chapter 7 chapter 2 site description and proposed development · site description and proposed...

Chapter 2

Site description and proposed development

August 2013

A new urban village for Cambridge

Environmental Statement

Land north of Newmarket Road, CambridgeOutline planning application to South Cambridgeshire District Council

Chapter 7Ground Conditions and Groundwater

7

Land north of Newmarket Road Ground conditions and groundwater Environmental Statement

Marshall of Cambridge (Airport Properties) Limited December 2013

7 Ground conditions and groundwater

Introduction

7.1 This chapter has been prepared by Mott MacDonald and assesses the impacts of the proposed development on ground conditions, including groundwater and contaminated land, from the construction and operational phases. It provides an overview of the baseline geological, hydrogeological and soil conditions in the area, the potential presence of land and groundwater contamination, and assessment of potential impacts relating to ground conditions. Appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts are also presented.

7.2 Additionally, this chapter provides an overview of the conceptual model developed in the Phase I Geo-Environmental Desk Study (Mott MacDonald, 2013) and updated in the Ground Investigation and Geo-environmental Interpretive Report (Mott MacDonald, 2013). The risks identified have been related to the ground conditions present, so that a clear mitigation strategy can be presented. The strategy for the assessment of potential land contamination is based on current guidance documents related to Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act (1990), with particular reference to CLR11 (DEFRA/Environment Agency, 2004) and CIRIA Report C552 (CIRIA, 2001).

7.3 The chapter is supported by the following reports:

• Mott MacDonald (2013), Project Wing, Phase 1 Ground Investigation and Geoenvironmental Desk Study, March 2013

• Mott MacDonald (2013), Project Wing, Ground Investigation and Geoenvironmental Interpretive Report, May 2013

• Mott MacDonald (2013), Project Wing, Preliminary Remedial Options Summary, April 2013

• Mott MacDonald (2005), Cambridge Airport Redevelopment North Works Area: Initial Site Investigation

• Mott MacDonald (2007), Cambridge Airport Redevelopment Groundwater Monitoring 2004 – 2006

• RSA Geotechnics Ltd (2004), Proposed Residential Development at Marshall Airport, Cambridge

7.4 The scheme description is included in chapter 2 of this environmental statement together with a definition of the study area. The study area has been assumed as the site area with a 500m buffer. Ground conditions outside of this area are unlikely to be significantly affected by construction of the development.

Legislation and policy

Policy context

7.5 The planning policies which are of direct relevance to ground conditions are described in the following section.

7.6 The main legislative framework regarding geology and soils (including contaminated land) is set by the following Acts and Regulations:

• Agriculture Act 1986

• Construction (Design and Management Regulations) 2007

• Contaminated Land (England) ( Amendment) Regulations 2012



• Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001

• Control of Substances Hazardous to Human Health 2002 (as amended)

• Environmental Damage and Liability (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009

• Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010

• Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended by the Environment Act 1995)

• Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 (as amended 2003)

• Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC 1999

• Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005

• Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996

• Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002

• Town and Country Planning Act 1990

• Water Act 2003

• Water Resources Act 1991 (WRA 1991) and Amendment 2009

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and (Amendment) Act 1985 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000)

7.7 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) provides statutory protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in England, some of which are of geological importance. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar Sites, as well as Limestone pavements, are also protected under this act. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) are agricultural areas benefiting from special protection. The importance of nature conservation, including areas with geological features, is also emphasised in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended).

7.8 Locally important sites such as Local Geological Sites, also known as Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Sites (RIGS) are non-statutory areas of local importance afforded protection through the local planning system and biodiversity and geological conservation. Circular 06/2005 emphasises the importance of their recognition within Local Development Frameworks. Areas important for their geology may also be identified as a World Heritage Site, or Global Geopark.

7.9 The prevention of pollution is regulated by several pieces of legislation including the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010, which regulates pollution control by requiring permits for emissions to, for example, air and water.

7.10 The statutory process for dealing with contaminated land in England and Wales is set out in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) (as amended by the Environment Act 1995 and the Water Act 2003). Part IIA sets in place a regime whereby contaminated land can be identified, a decision made as to how the land will be remediated and where responsibility for this will fall. The primary legislation is supported by a number of secondary legislative instruments including the Contaminated Land (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012.

7.11 The need to consider contaminated land issues during the planning process is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Section 215). This Act gives the Local Authorities the ability to require developers to investigate contamination and, if necessary, remediate the land.

7.12 Under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) and the Construction and Design Management (CDM) Regulations 1994, where a developer knows or suspects the presence of contaminated soil, provision should be made to ensure that risks to the public and site workers are minimised.



Planning policy

National Planning Policy Framework 2012

7.13 The planning policies which are of direct relevance to geology and soils, as well as contaminated land, are described below.

109 – The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

• protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils,

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

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

110 - In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.

111 - Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land.

112 - Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.

113 - Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged. Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks.

117 - To minimise impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity, planning policies should:

• aim to prevent harm to geological conservation interests.

120 - To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

121 - Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that:

• the 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;



• after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and

• adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented.

122 - In doing so, local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.

Methodology

Data gathering methodology

7.14 7.14 The following section details the sources of information used to inform this assessment. Table 7.1 shows a summary of the references used.

Reference description

Reference

Phase 1 Desk Study MOTT MACDONALD (2013) Project Wing – Phase 1 Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Desk Study, Ref 317619/01

Envirocheck Report LANDMARK (2013) Envirocheck Reports prepared for Mott MacDonald covering the area of Cambridge Airport. Ref 44455980_1_1 and 44455892_1_1

Geological Map BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (BGS) (1981) Geological Survey of Great Britain (England and Wales), Sheet 188 (Solid and Drift), Cambridge, Scale 1:50,000, BGS, Keyworth

Historical BGS boreholes http://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/boreholescans/, accessed June 2013

Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC)

MULTI AGENCY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR THE COUNTRYSIDE (MAGIC) [Online] Available from: http://www.magic.gov.uk

Soilscape, Cranfield University

CRANFIELD SOILSCAPE VIEWER, Soilscape online Viewer, WWW.http://www.landis.org.uk/index.cfm

Nature on the Map, Natural England

Nature on the map, Natural England www.natureonthemap.org.uk, accessed June 2013

Environment Agency Data http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx

Flood Risk Assessment MOTT MACDONALD (2005) Cambridge Airport Redevelopment – Flood Risk Assessment – February 2005 Ref 208223/05

Groundwater monitoring MOTT MACDONALD (2007) Cambridge Airport Redevelopment Groundwater Monitoring 2004 – 2006 Ref 208223/7

Environmental site assessment

MOTT MACDONALD (2003) Cambridge Airport Redevelopment Initial Environmental Site Assessment, Ref 208223/02

Ground Investigation Scope of Works

MOTT MACDONALD (2013) Project Wing – Ground Investigation Outline Specification, Ref 317619/02

Phase 2 Ground Investigation and Geoenvironmental Interpretive Report

MOTT MACDONALD (2013) Project Wing – Ground Investigation and Geo-environmental Interpretive Report, Ref 317619/05

Historical Ground Investigation

RSA GEOTECHNICS LTD (2004) Proposed Residential Development at Marshall Airport, Cambridge for Marshall of Cambridge (ref: 9271)

Contaminated land risk CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND INFORMATION



assessment guidance ASSOCIATION (CIRIA) (2001) Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – A Guide to Good Practice CIRIA Report C552, CIRIA, London

Management of contaminated land

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FOOD & RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA), ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (EA) (2004) Model Procedures for the management of Contaminated Land, R&D Publication CLR 11

Sustainable use of soils guidance

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA) (2009a) Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, September 2009

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA) (2009b), Soil Strategy for England ‘Safeguarding Our Soils’, Department for Food and Rural Affairs, London

Agricultural Land Classification

MAFF (1988) Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales, Revised guidelines and criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land, October 1988, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

NATURAL ENGLAND (2009) Agricultural Land Classification: protecting the best and the most versatile agricultural land, Natural England Technical Information Note TIN049

Table 7.1: Reference List

Desk study

7.15 A Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Desk Study was completed by Mott MacDonald for the proposed Wing site in 2013. The desk study report includes a review of Envirocheck reports and other accessible environmental information, results of a site walkover survey and review of historical ground investigation data. A conceptual site model was identified for the site which included potential contaminant sources and receptors, and geotechnical and contaminated land risk assessments were completed.

