Quedgeley Urban Village Limited Kingsway Local Centre...

Quedgeley Urban Village Limited

Kingsway Local Centre, Quedgeley

Manor Farm Scheduled Ancient Monument Interpretative Site Investigation Report – DRAFT REPORT

December 2010

Entec UK Limited

Disclaimer This report has been pr epared in a wor king draft form and has not been finalised or formally reviewed. As such it shoul d be taken as an indication only of the m aterial a nd conclusions that will form the final r eport. Any calculations or findings presented here may be changed or alter ed and sho uld not be taken t o r eflect E ntec’s opinions or conclusions.

Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice The contents an d lay out of this r eport ar e subject t o copy right owned by E ntec (© E ntec UK Limited 2010) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by E ntec under licence. T o the e xtent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agre ement for any purpose other than t he purpose indicated in this report.

The methodology (if any ) contained in this r eport is provided t o you in con fidence and must not be disclosed or co pied to thir d parties without the prior written agreement of Entec. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may other wise prejudice our co mmercial inter ests. Any thir d party who obtains access to this r eport by an y means will, in an y event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a t hird party is subj ect to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Entec at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party wh o is able t o access it by any means. Entec excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liabilit y whatsoever for any loss or da mage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

Document Revisions No. Details Date

1 Draft Report – issue 1 03.12.10

Draft - See Disclaimer i

h:\projects\cl-240\19466 quvl 4-5\docs\rr\fp5 employment land\rr1302i1 manor farm sam\rr1302i1 sam interpretative si report.doc

© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Executive Summary

Purpose of this Report This report has been produced for the purpose of providing information in association with th e intrusive site investigation of the Scheduled Ancient Monum ent (SAM) which co mprises the moated area of Manor Farm and includes part of the proposed Local Centre. Inform ation detailed within this report has been com piled based on data and observations made during the intrusive site investigation.

Whilst every endeavour has been made to suita bly investigate all areas where contam ination may be present within the SAM area of Manor Farm and part of the Local Centre, there remains a possibility that sm all pockets of contam ination or unidentified areas may exist. Future remediation workers, developers and infrastruct ure contractors should be m ade fully aware o f the findings of this report and preceding reports.

Introduction and Objectives

In 2000 the Ministry of Defence (MoD) sold the RAF Quedgeley site to Quedgeley Urban Village Ltd (QUVL), a consortium of house builders and developers.

Outline planning permission has been obtained for the Local Centre within the QUVL site, of which a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) forms part. This report details the findings of the intrusive investigation undertaken within the SAM area of the Local Centre site.

The objective for the intrusive site investigation within the area of the SAM is to provide sufficient information to allow a Remediation Strategy to be developed (if required) in accordance with Planning Condition 40 for approval by the Local Planning Authority.

Site Description

The areas of the proposed Local Centre that are identified as within the area of the SAM are primarily Manor Farm, associated outbuildings and a moat feature. Other areas of land within the proposed Local Centre (outside the SAM) comprise land to the west within the FP 1 area, which was investigated in 2003, and land to the east within the FP2/3 area, which was investigated in 2005 and remediated in 2006. Directly to the south of the proposed Local Centre is the HQ site, which is predominantly used for light industrial/commercial use.

The site is generally level and ranges in elevation from approximately 23.5 m AOD in the west to approximately 25.0 m AOD in the east. Access to the site is via a lane that extends from the west, which can be accessed from the A38, along a recently constructed road as part of the housing development in the FP 1 area. To the south of the access road and the area of the Local Centre are two Severn Trent strategic water mains.

Site History

Manor Farm, which is located centrally within the former RAF Quedgeley site, is understood to date back to mediaeval times. In the 1880s Naas Lane was present to the south of the main QUVL site and a railway line to the east. The Local Centre site was occupied by open fields and some small wooded areas around Manor Farm.

The majority of the QUVL site area was purchased by the MoD in approximately 1914, with the southern part of the former RAF Quedgeley site undergoing development as a munitions factory in 1916. The munitions factory is understood to have been demolished in the 1920’s.

A buildings feature is noted within the southwest corner of the proposed Local Centre site on historical mapping dating back to the munitions factory and remaining present until the 1970’s. Historical maps indicate no further significant on site or off site changes until 1968, where a number of large warehouses and smaller buildings are shown, some of which are located within the Local Centre, to the east of the SAM.

Draft - See Disclaimer ii


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Archaeology The proposed scope of work and an application to undertake works within the SAM was submitted to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) for Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC). English Heritage, an advisor to DCMS, stipulated that prior to authorising a SMC for intrusive investigation work, a geophysical survey be undertaken.

The magnetometry and resistivity geophysical survey was reported in November 2009 (Archaeological Surveys Ltd Report Ref. No. 290). The proposed intrusive locations were revised accordingly and submitted to DCMS, following which conditional SMC was granted by English Heritage (English Heritage letter Ref. S00005270, dated 20 January), subject to certain constraints, including an archaeological watching brief during any intrusive work.

Environmental Setting and Site Sensitivity

The underlying geology of the site is a thick sequence of Lower Lias mudstones of Jurassic age overlying Triassic mudstones of the Mercia Mudstones Group. The Lower Lias and the Mercia Mudstone Group are of low sensitivity with respect to groundwater, being generally of low permeability and unlikely to support any abstractions. However, the Environment Agency classifies these strata as a Secondary ‘undifferentiated’ Aquifer. Pleistocene Sands and Gravels overlying the Lias are classified as a Secondary ‘A’ Aquifer, which may be used for domestic supply.

A moat feature is present at the site surrounding the Manor Farm area to the north, south and west of the farm buildings. The moat forms part of the SAM and water levels are variable depending on seasonal variations. A well feature is located within the area of the SAM, located directly to the west of the main Manor Farm building.

Site Investigation and Ground Conditions

The following scope of works was undertaken to satisfy the objectives of the investigation:

• Excavation of 24 No. shallow hand-excavated pits allow visual observation and soil sampling;

• Soil Sampling for chemical analysis; and

• Archaeological watching brief.

The intrusive chemical investigation was carried out from 24 - 25 May 2010. All of the works were undertaken by Entec’s site engineer and supervised by Entec’s archaeologist.

Made Ground was logged in all but one of the 24 No. locations. The Made Ground was generally found to comprise reworked topsoil and sandy clay with occasional gravel of brick, clinker and charcoal. Natural drift deposits typically comprised brown sandy CLAY, or orange-brown sandy CLAY, which was encountered underlying the Made Ground

The underlying solid geology was not encountered due to the depth of the shallow hand-excavated pits (typically 0.60 m bgl). Site investigation elsewhere at the QUVL site has shown that the Lias Clay underlies any Made Ground and superficial deposits that are present.

Four separate areas of Japanese Knotweed were noted within the area of the SAM, which were all clearly fenced-off and identified.

Environmental Assessment

Shallow made Ground has been encountered throughout the area of the SAM. Assessment of laboratory chemical test data indicates five locations where there are exceedances of Generic assessment Criteria (GAC) when compared against residential (with plant uptake) and POS (residential without plant uptake) GAC. One of the locations also exceeds commercial GAC. It is understood that the future proposed use for this area will not comprise allotments.

No asbestos containing materials were identified. No elevated radioactivity was detected within intrusive investigation locations.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Earthworks to prepare the site and remove localised shallow contaminated Made Ground should be undertaken to achieve suitable concentrations for the proposed final end use. The remediation strategy for preparing the site to a state that is ‘suitable for use’ should be undertaken in accordance with the remediation strategy developed by Entec for the FP4a area of the site (Entec Doc. Ref. 19466RR475i1, dated December 2007).

Depending on the final proposed development of the site, Made Ground materials containing elevated contaminant concentrations would normally require excavation and disposal, or removal elsewhere within the QUVL site area below proposed buildings, areas of hardstanding or beneath a suitable thickness of ‘clean’ capping material (typically > 600 mm). The SAM area is however categorised differently to the rest of the site due to its Scheduled Ancient Monument status, which will constrain any works within this area. The limited depth of the contamination in the identified areas is however amenable to selective excavation and replacement with clean soils.

Draft - See Disclaimer iii

Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Terms of Reference 1 1.3 Objectives and Methodology 2 1.3.1 Objectives 2 1.3.2 Methodology 2

2. Environmental Setting 3

2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Site Setting 3 2.3 Site History 3 2.4 Environmental Setting 4 2.4.1 Geology 4 2.4.2 Hydrogeology 4 2.4.3 Surface Water 5 2.4.4 Pollution Incidents, Complaints and Enforcement Actions 5 2.4.5 Flora and Fauna 5 2.4.6 Other Potential Issues 6 2.5 Land Drainage, Sewers and Services 6

3. Potentially Contaminative Activities 7

3.1 Potentially Contaminative Activities 7 3.1.1 Explosive Ordnance and Munitions Related Contamination 7 3.1.2 Site Rail Infrastructure 7 3.1.3 Commercial/Industrial Buildings and Hardstanding 7 3.1.4 Fuel Storage 7 3.1.5 Transformers 8 3.1.6 Pesticides and Herbicides 8 3.2 Previous Intrusive Investigation Information 8 3.2.1 Intrusive Investigations within the SAM 8 3.2.2 Intrusive Investigation outside the SAM 8 3.2.3 Ordnance Investigation 9 3.2.4 Radiological Surveying 10


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Draft - See Disclaimer iv

4. Site Investigation Works 11

4.1 Scope of Works 11 4.2 Intrusive Investigation 11 4.2.1 Hand-Excavated Pits 11 4.2.2 Radiological Screening 11 4.2.3 Sampling and Laboratory Chemical Analysis 11 4.3 Ground and Contamination Conditions 12 4.3.1 Ground Conditions 12

5. Environmental Assessment 17

5.1 Generic Qualitative Risk Assessment (GQRA) 17 5.1.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Approach 17 5.2 Controlled Waters Risk Assessment 18 5.3 Laboratory Chemical Test Data Assessment 18 5.3.1 Assessed Soil Data 18 5.4 Radiological Conditions 20 5.5 Summary of Environmental Assessment 20

6. Remediation Considerations 21

6.1 Introduction 21 6.1.1 Objectives 21 6.2 Identified Contamination 21 6.2.1 Chemical and Visual Contamination 21 6.3 Remediation Verification Criteria 22 6.3.1 Exposure Assumptions 22 6.3.2 Regulatory Approval of Remediation Verification Criteria 22 6.4 Further Works Outstanding 23 6.4.1 Remedial Works 23 6.4.2 Ecological Constraints 23

Table 4.1 Summary of Ground Conditions 13 Table 5.1 Summary of Data Assessment – Exceedances of GAC 18 Table 6.1 Depth to Base of Contaminated Made Ground 22


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Draft - See Disclaimer v

Figure 2.1 Site Location After Page 6 Figure 2.2 Site Layout After Page 6 Figure 3.1 Potentially Contaminative Land Use After Page 10 Figure 3.2 Previous Site Investigation locations within the Local Centre After Page 10 Figure 4.1 Intrusive Site Investigation Location After Page 16 Figure 6.1 Proposed Remediation Areas After Page 24

Appendix A Archaeological Information and SMC Appendix B Site Investigation Logs Appendix C Assessment of Laboratory Chemical Test Data Appendix D Proposed Local Centre Redevelopment Layout Appendix E Remediation Verification Criteria


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Draft - See Disclaimer vi


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Draft - See Disclaimer 1


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

1. Introduction

1.1 Background In 2000 the Ministry of Defence (MOD) sold the RAF Quedgeley site to Quedgeley Urban Village Ltd, (QUVL), a consortium of house builders and developers.

The master p lan for the development divides the site into five Fra mework Plan area s to be developed for residential end use, em ployment, public open space and schooling. The Manor Farm ar ea f orms part of the Fra mework Plan 5 (FP5) Local Centre development within employment land u nder the management of Robert Hitchins Ltd (Hitchins). The Manor F arm area also forms part of a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM).

Entec UK Ltd (Entec) has previousl y been commissioned by QUVL to undertake ongoi ng investigation, remediation and validation work within Framework Plans 1 – 5 (FP 1-5). Parts of the proposed Local Cent re wer e inspected during the FP1 and the FP2/3 phases of s ite investigation and factual information is summarised in Entec document ref. 17016N936i2, dated October 2007. This was supplemented by further investigation during the FP4a phase of site investigation and is reported in Entec Report Ref. 19466RR540i1, dated February 2008.

Remediation work within the area of the Local Centre (outside of the area of the SAM) wa s undertaken during the FP4a phase of r emediation (2008), which was undertaken in accordance with the Entec FP4a Remediation Strategy (Entec Report Ref. 19466RR475i1, d ated December 2007), which was approved by Gloucester City Council (GCC).

The rem ediation work undertaken i n 200 8 is reported within Entec Technical Note Ref. 19466n974i1, dated 18 April 2009.

The area within the boundary of a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) associated with Manor Farm and moat was not intrusively at this time due to associated archaeological restrictions.

1.2 Terms of Reference Entec submitted a proposal to Gardiner & Theobald (G&T) (Entec Ref. 19466C1085i2, dated 11 September 2009) to in vestigate the SAM area of the Local Cen tre. The proposed scope of work and an application to undertake works with in the SAM was subm itted to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) for Schedul ed Monum ent Consent (SMC). Engli sh Heritage, an advisor to DCMS, stipulated th at prior to authorising a SMC for intrusive investigation work, a geophysical survey be undertaken.

The magnetometry and resistivity geophy sical survey was reported in Nove mber 2 009 (Archaeological Survey s Ltd Report Ref. No. 290, presented in Appendix A). The proposed intrusive loc ations were revised accordingl y and subm itted to DCMS, f ollowing which conditional SMC was granted by E nglish Herita ge (English Heritage letter Ref. S00005270, dated 20 January, presented in Appendix A).


Authorisation to proceed with the intrusive site inve stigation work was re ceived from G&T in electronic correspondence dated 07 May 2010.

This report details the fact ual findings of the in trusive investigation and includes interpretation and remedial advice based on the findings of the site investigation and previous work undertaken by Entec withi n the SAM area of th e proposed Local Centre. Archaeological and geophysical information is presented in Appendix A.

1.3 Objectives and Methodology

1.3.1 Objectives The objective for the i ntrusive site investigati on w ithin t he area of the SA M is to provid e sufficient information to allow a Remediation Strategy t o be developed (if required) in accordance with Planning Condition 40 for approval by the Local Planning Authority.

1.3.2 Methodolo gy The proposed methodology was agr eed in pr inciple with the Gloucest er City Council Contaminated Land Officer prior to the commencement of work and comprised:

• A total of 25 No. hand-dug pits excavated to 0.6 m below ground l evel - design ed to target potential sources of contamination and to provide general coverage within the area of the SAM; and

• Sampling and testing of between 1 - 2 samples from each pit.

The intrusive methodolo gy was subject to an arc haeological watching bri ef to record an y archaeologically 'significant' conditions t hat were encountered and to advise pro cedures should such conditions or items of interest be encountered.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


2. Environmental Setting

2.1 Introduction Background information on the f ormer RAF Quedgeley site an d surrou nding area has been derived from the intrusive investigation of the FP 1, FP 2/3, FP 4 and FP5 areas and fro m previous Phase One and Phase Two LQAs undertaken on behalf of Defence Estates, prior to QUVL ownership of the site.

2.2 Site Setting The former RAF Quedgeley site is locat ed east of the village of Quedgeley and approximately 4 km south of the city of Gloucester. The site location is presented on Figure 2.1.

The area of t he SAM with in the proposed Local Centre is identified on Figure 2.2, which also shows buildings to the ea st prior to t heir demolition and rem ediation, and t o the south, where demolition and remediation is ongoing at the time of writing.

The areas of the proposed Local Centr e that ar e identified as within the area of the SAM ar e primarily Manor Far m, associated outbuildings and a m oat feature. Other areas of land within the proposed Local Centre (outside the SAM) comprise land to th e west within the FP 1 area, which was i nvestigated in 2003, and land to the east within the FP2/3 area, which was investigated in 2005 and remediated in 2006. Directly to the south of the proposed Local Centre is the HQ site, which is predominantly used for light industrial/commercial use.

The site is generally level and ranges in eleva tion from approximately 23.5 m AOD in the west to approximately 25.0 m AOD in the east. Access to the site is via a lane that extends from the west, which can be accessed fro m the A38, along a recently constructed road as part of the housing development in the FP 1 area. To the south of the access road and the area of the Local Centre are two Severn Trent strategic water mains.

2.3 Site History The history of the site has been summarised from information outlined within previous reports.

Manor Farm is understood to date back to mediaeval times. In the 1880s Naas Lane, located to the south of the main QUVL site and the railway line, located to the east of the QUVL site, were present and the whole site was occupied by open fields and som e small wooded areas around Manor Farm.

The majority of the main QUVL site area was purchased by the MoD around 1914, with th e southern part of the former RAF Quedgeley site undergoing development as a munitions factory in 1916. The main munitions factory buildings were located to the southeast of the Manor Farm area and “igniter filling” buildings and a “cordite magazine” are noted within the eastern part of the proposed Local Centre, which were linked by a rail system. A railway track associated with


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


the munitions factory is also noted to have passed within the western part of the proposed Local Centre. The munitions factory is understood to have been demolished in the 1920’s.

A buildings f eature is noted within the southwest corner of the proposed Local Centre sit e on historical mapping dating back to the m unitions factory and rem aining present until the 1970’ s. Historical maps indicate no further significant on si te or off site changes unti l the Ordnan ce Survey 1:10 000 1968 map. This publ ication shows that the presence of large warehouse and smaller buildings, one of which is located with in the north-eastern part of the proposed Local Centre. In 2000, the site was sold by the MoD to QUVL.

