3 Mining, Extraction & Natural Cavities Map
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE Mining, Extraction and © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Natural Cavities Legend Ordnance Survey license 100035207.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 20 3 Mining, Extraction & Natural Cavities 3.1 Historical Mining
This dataset is derived from Groundsure unique Historical Land-use Database that are indicative of mining or extraction activities.
Are there any Historical Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
Database searched and no data found.
3.2 Coal Mining
This dataset provides information as to whether the study site lies within a known coal mining affected area as defined by the coal authority.
Are there any Coal Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
Database searched and no data found.
3.3 Johnson Poole and Bloomer
This dataset provides information as to whether the study site lies within an area where JPB hold information relating to mining.
Are there any JPB Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? Yes
The following information provided by JPB is not represented on mapping: Whilst outside of an area where The Coal Authority have information on coal mining activities, Johnson Poole & Bloomer (JPB) have information such as mining plans and maps held within their archive of mining activities that have occurred within 1km of this property. Further details and a quote for services can be obtained by emailing this report to [email protected].
3.4 Non-Coal Mining
This dataset provides information as to whether the study site lies within an area which may have been subject to non-coal historic mining.
Are there any Non-Coal Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
Database searched and no data found.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 21 3.5 Non-Coal Mining Cavities
This dataset provides information from the Peter Brett Associates (PBA) mining cavities database (compiled for the national study entitled “Review of mining instability in Great Britain, 1990” PBA has also continued adding to this database) on mineral extraction by mining.
Are there any Non-Coal Mining cavities within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
Database searched and no data found.
3.6 Natural Cavities
This dataset provides information based on Peter Brett Associates natural cavities database.
Are there any Natural Cavities within 1000m of the study site boundary? Yes
The following Natural Cavities information provided by Peter Brett Associates:
Distance ID Direction NGR Superficial Deposits Bedrock Deposits Cavity Type and Number (m) Chalk Group, Harwich Not 532600 Formation, Lambeth Group, 643.0 S Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits Scour Hollows x 1 shown 181500 London Clay Formation, Thanet Sand Formation Chalk Group, Harwich 532900 Formation, Lambeth Group, 2 657.0 SE Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits Scour Hollows x 1 181600 London Clay Formation, Thanet Sand Formation
3.7 Brine Extraction
This data provides information from the Coal Authority issued on behalf of the Cheshire Brine Subsidence Compensation Board.
Are there any Brine Extraction areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
Database searched and no data found.
3.8 Gypsum Extraction
This dataset provides information on Gypsum extraction from British Gypsum records.
Are there any Gypsum Extraction areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
Database searched and no data found.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 22 3.9 Tin Mining
This dataset provides information on tin mining areas and is derived from tin mining records. This search is based upon postcode information to a sector level.
Are there any Tin Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
Database searched and no data found.
3.10 Clay Mining
This dataset provides information on Kaolin and Ball Clay mining from relevant mining records.
Are there any Clay Mining areas within 1000m of the study site boundary? No
Database searched and no data found.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 23 4 Natural Ground Subsidence 4.1 Shrink-Swell Clay Map
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE Shrink Swell Clay Legend © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Ordnance Survey license 100035207.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 24 4.2 Landslides Map NW N NE
W E
SW S SE Landslides Legend © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Ordnance Survey license 100035207.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 25 4.3 Ground Dissolution Soluble Rocks Map NW N NE
W E
SW S SE Ground Dissolution © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Soluble Rocks Legend Ordnance Survey license 100035207.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 26 4.4 Compressible Deposits Map NW N NE
W E
SW S SE Compressible Deposits Legend © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Ordnance Survey license 100035207.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 27 4.5 Collapsible Deposits Map NW N NE
W E
SW S SE Collapsible Deposits Legend © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Ordnance Survey license 100035207.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 28 4.6 Running Sand Map NW N NE
W E
SW S SE Running Sand Legend © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Ordnance Survey license 100035207.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 29 4 Natural Ground Subsidence
The National Ground Subsidence rating is obtained through the 6 natural ground stability hazard datasets, which are supplied by the British Geological Survey (BGS).
The following GeoSure data represented on the mapping is derived from the BGS Digital Geological map of Great Britain at 1:50,000 scale.
What is the maximum hazard rating of natural subsidence within the study site** boundary? Moderate 4.1 Shrink-Swell Clays
The following Shrink Swell information provided by the British Geological Survey:
Distance ID Direction Hazard Rating Details (m) Ground conditions predominantly non-plastic. No special actions required to avoid problems due to shrink-swell clays. No special ground investigation required, and 1 0.0 On Site Negligible increased construction costs or increased financial risks are unlikely due to potential problems with shrink-swell clays. Ground conditions predominantly low plasticity. No special actions required to avoid problems due to shrink-swell clays. No special ground investigation required, 2 33.0 S Very Low and increased construction costs or increased financial risks are unlikely due to potential problems with shrink-swell clays. Ground conditions predominantly high plasticity. Do not plant or remove trees or shrubs near to buildings without expert advice about their effect and management. For new build, consideration should be given to advice published by the National House Building Council (NHBC) and the Building Research 3 50.0 E Moderate Establishment (BRE). There is a probable increase in construction cost to reduce potential shrink-swell problems. For existing property, there is a probable increase in insurance risk during droughts or where vegetation with high moisture demands is present.
4.2 Landslides
The following Landslides information provided by the British Geological Survey:
Distance ID Direction Hazard Rating Details (m) Slope instability problems are unlikely to be present. No special actions required to avoid problems due to landslides. No special ground investigation required, and 1 0.0 On Site Very Low increased construction costs or increased financial risks are unlikely due to potential problems with landslides.
* This includes an automatically generated 50m buffer zone around the site
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 30 4.3 Ground Dissolution of Soluble Rocks
The following Ground Dissolution information provided by the British Geological Survey:
Distance ID Direction Hazard Rating Details (m) Soluble rocks are present, but unlikely to cause problems except under exceptional conditions. No special actions required to avoid problems due to 1 0.0 On Site Negligible soluble rocks. No special ground investigation required, and increased construction costs or increased financial risks are unlikely due to potential problems with soluble rocks.
4.4 Compressible Deposits
The following Compressible Deposits information provided by the British Geological Survey:
Distance ID Direction Hazard Rating Details (m) No indicators for compressible ground identified. No special actions required to avoid problems due to compressible ground. No special ground investigation 1 0.0 On Site Negligible required, and increased construction costs or increased financial risks are unlikely due to potential problems with compressible ground.
4.5 Collapsible Deposits
The following Collapsible Rocks information provided by the British Geological Survey:
Distance ID Direction Hazard Rating Details (m) Deposits with potential to collapse when loaded and saturated are unlikely to be 1 0.0 On Site Very Low present. No special ground investigation required or increased construction costs or increased financial risk due to potential problems with collapsible deposits. Slight possibility for collapsible deposit problems after major changes in loading or groundwater conditions. Normal maintenance to avoid large amounts of water entering the ground through pipe leakage or soak-aways should reduce the 2 33.0 S Low likelihood of problems due to collapsible deposits. For new build, assess the possibility of collapsible (loessic) deposits in ground investigation. For existing property, no significant increase in insurance risk from collapsible deposits is likely.
4.6 Running Sands
The following Running Sands information provided by the British Geological Survey:
Distance ID Direction Hazard Rating Details (m) Very low potential for running sand problems if water table rises or if sandy strata are exposed to water. No special actions required to avoid problems due to 1 0.0 On Site Very Low running sand. No special ground investigation required, and increased construction costs or increased financial risks are unlikely due to potential problems with running sand.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 31 Distance ID Direction Hazard Rating Details (m) No indicators for running sand identified. No special actions required to avoid problems due to running sand. No special ground investigation required, and 2 33.0 S Negligible increased construction costs or increased financial risks are unlikely due to potential problems with running sand.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 32 5 Borehole Records Map NW N NE
W E
SW S SE Borehole Records Legend © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Ordnance Survey license 100035207.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 33 5 Borehole Records
The systematic analysis of data extracted from the BGS Borehole Records database provides the following information.
Records of boreholes within 250m of the study site boundary: 127
Distance ID Direction NGR BGS Reference Drilled Length Borehole Name (m) 532320 ROSCOE STREET 1A 0.0 On Site TQ38SW831/B 25.91 182230 DEVELOPMENT 2 532340 ROSCOE STREET 2 0.0 On Site TQ38SW831/C 10.85 182230 DEVELOPMENT 3 532570 3 0.0 On Site TQ38SW3406 66.14 NUMBER NOT USED 182230 ROSCOE ST 532320 4A 0.0 On Site TQ38SW831/A-D 25.9 DEVELOPMENT 182220 FISNBURY BH1-4 532320 119-141 FARRINGDON 5 0.0 On Site TQ38SW1995/D 10.0 182170 RD 4 532310 ROSCOE STREET 6 0.0 On Site TQ38SW831/A 11.76 182210 DEVELOPMENT 1 L.C.C. BARBICAN 532400 7 0.0 On Site TQ38SW764 12.19 PRIMARY SCHOOL 182200 ISLINGTON 532430 8 0.0 On Site TQ38SW1964 20.0 55-57 BANNER ST EC1 1 182220 532350 ROSCOE STREET 9 0.0 On Site TQ38SW831/D 11.46 182220 DEVELOPMENT 4 532440 10 0.0 On Site TQ38SW1965 10.0 55-57 BANNER ST EC1 2 182220 532258 GOLDEN LANE CITY OF 11B 18.0 NW TQ38SW546 11.13 182233 LONDON BH1 532248 GOLDEN LANE CITY OF 12B 18.0 NW TQ38SW547 8.38 182229 LONDON BH2 532570 100 BUNHILL ROW, 13C 20.0 N TQ38SW484 66.14 182260 SHOREDITCH 532600 BUNHILL ROW LONDON 14 24.0 E TQ38SW4321 6.9 182170 EC1 5 532600 DE LA RUE & CO 15 28.0 SE TQ38SW485 137.31 182190 FINSBURY 532430 BANNER ST SITE, 16 29.0 NW TQ38SW654/A 10.67 182280 FINSBURY, A 532570 BANNER ST SITE, 17C 30.0 N TQ38SW654/F 18.29 182270 FINSBURY, F 532460 BANNER ST SITE, 18D 30.0 N TQ38SW654/B 12.19 182290 FINSBURY, B 532580 BUNHILL ROW LONDON 19 31.0 S TQ38SW4319 36.0 182140 EC1 3 532600 20 33.0 SE TQ38SW4318 15.24 BUNHILL ROW 2 182150 532490 BANNER ST SITE, 21 36.0 NE TQ38SW654/H 6.1 182270 FINSBURY, H
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 34 Distance ID Direction NGR BGS Reference Drilled Length Borehole Name (m) 532480 BANNER ST SITE, 22F 39.0 NE TQ38SW654/I 7.01 182290 FINSBURY, I 532470 BANNER STREET L.C.C. 23D 43.0 N TQ38SW654 18.28 182300 FINSBURY 532360 WHITECROSS STREET 24E 43.0 NE TQ38SW4435 1.82 182290 FINSBURY TP A 532360 WHITECROSS STREET 25E 43.0 NE TQ38SW4436 2.74 182290 FINSBURY TP B GOLDEN 532281 26 43.0 S TQ38SW5227 8.15 LANE/BRACKLEY STREET 182045 1 532610 27 46.0 N TQ38SW483 137.16 51 BUNHILL ROW 182290 532480 BANNER ST SITE, 28F 47.0 NE TQ38SW654/C 9.14 182300 FINSBURY, C 532600 BUNHILL ROW LONDON 29 48.0 SE TQ38SW4320 18.15 182130 EC1 4 532580 30 50.0 S TQ38SW4317 15.24 BUNHILL ROW 1 182120 532240 OLD STREET/GARRETT 31G 59.0 NW TQ38SW2505 25.0 182270 STREET BH4 532560 BANNER ST SITE, 32 61.0 N TQ38SW654/G 18.29 182300 FINSBURY, G 532300 NEAR ST LUKE'S 33 62.0 NW TQ38SW3379 84.73 182300 CHURCH, OLD STREET 532600 G.L.C. MOORFIELDS 34 63.0 N TQ38SW763 8.23 182310 SCHOOL FINSBURY 532390 WHITECROSS STREET 35 63.0 NW TQ38SW4437 6.09 182300 FINSBURY TP C 532250 OLD STREET/GARRETT 36G 64.0 NW TQ38SW2502 40.0 182280 STREET BH1 HONOURABLE 532660 37H 65.0 SE TQ38SW4660 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182190 TP7C GOLDEN 532289 38 70.0 S TQ38SW5228 4.41 LANE/BRACKLEY STREET 182016 2 HONOURABLE 532660 39H 71.0 SE TQ38SW4662 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182180 TP9 HONOURABLE 532660 40H 71.0 SE TQ38SW4666 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182180 WS9 532360 WHITECROSS STREET 41 71.0 N TQ38SW4432 12.64 182320 FINSBURY 1 532470 BANNER/OLD STREET 42 72.0 N TQ38SW1827 12.19 182330 BH1 HONOURABLE 532670 43H 74.0 SE TQ38SW4659 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182190 TP7B HONOURABLE 532670 44H 74.0 SE TQ38SW4658 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182190 TP7A HONOURABLE 532660 45J 77.0 SE TQ38SW4661 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182170 TP8
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 35 Distance ID Direction NGR BGS Reference Drilled Length Borehole Name (m) HONOURABLE 532670 46H 79.0 SE TQ38SW4657 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182180 TP7 HONOURABLE 532680 47I 80.0 E TQ38SW4652 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182200 TP1 HONOURABLE 532680 48I 80.0 E TQ38SW4663 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182200 WS1 532230 OLD STREET/GARRETT 49K 81.0 NW TQ38SW2504 25.0 182290 STREET BH3 532250 OLD STREET/GARRETT 50 82.0 NW TQ38SW2503 25.0 182300 STREET BH2 532660 HONOURABLE 51J 84.0 SE TQ38SW4651 -1.0 182160 ARTILLERY COMPANY 1 532240 OLD STREET LONDON E 52K 86.0 NW TQ38SW3953 9.14 182300 C 1 HONOURABLE 532680 53M 88.0 SE TQ38SW4655 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182180 TP5 532610 LEGRAND & SUTCLIFF 54 89.0 SE TQ38SW486 105.16 182090 FINSBURY 532330 WHITECROSS STREET 55 90.0 N TQ38SW4433 18.74 182340 FINSBURY 2 532530 BANNER ST SITE, 56 90.0 NW TQ38SW654/D 12.19 182320 FINSBURY, D 532410 BANNER/OLD STREET 57 91.0 NW TQ38SW1828 10.67 182340 BH2 HONOURABLE 532700 58L 98.0 E TQ38SW4653 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182210 TP2 HONOURABLE 532700 59L 98.0 E TQ38SW4664 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182210 WS2 532560 BANNER ST SITE, 60 99.0 N TQ38SW654/E 9.14 182340 FINSBURY, E 532350 WHITECROSS STREET 61 99.0 N TQ38SW4434 18.74 182350 FINSBURY 3 532460 BANNER/OLD STREET 62 100.0 N TQ38SW1829 16.03 182360 BH3 HONOURABLE 532690 63M 101.0 SE TQ38SW4656 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182170 TP5A 532288 CRIPPLEGATE HOUSE 64 103.0 S TQ38SW2619 25.0 181983 BH3 532258 CRIPPLEGATE HOUSE 65 108.0 S TQ38SW2617 1.0 181984 BH1 532272 CRIPPLEGATE HOUSE 66 116.0 S TQ38SW2618 35.0 181972 BH2 532280 WENLAKE ESTATE, 67 125.0 NW TQ38SW251/E 9.14 182360 FINSBURY HONOURABLE 532730 68N 128.0 E TQ38SW4665 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182210 WS4 HONOURABLE 532730 69N 128.0 E TQ38SW4654 -1.0 ARTILLERY COMPANY 182210 TP4