Ground investigation works

7.16 Based on the findings of the desk study report and identification of historic contamination, a geotechnical and geo-environmental ground investigation was designed by Mott MacDonald and undertaken by Geotechnics Ltd in 2013. In accordance with BS 10175 (2011) Code of Practice for Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites a phased approach has been adopted for the ground investigation at this site. The investigation undertaken in 2013 forms the first ‘exploratory’ phase of intrusive works and the scope was agreed with South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency (EA). This aimed to investigate potential contamination sources and areas potentially impacted by historical contamination within the initial planning boundary, as identified by the Phase I desk study. The ground investigation also aimed to provide a spread of geotechnical and geo-environmental data across the proposed Wing site to inform the master plan.

7.17 The investigation included geo-environmental testing of soils and groundwater and monitoring of ground gas across the site. The results were reviewed and an Interpretive Report completed. The interpretive report includes a ground model and updated conceptual site model. Conclusions and recommendations for further detailed ground investigation and remediation based upon contamination testing of the soils and groundwater are also included.

7.18 The scope of the ground investigation is summarised in figure 7.1 the locations were designed to provide information within the planning boundary provided at the time. However, the planning boundary has since been amended slightly.

7.19 The results of the investigation are discussed in the Mott MacDonald Ground Investigation and Geo-environmental Interpretive Report (Mott MacDonald, 2013) (technical appendix E to this ES).



Contaminated land assessment methodology

7.20 The EA provides guidance on EIA with regard to contamination issues (Scoping Guidelines on EIA; The Environment Agency, May 2002). There is also a considerable amount of guidance that has been prepared in order to assist both local authorities and practitioners in assessing the degree to which land is contaminated and deciding whether such land is contaminated within the meaning of the Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended) and associated guidance.

7.21 The Environmental Protection Act provides a statutory definition of contaminated land:

“Contaminated Land is any land which appears to the Local Authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that…

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

significant pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be caused.”

7.22 Underpinning the guidance is a source-pathway-receptor methodology, which is used to identify Significant Pollutant Linkages (SPLs). The following definitions apply:

• source / hazard: contamination identified (exceeding corresponding guideline values)

• pathway: the means by which the hazardous contamination can come into contact with the receptor

• receptor: the entity which is vulnerable to harm from the source

7.23 Without a significant pollutant linkage, the contamination source may be a hazard but does not constitute a risk to human health or the environment.

7.24 Therefore, when the potential for contamination to cause a significant effect was assessed, the extent and nature of the potential source or sources of contamination were assessed, the pathways identified, and any sensitive receptors or resources identified and appraised, to determine their value and sensitivity to contamination related impacts.

7.25 When a significant hazard was identified and potential sensitive receptors noted as present, then the potential effects were determined by considering the pathways whereby the hazard may affect the receptors. During the assessment, it was assumed that there will be (either during or after construction) a pathway present between the source and the receptor, unless there is a clear indication that this will not be the case.

7.26 The combination of the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the effect was used to provide an indication of the level of contamination on the site and the nature and severity of possible effects, as below.

Methodology for prediction of effects

7.27 The assessment of the likely significant effects of the development on ground conditions, including soils, geology and contaminated land, has been carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation and planning policy statements and guidance. The methodology consists of the following:

• Identification of the baseline conditions, to record the existing geological and hydrogeological condition, and any potential sources of contamination through desktop surveys, ground investigation and site reconnaissance



• Prediction of the changes to the baseline conditions as a result of the proposed development

• Identification and assessment of constraints on the development by any contaminated land

• Identification of the mitigation measures that may be required

• Assessment of the residual impacts

Significance evaluation methodology

7.28 The potential effects on receptors of ground condition impacts at the site, prior to the incorporation of mitigation measures, are detailed in table 7.2 below with associated sensitivity analysis.

Receptor Importance

Negligible Low Medium High

Future users (on-site)

Car parks and open structures

Industrial, infrastructure, warehouses, Commercial workers. Shortterm exposure

Forestry, agricultural

Residential, allotments, school ground. Long term exposure

Current users (off-site)

Construction workers or site operatives

No intrusive construction works, or working in enclosed spaces

Minimal construction works. Shortterm exposure

Limited construction works

Intensive construction works. Long term exposure

Groundwater resources

No groundwater source protection zone. Unproductive Strata

Aquifer providing water for industry

Secondary aquifer. Potable supply of water after treatment

Principal aquifer, supplier of potable water. Groundwater Source protection Zone (Zones 1-3)

Soil resources Urban soils beneath existing structures/ hard surfacing, non-agricultural land

Grade 4-5 agricultural land

Grade 3 agricultural land

Grade 1-2 agricultural land

Geology No designation of geological significance

Non-statutory areas of geological importance including Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS)

Geological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Internationally important sites

Built Environment

No structures required

Industrial infrastructure, above ground structures, fully ventilated structures

Commercial structures, ground level buildings, partially ventilated structures

Residential buildings, enclosed structures without ventilation, concrete structures within aggressive ground

Table 7.2 Scale for evaluating the sensitivity of receptors



7.29 Effects of the development on the receptors/resources have been assessed taking into account magnitude. This is expressed in terms of severity (large, medium, small and negligible).

7.30 The following qualitative descriptions of magnitude of effect, in table 7.3 are based on: CIRIA C552; the EA classification scheme for protection of groundwater resources that defines Source Protection Zones (SPZs) and published Contaminated Land Research reports (CLRs) published by DEFRA and its predecessors.

Magnitude Definition

Large

Previous or on-going activities on or near to a site where severe harm to a defined receptor is very likely

Site investigation data indicating significant contamination due to current or former uses. Quantitative or qualitative risk assessment data estimating a significant likelihood of adverse effects from exposure to pollutants in the environment

Loss of the special characteristics of a water resource, pollution of potable source, severe flood risk, loss of fisheries. Any pollution inside Zone 1 (Inner source protection zone) or of a groundwater protection zone of special interest

Physical removal or degradation/destruction of a large area of soil or geology

Significant widespread loss of fuel, oil or contaminative substance during construction works

Medium

Previous or on-going activity where harm to a defined receptor is possible but severe harm is unlikely

Site investigation data indicating moderate contamination. Quantitative or qualitative risk assessment data estimating medium risk of adverse effects from exposure to pollutants in the environment

Impact on water resources. Reduction in the production of fisheries, moderate changes insufficient to reduce water quality. Any pollution that takes up to 400 days to travel to a groundwater abstraction borehole or 25% of the total catchment area, (Zone 2, Outer source protection zone)

Physical removal or degradation (including loss of structure and pollution) of a moderate area of soil or geology

Localised leaks from vehicles over a prolonged period during construction works

Small

Greenfield site or previous or on-going activities where harm to a defined receptor is unlikely

Site investigation data indicating significant contamination is unlikely. Quantitative or qualitative risk assessment data estimating low likelihood of adverse effects from exposure to pollutants in the environment

Minor impact, insufficient to affect the use or characteristics of the water resource

Physical removal or degradation (including loss of structure and pollution) of a minor area of soil or geology

Short-term localised leak or spill during construction.

