25:00 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
PEAK
CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-A 08:25:15 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:25:30 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:25:45 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:26:00 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:26:15 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:26:30 0 2.6 4.6 0 0 2.6 4.5 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:26:45 0 2.6 4.5 0 0 2.6 4.5 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:27:00 0 2.6 4.5 0 0 2.6 4.5 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:27:15 0 2.6 4.5 0 0 2.6 4.5 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:27:30 0 2.6 4.5 0 0 2.6 4.5 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:27:45 0 2.6 4.5 0 0 2.6 4.5 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:28:00 0 2.6 4.4 0 0 2.6 4.4 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:28:15 0 2.6 4.4 0 0 2.6 4.4 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:28:30 0 2.6 4.4 0 0 2.6 4.4 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:28:45 0 2.6 4.4 0 0 2.6 4.4 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:29:00 0 2.6 4.3 0 0 2.6 4.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:29:15 0 2.6 4.3 0 0 2.6 4.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:29:30 0 2.6 4.3 0 0 2.6 4.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:29:45 0 2.6 4.3 0 0 2.6 4.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:30:00 0 2.6 4.3 0 0 2.6 4.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:30:15 0 2.6 4.3 0 0 2.6 4.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:30:30 0 2.6 4.3 0 0 2.6 4.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:30:45 0 2.6 4.2 0 0 2.6 4.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:31:00 0 2.6 4.2 0 0 2.6 4.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:31:15 0 2.6 4.2 0 0 2.6 4.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:31:30 0 2.6 4.2 0 0 2.6 4.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:31:45 0 2.6 4.2 0 0 2.6 4.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:32:00 0 2.6 4.2 0 0 2.6 4.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:32:30 0 2.6 4.1 0 0 2.6 4.1 1015 0 0 LOW
PEAK
CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-A 08:33:00 0 2.6 4.1 0 0 2.6 4.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:34:00 0 2.6 4 0 0 2.6 4 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:35:00 0 2.6 3.9 0 0 2.6 3.9 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:36:00 0 2.6 4 0 0 2.6 3.9 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:37:00 0 2.6 3.9 0 0 2.6 3.9 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:38:00 0 2.6 3.9 0 0 2.6 3.9 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:39:00 0 2.6 3.9 0 0 2.6 3.8 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-A 08:40:00 0 2.6 3.9 0 0 2.6 3.9 1015 0 0 LOW
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-B 08:58:00 0 0 20 0 0 0 19.9 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 08:58:15 0 2.3 17.3 0 0 2.3 17.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 08:58:30 0 3.1 14.3 0 0 3.1 14.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 08:58:45 0 3.2 14.1 0 0 3.2 14.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 08:59:00 0 3.2 14.1 0 0 3.2 14.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 08:59:15 0 3.3 14 0 0 3.3 14 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 08:59:30 0 3.3 13.9 0 0 3.3 13.9 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 08:59:45 0 3.4 13.8 0 0 3.4 13.8 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:00:00 0 3.4 13.7 0 0 3.4 13.7 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:00:15 0 3.5 13.6 0 0 3.5 13.6 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:00:30 0 3.5 13.5 0 0 3.5 13.5 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:00:45 0 3.6 13.4 0 0 3.6 13.4 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:01:00 0 3.6 13.3 0 0 3.6 13.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:01:15 0 3.7 13.3 0 0 3.7 13.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:01:30 0 3.7 13.2 0 0 3.7 13.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:01:45 0 3.7 13.2 0 0 3.7 13.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:02:00 0 3.7 13.2 0 0 3.7 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:02:15 0 3.7 13.1 0 0 3.7 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:02:30 0 3.7 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:02:45 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:03:00 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:03:15 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:03:30 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:03:45 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:04:00 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:04:15 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-B 09:04:30 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:04:45 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:05:00 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:05:15 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:05:30 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:05:45 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:06:00 0 3.8 13.1 0 0 3.8 13.1 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:06:15 0 3.8 13.2 0 0 3.8 13.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:06:30 0 3.8 13.2 0 0 3.8 13.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:06:45 0 3.8 13.2 0 0 3.8 13.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:07:00 0 3.8 13.2 0 0 3.8 13.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:07:15 0 3.8 13.2 0 0 3.8 13.2 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:07:30 0 3.8 13.3 0 0 3.8 13.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:07:45 0 3.7 13.3 0 0 3.8 13.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:08:00 0 3.7 13.3 0 0 3.7 13.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:08:15 0 3.7 13.4 0 0 3.7 13.3 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:08:30 0 3.7 13.4 0 0 3.7 13.4 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:08:45 0 3.7 13.4 0 0 3.7 13.4 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:09:00 0 3.7 13.4 0 0 3.7 13.4 1015 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:10:00 0 3.7 13.5 0 0 3.7 13.4 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:11:00 0 3.7 13.5 0 0 3.7 13.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:12:00 0 3.7 13.6 0 0 3.7 13.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:13:00 0 3.7 13.6 0 0 3.7 13.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:14:00 0 3.7 13.5 0 0 3.7 13.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:15:00 0 3.7 13.5 0 0 3.7 13.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:16:00 0 3.7 13.5 0 0 3.7 13.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:17:00 0 3.7 13.5 0 0 3.7 13.4 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:18:00 0 3.7 13.4 0 0 3.7 13.4 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:19:00 0 3.7 13.4 0 0 3.7 13.3 1014 0 0 LOW
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-B 09:21:00 0 3.8 13.4 0 0 3.8 13.3 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:22:00 0 3.8 13.3 0 0 3.8 13.3 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:23:00 0 3.8 13.2 0 0 3.8 13.2 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:24:00 0 3.9 13.2 0 0 3.9 13.1 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:25:00 0 3.8 13.2 0 0 3.9 13.1 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:26:00 0 3.8 13.2 0 0 3.8 13.1 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:27:00 0 3.8 13.3 0 0 3.8 13.2 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-B 09:28:00 0 3.8 13.4 0 0 3.8 13.3 1014 0 0 LOW
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-C 09:45:15 0 0 20.6 0 0 0 20.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:45:30 0 0 21.3 0 0 0 21.2 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:45:45 0 1.7 19.2 0 0 1 20.1 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:46:00 0 1.5 18.8 0 0 1.5 18.4 1014 1 0 LOW
BH-C 09:46:15 0 1.5 18.7 0 0 1.5 18.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:46:30 0 1.6 18.5 0 0 1.6 18.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:46:45 0 1.7 18.5 0 0 1.6 18.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:47:00 0 1.8 18.3 0 0 1.8 18.3 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:47:15 0 1.8 18.2 0 0 1.8 18.2 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:47:30 0 1.9 18.1 0 0 1.9 18.1 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:47:45 0 1.9 18 0 0 1.9 18 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:48:00 0 1.9 18 0 0 1.9 18 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:48:15 0 1.9 17.9 0 0 1.9 17.9 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:48:30 0 2 17.9 0 0 2 17.9 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:48:45 0 1.9 18 0 0 1.9 18 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:49:00 0 1.9 17.8 0 0 1.9 17.8 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:49:15 0 2 17.7 0 0 2 17.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:49:30 0 2 17.7 0 0 2 17.6 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:49:45 0 2.1 17.6 0 0 2.1 17.6 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:50:00 0 2.1 17.6 0 0 2.1 17.6 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:50:15 0 2.1 17.5 0 0 2.1 17.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:50:30 0 2.1 17.5 0 0 2.1 17.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:50:45 0 2.1 17.5 0 0 2.1 17.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:51:00 0 2.1 17.5 0 0 2.1 17.5 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:51:15 0 2.1 17.4 0 0 2.1 17.4 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:51:30 0 2.1 17.3 0 0 2.1 17.3 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:51:45 0 2.1 <<<< 0 0 2.1 17.3 1014 0 0 LOW
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-C 09:52:00 0 2.1 17.3 0 0 2.1 17.3 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:52:15 0 2.1 17.3 0 0 2.1 17.3 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:52:30 0 2.1 17.2 0 0 2.1 17.2 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:52:45 0 2.1 17.2 0 0 2.1 17.2 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:53:00 0 2.1 17.1 0 0 2.1 17.1 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:53:15 0 2.1 17.1 0 0 2.1 17.1 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:53:30 0 2.2 17.1 0 0 2.2 17.1 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:53:45 0 2.2 17 0 0 2.2 17 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:54:00 0 2.2 17 0 0 2.2 17 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:54:15 0 2.2 17 0 0 2.2 17 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:54:30 0 2.2 17 0 0 2.2 17 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:54:45 0 2.2 16.9 0 0 2.2 16.9 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:55:00 0 2.2 16.9 0 0 2.2 16.9 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:55:15 0 2.2 16.9 0 0 2.2 16.9 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:55:30 0 2.2 16.9 0 0 2.2 16.8 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:55:45 0 2.2 16.8 0 0 2.2 16.8 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:56:00 0 2.2 16.8 0 0 2.2 16.8 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:56:15 0 2.2 16.8 0 0 2.2 16.8 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:56:30 0 2.2 16.8 0 0 2.2 16.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:56:45 0 2.2 16.7 0 0 2.2 16.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:57:00 0 2.2 16.7 0 0 2.2 16.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:57:15 0 2.2 16.7 0 0 2.2 16.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:57:30 0 2.2 16.7 0 0 2.2 16.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:57:45 0 2.2 16.7 0 0 2.2 16.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:58:00 0 2.2 16.7 0 0 2.2 16.6 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:58:15 0 2.2 16.7 0 0 2.2 16.6 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:58:30 0 2.1 16.8 0 0 2.2 16.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:58:45 0 2 16.9 0 0 2 17 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 09:59:00 0 2.2 16.6 0 0 2.2 16.6 1014 0 0 LOW
CH4 PEAK PEAK

%LEL CH4 CO2
% % % % % % % mb ppm ppm ppm
BH-C 10:00:00 0 2.1 16.7 0 0 2.2 16.6 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:01:00 0 2.1 16.9 0 0 2.2 16.6 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:02:00 0 2.1 16.9 0 0 2.1 16.9 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:03:00 0 2.2 16.8 0 0 2.2 16.7 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:04:00 0 2.2 16.8 0 0 2.2 16.8 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:05:00 0 2.2 16.8 0 0 2.2 16.8 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:06:00 0 2.2 16.9 0 0 2.2 16.8 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:07:00 0 2.2 16.9 0 0 2.2 16.8 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:08:00 0 2.2 17.1 0 0 2.2 16.8 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:09:00 0 2.2 17 0 0 2.2 16.9 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:10:00 0 2.2 17.1 0 0 2.2 17 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:11:00 0 2.2 17 0 0 2.2 17 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:12:00 0 2.2 17.1 0 0 2.2 16.9 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:13:00 0 2.2 17.1 0 0 2.2 17 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:14:00 0 2.2 17 0 0 2.2 17 1014 0 0 LOW
BH-C 10:15:00 0 2.2 17 0 0 2.2 17 1014 0 0 LOW
ATTACHMENT SEVEN: CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CERTIFICATES
APPENDIX 04
Baseline Site Investigation Report 2018

TELEHOUSE EUROPE,
CORIANDER AVENUE
Baseline Site Investigation
Prepared for: Telehouse International Corporation of
Europe Limited
Client Ref: 04438
SLR Ref: 425.04438.00005

Version No: 1
May 2018
Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Limited
Telehouse Europe –Baseline Site Investigation SLR Ref No: 425.04438.00005
Filename: May 2018
180525_425.04438.00005_Telehouse_BaselineSiteInvestigation_Final
BASIS OF REPORT
This document has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited with reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the
manpower, timescales and resources devoted to it by agreement with Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Limited (the
Client) as part or all of the services it has been appointed by the Client to carry out. It is subject to the terms and conditions of that
appointment.
SLR shall not be liable for the use of or reliance on any information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document for any
purpose by any person other than the Client. Reliance may be granted to a third party only in the event that SLR and the third party
have executed a reliance agreement or collateral warranty.
Information reported herein may be based on the interpretation of public domain data collected by SLR, and/or information supplied
by the Client and/or its other advisors and associates. These data have been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.
The copyright and intellectual property in all drawings, reports, specifications, bills of quantities, calculations and other information
set out in this report remain vested in SLR unless the terms of appointment state otherwise.
This document may contain information of a specialised and/or highly technical nature and the Client is advised to seek clarification on
any elements which may be unclear to it.
Information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document should only be relied upon in the context of the whole
document and any documents referenced explicitly herein and should then only be used within the context of the appointment.
.
Filename: May 2018
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................4
1.1 Instruction................................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Scope of Work........................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 SITE DETAILS ...................................................................................................................5

2.2 Summary of previous reports ................................................................................................... 6
3.0 GROUND INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................8

3.1 Scope of Work........................................................................................................................... 8
4.0 GROUND CONDITIONS................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Made Ground .......................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.1 Visual and Olfactory Field Observations........................................................................................................................ 12
4.2 Groundwater........................................................................................................................... 12
5.0 LABORATORY RESULTS .................................................................................................. 14

5.1 Geo-environmental Soil Samples ............................................................................................ 14
5.2 Waste Acceptance Criteria Testing ......................................................................................... 16
5.3 Groundwater samples............................................................................................................. 16
6.0 GENERIC RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 19

6.1 Human Health ......................................................................................................................... 19
6.2 Soil Results .............................................................................................................................. 19
6.3 Controlled Waters Assessment ............................................................................................... 20
7.0 GROUND GAS MONITORING .......................................................................................... 23

7.1 Background Information ......................................................................................................... 23
7.2 Site Characterisation ............................................................................................................... 23
8.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS................................................................................................ 26
9.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................... 27
DOCUMENT REFERENCES
.
Filename: May 2018
TABLES
Table 2-1 Site Details .......................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2-2 Encountered Geological Sequence ....................................................................................... 6
Table 3-1 Borehole Rationale ............................................................................................................... 9
Table 4-1 Groundwater Strikes .......................................................................................................... 12
Table 4-2 Groundwater Monitoring Data ......................................................................................... 13
Table 5-1 Summary of Chemical Results .......................................................................................... 14
Table 5-2 Asbestos Screening Summary........................................................................................... 16
Table 5-3 Summary of Chemical Results ............................................................................................ 17
Table 6-1 Groundwater Concentrations compared to Generic Water Quality Standards (WQS) ..... 20
Table 7-1 Soil Gas Monitoring Data .................................................................................................. 24
DRAWINGS
Drawing 01: Site Location Plan
Drawing 02: Borehole Location Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix 01: Borehole Logs
Appendix 02: Groundwater Monitoring Data
Appendix 03: Ground Gas Monitoring Data
Appendix 04: Laboratory Certificates
Appendix 05: Soil Generic Risk Assessment (GAC)
Appendix 06: Groundwater Generic Water Quality Standards (WQS)
.
Filename: May 2018
Executive Summary
SLR undertook a baseline environmental site investigation of the property known as Telehouse. SLR drilled six
boreholes across the site with monitoring wells installed in all locations for groundwater and gas monitoring
purposes. The locations of the boreholes targeted diesel tanks and associated fill points across the site (see
Table 3-1).
Analysis of soil samples for a range of typical Made Ground contaminants shows no significantly elevated
concentrations with the exception of asbestos which was detected in three of the six samples (BH1, BH2 and
BH5 – East/Support, West, North 2). The subsequent asbestos quantification showed that the percentage mass
of fibres was below the 0.001% LOD at all three locations.
Petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-CWG) was observed to exceed the WQS in two groundwater samples (BH2 and
BH6 West fill point, North) and the average concentration was also recorded in excess of the WQS.
Groundwater samples indicated arsenic concentrations in excess of WQS also at BH2 and BH6. The average
concentration of arsenic marginally exceeded its WQS. Multiple PAHs were recorded in excess of WQS in at
least one sample. The average concentration of naphthalene marginally exceeded its WQS while the averages
of the remaining PAHs were below their respective WQS.
No evidence of significant impact by diesel infrastructure was recorded on site however slightly elevated diesel
range of aromatics and aliphatics hydrocarbons were recorded within groundwater samples of BH4 and BH6
(North and North extension).
Monitoring of gases on three occasions has shown relatively low concentrations of both methane and carbon
dioxide gas in the ground beneath the site. Assessment of the gas flux indicates that the gas regime falls into
Characteristic Situation 1 Very Low Risk.
.
Telehouse Europe –Baseline Site Investigation SLR Ref No:425.04438.00005
Filename: May 2018
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Instruction
In February 2018, SLR Consulting Limited (SLR) was commissioned by Telehouse International Corporation of
Europe Limited (Telehouse) to undertake a baseline environmental site investigation of the property at
Telehouse, Coriander Avenue, London, E14 2AA (the site).
1.2 Background
An Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) permit is required by Telehouse operations in docklands for operation
of standby/emergency diesel generators in each building. It is a legal requirement to obtain a permit and the
Environment Agency (EA) has given Telehouse notice that this permit is required and should be obtained.
For the permit application a number of investigations and reports need to be referenced, including an up
dated report to confirm levels of ground and water contamination that may have resulted from diesel
deliveries and generator operation. There are a number of historic ground contamination investigations
related to the site’s development however these investigations were associated with permitting to develop
new buildings, and did not include the site wide impact of fuel storage or generator operations across the site.
Hence to date there has been no comprehensive site investigation for all buildings of the impact of site
operations on ground and water conditions.
1.3 Objectives
Given the site’s activities since redevelopment the main potential source of contamination that has been
identified is diesel from bulk storage tanks and delivery systems.
The baseline site investigation will therefore consider hydrocarbons and as a result of previous investigations,
phenols and poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). As Telehouse wish to understand current ground conditions
SLR also investigated commonly encountered contaminants such as heavy metals and soils gases.
SLR understands that Telehouse required a baseline site investigation for the following purposes:
• identify potential contamination issues associated with current site operations;
• set a baseline of soil and groundwater quality in potential source areas; and
• enable ongoing monitoring of groundwater quality to support potential environmental permits
1.4 Scope of Work

• baseline site investigation to determine ground conditions;
• groundwater monitoring;
• gas monitoring; and
• reporting.
Page 4
Filename: May 2018
2.0 Site Details

The Site details are presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
Site Details
Site Name Telehouse Europe

Address Coriander Avenue, London
Post Code E14 2AA Nat. Grid Ref. 538857, 181098
Site Owner Privately Held Status Operational
Telehouse operate the site as a
Site Operator Type Commercial / Industrial
datacentre
Above and below ground bulk diesel fuel tanks are located in five separate areas
Potential across the site. The tanks, fill points and pipework were installed on developing
Contaminating buildings and have been further developed since initial commissioning. Further
Activities engines have been added over time, there is potential for undetected leakage of
diesel in some areas (Appendix 01).
East India Dock Road borders to the north with commercial and
North
residential units beyond (approximately 35m).
A1020 borders the site to the east. The Tower Hamlets vehicle testing
East station is located approximately 50m east with the River Lea
Surrounding approximately 135m east from site.
Land Use Saffron Avenue borders the site to the south with surface water
South feature located beyond south west. The East India DLR station is
located 130m south and the A1263 East India Dock Road Tunnel.
The Travelodge and a telecommunications service provider are
West
located west of the site
The site was developed as the East India Import Dock in the early 1800s. The dock
ceased trading in 1967. The dock was subsequently drained and filled in a number
Site History of phases in the 1970s and 1980s. The site was developed in four phases from the
early 1990s (North), early 2000s (East and Support), late 2000s (West) and 2014
(North 2). The eastern portion of the site was developed over the quay walls.
The British Geological Survey (BGS) viewer indicates the site and vicinity to be
Geology underlain by of Alluvium (clay, silt, sand and peat) overlying the London Clay
Formation (clay, silt and sand).
The Environment Agency (EA) designates the superficial deposits as a Secondary
Hydrology/ (undifferentiated) Aquifer overlying Unproductive bedrock deposits. The site is not
Hydrogeology located within or in the near vicinity of a Source Protection Zone (SPZ).
Groundwater is anticipated to flow east towards the River Lea.
The site location is shown in Drawing 01 and site layout is shown in Drawing 02.
Page 5
Filename: May 2018
2.2 Summary of previous reports