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 36 Distance ID Direction NGR BGS Reference Drilled Length Borehole Name (m) 532350 THE BARBICAN 70 129.0 S TQ38SW2689 8.0 181970 REDEVELOPMENT 52 532710 71 130.0 NE TQ38SW2136 29.0 OLD STREET F 182308 532470 BANNER/OLD STREET 72 131.0 N TQ38SW1830 13.71 182390 BH4 532240 WENLAKE ESTATE, 73 132.0 NW TQ38SW251/D 9.14 182350 FINSBURY 532540 BUNHILL ROW, 74 134.0 N TQ38SW3099 172.21 182370 SHOREDITCH 532210 WENLAKE ESTATE, 75 135.0 NW TQ38SW251/C 9.14 182340 FINSBURY 532740 76N 138.0 E TQ38SW2134 30.0 OLD STREET D 182210 532250 THE BARBICAN 77 143.0 S TQ38SW2694 8.0 181950 REDEVELOPMENT 58 532280 THE BARBICAN 78 147.0 S TQ38SW2642 18.0 181940 REDEVELOPMENT 1 532180 THE BARBICAN 79 149.0 SW TQ38SW2697 12.0 181990 REDEVELOPMENT 55A 532330 THE BARBICAN 80 150.0 S TQ38SW2688 14.0 181940 REDEVELOPMENT 51 532370 NEAR ST LUKES CHURCH 81 161.0 N TQ38SW499 49.68 182410 OLD ST FINSBURY 532150 THE BARBICAN 82 163.0 SW TQ38SW2692 26.0 182010 REDEVELOPMENT 55 532770 83 167.0 E TQ38SW2133 43.0 OLD STREET C 182230 532770 84 177.0 E TQ38SW1185 30.48 OLD STREET TUNNEL 1 182280 532390 THE BARBICAN 85 181.0 S TQ38SW2644 30.0 181930 REDEVELOPMENT 3 532540 BOVRIL CO BUNHILL 86 181.0 NE TQ38SW482 124.66 182420 ROW FINSBURY 532370 THE BARBICAN 87 192.0 S TQ38SW2646 7.0 181910 REDEVELOPMENT 5 532200 TRIAL BHS WENLAKE 88O 194.0 NW TQ38SW251/A-E 4.87 182400 ESTATE FINSBURY 532190 THE BARBICAN 89 196.0 SW TQ38SW2693 18.0 181920 REDEVELOPMENT 56 532280 THE BARBICAN 90 196.0 S TQ38SW2676 15.24 181890 REDEVELOPMENT 38 532210 WENLAKE ESTATE, 91O 199.0 NW TQ38SW251/B 9.14 182410 FINSBURY 532330 THE BARBICAN 92 199.0 S TQ38SW2675 10.0 181890 REDEVELOPMENT 37 532800 93P 201.0 E TQ38SW1186 28.8 OLD STREET TUNNEL 2 182260 532490 WHITBREADS BREWERY 94 201.0 S TQ38SW470 101.5 181930 FINSBURY 532420 THE BARBICAN 95 201.0 S TQ38SW2643 15.0 181920 REDEVELOPMENT 2 532800 96P 203.0 E TQ38SW1187 29.11 OLD STREET TUNNEL 3 182270 532110 THE BARBICAN 97 203.0 SW TQ38SW2691 9.0 182000 REDEVELOPMENT 54
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 37 Distance ID Direction NGR BGS Reference Drilled Length Borehole Name (m) 532800 98 205.0 E TQ38SW2131 34.0 OLD STREET A 182280 532190 WENLAKE ESTATE, 99O 207.0 NW TQ38SW251/A 9.14 182410 FINSBURY 532550 OLD STREET D49 100 208.0 N TQ38SW298 12.8 182450 FINSBURY 532250 THE BARBICAN 101Q 211.0 S TQ38SW2661 34.0 181880 REDEVELOPMENT 23 532300 THE BARBICAN 102 216.0 S TQ38SW2677 52.0 181870 REDEVELOPMENT 39 532270 BARBICAN NO.39A CITY 103Q 217.0 S TQ38SW676 51.81 181870 OF LONDON 532220 THE BARBICAN 104 219.0 S TQ38SW2662 9.0 181880 REDEVELOPMENT 24 532470 WHITBREAD BREWERY 105 220.0 S TQ38SW1977 30.0 181910 CHISWELL ST BH7 532825 106 222.0 E TQ38SW2135 31.0 OLD STREET E 182220 532115 47-58 BASTWICK STREET 107 222.0 NW TQ38SW5225 9.14 182388 1 532380 108R 223.0 S TQ38SW2052 55.5 BARBICAN ARTS CTR BH1 181880 532360 THE BARBICAN 109R 226.0 S TQ38SW2674 17.0 181870 REDEVELOPMENT 36 532120 THE BARBICAN 110 227.0 SW TQ38SW2690 21.0 181940 REDEVELOPMENT 53 532020 OLD STREET & GOSWELL 111 227.0 W TQ38SW348 14.73 182200 ROAD D50 FINSBURY 532420 BARBICAN NO.4 CITY OF 112T 229.0 S TQ38SW673 54.25 181890 LONDON 532790 HOVENDONS PERFUMES 113 231.0 NE TQ38SW269 25.45 182370 FINSBURY MS19 532500 WHITBREAD BREWERY 114V 232.0 S TQ38SW1975 26.0 181900 CHISWELL ST BH5 532530 LIPTONS OLD STREET 115S 232.0 N TQ38SW481 91.44 182480 FINSBURY 532082 47-58 BASTWICK STREET 116 233.0 NW TQ38SW5226 9.14 182373 2 532540 117S 236.0 N TQ38SW2047/M 15.24 CITY RD/BALDWIN RD 12 182480 532830 118 237.0 E TQ38SW2132 30.0 OLD STREET B 182290 532420 THE BARBICAN 119T 238.0 S TQ38SW2645 54.0 181880 REDEVELOPMENT 4 532080 110-115 ALDERSGATE 120U 239.0 SW TQ38SW4545 -1.0 181980 STREET LONDON 5 532080 110-115 ALDERSGATE 121U 239.0 SW TQ38SW4541 -1.0 181980 STREET LONDON 1 532080 110-115 ALDERSGATE 122U 239.0 SW TQ38SW4544 -1.0 181980 STREET LONDON 4 532080 123U 241.0 SW TQ38SW1652 10.97 110-120 ALDINGATE ST 181976 532410 124 244.0 S TQ38SW2054 43.0 BARBICAN ARTS CTR BH4 181870 532068 125 245.0 SW TQ38SW1651 9.45 110-120 ALDINGATE ST 181992
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 38 Distance ID Direction NGR BGS Reference Drilled Length Borehole Name (m) 532520 WHITBREAD BREWERY 126V 245.0 S TQ38SW1973 27.5 181890 CHISWELL ST BH3 532800 18-32 LEONARD STREET, 127 250.0 NE TQ38SW3098 152.4 182390 BOW
The borehole records are available using the hyperlinks below: Please note that if the donor of the borehole record has requested the information be held as commercial-in-confidence, the additional data will be held separately by the BGS and a formal request must be made for its release.
#1A: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064508 #2: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064509 #3: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1067580 #4A: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064511 #5: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066034 #6: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064507 #7: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064329 #8: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1065997 #9: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064510 #10: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1065998 #11B: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063944 #12B: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063945 #13C: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063867 #14: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15933873 #15: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063868 #16: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064117 #17C: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064122 #18D: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064118 #19: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15933871 #20: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15933870 #21: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064124 #22F: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064125 #23D: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064126 #24E: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/16248469 #25E: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/16248470 #26: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/19349862 #27: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063866 #28F: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064119 #29: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15933872 #30: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15933869 #31G: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066679 #32: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064123 #33: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1067553 #34: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064328 #35: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/16248471 #36G: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066676 #38: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/19349863 #41: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/16248466 #42: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1065790 #49K: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066678 #50: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066677 #52K: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/15613357 #54: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063869 #55: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/16248467
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 39 #56: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064120 #57: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1065791 #60: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064121 #61: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/16248468 #62: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1065792 #64: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066793 #65: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066791 #66: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066792 #67: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063578 #70: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066863 #71: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066309 #72: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1065793 #73: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063577 #74: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1067273 #75: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063576 #76N: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066307 #77: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066868 #78: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066816 #79: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066871 #80: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066862 #81: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063882 #82: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066866 #83: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066306 #84: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064959 #85: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066818 #86: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063865 #87: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066820 #88O: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063579 #89: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066867 #90: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066850 #91O: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063575 #92: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066849 #93P: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064960 #94: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063853 #95: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066817 #96P: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064961 #97: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066865 #98: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066304 #99O: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063574 #100: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063650 #101Q: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066835 #102: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066851 #103Q: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064185 #104: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066836 #105: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066010 #106: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066308 #107: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/19349860 #108R: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066156 #109R: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066848 #110: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066864 #111: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063700 #112T: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1064182 #113: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063615 #114V: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066008 #115S: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1063864
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 40 #116: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/19349861 #117S: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066140 #118: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066305 #119T: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066819 #123U: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1065579 #124: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066158 #125: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1065578 #126V: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1066006 #127: scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/1067272
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 41 6 Estimated Background Soil Chemistry
Records of background estimated soil chemistry within 250m of the study site boundary: 10
For further information on how this data is calculated and limitations upon its use, please see the Groundsure Geoinsight User Guide, available on request.
Distance (m) Direction Sample Type Arsenic (As) Cadmium (Cd) Chromium (Cr) Nickel (Ni) Lead (Pb) 0.0 On Site London No data No data No data No data No data 0.0 On Site London No data No data No data No data No data 33.0 S London No data No data No data No data No data 86.0 S London No data No data No data No data No data 112.0 S London No data No data No data No data No data 134.0 S London No data No data No data No data No data 200.0 S London No data No data No data No data No data 240.0 N London No data No data No data No data No data 244.0 N London No data No data No data No data No data 247.0 W London No data No data No data No data No data
*As this data is based upon underlying 1:50,000 scale geological information, a 50m buffer has been added to the search radius.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 42 7 Railways and Tunnels Map
NW N NE
W E
SW S SE Railways and Tunnels Legend © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Ordnance Survey license 100035207. © OpenStreetMapContributors
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 43 7 Railways and Tunnels
7.1 Tunnels
This data is derived from OpenStreetMap and provides information on the possible locations of underground railway systems in the UK - the London Underground, the Tyne & Wear Metro and the Glasgow Subway.
Have any underground railway lines been identified within the study site boundary? No
Have any underground railway lines been identified within 250m of the study site boundary? Yes
Distance (m) Direction Line 182 E London Underground - Northern Line 245 S London Underground - Circle Line 245 S London Underground - Hammersmith & City Line 245 S London Underground - Metropolitan Line
The approximate depth value for the nearest London Underground line given in this dataset has been extrapolated from published depths of tube lines at station platforms, and assume a constant gradient between stations. Using this method, topographical variation has resulted in some parts of the line having associated depth values either shallower or deeper than the real-world situation. Depth values are for indication only and should not be relied upon for any calculation or technical purpose and are in no way a substitute for a professional survey.
Line London Underground Line: Northern Line Depth: 30mbgl Track Type: Tunnel
Any records that have been identified are represented on the Railways and Tunnels Map.
This data is derived from Ordnance Survey mapping and provides information on the possible locations of railway tunnels forming part of the UK overground railway network.
Have any other railway tunnels been identified within the site boundary? No
Have any other railway tunnels been identified within 250m of the site boundary? Yes
Distance (m) Direction Detail 152 E Railway Tunnel 246 S Railway Tunnel
Any records that have been identified are represented on the Railways and Tunnels Map.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 44 7.2 Historical Railway and Tunnel Features
This data is derived from Groundsure's unique Historical Land-use Database and contains features relating to tunnels, railway tracks or associated works that have been identified from historical Ordnance Survey mapping.
Have any historical railway or tunnel features been identified within the study site boundary? No
Have any historical railway or tunnel features been identified within 250m of the study site boundary? Yes
Distance ID Direction NGR Details Date (m) 532217 1A 225 S Railway Sidings 1938 181853 532217 2A 225 S Railway Sidings 1920 181853 6 225 S n/a Railway Tunnel 1916 7C 225 S n/a Railway Tunnel 1938 8C 225 S n/a Railway Tunnel 1896 532557 14 227 S Railway Sidings 1951 181731 15E 227 S n/a Railways 1876 16 227 S n/a Railway 1873 17A 228 S n/a Railways 1916 18B 228 S n/a Railways 1876 19A 228 S n/a Railway 1873 532233 3E 230 S Railway Sidings 1895 181846 20A 230 S n/a Railway 1916 532293 24F 231 S Tunnel 1895 181841 532295 25F 231 S Tunnel 1895 181840 532367 4B 234 S Railway Sidings 1938 181840 532367 5B 234 S Railway Sidings 1920 181840 21 235 S n/a Railways 1876 22E 237 S n/a Railway 1916 9D 243 SW n/a Railway Tunnel 1916 10D 245 SW n/a Railway Tunnel 1896 11D 245 SW n/a Railway Tunnel 1938 12D 245 SW n/a Railway Tunnel 1876 517677 23E 246 S Railway Sidings 1916 184680 13 248 S n/a Tunnel 1896 532136 26D 248 SW Tunnel 1895 181855
Any records that have been identified are represented on the Railways and Tunnels Map.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 45 7.3 Historical Railways
This data is derived from OpenStreetMap and provides information on the possible alignments of abandoned or dismantled railway lines in proximity to the study site.
Have any historical railway lines been identified within the study site boundary? No
Have any historical railway lines been identified within 250m of the study site boundary? No
Database searched and no data found. Note: multiple sections of the same track may be listed in the detail above
Any records that have been identified are represented on the Railways and Tunnels Map.
7.4 Active Railways
These datasets are derived from Ordnance Survey mapping and OpenStreetMap and provide information on the possible locations of active railway lines in proximity to the study site.
Have any active railway lines been identified within the study site boundary? No
Have any active railway lines been identified within 250m of the study site boundary? Yes
Distance (m) Direction Name Type 183 E Northern City Line Rail
Note: multiple sections of the same track may be listed in the detail above Any records that have been identified are represented on the Railways and Tunnels Map.
7.5 Railway Projects
These datasets provide information on the location of large scale railway projects High Speed 2 and Crossrail 1 .