Negligible

No change to existing land use

No removal or degradation of soil or geology

No additional potential source of contamination including vehicles

Table 7.3: Scale for magnitude

7.31 The significance of an effect is determined by taking into consideration the importance and sensitivity of the receptor (table 7.2) and the magnitude of the effects (table 7.3). The overall severity is derived as shown in table 7.4 and the associated significance criteria are shown in table 7.5. The predicted effect may be modified by professional judgement.



Magnitude of potential impact

Sensitivity of receptors

Negligible Low Medium High

Negligible 1 1 2 2

Small 1 2 2 3

Medium 1 2 3 4

Large 2 3 4 5

Table 7.4: Overall severity assessment scale

Scale point Description Significance

1 Negligible effect Non significant

2 Slight effect

3 Moderate effect Significant

4 Substantial effect

5 Very substantial effect

Table 7.5: Significance criteria for ground conditions

7.32 Where identified, significant effects of the construction and post-construction phases of this work have been discussed below.

Assumptions and limitations

7.33 7.33 To the extent that this document is based on information supplied by other parties, Mott MacDonald Ltd accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Mott MacDonald Ltd and used by Mott MacDonald Ltd in preparing this report.

7.34 To the extent that this document is based on information obtained in previous or recent ground investigations, persons using or relying on it should recognise that any such investigation can examine only a fraction of the subsurface conditions. In any ground investigation there remains a risk that pockets or “hot-spots” of contamination or other hazards may not be identified, because investigations are necessarily based on sampling at localised points. Certain indicators or evidence of hazardous substances or conditions may have been outside the portion of the subsurface investigated or monitored, and thus may not have been identified or their full significance appreciated.

Baseline

Regional geology

7.35 The anticipated regional geology at the site, based upon published geological records including the British Geological Survey’s geological map, are summarised in table 7.6.



Strata Typical Description Depth to top of

strata (m bgl) Thickness (m)

Topsoil (where present) Topsoil 0 0 to 0.5

Made Ground Brown clayey/silty sand and gravel with ash, clinker, bricks fragments and occasionally tar

0.1 – 0.4 0.5 – 1.3

River Terrace Deposits (locally present)

Orange brown clayey silty sand with some fine coarse flint gravel

0.1 – 0.8 0.25 to 3.8

West Melbury Marly Chalk Formation Grey Chalk Subgroup

Very stiff, closely fissured light grey, slightly sandy, some silt

0.3 – 4.1 6.3 to 13.8

Gault Clay Very stiff, extremely closely fissured dark grey to blue clay

12.2 to 14.6 Proved to 2.8 m

Table 7.6: Summary of the anticipated regional geological profile

Site specific geology

7.36 Table 7.7 summarises the published and encountered geology at the site of the proposed development. The encountered geology is inferred from a historical ground investigation which was completed in 2004 (RSA Geotechnics Ltd, 2004) together with a recent ground investigation undertaken in 2013 (Geotechnics Ltd, 2013).

Strata Typical description Depth (m) to top Below Current Ground Level

Thickness (m)

Topsoil (outside North Works only)

Firm brown clay soil with flints 0.0 0.25 - 0.5

Made ground Concrete / Tarmac encountered within the North Works

0.0 0.05 - 0.3

Made ground Yellowish brown very sandy gravel of subangular fine to coarse limestone encountered in one borehole (MMBH107) at the petrol station

0.2 0.3

Made ground Dark grey to brown sandy clayey gravel encountered in the North Works. Gravel is angular to subangular fine to coarse limestone, flint, brick and concrete and occasional ceramic, ash and clinker. Abundant ash was found in two locations (MMWS110 and MMWS118) in the North Works. Slight hydrocarbon odour identified in one location (MMWS114)

0.05 – 0.8 0.15 – 0.7

Made ground Soft to firm dark brown slightly gravelly clay encountered at the North Works. Gravel is angular to subrounded fine to coarse concrete, igneous rock flint, brick, quartzite, flint, granite, clinker and sandstone with occasional ash and glass

0.15 - 0.8 0.1 – 0.9



Strata Typical description Depth (m) to top Below Current Ground Level

Thickness (m)

Made ground Orangish brown slightly clayey gravelly medium to coarse sand encountered at the North Works and petrol station. Gravel is angular to subangular fine to medium igneous rock, quartzite, flint, clinker, concrete,

brick and mudstone

0.17 – 0.9 0.2 - 0.8

River Terrace Deposits (where encountered)

Orangish brown very gravelly medium to coarse SAND. Gravel is angular to subangular fine to coarse flint

0.3 to 1.2 0.1 – 2.7

Grey Chalk Subgroup (West Melbury Marly Chalk Member)

Very stiff light grey highly calcareous fissured CLAY with occasional black speckling. Fissures are predominantly sub-horizontal extremely closely to very closely spaced

0.25 to 3.2 12.4 – 18.5

Cambridge Greensand

Stiff dark greenish grey slightly sandy slightly gravelly CLAY. Gravel is subrounded fine to medium black gravels of possible coprolite. Only encountered at four locations

12.7 to 16.0

0.2 – 0.4

Gault Formation Very stiff dark grey fissured CLAY with rare shell fragments. Fissures are randomly orientated extremely closely to very closely spaced undulating smooth and clean

12.9 to 18.9

>13.1m Base not proven

Table 7.7 – Summary of geological strata

7.37 Table 7.7 indicates that made ground is present beneath the North Works and the area of the petrol station only. The remainder of the site comprises agricultural land and topsoil is present from ground level in these areas. Drift geology of the River Terrace Deposits is located beneath the made ground/ topsoil across the majority of the site but is present at a larger depth in the southern area.

7.38 The solid geology comprising the Grey Chalk Subgroup is present across the site area and is underlain by a thin layer of Cambridge Greensand in the eastern and central areas of the agricultural fields. The Gault Formation is present at depth across the site area.

Geological conservation sites

7.39 Two Envirocheck reports were obtained during completion of the Desk Study for the Wing site. These reports have not identified any RAMSAR sites, Special Protection Areas (SPA), Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS) or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 1km of the proposed development.

Soils

7.40 The soil type within the study area was determined using the ‘Soilscape’ thematic dataset provided by Cranfield University, Soil Survey of England and Wales maps and the MAGIC website.

7.41 The natural topsoil at the proposed development site, is characterised as freely draining, lime-rich loamy soils and shallow, lime-rich soils over Chalk or limestone. The underlying Chalk and Gault Formations are considered to be of low permeability and therefore have poor infiltration rates.



7.42 Based on information from the MAGIC website, the soils within the North Works area are classified as urban under the DEFRA Agricultural Land Classification scheme. The agricultural soils at the site are generally classified as Grade 2 Agricultural Land (28 Ha) and Grade 3 Agricultural Land (7 Ha).

7.43 Grade 2 soils are defined as soils of good quality with minor limitations. These soils can support a wide range of horticultural and agricultural crops.

Agricultural circumstances in the surrounding area

7.44 The area to the north and east of the study area appears to be mainly agricultural land. The soils to the west and south are considered to be non-agricultural or urban associated with the presence of housing and Cambridge Airport.

Hydrogeology

7.45 A review of the local hydrogeology, based on the Groundwater Vulnerability Map of the area and previous reports undertaken for the site has identified the following hydrogeological features.

7.46 The West Melbury Marly Chalk is classified by the EA as a principal aquifer overlain by River Terrace Deposits which are classified as secondary A aquifer.

7.47 Groundwater has been encountered within the River Terrace Deposits and Chalk ranging between 1.0 and 5.79m bgl (6.96m AOD and 14.3m AOD). Based upon the data it is considered that these two aquifers are in hydraulic continuity, with groundwater flow to the north west (western side of the site) and north east (eastern side of the site).