In 2006, the Site 7 Buildings located in part in the eastern half were demolished and remediated as part of the Framework Plan 2/3 contract.

2.4 Environmental Setting

2.4.1 Geolog y The 1:50,000 scale geol ogical map of the area (Gloucester, Sheet 234) i ndicates that the underlying geology of t he site is a thick se quence of Lower Lias mudstones of Jurassic age overlying Tri assic mudstones of the Mercia Mudstones Group. The Lower Lias mudstones comprise firm red-brown to grey silty clay, inter-bedded with discontinuous horizons of alluvial silts and sands. These inter-bedded lay ers can be of local i mportance as sources of groundwater. The entire sequence is understood to exceed 150 m in places.

Overlying the Lias on parts of the site ar e Plei stocene San ds and Gra vels for ming a discontinuous horizon, typically consisting of orange-brown medium to coarse sands with bands of medium to coarse gravels.

Significant thickness of Made Ground is not generally expected within the area of the SAM, but may be present in association with the far m buildings. Reworking of the soil will be present i n the vicinity of services and utilities.

A su mmary of the gro und conditi ons encountered durin g the site investigation is gi ven in Section 4 of this report.

2.4.2 Hy drogeology From 01 April 2010 the Environement Agency has used their Groundwater Protection Policy to assign aquifer designation consistent with the Water Framework Directive. These designati ons reflect the importance of aquifers in terms of groundwater as a resource (drinking water supply) but also their role in supporting surface water flows and wetland ecosystems

The Lower Lias and the Mercia Mu dstone Gr oup are of lo w sensitivity with respect to groundwater, being generally of l ow perm eability and unlikel y t o support abstractions. The Environment Agency for merly classifi ed these str ata as non-aquifers, however, silt and sand horizons within the mudstones have been of lo cal importance for lim ited groundwater supplies, mainly for a gricultural purposes and are now designated as a Secondary ‘ undifferentiated’ Aquifer, which are described as havin g been as signed “in cases where it has not been possible to attribute either category A or B to a rock type . I n most cases, this means t hat the layer in question has previously been designated as both mi nor and non-aquifer in dif ferent locations due to the variable characteristics of the rock type”.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


The Pleistoc ene Sands a nd Gravels o verlying the Lias w ere fo rmerly classi fied as a Mi nor Aquifer. These deposits are now designated as a Secondary ‘A’ Aquifer, which are described as “permeable layers capable of supporting water sup plies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases formin g an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers for merly classified as minor aquifers ”. The Pleistocene deposits are identified on mapping to be located at the northern boundary of the Local Centre and at t he south of t he former HQ area of the QUVL site.

The FP 1 investigation indicated that the Envir onment Agency record one licensed groundwater abstraction within a 3 km radius of the site. This is a small abstraction for agricultural purposes from a minor localised aquifer approximately 2 km to the northwest of the site. Perched water may also be present within sand lenses in the Lower Lias Clay.

A disused well feature is located within the area of the SAM, located directly to the west of the main Manor Farm building.

2.4.3 Surface Water A moat feature is present at the site surroundi ng the Manor Farm area to the north, south a nd west. The moat forms part of the SA M and water levels are v ariable depending on seasona l variations. A management strategy of the m oat has been adopt ed to regulat e flow and w ater level. This includes construction of a new balancing pond to the south of the SAM.

2.4.4 Pollution Incidents, Complaints and Enforcement Actions According to the Envir ocheck Report that w as commissioned for the ori ginal Land Quality Assessment Report, no pollution incidents are indicated have occurred on the site.

2.4.5 Flora and Fauna Great Crested Newts have been identified with in the Manor Fa rm moat area and an ame nded Great Crested Newt Licence was applied for b y Ecology Solutions (Doc. Ref: Great Crest ed Newt Licence Application M ethod Statement , 4029.GCN M ethod Statement , dated January 2007), prim arily associat ed with gr ound works and changes to newt fenci ng. Acceptance from English Nature is understood to have been received in November 2007.

The moat at Manor Farm encircles three sides of the buildings within the Manor Farm co mplex and is itself lined with mat ure oak, Ash and Willo w trees. To the west of the moat there is the “Old Orchard”, which co ntains stands of Apple, Pe ar, Oak, Ash and Maple and is surroun ded by hedgerow.

Trees with Tree Pre servation Orders (TPO’ s) are identified on plans provided by Cooper Partnership Ltd. All id entified prot ected tree s and hedgerow s within the vicinit y of the proposed Local Centre are shown on Fi gure 2.1. Confirmation of tree status should be sought from the Gloucester City Council (GCC) Tree Officer prior to any disturbance or rem oval of trees and hedgerows.

Japanese Knotweed has been identified and cordoned off within areas of the Local Centre. T he knotweed is currently undergoing treatment by Japanese Knotweed Solutions Ltd and locations of the areas of knotweed are presented on Figure 2.2.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


The wider area of the proposed Local Centre area includes the eastern most extent of the “ old orchard”, which is to be retained under proposed de velopment pl ans and currently houses a reptile holding pen.

2.4.6 Other Potential Issues The Indicative Atlas of Radon in E ngland and Wales, publi shed b y t he Health Protection Agency (November, 2007) indicates that the site is in an area where less than 1% of homes are above the Radon Action Level. However, British Research Establish ment docu ment BR211 (1999) indicates th at “ consideration shoul d b e given to geological dat a and wheth er basic radon protection might be necessary” in the area of the QUVL site.

The Gloucester City Council Contam inated Land O fficer has been consulted about this mat ter and does not consider that specific radon prot ection is required as a design requirem ent for development within the QUVL site. It is cons idered that given the presence of the Lias C lay that underlies the site, the radon potential is c onsidered low and the advice that consideration should be gi ven most likely reflects h igher record ed levels of r adon detected in the Jurassi c Limestone of the nearby Cotswolds escarpment.

2.5 Land Drainage, Sewers and Services Buried services within the SAM area are unders tood (from drawings suppl ied by QUVL) to comprise electricity, foul sewer and water. Te lecommunications are understood to be sup plied by overhead lines.

It is also known that a disused groundwater well is located dire ctly to the west of the Manor Farm building which is connected to an auto matic overflow system from the cellar of Manor Farm that drains to the moat at point to the south of Manor Farm.

It should be noted that some of these servi ces may now be redundant f ollowing rem oval or disconnection outside t he area of the SAM, however final disconnection certificates should be sought from QUVL / URPS.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


3. Potentially Contaminative Activities

3.1 Potentially Contaminative Activities Potential contamination arising from previous land uses and historical operational activities are indicated on Figure 3.1.

3.1.1 Explosive Ordnance and Munitions Related Contamination A section of the former WW1 munitions factory was located within the eastern half of the Local Centre site area, within the Fra mework 2/3 a nd Fra mework 4a site are as (to the east of t he SAM). This included igniter filling st ations and, located to the east and so uth of the Local Centre site boundary were cordite cutting and charge assemblies and non-explosive component, cartridge case and empty shell stores.

Munitions investigation undertaken in the Fr amework 1, Fram ework 2/3 and Fram ework 4a areas by BACTEC International Ltd did not identify any unexploded munitions.

3.1.2 Site Rail Infrastructure Associated with the munitions factory was a network of railway sidings, a section of which was known to run from south to north across the Local Cent re site to the west of th e moat. There is the potential for former track beds to comprise contaminated ash and clinker. Oil contamination may also be associated with railway lines partic ularly in are as of lo ading, unloading and refuelling.

3.1.3 Commercial/Industrial Buildings and Hardstanding The former warehouse Building 3 located within the Site 7 area of FP 2/3 was located within the north-east corner of the Local Centre s ite (approximately 100 m to the east of the SAM). This building is understood to have been used for li ght industrial/commercial use and was clad and roofed with cement-bond ed asbestos. It is possi ble that fuels and oils may have been used within this area.

Intrusive investigation work that has previously undertaken by Entec within the FP 2/3 areas of the QUVL site encountered a nominal thickness of ash and clinker below bui ldings and areas of hardstanding, includin g ro adways. Th e ash and clinker ty pically contained slightly elevated concentrations of heavy metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s).

Sporadic fragments of cement-bonded asbestos h as also been i dentified within areas of the QUVL site, generally located in t opsoil and shallow subsoil, often in close proximity to former buildings.

3.1.4 Fuel Storage No fuels are known to ha ve been stored within the FP1, FP2/3 o r the FP4a area of the Loc al Centre; however two above ground domestic oil tanks are located within the area of the Manor


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


Farm buildings. It is not known whether further oil / diesel storage or m iscellaneous storage of chemicals and herbicides / pesticides has taken place within farm buildings.

3.1.5 Transforme rs No current or for mer electrical transformers are known to have been present within the Local Centre site area.

3.1.6 Pesticides and Herbicides Much of the fields around Manor Far m are areas of rough grassland that wer e most recently used for keeping livestock. It is considered unlikely that significan t use of pesticides and herbicides would have been used in the recent past. No pesticides or he rbicides were identified in samples collected as part of the Framework Plan 1 site investigation.

3.2 Previous Intrusive Investigation Information

3.2.1 Intrusive Investigations within the SAM Limited intrusive investigation has been undertak en within the a rea of the Local Centre sit e, initially as part of the land quality assessment fo r t he MoD and subsequently as part of the FP1 – FP4 site investigations. Due to t he restrictions associated with the SA M status, no prior intrusive investigations were undertaken within the boundary of the SAM.

A su mmary of previous i ntrusive investigation work and rem ediation ou tside of the SAM is outlined in Sections 3.2.2.

3.2.2 Intrusive Investigation outside the SAM

Land Quality Assessment (LQA) Report (Entec Ref. 02388RR185i2, October 2000) Intrusive investigations undertaken during the LQA investigation were primarily targeted at the following features:

• in the vicinity or current or historic potentially contaminative activities;

• anomalies identified by geophysical and radiological surveys; and

• areas which exhibited distressed vegetation.

Within the Local Centre site, outside of the SAM boundary, 2 No. trial pits (TP27 and TPE68) were excavated as part of the LQA assessment. Th ree soil s amples were recovered from this intrusive location for laboratory chemical tes ting. The position of each locati on is shown on Figure 3.2.

Framework Plan 1 (FP 1) Site Investigation (Entec Ref. 11827RR195i1, February 2004) 5 No. trial pits were exc avated within the Local Centre, adjacent to the north-west of the SAM boundary, as part of the FP 1 site investigation. The position of e ach location within the Local Centre is sho wn on Figure 3.2. The p urpose of the FP 1 site investigation work was to assess ground cond itions and provide infor mation fo r subsequent remediation work, which was completed in 2005 (Entec FP 1 Validation Report Ref. RR11827582i2, 27 May 2005).


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


Framework Plan 2 and 3 (FP 2/3) Site Investigation (Entec Ref. 17016RR125i1, February 2006) 15 No. trial pits and 1 No. cable percussion borehole were excavated within the eastern part of the Local Ce ntre site a s part of the FP 2/3 site investigation, the closest bein g approximately 40 m to the east of the boundar y of t he SAM. T he position of each locati on is shown on Figure 3.2. The purpose was to assess the ground conditions and provi de information for subsequent remediation work, which was co mpleted in 2007 (E ntec FP 2/3 Site 7 and Daniels Brook Meadow Validation Report Ref. 17016RR554i1, 23 January 2007).

Framework Plan 4a (FP 4a) Site Investigation (Entec Ref. 19466RR087i1, October 2007) No intrusive locations were excavated within th e boundary of the Local Centre area as part of the FP 4a investigation, as the area s that inter sected the southe rn part of the Local Cent re corresponded with the exclusion zone around t he high pressure Severn Trent water main. Non-intrusive m agnetometer and radiolo gical surv eys within this area are s ummarised in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, respectively.

Kingsway Local Centre Interpretative Site Investigation (Entec Ref. 19466RR540i1, February 2008) Areas of the Local Centre that were no t previously investigated outside of the SAM bounda ry were investigated with 10 No. trial pits and 2 No. boreholes. The position of each location is shown on Figure 3.2. The purpose was to assess the ground conditions and provide information for subsequent remediation work, which was completed in 2009 (outlined below).

Kingsway Local Centre Validation Technical Note (Entec Ref. 19466N974i1, April 2009) Remediation work was undertaken wit hin areas of the Local Centre, located adjacent to t he southern and eastern boundaries of the SAM. Th e remediation was undertaken in accordance with the Remediation Strategy developed for t he rem ediation of FP 4a (Entec Report Ref. 19466RR475i1, dated Decem ber 2007) an d comprised excavation to rem ove shallow contamination and subsequent validation.

3.2.3 Ordnance Investigation Bactec International Ltd (Bactec) carried out a magnetometer survey of all of the grass ed areas within the FP1, FP2/3 and FP4a areas of th e QUVL site, which includes areas of the Loca l Centre site to the we st, east and south, respectiv ely. The survey s were carried out to identify magnetic anomalie s that may represent unexpl oded ordnance and were conducted separat ely between the following dates:

• FP 1: 03 November and 05 December 2003;

• FP 2/3: 1 7 October and 08 Novem ber 2005 with f urther intrusi ve investigation work between 03 and 12 May 2006; and

• FP 4a: 06 and 17 November 2006.

The area of the SAM was not investigated during the above phases of work as it has historically remained a farm house and outbuildings that did not part of the former munitions filling factory, nor subsequent operational areas of the former RAF Quedgeley.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


3.2.4 Radiological Surveying As part of the previous phases of site investigation, radiological surveys were undertaken within all grassed areas within the FP1, FP2/3 and FP4a ar eas of the QUVL that adjoin the area of the Local Centre.

No significantly elevated readings above natural background radiation were identified. The area of the SAM was not ra diologically surveyed during the above phases of work as it ha s historically remained a farm house and outbuildings that did not part of the operational areas of the former RAF Quedgeley.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


4. Site Investigation Works

4.1 Scope of Works The following scope of works was undertaken to satisfy the objectives of the investigation:

• Excavation of 24 No. shallow hand-excavat ed pits allow visual observation and soil sampling;

• Soil Sampling for chemical analysis; and

• Archaeological watching brief.

The intrusive chemical investigation was carried out from 24 - 25 May 2010. All of the wo rks were undertaken by Entec’s site engineer and supervised by Entec’s archaeologist.

The intrusive investigation locations are presente d on Figure 4.1. An archae ological report detailing the watching brief and the finding is presented in Appendix A.

4.2 Intrusive Investigation

4.2.1 Hand-Exca vated Pits A total of 24 No. hand-excavated pits were dug excavated, with 22 No. of the pits located within the boundary of the SAM. One planned pit (MF22) was not excavated due to the presence o f a cobbled surface.

The soils were logged dur ing the excavation of hand-dug pits and representativ e soil sam ples were retrieved. All pits were backfilled with arisings, which were replaced as far as practicable, in the same order as excavated with the upperm ost material return to the surface. The trial pit logs are presented in Appendix B.

4.2.2 Radiological Screening Any arisings containing ashy or metal lic items / residues were screened wit h a scintillati on probe by the Entec Site Engineer, who is a trai ned Radiation Protection Supervisor (RPS). No elevated radioactivity was detected above background readings.

4.2.3 Sampling and Laboratory Chemical Analysis

Soil Sampling A minimum of two soil sam ples were taken fro m each trial pit for potential chem ical analysis, however, not all of the s amples were ultim ately s cheduled. S oil sam ples were obtained in accordance with BS 10175 and care wa s taken to ensure that the sa mpling range did not cros s strata boundaries.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


Soil samples were taken using a stainle ss steel trowel which was cleaned between each use to avoid cross contam ination. The sam ples were pl aced directly into containers provided by the chemical testing laboratory.

Soil samples were maintained at a low temperature in cool boxes prior to and during delivery to the testing laborator y. Sam ples were listed, uniquel y labelled, and the laborator y testin g scheduled and full chain of custody documentation completed. All sam ples were sent in cool boxes by overnight courier to ALcontrol Laboratories for chemical testing.

Soil Analysis Soil sa mples collected were s cheduled and sub sequently analy sed in the chemical te sting laboratory for the following analyses:

• Metals (including hexavalent chromium) – 45 No. samples;

• pH – 45 No. samples;

• Soil Organic Matter – 32 No. samples;

• Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) – 32 No. samples;

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) – 4 No. samples; and

• Sulphide, Sulphur and Water Soluble Sulphate (2:1 extract) – 4 No. samples.

All samples were analysed for a metals and pH. Specific organic analysis (e.g. TPH, PAH) was undertaken based on ground conditi ons encountered , and on visual and olfact ory evidence of organic contamination. T he TPH testing was undertaken in accordance with t he TPH Criteri a Working Group (CWG) methodology.

Water Sampling and Analysis Groundwater was not encountered within the sh allow hand-excavated pits an d no grou ndwater samples were scheduled for laboratory chemical analysis.

Quality Assurance Samples were sent to ALcontrol Laboratories, a sp ecialist subcontractor to Entec. ALcontrol is a UK AS an d MCERT a ccredited lab oratory and participates i n quality control sche mes. Samples analysed are subject to comparison with internal standards.

4.3 Ground and Contamination Conditions

4.3.1 Ground Conditions The findings of the site investigation generally confirmed the anticipated ground conditions and the general geolog y comprised Made Ground topsoil overlying sandy clays, which frequently contain evid ence of anthropom orphic activity , including fra gments of brick, clinker and charcoal. A su mmary of the strata encountered within the hand-excavated pits is presented in Table 4.1.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


Table 4.1 Summary of Ground Conditions

HDP No. Depth (m bgl) Description

MF01 0.00 – 0.20 0.20 – 0.60

MG: Topsoil with charcoal and clinker. Orange brown gravely CLAY.