Is the study site within 5km of the route of the High Speed 2 rail project? Yes
Is the study site within 500m of the route of the Crossrail 1 rail project? Yes
Further information on proximity to these routes, the project construction status and associated works can be obtained through the purchase of a Groundsure HS2 and Crossrail 1 Report.
The route data has been digitised from publicly available maps by Groundsure. The route as provided relates to the Crossrail 1 project only, and does not include any details of the Crossrail 2 project, as final details of the route for Crossrail 2 are still under consultation.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 46 Contact Details
Groundsure Helpline Telephone: 08444 159 000 [email protected]
British Geological Survey Enquiries Kingsley Dunham Centre Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG Tel: 0115 936 3143. Fax: 0115 936 3276. Email:[email protected] Web:www.bgs.ac.uk BGS Geological Hazards Reports and general geological enquiries British Gypsum British Gypsum Ltd East Leake Loughborough Leicestershire LE12 6HX
The Coal Authority 200 Lichfield Lane Mansfield Notts NG18 4RG Tel: 0345 7626 848 DX 716176 Mansfield 5 www.coal.gov.uk
Public Health England Public information access office Public Health England, Wellington House 133-155 Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8UG https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health- england Email: [email protected] Main switchboard: 020 7654 8000
Johnson Poole & Bloomer Limited Harris and Pearson Building, Brettel Lane Brierley Hill, West Midlands DY5 3LH Tel: +44 (0) 1384 262 000 Email:[email protected] Website: www.jpb.co.uk
Ordnance Survey Adanac Drive, Southampton SO16 0AS
Tel: 08456 050505 Website: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/
Getmapping PLC Virginia Villas, High Street, Hartley Witney, Hampshire RG27 8NW Tel: 01252 845444 Website:http://www1.getmapping.com/
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 47 Contact Details
Peter Brett Associates Caversham Bridge House Waterman Place Reading Berkshire RG1 8DN Tel: +44 (0)118 950 0761 E-mail:[email protected] Website:http://www.peterbrett.com/home
Acknowledgements: Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright and/or Database Right. All Rights Reserved. Licence Number [03421028]. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Groundsure Ltd standard Terms and Conditions of business for work of this nature.
Report Reference: GS-2684531 Client Reference: 12-23-14-1-1028_Whitecross_Est_GI 48 Standard Terms and Conditions Groundsure reserves the right to withdraw any quotation or proposal at any time before an Order is accepted by Groundsure. Groundsure's acceptance of 1 Definitions an Order shall be binding only when made in writing and signed by In these terms and conditions unless the context otherwise requires: Groundsure's authorised representative or when accepted through the Order “Beneficiary” means the person or entity for whose benefit the Client has Website. obtained the Services. 3 The Client’s obligations “Client” means the party or parties entering into a Contract with Groundsure. 3.1The Client shall comply with the terms of this Contract and “Commercial” means any building or property which is not Residential. (i) procure that the Beneficiary or any third party relying on “Confidential Information” means the contents of this Contract and all the Services complies with and acts as if it is bound by the Contract and information received from the Client as a result of, or in connection with, this (ii) be liable to Groundsure for the acts and omissions of the Contract other than Beneficiary or any third party relying on the Services as if such acts and (i) information which the Client can prove was rightfully in its omissions were those of the Client. possession prior to disclosure by Groundsure and 3.2 The Client shall be solely responsible for ensuring that the Services are (ii) any information which is in the public domain (other than appropriate and suitable for its and/or the Beneficiary’s needs. by virtue of a breach of this Contract). 3.3 The Client shall supply to Groundsure as soon as practicable and without “Support Services” means Support Services provided by Groundsure including, charge all requisite information (and the Client warrants that such information without limitation, interpreting third party and in-house environmental data, is accurate, complete and appropriate), including without limitation any providing environmental support advice, undertaking environmental audits and environmental information relating to the Site and shall give such assistance as assessments, Site investigation, Site monitoring and related items. Groundsure shall reasonably require in the provision of the Services including, “Contract” means the contract between Groundsure and the Client for the without limitation, access to the Site, facilities and equipment. provision of the Services, and which shall incorporate these terms and 3.4 Where the Client’s approval or decision is required to enable Groundsure to conditions, the Order, and the relevant User Guide. carry out work in order to provide the Services, such approval or decision shall “Third Party Data Provider” means any third party providing Third Party be given or procured in reasonable time and so as not to delay or disrupt the Content to Groundsure. performance of the Services. “Data Reports” means reports comprising factual data with no accompanying 3.5 Save as expressly permitted by this Contract the Client shall not, and shall interpretation. procure that the Beneficiary shall not, re-sell, alter, add to, or amend the “Fees” has the meaning set out in clause 5.1. Groundsure Materials, or use the Groundsure Materials in a manner for which “Groundsure” means Groundsure Limited, a company registered in England they were not intended. The Client may make the Groundsure Materials and Wales under number 03421028. available to a third party who is considering acquiring some or all of, or “Groundsure Materials” means all materials prepared by Groundsure and providing funding in relation to, the Site, but such third party cannot rely on the provided as part of the Services, including but not limited to Third Party same unless expressly permitted under clause 4. Content, Data Reports, Mapping, and Risk Screening Reports. 3.6 The Client is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of its user name “Intellectual Property” means any patent, copyright, design rights, trade or and password if using the Order Website and the Client acknowledges that service mark, moral rights, data protection rights, know-how or trade mark in Groundsure accepts no liability of any kind for any loss or damage suffered by each case whether registered or not and including applications for the same or the Client as a consequence of using the Order Website. any other rights of a similar nature anywhere in the world. “Mapping” means a map, map data or a combination of historical maps of 4 Reliance various ages, time periods and scales. 4.1The Client acknowledges that the Services provided by Groundsure consist “Order” means an electronic, written or other order form submitted by the of the presentation and analysis of Third Party Content and other content and Client requesting Services from Groundsure in respect of a specified Site. that information obtained from a Third Party Data Provider cannot be “Ordnance Survey” means the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and guaranteed or warranted by Groundsure to be reliable. Skills, acting through Ordnance Survey, Adanac Drive, Southampton, SO16 4.2 In respect of Data Reports, Mapping and Risk Screening Reports, the 0AS, UK. following classes of person and no other are entitled to rely on their contents; “Order Website” means the online platform through which Orders may be (i) the Beneficiary, placed by the Client and accepted by Groundsure. (ii) the Beneficiary's professional advisers, (iii) any person “Report” means a Risk Screening Report or Data Report for Commercial or providing funding to the Beneficiary in relation to the Site (whether directly or Residential property. as part of a lending syndicate), “Residential” means any building or property used as or intended to be used as (iv) the first purchaser or first tenant of the Site, and a single dwelling. (v) the professional advisers and lenders of the first purchaser “Risk Screening Report” means a risk screening report comprising factual data or tenant of the Site. with an accompanying interpretation by Groundsure. 4.3 In respect of Support Services, only the Client, Beneficiary and parties “Services” means any Report, Mapping and/or Support Services which expressly named in a Report and no other parties are entitled to rely on its Groundsure has agreed to provide by accepting an Order pursuant to clause contents. 2.6. 4.4 Save as set out in clauses 4.2 and 4.3 and unless otherwise expressly agreed "Site" means the area of land in respect of which the Client has requested in writing, no other person or entity of any kind is entitled to rely on any Groundsure to provide the Services. Services or Report issued or provided by Groundsure. Any party considering “Third Party Content” means data, database information or other information such Reports and Services does so at their own risk. which is provided to Groundsure by a Third Party Data Provider. 5 Fees and Disbursements "User Guide" means the user guide, as amended from time to time, available upon request from Groundsure and on the website (www.Groundsure.com) and 5.1Groundsure shall charge and the Client shall pay fees at the rate and forming part of this Contract. frequency specified in the written proposal, Order Website or Order acknowledgement form, plus (in the case of Support Services) all proper 2 Scope of Services, terms and conditions, requests for insurance disbursements incurred by Groundsure. The Client shall in addition pay all value and quotations added tax or other tax payable on such fees and disbursements in relation to 2.1 Groundsure agrees to provide the Services in accordance with the Contract. the provision of the Services (together “Fees”). 2.2 Groundsure shall exercise reasonable skill and care in the provision of the 5.2 The Client shall pay all outstanding Fees to Groundsure in full without Services. deduction, counterclaim or set off within 30 days of the date of Groundsure’s 2.3 Subject to clause 7.3 the Client acknowledges that it has not relied on any invoice or such other period as may be agreed in writing between Groundsure statement or representation made by or on behalf of Groundsure which is not and the Client ("Payment Date"). Interest on late payments will accrue on a set out and expressly agreed in writing in the Contract and all such statements daily basis from the Payment Date until the date of payment (whether before and representations are hereby excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. or after judgment) at the rate of 8% per annum. 2.4 The Client acknowledges that terms and conditions appearing on a Client’s 5.3 The Client shall be deemed to have agreed the amount of any invoice unless order form, printed stationery or other communication, or any terms or an objection is made in writing within 28 days of the date of the invoice. As soon conditions implied by custom, practice or course of dealing shall be of no effect, as reasonably practicable after being notified of an objection, without prejudice and that this Contract shall prevail over all others in relation to the Order. to clause 5.2 a member of Groundsure’s management team will contact the 2.5 If the Client or Beneficiary requests insurance in conjunction with or as a Client and the parties shall then use all reasonable endeavours to resolve the result of the Services, Groundsure shall use reasonable endeavours to dispute within 15 days. recommend such insurance, but makes no warranty that such insurance shall 6 Intellectual Property and Confidentiality be available from insurers or that it will be offered on reasonable terms. Any insurance purchased by the Client or Beneficiary shall be subject solely to the 6.1 Subject to terms of the policy issued by insurers and Groundsure will have no liability (i) full payment of all relevant Fees and therefor. In addition you acknowledge and agree that Groundsure does not act (ii) compliance with this Contract, the Client is granted (and is as an agent or broker for any insurance providers. The Client should take (and permitted to sub-licence to the Beneficiary) a royalty-free, worldwide, non- ensure that the Beneficiary takes) independent advice to ensure that the assignable and (save to the extent set out in this Contract) non-transferable insurance policy requested or offered is suitable for its requirements. licence to make use of the Groundsure Materials. 2.6 Groundsure's quotations or proposals are valid for a period of 30 days only 6.2 All Intellectual Property in the Groundsure Materials are and shall remain unless an alternative period of time is explicitly stipulated by Groundsure. owned by Groundsure or Groundsure's licensors (including without limitation the Third Party Data Providers) the Client acknowledges, and shall procure acknowledgement by the Beneficiary of, such ownership. Nothing in this 8 Groundsure’s right to suspend or terminate Contract purports to transfer or assign any rights to the Client or the 8.1 If Groundsure reasonably believes that the Client or Beneficiary has not Beneficiary in respect of such Intellectual Property. provided the information or assistance required to enable the proper provision 6.3 Third Party Data Providers may enforce any breach of clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Services, Groundsure shall be entitled to suspend all further performance against the Client or Beneficiary. of the Services until such time as any such deficiency has been made good. 6.4 The Client shall, and shall procure that any recipients of the Groundsure 8.2 Groundsure shall be entitled to terminate the Contract immediately on Materials shall: written notice in the event that: (i) not remove, suppress or modify any trade mark, copyright (i) the Client fails to pay any sum due to Groundsure within or other proprietary marking belonging to Groundsure or any third party from 30 days of the Payment Date; or the Services; (ii) the Client (being an individual) has a bankruptcy order (ii) use the information obtained as part of the Services in made against him or (being a company) shall enter into liquidation whether respect of the subject Site only, and shall not store or reuse any information compulsory or voluntary or have an administration order made against it or if a obtained as part of the Services provided in respect of adjacent or nearby sites; receiver shall be appointed over the whole or any part of its property assets or (iii) not create any product or report which is derived directly undertaking or if the Client is struck off the Register of Companies or dissolved; or indirectly from the Services (save that those acting in a professional capacity or to the Beneficiary may provide advice based upon the Services); (iii) the Client being a company is unable to pay its debts (iv) not combine the Services with or incorporate such Services within the meaning of Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or being an into any other information data or service; individual appears unable to pay his debts within the meaning of Section 268 of (v) not reformat or otherwise change (whether by the Insolvency Act 1986 or if the Client shall enter into a composition or modification, addition or enhancement), the Services (save that those acting for arrangement with the Client’s creditors or shall suffer distress or execution to the Beneficiary in a professional capacity shall not be in breach of this clause be levied on his goods; or 6.4(v) where such reformatting is in the normal course of providing advice (iv) the Client or the Beneficiary breaches any term of the based upon the Services); Contract (including, but not limited to, the obligations in clause 4) which is (vi) where a Report and/or Mapping contains material incapable of remedy or if remediable, is not remedied within five days of notice belonging to Ordnance Survey, acknowledge and agree that such content is of the breach. protected by Crown Copyright and shall not use such content for any purpose outside of receiving the Services; and 9. Client’s Right to Terminate and Suspend (vii) not copy in whole or in part by any means any map prints 9.1 Subject to clause 10.1, the Client may at any time upon written notice or run-on copies containing content belonging to Ordnance Survey (other than terminate or suspend the provision of all or any of the Services. that contained within Ordnance Survey’s OS Street Map) without first being in 9.2 In any event, where the Client is a consumer (and not a business) he/she possession of a valid Paper Map Copying Licence from Ordnance Survey, hereby expressly acknowledges and agrees that: 6.5 Notwithstanding clause 6.4, the Client may make reasonable use of the (i) the supply of Services under this Contract (and therefore Groundsure Materials in order to advise the Beneficiary in a professional the performance of this Contract) commences immediately upon Groundsure's capacity. However, Groundsure shall have no liability in respect of any advice, acceptance of the Order; and opinion or report given or provided to Beneficiaries by the Client. (ii) the Reports and/or Mapping provided under this Contract 6.6 The Client shall procure that any person to whom the Services are made are available shall notify Groundsure of any request or requirement to disclose, (a) supplied to the Client's specification(s) and in any event publish or disseminate any information contained in the Services in accordance (b) by their nature cannot be returned. with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Environmental Information 10 Consequences of Withdrawal, Termination or Suspension Regulations 2004 or any associated legislation or regulations in force from time to time. 10.1 Upon termination of the Contract: (i) Groundsure shall take steps to bring to an end the Services 7.Liability: Particular Attention Should Be Paid To This Clause in an orderly manner, vacate any Site with all reasonable speed and shall deliver 7.1 This Clause 7 sets out the entire liability of Groundsure, including any to the Client and/or Beneficiary any property of the Client and/or Beneficiary in liability for the acts or omissions of its employees, agents, consultants, Groundsure’s possession or control; and subcontractors and Third Party Content, in respect of: (ii) the Client shall pay to Groundsure all and any Fees (i) any breach of contract, including any deliberate breach of payable in respect of the performance of the Services up to the date of the Contract by Groundsure or its employees, agents or termination or suspension. In respect of any Support Services provided, the subcontractors; Client shall also pay Groundsure any additional costs incurred in relation to the (ii) any use made of the Reports, Services, Materials or any termination or suspension of the Contract. part of them; and 11 Anti-Bribery (iii) any representation, statement or tortious act or omission (including negligence) arising under or in connection with the Contract. 