7.48 Data from the EA website (EA, 2013) indicates that there are no Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZ) within the site or in its vicinity. Data from the Envirocheck report indicates that the site lies within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ). There are no records of licensed groundwater abstractions recorded at, or within the vicinity, of the site. Records of Private Water Abstractions were not supplied as part of the Envirocheck report.

7.49 There are no known active springs or incidences of groundwater flooding at the proposed Wing site.

7.50 Three soakaway tests were undertaken as part of the recent investigation at a depth of 1.5m bgl within the River Terrace Deposits (clayey sand and sandy clay) and the top of the Grey Chalk (sandy clay). These tests have indicated that the underlying geology has low permeability due to the poor infiltration rates identified. It is considered that infiltration structures would be impractical for this site.

Hydrology

7.51 Four drainage ditches are present on the western and eastern boundaries of the site. The developed part of the site (the North Works area) is drained by a piped drainage system which discharges into either the Thorpe Way ditch via a ‘free outfall’ or via a field ditch system into a balancing pond and then into Thorpe Way Ditch via a controlled outfall. The River Cam, the largest watercourse in the area, is situated approximately 1.5 km to the north west of the North Works. Quy Water is located approximately 2.0 km to the east. The EA database for water quality (EA, 2013) indicates that the River Cam is of moderate ecological quality. Further details are provided within the 2005 Flood Risk Assessment report for the site (Mott MacDonald, 2005).



7.52 Two discharge consents to surface water have been identified in the area of the proposed development, as listed in the Envirocheck reports (Landmark 2013). One consent is operated by Marshalls of Cambridge Aerospace Ltd and was issued in 1999. This consent is for discharge of treated sewage effluent to an unnamed tributary of the Quy River and is located within the eastern boundary of Newmarket Road R&R. This may indicate the presence of a historical or existing septic tank related to Greenhouse Farm. This is considered to be outside the boundary of the Wing site and is unlikely to impact upon the development. The second is to discharge surface water, to a tributary of the River Cam approximately 50 m outside the western boundary of the site.

7.53 One pollution incident to a controlled water is listed within the Envirocheck report (Landmark 2013). It relates to a tributary of the River Cam as a result of discharge of solvents from the North Works. This incident was designated as a Category 3 (minor) incident.

Current and historic contamination sources

7.54 The identification of effects related to contaminated land risks has been informed by the Phase I Geo-Environmental Desk Study and Geo-Environmental Interpretive Report completed by Mott MacDonald for the site, together with historical ground investigation data. The studies considered a number of significant potential pollutant linkages associated with the North Works and the petrol station areas. No significant contaminant sources were identified in the agricultural fields.

7.55 The following sources have been identified within the North Works and petrol station:

• Car dealerships, garages and repair shops (North Works)

• Paint gun cleaning area and Hanger 15 area (North Works)

• Former heat treatment and metal plating building (North Works)

• Other engineering and vehicle manufacture (North Works)

• Above ground fuel storage tanks (North Works)

• Historical on-site waste storage (North Works)

• Former boiler in Hanger 9 (North Works),

• Car dealership, associated repair shop and petrol station

• Bulk acid and alkaline storage tanks in the west of North Works

• Fuel station on North Works site

• Electrical substations

• Hazardous waste and chemical storage

• Waste oil tank

• Made ground – historical contamination and potential source of ground gas

Existing soil contamination

7.56 Soil chemical laboratory results from historical and recent ground investigations were compared to current guidance criteria for residential land use and commercial/industrial land use. Where these guidance criteria were exceeded contaminant hot spots were recorded. These hot spots comprised:

• Heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, vanadium and zinc were locally detected above the screening values for residential and allotment end-uses within the North Works and petrol station areas



• Organic contaminants including notably elevated concentrations of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) at the North Works and at the petrol station (figure 7.2)

• Minor concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were identified as hot-spots across North Works (figure 7.3)

7.57 These hotspots were generally restricted to the top 1m of made ground in these areas of the site and are not considered to represent gross contamination across the site. Leachate analysis indicates that some of this contamination may be mobile, however as the majority of the North Works and petrol station areas are on hardstanding, a current potential leaching pathway is considered to be unlikely in these areas.

7.58 In areas which have not been investigated due to access restrictions, there remains a possibility that localised areas of contamination could be encountered. In particular contamination may be present beneath areas of existing buildings and tanks at the North Works and petrol station.

7.59 Soils laboratory testing data from the remaining areas of the site did not indicate the presence of levels of contamination in excess of relevant guidance criteria. Based upon the proposed end use, no exceedances above residential guidance criteria were noted.

7.60 Further details are included within the Mott MacDonald Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Report (Mott MacDonald, 2013) in technical appendix E.

Existing groundwater contamination

7.61 For the proposed development site, the most significant environmental receptors are considered to be the underlying secondary A and principal aquifers and therefore the drinking water standards (DWS) have been used as guidance criteria. Due to the presence of the ditches and ponds at and around the site, the results of groundwater monitoring have also been compared to environment quality standards (EQS) derived under the Water Framework Directive. Where hazardous substances are present groundwater quality is considered to be non-compliant if a concentration exceeding the EA’s minimum reporting value (MRV) or, where there is no published MRV the laboratory method detection limit (MDL) is found in groundwater.

7.62 The groundwater monitoring undertaken at the site has indicated that the groundwater beneath the North Works has been impacted by organic and inorganic contaminants. Monitoring in 2004, 2005 and 2013 has identified these contaminants in groundwater in the River Terrace Deposits and in the Chalk across the North Works area of the site. This consistency could be indicative of a plume of contamination beneath the North Works. Of particular note are the elevated concentrations of the following hazardous substances:

• hexavalent chromium which was recorded at concentrations between 83ug/l and 360ug/l when compared to an EQS of 3.4ug/l and an MDL of 1ug/l (figure 7.4)

• Trichloroethylene (TCE) which was recorded at concentrations between 1.3ug/l and 2900ug/l when compared to an EQS of 10ug/l and an MDL of 0.1ug/l (figure 7.5)

7.63 Other VOCs in the vicinity of BH9 and BH10 were also noted to be elevated above guidance criteria as detailed in the Interpretive Report (Mott MacDonald, 2013). This plume is considered to be associated with the heat treatment building, metal plating works and a phosphate treatment plant within the North Works. It is considered that these are unlikely to be on-going sources of contamination due to improvements in on-site chemical storage and handling. Operations within some areas of the North Works are also reported to be in line with ISO14001 accreditation.



Ground gas

7.64 Ground gas monitoring was undertaken as part of the historic and recent investigations. This was required to assess the potential impact on both construction workers and end site users from elevated concentrations of ground gases (carbon dioxide or methane) beneath the site. Elevated carbon dioxide can cause asphyxiation if present in confined spaces such as excavations and basements and can displace oxygen. Methane can be toxic though inhalation pathways and may also be explosive in elevated concentrations.

7.65 During the monitoring visit on 22-23 May 2013, a photo ionisation detector was used to monitor volatile hydrocarbon concentrations in the boreholes. Only very low concentrations (<0.3 ppm) of volatile hydrocarbons were detected in the boreholes.

7.66 Elevated carbon dioxide levels (over 0.5%v/v for the long term occupational exposure limit (OEL) and 1.5% v/v for the short term OEL) were encountered in nine boreholes, during five of the visits, the elevated readings were inconsistent in terms of both location and date.

7.67 Flow rates at the site were negligible during the monitoring visits with a flow rate of 0.0 l/hr being the maximum. Given the extremely low flow rates observed, it is unlikely that the standpipes are actively gassing and it is anticipated that the observed carbon dioxide concentrations have built up over time.