The following reports were completed for parts of the site to support the redevelopment of various phases:
• Groundwater Conditions in East India Dock and its Environs, October 1997, A F Howland Associates;
• Preliminary Geo-environmental Interpretative Report, July 2008,Faber Maunsell;
• Environmental Statement Chapter 7 Ground Conditions and Contamination, August 2008, WSP;
• Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment, Project Indigo, Sites 6 & 8, May 2013, SLR; and
• Geotechnical & Geo-environmental Assessment, March 2014, Cundall
A F Howland Associates undertook an intrusive investigation in 1997 prior to the development of sites 5 & 7 in
the centre of the current site. Elevated groundwater concentrations of hydrocarbons, phenol and naphthalene
were observed. The historic hydrocarbons, phenols and naphthalene groundwater contamination were
significantly reduced in the west by 2008 and Faber Maunsell considered that while previous remediation had
been effective, residual concentrations remained.
The most recent site investigation was completed by Cundall in March 2014 for the development of a new
data centre building located furthest east on site (plot 6). The intrusive investigation indicated there were no
significantly elevated hydrocarbon or heavy metal concentrations within the shallow soil samples. Localised
asbestos was identified at a single location beneath the proposed structure. Only one sample out of seventeen
detected asbestos fibres. Slightly elevated leachable hydrocarbons and dissolved phase hydrocarbons were
recorded within groundwater samples.
The ground conditions encountered at site have been observed as Made Ground to 7m below ground level
(bgl) comprising demolition waste/ dock infill. A summary of the encountered geological sequence is shown
below in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2
Encountered Geological Sequence
Stratum Thickness (m)
Made Ground 7.0 – 13.0
Alluvium 2.5
Kempton Park Gravel 3.0
London Clay Formation 10.5-16.0
Harwich Formation 3.0-5.0
Lambeth Group 9.0 – 18.0
Thanet Sand 12.0- 16.0
Chalk Not proven
Groundwater has been recorded at depths between 3m to 5m bgl. The nearest major surface water feature is
the River Lea, between 100m and 200m east of the site. The River Thames is located some 350m south of the
site. A dock is located approximately 20m south of the site.
Page 6
Filename: May 2018
Low levels of carbon dioxide and methane have previously been recorded and as a result, low level gas
protection measures were recommended as part of the redevelopment (as built details unknown) (Cundall,
2014).
Page 7
Filename: May 2018
3.0 Ground Investigation

3.1 Scope of Work
SLR carried out the intrusive ground investigation between 19th April and 24th April 2018. The first groundwater
and gas monitoring round monitoring was conducted on 30th April 2018 with two subsequent gas monitoring
rounds completed at weekly intervals (8th and 16th May). The investigation comprised:
• health and safety planning for key risks associated with underground services and potential exposure
to asbestos;
• unexploded ordnance survey (UXO). Given the history of the site a UXO clearance contractor was
required for attendance during the investigation. The UXO engineer provided staged clearance for the
drilling process by lowering a fluxgate (‘down hole’) magnetometer into the ground to scan ahead for
any ferrous metal anomalies that might be associated with UXO;
• clearance of all borehole locations with a Cable Avoidance Tool (CAT);
• vacuum excavation of five locations to a maximum depth of 2.0m bgl (BH1-BH4 and BH6) in order to
clear underground services;
• one hand dug inspection to 1.2m bgl (BH5);
• drilling of six boreholes to a maximum depth of 7.70 m bgl with installation of groundwater monitoring
wells in all locations;
• field screening a total of 41 soil samples for hydrocarbon vapours using a Photo Ionisation Detector
(PID);
• logging of the soil strata in accordance with BS 5930:2015 (borehole logs in Appendix 01);
• one round of groundwater monitoring (Appendix 02) and sampling using low flow methods;
• three rounds of gas monitoring using a GA5000 gas monitor to measure a range of parameters were
including the concentration of methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen, together with the gas flow rate
(Appendix 03); and
• submission of collected of soil and groundwater samples for environmental laboratory testing to
Exova-Jones Environmental Laboratory for chemical analysis this is a UKAS accredited laboratory
(laboratory certificates Appendix 04).
Due to likelihood of the Made Ground comprising demolition materials and infilling there was a potential that
asbestos would be encountered during the site investigation. Therefore a comprehensive health and safety
plan and method statement was completed prior to the start of the investigation. This included a plan of works
detailing the control measures in accordance with CAR 2012 (Control of Asbestos Regulations) and an asbestos
risk assessment. The works were supervised by an engineer trained and qualified to undertake non-licensed
asbestos work.
Five boreholes, BH1 to BH4 and BH6, were completed using a rotary drilling rig operated by Endeavour Drilling
Limited and one location, BH5 was completed using a modular rig due to access restrictions. BH6 was originally
positioned in closer proximity to the North Building and North day tanks (T) T1.1- T1.4, North bulk tank T1.0
and North T1.0 fill point, however, due to constraints surrounding underground services and client
requirements the borehole was repositioned south of the North Building (Drawing 02). The borehole locations
(BH1 to BH6) were chosen by SLR to target diesel tanks and associated fill points (Drawing 02). Table 3-1,
overleaf, explains the borehole rationale for each location in further detail.
Page 8
Filename: 180525_425.04438.00005_Telehouse_BaselineSiteInvestigation_Final
May 2018
Table 3-1
Borehole Rationale
Borehole ID Rationale
• Located by trees on site boundary with Oregano Drive, close to East/Support fill point
• East/Support Tank: One 55,000 litre double-skinned, underground bulk storage tank, underground embedded in concrete,
bottom of tank ca. 4m below ground, ca. 15-20 years old.
• Bulk transfer pump from bulk tank is located in a sump above bulk tank in car park. Water leaks into the sump through the
manhole covers, unknown if leaks through side walls. Due to pump type there has been some diesel leakage from pump
BH1
gland also into sump. Potential ground contamination from leakage into sump. There is a procedure to pump out the sump
to waste drums every week, however maintenance records are poor and may not have always been done.
• Day Tanks T2.1-2.5, 1,500 litre double-skinned day tanks, all located in one bunded room next to generator room inside
building on ground floor, ca.15-20 yrs old. All tanks in good condition and bund has leak detection.
• Fill point is located on gravel and spillages could potentially run to ground (same area as pump sump)
• Located on site boundary behind West fill point

• West Tanks: Two 32560 litre double-skinned, underground bulk storage tanks T3.3 T3.4, embedded in concrete. Installed
2008, bottom of tank ca. 4m below ground.
• Fill point located in grass soft landscaping. The fill point plinth had not been installed to drain into an ACO which then
BH2 subsequently drains through a fuel interceptor; hence any spillage could have run to ground. The fill point has subsequently
been modified to capture and spillage and direct into the ACO.
• Two comprising 10,000 litre double-skinned day tanks on ground floor, located in bunded room with leak detection,
installed 2008.
• Two further 10,000 litre double-skinned day tanks now being installed on first floor for additional generators
• Located beside West building loading ramp

BH3
• West Tanks: Two 32560 litre double-skinned, underground bulk storage tanks T3.3 T3.4, embedded in concrete. Installed
Page 9
May 2018
2008, bottom of tank ca. 4m below ground.

• Fill point located in grass soft landscaping. The fill point plinth had not been installed to drain into an ACO which then
subsequently drains through a fuel interceptor; hence any spillage could have run to ground. The fill point has subsequently
been modified to capture and spillage and direct into the ACO
• Two comprising 10,000 litre double-skinned day tanks on ground floor, located in bunded room with leak detection,
installed 2008.
• Two further 10,000 litre double-skinned day tanks now being installed on first floor for additional generators
• Located in car park space in front of North extension tank room

• Bulk Tank T1.7 and T1.8 - Two separate 10,000 litre double-skinned bulk storage tanks go on to feed two generator skid
tanks located in generator 5 and 6’s enclosures ca. 20 yrs old. These tanks are above ground in a separate building.
BH4 • Area of concern. There is currently a drain located under a manhole lid in the middle of the bund. The tanks are in good
condition and there is no known leakage. Subsequent work has changed bunding around tank room manhole.
• Day Tank T1.5 – T1.6 – 150 Litre day tanks within each of Generator 5 and 6 skids on ground floor, ca. 20 yrs old. Good
condition and leak detection fitted.
• Located on site boundary close to North 2 bulk tanks

• North 2 Tanks: Two 59,000 litre double-skinned, underground bulk storage tanks, installed 2014, bottom of tank ca. 4m
below ground
BH5 • Four comprising 2,655 litre double-skinned day tanks located in the generator room, one tank by each generator. In future 4
more generator sets will be added
• Brugg pipework, with automatic leak detection is provided in the main fuel transfer system while bund leak detection is
located at generator and day tank positions. This will allow one generator day tank to be dumped in case of fire. This has
never been used, but is non conformant due to dump tank construction.
BH6 • Located by tree on corner of North building towards main gate
Page 10
May 2018
• North Tank: One 55,000 litre single skinned above ground tank located in bunded basement room of building, installed ca.
1990, bottom of tank ca. 5m below ground
• Areas of potential concern at fill point by T1.0, as drains are not protected.
• Day Tank T1.1 – T1.4 – 150 Litre day tank mounted on each generator inside generator hall on ground floor, originally 30 yrs
old. Have been some repairs in the past, but drip tray fitted below each day tank
Page 11
Telehouse Europe –Baseline Site Investigation
4.0 Ground Conditions

4.1 Made Ground
Made Ground was encountered in all exploratory holes (borehole logs are provided within Appendix 01), from
the surface or underlying hardstanding or topsoil to a maximum depth of 7.70m bgl.
Two locations encountered topsoil (BH2 and BH5) to a maximum depth of 0.30 m bgl, concrete hardstanding
was observed at one location BH3 to 0.23m bgl while block paving was encountered at BH4 to 0.08m bgl.
Made Ground was generally observed to be sandy gravel with gravel of brick, concrete, flint and ceramic tile.
Pockets of black peat were observed at two locations (BH2 and BH3) located north and south of the site.
The maximum extent of Made Ground was not proven and natural deposits were not encountered.
4.1.1 Visual and Olfactory Field Observations

A strong hydrocarbon odour was noted at 7.50m bgl within BH6; no other visual or olfactory evidence of
hydrocarbon contamination was noted. Head space readings taken by the PID of soil samples on site ranged
between <1ppm to 4ppm and are therefore not considered significant.
4.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in five boreholes (BH1 to BH4 and BH6) during the site investigation. The
findings are summarised in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1
Groundwater Strikes
Location Groundwater Strike (m bgl)
BH1 4.58
BH2 4.46
BH3 4.85
BH4 6.36
BH5 dry
BH6 5.22
Groundwater monitoring was undertaken as part of the gas monitoring programme in May 2018 (Appendix
02). During the groundwater sampling round, the volume of water within the wells was purged prior to
sampling in order to obtain a groundwater sample representative of surrounding groundwater conditions.
Samples were collected from five boreholes using low flow methods. Water levels are recorded in Table 4-2.
No separate phase hydrocarbons were recorded.
In BH1 to BH3 the purged water was noted to be colourless and odourless. The water purged from BH4 was
noted to be slightly cloudy and odourless and dark brown and odourless from BH5. The water purged from BH6
was black and a slight hydrocarbon sheen was noted on the surface with a slight hydrocarbon odour.
Based on groundwater elevations in the seven boreholes groundwater is anticipated to flow in a easterly
direction.
Table 4-2
Groundwater Monitoring Data
BH
BH Depth to Groundwater Depth to Base Purged
Date Diameter
Location Water (m bgl) Elevation (m aOD) of Well (m bgl) Volume (L)
(mm)
30/04/2018 4.530 1.304 17
7.48
BH1 08/05/2018 50 4.496 1.338 n/a
16/05/2018 4.557 1.277 7.43 n/a
30/04/2018 4.770 1.365 14
7.29
BH2 08/05/2018 50 4.750 1.385 n/a
16/05/2018 4.819 1.316 6.77 n/a
30/04/2018 4.910 1.324 5.98 6
BH3 08/05/2018 50 4.899 1.335 5.84 n/a

16/05/2018 4.932 1.302 5.77 n/a
30/04/2018 6.520 -0.971 12
BH4 08/05/2018 50 6.458 -0.909 7.59 n/a

16/05/2018 6.585 -1.036 n/a
30/04/2018 Dry - n/a
BH5 08/05/2018 50 4.525 0.701 4.67 n/a

16/05/2018 Dry - n/a
30/04/2018 3.600 2.187 6.90 14
BH6 08/05/2018 50 3.569 2.218 6.75 n/a

16/05/2018 3.675 2.112 6.65 n/a
5.0 Laboratory Results

5.1 Geo-environmental Soil Samples
To undertake an assessment of potential contamination samples from the Made Ground were submitted for
the following chemical analysis:
• petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-CWG) (eleven in total taken from multiple depths);
• metals (six in total);
• asbestos (six in total);
• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (eleven in total taken from multiple depths); and
• waste acceptance classification (WAC) (one taken from a skip of soil arisings).
The analytical suite was chosen based upon the findings of the previous reports and identified potentially
contaminative site uses such as areas of bulk diesel storage and distribution system.
All samples submitted for analysis were taken from the Made Ground at depths ranging between 0.12m bgl
and 4.8m bgl. The laboratory soil data that were detected above their respective limit of detection (LOD) are
summarised in Table 5-1 below and laboratory certificates are presented at Appendix 04. The results are
discussed in more detail in Section 6.0.
Table 5-1
Summary of Chemical Results
Number Number of
Range Average
Contaminant of LOD Highest
(Min to Max) (mg/kg)
Samples Exceedances
Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
aliphatics >C16-C21 11 2 7 29 9.2 BH2
aliphatics >C21-C35 11 5 7 170 33 BH2
Total aliphatics C5-35 11 5 19 200 43 BH2
aromatics >EC16-EC21 11 3 7 29 9.5 BH2
aromatics >EC21-EC35 11 7 7 170 52 BH2
Total aromatics C5-35 11 7 19 200 61 BH2
Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) 11 6 38 400 100 BH2
Metals
Arsenic 6 6 9.5 27 15 BH1
Cadmium 6 3 0.1 0.4 0.22 BH1
Chromium 6 6 22 210 110 BH6
Number Number of
Range Average
Samples Exceedances
Copper 6 6 8 35 19 BH2
Lead 6 5 5 270 100 BH2
Nickel 6 6 8 31 18 BH1
Zinc 6 6 15 160 89 BH1
pH 6 6 8.2 11 9.4 BH5
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Naphthalene 11 3 0.04 0.3 0.09 BH2
Acenaphthylene 11 5 0.03 0.12 0.055 BH5
Acenaphthene 11 4 0.05 0.38 0.1 BH2
Fluorene 11 4 0.04 0.27 0.076 BH2
Phenanthrene 11 7 0.03 3.5 0.780 BH2
Anthracene 11 7 0.04 0.58 0.2 BH5
Fluoranthene 11 7 0.03 4.2 1.2 BH2
Pyrene 11 7 0.03 3.4 1.1 BH2
Benzo(a)anthracene 11 7 0.06 1.7 0.63 BH2
Chrysene 11 7 0.02 1.8 0.560 BH2
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene 11 7 0.07 3 1.100 BH2
Benzo(a)pyrene 11 7 0.04 1.5 0.530 BH2
Indeno(123cd)pyrene 11 7 0.04 1 0.36 BH2
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 11 7 0.04 0.23 0.099 BH2
Benzo(ghi)perylene 11 7 0.04 1 0.37 BH2
PAH 16 Total 11 7 0.6 23 7.2 BH2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 11 7 0.05 2.2 0.78 BH2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 11 7 0.02 0.84 0.3 BH2
Several exceedances of the Limit of Detections (LODs) within the Made Ground soil samples of the diesel range
aromatics and aliphatics were recorded with the highest concentrations noted within BH2.
There were no exceedances of the LOD for Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) or benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene or o-xylene/ m & p xylene (BTEX).
Mercury and selenium did not exceed their respective LODs. The remaining seven scheduled heavy metals
exceeded the LOD in all samples with the exception of cadmium which was detected in excess of its LOD in
three of the six samples and lead which was not detected in one sample (BH4).
All PAHs tested were reported above their respective LOD with concentrations generally recorded at their
highest within BH2.
Made Ground was generally alkaline with the most basic pH of 11 recorded within BH5 at 0.5m bgl.
Asbestos screening analysis was undertaken on five samples of Made Ground and in three samples a positive
identification of asbestos was recorded with the results of the screening shown in Table 5-2 below. Follow up
quantification of the positive asbestos samples was undertaken.
Table 5-2
Asbestos Screening Summary
Location Depth Screening Result

BH1 0.50 Chrysotile fibres detected.
BH3 0.50 NAD
BH4 0.12 NAD
BH6 2.00 NAD
NAD - No Asbestos Detected.
The subsequent asbestos quantification showed that the percentage mass of fibres within BH1, BH2 and BH5
were below the 0.001% LOD.
5.2 Waste Acceptance Criteria Testing

One sample was taken from the skip arisings that was on site and was subject to WAC testing. The WAC testing
identified that PAH were detected above their LOD.
5.3 Groundwater samples

To undertake an assessment of the potential contamination of the underlying groundwater, water samples
from each of the boreholes were submitted for the following chemical analysis:
• petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-cwg);
• metals; and
• polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
The analytical suite was chosen based upon the findings of the previous reports and identified potentially
contaminative site uses such as areas of bulk diesel storage and distribution system.
Groundwater samples were taken from five locations BH1 to BH4 and BH6 on 30th April 2018. During the
sampling round on 30th April BH5 was recorded as dry, however, during the return gas monitoring visit on 8th
May 2018, BH5 had enough water for one TPH- CWG test.
The laboratory groundwater data that were detected above their respective limit of detection (LOD) are
summarised in Table 5-3 and laboratory certificates are presented at Appendix 04. The results are discussed in
further detail in Section 6.3.
Table 5-3
Summary of Chemical Results
Number Number of
Range Average
Samples Exceedances
Aliphatics >C12-C16 6 2 0.01 0.25 0.072 BH4
Aliphatics >C16-C21 6 2 0.01 0.42 0.13 BH4
Aliphatics >C21-C35 6 2 0.01 0.6 0.13 BH6
Total aliphatics C5-35 6 2 0.01 1.1 0.32 BH6
Aromatics Hydrocarbons
Aromatics >EC12-EC16 6 2 0.01 0.13 0.038 BH4
Total aromatics C5-35 6 2 0.01 0.96 0.362 BH6
Total aliphatics and 6 2 0.01 2 0.617

BH6
aromatics(C5-35)
BTEX
Benzene 5 1 0.0005 0.0008 0.00056 BH6
Metals
Dissolved Arsenic 5 5 0.0018 0.027 0.0103 BH6
Dissolved Boron 5 5 0.19 0.44 0.3000 BH2
Total Dissolved Chromium 5 3 0.0002 0.0024 0.0012 BH3
Dissolved Nickel 5 5 0.0009 0.0066 0.0025 BH6
Dissolved Selenium 5 4 0.0012 0.0029 0.002 BH6
Dissolved Zinc 5 3 0.0015 0.023 0.0063 BH1

