Imagine a simple remortgaging conversation revealing that your house has no financial value. This was the harsh reality for one of thirteen residents in Bradford, who discovered that the developer not adhering to planning conditions had resulted in his home receiving a zero valuation on remortgaging.
The plight of the residents was shared in October 2020, on the BBC programme ‘Rip off Britain’. Details emerged that gas membranes had not been installed and verified as required by the planning conditions, and the developers had since ceased trading, leaving residents stranded and distraught.
With a wealth of experience in risk assessments and land remediation, EPG stepped in to examine the cases in detail. With an offer to investigate, free of charge, our Technical Director Steve Wilson sat down with some of the residents to discuss potential ways to resolve the problem. It became apparent that other planning conditions, relating to soakaways in the back gardens and an access road, had also not been complied with.
The homes are located adjacent to a former landfill site which is also an area of former coal mine workings. However, this does not automatically mean that there is a risk of gas ingress into the buildings. Using existing information, EPG built up a detailed conceptual site model (CSM). The CSM is a vital part of any gas risk assessment and crucially, the part where extra time and effort pays dividends.
It took over a week to drill down into the information and compile the model, which demonstrated that the risk of gas emissions was very low and gas membranes were not required. Furthermore, there was no need for further site investigation or gas monitoring to support this conclusion.
EPG can provide this service for developers, and the cost of the desk study is usually far less than the cost savings achieved by removing the need for gas protection or gas monitoring at the preliminary risk assessment stage. Even where gas monitoring is required, we can often reduce or completely remove the need for gas protection systems.
EPG also provided a revised specification and design for soakaways in the back gardens, with clients Alderburgh and JUTA (UK) kindly supplying the soakaway boxes and geotextile surround at no cost to the residents.
The final piece in the jigsaw was to meet with the Highway Authority and agree that the access road could remain unadopted (private), avoiding the need for remedial works to bring it up to highway standards. There was a small cross over strip at the entrance already owned by the Highway Authority and EPG designed and specified some simple works to resolve the issue.
EPG is part of a wider consultancy – STRI Group, and working alongside one of their senior planners, James Podesta, were able to submit a planning application to remove/vary the planning conditions to formalise amendments, and this was approved last year.
The work put into place will allow the homeowners to proceed as normal and we wish them all the best for the future.
Environmental Monitoring Manager, Leo Phillips, talks us through the work that EPG are carrying out during a ground gas monitoring visit on what will become part of an industrial estate.
As a company we are proud of the fact that we have contributed to much of the guidance on landfill, ground gas and VOC assessment within the UK; including British Standards BS8576, BS8485, CIRIA Reports C665, C735 and C748, Claire Research Bulletin RB17 and Claire Technical Bulletins TB16 and TB17. https://epg-ltd.co.uk/remediation-services/landfill-ground-gas-and-voc-assessment/
The NHBC Foundation’s latest report, Hazardous ground gas – an essential guide for housebuilders, is available to download now. Compiled by experts in the field, this comprehensive report offers guidance and insight for housebuilders covering everything from what constitutes a hazardous ground gas, initial investigations and assessment of ground gas to gas protective measures. EPG’s Steve Wilson and Amy Juden contributed to the guide along with colleagues from Buro Happold, and the guidance will help housebuilders to:
- recognise high risk sites and the appropriate action to take
- avoid unnecessary gas protection on low/minimal risk sites
- appoint appropriate competent professionals at the right stage
- complete the process of assessment, design, implementation and verification
- and implement monitoring strategies suitable for the size, complexity and gas risk of sites.
The report guidance also addresses the current gap between the conclusions and recommendations of ground investigation reports and the structural design of buildings where gas protection measures are not always included.
Hugh Mallett, Director, Ground Engineering, Buro Happold said, “This new NHBC guide on hazardous ground gas will help housebuilders and their advisors to better assess and manage gas risk and ensure the efficient building of new homes. Buro Happold, EPG and NHBC have worked hard to ensure the guide delivers current good practice and that the advice is practical and relevant to all housebuilders. Following the six-stage process and recognising the importance of competence at each stage will help housebuilders get it right first time and avoid potential pitfalls, saving time and money, whilst delivering homes safe from the potential risks of hazardous ground gas.”
“Adoption of the good practice procedures described in this report will lead to better quality practice, cost savings and a greater understanding of specific issues around detailing, construction and verification,” commented Richard Smith, Head of Standards, Research & Technical Competency at NHBC Foundation. “Early consideration of the risks of hazardous ground gas is essential for all developments and we are pleased to be able to guide housebuilders through this potentially complex process.”
Amy Juden, Associate at EPG added “We are delighted to see this report published, and the guidance out there to enhance best practice in the industry. We’re looking forward to continuing to work alongside colleagues to increase awareness of these important and complex issues, and use our expertise to help mitigate against risks.”
Written specifically for housebuilders wanting to get up to date and widen their knowledge on this important subject, Hazardous ground gas – an essential guide for housebuilders is available to download here.
Imagine a simple remortgaging conversation revealing that your house has no financial value. This was the harsh reality for one of thirteen residents in Bradford, who discovered that the developer not adhering to planning conditions had resulted in his home receiving a zero valuation on remortgaging.
