Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Threat Assessment Project Name Little Ilford School, Newham Client Secretary of State for Education Report Reference 1524MN00 Revision 00 th Date 13 December 2013 Originator MN Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Threat Assessment Little Ilford School, Newham Secretary of State for Education Executive Summary Site Location The site is situated in the East London suburb of Manor Park in the London Borough of Newham. During WWII the site was situated in the County Borough of East Ham, in the County of Essex. The site is approx. 12.5km north-east of The City of London. The north boundary of the site is defined by Church Road, whereupon situated directly next to the main entrance is a privately owned nursery. To the north-east are residential buildings, St. Marys Approach and St. Mary the Virgin Church. The site is bordered to the immediate east by further residential buildings and St. Winefride’s Avenue. To the south is the Council owned Little Ilford Learning Zone and Rectory Road. The western boundary is bordered by Browning Road and the London Sri Murugan Temple. The site boundary is densely surrounded on all sides by private residential buildings and narrow, busy roads. The site is centred on the approximate OS grid reference: TQ4281485198. Proposed Works The exact scope of intrusive works proposed on site was not available at the time of production of this report. Once detailed plans and construction methodology / foundation design is available, 1st Line Defence can provide work specific risk mitigation measures. Geology and Bomb Penetration Depth 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. Made ground was blacktop, clay, gravel, sand, brick fill to 1.20m; sandy assorted gravel from 1.20m to 2.30m and gravel with occasional pockets of brown sandy clay from 2.30m to 8.45m. Given this anticipated geology, and taking into account the other factors outlined in the ‘Site Specific Bomb Penetration Considerations’ section of this report, it has been assessed that 1 500kg bomb could have a maximum penetration depth of 12m below WWII ground level. UXO Risk Assessment Taking into consideration the findings of this study, 1st Line Defence considers there to be a risk from unexploded ordnance on the site. However the risk level is not considered to be homogenous across the site area. The majority of the site has been assessed as Low-Medium Risk, whilst the north-western section has been has been identified as a Medium risk area- see Annex M. During WWII the density of bombing in the County Borough of East Ham was 265 bombs per 1000 acres, as recorded by the Home Office. This statistic is relatively high in relation to boroughs within what is now Greater London and very high in relation to the UK as a whole. East Ham contained some potential Luftwaffe targets which included: the New London Electron Works, Beckton Gas Works, Beckton Sewage Treatment Works, the Tilbury and Southend Railway, the London and North Eastern Railway, and numerous warehouses, goods depots and sections of transport infrastructure. Furthermore, East Ham was also situated in a relatively close proximity to the London Docklands (approximately 8km south-west of the site area), which was the most heavily bombed civilian target in Britain. The London Bomb Census maps shown in Annexes I-J confirm a large quantity of both HE and incendiary bombs strikes regularly hit large sections of East Ham in the general area of the site. Of these strikes one H.E bomb was recorded directly on the site boundary at the grounds of St. Mary’s Church and another at a ‘Club House’ located directly within the site. The Post-War OS map and RAF aerial photography do not show any obvious signs of war damage to the majority of the site area. Although it should be noted that the RAF imagery was taken 4-5 years after the majority of bombing in the area. A small section in the north-west of the site, formally occupied by Report Reference: 1524 II © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Threat Assessment Little Ilford School, Newham Secretary of State for Education UXO Risk Assessment terraced housing, did contain cleared land during the war. This clearance can likely be attributed to damage from a H.E bomb strike (of unknown size) referenced in this location in both incident reports and bomb census mapping. See Annex K for WWII aerial photography. It is likely the majority of the site area occupied by the sports field was well accessed throughout the duration of the war. WWII-era photography shows football fields, a cricket pitch and tennis courts and the land appears homogenous and well-maintained. Such groundcover is conducive to the observation of a UXB entry hole. However it is likely that the section of damaged housing in the north-west of the site would have contained an amount of debris and rubble and would have only been cleared after a period of time. Access during this period would therefore have been limited; decreasing the likelihood that remaining evidence of UXBs would have been noted and dealt with. 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. A series of post-war developments have occurred on the site in the form of school buildings although the exact nature of their groundwork is unknown. 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. Recommended Risk Mitigation Measures The following risk mitigation measures are recommended to support the proposed works at the Little Ilford School site: All Works (Low-Medium and Medium Risk Areas) Site Specific Unexploded Ordnance Awareness Briefings to all personnel conducting intrusive works Shallow intrusive works (trial pits, open excavations, shallow foundations etc.) Medium Risk Areas Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Specialist Presence on Site to support shallow intrusive works Deep intrusive works (boreholes and piles) Medium Risk Areas 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: 1524 III © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Threat Assessment Little Ilford School, Newham Secretary of State for Education Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... II Contents............................................................................................................................................................... IV Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................... VI 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2. UK Regulatory Environment ........................................................................................................... 2 2.1. General ............................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2. CDM Regulations 2007 ..................................................................................................................... 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 .....................................................................................................................