MF02 0.00 – 0.35 0.35 – 0.45 0.45 – 0.65

MG: Topsoil with charcoal and clinker. Grey-brown gravely CLAY (possibly reworked). Orange-brown sandy CLAY.

MF03 0.00 – 0.20 0.20 – 0.65

MG: Topsoil with rare fragments of charcoal. Orange-brown sandy CLAY.

MF04 0.00 – 0.45 0.45 – 0.70

TOPSOIL: Grey-brown stiff sandy CLAY with occasional flecks of charcoal and sandstone gravel. Orange-brown sandy CLAY with occasional sandstone gravel.

MF05 0.00 – 0.15 0.15 – 0.50 0.50 – 0.60

MG: Dark brown sandy silt. MG: Dark brown silty sand with much clinker, coal and charcoal. MG: Dark brown sandy clay with much sandstone and clinker.

MF06 0.00 – 0.30 0.30 – 0.65 0.65 – 0.85

MG: Dark brown sandy clay with gravel of glass sandstone and clinker Orange-brown sandy CLAY with occasional gravel. Orange-brown sandy CLAY.

MF07 0.00 – 0.20 0.20 – 0.35 0.35 – 0.55 0.55 – 0.65

MG: Dark brown sandy silty topsoil with gravel of sandstone, brick and occasional plastic. MG: Dark brown sandy clay with much gravel of sandstone, brick, charcoal and clinker.Grey CLAY with occasional gravel of sandstone. Orange-brown sandy CLAY with occasional subangular gravel.

MF08 0.00 – 0.15 0.15 – 0.50 0.50 – 0.80

MG: Dark brown sandy clay with much gravel of brick, charcoal, clinker and sandstone.MG: Brown sandy clay with much gravel of sandstone and occasional coarse fragments of charcoal. Orange-brown sandy CLAY with occasional gravel of sandstone.

MF09 0.00 – 0.30 0.30 – 0.50 0.50 – 0.60

MG: Dark brown sandy silty topsoil with occasional gravel of sandstone, brick and occasional plastic. MG: Orange-brown sandy clay with rare clinker. Orange-brown sandy CLAY.

MF10 0.00 – 0.30 0.30 – 0.50 0.50 – 0.60

MG: Dark brown sandy clay with occasional gravel of sandstone, brick, clinker, ceramic, plastic ash and charcoal. MG: Brown sandy clay with some gravel of sandstone and occasional charcoal and clinker. Orange-brown very sandy CLAY.

MF11 0.00 - 0.60 MG: Dark brown slightly clayey sand with roots and rootlets and much fragments of brick, sandstone, charcoal and clinker.

MF12 0.00 – 0.15 0.15 – 0.50

MG: Dark brown sandy silt with much gravel of brick, clinker, charcoal and limestone. MG: Yellow sand with much gravel of ash, charcoal, limestone, brick and clinker.

MF13 0.00 – 0.25 0.25 – 0.35 0.35 – 0.70

MG: Dark brown sandy silty topsoil with occasional gravel of sandstone and charcoal. MG: Dark brown sandy clay with much gravel of sandstone, clinker and coal. Orange-brown slightly sandy CLAY with occasional gravel of sandstone.

MF14 0.00 – 0.10 0.10 – 0.20 0.20 – 0.70

MG: Dark brown sandy topsoil with some gravel of sandstone and brick. MG: Dark brown ashy slightly silty sand with some gravel of clinker and limestone. Orange-brown sandy CLAY with occasional gravel, becoming some gravel with depth.

MF15 0.00 – 0.30 0.30 – 0.70

MG: Dark brown sandy silt with much gravel of brick, clinker, charcoal and limestone. Orange-brown sandy CLAY with some gravel of sandstone.

MF16 0.00 – 0.55 0.55 – 0.70 0.70 – 0.75

MG: Dark brown very sandy clay with a little gravel and some cobbles of brick. Dark grey-brown very sandy CLAY with a little fine gravel. Light brown sandy CLAY.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010



© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

HDP No. Depth (m bgl) Description

MF17 0.00 – 0.20 0.20 – 0.65

MG: Dark brown sandy topsoil with a little brick. Light brown sandy gravelly CLAY. Gravel of limestone.

MF18 0.00 – 0.15 0.15 – 0.40 0.40 – 0.50 0.50 – 0.65

MG: Grey-brown sandy clay with occasional charcoal and gravel of sandstone. MG: Brown silty clay with occasional gravel of sandstone and charcoal. Grey-brown CLAY. Orange-brown sandy CLAY with occasional gravel of limestone.

MF19 0.00 – 0.40 0.40 – 0.50 0.50 – 0.60

MG: Dark brown sandy silty topsoil with much gravel of sandstone, clinker, charcoal and brick. MG: Green-brown sandy clay with much fragments of charcoal and some sandstone. Orange-brown sandy CLAY with some gravel.

MF20 0.00 – 0.40 0.40 – 0.50 0.50 – 0.60

MG: Dark brown sandy silty topsoil with much gravel of charcoal, clinker, sandstone and brick. Orange-brown sandy clay with occasional charcoal and fragments of sandstone. Orange-brown very sandy CLAY with much gravel of sandstone.

MF21 0.00 – 0.45 0.45 – 0.60

MG: Dark brown sandy silt with much clinker, ash, charcoal, and brick. MG: Orange-brown sandy clay with occasional clinker and fragments of brick.

MF23 0.00 – 0.15 0.15 – 0.30 0.30 – 0.80

MG: Dark brown sandy silt with much brick, clinker and charcoal. MG: Sand and gravel of limestone. Brown sandy CLAY with some gravel of sandstone.

MF24 0.00 – 0.30 0.30 – 0.50 0.50 – 0.65

MG: Brown sand with much whole and fragmented brick and gravel of limestone. Dark brown sandy SILT. Orange-brown sandy CLAY with occasional gravel of sandstone.

MF25 0.00 – 0.55 0.55 – 0.65

MG: Yellow-brown sand with whole and fragmented brick and gravel of sandstone. Grey slightly sandy CLAY.

Notes HPD Hand Dug Pit MG Made Ground mbgl meters below ground level

Made Ground Made Ground (the BS 5930 term for ground that has been or is suspected to have been previously tipped, engineered or reworked) was logged in all but one of the 24 No. locations. The Made Ground was generally fo und to com prise reworked topsoil and sand y cla y wi th occasional gravel of brick, clinker and charcoal.

Made Ground was encountered to the base of th e hand-excavated pit within three location s (MF05, MF12 and MF21).

Natural Ground - Drift Brown sandy CLAY, or orange-brown sand y CL AY was encountered un derlying the Made Ground in each of the 20 No. locations where natural ground was encountered.

Natural Ground - Solid The underl ying solid geo logy was not encountered due to t he depth of the shallow hand-excavated pits (typically 0.60 m bgl). Site investigation elsewhere at the QUVL site has shown that the Lias Clay underlies any Made Ground and superficial deposits that are present.


Trees A number of trees remain present at the site, which drawings from Coopers Associates indicate to be protected. At present, no tree protection fencing has been erected.

Japanese Knotweed Four separate areas of Jap anese Knotweed are clearly fenced-off and identified within the are a of the SAM.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010



© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


5. Environmental Assessment

5.1 Generic Qualitative Risk Assessment (GQRA)

5.1.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Approach A generic quantitative ri sk assessment (GQRA) has been undertaken t o consider t he significance of the contaminant conce ntrations with respect to proposed future land use within the SAM area of the Local Centre.

In order to provide an asse ssment of ris ks to humans presented by any contaminants identified within the surface materials at the site, a hu man health Generic Quantitative Risk Assessmen t (GQRA) has been undert aken. The GQRA invol ves co mparing contam inant concentrations observed at the site with appropriate Generi c Assessment Criter ia (GAC). A GQR A for ms Tier 2 of the tiered approach to asses sing risks from land contamination as set o ut in the Defra and Envir onment Agency publication "Mode l P rocedures for the Managem ent of Land Contamination" (Defra/EA 2004a) CLR11.

To perform a GQR A, conta minant concentrations in soil have been com pared with relevant GAC. These GAC cons ist of Entec GAC, Soil Guideline Values (SGVs ) and Chartered Institute of Environm ental Health/LQM (LQM/C IEH) values for the assessment of risk s to human healt h. These GAC have been derived for selected s ubstances in soils using the ‘Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment’ (CLEA) model.

In summary, the GQRA has been undertaken using the following assessment criteria:

i) Soils: • Current (2009) CLEA Soil Guideline Values (S GVs) published to date for selected deter minands (arsenic, nickel, mercury species , selenium, b enzene, toluene, et hyl benzene and xy lenes) for residential (with plant uptake);

• Entec derived GAC based on updated SGVs, amended for a residential land-use without plant uptake;

• Previously p ublished CLEA Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) for a residential land use with and without plant uptake;

• Chartered Institute of Enviro nmental Health/LQM Generic Assessment Criteria (CIEH/LQM) for a residential land-use with and without plant uptake, where published; and

• Limit of Detection (LOD) in the absence of any published GAC.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


5.2 Controlled Waters Risk Assessment Groundwater was not encountered wit hin the sh allow hand-excavated pits and therefore the potential risk to controlled waters is not assessment within this report.

5.3 Laboratory Chemical Test Data Assessment

5.3.1 Assessed Soil Data All laboratory soil chemical test data from both recent and previous intrusive investigations are assessed against the respe ctive assessment criteria. The concentration of SOM varied from a minimum 1.14% and all sa mples ha ve been conservatively s creened agai nst GAC for a 1% SOM.

Exceedances of the assessment criteria are identified and summarised in Table 5.1 and a full list of the assessed laboratory chemical test data is presented in Appendix C.

Table 5.1 Summary of Data Assessment – Exceedances of GAC

Loc. Depth (m bgl)

Determinand Conc. (mg/kg)

GAC Exceedance (and Magnitude of Exceedance)

MF05 0.15-0.25 Arsenic Benz(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

40.6 13.4 11.7 29.7 11.1 27.7

20.6 6.45

Residential (x 1.3) / POS (x 1.2) Residential (x 4.3) / POS (x 3.6) / Allotments (x 5.4) Residential (x 2.0) / POS (x 1.3) / Allotments (x 4.5) Residential (x 5.3) / POS (x 4.2) / Allotments (x 8.5) Residential (x 1.3) / POS (x 1.1) / Allotments (x 1.6) Residential (x 33.4) / POS (x 27.7) / Allotments (x 46.2) / Commercial (x 2.0) Residential (x 6.4) / POS (x 4.9) / Allotments (x 11.4) Residential (x 8.5) / POS (x 7.4) / Allotments (x 8.5)

MF10 0.10-0.20 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.49 Residential (x 3.0) / POS (x 2.5) / Allotments (x 4.2)

MF13 0.25-0.35 Cadmium 1.81 Allotments (x )

MF14 0.10-0.20 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.49 Allotments (x 2.5)

MF17 0.10-0.20 Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

3.13 1.91

Residential (x 1.8) / POS (x 3.1) / Allotments (x 5.6) Allotments (x 1.1)

MF21 0.10-0.20 Benz(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

3.50 3.04 6.35 6.11 3.87 1.26

Residential (x 1.1) / Allotments ( 1.4) Allotments (x 1.2) Residential (x 1.1) / Allotments (x 1.8) Residential (x 7.4) / POS (x 6.1) / Allotments (x 10.2) Residential (x 1.2) / Allotments (x ) Residential (x 1.7) / POS (x 1.5) / Allotments (x 1.7)

MF24 0.30-0.40 Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

3.60 2.79 1.91

Allotments (x 1.02) Residential (x 3.4) / POS (x 2.8) / Allotments (x 4.7) Allotments (x 1.1)

Notes GAC – Generic Assessment Criteria Residential – GAC for a residential scenario with plant uptake POS – Public Open Space (GAC for a residential scenario without plant uptake) mbgl – metres below ground level GAC exceedance assumes a 1% SOM content


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


Soil Organic Matter (SOM) The concentration of SOM varied from a minimum 1.14% (MF25 0. 10 – 0.20 m bgl) t o a maximum reported value of 64.3 % (MF14 0. 10 – 0.20 m bgl). The correspondi ng m aterial from MF14 comprised ashy silty sand with some gravel of clinker and the high SOM value may be attributable to uncombusted organic material within the ash and clinker.

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) No elevated TPH(CWG) results were recorded in t he two s amples that were analy sed from intrusive positions located adjacent to above ground tanks (MF12 and MF21).

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) PAHs were above the respective GAC with in sh allow Made Ground collected fro m six locations. The magnitude of exceedance was greatest for benzo(a)pyrene within MF05 (0.15 – 0.25 m bgl) where a concentration of 27.7 mg/kg was encountered within shallow Made Ground comprising d ark brown si lty sand with m uch cli nker, coal and c harcoal, which is above t he respective GAC for a residential (0.83 mg/kg), POS (1.0 mg/kg), allotm ent (0.60 mg/kg) and commercial (14 mg/kg) scenarios (as identified on Table 5.1).

Asbestos All Made Ground sam ples were analysed for an asbestos presen ce screen. T he presence of asbestos fibres was not identified within any of the samples analysed.

Metals and pH Metals were typically below the respect ive GAC for all land use s cenarios, apart from within MF05 (0. 15 – 0.2 5 m bgl) where elevated arsenic of 40.6 mg/kg was reported from Mad e Ground comprising dark brown silty sand with much clinker, coal and charcoal, which is abo ve the respective GAC for a residential scenario (32 mg/kg) and POS scenario (35 mg/kg).

Cadmium was detected at 1.81 mg/kg in MF 13 (0.25 – 0.5 m bgl) within Made Gro und comprising dark brown sand y clay with much gravel of sandstone, clinker and coal, which is very marginally above the respective GAC for allotments of 1.80 mg/kg.

The pH of so ils ranged from a minimum of pH 7.09 to a m aximum pH 8.52, indicating neutral to slightly alkaline ground conditions.

Sulphide, Total Sulphate and Water Soluble Sulphate All laboratory chem ical t est results fo r easily liberated sulphide were below the laborator y method limit of detection (LOD) of <15 mg/kg.

Total sulphate ranged from 285 – 1640 mg/kg and water soluble sulphate ranged from below the laboratory method LOD of <3 mg/l to a maximum of 460 mg/l. Assessment of soils against BRE Special Digest 1 (2005) Aggres sive Ch emical Environm ent for Con crete (ACEC) classification for brownfield locations indicates that all material t ested falls within criteria f or Design Sulphate Classification DS-1.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010



© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

5.4 Radiological Conditions The average background level for the QUVL si te, establishe d using the 2 inch Ludlu m scintillation probe, is 135 cps. The statutory guidance threshold level of 0.37 Becquerel/gram1 (Bq/g) corresponds to a reading using the Ludlum probe of 320 cps, which is much greater than the maximum concentration encountered within arisings from within the area of the SAM.

5.5 Summary of Environmental Assessment Made Ground has been encountered throughout the area of the SAM. Assessment of laborat ory chemical test data indicates five locations where there are exceedances of GAC when compared against residential (with plant uptake) and POS (residential without plant uptake) GAC. One of the locations also exceeds commercial GAC. It is understood t hat the future proposed use f or this area will not comprise allotments.

No asbestos containing m aterials were identified. All materials t ested are cla ssified as DS- 1. No elevated radioactivity was detected within intrusive investigation locations.

1 Radioactive Substances Act 1993


6. Remediation Considerations

6.1 Introduction It is understo od that no new constructions are pr oposed within thi s area of the proposed L ocal Centre, primarily due to the constraints associated with the SAM status.

This Section considers the requirem ent for re mediation for t he p roposed futur e land use and provides detail, definition of areas for r emediation, proposals for re-use or disposal of soils and the sampling and validation criteria, should remediation be required.

6.1.1 Objectives The principle objective of the pro posed remedia tion scheme is t o render the site ‘suitable for use’, with respect to its intended end-use. The scheme allows the removal of ‘statutory’ liability which may exist in relation to the pres ence of c ontaminants in the site, as defined by current environmental legislation, principall y the Environmental Protection Act and the Water Resources Act.

This section details the method statement for the handling, testing and waste sentencing of any materials at site that hav e been identified as conta minated, or potentially contam inated, and supplements remediation work undertaken elsewhere within the area of the Local Centre.

6.2 Identified Contamination

6.2.1 Chemical and Visual Contamination The site investigation data indicates tha t there are is olated areas within the SAM part of th e proposed Lo cal Centre where contam ination has been identified. Contam ination t ypically comprises sli ghtly elevated PAHs within sh allow Made Ground, t ypically associated with fragments of clinker and charcoal that may be the result of general historical burning of materials within the vicinity of Manor Farm.

Five locations within the area of the Local Centre require further attention (MF05, MF10, MF17, MF21 and MF24), four of which are within the boundary of the SAM. The base dep th of contaminated Made Ground strata is summarise d in Table 6.1. In each case the underl ying strata has been tested as chemically clean for the respective proposed end use. The exception to this is in MF24, where the underlying natural ground was not tested.

Assessment of che mical test data indicates that all other site investigation l ocations are below the respective criteria for their proposed land use.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


Table 6.1 Depth to Base of Contaminated Made Ground

Location Sample Depth (mbgl)

Base of Contaminated Made Ground

(mbgl)

MF05 0.15 – 0.25 0.50

MF10 0.10 – 0.20 0.30

MF17 0.10 – 0.20 0.20

MF21 0.10 – 0.20 0.45

MF24 0.30 – 0.40 0.50

Notes mbgl – metres below ground level

Locations with exceedences above the respective GAC criteria are presented in Figure 6.1.

In addition, i t is noted th at there is evidence of clinker toward the western boundary of the SAM, which may be as sociated with sub-base material fro m a for mer rail track that was historically located within this region of the site.

6.3 Remediation Verification Criteria

6.3.1 Exposure Assumptions The approve d Rem ediation Verification Criteria is consistent with GAC d erived for four standard land-use exposure scenarios. The proposed future site use of the area of the SAM is understood to be:

• commercial to the east and northeast of Manor Farm;

• public open space within areas to the north, west and south of the moat; and

• residential (without plant uptake) within boundary of the moat.

A plan showing the proposed layout of the site is presented in Appendix D.

6.3.2 Regulatory Approval of Remediation Verification Criteria Remediation Verification Criteria for the FP4 an d FP5 areas of the QUVL sit e was outlined in correspondence with GCC (Entec letter ref. 19466P125 2, dated 13 May 2010), which was subsequently approved b y the GCC Contaminated Land Officer (e-mail correspondence dated 01 July 2010). The approved Remediation Verification Criteria is presented in Appendix E.

Benzo(a)Pyrene It is noted that the available GAC for PAHs, not ably benzo(a) pyrene are likely to be si milar concentrations to observed backgrou nd concen trations in natural soil. The GAC for benzo(a)pyrene is based on currentl y published toxicological health criteria values and the updated CLEA model. There are consi derable uncertainties associated with assessing the risks


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


to hum an health from benzo(a)p yrene and it is ex pected that t he toxicological health cri teria value, on which the GAC have been based, will be updated in the future.

Approval was obtained fr om the GCC Contam inated Land Officer (in e-m ail correspondence dated 01 July 2010) that where slight exceedances of PAHs are identified in natural drift or Lias clay and where there is no evidence of visual contamination, a reasonable verification criteria of twice the GAC may be adopted as the Remediation Verification Criteria.

6.4 Further Works Outstanding

6.4.1 Remedial Works Earthworks to prepare the site and rem ove shallow contam inated Made Ground sho uld b e undertaken to achieve suitable concentrations fo r the proposed fin al end use. The remediation strategy for preparing the site to a st ate that is ‘suitable for u se’ shoul d b e undertaken in accordance with the re mediation strategy deve loped by Entec for the FP4a area of the s ite (Entec Doc. Ref. 19466RR475i1, dated December 2007).

Areas identified as requiring remediation are presented on Figure 6.1. Four of the five areas are located within the SAM and one, MF17, outside. The depth of Made Ground in t hese areas i s between 0.2m and 0.5m.

Depending on the final proposed developm ent of th e site, Made Ground materials containing elevated conta minant concentrations would no rmally require excavation and d isposal, or removal elsewhere within the QUVL site area be low proposed buildings , areas of hardstanding or beneath a suitable thickness of ‘ clean’ capping material (ty pically > 600 mm). The SA M area i s howe ver categoris ed differently to the r est of the site due to its Scheduled Ancient Monument status, which will constrain any works within this ar ea. The lim ited depth of the contamination in t he identified areas is how ever a menable to selective excavation and replacement with clean soils.

6.4.2 Ecological Constraints It is noted that a nu mber of areas within the boundary of the SAM contain Japanese Knot weed, which is an invasive plant speci es that is currently being eradi cated from this area. Area s of known Japanese Knotweed are identified on Figure 6.1. Ecology Solutions should be contacted prior to the commencement of any intrusive works within the vicinity of Japanese Knotweed. It is noted one of the re mediation areas associat ed with MF21 is within the exclusion zone associated with Japanese Knotweed.

Great Crested Newts have been identified with in the Manor Fa rm moat area and an ame nded Great Crested Newt Licence was applied for b y Ecology Solutions (Doc. Ref: Great Crest ed Newt Licence Application M ethod Statement , 4029.GCN M ethod Statement , dated January 2007), prim arily associat ed with gr ound works and changes to newt fenci ng. Acceptance from English Nature is understood to have been received in November 2007.

The moat at Manor Farm encircles three sides of the buildings within the Manor Farm co mplex and is itself lined with mat ure oak, Ash and Willo w trees. To the west of the moat there is the “Old Orchard”, which co ntains stands of Apple, Pe ar, Oak, Ash and Maple and is surroun ded by hedgerow.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010


Trees with Tree Pre servation Orders (TPO’ s) are identified on plans provided by Cooper Partnership Ltd. All id entified prot ected tree s and hedgerow s within the vicinit y of the proposed Local Centre are shown on Fi gure 2.1. Confirmation of tree status should be sought from the Gloucester City Council (GCC) Tree Officer prior to any disturbance or rem oval of trees and hedgerows.

The wider area of the proposed Local Centre area includes the eastern most extent of the “ old orchard”, which is to be retained under proposed de velopment pl ans and currently houses a reptile holding pen.


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Draft - See Disclaimer


© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Appendix A Archaeological Information and SMC 45 Pages



© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Manor Farm Moated SiteQuedgeley, Gloucestershire

MAGNETOMETER AND EARTH RESISTANCE SURVEY

for

Entec UK Ltd

David Sabin and Kerry Donaldson

November 2009

Ref. no. 290

Archaeological Surveys Ltd

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS LTD

Manor Farm Moated SiteQuedgeley, Gloucestershire

Magnetometer and Earth Resistance Survey

for

Entec UK Ltd

Fieldwork by David Sabin and Jack CousinsReport by David Sabin BSc (Hons) MIFA and Kerry Donaldson BSc (Hons)

Survey date - from 13th to 20th November 2009Ordnance Survey Grid Reference – SO 81520 13660

Printed on 100% recycled paper

Archaeological Surveys LtdPO Box 2862, Castle Combe, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN14 7WZ

Tel: 01249 782234 Fax: 0871 661 8804Email: [email protected]: www.archaeological-surveys.co.uk

Archaeological Surveys Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under registration number 6090102, Vat Reg no. 850 4641 37.Registered office address, Griffon House, Seagry Heath, Great Somerford, Chippenham, SN15 5EN.

Archaeological Surveys Ltd Manor Farm Moated Site, Quedgeley Magnetometry and Resistivity

CONTENTS SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................1

1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 Survey background...................................................................................................1

1.2 Survey objectives and techniques.............................................................................1

1.3 Site location, description and survey conditions........................................................2

1.4 Site history and archaeological potential...................................................................3

1.5 Geology and soils......................................................................................................3

2 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................4

2.1 Technical synopsis....................................................................................................4

2.2 Equipment configuration, data collection and survey detail.......................................4

2.3 Data processing and presentation.............................................................................6

3 RESULTS.........................................................................................................................7

3.1 General overview – earth resistance survey.............................................................7

3.2 General overview - magnetometry............................................................................8

3.3 List of anomalies – earth resistance survey..............................................................9

3.4 List of anomalies – magnetometry...........................................................................11

4 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................12

4.1 Area 1......................................................................................................................12

4.2 Area 2......................................................................................................................12

4.3 Area 3......................................................................................................................12

4.4 Area 4......................................................................................................................12

4.5 Area 5......................................................................................................................13

5 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................13

i


6 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................14

Appendix A – basic principles of magnetic survey............................................................15

Appendix B – data processing notes................................................................................16

Appendix C – survey and data information.......................................................................17

Appendix D – digital archive.............................................................................................20

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 01 Map of survey area (1:25 000)

Figure 02 Referencing information (1:500)

Figure 03 Greyscale plot of raw resistance data (1:500)

Figure 04 Greyscale plot of processed resistance data (1:500)

Figure 05 Greyscale plot of raw magnetometer data (1:500)

Figure 06 Abstraction and interpretation of resistance anomalies (1:500)

Figure 07 Abstraction and interpretation of magnetometer anomalies (1:500)

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Area 1 west of the house.........................................................................................2

Plate 2: Area 2 west of the house.........................................................................................2

Plate 3: Area 3 south of the house.......................................................................................2

Plate 4: Area 4 northern section...........................................................................................2

Plate 5: Area 4 eastern section.............................................................................................3

Plate 6: Area 5 east of the house.........................................................................................3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Bartington fluxgate gradiometer sensor calibration results.....................................5

ii


SUMMARYEarth resistance survey and magnetometry were carried out within the gardens ofManor Farm moated site in Quedgeley, Gloucestershire. The earth resistancesurvey was carried out during a period of prolonged heavy rainfall which may havelimited resistive contrast and limited depth penetration. Magnetometry data werehighly disturbed by modern ferrous objects, as expected, although a small numberof magnetic anomalies helped support interpretation of the resistive data. Several areas of high resistance, possibly indicative of structural remains, ground-make up or landscaping, were located to the west, south and north east of thehouse. The archaeological potential of these anomalies cannot be confidentlydetermined from the results. Amorphous zones of high and low resistance andbroadly linear zones were also of indeterminate origin but could be associated withrelatively shallow differences in the nature of the soil. Several linear anomalieslocated by the survey are related to buried services.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Survey background1.1.1 Archaeological Surveys Ltd was commissioned by Entec UK Ltd (Entec) to

undertake a geophysical survey of an area of land at Manor Farm moated sitein Quedgeley, Gloucestershire. The site is within the Kingsway Urban Villagedevelopment area (formerly Quedgeley Urban Village) and will be part of alinear park and open landscaped setting for the moated site. The surveyforms part of an archaeological assessment of the site prior to investigation forcontaminated land.

1.1.2 The survey area lies within the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) of themoated site at Manor Farm, Quedgeley (Monument no. 13805). A licence tocarry out a geophysical survey was granted by English Heritage by virtue ofpowers contained in section 42 of the 1979 Ancient Monuments andArchaeological Areas Act (as amended by the National Heritage Act, 1983).The geophysical survey was carried out in accordance with a MethodStatement produced by Archaeological Surveys (2009) to satisfy therequirements of the Section 42 licence.

1.2 Survey objectives and techniques1.2.1 The objective of the survey was to use magnetometry and earth resistance

survey to locate geophysical anomalies that may be archaeological in originso that they may be assessed prior to any intrusive works within the site.

1.2.2 Magnetometry is a highly effective and efficient means of archaeologicalprospection recommended for survey over large areas. Earth resistancesurvey is particularly effective at locating former structural remains. The

1


survey and report generally follow the recommendations set out by EnglishHeritage, 2008: Geophysical survey in archaeological field evaluation. .

1.3 Site location, description and survey conditions1.3.1 The site is located on the eastern side of Quedgeley in Gloucestershire and is

centred on Ordnance Survey National Grid Reference SO 81520 13660.

1.3.2 The geophysical survey covers approximately 0.2ha within an area ofapproximately 100m by 70m. There are five separate survey areas (seePlates 1-6); Areas 1 and 2 are located within the lawned area to the west ofthe building, Area 3 lies to the south of the building, Area 5 lies to the east ofthe building, and Area 4 covers an “L” shaped area of grass surrounding thenorthern and north eastern parts of the building.

1.3.3 The site contained many trees and bushes which restricted the survey areas.The ground conditions were not at the most optimum for earth resistancesurvey due to prolonged periods of rain before and during the survey.

2

Plate 1: Area 1 west of the house Plate 2: Area 2 west of the house

Plate 3: Area 3 south of the house Plate 4: Area 4 northern section


1.4 Site history and archaeological potential1.4.1 The background information has been supplied by Entec. A building is

believed to have been on the site from the 12th century, although the presentManor farm house contains elements from the 15th, 16th and 19th centuries. Itis not known when the moat was dug, but it is presumed to have been withinthe period between 1250 and 1350 and to have been a full circuit. The currentbuilding lies on top of of the infilled eastern section, so that the moat can beseen as a “U” shaped feature.

1.4.2 The site was surrounded by agricultural land until 1915, when the NationalShell Filling Factory No 5 was established at Quedgeley. Some 250 buildingswere constructed within the surrounding area and used for the filling of shells.From 1939 the site and surrounding area became RAF Quedgeley and wasused by the RAF as a depot and for storage until 1996. In 2000 is wasacquired by Quedgeley Urban Village Ltd, a consortium of housingdevelopers. To the north of the site, the area is now part of the KingswayUrban Village.

1.4.3 Prior to construction of Kingsway Urban Village, an archaeological evaluationin 2001 by Northamptonshire Archaeology recorded ditches and gulliesassociated with a 1st century farmstead to the north west and west of the siteand an 11th century open field system in the northern part of RAF Quedgeley.

1.5 Geology and soils1.5.1 The underlying geology is Lower Lias (BGS, 2001). The overlying soils across

the site are from the Evesham 2 association which are typical calcareouspelosols. These consist of slowly permeable, calcareous clayey soils withseasonal waterlogging. (Soil Survey of England and Wales, 1983).

3

Plate 5: Area 4 eastern section Plate 6: Area 5 east of the house


2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Technical synopsis2.1.1 Magnetometry survey records localised magnetic fields that can be associated

with features formed by human activity. Magnetic susceptibility and magneticthermoremnance are factors associated with the formation of localised fields.Additional details are set out below and within Appendix A.

2.1.2 Iron minerals within the soil may become altered by burning and the breakdown of biological material; effectively the magnetic susceptibility of the soil isincreased, and the iron minerals become magnetic in the presence of theEarth's magnetic field. Accumulations of magnetically enhanced soils withinfeatures, such as pits and ditches, may produce magnetic anomalies that canbe mapped by magnetic prospection.

2.1.3 Magnetic thermoremnance can occur when ferrous minerals have been heated tohigh temperatures such as in a kiln, hearth, oven etc. On cooling, a permanentmagnetisation may be acquired due to the presence of the Earth's magnetic field.Certain natural processes associated with the formation of some igneous andmetamorphic rock may also result in magnetic thermoremnance.

2.1.4 The localised variations in magnetism are measured as sub-units of the Tesla whichis a SI unit of magnetic flux density. These sub-units are nano Teslas (nT), whichare equivalent to 10 9- Tesla (T).

2.1.5 The electrical resistance or resistivity of the soil depends upon the moisture contentand distribution within the soil. Buried features such as walls can affect themoisture distribution and are usually more moisture resistant than other featuressuch as the infill of a ditch. A stone wall will generally give a high resistanceresponse and the moisture retentive content of a ditch can give a low resistanceresponse. Localised variations in resistance are measured in ohms (Ω) which is theSI unit for electrical impedance or resistance.

2.1.6 The Twin Probe configuration used in this survey is favoured for archaeologicalprospection and can give a response to features up to 1m in depth with a mobileprobe separation of 0.5m.

2.2 Equipment configuration, data collection and survey detail2.2.1 The detailed magnetic survey was carried out using a Bartington Grad601-2

gradiometer. This instrument effectively measures a magnetic gradientbetween two fluxgate sensors mounted vertically 1m apart. Two sets ofsensors are mounted on a single frame 1m apart horizontally. The instrumentis extremely sensitive and is able to measure magnetic variation to0.03nanoTesla (nT). All readings are saved to an integral data logger foranalysis and presentation

4


2.2.2 The instrument is operated according to the manufacturer's instructions withconsideration given to the local conditions. An adjustment procedure is required,prior to collection of data, in order to balance the sensors and remove the effects ofthe Earth's magnetic field; further adjustment is required during the survey due toinstrument drift often associated with temperature change. It may be very difficult toobtain optimum balance for the sensors due to localised magnetic vectors that canbe associated with large ferrous objects, geological/pedological features, 'magnetic'debris within the topsoil and natural temperature fluctuations. Imperfect balanceresults in a heading error often visible as striping within the data; this can beeffectively removed by software processing and generally has little effect on thedata unless extreme.

2.2.3 The Bartington gradiometer undergoes regular servicing and calibration by themanufacturer. A current assessment of the instrument is shown in Table 1 below.

Date ofcalibration/service

16th May 2009

Sensor type Bartington Grad - 01 – 1000 Nos. 084 and 085

Bandwidth 12Hz (100nT range) both sensors

Noise <100pT peak to peak

Adjustable errors <2nTTable 1: Bartington fluxgate gradiometer sensor calibration results

The instrument was considered to be in good working order prior to the surveywith no known faults or defects.

2.2.4 Data were collected at 0.25m centres along traverses 1m apart. The surveyarea was separated into 20m by 20m grids giving 1600 recordedmeasurements per grid. This sampling interval is very effective at locatingarchaeological features and is the recommended methodology forarchaeological prospection (English Heritage, 2008).

2.2.5 The earth resistance survey was carried out using a TR Systems LtdResistance Meter TRCIA 1.31 with a mobile Twin Probe array. The standardmobile frame for the TRCIA instrument has a 0.5m electrode separation andreadings were recorded at 0.5m intervals along 0.5m traverses across thesite. The instrument was set to filter stray earth currents which can causeerrors within the resistance measurements. The survey was carried out within10m grids.

2.2.6 The survey grids were set out to the Ordnance Survey OSGB36 datum usinga Penmap RTK GPS. The GPS is used in conjunction with Topcon's Topnetservice where positional corrections are sent via a mobile telephone link.Positional accuracy of around 10 – 20mm is possible using the system.

5


2.3 Data processing and presentation2.3.1 Magnetometry data downloaded from the Grad 601-2 data logger are

analysed and processed in specialist software known as ArcheoSurveyor.The software allows greyscale and trace plots to be produced for presentationand display. Survey grids are assembled to form an overall composite of data(composite file) creating a dataset of the complete survey area. Appendix Ccontains specific information concerning the survey and data attributes and isderived directly from ArcheoSurveyor; this should be used in conjunction withinformation provided by Figure 02.

2.3.2 Raw magnetometry data are always analysed as processing can modifyanomalies. Only the raw data have been shown within the report, clipped to30nT, as processing was unable to improve the data due to the presence ofstrongly magnetic anomalies and the small size of the survey areas.

2.3.3 Data logged by the resistance meter are downloaded and processed withinArcheoSurveyor software. Raw data are analysed and displayed within thereport as well as processed data. The following processing has been carriedout on data in this survey:

raw and processed earth resistance data have been clipped at 2SD toenhance anomalies,

data have been “despiked” in order to remove spurious high contactresponses,

data are passed through a high pass filter in order to enhance anomalies.

The processing sequence used for each survey area is listed in Appendix C metadata.

2.3.4 An abstraction and interpretation is offered for all geophysical anomalieslocated by the survey. A brief summary of each anomaly, with an appropriatereference number, is set out in list form within the results (Section 3) to allow arapid assessment of features within each survey area. Where furtherinterpretation is possible, or where a number of possible origins should beconsidered, more detailed discussion is set out in Section 4.

2.3.5 The main form of data display used in this report is the greyscale plot. Both'raw' and 'processed' data have been shown for the earth resistance surveyand only raw data for the magnetometry. Greyscale plots are followed by anabstraction and interpretation plot for each technique.

2.3.6 Graphic raster images in bitmap format (.BMP) are initially prepared inArcheoSurveyor. Regardless of survey orientation, data captured along eachtraverse are displayed and processed by ArcheoSurveyor from left to right.Prior to displaying against base mapping, raster graphics require a rotationanticlockwise to restore north to the top of the image and are rotated uponinsertion into AutoCAD.

6


2.3.7 The raster images are combined with base mapping using AutoCAD LT 2007creating DWG file formats. All images are externally referenced to the CADdrawing in order to maintain good graphical quality. Quality can becompromised by rotation of graphics in order to allow the data to be orientatedwith respect to grid north; this is considered acceptable as the survey resultsare effectively georeferenced allowing relocation of features using GPS,resection method etc.. A digital archive, including raster images is producedwith this report, allowing separate analysis if necessary, see Appendix Dbelow.

3 RESULTS

3.1 General overview – earth resistance survey3.1.1 The earth resistance survey was carried out over a total of five survey areas

covering an area of 0.2ha. Geophysical anomalies located can be generallyclassified as high resistance anomalies possibly associated with structuralremains, high and low resistance linear anomalies of uncertain origin, areas ofhigh and low resistance of uncertain origin, high resistance anomalies possiblyassociated with services. Anomalies located within each survey area havebeen numbered and will be outlined below with subsequent discussion inSection 4.

3.1.2 Data quality are considered good with no significant stray earth currents orzones of high contact resistance. Soil conditions were considered less thanoptimum for earth resistance survey due to prolonged periods of heavy rainfalland saturated soils. Resistance values are generally low with the highestvalues in each area <50Ω except for Area 5 where maximum values of around100Ω were recorded. The low range of values would be typical for wet clayeysoils.

3.1.3 The listing of sub-headings below attempts to define a number of separatecategories that reflect the range and type of features located during the earthresistance survey. A basic explanation of the characteristics of the anomaliesis set out for each category in order to justify interpretation, a basic key isindicated to allow cross reference to the abstraction and interpretation plot.Sub-headings are then used to group anomalies with similar characteristics foreach survey area.

Anomalies possibly associated with garden/housePossible former garden featuresRecently demolished structuresHigh resistance associated with dumped materialHigh resistance associated with trees/vegetation

The category applies to anomalies that can be identified from siteobservations. These include recently removed structures, trees and shrubsand possible former garden features.

7


Anomalies with an uncertain origin

High resistance Low resistance

The category applies to a range of anomalies where there is not enoughevidence to confidently suggest an origin. Anomalies in this category may wellbe related to archaeologically significant features, such as structural remains,but equally relatively modern features, geological/pedological features andagricultural features should be considered.

3.2 General overview - magnetometry3.2.1 The detailed magnetic survey was carried out over a total of five survey areas

covering an area of 0.2ha. Geophysical anomalies located can be generallyclassified as, positive and negative linear anomalies of an uncertain origin,areas of magnetic debris and disturbance and strong discrete dipolaranomalies relating to ferrous objects. Anomalies located within each surveyarea have been numbered and will be outlined below with subsequentdiscussion in Section 4.

3.2.2 The listing of sub-headings below attempts to define a number of separatecategories that reflect the range and type of features located during themagnetometry survey. A basic explanation of the characteristics of themagnetic anomalies is set out for each category in order to justifyinterpretation, a basic key is indicated to allow cross reference to theabstraction and interpretation plot. Sub-headings are then used to groupanomalies with similar characteristics for each survey area.


Positive anomalies Negative anomalies

The category applies to a range of anomalies where there is not enoughevidence to confidently suggest an origin. Anomalies in this category may wellbe related to archaeologically significant features, but equally relativelymodern features, geological/pedological features and agricultural featuresshould be considered.

Anomalies with a modern originMagnetic disturbanceStrong multiple dipolar linear anomaly - pipeline/service

The magnetic response is often strong and dipolar indicative of ferrousmaterial and may be associated with extant above surface features such aswire fencing, cables, pylons etc.. Often a significant area around suchfeatures has a strong magnetic flux which may create magnetic disturbance;such disturbance can effectively obscure low magnitude anomalies if they arepresent.

8


Anomalies associated with magnetic debrisMagnetic debrisStrong discrete dipolar anomaly

The response often appears as areas containing many small dipolaranomalies that may range from weak to very strong in magnitude. Magneticdebris often occurs where there has been dumping or ground make-up and isrelated to magnetically thermoremnant materials such as brick or tile or othersmall fragments of ferrous material. This type of response is occasionallyassociated with kilns, furnace structures, or hearths and may therefore bearchaeologically significant. It is also possible that the response may becaused by natural material such as certain gravels and fragments of igneousor metamorphic rock. Strong discrete dipolar anomalies are responses toferrous objects within the topsoil.

3.3 List of anomalies – earth resistance survey

Area 1


(1) – Broadly rectangular high resistance anomaly approximately 6m by 4m.

(2) – High resistance linear anomaly.

Anomalies possibly associated with garden/house

(3) – Irregularly shaped high and low resistance anomalies may relate to former garden features. Surface features consistent with a former garden layout were visible across the lawn.

(4) – High resistance anomalies caused by uptake of moisture and sheltering by trees.

Area 2


(5) – Irregularly shaped zone of high resistance.

(6) – Irregularly shaped zone of low resistance.


(7) – A small zone of high resistance associated with dumped material.

9


Area 3


(8) – High resistance zone situated to the south of, and parallel to, the southern wing of the Manor house. The anomaly may relate to structural remains, ground make- up, or a former path may be responsible for the high resistance response. Rectilinear elements within the zone of high resistance have been particularly enhanced by processing.

(9) – High resistance anomaly with some possible linear morphology.

(10) High resistance linear anomaly extends south south westwards from anomaly (8). It is possible that this relates to a drain or service and corresponds to negative linear anomaly (21) visible within the magnetometry data. Area 4


(11) – High resistance anomaly located on the eastern side of the building. This may relate to structural remains although ground make-up, former garden feature etc. should also be considered.

(12) – High resistance linear anomalies of uncertain origin.

(13) – Low resistance zones may indicate more moisture retentive soils.


(14) – High resistance linear anomaly adjacent to the southern edge of Area 4 associated with a nearby extant wall.

(15) – High resistance anomalies to the north of the house appear to be associated with a recently removed brick structure.

(16)– Two high resistance linear anomalies extend towards an inspection chamber in the northern part of Area 4 and are likely to indicate buried drains/services.

Area 5


(17) – Two high resistance anomalies form a “V” shape within the back garden of the house. It is possible that these relate to services, although this is not certain.

10


3.4 List of anomalies – magnetometry

Area 1

Anomalies associated with magnetic debris

(18) – Strong discrete dipolar anomalies relate to ferrous objects within the topsoil.

Anomalies with a modern origin

(19) – Magnetic disturbance from nearby ferrous material.

Area 2


(20) – Strong discrete dipolar anomalies relate to ferrous objects within the topsoil.

Area 3


(21) – A negative linear anomaly corresponds to anomaly (10) seen within the resistance data. It is possible that this relates to a buried service or drain.

Area 4


(22) – Fragmented positive linear anomalies in the southern part of Area 4, may relate to cut features but this is not certain.


(23) – Widespread magnetic debris in the northern part of Area 4 may relate to material used in ground make-up. Evidence of periodic bonfires and waste burning was also visible in this part of the site.


(24) – Magnetic disturbance from ferrous material.

Area 5


(25) – Magnetic disturbance from ferrous material.

11


4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Area 14.1.1 The earth resistance survey revealed widespread amorphous high and low

resistance anomalies which could not be confidently interpreted. Althoughsome form of structural remains may be present, it is quite possible that theseare associated with former shallow garden features such as flower orvegetable beds. High resistance anomaly (1) does appear to have arectilinear form and could potentially relate to structural remains or a zone ofhard standing.

4.2 Area 24.2.1 High and low resistance zones of uncertain origin were located within Area 2

and it is possible that these relate to relatively shallow differences within thetopsoil cover. Only a small area was accessible with the magnetometer and nosignificant anomalies were located.

4.3 Area 34.3.1 High resistance anomaly (8) may have some rectilinear form and is located

immediately adjacent to the southern side of the Manor House. This part ofthe survey area appears to be slightly raised possibly due to ground make-upalthough it is possible that it relates to structural remains. It has not beenpossible to confidently determine the origin of the anomaly.

4.3.2 A high resistance linear anomaly (10) leads south westwards from anomaly(8), and this may relate to a buried drain or service. The detailedmagnetometer survey located a negative linear anomaly (21) that directlycorrelates with high resistance linear anomaly (10).

4.4 Area 44.4.1 Area 4 contains widespread high and low resistance anomalies. It appears

that the area may have been recently subject to some ground make-up orlandscaping and some of the anomalies may be related to this.

4.4.2 Anomaly (15), immediately to the north of the house, is likely to relate to arecently removed structure and high resistance anomaly (11) to the east of thehouse may also represent buried structural remains.

4.4.3 The detailed magnetometer survey located fragmented positive linearanomalies (22) that may relate to cut features. These anomalies correlateapproximately with high resistance linear anomaly (12).

12


4.5 Area 54.5.1 Two high resistance linear anomalies (17) appear to join to form a “V” shaped

feature. It is possible that these relate to buried services, although no clearevidence for this could be seen on the ground surface.

4.5.2 The detailed magnetometer survey located strong magnetic responses whichindicate the presence of ferrous material. This may support the evidence foranomalies (17) relating to buried services.

5 CONCLUSION

5.1.1 The ground conditions for earth resistance survey were less than optimumdue to prolonged rainfall resulting in waterlogged ground. Depth penetrationand resistive contrast may be suppressed in wet conditions. Magnetometrywas highly disturbed by ferrous material within the site although a smallnumber of anomalies were used to support interpretation of the resistancedata.

5.1.2 High resistance areas that could be consistent with structural remains, groundmake-up or other garden features were located within Area 1, to the west ofthe house, Area 3, immediately adjacent to the southern end of the house, andArea 4, close to the north eastern part of the house. Confident interpretationhas not been possible as the anomalies lack clear evidence for rectilinearform.

5.1.3 Amorphous zones of high and low resistance and zones with broadly linearform were located in most of the survey areas. It is considered possible thatsome of these relate to relatively shallow soil differences associated withformer garden features or ground make-up and landscaping.

13


6 REFERENCES

Archaeological Surveys, (2009). Magnetometry and Earth Resistance MethodStatement.

British Geological Survey, 2001. Solid Geology Map, UK South Sheet,1:625000 scale, 4th edition.

English Heritage, 2008. Geophysical survey in archaeological field evaluation.Research and Professional Service Guideline No.1. 2nd ed. Swindon: EnglishHeritage.

Soil Survey of England and Wales, 1983. Soils of England and Wales, Sheet5 South West England.

14


Appendix A – basic principles of magnetic survey

Iron minerals are always present to some degree within the topsoil and enhancementassociated with human activity is related to increases in the level of magnetic susceptibilityand thermoremnant material.

Magnetic susceptibility is an induced magnetism within a material when it is in thepresence of a magnetic field. This can be thought of as effectively permanent due to thepresence of the Earth's magnetic field.

Thermoremnant magnetism occurs when ferrous material is heated beyond a specifictemperature known as the Curie Point. Demagnetisation occurs at this temperature withre-magnetisation by the Earth's magnetic field upon cooling.

Enhancement of magnetic susceptibility can occur in areas subject to burning and complexfermentation processes on biological material; these are frequently associated with humansettlement. Thermoremnant features include ovens, hearths, and kilns. In additionthermoremnant material such as tile and brick may also be associated with human activityand settlement.

Silting and deliberate infilling of ditches and pits with magnetically enhanced soil cancreate an area of enhancement compared with surrounding soils and subsoils into whichthe feature is cut. Mapping enhanced areas will produce linear and discrete anomaliesallowing an assessment and characterisation of hidden subsurface features.

It should be noted that areas of negative enhancement can be produced from materialhaving lower magnetic properties compared to the topsoil. This is common for manysedimentary bedrocks and subsoils which were often used in the construction of banksand walls etc. Mapping these 'negative' anomalies may also reveal archaeologicalfeatures.

Magnetic survey or magnetometry can be carried out using a fluxgate gradiometer andmay be referred to as gradiometry. The gradiometer is a passive instrument consisting oftwo fluxgate sensors mounted vertically 1m apart. The instrument is carried about 30cmabove the ground surface and the upper sensor measures the Earth's magnetic field asdoes the lower sensor but this is influenced to a greater degree by any localised buriedfield. The difference between the two sensors will relate to the strength the magnetic fieldcreated by the buried feature. If no enhanced feature is present the field measured byboth sensors will be similar and the difference close to zero.

There are a number of factors that may affect the magnetic survey and these include soiltype, local geology and previous human activity. Situations arise where magneticdisturbance associated with modern services, metal fencing, dumped waste material etc.,obscures low magnitude fields associated with archaeological features.

15


Appendix B – data processing notes

ClippingMinimum and maximum values are set and replace data outside of the range with thosevalues. Extreme values are removed improving colour or greyscale contrast associatedwith data values that may be archaeologically significant. Different ranges are applied todata in order to determine the most suitable for anomaly abstraction and display.

Zero Median/Mean Traverse (magnetometry only)The median (or mean) of each traverse is calculated ignoring data outside a thresholdvalue, the median (or mean) is then subtracted from the traverse. The process is used toequalise slight differences between the set-up and stability of gradiometer sensors andcan remove striping. The process can remove archaeological features that run along atraverse so data analysis is also carried out prior its application.

De-stagger (magnetometry only)Compensates for small positional errors within data collection by shifting the position of thereadings along each traverse by a specified amount. Data lost at the end of each traverseare extrapolated from adjacent value in the same row.

Deslope (magnetometry only)Corrects for striping and distortion caused by metal objects/services etc.. The processcalculates a curve based on a polynomial best fit mathematical function for each traverse.This curve is then subtracted from the actual data.

High Pass FilterRemoves low frequency anomalies within the data that are not considered to bearchaeologically significant and may be natural in origin. A window passes over the data,the mean of all the data within the window is subtracted from the centre value. The size ofthe window is adjusted as is the weighting which may be uniform or Gaussian.

Appendix C – survey and data information

16


Area 1 raw resistance data

Filename: Area1res-raw.xcp Instrument Type: TRCIA (Resistance)Units: OhmSurveyed by: on 22/11/2009Assembled by: on 22/11/2009Collection Method: ZigZagSensors: 0 @ 0.00 m spacing.Dummy Value: 32702Origin: Zero

DimensionsComposite Size (readings): 60 x 80Survey Size (meters): 30 m x 40 mGrid Size: 10 m x 10 mX Interval: 0.5 mY Interval: 0.5 m

StatsMax: 15.86Min: 9.38Std Dev: 1.49Mean: 12.59Median: 12.61Composite Area: 0.12 haSurveyed Area: 0.068225 ha

Processes: 3 1 Base Layer 2 Search & Replace From: -1409286.13 To: -1409285.13 With: Dummy 3 Clip at 2.00 SD

Source Grids: 9 1 Col:0 Row:0 grids\07.xgd 2 Col:0 Row:1 grids\08.xgd 3 Col:0 Row:2 grids\09.xgd 4 Col:1 Row:0 grids\01.xgd 5 Col:1 Row:1 grids\02.xgd 6 Col:1 Row:2 grids\03.xgd 7 Col:1 Row:3 grids\04.xgd 8 Col:2 Row:0 grids\05.xgd 9 Col:2 Row:1 grids\06.xgd

Area 1 resistance data processing

Processes: 6 1 Base Layer 2 Search & Replace From: -1409286.13 To: -1409285.13 With: Dummy 3 Despike Threshold: 2 Window size: 3x3 4 High pass Gaussian filter: Window: 21 x 21 5 Clip at 2.00 SD 6 Interpolate: X & Y Doubled.