11.1 The Client warrants that it shall: 7.2 All warranties, conditions and other terms implied by statute or common (i) comply with all applicable laws, statutes and regulations law are, to the fullest extent permitted by law, excluded from the Contract. relating to anti-bribery and anti-corruption including but not limited to the 7.3 Nothing in the Contract limits or excludes the liability of the Supplier for Bribery Act 2010; death or personal injury resulting from negligence, or for any damage or (ii) comply with such of Groundsure's anti-bribery and anti- liability incurred by the Client or Beneficiary as a result of fraud or fraudulent corruption policies as are notified to the Client from time to time; and misrepresentation. (iii) promptly report to Groundsure any request or demand for 7.4 Groundsure shall not be liable for any undue financial or other advantage of any kind received by or on behalf of (i) loss of profits; the Client in connection with the performance of this Contract. (ii) loss of business; 11.2 Breach of this Clause 11 shall be deemed a material breach of this (iii) depletion of goodwill and/or similar losses; Contract. (iv) loss of anticipated savings; 12 General (v) loss of goods; 12.1 The Mapping contained in the Services is protected by Crown copyright (vi) loss of contract; and must not be used for any purpose other than as part of the Services or as (vii) loss of use; specifically provided in the Contract. (viii) loss or corruption of data or information; 12.2 The Client shall be permitted to make one copy only of each Report or (ix) business interruption; Mapping Order. Thereafter the Client shall be entitled to make unlimited copies (x) any kind of special, indirect, consequential or pure of the Report or Mapping Order only in accordance with an Ordnance Survey economic loss, costs, damages, charges or expenses; paper map copy license available through Groundsure. (xi) loss or damage that arise as a result of the use of all or 12.3 Groundsure reserves the right to amend or vary this Contract. No part of the Groundsure Materials in breach of the Contract; amendment or variation to this Contract shall be valid unless signed by an (xii) loss or damage arising as a result of any error, omission or authorised representative of Groundsure. inaccuracy in any part of the Groundsure Materials where such error, omission 12.4 No failure on the part of Groundsure to exercise, and no delay in or inaccuracy is caused by any Third Party Content or any reasonable exercising, any right, power or provision under this Contract shall operate as a interpretation of Third Party Content; waiver thereof. (xiii) loss or damage to a computer, software, modem, 12.5 Save as expressly provided in this Contract, no person other than the telephone or other property; and persons set out therein shall have any right under the Contract (Rights of Third (xiv) loss or damage caused by a delay or loss of use of Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any terms of the Contract. Groundsure’s internet ordering service. 12.6 The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (“BIS”) or BIS’ 7.5 Groundsure’s total liability in relation to or under the Contract shall be successor body, as the case may be, acting through Ordnance Survey may limited to £10 million for any claim or claims. enforce a breach of clause 6.4(vi) and clause 6.4(vii) of these terms and 7.6 Groundsure shall procure that the Beneficiary shall be bound by limitations conditions against the Client in accordance with the provisions of the Contracts and exclusions of liability in favour of Groundsure which accord with those (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. detailed in clauses 7.4 and 7.5 (subject to clause 7.3) in respect of all claims 12.7 Groundsure shall not be liable to the Client if the provision of the Services which the Beneficiary may bring against Groundsure in relation to the Services is delayed or prevented by one or more of the following circumstances: or other matters arising pursuant to the Contract. (i) the Client or Beneficiary’s failure to provide facilities, access or information; (ii) fire, storm, flood, tempest or epidemic; (iii) Acts of God or the public enemy; (iv) riot, civil commotion or war; (v) strikes, labour disputes or industrial action; (vi) acts or regulations of any governmental or other agency; (vii) suspension or delay of services at public registries by Third Party Data Providers; (viii) changes in law; or (ix) any other reason beyond Groundsure’s reasonable control. In the event that Groundsure is prevented from performing the Services (or any part thereof) in accordance with this clause 12.6 for a period of not less than 30 days then Groundsure shall be entitled to terminate this Contract immediately on written notice to the Client. 12.8 Any notice provided shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be properly given if delivered by hand or sent by first class post, facsimile or by email to the address, facsimile number or email address of the relevant party as may have been notified by each party to the other for such purpose or in the absence of such notification the last known address. 12.9 Such notice shall be deemed to have been received on the day of delivery if delivered by hand, facsimile or email (save to the extent such day is not a working day where it shall be deemed to have been delivered on the next working day) and on the second working day after the day of posting if sent by first class post. 12.10 The Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and shall supersede all previous arrangements between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. 12.11 Each of the provisions of the Contract is severable and distinct from the others and if one or more provisions is or should become invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be tainted or impaired. 12.12 This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and any proceedings arising out of or connected with this Contract shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. 12.13 Groundsure is an executive member of the Council of Property Search Organisation (CoPSO) and has signed up to the Search Code administered by the Property Codes Compliance Board (PCCB). All Risk Screening Reports shall be supplied in accordance with the provisions of the Search Code. 12.14 If the Client or Beneficiary has a complaint about the Services, written notice should be given to the Compliance Officer at Groundsure who will respond in a timely manner. In the event you are not satisfied with Groundsure’s complaints handling process or you are unable to resolve the complaint, at your discretion you may refer the complaint to The Property Ombudsman Scheme at the following URL/email: website www.tpos.co.uk or email: [email protected] 12.15 The Client agrees that it shall, and shall procure that each Beneficiary shall, treat in confidence all Confidential Information and shall not, and shall procure that each Beneficiary shall not (i) disclose any Confidential Information to any third party other than in accordance with the terms of this Contract; and (ii) use Confidential Information for a purpose other than the exercise of its rights and obligations under this Contract. Subject to clause 6.6, nothing shall prevent the Client or any Beneficiary from disclosing Confidential Information to the extent required by law
© Groundsure Limited June 2013 Robson Liddle
Appendix D
UXO Assessment Reports
12-23-14-1-1028/GIR1 Whitecross Estate
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
Risk Assessment
Project Name The Whitecross Estate
Client Robson Liddle Ltd
Site Address Whitecross Estates, London, EC1Y 8JP Report Reference DA3064-00 Revision 00 Date 3rd March 2016 Originator MP
Find us on Twitter and Facebook st 1 Line Defence Limited Company No: 7717863 VAT No: 128 8833 79 Unit 3, Maple Park, Essex Road, Hoddesdon, Herts. EN11 0EX www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1992 245 020 [email protected]
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
Executive Summary
Site Location For the clarity of this report the two sites of inquiry that comprise Whitecross Estate will be referred to as site A and site B. Both are located on the edge of the London Borough of Islington, which is approximately 3km north-east of the centre of London. Site A is bordered by Banner Street (north), Whitecross Street (east), Fortune Street (south) and Golden Lane (west). Site B is bordered by Roscoe Street (north), Burnhill Row (east), Errol Street (south) and Whitecross Street (west). The two sites are centred on the approximate OS grid reference: TQ 3241382157.
Proposed Works The exact scope of intrusive works proposed for the site was not available at the time of the production of this report.
Geology and Bomb Penetration Depth No site-specific borehole data was provided at the time of the production of this report.
UXO Risk Assessment 1st Line Defence believes that there is a Medium Risk that items of unexploded German air-delivered ordnance could have fallen unnoticed and unrecorded within the site of proposed works. This assessment is based on the following factors:
During WWII, the Municipal Borough of Finsbury was subjected to a High density of bombing, with 407.2 items recorded per 1000 acres. Bombing in the locality of Whitecross Estate site can be attributed to its location near to the centre of the capital of the UK, as well as its close proximity to a Water Works, Filter and Pump Station, which featured on Luftwaffe target reconnaissance photography. Bomb Census Information, (including Consolidated and Weekly London bomb census mapping, Finsbury ARP bomb incident records and London V-1 bomb mapping), suggest a number of bomb incidents to have affected the area compromising Whitecross Estate. According to the collective record set at least five HE bombs fell within or bordering site A, while the same number is recorded to have affected site B as well as a V1 Flying bomb. Heavy Incendiary bombing and other HE bomb strikes are also recorded within the immediate vicinity of the sites too. See Annex R for a visual diagram of the relevant collective bomb incident information listed above. The LCC bomb damage mapping labels significant damage within the sites and surrounding area. Similarly, aerial photography dated in 1945 also indicates signs of serious damage within both sites A and B, such as the presence of cleared ground or the remnants of buildings which have serious structural damage. At the start of the war, both sites are likely to have been subject to frequent, regular access and checks due to being occupied by properties and bordered by roadways. However, access and checks are likely to have been significantly reduced in both sites following the recorded bomb incidents and subsequent damage. Post-war, the structures within site A are shown to be mostly demolished in 1945 aerial photography. Such damage is anticipated to have caused piles of rubble and debris, which would have significantly reduced the likelihood of noticing UXBS. Individual areas of site B also appear to have been occupied by cleared ground or structurally damaged buildings. The groundcover in these respective areas is considered to have been unconducive to the observation of UXO/UXBs. It should be noted that the entry hole of an unexploded bomb can be as little as 20cm in diameter and therefore easily overlooked in such conditions. Despite this, there are structures within site B which appear to have remained largely intact. Although the ground condition in these particular areas of the site would not have been entirely unfavourable to the visual indication of UXO, the risk of J-curve (whereby a UXB can fall into rubble or open ground unnoticed and end its trajectory beneath an existing structure) would be elevated due to it being adjacent to severe bomb damage. Breaking the site into zones of risk has therefore not been possible due to the comprehensive spread of damage and incidents at/ and around the site. There is no evidence that the site formerly had any military occupation or usage that could have led to contamination with other items of ordnance. There has been post-war redevelopment across the entire area of site A and individual areas previously occupied by damaged buildings of site B. Generally, where this development has taken place, the risk of encountering shallow buried UXO (especially 1kg incendiaries or anti-personnel bombs) and anti-aircraft projectiles will have been partly mitigated, since any such items may have been discovered during excavations. However, the risk from
Report Reference: DA3064-00 II © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
UXO Risk Assessment deep-buried unexploded bombs is only considered mitigated at locations where post war piling or deep foundations have taken place.
Recommended Risk Mitigation Measures The following risk mitigation measures are recommended to support the proposed works at the Whitecross Estate site:
All works
Site Specific Unexploded Ordnance Awareness Briefings to all personnel conducting intrusive works
Shallow intrusive works (trial pits, open excavations, shallow foundations etc.)
Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Specialist Presence on Site to support shallow intrusive works
Deep intrusive works (boreholes and piles)
Intrusive Magnetometer Survey of all Borehole and pile locations down to a maximum bomb penetration depth
In making this assessment and recommending the above risk mitigation measures, the proposed works outlined in the ‘Scope of the Proposed Works’ section were considered. Should the planned works be modified or additional intrusive engineering works be considered, 1st Line Defence should be consulted to see if a re-assessment of the risk or mitigation recommendations is necessary.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 III © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
Contents Executive Summary ...... II Contents...... IV Annexes ...... VI Glossary ...... VII 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Background ...... 1 2. UK Regulatory Environment ...... 2 2.1. General ...... 2 2.2. CDM Regulations 2015 ...... 2 2.3. The 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act ...... 2 2.4. Additional Legislation ...... 2 3. Role of Commercial UXO Contractors and The Authorities ...... 3 3.1. Commercial UXO Contractors ...... 3 3.2. The Authorities ...... 3 4. The Report ...... 4 4.1. Report Objectives...... 4 4.2. Risk Assessment Process ...... 4 4.3. Sources of Information ...... 4 5. Reporting Conditions ...... 5 5.1. General Considerations ...... 5 5.2. Background to Bombing Records...... 5 6. The Site ...... 6 6.1. Site Location ...... 6 6.2. Site Description ...... 6 7. Scope of the Proposed Works ...... 6 7.1. General ...... 6 8. Ground Conditions ...... 6 8.1. General Geology ...... 6 8.2. Site Specific Geology ...... 6 9. Site History ...... 6 9.1. Ordnance Survey Historical Maps ...... 6 9.2. Historical Plan of Whitecross Estate Premises ...... 7 9.3. Goad Fire Insurance Plans ...... 7 10. Aerial Bombing Introduction ...... 8 10.1. General ...... 8 10.2. Generic Types of WWII German Air-delivered Ordnance...... 8 10.3. Failure Rate of German Air-Delivered Ordnance ...... 10 10.4. V-Weapons ...... 10 11. UXB Ground Penetration ...... 11 11.1. General ...... 11 11.2. The J Curve Effect ...... 11 11.3. WWII UXB Penetration Studies ...... 11
Report Reference: DA3064-00 IV © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
11.4. Site Specific Bomb Penetration Considerations ...... 11 12. Initiation of Unexploded Ordnance ...... 12 12.1. General ...... 12 12.2. UXB Initiation Mechanisms...... 12 12.3. Effects of Detonation ...... 12 13. The Risk from German UXBs ...... 13 13.1. World War I ...... 13 13.2. World War II Bombing of Finsbury ...... 13 13.3. Second World War Bombing Statistics ...... 13 13.4. London Air Raid Precautions Bomb Census Maps ...... 14 13.5. London V-Weapon Maps ...... 15 13.6. Finsbury Air Raid Precautions Bomb Incident Records ...... 15 13.7. ‘Whitecross Street Publica Report’ ...... 16 13.8. London County Council Bomb Damage Map ...... 16 13.9. WWII-Era Aerial Photographs ...... 16 13.10. Abandoned Bombs...... 17 13.11. Bomb Disposal Tasks ...... 17 13.12. Evaluation of Bombing Records ...... 17 14. The Risk from Allied Military Ordnance ...... 19 14.1. General ...... 19 14.2. Land Service Ammunition ...... 19 14.3. Defending London from Aerial Attack ...... 19 14.4. Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) and Projectiles ...... 20 14.5. Evaluation of Allied Military Ordnance Risk ...... 21 15. Ordnance Clearance and Post-WWII Ground Works ...... 22 15.1. General ...... 22 15.2. UXO Clearance ...... 22 15.3. Post war Redevelopment ...... 22 16. 1st Line Defence Risk Assessment ...... 22 16.1. Risk Assessment Stages ...... 22 16.2. Assessed Risk Level ...... 24 17. Proposed Risk Mitigation Methodology ...... 25 17.1. General ...... 25 Bibliography ...... 26
Report Reference: DA3064-00 V © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
Annexes
List of Report Annexes
Annex A Site Location Maps
Annex B Recent Aerial Photography
Annex C Site Plans
Annex D Pre and Post-WWII Historical Maps
Annex E Historical Plans of Whitecross Estate
Annex F Goad Fire Insurance Mapping (1958)
Annex G Examples of German Air Delivered Ordnance
Annex H Example of 50kg Bomb Entry Hole
Annex I Examples of UXO Incidents
Annex J London WWI Bomb Plot Maps
Annex K London WWII Bomb Density Map
Annex L Luftwaffe Target Reconnaissance Imagery
Annex M London ARP Consolidated & Weekly Bomb Census Maps
Annex N London V1 Flying Bomb Map
Annex O London County Council Bomb Damage Map
Annex P 1945 RAF Aerial Photography of the Site
Annex Q Historical Aerial Imagery of the Site area (1947) Visual Representation Diagram of Bomb Census Annex R Information Annex S Examples of Anti-Aircraft Projectiles
Report Reference: DA3064-00 VI © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
Glossary
Abbreviation Definition AA Anti-Aircraft AAA Anti-Aircraft Ammunition AP Anti-Personnel ARP Air Raid Precautions AWAS Air Warfare Analysis Section EOC Explosive Ordnance Clearance EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal FP Fire Pot GM G Mine (Parachute mine) HAA Heavy Anti Air HE High Explosive IB Incendiary Bomb LAA Light Anti Air LCC London County Council LRR Long Range Rocket (V2) LSA Land Service Ammunition OB Oil Bomb PAC Pilotless Aircraft (V1) PB Phosphorous Bomb PM Parachute Mine POW Prisoner Of War RAF Royal Air Force RCAF Royal Canadian Air Force RFC Royal Flying Corps RNAS Royal Naval Air Service ROF Royal Ordnance Factory SA Small Arms SAA Small Arms Ammunition SD1000 1000kg high explosive bomb SD2 2kg incendiary U/C Unclassified bomb UP Unrotated/Unrotating Projectile (rocket) USAAF United States Army Air Force UX Unexploded UXAA Unexploded Anti Air UXB Unexploded Bomb UXO Unexploded Ordnance V1 Vengeance Weapon 1 (PAC) V2 Vengeance Weapon 2 (LRR) WAAF Women’s Auxiliary Air Force X Exploded
Report Reference: DA3064-00 VII © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
1st Line Defence Limited Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment
Site: The Whitecross Estate Client: Robson Liddle Ltd
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1st Line Defence has been commissioned by Robson Liddle Ltd to produce a Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment for the proposed works at the Whitecross Estate.