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Naphthalene 5 1 0.0001 0.0035 0.0012 BH2

Number Number of
Range Average
Samples Exceedances
Acenaphthylene 5 2 0.000013 0.0015 0.00032 BH6
Acenaphthene 5 3 0.000013 0.0024 0.00073 BH6
Fluorene 5 3 0.000014 0.0019 0.00058 BH6
Phenanthrene 5 4 0.000011 0.01 0.0024 BH6
Anthracene 5 3 0.000013 0.0033 0.00071 BH6
Fluoranthene 5 5 0.000027 0.021 0.0044 BH6
Pyrene 5 5 0.000034 0.017 0.0036 BH6
Benzo(a)anthracene 5 4 0.000015 0.0073 0.0015 BH6
Chrysene 5 5 0.000015 0.0098 0.002 BH6
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene 5 5 0.000021 0.014 0.0029 BH6
Benzo(a)pyrene 5 4 0.000016 0.0074 0.0015 BH6
Indeno(123cd)pyrene 5 3 0.000011 0.0045 0.00091 BH6
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 5 1 0.00001 0.00069 0.00015 BH6
Benzo(ghi)perylene 5 3 0.000011 0.0043 0.00087 BH6
PAH 16 Total 5 4 0.0002 0.11 0.023 BH6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5 5 0.00002 0.01 0.002 BH6
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5 4 0.00001 0.0039 0.0008 BH6
Several exceedances of the LOD of the diesel range aromatics and aliphatics were recorded with the highest
concentrations noted within BH4 and BH6.
There were no exceedances of the LOD for Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), toluene, toluene, ethylbenzene
or o-xylene/ m & p xylene. Benzene was noted in excess of its LOD in four of the five samples and was recorded
at its highest in BH6.
Cadmium, copper, lead and mercury did not exceed LOD in any sample. The remaining heavy metals analysed
were recorded in excess of the LOD in at least one sample.
All PAHs tested were reported above their respective LOD in at least one sample, concentrations were
generally recorded at their highest within BH6.
6.0 Generic Risk Assessment

6.1 Human Health
With regard to the assessment of the results, it should be noted that the generic risk assessment criteria are
drawn from several sources of guidance, some from non-statutory guidance and some informal. SLR uses a
combination of assessment criteria that are currently available to assist in the screening of soil data prior to
determining whether further action is required. The following assessment criteria have been used for the
assessment of contaminant levels in soil:
Soil Guideline Values – since March 2002, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and
the Environment Agency have been involved in publishing a series of reports that provide a scientifically based
framework for the assessment of risks to human health from land contamination;
LQM/CIEH Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) – Land Quality Management and the Chartered Institute of
Environmental Health have published GACs derived following CLR technical guidance and using the
Environment Agency’s CLEA UK model;
LQM/CIEH Suitable for Use Levels (S4ULs) – in 2015 Land Quality Management and the Chartered Institute of
Environmental Health have published S4ULs derived following CLEA technical guidance and using the
Environment Agency’s CLEA UK model, with updated toxicological and exposure parameters and land uses
following the publication of the draft C4SLs;
SLR’s own in-house screening criteria derived following CLR technical guidance using the CLEA UK model;
CLAIRE / AGS / EIC Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) – these institutions have published publically available
GACs derived following CLR technical guidance and using the Environment Agency’s CLEA UK model; and
Category 4 Screening Levels (DEFRA).
The SGVs and GAC have been developed as a guide for regulators and developers; if the concentrations
recorded on Site are lower than the SGV / GAC it is generally accepted that the contaminants in question are
present at acceptable concentrations which aren’t capable of putting human health at significant risk - as long
as the humans make normal use of the Site. An exceedance of these values indicates to an assessor that soil
contaminant concentrations need to be considered further. SGV / GACs combine both authoritative science
and policy judgements.
The SGVs, GAC and S4ULs / C4SLs used have been derived using the CLEA model according to several typical
land uses:
• residential (with and without vegetable growth);
• allotments;
• commercial/Industrial;
• Public Open Space residential (POS1); and
• Public Open space park (POS2).
The site is a commercial property and therefore the selected GAC for the site represents this end land use.
6.2 Soil Results

Soil samples were compared to commercial human health (HH) GAC to assess the significance of soil
contaminant concentrations (Appendix 05). No Made Ground samples exceeded HH GAC.
6.3 Controlled Waters Assessment

Risks to groundwater and surface water from dissolved contaminants would ordinarily be assessed by
screening the results against generic water quality standards (WQS) (Appendix 06).
These criteria are protective of the environmental quality of surface waters (EQS) or of human health (via
Drinking Water Standards). The screening criteria are drawn from the following list with criteria from the latter
standards/guidance only being used where Environmental Quality Standards and UK Drinking Water Standards
are not available:
• Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) – used in the UK for amongst others, volatile organic
compound contamination assessment within surface water. EQS are derived from toxicity data, noting
chronic effects after long-term exposure or at sensitive life stages of target aquatic species. The EQS
quoted have been taken from the EAs online chemical standards database, unless stated v2.0 19 April
2011 1.
• UK Drinking Water Standards (UK DWS) – are for the protection for human health and derive from
either the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 or 2000.
• EU Drinking Water Standards (EU DWS) – are for the protection of human health and derive from the
Council Directive 98/83/EC.
• World Health Organisation Guidelines (WHO Health) protect health and derive from the World Health
Organisation Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 1984.
As part of the screening exercise the groundwater analytical results were grouped together and the maximum
recorded concentration for each contaminant was used as the representative concentration (RC) for
consideration in generic quantitative risk assessment. Where the maximum concentration exceeded the WQS
they presented below in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1
Groundwater Concentrations compared to Generic Water Quality Standards (WQS)
Contaminant Selected WQS Representative RC Type Number Location of

Value (mg/l) Concentration (RC) over maximum
WQS exceedance
Aliphatics >C12-C16 0.01 0.15 MAX 2 BH4
Total aliphatics C5-35 0.01 0.15 MAX 2 BH6
Aromatics Hydrocarbons
Aromatics >EC12-EC16 0.01 0.044 MAX 2 BH4
______________________
1
http://evidence.environment-agency.gov.uk/ChemicalStandards/Home.aspx
Contaminant Selected WQS Representative RC Type Number Location of

Value (mg/l) Concentration (RC) over maximum
WQS exceedance
Total aromatics C5-35 0.01 0.36 MAX 2 BH6
Total aliphatics and 0.74

MAX BH6
aromatics(C5-35) 0.01 2
Metals
Dissolved Arsenic 0.01 0.027 MAX 2 BH6
Dissolved Nickel 0.004 0.0066 MAX 1 BH6
PAHs
Naphthalene 0.002 0.0012 MAX 1 BH2
Anthracene 0.0001 0.00071 MAX 2 BH6
Fluoranthene 0.0000063 0.0044 MAX 5 BH6
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene 0.00003 0.0029 MAX 4 BH6
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00001 0.0015 MAX 4 BH6
Indeno(123cd)pyrene 0.000002 0.00091 MAX 3 BH6
Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.000002 0.00087 MAX 3 BH6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.00003 0.002 MAX 4 BH6
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.00003 0.0008 MAX 1 BH6
The diesel range of aromatics and aliphatics hydrocarbons were noted in excess of its respective WQS at two
locations (BH4 and BH6) and the average concentrations was also recorded in excess of the WQS. During the
groundwater monitoring of BH4 there was no visual or olfactory evidence of contamination within the purged
water. Purged groundwater from BH6 was observed to be black with a slight hydrocarbon sheen and slight
hydrocarbon odour. The borehole logs also record a strong hydrocarbon odour at 7.5m bgl within the Made
Ground at BH6 which is noted as black silty clay. No visual or olfactory evidence of contamination of Made
Ground was recorded within BH4. BH4 and BH6 are located south of the North Building. BH4 is located south of
the north bulk tanks and fill points and east of the generator. BH6 was originally located closer to the North
Bulk Tank 1 (T1), North T1 fill point and North day tanks T1.1-1.4, however, this location was relocated further
south due to client requirements.
Arsenic exceeded the WQS in two groundwater samples, BH2 and BH6. However, the average concentration of
arsenic, 0.0103 mg/l, only marginally exceeds the 0.01 mg/l WQS. Nickel was the only other metal to exceed
the WQS (BH6). However, the average concentration of nickel, 0.0025 mg/l, is below the 0.004 mg/l WQS.
Multiple PAH are recorded in excess of the WQS in at least one sample. The average concentration of
naphthalene, 0.0012 mg/l, was also recorded to marginally exceed the 0.0001 mg/l WQS. The average
concentrations of the remaining PAHS were below their respective WQS.
7.0 Ground Gas Monitoring

7.1 Background Information
This section considers the ground gas monitoring data available to date, as detailed in Appendix 03, and puts
forward an assessment of the ground gas regime at the Site.
The following semi-quantitative assessment of potentially hazardous soil gases is based on the guidance
provided within:
• CIRIA Report C665, Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings, 2007;
• NHBC Report, Guidance on evaluation of development proposals on sites where methane and carbon
dioxide are present, March 2007;
• British Standard BS8485:2015, Code of Practice for the Characterisation and Remediation from Ground
Gas Affected Developments, 2015; and
• The Local Authority Guide to Ground Gas, CIEH, September 2008.
We also consider health risks with reference to Waste Management Paper No. 27 (now updated by EA
Publication LFTGN03) by the Department of the Environment and guidance from the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE). Waste Management Paper No. 27 states that a concentration of greater than 1% methane in
a confined space is considered hazardous to health as the methane can act as an asphyxiant when oxygen is
depleted. The same paper states that carbon dioxide is a hazard to health at 1.5% by volume in air. The HSE set
a workplace long-term exposure limit (i.e. an 8-hour time weighted average reference period) of 30ppm for
carbon monoxide and 5ppm for hydrogen sulphide.
With respect to damage to buildings, probably the most applicable guidance is that within Part 2C of the
Building Regulations. Part 2C gives guidance on gas concentrations with respect to new developments and
when protection measures should be considered. The document states that protection measures should be
considered when methane is >1% and carbon dioxide is >5%.
7.2 Site Characterisation

Three ground gas monitoring visits were undertaken at the Site between 30th April and 16th May 2018. The
results are displayed below in Table 7-1. No significant organic vapour concentrations were recorded.
Carbon dioxide was detected at all locations on at least one occasion with the maximum concentration, 1.5%
v/v, recorded at BH1. Therefore the Waste Management Paper No. 27 trigger level (1.5%) or Part 2C of the
Building Regulations trigger value (>5%) were not exceeded.
Methane was detected on three occasions at 0.1% v/v at BH1, BH4 and BH6. Methane therefore did not
exceed the Waste Management Paper No. 27 trigger level (1%) or Part 2C of the Building Regulations trigger
value (>1%) on any occasion.
Carbon monoxide was not detected in BH5, it was however, detected in the remaining locations on at least one
occasion. The maximum recorded carbon monoxide concentration was recorded at 4% v/v within BH2 on the
second monitoring round, it was not detected with the first or subsequent round. Carbon monoxide did not
exceed the HSE’s exposure limit of 30ppm on any occasion.
Hydrogen sulphide was not detected at any location during the three gas monitoring rounds.
The maximum flow rate of 0.2 l/hr was recorded on one occasion at BH6. The gas flow rate was, however,
primarily at the limit of detection or less than the detection limit of the instrument (0.1 l/hr), indicating a very
low flow rate.
During the gas monitoring rounds the atmospheric pressure was generally observed to be stable throughout
the monitoring period. The first monitoring round the atmospheric pressure ranged from 1004m bar (BH4) to
1005 (BH2 and BH6), remained consistent during the second round at 1009m bar and ranged from 1026 (BH2
and BH4) to 1027 (BH1, BH3, BH5 and BH6).
Table 7-1
Soil Gas Monitoring Data
Baro- Peak Carbon

Peak Carbon Oxygen Gas
metric Methane Monoxide Flow
Location Date Dioxide (CO2) (O2) Pressure
Pressure (CH4) (CO) (l/hr)
(%v/v) (%v/v) (mbar)
(mbar) (%v/v) (%v/v)
30/04/18 1005 0.0 1.5 20.0 0 -0.1 -0.02
BH1 08/05/18 1009 0.0 0.3 20.8 1 0.1 0.09
16/05/18 1027 0.1 0.7 20.5 0 -0.1 0.07
30/04/18 1006 0.0 0.2 20.9 0 0.0 0.02
BH2 08/05/18 1009 0.0 0.0 21.5 4 0.0 0.03
16/05/18 1026 0.0 0.2 20.3 0 0.0 0.12
30/04/18 1005 0.0 0.1 21.2 0 0.1 0.07
BH3 08/05/18 1009 0.0 0.0 21.4 2 0.0 0.02
16/05/18 1027 0.0 0.1 20.5 0 0.0 0.12
30/04/18 1004 0.0 0.2 20.9 0 0.0 0.02
BH4 08/05/18 1009 0.0 0.1 20.7 3 0.1 0.12
16/05/18 1026 0.1 0.3 20.9 0 0.0 0.02
30/04/18 1006 0.0 0.2 21.0 0 0.0 0.09
BH5 08/05/18 1009 0.0 0.0 20.1 0 0.1 0.02
16/05/18 1027 0.1 0.2 21.0 0 0.0 0.05
30/04/18 1005 0.0 0.6 20.1 1 0.2 0.0
BH6 08/05/18 1009 0.0 0.1 20.8 2 0.0 -0.1
16/05/18 1027 0.0 0.4 20.9 0 0.1 0.14
There are currently two main methods by which consultants can determine ground gas regimes; the method
selected is dependent on the form of development. Proposals by Wilson and Card (1999) are applicable to
“Situation A” sites, which include all development and foundation types with the exception of those associated
with conventional low-rise housing (three storeys or less). For low-rise housing, “Situation B” sites, it is
appropriate to use proposals published by the NHBC (2007). The NHBC method assumes a residential
construction (excluding flats and apartments) with a footprint of 8m by 8m, with a suspended floor slab and
vented under floor void (minimum 150mm). Where low-rise housing is proposed, but the building footprint
differs from the area assumed in the published NHBC Gas Screening Values, the NHBC Gas Screening Values
can still be employed as it has been shown that changes in the building footprint area do not change the Gas
Screening Values.
Both methods include the calculation of risk based Gas Screening Values (GSVs) and consideration of ‘Typical
Maximum Concentrations’ for initial screening purposes. The GSVs are calculated by multiplying the borehole
gas volume flow rate by the concentration of the particular gas being considered, as defined by Wilson and
Card (1999):
GSV = (Gas concentration (%) / 100) x Flow (l/hr)
The site is a commercial property and hence the site has been classified as a Situation A type, with the gas
regime to be based on the system proposed by Wilson and Card.
Using the maximum recorded carbon dioxide gas value (1.5%– BH1) and the maximum flow rate (0.2 l/hr) the
Gas Screening Value (GSV) has been calculated as: 0.015 x 0.2 = 0.003 l/hr (GSV).
A Gas Screening Value of 0.003 l/hr represents a “Very Low” hazard potential gas regime for the site as defined
by BS8485:2015 2 and CIRIA C665.
Based on the above, the gas regime for the site has generally been determined as a Characteristic Situation 1 3
Very Low Risk (typical Made Ground).
______________________
2
Table 2 (Page 19), BS8485:2015
3
Table 8.5 (Page 88), CIRIA C665.
8.0 Summary of Findings

SLR undertook a baseline environmental site investigation of the property known as Telehouse. To date there
has been no recorded investigation of any impact since the construction of West and North 2 buildings, and
prior to storage of diesel in these areas or operation of the associated diesel generators.
The site was developed as the East India Import Dock in the early 1800s. The dock was subsequently drained
and filled in a number of phases in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The site was developed in four phases from the early
1990s (North), early 2000s (East and Support), late 2000s (West) and 2014 (North 2). The eastern portion of
the site was developed over the quay walls.
The site is located within a predominantly industrial area with the closest residential properties located
approximately 35m north. The River Lea approximately 135m east from site. BGS indicate the site to be
underlain by Alluvium over the London Clay Formation. The Alluvium is designated by the EA as a Superficial
Deposit and the London Clay Formation is considered an Unproductive Strata. Groundwater is anticipated to
flow east towards the River Lea. Based on data from the wells on- Site groundwater flow is anticipated to be
towards the east.
SLR drilled six boreholes across the site with monitoring wells installed in all locations for groundwater and gas
monitoring purposes. The locations of the boreholes targeted diesel tanks and associated fill points across the
site. Made Ground was encountered at all exploratory locations to a maximum depth of 7.70m bgl. Made
Ground generally comprised sandy gravel with gravel of brick, concrete, flint and ceramic tile. Pockets of black
peat were observed at two locations (BH2 and BH3) located north and south of the site. Natural deposits were
not encountered. A strong hydrocarbon odour was noted at 7.50m bgl within BH6. No other visual or olfactory
evidence of hydrocarbon contamination was noted. Groundwater strikes were recorded during the drilling in
five locations, BH1 to BH4 and BH6, at depths ranging between 4.46m bgl to 6.36m bgl.
One round of groundwater sampling and three gas monitoring rounds were completed at the site between
April and May 2018.
Analysis of soil samples for a range of typical Made Ground contaminants shows no significantly elevated
concentrations with the exception of asbestos which was detected in three of the six samples (BH1, BH2 and
BH5). The subsequent asbestos quantification showed that the percentage mass of fibres was below the
0.001% LOD at all three locations.
TPH was observed to exceed the WQS in two groundwater samples (BH2 and BH6) and the average
concentration was also recorded in excess of the WQS. Groundwater samples indicated arsenic concentrations
in excess of WQS also at BH2 and BH6. The average concentration of arsenic marginally exceeded its WQS.
Multiple PAHs were recorded in excess of WQS in at least one sample. The average concentration of
naphthalene marginally exceeded its WQS while the averages of the remaining PAHs were below their
respective WQS.
No evidence of significant impact by diesel infrastructure was recorded on site however slightly elevated diesel
range of aromatics and aliphatics hydrocarbons were recorded within groundwater samples of BH4 and BH6.
Monitoring of gases on three occasions has shown relatively low concentrations of both methane and carbon
dioxide gas in the ground beneath the site. Assessment of the gas flux indicates that the gas regime falls into
Characteristic Situation 1 Very Low Risk.
9.0 Closure
The information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected during the environmental
assessment.
SLR has relied upon data obtained by third parties in the preparation of this report. SLR has not had the
opportunity to verify if this data is correct. SLR therefore cannot guarantee conclusions reached based upon
this data.
The evaluation and conclusions are statements of opinion and do not preclude the existence of variation of
conditions between test holes or the existence of other chemical compounds that may have arisen from
previous/current activities within and around the Site. Hence, this report should not be construed as a
comprehensive characterisation of all Site conditions. In particular, this report does not constitute a full
asbestos survey of the Site, even if reference is made to potential asbestos risks. Neither does it constitute an
assessment of structural condition nor a full ecological study.
This report is for the exclusive use of those parties listed in Section 1.0 of this report and their exclusive agents;
no warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties. Any such party relies
upon the report at their risk.
SLR disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of
the work.
DRAWINGS
LEGEND
N SITE LOCATION
TELEHOUSE
INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION OF
EUROPE LIMITED
04438.00005.19.001.0_SITE_LOC_PLAN.dwg
83 VICTORIA STREET
LONDON
SW1H 0HW
T: 44 (0)203 691 58102

www.slrconsulting.com
TELEHOUSE EUROPE
BASELINE SITE INVESTIGATION
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
0 100 200 300 400m 600 800 1000
DWG No. 1
Metres 1:10,000
Scale Date
Crown copyright [and database rights] 2018 0100031673 Expires [25/01/19] 1:10,000 @ A3 MAY 2018
LEGEND
N SITE BOUNDARY
BOREHOLE LOCATION
Shelter
TANK
NORTH BULK TANK T1.7, T1.8
D
ROA
OCK NORTH 2 DAY
AD
T I NDI TANKS T4.1 - T4.4
LEA
EAS
MO
NORTH DAY TANKS T1.1 - T1.4
UTH
ROA
NORTH 2 BLOCK
NORTH GENERATOR
NORTH T 1.0 FILL POINT
D
T1.5, T1.6
BH4
NORTH BLOCK
NORTH BULK
TANK T1.0 NORTH 2 FILL POINT
BH5
NORTH 2 BULK TANKS T4.5, T4.6