Processes: 2 1 Base Layer 2 Clip at 2.00 SD

Source Grids: 5 1 Col:0 Row:0 grids\01.xgd 2 Col:0 Row:1 grids\02.xgd 3 Col:0 Row:2 grids\03.xgd 4 Col:1 Row:1 grids\04.xgd 5 Col:1 Row:2 grids\05.xgd


Processes: 6 1 Base Layer 2 Despike Threshold: 2 Window size: 3x3 3 High pass Gaussian filter: Window: 25 x 25 4 Clip at 2.00 SD 5 Interpolate: X & Y Doubled. 6 Despike Threshold: 2 Window size: 3x3






Source Grids: 8 1 Col:0 Row:0 grids\06.xgd 2 Col:0 Row:1 grids\07.xgd 3 Col:0 Row:2 grids\08.xgd 4 Col:1 Row:0 grids\01.xgd 5 Col:1 Row:1 grids\02.xgd 6 Col:1 Row:2 grids\03.xgd 7 Col:2 Row:0 grids\04.xgd 8 Col:2 Row:1 grids\05.xgd


Processes: 4 1 Base Layer 2 High pass Gaussian filter: Window: 21 x 21 3 Clip at 2.00 SD 4 Interpolate: X & Y Doubled.

Area 4 raw resistance data Filename: Area4res-raw.xcp Instrument Type: TRCIA (Resistance)Units: OhmSurveyed by: on 22/11/2009Assembled by: on 22/11/2009Collection Method: ZigZagSensors: 0 @ 0.00 m spacing.Dummy Value: 32702

17


Origin: Zero




Source Grids: 10 1 Col:0 Row:2 grids\08.xgd 2 Col:0 Row:3 grids\09.xgd 3 Col:0 Row:4 grids\10.xgd 4 Col:1 Row:2 grids\05.xgd 5 Col:1 Row:3 grids\06.xgd 6 Col:1 Row:4 grids\07.xgd 7 Col:2 Row:0 grids\01.xgd 8 Col:2 Row:1 grids\02.xgd 9 Col:2 Row:2 grids\03.xgd 10 Col:2 Row:3 grids\04.xgd


Processes: 5 1 Base Layer 2 Despike Threshold: 2 Window size: 3x3 3 High pass Gaussian filter: Window: 21 x 21 4 Clip at 2.00 SD 5 Interpolate: X & Y Doubled.






Source Grids: 3 1 Col:0 Row:0 grids\01.xgd 2 Col:0 Row:1 grids\02.xgd 3 Col:1 Row:0 grids\03.xgd


Processes: 4 1 Base Layer 2 High pass Gaussian filter: Window: 21 x 21 3 Clip at 2.00 SD 4 Interpolate: X & Y Doubled.

Area 1 raw magnetometer data

Filename: Area1mag-raw.xcp Instrument Type: Bartington (Gradiometer)Units: nTSurveyed by: on 19/11/2009Assembled by: on 22/11/2009Collection Method: ZigZagSensors: 2 @ 1.00 m spacing.Dummy Value: 32702Origin: Zero

DimensionsComposite Size (readings): 160 x 40Survey Size (meters): 40 m x 40 mGrid Size: 20 m x 20 mX Interval: 0.25 mY Interval: 1 m

StatsMax: 30.00Min: -30.00Std Dev: 13.46Mean: -8.25Median: -5.84Composite Area: 0.16 haSurveyed Area: 0.0517 ha

Processes: 2 1 Base Layer 2 Clip from -30.00 to 30.00 nT

Source Grids: 3 1 Col:0 Row:0 grids\01.xgd 2 Col:0 Row:1 grids\02.xgd 3 Col:1 Row:0 grids\03.xgd






Source Grids: 2 1 Col:0 Row:0 grids\01.xgd 2 Col:0 Row:1 grids\02.xgd


18


Filename: Area3mag-raw.xcp Instrument Type: Bartington (Gradiometer)Units: nTSurveyed by: on 19/11/2009Assembled by: on 22/11/2009Dummy Value: 32702Origin: Zero




Source Grids: 1 1 Col:0 Row:0 grids\01.xgd




StatsMax: 30.00

Min: -30.00Std Dev: 26.31Mean: -3.26Median: -9.67Composite Area: 0.24 haSurveyed Area: 0.04955 ha


Source Grids: 4 1 Col:0 Row:1 grids\03.xgd 2 Col:0 Row:2 grids\04.xgd 3 Col:1 Row:0 grids\01.xgd 4 Col:1 Row:1 grids\02.xgd


Filename: Area5mag-raw.xcp Instrument Type: Bartington (Gradiometer)Units: nTSurveyed by: on 19/11/2009Assembled by: on 22/11/2009Dummy Value: 32702Origin: Zero


StatsMax: 30.00Min: -30.00Std Dev: 24.40Mean: 11.35Median: 30.00Composite Area: 0.04 haSurveyed Area: 0.00755 ha


Source Grids: 1 1 Col:0 Row:0 grids\01.xgd

19


Appendix D – digital archive

Survey results are produced in hardcopy using A4 for text and A3 for plots (allplots are scaled for A3). In addition digital data created during the survey aresupplied on CD. Further information on the production of the report and thedigital formats involved in its creation are set out below.

This report has been prepared using the following software on a Windows XPplatform:

ArcheoSurveyor version 2.5.2.1 (geophysical data analysis), AutoCAD LT 2007 (report figures), OpenOffice.org 3.0.1 Writer (document text), PDF Creator version 0.9 (PDF archive).

Digital data are supplied on CD ROM which includes the following files:

ArcheoSurveyor grid and composite files for all geophysical data, CSV files for raw and processed composites, geophysical composite file graphics as Bitmap images, AutoCAD DWG files in 2000 and 2007 versions, report text as OpenOffice.org ODT file, report text as Word 2000 doc file, report text as rich text format (RTF), report text as PDF, PDFs of all figures, photographic record in JPEG format.

The CD ROM structure is formed from a tree of directories under the title J290Manor Farm – CD. Directory titles include Data, Documentation, CAD, PDFsand Photos. Multiple directories exist under Data and hold Grid, Compositeand Graphic files with CSV composite data held in Export.

The CAD file contains externally referenced graphics that are rotated withseparate A3 size layouts for each figure. Layouts are fixed using frozen layersand named views allowing straightforward plotting or analysis on screen.(Note – CAD files are prepared using AutoCAD's e Transmit function toproduce a directory containing the digital drawing along with any externallyreferenced graphics which may need reloading).

20

Technical Note

1

h:\projects\cl-240\19466 quvl framework 4\docs\archaeology\manor farm si works\n1303i1.doc

© Entec UK Limited

21 September 2010

Manor Farm, Quedgeley (SM13805): Report on the Archaeological Monitoring of a Contamination Site Investigation

1. The Site The Manor Farm moated site (SM13805) is located in Quedgeley, Gloucestershire,

approximately 4.5 km south-southwest of the City of Gloucester at approximately NGR 381503

213663 (Figure 1). The site is set within remnants of a pasture field system within land

surrounded by the former RAF Quedgeley. The majority of the land in the immediate vicinity

of the site has been recently redeveloped to residential use, public open space, playing fields and

a school. The A38 is approximately 500 m to the west, whilst the main railway into Gloucester

is a similar distance to the east. The site is reached via a farm access track from the west, which

passes to the south of an old orchard which retains a number of mature apple trees.

Three arms of the moat survive, enclosing a rectangular area of approximately 80 m by 50 m.

The fourth arm, on the eastern side has been infilled and it is not now possible to trace its course

on the ground. It is possible that this arm was infilled to construct the farm buildings in the

eighteenth or early nineteenth century. The principal access to the interior of the moat is via a

brick-sided bridge across the southwestern arm which forms part of the driveway into Manor

Farm. The driveway passes through domestic gardens which form the interior of the moat,

leading to the western side of Manor Farm.

The surviving arms of the moat are up to 9 m wide, and are water-filled and part of the

southwestern arm has been enlarged to form a pond. The water within the moat has historically

been derived from rainfall in the surrounding pasture fields and the northwestern and

northeastern arms have in the past been liable to occasionally dry out. Measures are currently in

place to ‘top-up’ the moat from a well if required.

2. Background to the Project Consent was obtained for the completion of a site investigation to determine whether

contamination is present within the Scheduled Monument area. The investigation involved the

excavation of 24 hand dug pits and the locations of these are shown in Figure 2.

3. Aims and Objectives The purpose of a watching brief was defined as:

• to allow, within the resources available, the preservation by record of

archaeological deposits, the presence and nature of which could not be established

(or established with sufficient accuracy) in advance of development or other

potentially disruptive works

Technical Note

2


© Entec UK Limited

21 September 2010

• to provide an opportunity, if needed, for the watching archaeologist to signal to all

interested parties, before the destruction of the material in question, that an

archaeological find has been made for which the resources allocated to the

watching brief itself are not sufficient to support treatment to a satisfactory and

proper standard

In this case, the over-riding aim of the watching brief was to ensure that the archaeological

interest of the monument was not harmed as a result of the site investigations by preventing

excavations from disturbing significant deposits.

4. Methodology The scheme was designed and executed with a view to minimising potential effects on

archaeological deposits.

A total of 22 pits were excavated within the area of the scheduled monument over two days

between 24/05/2010 and 25/05/2010. One planned pit (MF22) was not excavated due to the

presence of a cobbled surface. An additional two pits (MF16 and MF17) were excavated

outside the scheduled area. All pits were hand-dug using a trenching spade, ‘shuv-holer’ and

where appropriate, a hand auger with a 10 mm diameter bit. Each pit measured c. 300 mm in

diameter at the surface to 10 mm in diameter where the auger was used, and ranged between 0.5

m and 0.85 m in maximum depth.

The purpose of the pits was to collect soil samples for contamination analysis.

A suitably qualified archaeologist was present during the excavation of all test pits. A record

was made of all deposits encountered on pro-forma context sheets.

No drawings were made as the excavation method was not suited to this form of recording.

Digital photographs were taken of each pit with working shots taken at the location of MF09

and MF12. The working shots of MF09 were forwarded to Melanie Barge, Inspector of Ancient

Monuments, English Heritage Southwest Region, for monitoring purposes at the time that they

were taken.

5. Results All pits monitored, with the exception of MF11 and MF22 contained a humic topsoil deposit

capped with grass/turf typically extending from ground level to >0.05 m bgl at it’s thinnest in

MF02 to 0.45 m bgl in MF21. Below this level the majority of test pits revealed natural clays or

sands and gravels.

Redeposited natural soils were noted in a number of locations such as MF09, MF10, MF19 and

MF20, but no clear pattern to this deposition was discernable although the proximity of MF09

and MF20 to the existing moat edge may have a bearing on these deposits at those locations.

At MF02 and MF14 dark ashy deposits with clinker and limestone chippings (02/002), (14/002)

were encountered below the topsoil. These are interpreted as levelling deposits for the railway

that is known to have curved around the outside of western end of the moat.

Technical Note

3


© Entec UK Limited

21 September 2010

No clear deposits relating to occupation areas within the moated area were encountered but

(10/002), a greenish brown firm sandy clay containing abundant charcoal pieces and regular

mortar and sandstone fragments 0.05 m in thickness may represent such a deposit. Evidence of

demolition or levelling in the form of rubble was noted in MF12, but this is thought most likely

to be modern.

Outside the moated area, natural soils were primarily present below the grass and topsoil

although at MF03, MF04 and MF08 a mixed soil was encountered that is interpreted as possible

remnant ploughsoil or a ploughsoil/natural interface.

6. Discussion The Manor Farm moated site is thought to have been constructed sometime between 1250 and

1350 after which time it was adapted to changing agricultural regimes or economic conditions.

It was located within a munitions works from 1915 until the end of WWI and subsequently was

located within a supply depot established during WWII.

Deposits in MF03, MF04 and MF08 may indicate ploughing around the moated site but do not

provide any dates for that practice or the relationship of that land with the moated site itself.

Occupation within the moat is likely from its inception, consequently the use of this small area

over time is likely to have removed or reworked any deposits to a considerable degree. Little

was encountered during monitoring that had the potential to constitute an occupation deposit

with the exception of (10/002). However, this deposit did not contain any datable or diagnostic

artefacts so any interpretation of this as an occupation deposit must remain tentative.

It was common practice for the interior of a moated site to be built up with material excavated

from the moat. This practice may explain the reworked natural encountered in several areas

with in the site.

7. Conclusions The excavation method employed on the site resulted in very small, shallow, widely dispersed

holes that give little insight into the deposition sequences across the site but also caused very

little damage to those deposits.

No secure or datable evidence for occupation, remodelling or landuse was encountered during

excavations, although deposits encountered in MF02 and MF14 may confirm the presence of the

railway track in the west of the site.

No deposits were encountered that may be understood to indicate the line of the ‘missing’

eastern arm of the moat. No cut features, structural remains, stratified, securely datable or

diagnostic artefacts or ecofacts were identified during monitoring.

No significant deposits were disturbed as a result of the contamination survey.

Technical Note

4


© Entec UK Limited

21 September 2010

Table 1 – Context List

Context Num

Recorded By

Date HDP No

Description Depth Location (NGR)

01/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF01 Topsoil 0.00-0.20 381461 213717

01/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF01 Natural gravely clay 0.20-0.60

02/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF02 Industrial dump/levelling deposit (very thin topsoil and grass root mat above)

0.00-0.35 381482 213727

02/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF02 Grey clay capping layer. Natural? 0.35-0.45

02/003 ST 25/05/2010

MF02 Natural gravely clay 0.45-0.65

03/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF03 Ploughsoil w/thin grass root mat above 0.00-0.20 381505 213717

03/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF03 Natural clay 0.20-0.65

04/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF04 Ploughsoil w/thin grass root mat above 0.00-0.45 381533 213705

04/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF04 Natural clay 0.45-0.70

05/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF05 Topsoil 0.00-0.15 381562 213689

05/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF05 Ash, clinker filled dump deposit w/CBM

0.15-0.50

05/003 ST 25/05/2010

MF05 Clay with rubble fragments – dump deposit

0.50-0.60

06/001 ST 24/05/2010

MF06 Topsoil 0.00-0.30 381486 213696

06/002 ST 24/05/2010

MF06 Sandy clay deposit (reworked?) 0.30-0.65

06/003 ST 24/05/2010

MF06 Sandy clay Natural 0.65-0.85

07/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF07 Topsoil 0.00-0.20 381516 213688

07/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF07 Rubbly dump layer 0.20-0.35

07/003 ST 25/05/2010

MF07 Capping of clay natural 0.35-0.55

07/004 ST 25/05/2010

MF07 Gravely clay natural 0.55-0.65

08/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF08 Topsoil 0.00-0.15 381443 213679

08/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF08 Possible residual bottom of ploughsoil. Same as (03/001)?

0.15-0.50

Technical Note

5


© Entec UK Limited

21 September 2010

Table 1 (continued) – Context List

Context Num

Recorded By

Date HDP No


08/003 ST 25/05/2010

MF08 Natural 0.50-0.80

09/001 ST 24/05/2010

MF09 Topsoil 0.00-0.30 381475 213698

09/002 ST 24/05/2010

MF09 Sandy clay – Reworked natural 0.30-0.50

09/003 ST 24/05/2010

MF09 Sandy clay (Natural) 0.50-0.60

10/001 ST 24/05/2010

MF10 Topsoil 0.00-0.30 381515 213673

10/002 ST 24/05/2010

MF10 Orange sandy natural (reworked) 0.30-0.50

10/003 ST 24/05/2010

MF10 Orange sandy natural 0.50-0.65

11/001 ST 24/05/2010

MF11 Topsoil w/rubble frags 0.00-0.60 381526 216723

12/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF12 Topsoil 0.00-0.16 381549 213666

12/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF12 Building/demo rubble 0.16-0.50

13/001 ST 24/05/2010

MF13 Topsoil 0.00-0.25 381547 213659

13/002 ST 24/05/2010

MF13 Rubble/gravely clay layer 0.25-0.35

13/003 ST 24/05/2010

MF13 Natural (clay cap to clayey gravels) 0.35-0.70

14/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF14 Topsoil 0.00-0.10 381437 213657

14/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF14 Ashy clinker filled deposit possibly associated with railway?

0.10-0.20

14/003 ST 25/05/2010

MF14 Clay natural with gravels at depth 0.20-0.70

15/001 ST 24/05/2010

MF15 Topsoil 0.00-0.30 381791 213651

15/002 ST 24/05/2010

MF15 Sandy clay/possibly reworked 0.30-0.70

18/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF18 Topsoil 0.00-0.15 381464 213640

18/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF18 Residual ploughsoil interface - Stiff 0.15-0.40

Technical Note

6


© Entec UK Limited

21 September 2010

Table 1 (continued) – Context List

Context Num

Recorded By

Date HDP No


18/003 ST 25/05/2010

MF18 Grey clay natural? Or capping? 0.40-0.50

18/004 ST 25/05/2010

MF18 Orange brown sandy clay w/gravels. Natural

0.50-0.65

19/001 ST 24/05/2010

MF19 Topsoil 0.00-0.40 381517 213644

19/002 ST 24/05/2010

MF19 Charcoal rich greenish occupation deposit? 50mm thick

0.40-0.50

19/003 ST 24/05/2010

MF19 Reworked natural 0.50-0.60

20/001 ST 24/05/2010

MF20 Topsoil 0.00-0.40 381506 213633

20/002 ST 24/05/2010


20/003 ST 24/05/2010

MF20 Natural 0.50-0.60

21/001 ST 24/05/2010

MF21 Topsoil 0.00-0.45 381543 213646

21/002 ST 24/05/2010


23/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF23 Topsoil 0.00-0.15 381487 213620

23/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF23 Hardcore (limestone chippings) 0.15-0.30

23/003 ST 25/05/2010

MF23 Mid brown residual ploughsoil again? 0.30-0.80

24/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF24 Construction dump of clays & fine rubble

0.00-0.30 38151 213597

24/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF24 Topsoil and grass root mat 0.30-0.50

24/003 ST 25/05/2010

MF24 Orange brown sandy clay natural 0.50-0.65

25/001 ST 25/05/2010

MF25 Modern gravel dump/levelling layer 0.00-0.55 381537 213601

21/002 ST 25/05/2010

MF25 Grey clay redeposited 0.55-0.65

Technical Note

7


© Entec UK Limited

21 September 2010

Author: Stephen Townend

Reviewer: Simon Atkinson

Copyright Notice

The contents and layout of this Technical Note are subject to copyright owned by Entec (© Entec UK Limited 2010) save to the extent that copyright

has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Entec under licence.