UXO in the UK can originate from three principal sources:
1. Munitions deposited as a result of military training procedures and exercises. 2. Munitions lost, burnt, buried or otherwise discarded either deliberately, accidentally or ineffectively. 3. Munitions resulting from wartime activities including German bombing in WWI and WWII, long range shelling, defensive activities or area denial.
In certain parts of the UK buried UXO can present a significant risk to construction works and development projects. Whilst UXO may certainly present a safety risk even the simple discovery of a suspected device during on-going works can cause considerable disruption to production and cause unwanted delays and expense.
This report will examine in detail all the factors that could potentially contribute to a risk from UXO at the site in question. For the majority of sites in the UK the likelihood of encountering UXO of any sort is minimal and generally no further action will be required beyond an initial desktop risk assessment. However, if a potential risk is identified, the report will make recommendations for the most appropriate and work-specific measures available in order to reduce the risk to as low as reasonably practicable. Full analysis and evidence will be provided to allow to client to fully understand the basis for the assessed risk level and any recommendations.
The report directly follows the guidelines set out in the document CIRIA C681 ‘Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) A Guide for the Construction Industry’.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 1 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
2. UK Regulatory Environment
2.1. General
There is no formal requirement for undertaking an assessment of UXO risk for construction projects in the UK, nor any specific legislation covering the management or mitigation of UXO risk. However, it is implicit in the legislation outlined below that those responsible for intrusive works (archaeology, site investigation, drilling, piling, excavation etc.) do undertake a comprehensive and robust assessment or potential risks to employees and that mitigation measures are put in place to address any identified hazards.
2.2. CDM Regulations 2015
This legislation defines the responsibilities of all parties (primarily the Client, the CDM Co-ordinator, the Designer and the Principal Contractor) involved with works. Under CDM2015, the client has the ‘legal responsibility for the way that a construction project is managed and run and they are accountable for the health and safety of those working on or affected by the project’.
Although UXO is not specifically addressed, the regulations effectively place obligations on all these parties to:
Provide an appropriate assessment of potential UXO risks at the site (or ensure such an assessment is completed by others). Put in place appropriate risk mitigation measures if necessary. Supply all parties with information relevant to the risks presented by the project. Ensure the preparation of a suitably robust emergency response plan.
2.3. The 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act
All employers have a responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 (and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations of 1999) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their employees and that of other persons who are affected by their work activity (including the general public).
2.4. Additional Legislation
Other relevant legislation includes the Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 2 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
3. Role of Commercial UXO Contractors and The Authorities
3.1. Commercial UXO Contractors
The role of an experienced UXO specialist such as 1st Line Defence is to provide expert knowledge and guidance to the client on the most appropriate and cost effective approach to UXO risk management on a site.
The undertaking of Preliminary and Detailed UXO Risk Assessments is the first step in this risk management process. The extensive amount of specialist experience, weapons knowledge, datasets and historical information available to 1st Line Defence in particular, allows a robust, detailed and realistic assessment of the potential risk, and the recommendation of suitable mitigation measures if deemed necessary.
In addition to undertaking specialist Risk Assessments, a commercial UXO contractor will be able to provide pre-construction site survey and clearance/avoidance, as well as a reactive response to any suspect finds.
The presence on site of a qualified UXO Specialist with ordnance recognition skills will avoid unnecessary call-outs to the authorities and allow for arrangement to be made for the removal and disposal of low risk items. If high risk ordnance is discovered, actions will be co-ordinated with the authorities with the objective of causing the minimum possible disruption to site operations whilst putting immediate, safe and appropriate measures in place.
For more information on the role of commercial UXO specialists, see CIRIA C681.
3.2. The Authorities
The Police have the responsibility for co-ordinating the emergency services in the case of an ordnance- related incident on a construction site. They will make an initial assessment and if they judge necessary, impose a safety cordon and/or evacuation and call the military authorities Joint Services Explosive Ordnance Disposal (JSEOD) to arrange for investigation and/or disposal. In the absence of an UXO Specialist on site many Police Officers will use the precautionary principle, impose cordon/evacuation and await advice from the JSEOD. The discovery of UXO will invariably cause work to cease on the site and may require the evacuation of the site and neighbouring properties.
The priority JSEOD will give to the police request will depend on their judgement of the nature of the UXO risk, the location, people and assets at risk and the availability of resources. They may respond immediately or as resources are freed up. It can take 1-2 days and often longer for the authorities to respond and deal with a UXB.
Depending on the on-site risk assessment the item of ordnance may be removed from site or destroyed by controlled explosion. In the latter case additional cordons and/or evacuations may be necessary and the process will take longer.
It should be noted that following the discovery of an item of UXO, the military authorities will only carry out further investigations or clearances in very high profile or high risk situations. If there are regular UXO finds on a site the JSEOD may not treat each occurrence as an emergency and will recommend the construction company puts in place alternative procedures i.e. the appointment of a commercial contractor to manage the situation.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 3 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
4. The Report
4.1. Report Objectives
The aim of this report is to undertake a fair, proportionate and comprehensive assessment of the potential risk from UXO at the Whitecross Estate. Every reasonable effort will be made to ensure that all available and pertinent historical information and records are accessed and checked. Full analysis and evidence will be provided where possible to allow the Client to fully understand the basis for the risk assessment.
Site specific risk mitigation measures will be recommended if deemed necessary, to reduce the risk from explosive ordnance during the envisaged works to as low as reasonably practicable.
4.2. Risk Assessment Process
1st Line Defence undertakes a five-step process for assessing the risk posed by UXO:
1. The risk that the site was contaminated with UXO. 2. The risk UXO remains on the site. 3. The risk that UXO may be encountered during the proposed works. 4. The risk that UXO may be initiated. 5. The consequences of initiating or encountering UXO.
In order to address the above, 1st Line Defence has considered in detail, site specific and non-site specific factors including:
Evidence of German bombing, delivery of UXBs, records of abandoned bombs and maximum bomb penetration depth assessment. Site history, occupancy and conditions during WWII. The potential legacy of Allied military activity. Details of the specific UXO threat and any known UXO clearance work. The extent of any post-war redevelopment. The extent and nature of any proposed works.
4.3. Sources of Information
In order to produce a robust and thorough assessment of UXO risk, detailed historical research has been carried out by specialist researchers. Military records and archive material held in the public domain have been accessed. Information from the following sources has been consulted for this report:
The National Archives (Kew) and Islington History Centre Landmark Maps. Historic England National Monuments Record. Relevant information supplied by Robson Liddle Ltd. Available material from 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD) Archive. 1st Line Defence’s extensive historical archives, library and UXO geo-datasets. Open sources such as published book and internet resources.
Research involved a visit to The National Archives and Islington History Centre.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 4 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
5. Reporting Conditions
5.1. General Considerations
It is important to note that this desktop assessment is based largely upon research of historical evidence. Although every effort has been made to locate all significant and pertinent information, 1st Line Defence cannot be held accountable for any changes to the assessed level of risk or risk mitigation measures based on documentation or other data that may come to light at a later date, or which was not available to 1st Line Defence at the time of the report’s production.
It is often problematic and sometimes impossible to verify the completeness and accuracy of WWII- era records – see ‘Background to Bombing Records’. As a consequence, conclusions as to the exact location, quantity and nature a UXO risk can rarely be definitive. To counter this, it is essential that as many different sources and types of information as possible are consulted and analysed before a conclusion is reached. 1st Line Defence cannot be held responsible for inaccuracies or gaps in the available historical information.
5.2. Background to Bombing Records
In September 1940, the Government started to collect and collate information relating to damage sustained during bombing raids. The data became known as the ‘Bomb Census’. Initially, only information relating to London, Birmingham and Liverpool was collated, but quickly the bomb census was extended to cover the rest of the UK.
Its purpose was to provide the Government with a complete picture of raid patterns, types of weapon used and damage caused – in particular to strategic services and installations such as railways, factories and public utilities.
Information was gathered locally by police, Air Raid Wardens and military personnel. They noted when, where and what types of bombs had fallen during an air raid, and passed this on to the Ministry of Home Security. Records of strikes were made either through direct observation or by post-raid surveys. However, the immediate priority was to deal with casualties and minimise damage. As a result, it is only to be expected that the records kept were often incomplete and contradictory.
Prior to the official ‘Bomb Census’, record keeping in the early months of the war was not comprehensive. The quality, detail and nature of record keeping could vary considerably from borough to borough and town to town. Many records were even damaged or destroyed in subsequent attacks. Records of raids that took place on sparsely or uninhabited areas were often based upon third party or hearsay information and are not always reliable. Furthermore, records of attacks on military or strategic targets were often maintained separately from the general records and have not always survived.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 5 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
6. The Site
6.1. Site Location
For the clarity of this report the two sites of inquiry that comprise Whitecross Estate will be referred to as site A and site B. Both are located on the edge of the London Borough of Islington, which is approximately 3km north-east of the centre of London. Site A is bordered by Banner Street (north), Whitecross Street (east), Fortune Street (south) and Golden Lane (west). Site B is bordered by Roscoe Street (north), Burnhill Row (east), Errol Street (south) and Whitecross Street (west).
The two sites are centred on the approximate OS grid reference: TQ 3241382157.
Site location maps are presented in Annex A.
6.2. Site Description
Site A is a rectangular shaped parcel of land, which is currently occupied by various multi-storey properties, hard-standing sections of roadway as well as areas of vegetation.
Site B is an irregular shaped parcel of land, which is currently occupied by various multi-storey properties and hard-standing sections of roadway.
A recent aerial photograph, site boundary and plan drawings of Whitecross Estate are presented in Annex B and Annex C respectively.
7. Scope of the Proposed Works
7.1. General
The exact scope of intrusive works proposed for the site was not available at the time of the production of this report.
8. Ground Conditions
8.1. General Geology
The British Geological Survey (BGS) map shows the site to be underlain by the London Clay formation – Clay, Silt and Sand, of the Palaeogene Period.
8.2. Site Specific Geology
No site-specific borehole data was provided at the time of the production of this report.
9. Site History
9.1. Ordnance Survey Historical Maps
Pre and post-WWII historical maps for the site were obtained by 1st Line Defence from Landmark Maps. These are detailed below and presented in Annex D.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 6 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
WWI Period Date Scale Description This map indicates that both of the sites were already developed pre-WWII. Site A appears to be occupied by various properties including St Mary’s Church as well as structures which are presumably commercial and residential in nature. This site is bordered by Banner Street (north), Whitecross Street (east), Playhouse Yard (south) and Golden Lane (west). A section of Roscoe Street also 1916 1:2,500 runs horizontally through the northern section of the site. Site B appears to be occupied mostly by block residential structures, while sections of Quest Street, Chequer Street and Dufferin Street also run through the site area. This site is bordered by Roscoe Street (north), Burnhill Row (east), Errol Street (south) and Whitecross Street (west).
Post-WWII Date Scale Description This map shows significant changes within the site boundaries. The entire western section of site A is no longer occupied by previously recorded structures, while two structures in the south-eastern section are labelled as in ‘ruin’. Evidence of missing structures and cleared ground as such are often indicative of severe bomb damage. 1953 1:1,250 Missing structures are also apparent within the boundary of site B, with reference to the section which is bordered by Roscoe Street and Quest Street. A previous structure bordered to the north by Chequer Street is additionally no longer recorded. Moreover, missing and labelled structures are apparent within the immediate vicinity of both sites. This map shows the development of various buildings associated with ‘Peabody 1967 – 1970 1:2,500 Estate’ to the areas recorded as ‘ruined’ or cleared ground in the previous map edition.
9.2. Historical Plan of Whitecross Estate Premises
For a plan of Whitecross Estate Premises before 1940 see Annex E. The plan shows that the northern section of site A was occupied by ‘Roscoe Street Estate’; this was comprised of eleven multi-storey blocks of residential flats. Site B is shown to be occupied by ‘Whitecross Street Estate’, which consisted of sixteen blocks of residential flats.
9.3. Goad Fire Insurance Plans
Available pre and post-WWII Goad fire insurance plans for sites A and B were obtained by 1st Line Defence. These indicate the structure and the use of the buildings which occupied an area. Unfortunately, a limited coverage was provided and only plans dated in 1958 gave information on both sites A and B. See Annex F for the mapping with the site boundaries outlined accordingly.
Goad Fire Insurance Plan Date Scale Description This plan shows development within site A with the construction of various 40ft to buildings associated with the ‘Peabody Foundation Fund Roscoe Street Estate 1958 1inch Flats’. Site B appears to have still been occupied by buildings ‘damaged by enemy action’.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 7 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
10. Aerial Bombing Introduction
10.1. General
During WWI and WWII, many towns and cities throughout the UK were subjected to bombing which often resulted in extensive damage to city centres, docks, rail infrastructure and industrial areas. The poor accuracy of WWII targeting technology and techniques often resulted in all areas around a specific target being bombed.
In addition to raids which concentrated on specific targets, indiscriminate bombing of large areas also took place – notably the London ‘Blitz’, but also affecting many other towns and cities. As discussed in the following sections, a proportion of the bombs dropped on the UK did not detonate as designed and while extensive efforts were made to locate and deal with these UXBs at the time, many still remain buried and can present a potential risk to construction projects.
The main focus of this report with regards to bombing will be weapons dropped during WWII, although WWI bombing will also be considered.
10.2. Generic Types of WWII German Air-delivered Ordnance
The type and characteristics of the ordnance used by the Luftwaffe during WWII allows an informed assessment of the hazards posed by any unexploded items that may remain in situ on a site. A brief summary of these characteristics is given below. Examples of German air delivered ordnance are presented at Annex G.