FB
BH6
FB
UE ANE
VEN EL L
RA R
IA NDE SOR
COR
FB
ORE
el
G
nn
ADMIN EAST BLOCK
ANO
Tu
BUILDING
ad
DRI
Ro
VE
ck
Do
EAST FILL POINT
BH1
ia
Ind
st
WEST BLOCK
Ea
EAST DAY TANKS
T2.1 - T2.5
WEST DAY TANKS
T3.1, T3.2 EAST BULK TANK
BH3
SUPPORT
ROS
BUILDING TELEHOUSE
EMA
INTERNATIONAL
RY
CORPORATION OF
DRI
EUROPE LIMITED
VE
BH2
WEST BULK TANKS T3.3, T3.4
04438.00005.19.002.0_BH_LOC_PLAN.dwg
83 VICTORIA STREET
LONDON
WEST FILL POINT SW1H 0HW
T: 44 (0)203 691 58102

U E
VEN
www.slrconsulting.com
NA
FRO
SAF TELEHOUSE EUROPE
BASELINE SITE INVESTIGATION
BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN
0 10 20 30 40m 60 80 100
DWG No. 2
Metres 1:1000
Scale Date
Crown copyright [and database rights] 2018 0100031673 Expires [05/02/19] 1:1000 @ A3 MAY 2018
APPENDIX 01
Borehole Logs
BOREHOLE No.
BOREHOLE LOG
BH1
Client:
TELEHOUSE INTERNATIONAL CORP
Project No: Date: Ground Level: Co-ordinates:
425.04438.00005 20/04/18 5.83mAOD E181053.861 N538827.531
Project: Sheet:
TELEHOUSE 1 of 1
Instrument/
SAMPLES & TESTS STRATA
HS(ppm)
HV(kPa)
Backfill
PP(kPa)
Legend
SPT-N
Water
Type Reduced (Thick- DESCRIPTION
Depth Depth
No Level ness)
MADE GROUND: Brown very sandy gravel. Sand is coarse and gravel is fine
to medium sub-angular to rounded flint. Frequent shell fragments.
0.50 E 2
1 (2.00)
1.50 Clayey horizon.
3.83 2.00
2 2.00 HS 2 MADE GROUND: Yellow gravelly medium to coarse sand. Gravel is fine to
medium sub-rounded to rounded flint. Frequent shell fragments.
2.50 HS 1
3 3.00 HS 1 3.00 - 4.50 Poor recovery.
3.50 HS 2 3.50 Less frequent gravel.
4 (4.00)
4.50 - 6.00 Very poor recovery.

4.60 E 1
-0.17 6.00
6
No recovery.
(1.50)
Form SLR AGS3 UK BH File 180504 TELEHOUSE LOGS V2.GPJ 25-05-18
-1.67 7.50
Borehole complete at 7.50m
Boring Progress and Water Observations Casing Chiselling Water Added General Remarks
Date Time Depth Water From To Hours From To Location cleared of
Dpt Depth Dia. mm
services with CAT prior to
20-04-18 00.00 4.58 excavation.
Location vacuum
excavated to 2m prior to
rotary drilling.
All dimensions in metres Contractor:SLR Method: Rotary open hole Logged By: Approved By:
Scale 1:50 Plant: Vac-Ex and Comacchio 305 Hole Size: 250mm LG
SLR Consulting Limited, 65 Woodbridge Road, Guildford, GU1 4RD, Tel: 01483 889800, Fax:
LOGGING HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH BS5930+A2
BOREHOLE No.
BOREHOLE LOG
BH2
Client:
425.04438.00005 23/04/18 6.14mAOD E180992.364 N538764.622
Project: Sheet:
TELEHOUSE 1 of 1
Instrument/
HS(ppm)
HV(kPa)
Backfill
PP(kPa)
Legend
SPT-N
Water
Depth Depth
No Level ness)
Brown sandy topsoil. Frequent rootlets.
5.84 0.30
MADE GROUND: Yellow gravelly medium to coarse sand. Gravel is fine to
0.50 E 0 medium sub-rounded to rounded flint.
1 1.00 HS 0
1.50 HS 0
2 2.00 HS 1 2.00 Flint cobbles.

(3.70) 2.00 - 3.00 Poor recovery.
2.30 HS 1
3
3.00 - 4.50 Poor recovery.
3.40 HS 4
2.14 4.00
4
MADE GROUND: Mid-brown slightly clayey coarse sand and gravel. Gravel is
fine to coarse brick, concrete and flint. Frequent pockets of black peat.
4.80 E 2
5 5.00 HS 2
(3.50)
6
-1.37 7.50
Dpt Depth Dia. mm
23-04-18 00.00 4.46 excavation.
Location vacuum
rotary drilling.
BOREHOLE No.
BOREHOLE LOG
BH3
Client:
425.04438.00005 23/04/18 6.23mAOD E181021.509 N538753.169
Project: Sheet:
TELEHOUSE 1 of 1
Instrument/
HS(ppm)
HV(kPa)
Backfill
PP(kPa)
Legend
SPT-N
Water
Depth Depth
No Level ness)
Concrete hardstanding.
6.01 0.23
MADE GROUND: Light brown sandy fine to coarse gravel. Sand is coarse and
gravel is sub-angular brick, concrete, flint and ceramic tile. Infrequent whole
0.50 E 1 bricks.
1 1.00 HS 1
2 2.00 HS 1 2.00 - 3.00 80% Recovery.
(4.28)
2.50 HS 1
3
3.00 - 4.50 80% Recovery. Cobbles of concrete and brick present. Pockets of
black peat.
3.50 HS 1
4.40 E 1 1.73 4.50

No recovery.
(1.70)
6
0.03 6.20

Dpt Depth Dia. mm
23-04-18 00.00 4.85 excavation.
Location vacuum
rotary drilling.
BOREHOLE No.
BOREHOLE LOG
BH4
Client:
425.04438.00005 24/04/18 5.55mAOD E181134 N538805
Project: Sheet:
TELEHOUSE 1 of 1
Instrument/
HS(ppm)
HV(kPa)
Backfill
PP(kPa)
Legend
SPT-N
Water
Depth Depth
No Level ness)
5.47 0.08 Block paving.
0.12 E 1 5.37 0.18 MADE GROUND: Yellow sand and gravel. Sand is coarse and gravel medium
5.28 0.27 sub-angular to rounded flint.
0.50 E 1 Asphalt.
to medium sub-angular to rounded flint.
1 1.00 HS 1
(1.73)
3.55 2.00
2
No recovery.
(1.00)
2.55 3.00
3
4.50 - 7.70 Poor recovery. Frequent brick fragments and well rounded cobbles
of flint.
(4.70)
5.50 E 1
6
7.50 HS 1
-2.15 7.70
Dpt Depth Dia. mm
24-04-18 00.00 6.36 excavation.
Location vacuum
rotary drilling.
BOREHOLE No.
BOREHOLE LOG
BH5
Client:
425.04438.00005 19/04/18 5.23mAOD E181114.053 N538878.723
Project: Sheet:
TELEHOUSE 1 of 1
Instrument/
HS(ppm)
HV(kPa)
Backfill
PP(kPa)
Legend
SPT-N
Water
Depth Depth
No Level ness)
5.22 0.01 Brown sandy topsoil. Frequent rootlets.
0.50 E 0
1 1.00 HS 0
1.10 Becoming very gravelly and unconsolidated.
1.35 - 1.40 Clayey horizon.
(3.49)
2
2.50 HS 1
3 3.00 HS 1
1.73 3.50
3.50 HS 2 MADE GROUND: Brown slightly sandy gravel. Sand is coarse and gravel is
fine to medium sub-angular to rounded flint.
3.50 - 6.00 Gravel is less coarse.
4 4.00 HS 1
4.55 E 1
(2.50)
5 5.00 HS 2
5.50 HS 2
-0.78 6.00
6 6.00 HS 1
Dpt Depth Dia. mm
excavation.
Location hand excavated
to 1.5m prior to drilling.
Hole drilled to 6m but
sides kept collapsing back
in at depth.
All dimensions in metres Contractor:SLR Method: Windowless Sampler Logged By: Approved By:
Scale 1:50 Plant: Modular Rig Hole Size: 250mm LG
BOREHOLE No.
BOREHOLE LOG
BH6
Client:
425.04438.00005 25/04/18 5.79mAOD E538716.349 N181097.924
Project: Sheet:
TELEHOUSE 1 of 1
Instrument/
HS(ppm)
HV(kPa)
Backfill
PP(kPa)
Legend
SPT-N
Water
Depth Depth
No Level ness)
5.78 0.01 Brown sandy topsoil. Frequent rootlets.
MADE GROUND: Yellowish brown sand and gravel. Sand is coarse and
gravel is medium to coarse sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel of flint.
Frequent roots and rootlets.
1
(2.19)
2 2.00 E 1
3.59 2.20
MADE GROUND: Brown clayey gravelly sand. Gravel is well rounded medium
to coarse flint, sand is coarse. Infrequent brick and concrete cobbles.
2.60 HS 1
3 3.00 HS 1
4 4.00 HS 1
(4.00)
5 5.00 HS 1
6 5.90 E 1
-0.41 6.20
Void. No recovery.
(1.20)
-1.61 7.40
-1.71 7.50 MADE GROUND: Black silty clay. Strong hydrocarbon odour.
7.50 E
Dpt Depth Dia. mm
25-04-18 00.00 5.22 excavation.
Location vacuum
excavated to 2m in a slip
trench prior to drilling.
Scale 1:50 Plant: Vac-ex and Comacchio 305 Hole Size: 250mm DG-J and LG
APPENDIX 02
Groundwater Monitoring Data

Low-Flow Test Report:
Test Date / Time: 4/30/2018 4:05:20 PM
Project: Telehouse (2)
Operator Name: LG
Location Name: Telehouse bh1 Pump Type: Peri Instrument Used: SmarTROLL MP
Well Diameter: 5 cm Pump Intake From TOC: 4.6 m Serial Number: 551305
Total Depth: 7.475 m Flow Cell Volume: 90 ml
Test Notes:
Low-Flow Readings:
Specific RDO
Date Time Elapsed Time pH Temperature Turbidity ORP Depth To Water
Conductivity Concentration
+/- 0.1 +/- 0.5 +/- 3 % +/- 0.3 +/- 10 +/- 10 +/- 5
4/30/2018 4:05
00:00 11.09 pH 9.55 °C 931.20 µS/cm 1.20 mg/L -173.4 mV
PM
4/30/2018 4:08
03:00 8.97 pH 9.74 °C 905.40 µS/cm 1.50 mg/L -56.7 mV
PM
4/30/2018 4:11
06:00 8.43 pH 10.05 °C 905.32 µS/cm 0.64 mg/L -9.4 mV
PM
4/30/2018 4:14
09:00 8.13 pH 10.29 °C 903.32 µS/cm 0.46 mg/L 10.0 mV
PM
4/30/2018 4:17
12:00 8.01 pH 10.37 °C 897.24 µS/cm 0.43 mg/L 18.2 mV
PM
4/30/2018 4:20
15:00 7.96 pH 10.50 °C 889.71 µS/cm 0.39 mg/L 20.9 mV
PM
4/30/2018 4:23
18:00 7.93 pH 10.54 °C 886.00 µS/cm 0.38 mg/L 25.1 mV
PM
4/30/2018 4:26
21:00 7.91 pH 10.56 °C 888.11 µS/cm 0.37 mg/L 27.5 mV
PM
4/30/2018 4:29
24:00 7.90 pH 10.76 °C 893.28 µS/cm 0.27 mg/L 27.8 mV
PM
Samples
Sample ID: Description:
Created using VuSitu from In-Situ, Inc.

Test Date / Time: 4/30/2018 3:11:01 PM
Project: Telehouse
Operator Name: LG
Test Notes:
Weather Conditions:
Heavy rain and windy
Low-Flow Readings:
Specific RDO
+/- 0.1 +/- 0.5 +/- 3 % +/- 0.3 +/- 10 +/- 10 +/- 5
4/30/2018 3:11
00:00 9.73 pH 8.79 °C 973.51 µS/cm 2.91 mg/L -148.4 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:14
03:00 10.83 pH 9.02 °C 987.11 µS/cm 1.12 mg/L -163.6 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:17
06:00 11.11 pH 9.48 °C 994.39 µS/cm 0.67 mg/L -155.5 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:20
09:00 11.14 pH 9.69 °C 990.27 µS/cm 0.55 mg/L -156.8 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:23
12:00 11.14 pH 9.78 °C 990.57 µS/cm 0.52 mg/L -156.7 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:26
15:00 11.14 pH 9.92 °C 991.43 µS/cm 0.52 mg/L -158.0 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:29
18:00 11.13 pH 10.32 °C 999.80 µS/cm 0.39 mg/L -161.7 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:32
21:00 11.14 pH 10.72 °C 994.73 µS/cm 0.33 mg/L -164.1 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:35
24:00 11.16 pH 10.88 °C 994.18 µS/cm 0.30 mg/L -166.4 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:38
27:00 11.18 pH 10.93 °C 994.66 µS/cm 0.28 mg/L -168.4 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:41
30:00 11.18 pH 10.93 °C 995.33 µS/cm 0.27 mg/L -171.1 mV
PM
4/30/2018 3:44
33:00 11.19 pH 11.00 °C 997.35 µS/cm 0.27 mg/L -174.0 mV
PM
Samples

Test Date / Time: 4/30/2018 2:19:41 PM
Project: Telehouse
Operator Name: LG
Test Notes:
Weather Conditions:
Heavy rain and wind
Low-Flow Readings:
Specific RDO
+/- 0.1 +/- 0.5 +/- 3 % +/- 0.3 +/- 10 +/- 10 +/- 5
4/30/2018 2:19
00:00 8.84 pH 7.42 °C 1,072.4 µS/cm 9.07 mg/L 42.0 mV
PM
4/30/2018 2:22
03:00 8.31 pH 9.35 °C 1,038.8 µS/cm 1.73 mg/L 36.1 mV
PM
4/30/2018 2:25
06:00 8.24 pH 10.34 °C 1,017.6 µS/cm 1.34 mg/L 35.1 mV
PM
4/30/2018 2:28
09:00 8.23 pH 10.72 °C 1,008.4 µS/cm 1.28 mg/L 35.0 mV
PM
4/30/2018 2:31
12:00 8.22 pH 10.81 °C 1,016.5 µS/cm 1.19 mg/L 34.8 mV
PM
4/30/2018 2:34
15:00 8.22 pH 11.09 °C 1,015.2 µS/cm 0.99 mg/L 34.8 mV
PM
4/30/2018 2:37
18:00 8.21 pH 11.49 °C 1,018.2 µS/cm 0.75 mg/L 34.2 mV
PM
4/30/2018 2:40
21:00 8.21 pH 11.91 °C 1,013.1 µS/cm 0.60 mg/L 34.0 mV
PM
4/30/2018 2:43
24:00 8.21 pH 11.81 °C 1,016.7 µS/cm 0.47 mg/L 33.7 mV
PM
4/30/2018 2:46
27:00 8.21 pH 11.93 °C 1,010.9 µS/cm 0.41 mg/L 33.5 mV
PM
4/30/2018 2:49
30:00 8.21 pH 12.02 °C 1,011.8 µS/cm 0.35 mg/L 33.1 mV
PM
Samples

Test Date / Time: 4/30/2018 11:45:05 AM
Project: Telehouse
Operator Name: LG
Well Diameter: 5 cm Pump Intake From TOC: 7 m Serial Number: 551305
Test Notes:
Weather Conditions:
Extremely rainy and windy - weather warning
Low-Flow Readings:
Specific RDO
+/- 0.1 +/- 0.5 +/- 3 % +/- 0.3 +/- 10 +/- 10 +/- 5
4/30/2018
00:00 7.47 pH 7.54 °C 964.45 µS/cm 2.75 mg/L -36.3 mV
11:45 AM
4/30/2018
03:00 7.46 pH 7.69 °C 970.36 µS/cm 1.56 mg/L -27.1 mV
11:48 AM
4/30/2018
06:00 7.46 pH 8.35 °C 958.79 µS/cm 1.59 mg/L -21.6 mV
11:51 AM
4/30/2018
09:00 7.48 pH 8.54 °C 952.10 µS/cm 1.53 mg/L -13.8 mV
11:54 AM
4/30/2018
12:00 7.49 pH 8.52 °C 968.60 µS/cm 1.52 mg/L -8.7 mV
11:57 AM
4/30/2018
15:00 7.49 pH 8.55 °C 987.48 µS/cm 1.47 mg/L -5.6 mV
12:00 PM
4/30/2018
18:00 7.49 pH 8.50 °C 1,033.0 µS/cm 1.46 mg/L 2.0 mV
12:03 PM
4/30/2018
21:00 7.48 pH 8.50 °C 1,074.8 µS/cm 1.38 mg/L 6.2 mV
12:06 PM
4/30/2018
24:00 7.47 pH 8.40 °C 1,156.4 µS/cm 1.20 mg/L 2.2 mV
12:09 PM
4/30/2018
27:00 7.45 pH 8.56 °C 1,208.9 µS/cm 1.02 mg/L -1.5 mV
12:12 PM
4/30/2018
30:00 7.44 pH 8.60 °C 1,251.7 µS/cm 0.91 mg/L -3.7 mV
12:15 PM
4/30/2018
33:00 7.43 pH 8.65 °C 1,335.6 µS/cm 0.74 mg/L -10.5 mV
12:18 PM
4/30/2018
36:00 7.43 pH 8.74 °C 1,383.3 µS/cm 0.64 mg/L -18.9 mV
12:21 PM
4/30/2018
39:00 7.43 pH 8.84 °C 1,402.3 µS/cm 0.54 mg/L -22.0 mV
12:24 PM
4/30/2018
42:00 7.43 pH 8.74 °C 1,422.7 µS/cm 0.49 mg/L -24.4 mV
12:27 PM
4/30/2018
45:00 7.43 pH 8.84 °C 1,440.3 µS/cm 0.47 mg/L -25.7 mV
12:30 PM
4/30/2018
48:00 7.43 pH 8.88 °C 1,462.1 µS/cm 0.45 mg/L -27.4 mV
12:33 PM
Samples