Third Party Disclaimer

Any disclosure of this Technical Note to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The Technical Note was prepared by Entec at the instruction of, and

for use by, our client. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Entec excludes to the fullest

extent lawfully permitted all liability for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this Technical Note. We do not

however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we

cannot legally exclude liability.

Appendix 1 Drawings 2 Pages

Appendix C - Assessed Laboratory Data Manor Farm Scheduled Ancient Monument Interpretative Site Investigation Report

All results expressed on a dry weight basis MF01 MF01 MF02 MF02 MF03 MF03 MF04 MF04 MF05 MF05 MF06 MF06 MF07 MF07 MF08 MF08 MF09 MF09 MF10 MF10 MF11 MF12 MF12 MF13 MF13

Customer ref: Quedgeley 0.10-0.20 0.45-0.60 0.10-0.20 0.35-0.45 0.00-0.10 0.30-0.40 0.10-0.20 0.45-0.60 0.15-0.25 0.50-0.60 0.10-0.20 0.40-0.50 0.10-0.20 0.55-0.60 0.00-0.10 0.40-0.50 0.10-0.20 0.50-0.60 0.10-0.20 0.40-0.50 0.20-0.30 0.10-0.20 0.40-0.50 0.10-0.20 0.25-0.35

Test Method Units LODRes. with

plant uptake

Public

Open

Space

Allotments Commercial Max MIn Av.Max > GAC for Res.

with plant uptake

Max > GAC for

Public Open Space

Max > GAC for

Allotments

Max > GAC for

Commercial

Sample DescriptionColour PM024 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dark Brown Light Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Light Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown - Light Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown - Dark Brown - Dark Brown

Grain Size PM024 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm - 0.1 - 2 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm - 0.1 - 2 mm - 0.1 - 2 mm

Description PM024 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Top Soil Sandy Clay Silty Clay Sandy Clay Clay Loam Sandy Clay Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Sandy Loam Sandy Clay Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Sandy Loam Sandy Clay Clay Loam Silty Clay - Sandy Clay Sandy Loam Silty Clay Sandy Loam - Sandy Clay - Sandy Loam

Inclusions PM024 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vegetation Stones Vegetation Stones Vegetation Stones Vegetation N/A Stones Stones Vegetation N/A Vegetation Stones Vegetation Stones - Stones Vegetation Stones Vegetation - Vegetation - Stones

Asbestos

Asbestos Containing Material Screen TM001 - - - - - - - - - - - - -No ACM

Detected-

No ACM

Detected- No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected No ACM Detected

CarbonSoil Organic Matter (SOM) TM132 % <0.35 - - - - 64.30 1.14 10.01 - - - - 7.09 - 6.88 - 4.4 - 4.12 - 47.1 2.84 7.21 - 17.9 - 4.15 1.42 5.86 1.18 8.86 1.21 7.55 12.3 8.28 10.3 12.8

InorganicsSulphate, 2:1 water soluble TM098 g/l <0.003 - - - - 0.46 0.00 0.23 - - - - - - - - - 0.0049 - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.003 - - - - -

pH TM133 pH Units <1 - - - - 8.52 7.09 8.03 - - - - 7.84 8.45 7.88 8.2 7.09 7.86 7.15 7.75 8 8.39 7.92 8.46 7.62 8.36 7.86 8.48 7.71 8.38 8.02 8.33 7.9 7.94 8.48 7.74 8.04

Sulphide, Easily liberated TM180 mg/kg <15 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! - - - - - - - - - <15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - <15 - - - - -

Sulphate, Total TM221 mg/kg <100 - - - - 1640.00 285.00 698.00 - - - - - - - - - 285 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 435 - - - - -

MetalsChromium, Hexavalent TM151 mg/kg <0.6 4.3 4.3 2.1 35 1.85 0.60 1.23 No No No No 0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <1.2 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <1.2 <0.6 <1.2 <0.6 <1.2 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 1.85 <1.2 <0.6

Arsenic TM181 mg/kg <0.6 32 35 43 640 40.60 10.20 18.90 Yes Yes No No 16.1 16.5 15.3 15.6 17.8 15.8 17.5 13.3 40.6 17.1 20 16.5 16 14.5 19.6 14.4 17.5 26.7 22.2 17.1 21.6 17.5 13.5 25 23.3

Cadmium TM181 mg/kg <0.02 10 83.6 1.8 230 1.81 0.06 0.83 No No Yes No 1.11 0.456 0.826 0.565 0.849 0.597 0.843 0.274 0.716 0.713 1.04 0.299 1.05 0.251 1.18 <0.02 0.928 0.881 1.35 <0.02 1.06 1.1 1.29 1.5 1.81

Chromium TM181 mg/kg <0.9 3000 3000 35000 30000 43.20 9.98 27.61 No No No No 28.2 32.6 31.2 34 37.3 41 35.5 27 19.1 22.7 31 25.6 21.5 16.1 31.5 34.9 31.1 33.1 28 33.5 22.2 26.4 17.4 25.8 17.9

Copper TM181 mg/kg <1.4 2300 6200 520 72000 200.00 7.40 32.58 No No No No 34 17.7 27.4 43.6 22.7 19.7 24.5 15.2 58.5 22.6 47.2 14.8 61.8 15.3 25.9 17.5 43.9 19.1 39.1 16.9 29.9 30.2 19.6 47.6 23.7

Lead TM181 mg/kg <0.7 450 450 450 750 255.00 4.88 53.77 No No No No 29.5 14.8 32.8 24.3 33.4 19.1 36.5 16.3 87.7 53.2 223 29.5 255 33.9 38.2 16.7 55.3 21.1 97.7 13.7 105 91.5 42.4 166 76.5

Mercury TM181 mg/kg <0.14 169 238 80 3600 0.76 0.15 0.39 No No No No <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 0.712 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 <0.14 0.297 0.548 0.233 <0.14 0.58 <0.14 0.151 <0.14 0.245 <0.14 0.518 <0.14 0.341 0.417 0.408 0.757 0.574

Nickel TM181 mg/kg <0.2 130 130 230 1800 66.90 13.20 27.41 No No No No 38.2 27.5 27 33 33.1 32.9 32 27.5 36.2 20.7 31.4 25.2 18.8 20.9 28.6 28.9 27 27.4 26.8 30.7 20.4 26.8 21.1 26.1 18.1

Selenium TM181 mg/kg <1 350 595 120 13000 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Zinc TM181 mg/kg <1.9 3800 4000 620 670000 557.00 26.10 137.45 No No No No 87.7 70.8 91.3 84.1 92.6 75 100 63.3 124 89.8 218 70 557 75.4 249 84.6 157 89.7 209 78.6 158 216 212 303 459

Gasoline Range Organics (GRO)Aliphatics >C5-C6 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 30 30 740 3400 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -

Aliphatics >C6-C8 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 73 73 2300 8300 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -



Total Aliphatics >C5-C12 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -

(1) Aromatics >C6-C7 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 65 260 13 28000 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -

Aromatics >C7-C8 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 120 610 22 59000 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -

Aromatics >EC8-EC10 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 27 33 8.6 3700 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -

Aromatics >EC10-EC12 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 69 180 13 17000 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -

Total Aromatics >C6-C12 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -

GRO Surrogate % recovery** TM089 % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50 55 - -

Benzene TM089 mg/kg <0.01 0.079 0.27 0.017 28 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -

Toluene TM089 mg/kg <0.002 120 610 22 870 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 - -

Ethylbenzene TM089 mg/kg <0.003 65 170 16 520 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.003 <0.003 - -

m,p-Xylene TM089 mg/kg <0.006 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.006 <0.006 - -

o-Xylene TM089 mg/kg <0.003 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.003 <0.003 - -

m,p,o-Xylene TM089 mg/kg <0.01 42 53 28 480 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -

BTEX, Total TM089 mg/kg <0.01 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 - -

Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) TM089 mg/kg <0.005 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 - -

GRO >C5-C12 TM089 mg/kg <0.044 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.044 <0.044 - -

Speciated EPH CWGAliphatics >C12-C16 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 740 750 11000 61000 8.90 0.21 4.20 No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.4 8.9 - -

Aliphatics >C16-C21 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 - - - - 13.70 0.49 5.91 No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.7 6.34 - -

Aliphatics >C16-C35 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 45000 45000 260000 1600000 57.80 2.38 25.97 No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 57.8 18.6 - -

Aliphatics >C21-C35 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 - - - - 44.20 1.89 20.05 No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44.2 12.2 - -

Aliphatics >C35-C44 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 45000 45000 260000 1600000 6.20 0.17 2.61 No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.2 1.45 - -

Total Aliphatics >C12-C44 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 - - - - 67.40 2.75 32.11 No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 67.4 28.9 - -

Aromatics >EC12-EC16 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 140 1300 23 36000 6.55 0.21 3.33 No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.26 6.55 - -




Aromatics >EC40-EC44 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 - - - - 31.00 0.53 10.24 No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.12 3.31 - -

Total Aromatics >EC12-EC44 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 - - - - 345.00 14.70 139.03 No No No No - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 115 81.4 - -

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Naphthalene-d8 % recovery** TM218 % - - - - - - - - - - - - 97.5 - 94.7 - 97.4 - 99 - 95.6 98 101 - 94.3 - 98.4 101 98.1 88 97.6 100 95.5 95.1 102 100 98.6

Acenaphthene-d10 % recovery** TM218 % - - - - - - - - - - - - 96.6 - 94.5 - 97.6 - 97.4 - 92.7 96.5 101 - 94.9 - 97.5 100 97.4 85.5 96.8 99.5 94.1 94.4 103 100 98.6

Phenanthrene-d10 % recovery** TM218 % - - - - - - - - - - - - 94.2 - 93.3 - 94.7 - 96.6 - 89.7 96.6 100 - 93.7 - 95.3 101 96.9 84.8 96.4 100 92.3 93.6 103 99.4 97.7

Chrysene-d12 % recovery** TM218 % - - - - - - - - - - - - 89.4 - 88.3 - 93 - 95.5 - 87.6 96.4 97 - 90.4 - 90.8 101 96.7 82.9 97.2 101 88.1 93.8 95.3 98.9 96.6

Perylene-d12 % recovery** TM218 % - - - - - - - - - - - - 95.3 - 95.4 - 98.3 - 94 - 90.4 97 105 - 97.9 - 96.2 102 95.7 81.1 97.7 101 92.8 93.4 93.9 98.7 95.1

Naphthalene TM218 mg/kg <0.009 1.5 1.6 4.1 200 0.71 0.01 0.10 No No No No 0.0247 - <0.009 - <0.009 - <0.009 - 0.71 0.0178 0.0195 - 0.115 - 0.0149 <0.009 0.0169 <0.009 0.0667 <0.009 0.0223 0.0908 0.0639 0.0367 0.0384

Acenaphthylene TM218 mg/kg <0.012 170 2000 28 84000 0.39 0.01 0.10 No No No No 0.025 - <0.012 - 0.0236 - 0.014 - 0.293 <0.012 0.0374 - 0.072 - 0.0177 0.0191 0.0225 <0.012 0.275 <0.012 0.0414 0.101 0.0198 0.0489 0.0389

Acenaphthene TM218 mg/kg <0.008 210 2000 34 85000 0.89 0.01 0.10 No No No No 0.0205 - <0.008 - <0.008 - <0.008 - 0.892 0.00953 <0.008 - 0.0221 - <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 0.0497 <0.008 0.0106 0.0246 0.0747 0.0183 0.0217

Fluorene TM218 mg/kg <0.01 160 1900 27 64000 0.37 0.01 0.07 No No No No 0.0145 - <0.01 - <0.01 - <0.01 - 0.372 <0.01 <0.01 - 0.0199 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0551 <0.01 <0.01 0.0291 0.0761 0.0186 0.0231

Phenanthrene TM218 mg/kg <0.015 92 840 16 22000 7.05 0.02 0.68 No No No No 0.24 - 0.0232 - 0.0585 - 0.0587 - 7.05 0.131 0.249 - 0.408 - 0.0599 <0.015 0.116 <0.015 0.826 <0.015 0.202 0.586 1.83 0.519 1.01

Anthracene TM218 mg/kg <0.016 2300 20000 380 530000 2.09 0.02 0.25 No No No No 0.0581 - <0.016 - 0.0225 - <0.016 - 2.09 0.0313 0.0671 - 0.122 - 0.0387 <0.016 0.0336 <0.016 0.422 <0.016 0.0753 0.159 0.145 0.0878 0.101

Fluoranthene TM218 mg/kg <0.017 260 970 52 23000 14.20 0.03 1.29 No No No No 0.397 - 0.0433 - 0.116 - 0.112 - 14.2 0.213 0.401 - 0.83 - 0.158 0.108 0.246 <0.017 2.64 0.0842 0.442 1.05 0.893 0.764 0.849

Pyrene TM218 mg/kg <0.015 560 2300 110 54000 12.80 0.03 1.15 No No No No 0.337 - 0.04 - 0.0871 - 0.0972 - 12.8 0.19 0.335 - 0.729 - 0.173 0.083 0.214 <0.015 2.44 0.0588 0.377 0.919 0.553 0.612 0.544

Benz(a)anthracene TM218 mg/kg <0.014 3.1 3.7 2.5 90 13.40 0.03 1.11 Yes Yes Yes No 0.227 - <0.014 - 0.0607 - 0.0919 - 13.4 0.211 0.236 - 0.54 - 0.0789 0.0268 0.157 <0.014 1.82 <0.014 0.269 0.623 0.289 0.414 0.42

Chrysene TM218 mg/kg <0.01 6 8.8 2.6 140 11.70 0.02 0.94 Yes Yes Yes No 0.21 - 0.0317 - 0.0499 - 0.0652 - 11.7 0.179 0.229 - 0.596 - 0.0916 0.0183 0.158 <0.01 1.67 <0.01 0.264 0.623 0.358 0.463 0.47

Benzo(b)fluoranthene TM218 mg/kg <0.015 5.6 7 3.5 100 29.70 0.03 1.98 Yes Yes Yes No 0.405 - 0.0454 - 0.0501 - 0.112 - 29.7 0.42 0.393 - 1.04 - 0.18 0.0284 0.258 <0.015 2.84 <0.015 0.584 0.954 0.336 0.652 0.487

Benzo(k)fluoranthene TM218 mg/kg <0.014 8.5 10 6.8 140 11.10 0.03 0.82 Yes Yes Yes No 0.12 - <0.014 - 0.025 - 0.0474 - 11.1 0.179 0.129 - 0.269 - 0.0546 <0.014 0.0844 <0.014 1.13 <0.014 0.195 0.38 0.0882 0.216 0.176

(2) Benzo(a)pyrene TM218 mg/kg <0.015 1.66 2 1.2 28 27.70 0.02 1.78 Yes Yes Yes No 0.292 - 0.0342 - 0.0453 - 0.0974 - 27.7 0.362 0.263 - 0.768 - 0.115 0.0212 0.183 <0.015 2.49 <0.015 0.373 0.835 0.188 0.505 0.384

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene TM218 mg/kg <0.018 3.2 4.2 1.8 60 20.60 0.02 1.30 Yes Yes Yes No 0.188 - 0.0234 - 0.0278 - 0.0634 - 20.6 0.273 0.167 - 0.562 - 0.0784 <0.018 0.137 <0.018 1.65 <0.018 0.286 0.58 0.101 0.349 0.252

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene TM218 mg/kg <0.023 0.76 0.87 0.76 13 6.45 0.04 0.53 Yes Yes Yes No 0.0574 - <0.023 - <0.023 - <0.023 - 6.45 0.0872 0.0502 - 0.178 - <0.023 <0.023 0.039 <0.023 0.452 <0.023 0.0832 0.174 0.0366 0.107 0.0824

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TM218 mg/kg <0.024 44 47 70 650 25.20 0.03 1.60 No No No No 0.254 - 0.0323 - 0.0323 - 0.0801 - 25.2 0.35 0.223 - 0.707 - 0.11 <0.024 0.189 <0.024 2.05 <0.024 0.393 0.753 0.202 0.486 0.387

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons, Total USEPA 16 TM218 mg/kg <0.118 - - - - 184.00 0.14 12.79 No No No No 2.87 - 0.274 - 0.599 - 0.839 - 184 2.65 2.8 - 6.97 - 1.17 0.305 1.85 <0.118 20.9 0.143 3.62 7.89 5.25 5.3 5.29

NOTES

(1) GAC for Aromatic >EC5-7

(2) GAC agreed with Gloucester City Council for the QUVL site

Exceedance of GAC

Customer Sample ID

Screening Critera

H:\Projects\CL-240\19466 QUVL 4-5\Docs\RR\FP5 Employment Land\RR1302i1 Manor Farm SAM\Appendix C - Lab Data\Appendix C - SAM Lab Data.xls 1 of 2

Appendix C - Assessed Laboratory Data Manor Farm Scheduled Ancient Monument Interpretative Site Investigation Report

All results expressed on a dry weight basis

Customer ref: Quedgeley

Test Method Units LODRes. with

plant uptake

Public

Open

Space

Allotments Commercial Max MIn Av.Max > GAC for Res.

with plant uptake

Max > GAC for

Public Open Space

Max > GAC for

Allotments

Max > GAC for

Commercial

Sample DescriptionColour PM024 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grain Size PM024 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Description PM024 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Inclusions PM024 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Asbestos

Asbestos Containing Material Screen TM001 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CarbonSoil Organic Matter (SOM) TM132 % <0.35 - - - - 64.30 1.14 10.01 - - - -

InorganicsSulphate, 2:1 water soluble TM098 g/l <0.003 - - - - 0.46 0.00 0.23 - - - -

pH TM133 pH Units <1 - - - - 8.52 7.09 8.03 - - - -

Sulphide, Easily liberated TM180 mg/kg <15 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! - - - -

Sulphate, Total TM221 mg/kg <100 - - - - 1640.00 285.00 698.00 - - - -

MetalsChromium, Hexavalent TM151 mg/kg <0.6 4.3 4.3 2.1 35 1.85 0.60 1.23 No No No No

Arsenic TM181 mg/kg <0.6 32 35 43 640 40.60 10.20 18.90 Yes Yes No No

Cadmium TM181 mg/kg <0.02 10 83.6 1.8 230 1.81 0.06 0.83 No No Yes No

Chromium TM181 mg/kg <0.9 3000 3000 35000 30000 43.20 9.98 27.61 No No No No

Copper TM181 mg/kg <1.4 2300 6200 520 72000 200.00 7.40 32.58 No No No No

Lead TM181 mg/kg <0.7 450 450 450 750 255.00 4.88 53.77 No No No No

Mercury TM181 mg/kg <0.14 169 238 80 3600 0.76 0.15 0.39 No No No No

Nickel TM181 mg/kg <0.2 130 130 230 1800 66.90 13.20 27.41 No No No No

Selenium TM181 mg/kg <1 350 595 120 13000 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

Zinc TM181 mg/kg <1.9 3800 4000 620 670000 557.00 26.10 137.45 No No No No

Gasoline Range Organics (GRO)Aliphatics >C5-C6 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 30 30 740 3400 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

Aliphatics >C6-C8 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 73 73 2300 8300 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No



Total Aliphatics >C5-C12 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

(1) Aromatics >C6-C7 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 65 260 13 28000 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

Aromatics >C7-C8 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 120 610 22 59000 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

Aromatics >EC8-EC10 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 27 33 8.6 3700 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

Aromatics >EC10-EC12 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 69 180 13 17000 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

Total Aromatics >C6-C12 TM089 mg/kg <0.01 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

GRO Surrogate % recovery** TM089 % - - - - - - - - - - - -

Benzene TM089 mg/kg <0.01 0.079 0.27 0.017 28 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

Toluene TM089 mg/kg <0.002 120 610 22 870 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

Ethylbenzene TM089 mg/kg <0.003 65 170 16 520 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

m,p-Xylene TM089 mg/kg <0.006 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

o-Xylene TM089 mg/kg <0.003 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

m,p,o-Xylene TM089 mg/kg <0.01 42 53 28 480 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

BTEX, Total TM089 mg/kg <0.01 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) TM089 mg/kg <0.005 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

GRO >C5-C12 TM089 mg/kg <0.044 - - - - 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! No No No No

Speciated EPH CWGAliphatics >C12-C16 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 740 750 11000 61000 8.90 0.21 4.20 No No No No

Aliphatics >C16-C21 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 - - - - 13.70 0.49 5.91 No No No No

Aliphatics >C16-C35 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 45000 45000 260000 1600000 57.80 2.38 25.97 No No No No

Aliphatics >C21-C35 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 - - - - 44.20 1.89 20.05 No No No No

Aliphatics >C35-C44 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 45000 45000 260000 1600000 6.20 0.17 2.61 No No No No

Total Aliphatics >C12-C44 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 - - - - 67.40 2.75 32.11 No No No No

Aromatics >EC12-EC16 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 140 1300 23 36000 6.55 0.21 3.33 No No No No




Aromatics >EC40-EC44 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 - - - - 31.00 0.53 10.24 No No No No

Total Aromatics >EC12-EC44 TM173 mg/kg <0.1 - - - - 345.00 14.70 139.03 No No No No

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Naphthalene-d8 % recovery** TM218 % - - - - - - - - - - - -

Acenaphthene-d10 % recovery** TM218 % - - - - - - - - - - - -

Phenanthrene-d10 % recovery** TM218 % - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chrysene-d12 % recovery** TM218 % - - - - - - - - - - - -

Perylene-d12 % recovery** TM218 % - - - - - - - - - - - -

Naphthalene TM218 mg/kg <0.009 1.5 1.6 4.1 200 0.71 0.01 0.10 No No No No

Acenaphthylene TM218 mg/kg <0.012 170 2000 28 84000 0.39 0.01 0.10 No No No No

Acenaphthene TM218 mg/kg <0.008 210 2000 34 85000 0.89 0.01 0.10 No No No No

Fluorene TM218 mg/kg <0.01 160 1900 27 64000 0.37 0.01 0.07 No No No No

Phenanthrene TM218 mg/kg <0.015 92 840 16 22000 7.05 0.02 0.68 No No No No

Anthracene TM218 mg/kg <0.016 2300 20000 380 530000 2.09 0.02 0.25 No No No No

Fluoranthene TM218 mg/kg <0.017 260 970 52 23000 14.20 0.03 1.29 No No No No

Pyrene TM218 mg/kg <0.015 560 2300 110 54000 12.80 0.03 1.15 No No No No

Benz(a)anthracene TM218 mg/kg <0.014 3.1 3.7 2.5 90 13.40 0.03 1.11 Yes Yes Yes No

Chrysene TM218 mg/kg <0.01 6 8.8 2.6 140 11.70 0.02 0.94 Yes Yes Yes No

Benzo(b)fluoranthene TM218 mg/kg <0.015 5.6 7 3.5 100 29.70 0.03 1.98 Yes Yes Yes No

Benzo(k)fluoranthene TM218 mg/kg <0.014 8.5 10 6.8 140 11.10 0.03 0.82 Yes Yes Yes No

(2) Benzo(a)pyrene TM218 mg/kg <0.015 1.66 2 1.2 28 27.70 0.02 1.78 Yes Yes Yes No

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene TM218 mg/kg <0.018 3.2 4.2 1.8 60 20.60 0.02 1.30 Yes Yes Yes No

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene TM218 mg/kg <0.023 0.76 0.87 0.76 13 6.45 0.04 0.53 Yes Yes Yes No

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene TM218 mg/kg <0.024 44 47 70 650 25.20 0.03 1.60 No No No No

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons, Total USEPA 16 TM218 mg/kg <0.118 - - - - 184.00 0.14 12.79 No No No No

NOTES

(1) GAC for Aromatic >EC5-7

(2) GAC agreed with Gloucester City Council for the QUVL site

Exceedance of GAC

Customer Sample ID

Screening Critera

MF14 MF14 MF15 MF15 MF16 MF16 MF17 MF17 MF18 MF18 MF19 MF19 MF20 MF20 MF21 MF21 MF23 MF24 MF25 MF25

0.10-0.20 0.45-0.60 0.10-0.20 0.50-0.60 0.00-0.10 0.55-0.70 0.10-0.20 0.50-0.65 0.15-0.25 0.40-0.50 0.10-0.20 0.50-0.60 0.20-0.30 0.50-0.60 0.10-0.20 0.45-0.60 0.50-0.60 0.30-0.40 0.10-0.20 0.45-0.65

- Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Light Brown - Dark Brown Dark Brown Light Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown - Light Brown

- 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm - 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.063 - 0.1 mm 0.1 - 2 mm - 0.1 - 2 mm

- Silty Clay Sandy Loam Silty Clay Sandy Loam Silty Clay Sandy Loam Sandy Clay - Silty Clay Sandy Loam Sandy Clay Top Soil Sandy Clay Silty Sand Silty Clay Sandy Clay Loam Sandy Clay - Sandy Clay

- N/A Vegetation Stones Vegetation Vegetation Stones Stones - N/A Stones Stones Stones Stones Vegetation Stones Stones Stones - Stones

No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected - No ACM Detected -

64.3 - 10 - 4.48 - 5.29 - 2.67 - 7.64 1.34 6.21 - 30.3 1.23 1.47 12.7 1.14 -

- - - - - - - - <0.003 - - - - - - - - - - 0.461

7.93 8.3 7.64 8 7.88 8.03 7.73 8.52 8.04 8.4 7.73 8.39 7.81 8.4 7.94 8.25 8.11 7.92 8.17 8.17

- - - - - - - - <15 - - - - - - - - - - <15

- - - - - - - - 432 - - - - - - - - - - 1640

<0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <1.2 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <1.2 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6

31.5 22.3 19.6 18.9 14.3 19 17.5 23.1 17.5 13 19.2 17.3 22.1 20.8 16.5 22 16.5 19.8 18.2 10.2

1.38 0.639 1.13 <0.02 0.74 0.57 0.668 0.317 0.795 0.797 0.986 0.783 1.08 0.0577 0.845 0.799 0.924 0.829 0.48 0.412

24 43.2 30.2 32.5 32.9 22.2 22.4 30 31.2 42 24.6 21.4 22 20.3 15.6 28.4 32.4 27.4 9.98 25.2

200 20.1 43.9 18.7 20.8 24.6 17.4 15 18.3 22 53.4 21.7 101 20.8 31.2 19.8 18.8 37.9 7.4 15

17.5 20 88 19.7 31.2 25.2 21.8 13.8 26.9 15.9 110 20.7 136 14.8 123 27.5 15.8 65.6 4.88 8.29

0.151 0.161 0.529 <0.14 0.145 0.2 0.517 <0.14 <0.14 0.349 0.711 0.335 0.677 <0.14 0.263 0.355 0.146 <0.14 0.277 <0.14

66.9 32.6 31.1 29 26.8 22 19.1 24 28.1 40.6 26.7 19.7 23.3 21.9 16.8 26.6 27.5 28.5 13.2 22.8

<10 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

37.5 83.8 257 88.8 93.9 77 69.7 63.7 77.7 66.9 231 96.5 303 76.8 162 85.6 80.1 146 26.1 47.4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 64 88 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.004 <0.002 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.006 <0.003 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.012 <0.006 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.006 <0.003 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.01 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.005 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.088 <0.044 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.3 0.207 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.13 0.488 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25.1 2.38 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21.9 1.89 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.1 0.167 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29.4 2.75 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.3 0.212 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27.6 1.08 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 222 10.6 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 92.1 2.83 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31 0.528 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 345 14.7 - - - -

91.5 - 99.4 - 96.4 - 94.7 - 96.9 - 96.2 101 96.8 - 99.2 99.9 97.5 103 93.3 -

89.6 - 98.7 - 95.1 - 95.9 - 95.7 - 95.5 99.7 95.5 - 100 98.1 94.9 102 91.9 -

86.5 - 98.5 - 94.9 - 94.1 - 95 - 92.6 99.3 93.3 - 99.5 98.5 91.6 102 91.7 -

82.8 - 98.2 - 94.4 - 94.7 - 94.2 - 87.9 98 88.3 - 99.1 98.3 86.3 103 91.3 -

75.8 - 98.9 - 95.4 - 102 - 93.9 - 94.7 96.5 92.9 - 106 99.9 90.1 103 91.2 -

0.52 - 0.0291 - <0.009 - 0.0665 - <0.009 - 0.0269 <0.009 0.0328 - 0.142 0.0113 <0.009 0.111 <0.009 -

0.196 - 0.0518 - <0.012 - 0.391 - 0.0171 - 0.039 <0.012 0.0373 - 0.247 0.0463 <0.012 0.267 <0.012 -

0.0526 - 0.0124 - <0.008 - 0.0634 - <0.008 - <0.008 <0.008 <0.008 - 0.109 <0.008 <0.008 0.056 <0.008 -

0.0585 - 0.014 - <0.01 - 0.0713 - <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - 0.0812 <0.01 <0.01 0.0537 <0.01 -

0.636 - 0.236 - 0.0341 - 1.16 - 0.0306 - 0.171 0.0245 0.182 - 1.5 0.139 <0.015 0.895 <0.015 -

0.203 - 0.0856 - <0.016 - 0.626 - <0.016 - 0.0493 <0.016 0.0564 - 0.503 0.0554 <0.016 0.405 <0.016 -

2.11 - 0.546 - 0.0751 - 3.68 - 0.0919 - 0.409 <0.017 0.372 - 3.24 0.404 <0.017 2.84 0.0305 -

2.02 - 0.486 - 0.067 - 3.33 - 0.0877 - 0.351 <0.015 0.318 - 2.94 0.347 <0.015 2.69 0.0266 -

1.28 - 0.366 - 0.0555 - 2.16 - 0.0705 - 0.267 <0.014 0.217 - 3.5 0.244 <0.014 1.85 <0.014 -

1.23 - 0.358 - 0.0511 - 1.86 - 0.0563 - 0.26 <0.01 0.223 - 3.04 0.215 <0.01 1.87 0.0236 -

1.72 - 0.566 - 0.0656 - 3.16 - 0.0987 - 0.519 <0.015 0.423 - 6.35 0.399 <0.015 3.6 0.0295 -

0.652 - 0.213 - 0.032 - 1.44 - 0.0449 - 0.169 <0.014 0.133 - 2.2 0.161 <0.014 1.38 <0.014 -

1.49 - 0.476 - 0.0671 - 3.13 - 0.0846 - 0.378 <0.015 0.302 - 6.11 0.326 <0.015 2.79 0.0272 -

0.882 - 0.344 - 0.0474 - 1.91 - 0.0591 - 0.26 <0.018 0.219 - 3.87 0.224 <0.018 1.91 0.0222 -

0.259 - 0.0973 - <0.023 - 0.525 - <0.023 - 0.0745 <0.023 0.0617 - 1.26 0.0686 <0.023 0.503 <0.023 -

1.11 - 0.443 - 0.0633 - 2.31 - 0.0794 - 0.344 <0.024 0.29 - 4.41 0.265 <0.024 2.3 0.0301 -

14.4 - 4.32 - 0.558 - 25.9 - 0.721 - 3.32 <0.118 2.87 - 39.5 2.91 <0.118 23.5 0.19 -

H:\Projects\CL-240\19466 QUVL 4-5\Docs\RR\FP5 Employment Land\RR1302i1 Manor Farm SAM\Appendix C - Lab Data\Appendix C - SAM Lab Data.xls 2 of 2



© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Appendix E Remediation Verification Criteria 2 Pages

Determinand Residential with Plant

Uptake (mg/kg)

Residential

without Plant Uptake

(mg/kg) Allotments

(mg/kg) Commercial (mg/kg)

Metals Arsenic 32 35 43 640

Boron 290 10000 45 190000

Cadmium(1) 10 83.6 1.8 230

Chromium III 3000 3000 35000 30000

Chromium VI 4.3 4.3 2.1 35

Copper 2300 6200 520 72000

Lead 450 450 450 750

Nickel 130 130 230 1800

Selenium 350 595 120 13000

Zinc 3800 4000 620 670000

Mercury 169 238 80 3600

BTEX Benzene 0.079 0.27 0.017 28

Toluene 120 610 22 870

Ethylbenzene 65 170 16 520

Xylenes (sum of m-, o- and p-) 42 53 28 480

PAHs Acenaphthene 210 2000 34 85000

Acenaphthylene 170 2000 28 84000

Anthracene 2300 20000 380 530000

Benz(a)anthracene 3.1 3.7 2.5 28

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.66 * 2.0 * 1.2 * 14 *

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5.6 7.0 3.5 100

Benzo(ghi)perylene 44 47 70 650

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 8.5 10 6.8 140

Chrysene 6.0 8.8 2.6 140

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.76 0.87 0.76 13

Fluoranthene 260 970 52 23000

Fluorene 160 1900 27 64000

Indeno(123-cd)pyrene 3.2 4.2 1.8 60

Naphthalene 1.5 1.6 4.1 200

Phenanthrene 92 840 16 22000

Pyrene 560 2300 110 54000



© Entec UK Limited

December 2010

Determinand Residential with Plant

Uptake (mg/kg)

Residential

without Plant Uptake

(mg/kg) Allotments

(mg/kg) Commercial (mg/kg)

TPH Aliphatics >EC5-6 30 30 740 3400

Aliphatics >EC6-8 73 73 2300 8300

Aliphatics >EC8-10 19 19 320 2100

Aliphatics >EC10-12 93 93 2200 10000

Aliphatics >EC12-16 740 750 11000 61000

Aliphatics >EC16-35 45000 45000 260000 1600000

Aliphatics >C35-C44 45000 45000 260000 1600000

Aromatics EC5-7 65 260 13 28000

Aromatics >EC7-8 120 610 22 59000

Aromatics >EC8-10 27 33 8.6 3700

Aromatics >EC10-12 69 180 13 17000

Aromatics >EC12-16 140 1300 23 36000

Aromatics >EC16-21 250 1300 46 28000

Aromatics >EC21-35 890 1300 370 28000

Aromatics >EC35-44 890 1300 370 28000

Aliphatics & Aromatics >EC44-70 1200 1300 1200 28000

Notes

Soils will be deemed as unsuitable for use if they exceed the Remediation Verification Criteria as defined above.

Remediation criteria approved by the regulator, Gloucester City Council (GCC).

* The Remediation Verification Criteria includes a value of twice the GAC for benzo(a)pyrene, which has been agreed with GCC.

Quedgeley Urban Village Limited Kingsway Local Centre...

Documents

Transcript of Quedgeley Urban Village Limited Kingsway Local Centre...