Generic Types of WWII German Air Delivered Ordnance High Explosive (HE) Bombs Frequency In terms of weight of ordnance dropped, HE bombs were the most frequent weapon deployed by the Luftwaffe during WWII. Size/Weight Most bombs were 50kg, 250kg or 500kg (overall weight, about half of which was high explosive) though larger bombs of up to 2000kg were also used. Description High explosive bombs are thick-skinned and typically have sufficient mass and velocity and a suitably streamlined shape to enable them to penetrate the ground if they failed to explode on the surface. Likelihood Although efforts were made to identify the presence of unexploded ordnance following a raid, of detecting often the damage and destruction caused by bombs which did detonate often made Unexploded observation of UXB entry holes impossible. The entry hole of an unexploded bomb can be as little as 20cm in diameter and easily overlooked in certain ground conditions (See Annex H). Furthermore, ARP documents describe the danger of assuming that damage, actually caused by a large UXB, was due to an exploded 50kg bomb. UXB’s therefore present the greatest risk to present–day intrusive works. Aerial or Parachute Mines Frequency These were much less frequently deployed than HE and Incendiary bombs due to their size, cost and their difficulty technically to deploy. Size/Weight Their weight was either 500kg or 1000kg (overall weight, of which about 2/3 was explosive) depending on the type of mine. Their length ranged from 1.73-2.64m. Description The Luftmines (LMA-500kg and LMB-1000kg) were magnetic sea mines which were thin walled, cylindrical in shape with a hemispherical nose and were deployed under a green artificial silk parachute about 8m in diameter. They were fitted with magnetic and later with acoustic or magnetic/acoustic firing. When the mine hit the water and sank to more than 8ft, hydrostatic pressure and the dissolution of a soluble plug actuated the magnetic device and the mine became operational against shipping. The mine was also armed with a clockwork bomb fuze
Report Reference: DA3064-00 8 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
which caused the bomb to explode when used against land targets, and this was started by the impact of hitting the ground. The Bombenmine (BM 1000, Monika, or G Mine) was also used. This was fitted with a tail made from Bakelite which broke up on impact. It had a photoelectric cell beneath a cover which detonated the bomb if exposed to light to counteract the work of bomb disposal units. Likelihood The aerial mines were either 500kg or 1000kg (overall weight, of which about 2/3 was of detecting explosive) depending on the type of mine. Their length ranged from 1.73-2.64m. They were Unexploded much less frequently deployed than H.E. and Incendiary bombs due to their size, cost and the fact that they could not be delivered to point targets. If functioning correctly, parachute mines would generally have had a slow rate of descent (falling at about 40 mph) and were very unlikely to have penetrated the ground. Where the parachute failed, mines would have simply shattered on impact if the main charge failed to explode. There have been extreme cases when these items have been found unexploded. However, in these scenarios, the ground was either extremely soft or the munition fell into water. When operating as designed they caused considerable damage due to the high weight of explosive and their detonation at or near the surface. However 1st Line Defence does not consider there to be a significant risk from unexploded aerial mines on land. 1kg Incendiary Bombs Frequency In terms of number of weapons dropped these small Incendiaries were the most numerous. Millions of these weapons were dropped throughout WWII. Size/Weight 1kg Description These thermite filled devices were jettisoned from air-dropped containers. Some variants had explosive heads and these present a risk of detonation during intrusive works. Likelihood They had very limited penetration capability and in urban areas especially would usually have of detecting been located in post-raid surveys. If they failed to initiate and fell in water, on soft vegetated Unexploded ground, or bomb rubble, they could easily have gone unnoticed. Large Incendiary Bombs Frequency These items of ordnance were not as common as the 1kg Incendiaries however they were still more frequently deployed than the Parachute Mines and Anti-Personnel Bomblets. Size/Weight These could weigh up to 350kg. Description They had various flammable fill materials (including oil and white phosphorus), and a small explosive charge. They were designed to explode and burn close to the surface. Although they were often the same shape as HE bombs, they were thin-skinned and generally did not penetrate the surface. Likelihood If they did penetrate the ground, complete combustion did not always occur and in such cases of detecting they could remain a risk to intrusive works. Unexploded Anti-personnel (AP) Bomblets Frequency They were not commonly used and generally considered to pose a low risk to most works in the UK. Size/Weight The size and weight ranged depending on the type used. The most common was the “Butterfly Bomb” (SD2) which weighed 2kg and contained 225 grams of TNT. Description The ‘Butterfly Bomb’ had an 8cm long, thin, cylindrical, cast iron outer shell which hinged open when the bomblet deployed gave it the superficial appearance of a large butterfly. A steel cable 15 cm long was attached via a spindle to an aluminium fuze. The wings at the end were canted at an angle to the airflow, which turned the spindle anti-clockwise as the bomblet fell. After the spindle had revolved approximately 10 times (partially unscrewing itself from the bomb) it released a spring-loaded pin inside the fuze, which fully armed the SD2 bomb. They were generally lethal to anyone within a radius of 10 metres (33 ft) and could inflict serious shrapnel injuries. There were a number of variants, the most common being the SD2 which weighed 2kg
Report Reference: DA3064-00 9 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
and contained 225 grams of TNT. They were not commonly used and generally considered to pose a low risk to most works in the UK. Likelihood SD2 bomblets were not dropped individually, but were packed into containers holding between of detecting 6 and 108 submunitions however, AP bombs had little ground penetration ability and should Unexploded have been located by the post-raid survey unless they fell into water, dense vegetation or bomb rubble.
10.3. Failure Rate of German Air-Delivered Ordnance
It has been estimated that 10% of the German HE bombs dropped during WWII failed to explode as designed. This estimate is based on the statistics of wartime recovered UXBs and therefore will not have taken account of the unknown numbers of UXBs that were not recorded at the time. It is therefore quite likely that the average failure rate would have been higher than this.
There are a number of reasons why an air-delivered weapon might fail to function as designed:
Many German bombs were fitted with a clockwork mechanism which could jam or malfunction. Malfunction of the fuze or gain mechanism (manufacturing fault, sabotage by forced labour or faulty installation) Failure of the bomber aircraft to arm the bombs due to human error or equipment defect. Jettison of the bomb before it was armed or from a very low altitude. Most likely if the bomber was under attack or crashing.
War Office Statistics document that a daily average of 84 bombs which failed to function were dropped on civilian targets in Great Britain between 21st September 1940 and 5th July 1941. 1 in 12 of these probably mostly fitted with time delay fuzes exploded sometime after they fell, the remainder were unintentional failures.
From 1940 to 1945 bomb disposal teams dealt with a total of 50,000 explosive items of 50 kg and over i.e. German bombs, 7,000 AAA shells and 300,000 beach mines. These operations resulted in the deaths of 394 officers and men. However, unexploded ordnance is still regularly encountered across the UK, especially in London; see press articles in Annex I.
10.4. V-Weapons
From mid-1944, Hitler’s ‘V-weapon’ campaign began. It used newly developed unmanned cruise missiles and rockets. The V1 known as the Flying Bomb or Doodlebug and the V2, a Long Range Rocket, were launched from bases in Germany and occupied Europe. A total of 2,419 V1s and 517 V2s were recorded in the London Civil Defence region alone.
Although these weapons caused considerable damage their relatively low numbers allowed accurate records of strikes to be maintained. These records have mostly survived. It should be stressed that there is a negligible risk from unexploded V-weapons on land today since even if the 1000kg warhead failed to explode, the weapons are so large that they would have been observed and the threat dealt with at the time. Therefore V-weapons are referenced in this report not as a viable risk factor, but primarily in order to help account for evidence of damage and clearance reported.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 10 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
11. UXB Ground Penetration
11.1. General
An important consideration when assessing the risk from a UXB is the likely maximum depth of burial. There are several factors which determine the depth that an unexploded bomb will penetrate:
Mass and shape of bomb Nature of the groundcover Height of release Underlying geology Velocity and angle of bomb Geology is perhaps the most important variable. If the ground is soft, there is more potential for deeper penetration – peat and alluvium are easier to penetrate than gravel and sand for example and the bomb is likely to come to rest at deeper depths. Layers of hard strata will significantly retard and may stop the trajectory of a UXB.
11.2. The J Curve Effect
J-curve is the term used to describe the characteristic curve commonly followed by an air-delivered bomb dropped from height after it penetrates the ground. Typically, as the bomb is slowed by its passage through underlying soils, its trajectory curves towards the surface. Many UXBs are found with their nose cone pointing upwards as a result of this effect. More importantly however is the resulting horizontal offset from the point of entry. This is typically a distance of about one third of the bomb’s penetration depth.
11.3. WWII UXB Penetration Studies
During WWII the Ministry of Home Security undertook a major study on actual bomb penetration depths, carrying out statistical analysis on the measured depths of 1,328 bombs as reported by Bomb Disposal, mostly in the London area. They then came to conclusions as to the likely average and maximum depths of penetration of different sized bombs in different geological strata.
They concluded that the largest common German bomb, 500kg, had a likely penetration depth of 6m in sand or gravel but 11m in clay. The maximum observed depth for a 500kg bomb was 11.4m and for a 1000kg bomb 12.8m. Theoretical calculations suggested that significantly greater penetration depths were probable.
11.4. Site Specific Bomb Penetration Considerations
When considering an assessment of the bomb penetration at the site the following parameters have been used:
WWII Geology – London Clay Formation Impact Angle and Velocity – 10-15° from Vertical and 270 metres per second. Bomb Mass and Configuration – The 500kg SC (General Purpose) HE bomb, without retarder units or armour piercing nose. This was the largest of the common bombs used against Britain. It has not been possible to determine maximum bomb penetration capabilities due to the lack of available borehole information.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 11 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
12. Initiation of Unexploded Ordnance
12.1. General
Unexploded ordnance does not spontaneously explode. All high explosive requires significant energy to create the conditions for detonation to occur. In the case of unexploded German bombs discovered within the construction site environment, there are a number of potential initiation mechanisms.
12.2. UXB Initiation Mechanisms
There are a number of ways in which UXB can be initiated. These are detailed in the table below.
UXB Initiation Direct Impact Unless the fuze or fuze pocket is struck, there needs to be a significant impact e.g. from piling or large and violent mechanical excavation, onto the main body of the weapon to initiate a buried iron bomb. Such violent action can cause the bomb to detonate. Re- starting the A small proportion of German WWII bombs employed clockwork fuzes. It is probable Clock that significant corrosion would have taken place within the fuze mechanism over the last 70+ years that would prevent clockwork mechanisms from functioning. Nevertheless it was reported that the clockwork fuze in a UXB dealt with by 33 EOD Regiment in Surrey in 2002 did re-start. Friction Impact This is the most likely scenario resulting in the weapon detonating; friction impact initiating the shock-sensitive fuze explosive. The combined effects of seasonal changes in temperature and general degradation over time can cause explosive compounds to crystallise and extrude out from the main body of the bomb. It may only require a limited amount of energy to initiate the extruded explosive which could detonate the main charge.
Annex I2 details UXB incidents where intrusive works have caused UXBs to detonate, resulting in death or injury and damage to plant.
12.3. Effects of Detonation
When considering the potential consequences of a detonation, it is necessary to identify the significant receptors that may be affected. The receptors that may potentially be at risk from a UXO detonation on a construction site will vary depending on the site specific conditions but can be summarised as follows:
People – site workers, local residents and general public Plant and equipment – construction plant on site Services – subsurface gas, electricity, telecommunications Structures – not only visible damage to above ground buildings, but potentially damage to foundations and weakening of support structures Environment – introduction of potentially contaminating materials
Report Reference: DA3064-00 12 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
13. The Risk from German UXBs
13.1. World War I
During WWI London was targeted and bombed by Zeppelin Airships and by Gotha and Giant fixed- wing aircraft. An estimated 250 tons of ordnance (high explosive and incendiary bombs) was dropped on Greater London, more than half of which fell on the City of London. (See Annex J1 for a WWI bomb plot map of London.)
A number of significant bombing raids were recorded in the immediate vicinity of site A and B. Maps detailing these raids are included in Annex J2 and J3. WWI bombs were generally smaller than those used in WWII and were dropped from a lower altitude, resulting in limited UXB penetration depths. Aerial bombing was often such a novelty at the time that it attracted public interest and even spectators to watch the raids in progress. For these reasons there is a limited risk that UXBs passed undiscovered in the urban environment. When combined with the relative infrequency of attacks and an overall low bombing density the risk from WWI UXBs is considered low and will not be further addressed in this report.
13.2. World War II Bombing of Finsbury
The Luftwaffe’s objective for the attacks on London was to paralyse the commercial life of the capital by bombing the docks, warehouses, wharves, railway lines, factories and power stations. As the war progressed this strategy gradually changed to the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in an attempt to disrupt both everyday life and national morale.
A map showing the bomb density for London in general can be found in Annex K. The site was situated within the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury, which is shown to be in a highly bombed region. Bombing in the locality of the site can be attributed to its location directly north of the City of London. The latter being the centre of the capital of England made it a strategic target in itself. In addition, the site was in close proximity (approximately 1.1km south-east) of a Water Works, Filter and Pump Station, which featured on Luftwaffe target reconnaissance imagery.
Records of bombing incidents in the civilian areas of London were collected by the Air Raid Precautions wardens and collated by the Civil Defence Office. Records would be in the form of typed or hand written incident notes, maps and statistics. Bombing data was carefully analysed, not only due to the requirement to identify those parts of the capital most needing assistance, but also in an attempt to find patterns in the Germans’ bombing strategy in order to predict where future raids might take place.
Records of bombing incidents for Finsbury are presented in the following sections.
13.3. Second World War Bombing Statistics
The following tables summarise the quantity of German bombs (excluding 1kg incendiaries and anti- personnel bombs) falling on the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury between 1940 and 1945.
Record of German Ordnance Dropped on the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury Area Acreage 587 High Explosive Bombs (all types) 208
Parachute Mines 4 Oil Bombs 17 Weapons Phosphorus Bombs 4 Fire Pot 0
Report Reference: DA3064-00 13 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
Pilotless Aircraft (V1) 5 Long Range Rockets (V2) 1 Total 239 Number of Items per 1000 acres 407.2 Source: Home Office Statistics This table does not include UXO found during or after WWII.
Detailed records of the quantity and locations of the 1kg incendiary and anti-personnel bombs were not routinely maintained by the authorities as they were frequently too numerous to record. Although the incendiaries are not particularly significant in the threat they pose, they nevertheless are items of ordnance that were designed to cause damage and inflict injury and should not be overlooked in assessing the general risk to personnel and equipment. The anti-personnel bombs were used in much smaller quantities and are rarely found today but are potentially more dangerous.
13.4. London Air Raid Precautions Bomb Census Maps
During WWII, the Ministry of Home Security produced consolidated and weekly bomb census maps for London. The maps covering the area of the site were checked for this report. Those showing bomb strikes on and in the vicinity of the site are presented in Annex M and are discussed below:
London Consolidated Bomb Maps – Annex M1 Date Range Comments on Site A Comments on Site B Night Bombing up One HE bomb fell within the south- to 7th October No bombs are shown within the site boundary, western section of the site, while 1940 however one HE bomb fell directly east of the additional two HE bombs are shown site at Whitecross Street. directly north-east and north-west at Roscoe Street. 7th October 1940 One HE bomb fell within the northern section 1 HE bomb fell within the south-western to 6th June 1941 of the site, while five HE bombs are shown by corner of the site. the north and western borders of the site.