7.68 Depleted oxygen levels (below 18% v/v) were measured in seven boreholes on several occasions.

7.69 Neither carbon monoxide nor hydrogen sulphide was detected on any of the gas monitoring visits.

7.70 Guidance on ground gas risk assessment procedure is provided in CIRIA Report C665 (CIRIA, 2007) and DETR Research Report ‘Passive Venting of Soil Gases beneath Buildings’ (DETR, 1997). Based upon CIRIA C665, a maximum gas screening value (GSV) can be calculated by multiplying the maximum concentration (%) by the flow rate (l/hr).

7.71 Based upon the results obtained to date, the worst case GSV for the site is 0.0 l/hr (using the maximum flow rate of 0.0l/hr and the maximum carbon dioxide concentration over the whole monitoring period of 6.0 % vol) which is consistent with a classification of characteristic situation (CS) 2. (CS) 2 represents a low ground gas risk and is characteristic of natural soil with high peat/ organic content or typical made ground.

Aggressive ground conditions

7.72 Based upon the results of pH and soluble sulphate testing undertaken during the recent investigation, samples were classified according to BRE Special Digest 1, Concrete in Aggressive Ground.

7.73 The results of the chemical testing indicate that Design Sulphate Class DS-1 and ACEC Class AC-1 are appropriate for the site, excluding the made ground, based on the available test results. This indicates that there will be no additional design requirements to protect concrete installed below ground level at this site.

Predicted future baseline

7.74 The following section describes the anticipated future baseline conditions in the event that the development does not take place.



Current North Works site

7.75 It is considered likely that, in the event that the development does not take place, this area will continue to be used for commercial/ industrial purposes with the potential for contaminative land uses and leaks/ spills from equipment or storage areas typical of such uses. The site ground cover would remain as hardstanding and existing bunding would remain, therefore the leaching pathway for contaminants would be minimal.

7.76 The groundwater contamination identified beneath the site may remain in-situ or there is the potential for migration to the north west in the direction of groundwater flow. The identified soil contamination hotspots would also remain in situ.

Current petrol station site

7.77 No change to the baseline conditions are anticipated in this area as it is likely that the area would remain as a petrol station. There would still remain the risk of leaks and spills in this area of the site typical of such uses and the hotspots of soil contamination would remain in-situ.

Current agricultural field areas

7.78 No change to the baseline is considered likely in this area of the site. There are no contamination sources provided that use of fertiliser and pesticides complies with good practice. The groundwater flow direction should not result in any known contaminant migration beneath this area of the site.

Effects during construction

7.79 The potential construction impacts of the development on ground conditions have been reviewed in terms of the anticipated receptors of such impacts. The receptors were identified using the conceptual site model which has been confirmed through ground investigation works (figure 7.6).

7.80 The main (direct) impacts associated with the development at this site are considered to include dust generation, loss of soils (of high agricultural value in the current agricultural areas), and impacts to physical, chemical and biological properties of soils (for example through compaction, contamination or mixing). Potential secondary impacts as a result of the above include potential impacts to soil and groundwater quality and human health.


7.81 Secondary and principal aquifers are present beneath the site associated with the River Terrace Deposits and Chalk respectively. These are receptors with medium to high sensitivity and are considered the most sensitive environmental receptor at this site.

7.82 Ground investigation has confirmed that the groundwater in both aquifers has already been impacted in the area of the North Works. The River Terrace Deposits have been impacted by metals, and the Chalk has been impacted with metals and VOCs. Existing groundwater impacts have not been identified across the remainder of the site.

7.83 The groundwater flow direction to the north west in the west of the site, and the north east in the east of the site, suggests that groundwater contamination beneath the North Works has the potential to migrate. This requires further ground investigation to inform any required remediation works.

7.84 Construction impacts on the groundwater beneath the site may include leaks and spills from equipment during excavation and construction works. These contaminants are



most likely to comprise hydrocarbons and oils from vehicle use, and concrete but are anticipated to be short-term and localised incidents. It is considered that this represents a small magnitude and therefore a slight to moderate effect.

7.85 Removal of the hardstanding ground cover at the North Works will increase the potential for leaching of soil contaminants. In the areas of soil contamination hotspots, this represents a medium magnitude and a moderate to substantial effect on groundwater. In areas where soil contamination has not been identified, this represents a small magnitude and a slight to moderate effect on groundwater. However, it should be noted that this will be a temporary impact only as, either the made ground will be removed or, the hardstanding will be replaced.

7.86 The removal of hardstanding at the petrol station will temporarily increase the leaching pathway for mobile contaminants within the soil. This may result in a temporary medium magnitude impact, and therefore a moderate to substantial effect upon the shallow groundwater.

7.87 As no soil contamination has been identified in the agricultural land, and the area comprises grassed land at ground level, there are not anticipated to be any additional leaching impacts.

7.88 If heavily loaded structures are required in this area there is the potential requirement for piled foundations, this will be confirmed during detailed design. Due to the sensitive nature of the groundwater resources beneath the site, and the identified soil and groundwater contamination, a foundation works risk assessment (FWRA) will be required once a pile design has been confirmed. The FWRA will assess the risk associated with piles acting as a potential preferential pathway for migration of contaminants. This will be reviewed by the EA.

7.89 As the groundwater level is high at the site, dewatering in shallow or deep excavations is considered likely. There is not anticipated to be any impact from the construction work on groundwater flow rate or flow direction.

Soils

7.90 The soils in the existing agricultural land are classified as Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land, which indicates a high to medium sensitivity resource. The remaining soils beneath the North Works and petrol station areas are negligible sensitivity, urban soils.

7.91 The fertility and value of soils is related to its structure because the soil structure influences root growth and soil drainage. Soil structure may be damaged directly during excavations, or due to compaction from the use of heavy machinery on the soils. Compaction, in turn, may reduce soil drainage locally, potentially leading to water logging. Where surface water runoff is increased, it may lead to soil erosion, removing nutrients and pesticides and potentially causing water pollution. Where the soil is too dry, this may also lead to erosion, where wind may remove valuable top soils.

7.92 The development will result in the removal of topsoil and subsoils, and may also lead to the destruction or compaction of these soils due to excavation works for foundations, ground improvement, tracking of machinery during construction and proposed landscaping. Temporary stripping and stockpiling of soils may also be required during construction for future re-use on site, this has the potential to reduce the soil quality.

7.93 Compaction during construction is most likely to occur along the access routes and in laydown areas, and beneath the construction compounds. Soils beneath the footprint of the proposed structures would be permanently compacted. It is considered that this would impact a moderate area of the proposed Wing site therefore the magnitude is



assessed as medium. As the agricultural land is considered a high to medium sensitivity resource, the significance is assessed as moderate to substantial.

7.94 Permanent removal is not anticipated to occur within the agricultural land as it is considered that this soil will be appropriate for re-use within the scheme. However the stripping of topsoil and subsoils in these areas will result in a permanent degradation and loss of agricultural soils over an area of approximately 37ha. There is the potential that some made ground soils beneath the North Works and petrol station will be removed and, where not appropriate for re-use, disposed of off-site. As this is a negligible sensitivity resource, and the removal will improve the contamination status of the site, the impact is considered to be a slightly beneficial.

7.95 Temporary stripping and stockpiling of topsoil and subsoil for re-use on site will be undertaken across the area of agricultural fields. This has the potential to damage the soil structure and will occur over a large area of the site, therefore the magnitude is assessed as large, resulting in a very substantial effect.

7.96 Impacts on soil quality may occur during construction from spills and leaks from equipment. The magnitude will be highest in areas where no historical contamination has been identified and the highest sensitivity receptor is the Grade 2 agricultural land. This indicates a potential moderate effect.

Geology

7.97 The geology beneath and within 500m of the development is assessed as having a negligible value, as there are considered to be no sensitive geological features in this area and therefore no potential for significant effects.

Human health

7.98 During the construction phase the main receptors are the construction workers on site and the site users of the adjacent land. Due to the phasing of the construction it is likely that future site users will be working within the proposed commercial area within the North Works whilst adjacent residential buildings are being constructed. Off-site human health receptors also include residents of the housing to the west, users of the park and ride and workers within the airport buildings to the south.

7.99 The construction workers are considered to be a highly sensitive receptor as the intrusive works will be extensive and they will be in direct contact with soils, groundwater, ground gases and any dust produced during the works. The magnitude is considered to be medium in the North Works and petrol station where hotspots of soil contamination and groundwater impacts have been identified. This results in a substantial unmitigated effect. In the areas of agricultural land the magnitude is assessed as negligible as no significant contamination has been identified, resulting in a slight effect.

7.100 The off-site human health receptors in the residential development to the west are considered to be of high sensitivity. The exposure pathways during construction would generally be restricted to dust and odour from the development, as the ground investigation has identified hotspots of soil contamination the magnitude is considered to be small resulting in a moderate effect.

7.101 The commercial workers in the surrounding area are of medium sensitivity and the exposure pathways include inhalation of dust during construction of adjacent residential buildings. Therefore effects are considered to be moderate.



Built environment

7.102 Effects on new materials in direct contact with soils at the site, particularly associated with foundations, have been considered.

7.103 The ground investigation has identified aggressive ground conditions within the made ground deposits at the North Works. The residential building materials are considered of high sensitivity and the commercial materials of medium sensitivity due to the secondary human health receptors. Therefore effects upon buried concrete in this area are slight to moderate. It is considered likely that ground preparation works will require the removal of much of the made ground as it is not considered a suitable founding stratum.

7.104 Aggressive ground conditions in the River Terrace Deposits and Chalk are not considered to be significant.

Effects post-construction

7.105 There are not considered to be any impacts upon soils and geology following construction of the proposed Wing site. The following details the potential impacts on human health and groundwater.


7.106 In areas of commercial development at the North Works and the current petrol station site, there is the potential for spills and leaks from storage tanks and equipment following redevelopment of these areas. Storage could include fuels, oils and chemicals and may impact upon shallow groundwater resources. The groundwater is a medium to high sensitivity receptor. However, these areas will be covered in hardstanding at ground surface and any storage areas will be appropriately bunded, therefore the magnitude of the impact is likely to be small. This results in a slight to moderate potential impact.

Human health

7.107 Following redevelopment the human health receptors relate to the residential and commercial end site users. Residential future site users are considered a high sensitivity receptor, commercial end users are considered of medium sensitivity.

7.108 There is the potential for accumulation of ground gases in enclosed spaces such as basements or floor spaces, which may impact upon human health. Ground gas has been identified in the made ground beneath the site however the risk assessment (Mott MacDonald, 2013) has identified a low risk as the gas flow rate is negligible.

7.109 Human health is also a secondary impact as vegetables may be grown in residential gardens and allotment areas. Impacts on flora will, in turn, impact upon human health. The magnitude is assessed as medium and the sensitivity of the receptor as high, this gives a substantial effect.

7.110 Children attending the school on site will be in direct contact with soils in the playing fields and residents will be in contact with soils in open spaces and gardens. Children and residents are considered a high sensitivity receptor. It is unlikely that contamination will be present in the area of the proposed school and the majority of the residential areas as these are located in the existing agricultural land, therefore the effect is identified as moderate. In areas of former commercial development the effect may increase to substantial.



Mitigation

7.111 The following section summarises the environmental measures which will be incorporated into the design and construction of the scheme as mitigation against the impacts identified above.

7.112 The site works will be undertaken in accordance with standard industry practice including a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) and associated construction method statements. Where relevant these documents will include, amongst other environmental protection measures: mitigation measures for the protection and management of soils, the prevention of contamination, dust suppression, waste management and management of contaminated land.

7.113 Best practice procedures, in accordance with appropriate guidelines, such as DEFRA’s 2009 ‘Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites’ would be used to ensure the protection of valuable soils in the development area.

Potential Receptor

Potential Effects Mitigation Measure

All Existing soil and groundwater contamination has the potential to impact off site soil and groundwater receptors, construction workers, future site workers and residents and off-site residents during and following construction

A remediation strategy will be completed based on the findings of the ground investigation. This will provide recommendations for pre-construction remedial works for soils and groundwater.

Procedures would be put in place should previously unidentified contaminated land be encountered during the demolition and construction works, including contact details of the relevant consultees and regulators.

If soil contamination is encountered during the construction work the relevant regulators will be informed directly.

The presence of contamination and the requirement for any remediation will be assessed by undertaking further ground investigation and monitoring (if required) and risk assessment. Prior to undertaking any investigation and clean-up, a scope of work will be prepared and agreed with the regulator.

Guidance regarding the correct procedure for storage, handling and disposal of contaminated soils will be detailed in the CEMP.

Ground-water Quality

Potential piling through contaminated made ground and groundwater into underlying aquifers (Secondary River Terrace Deposits and principal Chalk aquifers) in some areas of the site

Complete Foundation Works Risk Assessments (FWRA) for the areas of the scheme where piling is required (if applicable) for approval by the EA. To be completed once pile designs are available.

Leaks and spills from storage and vehicles

Include best practice construction methodology in a CEMP alongside methods for dealing with environmental incidents during site works.

Hazardous substances, including contaminated land (if encountered), fuels, chemicals, waste and construction material, would be stored, handled, transported and disposed of, in accordance with relevant legislation and best practice guidance for mitigation of leaks and spills. Measures to be applied include the appropriate use of storage containers, appropriate bunding, labelling of containers, the secure storage of containers and regular checks for leaks.

Emergency procedures to be in place during



Potential Receptor


operation. Drainage to include oil interceptors in areas of commercial development.

Increased leaching through contaminated made ground in areas where hardstanding is removed (North Works and petrol station)

Construction methodology to ensure that potentially contaminated soils are exposed for a limited period. Remediation works to include removal of hotspots within the made ground. CEMP would include methodology for dealing with unexpected contamination during construction.

Guidance regarding the correct procedure for storage, handling and disposal of contaminated soils will be detailed in the CEMP. Stockpiling of contaminated materials would be avoided as far as is possible. However, where stockpiling is necessary, the contaminated material will be segregated and stockpiled on appropriately contained hardstanding and covered to prevent spreading.

Soil Resources Loss or destruction of soils in areas of proposed development, particularly beneath the footprint of new structures and along access routes

Soils would be stripped, handled, stored and reinstated using best practice procedures, in accordance with appropriate guidelines, such as DEFRA’s 2009 Code of practice for the sustainable use of soils on construction sites.

Best practice procedures include soil stripping, stockpiling and placing in the driest possible conditions and storing soils for as shorter periods as possible. Soil stockpiles would be clearly defined. Tracked equipment would be used where possible, and traffic would be confined to designated routes to minimise compaction.

Soils would be replaced following completion of temporary works.

Permanent removal of soils and loss of agricultural land

A materials management plan would be completed for the site works which would include procedures for sustainable use of soils on site where possible.

Loss of soils due to erosion Reinstatement of soils would take place during appropriate weather conditions and in accordance with best practice guidance.

Minimise compaction and control runoff, using techniques outlined above.

Use damping down in dry weather.

Soil Quality Contamination of soils along as a result of construction activities including storage and use of fuels and oils and potential leaks and spills. Potential for contamination during operation, particularly within commercial areas

Good practice to be followed during construction works. New equipment containing fuel or oil storage to be designed and built with appropriate bunding to contain any leaks or spills.

Human Health (construct-ion workers)

Potential direct contact with contaminated soils and groundwater during construction. Potential for asphyxiation if ground gas accumulates in excavations during construction.

Potential dust creation

Ground investigation has quantified these effects. Appropriate PPE will be used during construction including gloves and dust masks if required. The ground gas risk is anticipated to be low from monitoring data available to date.

Construction methodology will aim to reduce the dust produced and the CEMP will include remedial measures including covering spoil heaps or dampening down areas of dry soils.

Human Health (off-site receptors)

Potential direct contact with dust produced during construction. Potential nuisance impacts of

Construction methodology will aim to reduce the dust produced and the CEMP will include remedial measures including covering spoil heaps or



Potential Receptor


odours associated with contaminated soils and groundwater

dampening down areas of dry soils. Potential use of dust monitors on the site boundary (particularly between the site and existing residential properties). Emergency procedures included in the CEMP to reduce dust production if monitoring records elevated concentrations.

Human Health (end site users)

Direct contact with soils in school playing fields, residential gardens and public open space. Secondary impacts associated with consumption of vegetables from gardens and allotments.

Inhalation of dust by commercial workers whilst residential buildings are still being constructed

BRE Guidance on Cover Systems for Land Regeneration (2004) will be used alongside discussions with SCDC to ensure that a topsoil/ subsoil cover layer is appropriate in both the historical commercial and agricultural areas. Cover of topsoil to be included in all residential gardens, communal areas and playing fields.

Construction methodology will aim to reduce the dust produced and the CEMP will include remedial measures including covering spoil heaps or dampening down areas of dry soils. Potential use of dust monitors.

Built Environ-ment

Chemical attack on construction materials

Further ground investigation will be completed at detailed design stage if required to further assess aggressive ground conditions. Design of appropriate materials for use in construction.

Table 7.8: Rationale for incorporation of environmental measures

Residual Effects

7.114 Table 7.9 below summarises the potential effects during the construction and postconstruction phases of the proposed Wing development. The mitigation measures are included with a residual effect post remediation works.



Project Phase Receptor Summary of effect Scale of Effect before mitigation

Mitigation Nature of effect Residual effect post mitigation Permanent/

Temporary

Construction

Phase

All Impacts from existing soil and groundwater contamination

Substantial Pre-construction remediation strategy would be implemented for soils and groundwater

Temporary adverse prior to remediation

Not Significant

Groundwater (Secondary and principal aquifers)

Mobilisation of potential contamination during ground works

Slight to moderate

Procedures would be put in place including suitable management/ soil remediation

Where this might be related to piled foundations, a Foundation Works Risk Assessment in accordance with EA guidance would be undertaken

Temporary adverse Not Significant

Accidental spills or leakages of hazardous substances and migration into underlying groundwater

Slight to moderate

Hazardous substances, including, fuels, chemicals, and construction material, would be stored, handled, transported and disposed of, according to relevant legislation and best practice guidance to mitigate spillages and leaks. Measures to be applied include the appropriate use of storage containers, labelling of containers, the secure storage of containers and regular checks for leaks.


Soils – Category 2 and 3 agricultural land

Temporary stripping and stockpiling and re-use on site. Associated risks include deterioration of soil quality

Very substantial Works will be undertaken in accordance with appropriate guidelines, such as DEFRA’s 2009 Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites. Best practice procedures include soil stripping, stockpiling and placing in the driest possible conditions and storing soils for as short periods as possible. Soil stockpiles would be clearly defined.


Erosion and wind effects leading to loss of soils

Runoff would be managed on site through drainage and the CEMP.

Stockpiles would be covered when required and dampened down.

Permanent adverse Not Significant





Temporary

Permanent removal of valuable agricultural soils

Very substantial A materials management plan would be completed for the site works which would include procedures for sustainable use of soils on site where possible.

Permanent adverse (post construction)

Significant

Compaction of soils by construction traffic

Substantial Tracked equipment would be used where possible, and traffic would be confined to designated routes to minimise compaction


Reduction in soil quality as a result of leaks and spills

Moderate Hazardous substances, including, fuels, chemicals, and construction material, would be stored, handled, transported and disposed of, according to relevant legislation and best practice guidance to mitigate spillages and leaks. Measures to be applied include the appropriate use of storage containers, labelling of containers, the secure storage of containers and regular checks for leaks


Construction Workers

Harm to human health by ingestion / inhalation / dermal contact with contaminated soils and dust during construction activities.

Substantial (North Works and petrol station)

Moderate (agricultural land)

Use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment, toolbox talks and good site hygiene procedures


Permanent removal (Made ground only)

Negligible As above plus production of a Materials Management Plan to ensure appropriate use of soils

Permanent beneficial (post construction)

Not Significant

Off-site residents Harm to human health by ingestion / inhalation of dust from potentially contaminated soils during construction

Substantial (residential)

Moderate (commercial)

Dust would be suppressed using best practice methods to prevent spread of potentially contaminated windblown material.

Monitoring on the boundary of the site during construction works. Emergency procedures would be in place in the event that monitoring






Temporary

activities identified elevated concentrations. Measures would include covering stockpiled materials and dampening down if required.

Built Environment Chemical attack on concrete or permeation of water supply pipelines from contaminated land

Slight (natural deposits)

Moderate (made ground)

Appropriate design of concrete and pipelines. Permanent adverse Not Significant

Operational Phase Groundwater (Secondary and Principal aquifers)

Accidental spills or leakages from vehicles or commercial storage areas and migration into underlying groundwater

Moderate Design of fuel/ oil/ chemical storage would follow best practice and include appropriate bunding and tanks.


Future Site Users Harm to human health by ingestion / inhalation / dermal contact with contaminated soils and vegetables

Inhalation of dust by commercial workers whilst residential buildings are still being constructed

Substantial Appropriate cover systems would be designed in line with best practice in areas of residential gardens, public open space, playing fields and allotments where required.

Construction methodology will aim to reduce the dust produced and the CEMP will include remedial measures including covering spoil heaps or dampening down areas of dry soils. Potential use of dust monitors.


Table 7.9: Mitigation measures and residual effects



Cumulative effects

7.115 The cumulative impacts on ground conditions from other developments in Cambridge and the surrounding area have been assessed. It is considered unlikely that any significant cumulative effects will occur with the possible exception of damage to agricultural soils as the majority of developments are located on the outskirts of the city.

7.116 Assuming that the other developments follow mitigation measures similar to those identified in the table above, this effect should be managed to non-significant.

Land north of Newmarket Road, Cambridge Outline planning application to South Cambridgeshire District Council



Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013. OS License number 100026791. © Mott MacDonald 2013 Do not scale from this drawing.

© Mott MacDonald Limited 2013 Do not scale from this drawing

Fig 7.1 Exploratory hole location plan

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS8WS9

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

BH6FIELDS

FIELDSFIELDS

NORTHWORKS

AIRPORT

PETROLSTATION

PARK &RIDE SITE

CARPARK

App’dCh’k’dDescriptionDrawnDateRev

RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client

© Mott MacDonald Limited

This document should not be relied on or used in circumstances other than those for which it was originally prepared and for which Mott MacDonald Ltdwas commissioned. Mott MacDonald Ltd accepts no responsibility for this document to any other party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.

P:\Cambridge\Demeter\EVT\Projects\317619 - Project Wing\Documents\Reports\Internally Produced\02 GI Scoping

T

F

W

Exploratory HoleLocation PlanMain Site

Marshalls GroupThe AirportNewmarket RoadCambridge, CB5 8RX

PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE

MMD-317619-EVT-EES-001

P1

Demeter HouseStation RoadCambridge, CB1 2JHUnited Kingdom

+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com

1. Do not scale from this drawing.

2. All dimensions are in metres unless otherwise shown. All levels are in metresabove Ordnance Datum (AOD). All dimensions & levels should be checked on site.

3. Any drawing errors or discrepancies should be brought to the attention of MottMacDonald at the address shown in the title block.

31/05/13P1 MB LB JDPreliminary Issue

Key to symbols

Reference drawings

MMBH101 - Cable Percussive Borehole

MMTP101 - Trial Pit

MMSA101 - Soakaway Test

MMWS101 - Window Sample Borehole


2013 Ground Investigation

Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location

Window Sample Location

Site Boundary

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS8WS9

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

BH6FIELDS

FIELDSFIELDS

NORTHWORKS

AIRPORT

PETROLSTATION

PARK &RIDE SITE

CARPARK


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W



PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com





Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location


Site Boundary

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS8WS9

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

BH6FIELDS

FIELDSFIELDS

NORTHWORKS

AIRPORT

PETROLSTATION

PARK &RIDE SITE

CARPARK


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W



PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com





Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location


Site Boundary

Not to scale

Study Area






Fig 7.2 Exceedances of TPS and PAH in soil samples

Not to scale

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

WS8WS9

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

BH6

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

MMWS118MMWS119

MMBH108App’dCh’k’dDescriptionDrawnDateRev

RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W

Exploratory Hole Location PlanExceedances of TPH & PAHin Soil Samples


PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com





Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location


No exceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of commercial &residential screening criteriaSignificantly elevated concentration -no screening avaliableSite Boundary

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

WS8WS9

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

BH6

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

MMWS118MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W



PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com





Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location


No exceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of commercial &residential screening criteriaSignificantly elevated concentration -no screening avaliableSite Boundary

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

WS8WS9

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

BH6

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

MMWS118MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W



PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com





Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location


No exceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of commercial &residential screening criteriaSignificantly elevated concentration -no screening avaliableSite BoundaryStudy Area




Fig 7.3 Exceedances of VOCs in soil samples



Not to scale

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

WS8WS9

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

BH6

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

MMWS118

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W

Exploratory Hole Location PlanExceedances of VOCsin Soil Samples


PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com





Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location


No exceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of commercial &residential screening criteriaSite Boundary

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

WS8WS9

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

BH6

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

MMWS118

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W



PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com





Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location


No exceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of commercial &residential screening criteriaSite Boundary

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

WS8WS9

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

BH6

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

MMWS118

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W



PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com





Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location


No exceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of residential screeningcriteriaExceedance of commercial &residential screening criteriaSite BoundaryStudy Area




Fig 7.4 Exceedances of inorganic parameters in groundwater samples



Not to scale

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS8

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

WS9

MMBH101

BH6

MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W

Exploratory Hole Location PlanExceedances of Inorganic Parametersin Groundwater Samples


PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com




4. The non-anthropogenic Exceedances are not considered in this drawing.


Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location


No Exceedances of screening criteria

Exceedances of MRV/MDL

Exceedances of DWS

Exceedances of EQS

Site Boundary

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS8

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

WS9

MMBH101

BH6

MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W



PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com






Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location




Exceedances of DWS

Exceedances of EQS

Site Boundary

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS8

WS10

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

WS9

MMBH101

BH6

MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W



PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com






Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location




Exceedances of DWS

Exceedances of EQS

Site BoundaryStudy Area




Fig 7.5 Exceedances of organic parameters (TPH, VOC) in groundwater samples



Not to scale

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS8

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

BH6

WS9

WS10

MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W

Exploratory Hole Location PlanExceedances of Organic Parameters(TPH, VOC) in Groundwater Samples


PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com




20/06/13P1 CJE LB JDPreliminary Issue

Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location




Exceedances of DWS

Exceedances of EQS

Site Boundary

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS8

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

BH6

WS9

WS10

MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W



PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com





Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location




Exceedances of DWS

Exceedances of EQS

Site Boundary

MMSA102

MMSA103

MMSA101

MMBH107

MMWS124MMTP109

MMBH106

MMTP104

MMTP105MMTP106

MMTP103

MMTP101

MMBH101

MMBH102

MMBH103MMTP102

MMBH104

MMBH105

MMTP107

MMTP108

WS1

WS2

WS3

WS4

WS5WS6

WS7

TP3

TP1

TP2

TP4

TP5

TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11

TP12TP13

TP14

TP15

TP17

TP16

TP18

WS8

WS11

WS12

WS13

WS29

WS28

WS27

WS15

WS16

WS14 WS19WS18

WS17

WS23

WS22 WS24 WS21WS20

WS26

WS25

BH5

BH12

BH11

BH9

BH10

BH7

MMWS102

MMWS101

MMWS123

MMWS122

MMWS121

MMWS107

MMWS120 MMWS117

MMWS113

MMWS114MMWS115

MMWS109

MMWS108

MMWS106

MMWS105

MMWS104MMWS103

MMWS112

MMWS111

MMWS110

MMWS116

BH6

WS9

WS10

MMWS119


RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client




T

F

W



PLG

MB

LJB

-

-

JD

- PRE


P1


+44 (0)1223 463 500+44 (0)1223 461 007www.mottmac.com





Key to symbols

Reference drawings


MMTP101 - Trial Pit





Borehole Location

Trial Pit Location




Exceedances of DWS

Exceedances of EQS

Site BoundaryStudy Area


Tel +44 (0)1223 463500

Fax +44 (0)1223 461007

Demeter House

Station Road

Cambridge CB1 2RS

United Kingdom

Client

Marshall of Cambridge

(Airport Properties) Ltd

Project

Project Wing

Drawn

Checked

Approved

PLG

LB

JD

Conceptual Model Plan

317619/EVT/EES/01/ CSM.ppt

NOT TO SCALE

Title

08.03.13Key

08.03.13

13.03.13

Sources:S1: Car dealerships, garages and repair shops (North Works),

S2: Paint gun cleaning area and Hanger 15 area (North Works),

S3: Former heat treatment and metal plating building (North

Works),

S4: Other engineering and vehicle manufacture (North Works),

S5: Above ground fuel storage tanks (North Works),

S6: Historical on-site waste storage (North Works),

S7: Former boiler in Hanger 9 (North Works),

S8: Car dealership, associated repair shop and Petrol Station,

S9: Bulk acid and alkaline storage tanks (North Works),

S10: Fuel station and Former truck fuel station (North Works),

S11: Electrical Substations,

S12: Hazardous waste and chemical storage,S13: Waste oil tank,

S14: Made ground – ground gas and historical contamination

Pathways:

P1: Direct Contact with contaminated soils,

P2: Airborne routes (inhalation of gases, vapours and dust)

P3: Ingestion of site-grown vegetables and plants

P4: Vertical leaching through permeable sub-strata

P5: Transport through man made pathways (drainage, service

conduits, piled foundations)

P6: Horizontal migration through groundwater

Receptors:

R1: Future construction and maintenance workers

R2: Future site residents with gardens

R3: Future site residents without gardens

R4: Future commercial/ industrial workers

R5: Surface water bodies (River Cam, drainage and ponds)

R6: Groundwater within RTD or Chalk

R7: Existing and future vegetation, planting and landscaping

R8: Structural and infrastructure materials

R9: Future allotments

R10: Current off-site residents

Alluvium

River Terrace Deposits

Grey Chalk

Gault Clay

Indicative groundwater level

NW SE

Made ground

SITE

RIV

ER

CA

M

R4

1.0 km to NW

Ne

wm

ark

et R

oa

d

Ca

mb

rid

ge

Air

po

rt

North Works

S5

S2S3

S1S4

S7 S8

S9

S10 S11S6S12

Proposed development

P1P2 P1P3

P4

P5

P6

R1 R2R3 R4

R5

R6

R7

R8

R10R9

S13



Fig 7.6 Conceptual model plan

Co

ntains Ord

nance Survey d

ata © C

row

n cop

yright and

datab

ase right 2013. O

S License num

ber 100026791. ©

Mo

tt MacD

onald

2013 Do

not scale fro

m this d

rawing