Test Date / Time: 4/30/2018 1:03:46 PM
Project: Telehouse
Operator Name: LG
Test Notes:
Weather Conditions:
Heavy rain and very windy
Low-Flow Readings:
Specific RDO
+/- 0.1 +/- 0.5 +/- 3 % +/- 0.3 +/- 10 +/- 10 +/- 5
4/30/2018 1:03
00:00 7.96 pH 7.43 °C 4.59 µS/cm 11.01 mg/L -8.6 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:06
03:00 8.55 pH 7.32 °C 4.38 µS/cm 11.05 mg/L 11.3 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:09
06:00 8.73 pH 7.30 °C 4.32 µS/cm 10.96 mg/L 13.4 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:12
09:00 8.82 pH 7.30 °C 4.29 µS/cm 10.85 mg/L 13.3 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:15
12:00 8.94 pH 7.33 °C 4.28 µS/cm 10.72 mg/L 10.4 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:18
15:00 9.01 pH 7.36 °C 4.28 µS/cm 10.58 mg/L 9.7 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:21
18:00 9.05 pH 7.40 °C 4.12 µS/cm 10.45 mg/L 9.8 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:24
21:00 9.08 pH 7.40 °C 4.13 µS/cm 10.32 mg/L 9.1 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:27
24:00 9.11 pH 7.44 °C 4.09 µS/cm 10.14 mg/L 8.0 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:30
27:00 9.13 pH 7.50 °C 4.01 µS/cm 9.96 mg/L 7.1 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:33
30:00 9.15 pH 7.50 °C 4.02 µS/cm 9.86 mg/L 7.8 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:36
33:00 9.16 pH 7.54 °C 4.01 µS/cm 9.75 mg/L 5.8 mV
PM
4/30/2018 1:39
36:00 9.17 pH 7.59 °C 3.97 µS/cm 9.63 mg/L 5.5 mV
PM
Samples

APPENDIX 03
Gas Monitoring Data

Site Name : Telehouse Job Number: 425.04438.00005
Address: Date: 30/04/2018
Weather Conditions: heavy rain and wind
Air Temperature (Deg C) -
Ground Surface Conditions dry
Equipment: GA5000, interface metre
Next Calibration Due: -
Operator: LG
Sample Point Methane (CH4) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Oxygen (O2)

Barometric Carbon Hydrogen
Type (e.g. Depth of Depth of well Relative
Borehole ID Pressure Steady State Steady State Steady State Monoxide Sulphide (H2S) Flow (l/hr) Balance (%) Notes
spike, well Water (mbgl) (mbgl) Peak (%v/v) Peak (%v/v) Min (%v/v) Pressure
(mbar) (%v/v) (%v/v) (%v/v) (CO) (ppm) (ppm)
etc)
BH1 well 1005 4.530 7.48 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 20.0 20.0 0 0 -0.1 -0.02 78.5 Dipped 5th around 3:15pm.
BH2 well 1006 4.770 7.29 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 20.9 20.9 0 0 0.0 0.02 79.0 Dipped 4th around 2:30pm.
BH3 well 1005 4.908 5.98 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 21.2 21.2 0 0 0.1 0.07 78.7 Dipped 3rd around 1:45pm.
BH4 well 1004 6.518 7.59 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 20.9 20.9 0 0 0.0 0.02 78.9 Dipped 1st around 10:40am.
BH5 well 1006 dry 4.67 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 21.0 21.0 0 0 0.0 0.09 78.9 Dipped 5th around 4pm.
BH6 well 1005 3.600 6.90 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 20.1 20.1 1 0 0.2 0.0 79.2 Dipped 2nd around 1pm.
Notes:
Weather Conditions: mild, dry
Ground Surface Conditions dry
Operator: LG

etc)
BH1 well 1009 4.496 7.48 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 20.8 20.8 1 0 0.1 0.09 78.9
BH2 well 1009 4.750 7.29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 21.5 4 0 0.0 0.03 81.2
BH3 well 1009 4.899 5.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 21.4 2 0 0.0 0.02 80.1
BH4 well 1009 6.458 7.59 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 20.7 20.7 3 0 0.1 0.12 78.8
BH5 well 1009 4.524 4.67 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 20.1 20.1 0 0 0.1 0.02 79.1
BH6 well 1009 3.569 6.75 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 20.8 20.8 2 0 0.0 -0.1 78.9
Notes:
Weather Conditions: drizzley
Ground Surface Conditions wet
Operator: LG and AH

etc)
BH1 well 1027 4.557 7.43 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.7 20.5 20.5 0 0 -0.1 0.07 78.8
BH2 well 1026 4.819 6.77 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 20.3 20.3 0 0 0.0 0.12 79.5
BH3 well 1027 4.932 5.77 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 20.5 20.5 0 0 0.0 0.12 79.4
BH4 well 1026 6.585 7.59 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 20.9 20.9 0 0 0.0 0.02 78.8
BH5 well 1027 DRY 4.67 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 21.0 21.0 0 0 0.0 0.05 78.8
BH6 well 1027 3.675 6.65 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 20.9 20.9 0 0 0.1 0.14 78.7
Notes:
APPENDIX 04
Laboratory Certificates
Exova Jones Environmental
Registered Address : Exova (UK) Ltd, Lochend Industrial Estate, Newbridge, Midlothian, EH28 8PL
Unit 3 Deeside Point

Zone 3
Deeside Industrial Park
Deeside
CH5 2UA
SLR Consulting Ltd
28 Mill Barn Tel: +44 (0) 1244 833780
Turkey Mill
Fax: +44 (0) 1244 833781
Maidstone
ME14 5PP
Attention : Kat Mayston
Date : 14th May, 2018
Your reference : Telehouse
Our reference : Test Report 18/6511 Batch 1 Schedule A
Location : Poplar
Date samples received : 28th April, 2018
Status : Final report
Issue : 1
Fifteen samples were received for analysis on 28th April, 2018 of which twelve were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report
which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the
scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.
All analysis is carried out on as received samples and reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected.
Compiled By:
Simon Gomery BSc

Project Manager
Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced

QF-PM 3.1.1 v16 All solid results are expressed on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. 1 of 18
Client Name: SLR Consulting Ltd Report : Solid
Reference: Telehouse
Location: Poplar Solids: V=60g VOC jar, J=250g glass jar, T=plastic tub
Contact: Kat Mayston
JE Job No.: 18/6511
J E Sample No. 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-28 29-33 39-43 44-48 49-53
Sample ID BH1 BH1 BH2 BH2 BH3 BH3 BH4 BH4 BH5 BH5
Depth 0.50 4.60 0.50 4.80 0.50 4.40 0.12 5.50 0.50 4.55
Please see attached notes for all
abbreviations and acronyms
COC No / misc
Containers VJT VJT VJT VJT VJT VJT VJT VJT VJT VJT
Sample Date 18/04/2018 20/04/2018 18/04/2018 23/04/2018 19/04/2018 23/04/2018 19/04/2018 24/04/2018 18/04/2018 19/04/2018
Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil
Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Method
LOD/LOR Units
No.
Date of Receipt 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018
Arsenic #M NDP - - NDP - - 12 15 NDP - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Cadmium #M NDP - - NDP - - <0.1 <0.1 NDP - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Chromium #M NDP - - NDP - - 150 190 NDP - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Copper #M NDP - - NDP - - 21 8 NDP - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

#M
Lead NDP - - NDP - - <5 31 NDP - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Mercury #M NDP - - NDP - - <0.1 <0.1 NDP - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Nickel #M NDP - - NDP - - 8.0 19 NDP - <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Selenium #M NDP - - NDP - - <1 <1 NDP - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Zinc #M NDP - - NDP - - 15 26 NDP - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15
PAH MS
#M
Naphthalene <0.04 <0.04 0.30 0.30 0.07 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Acenaphthylene 0.04 <0.03 <0.03 0.08 0.08 0.11 <0.03 <0.03 0.12 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Acenaphthene #M <0.05 <0.05 0.38 0.11 0.23 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.08 <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8
#M
Fluorene <0.04 <0.04 0.27 0.08 0.13 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.08 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Phenanthrene #M 0.24 <0.03 3.5 1.4 1.1 0.25 <0.03 <0.03 1.9 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Anthracene # 0.08 <0.04 0.47 0.36 0.40 0.15 <0.04 <0.04 0.58 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
#M
Fluoranthene 0.52 <0.03 4.2 2.4 1.5 0.82 <0.03 <0.03 3.4 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Pyrene # 0.47 <0.03 3.4 2.4 1.4 0.83 <0.03 <0.03 3.0 <0.03 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8
#
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.39 <0.06 1.7 1.6 0.49 0.55 <0.06 <0.06 1.7 <0.06 <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Chrysene #M 0.31 <0.02 1.8 1.4 0.72 0.49 <0.02 <0.02 1.2 <0.02 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene #M 0.81 <0.07 3.0 2.6 1.2 1.1 <0.07 <0.07 2.3 <0.07 <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Benzo(a)pyrene # 0.39 <0.04 1.5 1.3 0.64 0.58 <0.04 <0.04 1.1 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
#M
Indeno(123cd)pyrene 0.32 <0.04 1.0 0.82 0.41 0.40 <0.04 <0.04 0.65 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # 0.09 <0.04 0.21 0.23 0.08 0.11 <0.04 <0.04 0.16 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Benzo(ghi)perylene # 0.32 <0.04 1.0 0.85 0.40 0.43 <0.04 <0.04 0.69 <0.04 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Coronene - - - - - - - - - - <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
PAH 16 Total 4.0 <0.6 22.7 15.9 8.9 5.8 <0.6 <0.6 17.0 <0.6 <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.58 <0.05 2.2 1.9 0.86 0.79 <0.05 <0.05 1.7 <0.05 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.23 <0.02 0.84 0.73 0.34 0.31 <0.02 <0.02 0.64 <0.02 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8
PAH Surrogate % Recovery 84 94 92 94 89 94 93 93 94 93 <0 % TM4/PM8
MTBE # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12
Benzene # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12
#
Toluene <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12
Ethylbenzene # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12
m/p-Xylene # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12
#
o-Xylene <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12
Xylenes (sum of isomers) # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg TM31/PM12

JE Job No.: 18/6511
J E Sample No. 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-28 29-33 39-43 44-48 49-53
Depth 0.50 4.60 0.50 4.80 0.50 4.40 0.12 5.50 0.50 4.55
COC No / misc
Sample Date 18/04/2018 20/04/2018 18/04/2018 23/04/2018 19/04/2018 23/04/2018 19/04/2018 24/04/2018 18/04/2018 19/04/2018
Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Method
LOD/LOR Units
No.
Date of Receipt 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018
TPH CWG
Aliphatics
>C5-C6 #M <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
>C6-C8 #M <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
>C8-C10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
SV
>C10-C12 #M <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
SV
>C12-C16 #M <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
SV
>C16-C21 #M <7 <7 <7 29 <7 <7 <7 <7 9 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
#M SV
>C21-C35 <7 <7 <7 170 48 31 <7 <7 55 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
Total aliphatics C5-35 <19 <19 <19 199 48 31 <19 <19 64 <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16
Aromatics
#
>C5-EC7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
>EC7-EC8 # <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
>EC8-EC10 #M <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
# SV
>EC10-EC12 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
SV
>EC12-EC16 # <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
SV
>EC16-EC21 # <7 <7 10 29 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
# SV
>EC21-EC35 37 <7 42 170 67 120 <7 <7 59 <7 <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
SV
Total aromatics C5-35 # 37 <19 52 199 67 120 <19 <19 59 <19 <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16
SV
Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) <38 <38 52 398 115 151 <38 <38 123 <38 <38 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16
Natural Moisture Content 24.9 15.3 12.4 20.0 16.7 9.1 7.8 9.9 12.8 5.2 <0.1 % PM4/PM0
#
Hexavalent Chromium <0.3 - - <0.3 - - <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 - <0.3 mg/kg TM38/PM20
Sample Type NDP Sand Sand NDP Sand Clayey Sand Sand Clayey Sand NDP Sand None PM13/PM0
Sample Colour NDP Medium Brown Medium Brown NDP Light Brown Medium Brown Light Brown Medium Brown NDP Medium Brown None PM13/PM0
Other Items NDP stones stones NDP STONES stones Stones stones NDP stones None PM13/PM0
Arsenic 27 - - 16 - - - - 12 - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Cadmium 0.4 - - 0.4 - - - - 0.2 - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Chromium 32 - - 30 - - - - 22 - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Copper 17 - - 35 - - - - 18 - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Lead 150 - - 270 - - - - 110 - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Mercury <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - <0.1 - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Nickel 31 - - 18 - - - - 17 - <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Selenium <1 - - <1 - - - - <1 - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Zinc 160 - - 150 - - - - 110 - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62
PAH MS
PAH 17 Total - - - - - - - - - - <0.64 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Mineral Oil (C10-C40) - - - - - - - - - - <30 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

JE Job No.: 18/6511
J E Sample No. 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-28 29-33 39-43 44-48 49-53
Depth 0.50 4.60 0.50 4.80 0.50 4.40 0.12 5.50 0.50 4.55
COC No / misc
Sample Date 18/04/2018 20/04/2018 18/04/2018 23/04/2018 19/04/2018 23/04/2018 19/04/2018 24/04/2018 18/04/2018 19/04/2018
Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Method
LOD/LOR Units
No.
Date of Receipt 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018 28/04/2018
PCB 28 # - - - - - - - - - - <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
PCB 52 # - - - - - - - - - - <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
PCB 101 # - - - - - - - - - - <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
PCB 118 # - - - - - - - - - - <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8

#
PCB 138 - - - - - - - - - - <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
PCB 153 # - - - - - - - - - - <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
PCB 180 # - - - - - - - - - - <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
Total 7 PCBs # - - - - - - - - - - <0.035 mg/kg TM17/PM8
Total Organic Carbon # - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 % TM21/PM24
ANC at pH4 - - - - - - - - - - <0.03 mol/kg TM77/PM0

ANC at pH7 - - - - - - - - - - <0.03 mol/kg TM77/PM0
Loss on Ignition # - - - - - - - - - - <1.0 % TM22/PM0

#M
pH 8.2 - - 9.3 - - 9.8 8.9 11 - <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11

JE Job No.: 18/6511
J E Sample No. 54-58 65
Sample ID BH6 SKIP
Depth 2.00
COC No / misc
Containers VJT J
Sample Date 25/04/2018 25/04/2018
Sample Type Soil Soil
Batch Number 1 1
Method
LOD/LOR Units
No.
Date of Receipt 28/04/2018 28/04/2018
Arsenic #M 9.5 - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Cadmium #M <0.1 - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Chromium #M 210 - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Copper #M 12 - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15

#M
Lead 46 - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Mercury #M <0.1 - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Nickel #M 16 - <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Selenium #M <1 - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM15
Zinc #M 70 - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM15
PAH MS
#M
Naphthalene <0.04 0.08 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Acenaphthylene <0.03 0.15 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Acenaphthene #M <0.05 0.07 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8

#M
Fluorene <0.04 0.07 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Phenanthrene #M 0.10 0.79 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Anthracene # 0.04 0.34 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

#M
Fluoranthene 0.24 2.2 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Pyrene # 0.22 3.0 <0.03 mg/kg TM4/PM8

#
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.26 2.1 <0.06 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Chrysene #M 0.16 1.5 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene #M 0.43 2.5 <0.07 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Benzo(a)pyrene # 0.19 1.1 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

#M
Indeno(123cd)pyrene 0.19 0.67 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene # 0.05 0.13 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Benzo(ghi)perylene # 0.21 0.63 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8

Coronene - 0.13 <0.04 mg/kg TM4/PM8
PAH 16 Total 2.1 - <0.6 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.31 1.8 <0.05 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.12 0.70 <0.02 mg/kg TM4/PM8
PAH Surrogate % Recovery 92 93 <0 % TM4/PM8
MTBE # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12
Benzene # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12

#
Toluene <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12
Ethylbenzene # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12
m/p-Xylene # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12

#
o-Xylene <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM31/PM12
Xylenes (sum of isomers) # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/kg TM31/PM12

JE Job No.: 18/6511
Sample ID BH6 SKIP
Depth 2.00
COC No / misc
Containers VJT J
Sample Date 25/04/2018 25/04/2018
Batch Number 1 1
Method
LOD/LOR Units
No.
Date of Receipt 28/04/2018 28/04/2018
TPH CWG
Aliphatics
>C5-C6 #M <0.1 - <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
>C6-C8 #M <0.1 - <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
>C8-C10 <0.1 - <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
>C10-C12 #M <0.2 - <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
>C12-C16 #M <4 - <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
>C16-C21 #M <7 - <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
#M
>C21-C35 22 - <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
Total aliphatics C5-35 22 - <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16
Aromatics
#
>C5-EC7 <0.1 - <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
>EC7-EC8 # <0.1 - <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12
>EC8-EC10 #M <0.1 - <0.1 mg/kg TM36/PM12

#
>EC10-EC12 <0.2 - <0.2 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
>EC12-EC16 # <4 - <4 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
>EC16-EC21 # 10 - <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
#
>EC21-EC35 49 - <7 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16
Total aromatics C5-35 # 59 - <19 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16
Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) 81 - <38 mg/kg TM5/TM36/PM8/PM12/PM16
Natural Moisture Content 3.8 8.1 <0.1 % PM4/PM0
#
Hexavalent Chromium <0.3 - <0.3 mg/kg TM38/PM20
Sample Type Clayey Sand Sand None PM13/PM0

Sample Colour Medium Brown Medium Brown None PM13/PM0
Other Items Stones stones None PM13/PM0
Arsenic - - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Cadmium - - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Chromium - - <0.5 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Copper - - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Lead - - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Mercury - - <0.1 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Nickel - - <0.7 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Selenium - - <1 mg/kg TM30/PM62
Zinc - - <5 mg/kg TM30/PM62
PAH MS
PAH 17 Total - 15.46 <0.64 mg/kg TM4/PM8
Mineral Oil (C10-C40) - <30 <30 mg/kg TM5/PM8/PM16

JE Job No.: 18/6511
Sample ID BH6 SKIP
Depth 2.00
COC No / misc
Containers VJT J
Sample Date 25/04/2018 25/04/2018
Batch Number 1 1
Method
LOD/LOR Units
No.
Date of Receipt 28/04/2018 28/04/2018
PCB 28 # - 0.009 <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
PCB 52 # - <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
PCB 101 # - <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
PCB 118 # - <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8

#
PCB 138 - <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
PCB 153 # - <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
PCB 180 # - <0.005 <0.005 mg/kg TM17/PM8
Total 7 PCBs # - <0.035 <0.035 mg/kg TM17/PM8
Total Organic Carbon # - 0.32 <0.02 % TM21/PM24
ANC at pH4 - 0.68 <0.03 mol/kg TM77/PM0

ANC at pH7 - 0.04 <0.03 mol/kg TM77/PM0
Loss on Ignition # - 1.8 <1.0 % TM22/PM0

#M
pH 9.0 10 <0.01 pH units TM73/PM11

Exova Jones Environmental CEN 10:1 LEACHATE RESULTS PrEN 12547-2
Mass of sample taken (kg) - Moisture Content Ratio (%) = 3.9

Mass of dry sample (kg) = 0.09 Dry Matter Content Ratio (%) = 96.3
Particle Size <4mm = >95%
JEFL Job No 18/6511 Landfill Waste Acceptance