London Weekly Bomb Maps – Annexes M2, M3 & M4 Date Range Comments on Site A Comments on Site B Unknown date One 1000kg HE is recorded approximately One 1000kg HE is recorded approximately 0.15km north of the site. 0.15km north of the site. 4th to 11th One HE bomb is recorded within the north- No bombs are shown directly within or November 1940 eastern section of the site, while another fell bordering the site boundary. directly west at Golden Lane. 2nd to 9th Heavy incendiary bombing is recorded directly Heavy incendiary bombing is recorded December 1940 north-west of the site. directly east of the site. 23rd to 30th Heavy incendiary bombing is recorded directly Heavy incendiary bombing is recorded December 1940 north of the site. directly north of the site. 14th to 24th April One HE bomb is recorded within the north- One HE bomb fell within the southern 1941 eastern boundary of the site, while another HE section of the site. bomb fell directly west at Golden Lane. Two more HE bombs are recorded north and west, both less than approximately 60m of the site. 5th to 12th May No HE bombs are shown directly within the site One HE bomb fell within the eastern 1941 boundary, while two HE bombs fell north and section of the site. Four more HE bombs north-east of the site across Banner Street.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 14 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
are recorded south of the site across Errol Street.
13.5. London V-Weapon Maps
Plots showing the location of all the V-1 strikes in the London area were compiled by the Ministry of Home Security. The area covering the site was checked and a section of it is presented in Annex N.
V-Weapon Map – Annex N Date Range Comments Post-war consolidated 1 V1 Flying bomb is recorded in the northern section of site B. It is anticipated Bomb Plot Map that this bomb strike would have resulted in severe bomb damage in the immediate surrounding area.
13.6. Finsbury Air Raid Precautions Bomb Incident Records
Written incident records were obtained from The National Archives (Kew) and the Islington History Centre. It should be noted however that both sets of records are not complete and do not appear to provide a comprehensive account of bomb incidents within Finsbury. A transcript of only those recorded incidents on or in close proximity to the sites are presented in the table below. Items located within or immediately bordering the two sites have been italicised.
Date Range Comments 30th December 1940 Area bounded by Burnhill Street, Old Street, Roscoe Street and Whitecross Street: devastated by fire caused by Incendiary bombs.
16th & 17th April 1941 Golden Lane: 250kg. At junction of Basterfield Street. Size of crater: 25’x6’.
16th & 17th April 1941 18 Roscoe Street, Peabody Buildings: 50kg.
16th & 17th April 1941 Dufferin Street, Peabody Buildings: 50kg. Bomb passed through roof, two floors and front wall of flat. Detonated between flat and shelter (brick). Size of crater: 10’x3’.
10th & 11th May 1941 154/167 Whitecross Street: 500kg.
10th & 11th May 1941 3 Banner Street: 250kg. Fell in roadway 60’ from Burnhill Row.
10th & 11th May 1941 Burnhill Row: 250kg. 108’ from Dufferin Street. Bomb fell on partly demolished factory damage done to [part] of Barracks 45’ away.
10th & 11th May 1941 Errol Street: 250kg. […] Bomb fell in courtyard of rear of Peabody Buildings. Blast Damage etc. Crater size: 20’x8’.
10th & 11th May 1941 Errol Street: HE. De La Roe Ltd. Bomb struck building (4-Storey).
10th & 11th May 1941 Errol Street: HE. De La Roe Ltd.
10th & 11th May 1941 Fortune Street: 250kg.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 15 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
10th & 11th May 1941 Fortune Street: 250kg.
A total of at least nine HE bombs and an episode of heavy incendiary bombing are indicated to have affected the area bounding Whitecross Street Estate.
13.7. ‘Whitecross Street Publica Report’
A study on Whitecross Street estate compiled by Publica is understood to have been commissioned by Peabody Tenant’s Association Whitecross. Information about the area bounding the estate pre and post WWII was provided. See below for an extract from the report which provides a description of the bombing raids that affected the site directly.
‘‘Of the original Roscoe Street estate, six blocks were burnt out in an air raid in December 1940, block E was damaged by a bomb in April 1941 and block F was burned out by an incendiary device in May 1941. The site of block X was sold to the London Diocesan Fund in 1957, while the remaining four Victorian blocks were demolished in the early 1970s to make way for Banner House (1972).’’
13.8. London County Council Bomb Damage Map
A map compiled by London County Council showing the extent of bomb damage on the borough was compiled during / after WWII. The section showing the area of the site is presented in Annex O.
London County Council Bomb Damage Map – Annex O Date Range Comments Post-War Consolidated This bomb damage map indicates the presence of significant damage across the Bomb Damage Map area of site A, with the majority of the structures labelled as ‘damaged beyond repair’. The structures occupying site B appear to have sustained various scales of damage, including ‘total destruction’, ‘damaged beyond repair’, ‘serious damage but repairable at cost’ and ‘blast damage’. Significant damage is also labelled in the immediate vicinity of the sites.
13.9. WWII-Era Aerial Photographs
High resolution scans of WWII-era aerial photography for the site area were obtained from the National Monuments Record (Historic England). Imagery dated 13th September 1945 is presented in Annex P.
There are obvious signs of severe bomb damage across the area bounding Whitecross Estate. The majority of site A appears to be occupied by cleared ground or the remnants of buildings which have serious structural damage. Although sections of the groundcover across the site appears maintained in the photograph, prior to the clearance of the damaged structures it is likely to have been poor due to anticipated rubble/debris from bomb damage. The presence of UXO/UXB entry holes could potentially be obscured in groundcover of this type.
Site B also appears to be occupied by buildings with significant structural damage and cleared ground, with reference to Peabody’s blocks C, G, O, P, Q, R and W, which all appear to be in an unrepairable state. It is anticipated that the ground conditions in these respective areas of the site would not have been favourable to the visual indication of UXO, while the risk of J-curve would be elevated to the areas adjacent to such severe bomb damage. The white-tiling on Peabody blocks E and D suggest repair works to have taken place. Severe bomb damage is also visible in the immediate surrounding area of the sites and indicated from the missing structures/cleared ground.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 16 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
A close-up of sites A and B is located in Annexes P2 and P3. Also, see Annex Q for a photograph displaying the site areas with visible piles of rubble and cleared ground in 1947.
13.10. Abandoned Bombs
A post-air raid survey of buildings, facilities and installations would have included a search for evidence of bomb entry holes. If evidence were encountered, Bomb Disposal Officer Teams would normally have been requested to attempt to locate, render safe and dispose of the bomb. Occasionally evidence of UXBs was discovered but due to a relatively benign position, access problems or a shortage of resources the UXB could not be exposed and rendered safe. Such an incident may have been recorded and noted as an Abandoned Bomb.
Given the inaccuracy of WWII records and the fact that these bombs were ‘abandoned’, their locations cannot be considered definitive or the lists exhaustive. The MoD states that ‘action to make the devices safe would be taken only if it was thought they were unstable’. It should be noted that other than the ‘officially’ abandoned bombs, there will inevitably be UXBs that were never recorded.
1st Line Defence holds no records of officially registered abandoned bombs at or near the site of the proposed works.
13.11. Bomb Disposal Tasks
The information service from the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Archive Information Office at 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD) is currently facing considerable delay. It has therefore not been possible to include any updated official information regarding bomb disposal/clearance tasks with regards to this site. A database of known disposal / clearance tasks has been referred to which does not make reference to such instances occurring within the site of proposed works. If any relevant information is received at a later date Robson Liddle Ltd will be advised.
13.12. Evaluation of Bombing Records
Item Conclusion Density of Bombing The Municipal Borough of Finsbury was subject to a High density of It is important to consider the bombing bombing with 407.2 items recorded per 1000 acres. Bombing in the density when assessing the possibility locality of the site can be attributed to its location near to the centre of that UXBs remain in an area. High levels the capital of the UK. In addition, the site was in close proximity to a of bombing density could allow for error Water Works, Filter and Pump Station, which featured on Luftwaffe in record keeping due to extreme target reconnaissance photography. damage caused to the area. Bomb census information, (including Consolidated and Weekly London bomb census mapping, Finsbury ARP bomb incident records and London V-1 bomb mapping), suggest a number of bomb incidents to have affected the area bounding Whitecross estate and its immediate vicinity. According to the collective record set at least five HE bombs fell within or bordering site A, while the same number is indicated to have affected site B as well as a V1 flying bomb. Heavy Incendiary bombing and other HE bomb strikes are also recorded within the immediate vicinity of the sites too. See Annex R for a visual diagram of the above bomb census information on a 1945 aerial photograph of the site.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 17 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
Ground Cover At the start of the war both sites A and B were occupied by various The type & amount of ground cover structures: existing during WWII would have a Site A consisted of residential blocks of Peobody buildings, St Mary’s substantial influence on any visual Church and various factories. Post-war, the structures within the indication that may indicate UXO being majority of the site are recoded as severely damaged in LCC damage present. mapping and shown to be demolished in 1945 aerial photography. Due to this, the groundcover in most of the site is considered to have been poor and unconducive to the observation of UXO/UXBs. It should be noted that the likelihood of noticing UXBS are significantly reduced in areas as such which sustained multiple bomb strikes and severe damage. Site B mostly consisted of residential blocks of Peobody buildings, as well as a few other commercial/industrial structures. Post-war various scales of damage are shown within the site on both LCC bomb damage mapping and 1945 aerial photography. Individual areas of the site appear to be occupied by cleared ground or structurally damaged buildings. The groundcover in these respective areas is considered to have been unconducive to the observation of UXO/UXBs. Despite this, there are structures within the site which appear to have remained largely intact. Although the ground condition in these particular areas of the site would not have been entirely unfavourable to the visual indication of UXO, the risk of J-curve would be elevated due to it being adjacent to severe bomb damage.
Access Frequency At the start of the war, both sites are likely to have been subject to UXO in locations where access was frequent, regular access and checks due to being occupied by irregular would have a greater chance of properties and bordered by roadways. However, access and checks are passing unnoticed than at those that likely to have been significantly reduced in both sites following the were regularly occupied. The importance recorded bomb incidents and subsequent damage. of a site to the war effort is also an important consideration as such sites are likely to have been both frequently visited and are also likely to have been subject to post-raid checks for evidence of UXO. Damage The LCC bomb damage mapping indicates serious damage within the If buildings or structures on a site sites and surrounding area. The majority of the structures in site A are suffered bomb or fire damage any labelled as ‘damaged beyond repair’. The structures occupying site B resulting rubble and debris could have sustained various scales of damage, including ‘total destruction’, obscured the entry holes of unexploded ‘damaged beyond repair’, ‘serious damage but repairable at cost’ and bombs dropped during the same, or ‘blast damage’. Similarly, aerial photography dated in 1945 also later, raids. Similarly a High Explosive indicates signs of serious damage within the sites, such as the presence bomb strike in an area of open of cleared ground or the remnants of buildings which have serious agricultural land will have caused soil structural damage. disturbance, increasing the risk that a UXB entry hole would be overlooked Bomb Failure Rate There is no evidence to suggest that the bomb failure rate in the locality of the site would have been dissimilar to the 10% normally used.
Abandoned Bombs 1st Line Defence holds no records of abandoned bombs within the site vicinity.
Bombing Decoy sites 1st Line Defence could find no evidence of bombing decoy sites within the site vicinity.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 18 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
Bomb Disposal Tasks 1st Line Defence could find no evidence of Bomb Disposal Tasks within the site boundary and immediate area.
14. The Risk from Allied Military Ordnance
14.1. General
In addition to the risk from aerial delivered UXO, this report also assesses the potential risk from Allied military ordnance. Contamination from items of Land Service (LSA) and Small Arms Ammunition (SAA) may result, for example, from historic occupation of an area or its use for military training. Inner city sites can be at risk from buried unexploded Anti-Aircraft projectiles fired during WWII.
14.2. Land Service Ammunition
The term LSA covers all items of ordnance that are propelled, placed or thrown during land warfare. They may be filled or charged with explosives, smoke, incendiary or pyrotechnics. They can be broken into five main groups:
Mortars A bomb, normally nosed-fused and fitted with its own propelling charge. Its flight is stabilised by the use of a fin. They are usually tear-dropped shape (though older variants are parallel sided) with a finned ‘spigot tube’ screwed or welded to the rear end of the body which houses the propellant charge. They are either High Explosive or Carrier (i.e. smoke, incendiary or pyrotechnic). Grenades A short range weapon (explosive range 15-20m) which can be thrown by hand or alternatively fired from the end of a rifle or a purposely designed grenade launcher. They can either be High Explosive or Carrier (usually smoke) and common variants have a classic ‘pineapple’ shape. Projectiles A projectile (or shell) is defined as an object which can be propelled by force, normally from a gun, and continues in motion by virtue of its kinetic energy. It contains a fuzing mechanism and a filling. Projectiles can be High Explosive, Carrier or Shot (a solid projectile). Rockets A rocket is defined as a missile that obtains thrust from a rocket engine. Military rockets are used to propel warheads to an intended target. This warhead will contain an explosive charge normally initiated on contact or at a predetermined height / proximity from target. Landmines A landmine is a munition designed to be placed under, on, or near the ground or other surface and to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person or vehicle.
Unexploded or partially unexploded Mortars and Grenades are among the most common items of LSA encountered in the UK as they could be transported and utilised anywhere. They are commonly encountered in areas used by the military for training and are often found discarded on or near historic military bases.
As with UXBs, items of LSA do not become inert or lose their effectiveness with age. Time can cause items to become more sensitive and less stable. This applies equally to items submerged in water or embedded in silts, clays or similar materials. The greatest risk occurs when an item of ordnance is struck or interfered with. This is likely to occur when mechanical equipment is used or when unqualified personnel pick up munitions.
14.3. Defending London from Aerial Attack
Both passive and active defences were deployed against enemy bombers attacking targets in the Greater London region.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 19 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
Passive Defences Active Defences These included defence tactics such as: These relied on a coordinated combination of a To hinder the identification of targets, by number of installations in order to actively engage and using lighting blackouts at night and oppose attacking aircraft. Some of these installations camouflaging strategic installations. were: To mislead bomber pilots into attacking decoy Fighter aircraft to act as interceptors. sites located away from the city with the use Anti-aircraft gun batteries. of dummy buildings or lighting to replicate The use of rockets and missiles (later during that of the city under attack. WWII). To force attacking aircraft to higher altitudes with the use of barrage balloons.
14.4. Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) and Projectiles
At the start of WWII two types of Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) guns were deployed: Heavy Anti-Aircraft Artillery (HAA), using large calibre weapons such as the 3.7” QF (Quick Firing) gun and Light Anti- Aircraft Artillery (LAA) using smaller calibre weapons such as 40mm Bofors gun.