The plight of the residents was shared in October 2020, on the BBC programme ‘Rip off Britain’. Details emerged that gas membranes had not been installed and verified as required by the planning conditions, and the developers had since ceased trading, leaving residents stranded and distraught.
With a wealth of experience in risk assessments and land remediation, EPG stepped in to examine the cases in detail. With an offer to investigate, free of charge, our Technical Director Steve Wilson sat down with some of the residents to discuss potential ways to resolve the problem. It became apparent that other planning conditions, relating to soakaways in the back gardens and an access road, had also not been complied with.
The homes are located adjacent to a former landfill site which is also an area of former coal mine workings. However, this does not automatically mean that there is a risk of gas ingress into the buildings. Using existing information, EPG built up a detailed conceptual site model (CSM). The CSM is a vital part of any gas risk assessment and crucially, the part where extra time and effort pays dividends.
It took over a week to drill down into the information and compile the model, which demonstrated that the risk of gas emissions was very low and gas membranes were not required. Furthermore, there was no need for further site investigation or gas monitoring to support this conclusion.
EPG can provide this service for developers, and the cost of the desk study is usually far less than the cost savings achieved by removing the need for gas protection or gas monitoring at the preliminary risk assessment stage. Even where gas monitoring is required, we can often reduce or completely remove the need for gas protection systems.
EPG also provided a revised specification and design for soakaways in the back gardens, with clients Alderburgh and JUTA (UK) kindly supplying the soakaway boxes and geotextile surround at no cost to the residents.
The final piece in the jigsaw was to meet with the Highway Authority and agree that the access road could remain unadopted (private), avoiding the need for remedial works to bring it up to highway standards. There was a small cross over strip at the entrance already owned by the Highway Authority and EPG designed and specified some simple works to resolve the issue.
EPG is part of a wider consultancy – STRI Group, and working alongside one of their senior planners, James Podesta, were able to submit a planning application to remove/vary the planning conditions to formalise amendments, and this was approved last year.
The work put into place will allow the homeowners to proceed as normal and we wish them all the best for the future.
As contaminated land risk assessors and designers, we have the greatest opportunity to minimise the carbon impact of developments on brownfield land. Similar to the waste hierarchy we learned at primary school, where the first priority is to Reduce, then Reuse, then Recycle, when it comes to remediation, the most sustainable option is often to do nothing. Better conceptualisation of a site and using detailed quantitative risk assessment (DQRA) can make this possible, but these tools are underutilised. Over-conservative assessments lead to over-engineered designs and unnecessary remediation works, contributing to the significant embodied carbon in the construction industry.
It should be considered environmentally irresponsible to specify remediation on the basis of a generic screening approach alone, without considering further assessment that could lead to a reduction in remediation. Remediation should not be used as a substitute for adequate investigation and assessment.
Most of the rhetoric and guidance/publications on sustainability in contaminated land to date (i.e. that produced by the CL:AIRE Sustainable Remediation Forum SuRF-UK) focuses on methods to minimise operational carbon emissions during remediation works. However, I argue that we could have a more significant impact on the carbon budget of a project if we consider the carbon impact earlier in the process and eliminate unnecessary remediation at the risk assessment stage.
As risk assessors and designers, we have a responsibility to design out carbon from our development projects wherever possible, in the same way that we have a duty to design out health and safety risks under CDM.
If climate change is causing deaths now at a rate of a few hundred tonnes of carbon dioxide per death, are our frameworks for assessing risk from contaminated land fit for purpose? Do we need to rethink the precautionary principles on which we operate? It also depends on people’s attitudes to risk. Perhaps climate change is so well-known and accepted in society now that we accept the fact that people all over the world are dying in climate related natural disasters. Our appetite for health risks associated with ground contamination (i.e. toxins in our garden soils, or carcinogenic vapours in our homes or workplaces) may be different.
Never-the-less there is far more that can be done within the existing frameworks and acceptable minimal risk levels. Remediation is being over specified on the basis of theoretical risks that are poorly determined.
In summary, as contaminated land risk assessors and designers, we have the power to minimise the carbon impact of developments on brownfield land. The most efficient way to do this is by intervening early. This means that before considering remediation, we should better conceptualise a site and use DQRA to determine if no action is the most sustainable option.
This is the approach that is always taken at EPG. We pride ourselves on delivering the most sustainable solution for a site, and are never afraid of offering an innovative assessment or bespoke approach to get there. This can have the added benefit of saving our clients significant sums of money in the construction phase.
But what will the future of contaminated land assessment look like in the context of climate destruction and the race to net zero? Should we incorporate the carbon cost of a human life into a new holistic framework for construction and remediation on brownfield land that considers the need for development and remedial intervention against the actual human cost? By changing the narrative and talking about carbon footprints in terms of death rates, we can increase awareness of the urgency of the climate crisis and the need to transition to net zero as quickly as possible.
Improving standards in contaminated land risk assessment through increased use of DQRA, education and training, and new targeted research, will allow for a reduction in the carbon footprint of our industry. As well as saving money on development projects. Development of standardised tools for measuring the carbon impact of remediation works, will allow us to manage this effectively. And incorporation of the concept of the “carbon cost of a life” would allow for comparison of carbon budgets, with human health risks.
Better risk assessment is integral to reducing carbon emissions in remediation of brownfield land. Let us work together to create a more sustainable and resilient future for all.