Sample No 65 Criteria Limits
Client Sample No SKIP
Stable
Depth/Other Inert Non-reactive Hazardous
Hazardous
Sample Date 25/04/2018 Waste Waste
Waste in Non-
Batch No 1 Landfill Hazardous Landfill
Landfill
Solid Waste Analysis
Total Organic Carbon (%) 0.32 3 5 6
Loss on Ignition (%) 1.8 - - 10
Sum of BTEX (mg/kg) <0.025 6 - -
Sum of 7 PCBs (mg/kg) <0.035 1 - -
Mineral Oil (mg/kg) <30 500 - -
PAH Sum of 17(mg/kg) 15.46 100 - -
pH (pH Units) 10 - >6 -
ANC to pH 7 (mol/kg) 0.04 - to be evaluated to be evaluated
ANC to pH 4 (mol/kg) 0.68 - to be evaluated to be evaluated
10:1 concn Limit values for compliance

leached leaching test using
Eluate Analysis BS EN 12457-2 at L/S 10 l/kg
C10 A10
mg/l mg/kg mg/kg
Arsenic 0.012 0.12 0.5 2 25
Barium 0.006 0.06 20 100 300
Cadmium <0.0005 <0.005 0.04 1 5
Chromium <0.0015 <0.015 0.5 10 70
Copper <0.007 <0.07 2 50 100
Mercury <0.001 <0.01 0.01 0.2 2
Molybdenum 0.006 0.06 0.5 10 30
Nickel <0.002 <0.02 0.4 10 40
Lead <0.005 <0.05 0.5 10 50
Antimony 0.013 0.13 0.06 0.7 5
Selenium <0.003 <0.03 0.1 0.5 7
Zinc <0.003 <0.03 4 50 200
Chloride 52 520 800 15000 25000
Fluoride <0.3 <3 10 150 500
Sulphate as SO4 69 690 1000 20000 50000
Total Dissolved Solids 220 2200 4000 60000 100000
Phenol <0.01 <0.1 1 - -
Dissolved Organic Carbon 3 30 500 800 1000

Exova Jones Environmental Asbestos Analysis
Client Name: SLR Consulting Ltd

Location: Poplar
Note:
Asbestos Screen analysis is carried out in accordance with our documented in-house methods PM042 and TM065 and HSG 248 by Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy using
Dispersion Staining Techniques and is covered by our UKAS accreditation. Detailed Gravimetric Quantification and PCOM Fibre Analysis is carried out in accordance with our
documented in-house methods PM042 and TM131 and HSG 248 using Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy and Phase Contrast Optical Microscopy (PCOM). Samples are
retained for not less than 6 months from the date of analysis unless specifically requested.
Opinions, including ACM type and Asbestos level, lie outside the scope of our UKAS accreditation.
Where the sample is not taken by a Jones Environmental Laboratory consultant, Jones Environmental Laboratory cannot be responsible for inaccurate or unrepresentative
sampling.
Signed on behalf of Jones Environmental Laboratory:
Ryan Butterworth
Asbestos Team Leader
JE JE
Date Of
Job Batch Sample ID Depth Sample Analysis Result
Analysis
No. No.
18/6511 1 BH1 0.50 4 11/05/2018 General Description (Bulk Analysis) Soil-Clay/Brick/Stone

11/05/2018 Asbestos Fibres Fibre Bundles
11/05/2018 Asbestos ACM NAD
11/05/2018 Asbestos Type Chrysotile
11/05/2018 Asbestos Level Screen less than 0.1%
18/6511 1 BH2 4.80 19 11/05/2018 General Description (Bulk Analysis) Soil-Clay/Brick/Stone

18/6511 1 BH3 0.50 24 11/05/2018 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil.stones

11/05/2018 Asbestos Fibres NAD
11/05/2018 Asbestos Fibres (2) NAD
11/05/2018 Asbestos ACM (2) NAD
11/05/2018 Asbestos Type NAD
11/05/2018 Asbestos Type (2) NAD
11/05/2018 Asbestos Level Screen NAD
18/6511 1 BH4 0.12 32 11/05/2018 General Description (Bulk Analysis) Sand/Stones

18/6511 1 BH5 0.50 47 11/05/2018 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil-stones

11/05/2018 Asbestos Fibres (2) Fibre Bundles
11/05/2018 Asbestos Type (2) Amosite
QF-PM 3.1.15 v10 Please include all sections of this report if it is reproduced 9 of 18
Jones Environmental Laboratory Asbestos Analysis

Location: Poplar
JE JE
Date Of
Analysis
No. No.
18/6511 1 BH6 2.00 57 11/05/2018 General Description (Bulk Analysis) soil-stones

Exova Jones Environmental NDP Reason Report
Client Name: SLR Consulting Ltd Matrix : Solid

Location: Poplar
JE
J E Sample
Job Batch Sample ID Depth NDP Reason
No.
No.
18/6511 1 BH1 0.50 1-5 Asbestos detected in sample

Exova Jones Environmental Notification of Deviating Samples
Client Name: SLR Consulting Ltd Matrix : Solid

Location: Poplar
JE
J E Sample
Job Batch Sample ID Depth Analysis Reason
No.
No.
18/6511 1 BH1 0.50 1-5 EPH, GRO, PAH Sample holding time exceeded
18/6511 1 BH2 4.80 16-20 EPH, PAH Sample holding time exceeded
18/6511 1 BH3 4.40 26-28 EPH, PAH Sample holding time exceeded
Please note that only samples that are deviating are mentioned in this report. If no samples are listed it is because none were deviating.
Only analyses which are accredited are recorded as deviating if set criteria are not met.

NOTES TO ACCOMPANY ALL SCHEDULES AND REPORTS
JE Job No.: 18/6511
SOILS
Please note we are only MCERTS accredited (UK soils only) for sand, loam and clay and any other matrix is outside our scope of accreditation.
Where an MCERTS report has been requested, you will be notified within 48 hours of any samples that have been identified as being outside our
MCERTS scope. As validation has been performed on clay, sand and loam, only samples that are predominantly these matrices, or combinations
of them will be within our MCERTS scope. If samples are not one of a combination of the above matrices they will not be marked as MCERTS
accredited.
It is assumed that you have taken representative samples on site and require analysis on a representative subsample. Stones will generally be
included unless we are requested to remove them.
All samples will be discarded one month after the date of reporting, unless we are instructed to the contrary.
If you have not already done so, please send us a purchase order if this is required by your company.
Where appropriate please make sure that our detection limits are suitable for your needs, if they are not, please notify us immediately.
All analysis is reported on a dry weight basis unless stated otherwise. Results are not surrogate corrected. Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C unless
otherwise stated. Moisture content for CEN Leachate tests are dried at 105°C ±5°C.
Where Mineral Oil or Fats, Oils and Grease is quoted, this refers to Total Aliphatics C10-C40.
Where a CEN 10:1 ZERO Headspace VOC test has been carried out, a 10:1 ratio of water to wet (as received) soil has been used.
% Asbestos in Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) is determined by reference to HSG 264 The Survey Guide - Appendix 2 : ACMs in buildings
listed in order of ease of fibre release.
Negative Neutralization Potential (NP) values are obtained when the volume of NaOH (0.1N) titrated (pH 8.3) is greater than the volume of HCl (1N)
to reduce the pH of the sample to 2.0 - 2.5. Any negative NP values are corrected to 0.
The calculation of Pyrite content assumes that all oxidisable sulphides present in the sample are pyrite. This may not be the case. The calculation
may be an overesitimate when other sulphides such as Barite (Barium Sulphate) are present.
WATERS
Please note we are not a UK Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) Approved Laboratory .
ISO17025 accreditation applies to surface water and groundwater and usually one other matrix which is analysis specific, any other liquids are
outside our scope of accreditation.
As surface waters require different sample preparation to groundwaters the laboratory must be informed of the water type when submitting samples.
DEVIATING SAMPLES
Samples must be received in a condition appropriate to the requested analyses. All samples should be submitted to the laboratory in suitable
containers with sufficient ice packs to sustain an appropriate temperature for the requested analysis. If this is not the case you will be informed and
any test results that may be compromised highlighted on your deviating samples report.
SURROGATES
Surrogate compounds are added during the preparation process to monitor recovery of analytes. However low recovery in soils is often due to peat,
clay or other organic rich matrices. For waters this can be due to oxidants, surfactants, organic rich sediments or remediation fluids. Acceptable
limits for most organic methods are 70 - 130% and for VOCs are 50 - 150%. When surrogate recoveries are outside the performance criteria but
the associated AQC passes this is assumed to be due to matrix effect. Results are not surrogate corrected.
DILUTIONS
A dilution suffix indicates a dilution has been performed and the reported result takes this into account. No further calculation is required.
BLANKS
Where analytes have been found in the blank, the sample will be treated in accordance with our laboratory procedure for dealing with contaminated
blanks.
NOTE
Data is only reported if the laboratory is confident that the data is a true reflection of the samples analysed. Data is only reported as accredited when
all the requirements of our Quality System have been met. In certain circumstances where all the requirements of the Quality System have not been
met, for instance if the associated AQC has failed, the reason is fully investigated and documented. The sample data is then evaluated alongside
the other quality control checks performed during analysis to determine its suitability. Following this evaluation, provided the sample results have not
been effected, the data is reported but accreditation is removed. It is a UKAS requirement for data not reported as accredited to be considered
indicative only, but this does not mean the data is not valid.
Where possible, and if requested, samples will be re-extracted and a revised report issued with accredited results. Please do not hesitate to contact
the laboratory if further details are required of the circumstances which have led to the removal of accreditation.
REPORTS FROM THE SOUTH AFRICA LABORATORY

Any method number not prefixed with SA has been undertaken in our UK laboratory unless reported as subcontracted.

JE Job No.: 18/6511
ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS USED
# ISO17025 (UKAS Ref No. 4225) accredited - UK.

SA ISO17025 (SANAS Ref No.T0729) accredited - South Africa.
B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank.
DR Dilution required.
M MCERTS accredited.
NA Not applicable
NAD No Asbestos Detected.
ND None Detected (usually refers to VOC and/SVOC TICs).
NDP No Determination Possible
SS Calibrated against a single substance
SV Surrogate recovery outside performance criteria. This may be due to a matrix effect.
W Results expressed on as received basis.
+ AQC failure, accreditation has been removed from this result, if appropriate, see 'Note' on previous page.
++ Result outside calibration range, results should be considered as indicative only and are not accredited.
* Analysis subcontracted to an Exova Jones Environmental approved laboratory.
AD Samples are dried at 35°C ±5°C
CO Suspected carry over
LOD/LOR Limit of Detection (Limit of Reporting) in line with ISO 17025 and MCERTS
ME Matrix Effect
NFD No Fibres Detected
BS AQC Sample
LB Blank Sample
N Client Sample
TB Trip Blank Sample
OC Outside Calibration Range

Exova Jones Environmental Method Code Appendix
JE Job No: 18/6511
ISO Analysis done

Prep Method MCERTS Reported on
17025 on As Received
Test Method No. Description No. (if Description (UK soils dry weight
(UKAS/S (AR) or Dried
appropriate) only) basis
ANAS) (AD)
Gravimetric measurement of Natural Moisture Content and % Moisture Content at either

PM4 PM0 No preparation is required. AR
35°C or 105°C. Calculation based on ISO 11465 and BS1377.
Modified USEPA 8270 method for the solvent extraction and determination of 16 PAHs End over end extraction of solid samples for organic analysis. The solvent mix varies
TM4
by GC-MS.
PM8
depending on analysis required.
AR Yes
TM4
by GC-MS.
PM8
Yes AR Yes
TM4
by GC-MS.
PM8
Yes Yes AR Yes
End over end extraction of solid samples for organic analysis. The solvent mix varies
Modified USEPA 8015B method for the determination of solvent Extractable Petroleum
TM5
Hydrocarbons (EPH) with carbon banding within the range C8-C40 GC-FID.
PM8/PM16 depending on analysis required/Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a AR Yes
Rapid Trace SPE.
TM5
PM8/PM16 depending on analysis required/Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a Yes AR Yes
Rapid Trace SPE.
TM5
PM8/PM16 depending on analysis required/Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a Yes Yes AR Yes
Rapid Trace SPE.
TM5/TM36 please refer to TM5 and TM36 for method details PM8/PM12/PM16 please refer to PM8/PM16 and PM12 for method details AR Yes
TM5/TM36 please refer to TM5 and TM36 for method details PM8/PM12/PM16 please refer to PM8/PM16 and PM12 for method details Yes AR Yes
A visual examination of the solid sample is carried out to ascertain sample make up,
PM13 PM0 No preparation is required. AR
colour and any other inclusions. This is not a geotechnical description.
JE Job No: 18/6511
ISO Analysis done

ANAS) (AD)
Modified US EPA method 8270. Determination of specific Polychlorinated Biphenyl End over end extraction of solid samples for organic analysis. The solvent mix varies
TM17
congeners by GC-MS.
PM8
Yes AR Yes
Modified BS 1377-3: 1990/USEPA 160.3 Gravimetric determination of Total Dissolved

TM20
Solids/Total Solids
PM0 No preparation is required. AR Yes
Modified USEPA 415.1. Determination of Total Organic Carbon or Total Carbon by

combustion in an Eltra TOC furnace/analyser in the presence of oxygen. The CO2 Dried and ground solid samples are washed with hydrochloric acid, then rinsed with
TM21
generated is quantified using infra-red detection. Organic Matter (SOM) calculated as
PM24
deionised water to remove the mineral carbon before TOC analysis.
Yes AD Yes
per EA MCERTS Chemical Testing of Soil, March 2012 v4.
Modified USEPA 160.4. Gravimetric determination of Loss on Ignition by temperature

TM22
controlled Muffle Furnace (450°C)
PM0 No preparation is required. Yes AD Yes
Determination of phenols by Reversed Phased High Performance Liquid

TM26
Chromatography and Electro-Chemical Detection.
PM0 No preparation is required. AR Yes
Determination of Trace Metal elements by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma -

Acid digestion of dried and ground solid samples using Aqua Regia refluxed at 112.5 °C.
TM30 Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7, 6010B and BS EN ISO PM15
Samples containing asbestos are not dried and ground.
Yes Yes AD Yes
11885 2009

Modified method EN12457-2 As received solid samples are leached with water in a 10:1
water to soil ratio for 24 hours, the moisture content of the sample is included in the ratio.
Yes AR Yes
11885 2009

TM30 Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7, 6010B and BS EN ISO PM62 Acid digestion of as received solid samples using Aqua Regia refluxed at 112.5 °C. AR Yes
11885 2009
Modified USEPA 8015B. Determination of Methyltertbutylether, Benzene, Toluene, Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC
TM31
Ethylbenzene and Xylene by headspace GC-FID.
PM12
headspace analysis.
AR Yes
Modified USEPA 8015B. Determination of Methyltertbutylether, Benzene, Toluene, Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC
TM31
Ethylbenzene and Xylene by headspace GC-FID.
PM12
headspace analysis.
Yes AR Yes
JE Job No: 18/6511
ISO Analysis done

ANAS) (AD)
Modified US EPA method 8015B. Determination of Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) in Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC
TM36
the carbon chain range of C4-12 by headspace GC-FID.
PM12
headspace analysis.
AR Yes
TM36
PM12
headspace analysis.
Yes AR Yes
TM36
PM12
headspace analysis.
Yes Yes AR Yes
Soluble Ion analysis using the Thermo Aquakem Photometric Automatic Analyser.
TM38
Modified US EPA methods 325.2, 375.4, 365.2, 353.1, 354.1
PM0 No preparation is required. Yes AR Yes
Extraction of dried and ground or as received samples with deionised water in a 2:1
Soluble Ion analysis using the Thermo Aquakem Photometric Automatic Analyser. water to solid ratio using a reciprocal shaker for all analytes except hexavalent
TM38
Modified US EPA methods 325.2, 375.4, 365.2, 353.1, 354.1
PM20
chromium. Extraction of as received sample using 10:1 ratio of 0.2M sodium hydroxide to
Yes AR Yes
soil for hexavalent chromium using a reciprocal shaker.
Modified USEPA 9060. Determination of TOC by calculation from Total Carbon and
TM60 Inorganic Carbon using a TOC analyser, the carbon in the sample is converted to CO2 PM0 No preparation is required. AR Yes
and then passed through a non-dispersive infrared gas analyser (NDIR).
Solid samples undergo a thorough visual inspection for asbestos fibres prior to asbestos
TM65 Asbestos Bulk Identification method based on HSG 248. PM42 Yes AR
identification using TM065.
Modified US EPA methods 150.1 and 9045D and BS1377:1990. Determination of pH by

TM73
Metrohm automated probe analyser.
PM11 Extraction of as received solid samples using one part solid to 2.5 parts deionised water. Yes Yes AR No
Modified DDCEN/TS method 15364:2006. Determination of Acid Neutralization Capacity

TM77
by Metrohm automated probe analyser.
PM0 No preparation is required. AR No
TM173 Analysis of fluoride by ISE (Ion Selective Electrode) using modified ISE method 340.2 PM0 No preparation is required. AR Yes
JE Job No: 18/6511
ISO Analysis done

ANAS) (AD)
Gravimetric measurement of Natural Moisture Content and % Moisture Content at either

NONE No Method Code PM4 AR
35°C or 105°C. Calculation based on ISO 11465 and BS1377.

Zone 3
Deeside
CH5 2UA
SLR Consulting Ltd
28 Mill Barn Tel: +44 (0) 1244 833780
Turkey Mill
Fax: +44 (0) 1244 833781
Maidstone
ME14 5PP
Date : 21st May, 2018
Your reference : Telehouse
Our reference : Test Report 18/6511 Batch 1 Schedule B
Location : Poplar
Date samples received : 28th April, 2018
Issue : 1
Fifteen samples were received for analysis on 28th April, 2018 of which three were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report
which should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the
scope of any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.
Compiled By:
Simon Gomery BSc

Project Manager

Exova Jones Environmental Asbestos Analysis

Location: Poplar
Note:
Asbestos Screen analysis is carried out in accordance with our documented in-house methods PM042 and TM065 and HSG 248 by Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy using
Dispersion Staining Techniques and is covered by our UKAS accreditation. Detailed Gravimetric Quantification and PCOM Fibre Analysis is carried out in accordance with our
documented in-house methods PM042 and TM131 and HSG 248 using Stereo and Polarised Light Microscopy and Phase Contrast Optical Microscopy (PCOM). Samples are
retained for not less than 6 months from the date of analysis unless specifically requested.
Opinions, including ACM type and Asbestos level, lie outside the scope of our UKAS accreditation.
Where the sample is not taken by a Jones Environmental Laboratory consultant, Jones Environmental Laboratory cannot be responsible for inaccurate or unrepresentative
sampling.
Signed on behalf of Jones Environmental Laboratory:
Ryan Butterworth
Asbestos Team Leader
JE JE
Date Of
Analysis
No. No.
18/6511 1 BH1 0.50 4 21/05/2018 Total ACM Gravimetric Quantification (% Asb) <0.001 (mass %)
21/05/2018 Total Detailed Gravimetric Quantification (% Asb) <0.001 (mass %)
21/05/2018 Total Gravimetric Quantification (ACM + Detailed) (% Asb) <0.001 (mass %)
21/05/2018 Asbestos PCOM Quantification (Fibres) <0.001 (mass %)
21/05/2018 Asbestos Gravimetric & PCOM Total <0.001 (mass %)

Location: Poplar
JE
J E Sample
No.
No.
No deviating sample report results for job 18/6511

JE Job No.: 18/6511
SOILS
accredited.
WATERS
DEVIATING SAMPLES
SURROGATES
DILUTIONS
BLANKS
blanks.
NOTE


JE Job No.: 18/6511

NA Not applicable
ME Matrix Effect
BS AQC Sample
LB Blank Sample
N Client Sample

JE Job No: 18/6511
ISO Analysis done

ANAS) (AD)
Solid samples undergo a thorough visual inspection for asbestos fibres prior to asbestos
TM131 Quantification of Asbestos Fibres and ACM, based on HSG248 and SCA method. PM42
identification using TM065.
Yes AR Yes

Zone 3
Deeside
CH5 2UA
SLR Consulting Ltd
8 Stow Court Tel: +44 (0) 1244 833780
Stow-Cum-Quy
Fax: +44 (0) 1244 833781
Cambridge
CB25 9AS
Your reference :
Our reference : Test Report 18/7312 Batch 1
Location : Telehouse
Date samples received : 15th May, 2018
Issue : 1
Five samples were received for analysis on 15th May, 2018 of which five were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which
should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the scope of
any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.
Compiled By:
Simon Gomery BSc

Project Manager

Client Name: SLR Consulting Ltd Report : Liquid
Reference:
Location: Telehouse
Contact: Kat Mayston Liquids/products: V=40ml vial, G=glass bottle, P=plastic bottle
JE Job No.: 18/7312 H=H2SO4, Z=ZnAc, N=NaOH, HN=HN03
J E Sample No. 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15
Sample ID BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 BH6
Depth 5.50 5.70 5.40 7.00 4.60

COC No / misc
Containers VG VG VG VG VG
Sample Date 30/04/2018 30/04/2018 30/04/2018 30/04/2018 30/04/2018
Sample Type Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water
Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1
Method
LOD/LOR Units
No.
Date of Receipt 15/05/2018 15/05/2018 15/05/2018 15/05/2018 15/05/2018
Dissolved Arsenic # 0.0072 0.013 0.0018 0.0027 0.027 <0.0009 mg/l TM30/PM14
Dissolved Boron 0.19 0.44 0.39 0.28 0.20 <0.012 mg/l TM30/PM14
Dissolved Cadmium # <0.00003 <0.00003 <0.00003 <0.00003 <0.00003 <0.00003 mg/l TM30/PM14
Total Dissolved Chromium # 0.0019 0.0014 0.0024 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 mg/l TM30/PM14
#
Dissolved Copper <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 mg/l TM30/PM14
Dissolved Lead # <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 mg/l TM30/PM14
Dissolved Mercury # <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 mg/l TM30/PM14
Dissolved Nickel # 0.0014 0.0009 0.0016 0.0019 0.0066 <0.0002 mg/l TM30/PM14
Dissolved Selenium # <0.0012 0.0022 0.0013 0.0024 0.0029 <0.0012 mg/l TM30/PM14
Dissolved Zinc # 0.023 <0.0015 0.0027 0.0027 <0.0015 <0.0015 mg/l TM30/PM14
#
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 mg/l TM15/PM10
#
Benzene <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0008 <0.0005 mg/l TM15/PM10
Toluene # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/l TM15/PM10

#
Ethylbenzene <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 mg/l TM15/PM10
p/m-Xylene # <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 mg/l TM15/PM10
o-Xylene # <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 mg/l TM15/PM10

#
Total Xylenes <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 mg/l TM15/PM10
Surrogate Recovery Toluene D8 100 100 100 100 100 <0 % TM15/PM10
Surrogate Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene 110 110 100 100 100 <0 % TM15/PM10
TPH CWG
Aliphatics
#
>C5-C6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM36/PM12
>C6-C8 # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM36/PM12
>C8-C10 # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM36/PM12
>C10-C12 # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
#
>C12-C16 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.25 0.14 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
>C16-C21 # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.42 0.32 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
>C21-C35 # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.15 0.60 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
Total aliphatics C5-35 # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.82 1.06 <0.01 mg/l TM5/TM36/PM12/PM16/PM30
Aromatics
>C5-EC7 # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM36/PM12
>EC7-EC8 # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM36/PM12

#
>EC8-EC10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM36/PM12
>EC10-EC12 # <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
>EC12-EC16 # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.13 0.06 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
#
>EC16-EC21 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.46 0.28 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
>EC21-EC35 # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.23 0.62 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
Total aromatics C5-35 # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.82 0.96 <0.01 mg/l TM5/TM36/PM12/PM16/PM30
Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) # <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.64 2.02 <0.01 mg/l TM5/TM36/PM12/PM16/PM30

Reference:
Location: Telehouse
J E Sample No. 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15
Sample ID BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 BH6
Depth 5.50 5.70 5.40 7.00 4.60

COC No / misc
Containers VG VG VG VG VG
Sample Date 30/04/2018 30/04/2018 30/04/2018 30/04/2018 30/04/2018
Sample Type Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water
Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1
Method
LOD/LOR Units
No.
Date of Receipt 15/05/2018 15/05/2018 15/05/2018 15/05/2018 15/05/2018
PAH MS
Naphthalene # <0.0001 0.0035 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0020AA <0.0001 mg/l TM4/PM30
Acenaphthylene # <0.000013 0.000041 <0.000013 <0.000013 0.0015AA <0.000013 mg/l TM4/PM30
Acenaphthene # 0.000022 0.0012 <0.000013 <0.000013 0.0024AA <0.000013 mg/l TM4/PM30

#
Fluorene 0.000014 0.00094 <0.000014 <0.000014 0.0019AA <0.000014 mg/l TM4/PM30
Phenanthrene # <0.000011 0.0019 0.000022 0.000038 0.01AA <0.000011 mg/l TM4/PM30
Anthracene # <0.000013 0.00023 0.000013 <0.000013 0.0033AA <0.000013 mg/l TM4/PM30
Fluoranthene # 0.000027 0.00049 0.00015 0.00013 0.021AA <0.000012 mg/l TM4/PM30
Pyrene # 0.000034 0.00041 0.00017 0.00019 0.017AA <0.000013 mg/l TM4/PM30
Benzo(a)anthracene # <0.000015 0.000066 0.000057 0.000033 0.0073AA <0.000015 mg/l TM4/PM30

#
Chrysene 0.000015 0.000088 0.000095 0.000086 0.0098AA <0.000011 mg/l TM4/PM30
#
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene 0.000021 0.000085 0.00011 0.000058 0.014AA <0.000018 mg/l TM4/PM30
Benzo(a)pyrene # <0.000016 0.000034 0.000048 0.000018 0.0074AA <0.000016 mg/l TM4/PM30
Indeno(123cd)pyrene # <0.000011 0.000022 0.000028 <0.000011 0.0045AA <0.000011 mg/l TM4/PM30

#
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00069AA <0.00001 mg/l TM4/PM30
Benzo(ghi)perylene # <0.000011 0.000019 0.000032 <0.000011 0.0043AA <0.000011 mg/l TM4/PM30
PAH 16 Total # <0.000195 0.009025 0.000725 0.000553 0.105090AA <0.000195 mg/l TM4/PM30
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.00002 0.00006 0.00008 0.00004 0.01AA <0.00001 mg/l TM4/PM30
Benzo(k)fluoranthene <0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00002 0.0039AA <0.00001 mg/l TM4/PM30
PAH Surrogate % Recovery 83 78 81 77 77AA <0 % TM4/PM30

Client Name: SLR Consulting Ltd Matrix : Liquid

Reference:
Location: Telehouse
JE
J E Sample
No.
No.
18/7312 1 - - - Samples : 1-3,4-6,7-9,10-12,13-15 Liquid Samples were received at a temperature above 9°C.
18/7312 1 BH1 5.50 1-3 Mercury Sample holding time exceeded prior to receipt

JE Job No.: 18/7312
SOILS
accredited.
WATERS
DEVIATING SAMPLES
SURROGATES
DILUTIONS
BLANKS
blanks.
NOTE


JE Job No.: 18/7312

NA Not applicable
ME Matrix Effect
BS AQC Sample
LB Blank Sample
N Client Sample
AA x20 Dilution

JE Job No: 18/7312
ISO Analysis done

ANAS) (AD)
Modified USEPA 8270 method for the solvent extraction and determination of 16 PAHs
TM4 PM30 Water samples are extracted with solvent using a magnetic stirrer to create a vortex.
by GC-MS.
Modified USEPA 8270 method for the solvent extraction and determination of 16 PAHs
TM4 PM30 Water samples are extracted with solvent using a magnetic stirrer to create a vortex. Yes
by GC-MS.
Modified USEPA 8015B method for the determination of solvent Extractable Petroleum Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a Rapid Trace SPE/Water
TM5 PM16/PM30 Yes
Hydrocarbons (EPH) with carbon banding within the range C8-C40 GC-FID. samples are extracted with solvent using a magnetic stirrer to create a vortex.
TM5/TM36 please refer to TM5 and TM36 for method details PM12/PM16/PM30 please refer to PM16/PM30 and PM12 for method details Yes
Modified USEPA 8260. Quantitative Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC
TM15 PM10
(VOCs) by Headspace GC-MS. headspace analysis.
Modified USEPA 8260. Quantitative Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds Modified US EPA method 5021. Preparation of solid and liquid samples for GC
TM15 PM10 Yes
(VOCs) by Headspace GC-MS. headspace analysis.

Analysis of waters and leachates for metals by ICP OES/ICP MS. Samples are filtered for
dissolved metals and acidified if required.
11885 2009

Analysis of waters and leachates for metals by ICP OES/ICP MS. Samples are filtered for
TM30 Optical Emission Spectrometry). Modified US EPA Method 200.7, 6010B and BS EN ISO PM14 Yes
dissolved metals and acidified if required.
11885 2009
TM36 PM12 Yes
the carbon chain range of C4-12 by headspace GC-FID. headspace analysis.

Zone 3
Deeside
CH5 2UA
SLR Consulting Ltd
8 Stow Court Tel: +44 (0) 1244 833780
Stow-Cum-Quy
Fax: +44 (0) 1244 833781
Cambridge
CB25 9AS
Your reference :
Our reference : Test Report 18/7252 Batch 1
Location : Telehouse
Date samples received : 12th May, 2018
Issue : 1
One sample were received for analysis on 12th May, 2018 of which one were scheduled for analysis. Please find attached our Test Report which
should be read with notes at the end of the report and should include all sections if reproduced. Interpretations and opinions are outside the scope of
any accreditation, and all results relate only to samples supplied.
Compiled By:
Paul Boden BSc

Project Manager

Reference:
Location: Telehouse
J E Sample No. 1
Sample ID BH5
Depth
COC No / misc
Containers G
Sample Date 08/05/2018
Sample Type Ground Water
Batch Number 1
Method
LOD/LOR Units
No.
Date of Receipt 12/05/2018
TPH CWG
Aliphatics
>C10-C12 # <0.005 <0.005 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
#
>C12-C16 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
#
>C16-C21 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
>C21-C35 # <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
Total aliphatics >C10-35 # <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
Aromatics
>EC10-EC12 # <0.005 <0.005 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
>EC12-EC16 # <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
#
>EC16-EC21 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
#
>EC21-EC35 <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
Total aromatics >C10-35 # <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30
Total aliphatics and aromatics >C10-35 # <0.01 <0.01 mg/l TM5/PM16/PM30


Reference:
Location: Telehouse
JE
J E Sample
No.
No.
No deviating sample report results for job 18/7252

JE Job No.: 18/7252
SOILS
accredited.
WATERS
DEVIATING SAMPLES
SURROGATES
DILUTIONS
BLANKS
blanks.
NOTE


JE Job No.: 18/7252

NA Not applicable
ME Matrix Effect
BS AQC Sample
LB Blank Sample
N Client Sample

JE Job No: 18/7252
ISO Analysis done

ANAS) (AD)
Modified USEPA 8015B method for the determination of solvent Extractable Petroleum Fractionation into aliphatic and aromatic fractions using a Rapid Trace SPE/Water
TM5 PM16/PM30 Yes
Hydrocarbons (EPH) with carbon banding within the range C8-C40 GC-FID. samples are extracted with solvent using a magnetic stirrer to create a vortex.
APPENDIX 05
Soil Generic Risk Assessment (GAC)

Generic Risk Assessment - Soils SLR
Lab Data Screening
Exceeds GAC
Exceeds LOD
Sample ID BH1 BH1 BH2 BH2 BH3 BH3 BH4 BH4 BH5 BH5 BH6
Depth 0.5 4.6 0.5 4.8 0.5 4.4 0.12 5.5 0.50 4.55 2
Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil
Client Name Telehouse Europe Sampled Date 18/04/2018 20/04/2018 18/04/2018 23/04/2018 19/04/2018 23/04/2018 19/04/2018 24/04/2018 18/04/2018 19 April 2018 25 April 2018
Site Name Telehouse Sample Received Date 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018
Job Number 425.04438.00005 J E Sample No 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-28 29-33 39-43 44-48 49-53 54-58
Date 15/05/2018 Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Description of Data Assessment / Zoning Made Ground
Selected Screening Value and Land Use GAC - Commercial Strata / Zone Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground
Selected
Test Units LOD GAC No. Above GAC
- - - - - - - - - - -
Arsenic mg/kg <0.5 640 0 27 - - 16 - - 12 15 12 - 9.5
Cadmium mg/kg <0.1 348 0 0.4 - - 0.4 - - <0.1 <0.1 0.2 - <0.1
Chromium mg/kg <0.5 30400 0 32 - - 30 - - 150 190 22 - 210
Copper mg/kg <1 71700 0 17 - - 35 - - 21 8 18 - 12
Lead mg/kg <5 2330 0 150 - - 270 - - <5 31 110 - 46
Mercury mg/kg <0.1 3600 0 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1
Nickel mg/kg <0.7 1800 0 31 - - 18 - - 8 19 17 - 16
Selenium mg/kg <1 13000 0 <1 - - <1 - - <1 <1 <1 - <1
Zinc mg/kg <5 665000 0 160 - - 150 - - 15 26 110 - 70
- - - - - - - - - - -
PAH MS - - - - - - - - - - -
Naphthalene mg/kg <0.04 200 0 <0.04 <0.04 0.3 0.3 0.07 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04
Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.03 84000 0 0.04 <0.03 <0.03 0.08 0.08 0.11 <0.03 <0.03 0.12 <0.03 <0.03
Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.05 85000 0 <0.05 <0.05 0.38 0.11 0.23 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.08 <0.05 <0.05
Fluorene mg/kg <0.04 64000 0 <0.04 <0.04 0.27 0.08 0.13 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.08 <0.04 <0.04
Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.03 22000 0 0.24 <0.03 3.5 1.4 1.1 0.25 <0.03 <0.03 1.9 <0.03 0.1
Anthracene mg/kg <0.04 530000 0 0.08 <0.04 0.47 0.36 0.4 0.15 <0.04 <0.04 0.58 <0.04 0.04
Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.03 23000 0 0.52 <0.03 4.2 2.4 1.5 0.82 <0.03 <0.03 3.4 <0.03 0.24
Pyrene mg/kg <0.03 54000 0 0.47 <0.03 3.4 2.4 1.4 0.83 <0.03 <0.03 3 <0.03 0.22
Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg <0.06 90 0 0.39 <0.06 1.7 1.6 0.49 0.55 <0.06 <0.06 1.7 <0.06 0.26
Chrysene mg/kg <0.02 140 0 0.31 <0.02 1.8 1.4 0.72 0.49 <0.02 <0.02 1.2 <0.02 0.16
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.07 0.81 <0.07 3 2.6 1.2 1.1 <0.07 <0.07 2.3 <0.07 0.43
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg <0.04 14 0 0.39 <0.04 1.5 1.3 0.64 0.58 <0.04 <0.04 1.1 <0.04 0.19
Indeno(123cd)pyrene mg/kg <0.04 60 0 0.32 <0.04 1 0.82 0.41 0.4 <0.04 <0.04 0.65 <0.04 0.19
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg <0.04 13 0 0.09 <0.04 0.21 0.23 0.08 0.11 <0.04 <0.04 0.16 <0.04 0.05
Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg <0.04 650 0 0.32 <0.04 1 0.85 0.4 0.43 <0.04 <0.04 0.69 <0.04 0.21
Coronene mg/kg <0.04 - - - - - - - - - - -
PAH 16 Total mg/kg <0.6 4 <0.6 22.7 15.9 8.9 5.8 <0.6 <0.6 17 <0.6 2.1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.05 100 0 0.58 <0.05 2.2 1.9 0.86 0.79 <0.05 <0.05 1.7 <0.05 0.31
Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.02 140 0 0.23 <0.02 0.84 0.73 0.34 0.31 <0.02 <0.02 0.64 <0.02 0.12
PAH Surrogate % Recovery % <0 84 94 92 94 89 94 93 93 94 93 92
- - - - - - - - - - -
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether mg/kg <0.005 7900 0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Benzene mg/kg <0.005 28 0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Toluene mg/kg <0.005 869 0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Ethylbenzene mg/kg <0.005 518 0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
m & p Xylene mg/kg <0.005 576 0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
o-Xylene mg/kg <0.005 576 0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Total Xylenes mg/kg <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
- - - - - - - - - - -
TPH CWG - - - - - - - - - - -
Aliphatics - - - - - - - - - - -
aliphatics >C5-C6 mg/kg <0.1 3400 0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
aliphatics >C12-C16 mg/kg <4 61000 0 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
aliphatics >C16-C21 mg/kg <7 1600000 0 <7 <7 <7 29 <7 <7 <7 <7 9 <7 <7
aliphatics >C21-C35 mg/kg <7 1600000 0 <7 <7 <7 170 48 31 <7 <7 55 <7 22
Total aliphatics C5-35 mg/kg <19 <19 <19 <19 199 48 31 <19 <19 64 <19 22
Aromatics - - - - - - - - - - -
aromatics >EC5-EC7 mg/kg <0.1 28000 0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
aromatics >EC12-EC16 mg/kg <4 36000 0 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4
aromatics >EC16-EC21 mg/kg <7 28000 0 <7 <7 10 29 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 <7 10
aromatics >EC21-EC35 mg/kg <7 28000 0 37 <7 42 170 67 120 <7 <7 59 <7 49
Total aromatics C5-35 mg/kg <19 37 <19 52 199 67 120 <19 <19 59 <19 59
Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) mg/kg <38 <38 <38 52 398 115 151 <38 <38 123 <38 81
- - - - - - - - - - -
Natural Moisture Content % <0.1 24.9 15.3 12.4 20 16.7 9.1 7.8 9.9 12.8 5.2 3.8
Moisture Content 105C (% Dry Weight) % <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - -
Dry Matter Content Ratio 105°C % <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - -
21/05/2018 Page 1 of 4
Lab Data Screening
Exceeds GAC
Exceeds LOD
Sample ID SKIP
Depth
Sample Type Soil
Client Name Telehouse Europe Sampled Date 25 April 2018
Site Name Telehouse Sample Received Date 28 April 2018
Job Number 425.04438.00005 J E Sample No 65
Date 15/05/2018 Batch Number 1
Selected Screening Value and Land Use GAC - Commercial Strata / Zone Made Ground
Selected
Test Units LOD GAC No. Above GAC
-
Arsenic mg/kg <0.5 640 0 -
Cadmium mg/kg <0.1 348 0 -
Chromium mg/kg <0.5 30400 0 -
Copper mg/kg <1 71700 0 -
Lead mg/kg <5 2330 0 -
Mercury mg/kg <0.1 3600 0 -
Nickel mg/kg <0.7 1800 0 -
Selenium mg/kg <1 13000 0 -
Zinc mg/kg <5 665000 0 -
-
PAH MS -
Naphthalene mg/kg <0.04 200 0 0.08
Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.03 84000 0 0.15
Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.05 85000 0 0.07
Fluorene mg/kg <0.04 64000 0 0.07
Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.03 22000 0 0.79
Anthracene mg/kg <0.04 530000 0 0.34
Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.03 23000 0 2.2
Pyrene mg/kg <0.03 54000 0 3
Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg <0.06 90 0 2.1
Chrysene mg/kg <0.02 140 0 1.5
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.07 2.5
Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg <0.04 14 0 1.1
Indeno(123cd)pyrene mg/kg <0.04 60 0 0.67
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg <0.04 13 0 0.13
Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg <0.04 650 0 0.63
Coronene mg/kg <0.04 0.13
PAH 16 Total mg/kg <0.6 -
Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.05 100 0 1.8
Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg <0.02 140 0 0.7
PAH Surrogate % Recovery % <0 93
-
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether mg/kg <0.005 7900 0 <0.005
Benzene mg/kg <0.005 28 0 <0.005
Toluene mg/kg <0.005 869 0 <0.005
Ethylbenzene mg/kg <0.005 518 0 <0.005
m & p Xylene mg/kg <0.005 576 0 <0.005
o-Xylene mg/kg <0.005 576 0 <0.005
Total Xylenes mg/kg <0.01 <0.01
-
TPH CWG -
Aliphatics -
aliphatics >C5-C6 mg/kg <0.1 3400 0 -
aliphatics >C12-C16 mg/kg <4 61000 0 -
Total aliphatics C5-35 mg/kg <19 -
Aromatics -
aromatics >EC5-EC7 mg/kg <0.1 28000 0 -
aromatics >EC12-EC16 mg/kg <4 36000 0 -
Total aromatics C5-35 mg/kg <19 -
Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) mg/kg <38 -
-
Natural Moisture Content % <0.1 8.1
Moisture Content 105C (% Dry Weight) % <0.1 3.9
Dry Matter Content Ratio 105°C % <0.1 96.3
21/05/2018 Page 2 of 4
Lab Data Screening
Exceeds GAC
Exceeds LOD
Sample ID BH1 BH1 BH2 BH2 BH3 BH3 BH4 BH4 BH5 BH5 BH6
Depth 0.5 4.6 0.5 4.8 0.5 4.4 0.12 5.5 0.50 4.55 2
Sample Type Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil
Client Name Telehouse Europe Sampled Date 18/04/2018 20/04/2018 18/04/2018 23/04/2018 19/04/2018 23/04/2018 19/04/2018 24/04/2018 18/04/2018 19 April 2018 25 April 2018
Site Name Telehouse Sample Received Date 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018 28 April 2018
Job Number 425.04438.00005 J E Sample No 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-28 29-33 39-43 44-48 49-53 54-58
Date 15/05/2018 Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Selected Screening Value and Land Use GAC - Commercial Strata / Zone Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground Made Ground
- - - - - - - - - - -
Hexavalent Chromium mg/kg <0.3 35 0 <0.3 - - <0.3 - - <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 - <0.3
- - - - - - - - - - -
Sample Type None NDP Sand Sand NDP Sand Clayey Sand Sand Clayey Sand NDP Sand Clayey Sand
Sample Colour None NDP Medium Brown Medium Brown NDP Light Brown Medium Brown Light Brown Medium Brown NDP Medium Brown Medium Brown
Other Items None NDP stones stones NDP STONES stones Stones stones NDP stones Stones
- - - - - - - - - - -
Arsenic mg/kg <0.5 640 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Cadmium mg/kg <0.1 348 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Chromium mg/kg <0.5 30400 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Copper mg/kg <1 71700 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Lead mg/kg <5 2330 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Mercury mg/kg <0.1 3600 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Nickel mg/kg <0.7 1800 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Selenium mg/kg <1 13000 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
Zinc mg/kg <5 665000 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
PAH MS - - - - - - - - - - -
PAH 17 Total mg/kg <0.64 - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
Mineral Oil (C10-C40) mg/kg <30 - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
PCB 28 mg/kg <0.005 - - - - - - - - - - -
PCB 52 mg/kg <0.005 - - - - - - - - - - -
PCB 101 mg/kg <0.005 - - - - - - - - - - -
PCB 118 mg/kg <0.005 - - - - - - - - - - -
PCB 138 mg/kg <0.005 - - - - - - - - - - -
PCB 153 mg/kg <0.005 - - - - - - - - - - -
PCB 180 mg/kg <0.005 - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 7 PCBs mg/kg <0.035 - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
Total Organic Carbon % <0.02 - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
ANC at pH4 mol/kg <0.03 - - - - - - - - - - -
ANC at pH7 mol/kg <0.03 - - - - - - - - - - -
Loss on Ignition % <1.0 - - - - - - - - - - -
pH pH units <0.01 8.2 - - 9.3 - - 9.8 8.9 11 - 9
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
None Soil-Clay/Brick/Stone - - Soil-Clay/Brick/Stone soil.stones - Sand/Stones - soil-stones - soil-stones
None Fibre Bundles - - Fibre Bundles NAD - NAD - Fibre Bundles - NAD
None - - - - NAD - NAD - Fibre Bundles - NAD
None NAD - - NAD NAD - NAD - NAD - NAD
None - - - - NAD - NAD - NAD - NAD
None Chrysotile - - Chrysotile NAD - NAD - Chrysotile - NAD
None - - - - NAD - NAD - Amosite - NAD
None less than 0.1% - - less than 0.1% NAD - NAD - less than 0.1% - NAD
- - - - - - - - - - -
21/05/2018 Page 3 of 4
Lab Data Screening
Exceeds GAC
Exceeds LOD
Sample ID SKIP
Depth
Sample Type Soil
Client Name Telehouse Europe Sampled Date 25 April 2018
Site Name Telehouse Sample Received Date 28 April 2018
Job Number 425.04438.00005 J E Sample No 65
Date 15/05/2018 Batch Number 1
Selected Screening Value and Land Use GAC - Commercial Strata / Zone Made Ground
-
Hexavalent Chromium mg/kg <0.3 35 0 -
-
Sample Type None Sand
Sample Colour None Medium Brown
Other Items None stones
-
Arsenic mg/kg <0.5 640 0 -
Cadmium mg/kg <0.1 348 0 -
Chromium mg/kg <0.5 30400 0 -
Copper mg/kg <1 71700 0 -
Lead mg/kg <5 2330 0 -
Mercury mg/kg <0.1 3600 0 -
Nickel mg/kg <0.7 1800 0 -
Selenium mg/kg <1 13000 0 -
Zinc mg/kg <5 665000 0 -
-
PAH MS -
PAH 17 Total mg/kg <0.64 15.46
-
Mineral Oil (C10-C40) mg/kg <30 <30
-
PCB 28 mg/kg <0.005 0.009
PCB 52 mg/kg <0.005 <0.005
PCB 101 mg/kg <0.005 <0.005
PCB 118 mg/kg <0.005 <0.005
PCB 138 mg/kg <0.005 <0.005
PCB 153 mg/kg <0.005 <0.005
PCB 180 mg/kg <0.005 <0.005
Total 7 PCBs mg/kg <0.035 <0.035
-
Total Organic Carbon % <0.02 0.32
-
ANC at pH4 mol/kg <0.03 0.68
ANC at pH7 mol/kg <0.03 0.04
Loss on Ignition % <1.0 1.8
pH pH units <0.01 10
-
-
None -
None -
None -
None -
None -
None -
None -
None -
-
21/05/2018 Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX 06
Groundwater Generic Water Quality Standards (WQS)

Compiled Water Quality Data
Exceeds WQS
Exceeds LOD
BOLD Exceeds MRV
Sample ID BH36 BH38 BH35 BH40 BHD03 BHP02 BHP03 BHP01 BHP02 BHP01 BHP03 BHD2
Depth 1.5 2.1 1.5 2.5 11.073 9 12 10.8 9.5 12 12.5 11.3
Client Name Peel Logistics (Management) Limited Sample Type Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water
Site Name Pioneer Business Park Unit 1 ` Sampled Date 02/07/17 02/07/17 02/08/17 02/08/17 28/02/2017 03/01/17 03/01/17 03/01/17 23/03/2017 24/03/2017 24/03/2017 24/03/2017
Job Number 404.00304.00069 Sample Received Date 02/08/17 02/09/17 02/10/17 02/10/17 03/03/17 03/03/17 03/03/17 03/03/17 27/03/2017 27/03/2017 27/03/2017 27/03/2017
Date 10/05/2017 J E Sample No 9-15 18-20 1-3 4-10 9-11 12-19 23-30 31-38 1-4 17-20 21-24 25-32
Media Groundwater Batch Number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
WQS Type Lowest Applicable WQS leave blank 17/3648 17/3670 17/3752 17/3752 17/4856 17/4856 17/4856 17/4856 17/6065 17/6065 17/6065 17/6065
Selected WQS Value

Test Units (converted to mg/l) LOD (mg/l) Haz MRV WQS Type Count Exceeding WQS
(mg/l)
leave blank leave blank leave blank leave blank leave blank leave blank leave blank leave blank leave blank leave blank leave blank leave blank
Dissolved Arsenic mg/l <0.0009 - 0.01 UK DWS (2000) 1 - - - - - 0.011 0.0029 0.0049 <0.0009 0.0013 <0.0009 -
Dissolved Barium mg/l <0.0018 - 0.1 UK SWAFDW (1996) 5 - - - - - 0.23 0.087 0.19 0.24 0.18 0.12 -
Dissolved Beryllium mg/l <0.0005 - 0 - - - - - <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 -
Dissolved Boron mg/l <0.012 - 1 UK DWS 2000 0 - - - - - 0.052 0.036 0.037 0.053 0.033 0.022 -
UK EQS (WFD 2015)
Dissolved Cadmium mg/l <0.00003 0.0001 0.00025 0 - - - - - <0.00003 <0.00003 <0.00003 <0.00003 <0.00003 <0.00003 -
(>200mg/l CaCO3)
Total Dissolved Chromium mg/l <0.0002 - 0.0047 UK EQS (WFD 2015) 1 - - - - - <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0067 <0.0002 <0.0002 -
UK EQS (WFD 2015)
Dissolved Copper mg/l <0.003 - 0.028 0 - - - - - <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 -
(>250mg/l CaCO3)
Total Dissolved Iron mg/l <0.02 - 0.2 UK DWS (2000) 1 0.85 0.08 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - - - <0.02
EU EQS Standards (2013) -
Dissolved Lead mg/l <0.0004 - 0.0012 0 - - - - - <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 -
AA
Dissolved Manganese mg/l <0.002 - 0.03 Proposed EQS 5 0.17 1.2 <0.002 <0.002 - 0.31 0.55 1.1 - - - 0.01
Dissolved Mercury mg/l <0.0005 0.00001 0.00005 UK EQS (WFD 2015) 0 - - - - - <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 -
EU EQS Standards (2013) -
Dissolved Nickel mg/l <0.0002 - 0.004 3 - - - - - 0.0064 0.0027 0.0062 0.006 0.0034 0.0016 -
AA
Dissolved Selenium mg/l <0.0012 - 0.01 UK DWS (2000) 0 - - - - - <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0012 <0.0012 -
Dissolved Vanadium mg/l <0.0006 - 0 - - - - - 0.0026 <0.0006 0.001 0.0019 0.0008 0.0006 -
UK EQS (WFD 2015)
Dissolved Zinc mg/l <0.0015 - 0.125 0 - - - - - 0.0026 <0.0015 0.0018 0.0031 0.002 0.0039 -
(>250mg/l CaCO3)
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether mg/l <0.0001 - 0.015 Taste / odour threshold 0 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0032 <0.0001 0.0028 <0.0001 <0.0001
Benzene mg/l <0.0005 0.001 0.001 UK DWS (2000) 0 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005
Toluene mg/l <0.005 0.004 0.074 UK EQS (WFD 2015) 0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Ethylbenzene mg/l <0.001 - 0.02 Proposed EQS 0 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
m/p-Xylene mg/l <0.002 0.003 0.03 UK EQS (WFD 2015) 0 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
o-Xylene mg/l <0.001 0.003 0.03 UK EQS (WFD 2015) 0 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Total Xylenes mg/l <0.003 0.003 0.03 UK EQS (WFD 2015) 0 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
Surrogate Recovery Toluene D8 % <0 - - 120 110 110 110 110 100 110 100 89 110 110 110
Surrogate Recovery 4-Bromofluorobenzene % <0 - - 83 80 80 98 96 100 93 99 91 98 97 98
TPH CWG -
Aliphatics -
Aliphatics >C5-C6 mg/l <0.01 - 0.01 UK DWS (1991) 0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Aliphatics >C12-C16 mg/l <0.01 - 0.01 UK DWS (1991) 1 <0.01 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total aliphatics C5-35 mg/l <0.01 - 0.01 UK DWS (1991) 1 <0.01 0.45 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Aromatics - 0.01 UK DWS (1991) -
Aromatics >EC5-EC7 mg/l <0.01 - 0.01 UK DWS (1991) 0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Aromatics >EC10-EC12 mg/l <0.005 - 0.01 UK DWS (1991) 0 <0.005 0.008 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Total aromatics C5-35 mg/l <0.01 - 0.01 UK DWS (1991) 1 <0.01 0.37 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total aliphatics and aromatics(C5-35) mg/l <0.01 - 0.01 UK DWS (1991) 1 <0.01 0.82 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Phenol mg/l <0.01 - 0.0077 UK EQS (WFD 2015) 0 - - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 -
Sulphate mg/l <0.5 - 250 UK DWS (2000) 0 5.4 5.4 13 27 - 83 250 87 - - - 98

Nitrate as N mg/l <0.05 - 50 UK DWS (2000) 0 0.31 <0.05 0.19 0.17 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - 0.45
Electrical Conductivity @25C uS/cm <2 - 0 - - - - - - - - 1500 950 2900 -

Manganese II mg/l <0.02 - 0.03 Proposed EQS 6 0.27 0.98 <0.02 0.03 - 0.38 2.2 9.7 - - - 0.04
pH pH units <0.01 - 0 - - - - - - - - 7.4 7.3 7.6 -
Total Inorganic Carbon mg/l <2 27 88 26 33 - 120 81 120 - - - 51
PCB 28 mg/l <0.0001 0.000001 0 - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0001

PCB 52 mg/l <0.0001 0.000001 0 - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0001
PCB 101 mg/l <0.0001 0.000001 0 - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0001
PCB 118 mg/l <0.0001 0.000001 0 - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0001
PCB 138 mg/l <0.0001 0.000001 0 - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0001
PCB 153 mg/l <0.0001 0.000001 0 - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0001
PCB 180 mg/l <0.0001 0.000001 0 - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0001
Total 7 PCBs mg/l <0.0007 - 0 - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0007
Hexavalent Chromium mg/l <0.002 - 0.0034 UK EQS (WFD 2015) 0 - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 -
Total Dissolved Chromium III mg/l <0.002 - 0 - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 - - - -
Dissolved Methane mg/l <0.001 - 0 0.11 1 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 0.026 0.32 - - - <0.001
Sulphide mg/l <0.01 - 0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - - <0.01
Iron II mg/l <0.02 - 0 0.09 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 1.5 15 - - - <0.02
Iron III mg/l <0.02 - 0 0.76 0.08 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.10 - - - <0.02
25/05/2018 Page 1 of 1
EUROPEAN OFFICES
United Kingdom .
AYLESBURY LEEDS
T: +44 (0)1844 337380 T: +44 (0)113 258 0650
BELFAST LONDON
T: +44 (0)28 9073 2493 T: +44 (0)203 691 5810
BRADFORD-ON-AVON MAIDSTONE
T: +44 (0)1225 309400 T: +44 (0)1622 609242
BRISTOL MANCHESTER
T: +44 (0)117 906 4280 T: +44 (0)161 872 7564
CAMBRIDGE NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

T: + 44 (0)1223 813805 T: +44 (0)191 261 1966
CARDIFF NOTTINGHAM
T: +44 (0)29 2049 1010 T: +44 (0)115 964 7280
CHELMSFORD SHEFFIELD
T: +44 (0)1245 392170 T: +44 (0)114 245 5153
EDINBURGH SHREWSBURY
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 T: +44 (0)1743 23 9250
EXETER STAFFORD
T: + 44 (0)1392 490152 T: +44 (0)1785 241755
GLASGOW STIRLING
T: +44 (0)141 353 5037 T: +44 (0)1786 239900
GUILDFORD WORCESTER
T: +44 (0)1483 889800 T: +44 (0)1905 751310
Ireland France
DUBLIN GRENOBLE
T: + 353 (0)1 296 4667 T: +33 (0)4 76 70 93 41
EUROPEAN OFFICES
United Kingdom .
AYLESBURY LEEDS
T: +44 (0)1844 337380 T: +44 (0)113 258 0650
BELFAST LONDON
T: +44 (0)28 9073 2493 T: +44 (0)203 805 6418
BRADFORD-ON-AVON MAIDSTONE
T: +44 (0)1225 309400 T: +44 (0)1622 609242
BRISTOL MANCHESTER
T: +44 (0)117 906 4280 T: +44 (0)161 872 7564
CAMBRIDGE NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

T: + 44 (0)1223 813805 T: +44 (0)191 261 1966
CARDIFF NOTTINGHAM
T: +44 (0)29 2049 1010 T: +44 (0)115 964 7280
CHELMSFORD SHEFFIELD
T: +44 (0)1245 392170 T: +44 (0)114 245 5153
EDINBURGH SHREWSBURY
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 T: +44 (0)1743 23 9250
EXETER STAFFORD
T: + 44 (0)1392 490152 T: +44 (0)1785 241755
GLASGOW STIRLING
T: +44 (0)141 353 5037 T: +44 (0)1786 239900
GUILDFORD WORCESTER
T: +44 (0)1483 889800 T: +44 (0)1905 751310
Ireland France
DUBLIN GRENOBLE
T: + 353 (0)1 296 4667 T: +33 (0)6 23 37 14 14

Site Condition Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Site Condition Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOCKLANDS DATA CENTRE

Site Condition Report

SLR Ref: 410.04438.00003 SCR

2.0 SITE CONDITION REPORT (H5) TEMPLATE ......................................................................... 2

2.0 Site Condition Report (H5) Template

Name of the applicant Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd

National grid reference TQ 38770 81090

Document reference and dates for Site Condition

Drawing 001 – Site Location

Document references for site plans (including Drainage Plans:

material used to infill the former dock is unknown);

observed during the subsequent monitoring round.

Non-permitted activities undertaken None

Project Indigo Docklands Campus Sites 6 & 8 London

Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment

SLR Ref: 403.04438.00001

Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd

• North A13 East India Dock Road;

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

1.2 Proposed Development

1.4 Scope of Work

SLR’s scope is outlined below:

• site walk over inspection;

1.5 Data Sources

2.0 SITE DETAILS, SETTING AND HISTORY

2.1 Site Vicinity Description

There are a couple of concrete “structures” on site, both are thought to be

BH3 50mm HDPE No 6.78m Dry 4.78m Not secure

BH4 300mm PVC No Unknown ‘- ‘- Secure –

West Telehouse buildings

South Saffron Ave/Leamouth Road/A1261/A1020 Roundabout, with

2.2 Physical Site Setting

2.3 Environmental Search Data

The EnviroInsight report, presented in Appendix B, was reviewed to gain commercially

• Other Waste Sites (Operational) – there is 1 ‘Difficult Waste’ operational transfer

2.4 Site History

Map Dates Description

3.0 OUTLINE CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND PRELIMINARY LAND QUALITY RISK

3.1 Regulatory Context

3.1.1 The Contaminated Land Regime – Overhauled for 2012

In their Impact Assessment Defra estimate that:

• Category 1: describes land which is clearly problematic;

National Planning Policy Framework

3.2 Physical Conceptual Site Model

• In-filled East Dock areas;

3.2.1 In-filled East Dock areas

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

3.2.2 Former Quayside Area

• Made ground to approximately 3m

3.2.3 East Dock Road Tunnel

3.3 Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment

It must be remembered that:

4.0 FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND ASSESSMENT

PPL 4 and PPL5 are discussed in Section 5.

4.2 PPL 1b and 2a&b

Potential Damage to Future Buildings from Exposure to Aggressive Ground

4.3 PPL 1c&d

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

SLR recommends an intrusive investigation and environmental monitoring to provide the

Potential Harm to Human Health from Exposure to Airborne Asbestos

5.0 VOLUNTARY PREVENTATIVE AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND VALIDATION OF

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

• frozen or containing ice;