During the early war period there was a severe shortage of AAA available and older WWI 3” and modified naval 4.5” guns were deployed alongside those available 3.7” weapons. The maximum ceiling height of fire at that time was around 11,000m for the 3.7” gun and less for other weapons. As the war progressed improved variants of the 3.7” gun were introduced and, from 1942, large 5.25 inch weapons began to be brought into service. These had significantly improved ceiling heights of fire reaching over 18,000m.
The LAA batteries were intended to engage fast low flying aircraft and were typically deployed around airfields or strategic installations. These batteries were mobile and could be moved to new positions with relative ease when required. The most numerous of these were the 40mm Bofors gun which could fire up to 120 x 40mm HE shells per minute to over 1800m.
The HAA projectiles were high explosive shells, usually fitted with a time delay or barometric pressure fuze to make them explode at a pre-determined height. If they failed to explode or strike an aircraft, they would eventually fall back to earth. Details of the most commonly deployed WWII AAA projectiles are shown below:
Gun type Calibre Shell Weight Shell Dimensions 3.0 Inch 76mm 7.3kg 76mm x 356mm 3.7 Inch 94mm 12.7kg 94mm x 438mm 4.5 Inch 114mm 24.7kg 114mm x 578mm 40mm 40mm 0.9kg 40mm x 311mm
Although the larger unexploded projectiles could enter the ground they did not have great penetration ability and are therefore likely to be found close to WWII ground level. These shells are frequently mistakenly identified as small German air-delivered bombs, but are differentiated by the copper driving band found in front of the base. With a high explosive fill and fragmentation hazard these items of UXO present a significant risk if encountered. The smaller 40mm projectiles are similar in appearance and effect to small arms ammunition and, although still dangerous, present a lower hazard because of a lower explosive content. They are still dangerous because they were fitted with an impact initiated fuze which was also a spin-decay self-destruct mechanism.
Numerous unexploded AAA shells were recovered during and following WWII and are still occasionally encountered on sites today.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 20 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
The closest recorded HAA battery to the sites was situated approximately 3.3km south-east in the vicinity of Walthamstow.
Illustrations of Anti-Aircraft artillery, projectiles and rockets are presented at Annex S.
14.5. Evaluation of Allied Military Ordnance Risk
1st Line Defence has considered the following potential sources of contamination:
Item Conclusion Military Camps 1st Line Defence could find no evidence of a Military Camp within site A and B. Historical OS mapping indicates the location of the ‘Honourable Artillery CO’s Headquarters’ and associated ‘Artillery Grounds’ (Finsbury Barracks) east of the sites, across Burnhill Row. However, military activity from Finsbury barracks is not anticipated to have directly affected the site of proposed works.
Anti-Aircraft Defences 1st Line Defence could find no evidence of Anti-Aircraft Defences in close proximity to site A and B.
Home Guard Activity Evidence of Home Guard training areas and activities is difficult to obtain. 1st Line Defence has no evidence of any Home Guard activities at site A and B.
Defensive Positions There is no evidence of any defensive structures at or bordering sites A and B.
Training or firing ranges No evidence of these could be found.
Defensive Minefields No evidence of these could be found.
Ordnance Manufacture No evidence of ordnance manufacture could be found.
Military Related Airfields The site was not situated within the vicinity of a military airfield.
Explosive Ordnance Clearance 1st Line Defence holds no records of EOD operations at sites A Tasks and B. The closest recorded EOC task in relation to the sites was approximately 470m north-east at a Construction site by Bath Street, London.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 21 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
15. Ordnance Clearance and Post-WWII Ground Works
15.1. General
The extent to which any ordnance clearance activities have taken place on site or extensive ground works have occurred is relevant since on the one hand they may indicate previous ordnance contamination but also may have reduced the risk that ordnance remains undiscovered.
15.2. UXO Clearance
1st Line Defence has no evidence that any official ordnance clearance operations have taken place on site. Note however that we have not received confirmation of this fact from 33 EOD Regiment.
15.3. Post war Redevelopment
There has been some re-development across Whitecross Estate post WWII. The extent of the developments and depth of foundations can partly mitigate the UXO risk as any present items of UXO may have been uncovered during the works.
Goad fire insurance mapping, dated in 1958, indicates the entire southern three-quarters of site A had been developed to occupy new multi-storey buildings, associated with the ‘Peabody Foundation Fund Roscoe Street Estate Flats’. Recent aerial photography also shows the construction of an additional block of flats in the north-western section of the site had taken place too. Likewise, recent aerial photography of site B shows redevelopment within the areas previously occupied by cleared ground in immediate post-war mapping. Generally where development has taken place the risk of encountering shallow buried UXO, especially 1kg incendiaries and anti-aircraft projectiles will have been partly mitigated. However, the risk from deep-buried unexploded bombs is only considered mitigated at locations where post war piling or deep foundations have taken place.
16. 1st Line Defence Risk Assessment
16.1. Risk Assessment Stages
Taking into account the quality of the historical evidence, the assessment of the overall risk to the proposed works from unexploded ordnance is based on the following five considerations:
1. That the site was contaminated with unexploded ordnance. 2. That unexploded ordnance remains on site. 3. That such items will be encountered during the proposed works. 4. That ordnance may be initiated by the works operations. 5. The consequences of encountering or initiating ordnance.
UXO Risk Assessment Quality of the The research has located and evaluated pre- and post-WWII Ordnance Survey maps, Historical Goad Fire Insurance mapping, Luftwaffe target reconnaissance photography, London Record WWII ARP bomb plots from 1940 to 1945, London County Council Bomb Damage Maps, The National Archives Incident Records for Finsbury, London V-1 Bomb Mapping, in- house data and post-WWII era aerial photography for the site. The record sets were generally of good quality, with incidents recorded across multiple sources and in adequate detail.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 22 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
The Risk that After considering the following facts, 1st Line Defence considers that there is a Medium the Site was Risk that items of unexploded German air-delivered ordnance could have fallen Contaminated unnoticed and unrecorded within the site boundary. with UXO During WWII, the Municipal Borough of Finsbury was subjected to a High density of bombing, with 407.2 items recorded per 1000 acres. Bombing in the locality of Whitecross Estate site can be attributed to its location near to the centre of the capital of the UK, as well as its close proximity to a Water Works, Filter and Pump Station, which featured on Luftwaffe target reconnaissance photography. Bomb Census Information, (including Consolidated and Weekly London bomb census mapping, Finsbury ARP bomb incident records and London V-1 bomb mapping), suggest a number of bomb incidents to have affected the area compromising Whitecross Estate. According to the collective record set at least five HE bombs fell within or bordering site A, while the same number is recorded to have affected site B as well as a V1 Flying bomb. Heavy Incendiary bombing and other HE bomb strikes are also recorded within the immediate vicinity of the sites too. See Annex R for a visual diagram of the relevant collective bomb incident information listed above. The LCC bomb damage mapping labels significant damage within the sites and surrounding area. Similarly, aerial photography dated in 1945 also indicates signs of serious damage within both sites A and B, such as the presence of cleared ground or the remnants of buildings which have serious structural damage. At the start of the war, both sites are likely to have been subject to frequent, regular access and checks due to being occupied by properties and bordered by roadways. However, access and checks are likely to have been significantly reduced in both sites following the recorded bomb incidents and subsequent damage. Post-war, the structures within site A are shown to be mostly demolished in 1945 aerial photography. Such damage is anticipated to have caused piles of rubble and debris, which would have significantly reduced the likelihood of noticing UXBS. Individual areas of site B also appear to have been occupied by cleared ground or structurally damaged buildings. The groundcover in these respective areas is considered to have been unconducive to the observation of UXO/UXBs. There are structures within site B which appear to have remained largely intact. Although the ground condition in these particular areas of the site would not have been entirely unfavourable to the visual indication of UXO, the risk of J-curve (whereby a UXB can fall into rubble or open ground unnoticed and end its trajectory beneath an existing structure) would be elevated due to it being adjacent to severe bomb damage. Breaking the site into zones of risk has therefore not been possible due to the comprehensive spread of damage and incidents on/ and around the site. There is no evidence that the site formerly had any military occupation or usage that could have led to contamination with other items of ordnance.
The Risk that There has been post-war redevelopment across the entire area of site A and individual UXO Remains areas previously occupied by damaged buildings of site B. Generally, where this on Site development has taken place, the risk of encountering shallow buried UXO (especially 1kg incendiaries or anti-personnel bombs) and anti-aircraft projectiles will have been partly mitigated, since any such items may have been discovered during excavations. However, the risk from deep-buried unexploded bombs is only considered mitigated at locations where post war piling or deep foundations have taken place.
The Risk that The most likely scenarios under which items of UXO could be encountered during UXO may be construction works is during piling, drilling operations or bulk excavations for basement Encountered levels. The overall risk will depend on the extent of the works, such as the numbers of during the boreholes/piles (if required) and the volume of the excavations. Works Since an air-dropped bomb may come to rest at any depth between just below ground level and its maximum penetration depth, there is also a chance that such an item could
Report Reference: DA3064-00 23 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
be encountered during shallow excavations (for services or site investigations) into the original WWII ground level.
The Risk that The risk that UXO could be initiated if encountered will depend on its condition, how it is UXO may be found and the energy with which it is struck. Certain construction activities such as piling Initiated and percussive drilling pose a greater risk of initiating UXO than, say, machine excavation where the force of impact is generally lower and the item more likely to be observed. If a UXB is struck by piling or percussive drilling equipment, the force of the impact can be sufficient to detonate the main high explosive charge irrespective of the condition of the fuze or other components. Violent vibration might also impart enough energy to a chemical detonator for it to function, and there is a potential risk that clockwork fuzes could restart. If piling works are planned at the areas comprising Whitecross Estate, there is a potential risk that a UXB, if present, could be initiated. The risk of initiation is assessed to be lower for any shallow intrusive works planned.
The The repercussions of the inadvertent detonation of UXO during intrusive ground works Consequences are potentially profound, both in terms of human and financial cost. A serious risk to life of and limb, damage to plant and total site shutdown during follow-up investigations are Encountering potential outcomes. or Initiating If appropriate risk mitigation measures are put in place, the chances of initiating an item Ordnance of UXO during ground works is comparatively low. The primary consequence of encounter of UXO will therefore be economic. This would be particularly notable in the case of a high-profile site and sites where it is necessary to evacuate the public from the surrounding area. A site may be closed for anything from a few hours to a week with potentially significant cost in lost time. It should be noted that even the discovery of suspected or possible item of UXO during intrusive works (if handled solely through the authorities), may also involve loss of production. Generally, the first action of the police in most cases will be to isolate the locale whilst awaiting military assistance, even if this turns out to have been unnecessary.
16.2. Assessed Risk Level
Taking into consideration the findings of this study, 1st Line Defence considers there to be a Medium Risk from unexploded ordnance on the site of proposed works.
Medium Risk
Risk Level Ordnance Type Negligible Low Medium High
German UXB’s
Allied AAA
German Incendiaries and AP bomblets
Other Allied Military Ordnance
Report Reference: DA3064-00 24 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
17. Proposed Risk Mitigation Methodology
17.1. General
The following risk mitigation measures are recommended to support the proposed works at the Whitecross Estate site:
Type of Work Recommended Mitigation Measure All Works Site Specific Unexploded Ordnance Awareness Briefings to all personnel conducting intrusive works. A specialised briefing is always advisable when there is a possibility of explosive ordnance contamination. It is an essential component of the Health & Safety Plan for the site and conforms to requirements of CDM Regulations 2015. All personnel working on the site should be instructed on the identification of UXO, actions to be taken to alert site management and to keep people and equipment away from the hazard. Posters and information of a general nature on the UXO risk should be held in the site office for reference and as a reminder. Shallow Intrusive Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Specialist Presence on Site to support shallow Works/Open intrusive works: Excavations When on site the role of the UXO Specialist would include; monitoring works using visual recognition and instrumentation and immediate response to reports of suspicious objects or suspected items of ordnance that have been recovered by the ground workers on site; providing UXO Awareness briefings to any staff that have not received them earlier and advise staff of the need to modify working practices to take account of the ordnance risk, and finally to aid Incident Management which would involve liaison with the local authorities and Police should ordnance be identified and present an explosive hazard. Borehole/Piles Intrusive Magnetometer Survey of all Borehole and pile locations down to a maximum bomb penetration depth: 1st Line Defence can deploy a range of intrusive magnetometer techniques to clear ahead of all the pile locations. The appropriate technique is governed by a number of factors, but most importantly the site’s ground conditions. The appropriate survey methodology would be confirmed once the enabling works have been completed.
In making this assessment and recommending these risk mitigation measures, the proposed works outlined in the ‘Scope of the Proposed Works’ section were considered. Should the planned works be modified or additional intrusive engineering works be considered, 1st Line Defence should be consulted to see if a re-assessment of the risk or mitigation recommendations is necessary.
1st Line Defence Limited 3rd March 2016
This Report has been produced in compliance with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) C681 guidelines for the writing of Detailed Risk Assessments in regard to the UXO risk.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 25 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk
Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Risk Assessment The Whitecross Estate Robson Liddle Ltd
Bibliography
The key published documents consulted during this assessment are listed below:
Bates, H. E., Flying Bombs over England, Frogletts Publications Ltd., 1994 Castle, I., London 1914-17: The Zeppelin Menace, Osprey Publications Ltd., 2008 Castle, I., London 1917-18: The Bomber Blitz, Osprey Publications Ltd., 2010 Clarke, N. J., Adolf Hitler’s Holiday Snaps: German Aerial Reconnaissance Photography of London and the Home Counties 1939 – 1943, N. J. Clarke Publications, 1996 Dobinson, C., AA Command: Britain’s Anti-Aircraft Defences of the Second World War, Methuen, 2001, Fegan, T., The ‘Baby Killers’: German Air raids on Britain in the First World War, Leo Cooper Ltd., 2002 Fleischer, W., German Air-Dropped Weapons to 1945, Midland Publishing, 2004 Jappy, M. J., Danger UXB: The Remarkable Story of the Disposal of Unexploded Bombs during the Second World War, Channel 4 Books, 2001 Morris, F., German Air Raids on Britain: 1914 – 1918, The Naval & Military Press, 1993 Price, A., Blitz on Britain, The Bomber Attacks on the United Kingdom 1939 – 1945, Purnell Book Services Ltd., 1977 Ramsey, W., The Blitz Then and Now, Volume 1, Battle of Britain Prints International Ltd., 1987 Ramsey, W., The Blitz Then and Now, Volume 2, Battle of Britain Prints International Ltd., 1988 Ramsey, W., The Blitz Then and Now, Volume 3, Battle of Britain Prints International Ltd., 1990 Whiting, C., Britain Under Fire: The Bombing of Britain’s Cities 1940-1945, Pen & Sword Books Ltd., 1999
This report has been prepared by 1st Line Defence Limited with all reasonable care and skill. The report contains historical data and information from third party sources. 1st Line Defence Limited has sought to verify the accuracy and completeness of this information where possible, but cannot be held accountable for any inherent errors. Furthermore, whilst every reasonable effort has been made to locate and access all relevant historical information, 1st Line Defence cannot be held responsible for any changes to risk level or mitigation recommendations resulting from documentation or other information which may come to light at a later date.
Report Reference: DA3064-00 26 © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk