Article

SoBRA Events 2018

- by
Tags: Featured SoBRA

SoBRA Annual Summer Workshop – Monday 18th June 2018, London
SoBRA are pleased to announce that their 2018 Summer Workshop event will this year focus upon fine tuning water environment DQRA. Topics will include understanding NAPL Transmissivity, the application of source zone depletion in models, when to use biodegradation and many other topics.  The day will be a combination of both presentations plus lively workshops.

SoBRA are currently finalising arrangements (venue has been selected) and may well be requesting volunteers to assist on the day – further details to follow.

Early Careers Event – Tuesday 19th June 2018 at the Geological Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London

SoBRA are pleased to be working alongside the Contaminated Land Group of the Geological Society and RemSoc to provide a forum for early career professionals looking to develop their understanding of brownfield risk assessment. The event will cover fundamental ways to improve risk assessment within the context of geological knowledge and remedial needs. The day will also include a presentation on chartership and accreditation and the opportunity to take part in practical workshops.

Further details to follow.

SoBRA regularly provide updates via their website https://sobra.org.uk/, and any queries can be directed to info@sobra.org.uk.

Article News Business Practice Contaminated Land Data Management Executive Laboratories Loss Prevention Safety

AGS Magazine – March/April 2018 issue

- by
Tags: Featured

The Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists are pleased to announce the March/April issue of their new bi-monthly publication; AGS Magazine. To view the magazine click HERE.

This free, bimonthly publication focuses on geotechnics, engineering geology and geoenvironmental engineering as well as the work and achievements of the AGS.

There are a number of excellent articles in this month’s issue including;

AGS Members’ Day Information – Page 4
Making a difference: Volunteering outside of the AGS – Page 10
New AGS Working Group: Geotechnical – Page 15
AGS Honorary Life Member: John Talbot – Page 18
Unlocking Complex Brownfield Sites – Page 20
Q&A with Julian Lovell of Equipe and S M Associates – Page 26
AGS Guidance: Geotechnical Soil Laboratory Testing Selection – Page 32
Working Group Focus: Data Management & Loss Prevention – Page 34

Advertising opportunities are available within future issues of the publication. To view rates and opportunities please view our media pack by clicking HERE.

If you have a news story, article, case study or event which you’d like to tell our editorial team about please email ags@ags.org.uk. Articles should act as opinion pieces and not directly advertise a company. Please note that the publication of editorial and advertising content is subject to the discretion of the editorial board.

Article

Unlocking Complex Brownfield Sites

- by
Tags: brownfield sites Featured

A Team Approach to Unlocking Complex Brownfield Sites
As engineers, geologists and environmental consultants, a large part of our careers is spent working in teams. It allows us to work across different disciplines, companies and sectors; it allows us to work with technical specialists, planners, clients and regulators. The dictionary definition of teamwork is “the combined action of a group, especially when effective and efficient”. This is the nub of WSP’s approach to unlocking complex brownfield sites – essentially, how to use effective teamwork, across disciplines and technical specialisms to deliver significant and tangible benefits in the land development projects we work on.

Where are all the Brownfield Sites?
The Housing & Planning Act 2016 put in place regulations to ‘prepare, maintain and publish a register of land’, effectively a ‘Brownfield Register’, by the end of 2017. The Act compels local authorities to keep a comprehensive register of brownfield sites suitable for redevelopment for housing. Once identified, the local authority will be responsible for securing planning consent on 90% of suitable brownfield land by 2020.

There are a number of criteria that must be satisfied before land can be included in the brownfield register. Most importantly, it must be capable of development and be free from constraints that cannot be mitigated. This will need to be supported by strong evidence of the mitigation of development constraints.

Importantly, the legislation provides ‘Permission in Principle’ status for sites that make it into Part 2 of the Brownfield Register, thereby streamlining the planning process on these complex sites. The Government is hoping that this streamlined planning process will open up more sites for housing development and speed up granting of planning consent.

Keeping this in mind, we think that the introduction of the Brownfield Register will allow us to take a more integrated approach to the assessment of development constraints including potential constraints related to contamination and ground risks in general.

Initial Indications from the Brownfield Register
All local authorities in England were required to prepare, maintain and publish their brownfield registers by 31 December 2017 and the vast majority have done so. The information in the registers is showing some very interesting trends.

In the initial pilot study phase of the publication of the register, 53 local authorities identified ‘suitable sites’ that could provide 273,000 homes. If this is scaled up to a national level, then suitable sites could provide some 1.1 million homes.

We have reviewed the content of the initial pilot study registers. We have looked closely at local authorities located in the South East with a focus on 12 of them. Within these 12 registers, there are 773 sites representing delivery of 44,474 residential units. However, of these, some 63% already have planning permission in place or pending.

Referring to one particular Local Authority register, Medway Council, it has a respectable 45 sites with 1,325 units. However, 35 of these sites are less than 1 hectare, 25 sites are less than 0.25 hectares and, most importantly, 35 sites already have planning permission in place.

The Brownfield Register for the City of Westminster shows a similar trend. It identifies 101 sites within the Borough with a total plan area of almost 35 hectares that could deliver over 6,000 units. However, 72 of these sites, representing 17 hectares and almost 3,500 units, already have full planning permission in place or pending.

So, this raises some important questions. How much new land, without planning consent, will actually come forward from the publication of the brownfield registers? Additionally, with a large proportion of sites identified being less than 0.25 hectares, outside of the major metropolitan areas, will these smaller sites really be of interest to developers?

In relation to the Brownfield Register, we feel that there has been a good start but much more needs to be done to give local authorities and developers the tools to bring brownfield land back into beneficial use.

It is also worth noting that where remediation costs make marginal sites unviable there are emerging funds from Government to support these through the Marginal Viability Fund.

A Constraints-Led Approach to Masterplan Development
In the Brownfield Register, we now have a potential repository of brownfield land that is free from constraints that cannot be mitigated and doesn’t currently have planning consent. Next, we need to develop an appropriate masterplan that will maximise the value and potential of the site.

All too often, sites are presented to technical advisors where the masterplan has been fixed before the contamination and other technical assessments have been carried out. The masterplan is set, the development constraints are understood, and then the bun fight starts over how the conflicting technical requirements of the project can be met. For example, one paradox that we regularly see in conditioned planning consents is a condition maximising the use of SuDS in the drainage scheme with a second condition prohibiting infiltration drainage through made ground. A clear conflict!

A far better approach, a far more cost effective and sustainable approach, is one where the development constraints are screened and assessed and then mapped. Only at that stage is a targeted masterplan developed, working with the identified constraints. This is something that is strongly promoted by Homes England (formerly the HCA). We have worked closely with them in developing an early screening tool that looks at all development constraints and only then will they decide on the proposed masterplan and mix of uses. The result is a masterplan that works with the potential development constraints on a site rather than battling against them with a ‘fixed’ masterplan.

Many of these constraints are interconnected and cannot be treated in isolation. Decisions we make on contamination remediation may have a significant impact on the foundation solution for buildings, the design of road pavements, flood risk mitigation or ecological protection and enhancement. Contamination remediation for domestic gardens, for example, is likely to be simpler and of lower cost if the planning consultant doesn’t decide at an early stage to put them over the most heavily contaminated part of the site.

How NOT to Masterplan a Brownfield Site
Inefficient masterplanning of complex brownfield sites that fails to unlock their potential appears all too frequently. Take, for example, a 12 hectare, former chlorine manufacturing site that was presented to WSP after the first attempt at masterplanning the site failed. The site was being redeveloped for mixed residential, commercial and industrial use as the works were no longer viable and the processes were some 40 years old.

This site had huge development potential but also came with some significant development constraints. All the buildings needed to be decommissioned and demolished; it had a flooding stream running along one boundary; there were sensitive ecological receptors on adjacent land and it had some major geotechnical and contamination issues in the ground.

In arriving at the original masterplan, it seems that very little consideration was taken of any of these potential constraints…
• The housing was placed in the location of greatest mercury soil contamination.
• The heavily loaded commercial buildings were located in an area of weak alluvial soils.
• The ground level car park was located close to the adjacent sensitive ecological receptors.
Abnormal development costs has been estimated at £20m with a long programme of ecological, contamination and ground improvement mitigation measures. Discussions with the local planning authority had been tense and fraught with difficulties, adding further to development costs and programme.

The Client knew that there had to be a better solution and so went looking for alternative advice. This is where WSP became involved.

At the outset, we gathered the whole project team at a workshop to openly talk through the Client’s aspirations, the scheme proposals and the development constraints. A number of low cost, initial technical assessments were carried out to understand the key issues. Through this collaborative approach, a development constraints plan was produced that led to a much improved masterplan. This revised masterplan allowed us to work with the constraints rather than against them, often turning them into opportunities:
• The high sensitivity residential element was moved to a less contaminated area of the site and away from the area of greatest flood risk.
• The areas of greatest ecological interest were allocated to public open space.
• The car park for the commercial element was moved away from the ecologically sensitive area and into the area of greatest flood risk, allowing for temporary flooding of the car park in the design.
• The area of mercury soil contamination was allocated for car parking reducing the remediation requirements.
• The commercial buildings were moved away from the areas of soft alluvial soils, thereby reducing abnormal foundation requirements.
The Council were involved at an early stage in the discussions and played an important part in developing the revised masterplan. This approach locked in their full buy-in and approval of the scheme from the outset. Overall, remediation costs were reduced by 80% and ground improvement, ecological and flood mitigation works were removed almost entirely.

The Opportunity for Developers and their Advisors
The Housing Minister has said that The Housing and Planning Act will be a catalyst for regeneration by simplifying and speeding up the planning process and unlocking brownfield sites for redevelopment that would otherwise be constrained or passed over. The Act is designed to kick start a national crusade (no less) to get 1 million new homes built by 2020 with a concentrated focus on brownfield regeneration. There is a great opportunity for our whole industry to contribute to this aspiration with a sustainable, collaborative and solutions-led approach to land regeneration.

The opportunity for land developers is clearly around the effectiveness and efficiency of addressing development constraints in this way, and the associated programme and costs savings. The opportunity also lies in sites being included in the Brownfield Register and obtaining Permission in Principle through that designation.

Teamwork
Using the integrated multi-disciplinary approach outlined above, we see a great opportunity to improve the outcomes of the masterplanning process. WSP’s view is that early screening and ranking of the technical risks is critical to understanding development priorities. We also feel that early collaboration is essential to achieving our clients’ development aspirations – get around the table and talk!

The industry needs to challenge development strategies for difficult sites and innovate in our solutions to address complex development constraints. And we need to engage with the regulators and planning authorities to get them on side and address their concerns.

In essence, there are three simple concepts we feel should be considered on all brownfield site developments:
1. Carry out technical screening at the earliest opportunity so you don’t paint yourself into a corner with a constrained masterplan.
2. Ensure that the project technical advisers operate as an integrated team, talking across disciplines and consulting with regulators to identify and address development constraints as early as possible in the process.
3. Aim for positive development outcomes using the team’s expertise to work with potential development constraints rather than against them.

As mentioned at the outset, the results of teamwork can be measured against the effectiveness and efficiency of the outcome. “If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself.” – Henry Ford. Useful advice in car manufacturing and also in unlocking complex brownfield sites.

This article was contributed by Andy O’Dea, Technical Director – Ground Risk & Remediation, WSP and featured in the March/April issue of the AGS Magazine, which can be viewed here.

Article

An introduction to the new AGS Geotechnical Working Group

- by
Tags: Featured

© Daniel Imade (Arup)

The AGS’ Geotechnical Working Group (GWG) is the youngest of our committees, having been formed at Members’ Day 2017. Here the group’s Leader, Neil Chadwick, Associate, Geotechnics at Arup, introduces group, outlines their current focus areas and how to join;

WHO ARE WE?
Our Terms of Reference establish the overall aims of the AGS Geotechnical Working Group. These are as follows:

“To promote technical excellence to the wider geotechnical engineering professional community and to raise general awareness of the need for geotechnical engineering input to all construction projects and land asset management to clients and asset owners.”

As the name of the groups suggests, the subject area is potentially very wide. However, parts of it are already served by other industry groups, such as the Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS). Where there is overlap with other bodies we will seek to supplement rather than duplicate, with the intention of establishing mutually beneficial relationships.

In practice we expect ground investigation and geotechnical design to feature prominently in our work. Having said that, geotechnical construction, monitoring and asset management will certainly be on our radar.

It is early days for the group with only three meetings held so far, but we have already identified some tasks for us to work on:

BEST PRACTICE FOR SPECIFYING TRIAXIAL TESTING
Should we test 3 x 38mm diameter specimens, or do a single test on a 100mm specimen? Or do both have their place? We have identified some possible inconsistency, confusion and conflicting opinions! We will look more closely at this with a view to producing definitive guidance.

TRIAL PITS AND SOAKAWAY TESTS
We will be supporting the work of the Safety Working Group relating to trial pitting and, in particular, soakaway testing. For the latter we will be looking at the technical aspects, i.e. does the test provide good information, what alternatives are currently available and what alternatives could be developed in the future?

THE FUTURE OF GROUND INVESTIGATION
Are prevailing practices in ground investigation ‘fit for purpose’? This was a question posed in the recent AGS/BDA* Task Force survey and the response received compels us to consider it further. Cable percussion boring will inevitably be a topic of interest, but we will also be looking at sampling and testing generally. Our initial work will focus on the technical case: what do we need from our investigations, and do current techniques satisfy those needs?

We think it likely that this task will grow in size and complexity, requiring input from other AGS groups, especially Safety. We are well aware that this is a contentious and sometimes emotive subject and we will approach it accordingly. Watch this space!

JOIN THE GEOTECHNICAL WORKING GROUP
We currently have a group of 13 which has been drawn from the AGS membership with both consultants and contractors of various sizes represented. The intention is to meet four times a year, generally in London, with members working on tasks individually or in small groups. We have received a few expressions of interest but we are still looking for additional members. If you are interested in joining the GWG please email us at ags@ags.org.uk.

* British Drilling Association

This article was featured in the March/April 2018 issue of the AGS Magazine, which can be viewed here.

Article

Q&A with Julian Lovell

- by
Tags: Featured

Julian Lovell BSc (Hons), FGS, PTLLS
Managing Director, Equipe Group and S M Associates

I obtained a 2:1 Honours degree in Applied Geology from Plymouth Polytechnic in 1990 and immediately started my geotechnical career as an Assistant Engineering Geologist for Soil Mechanics Associates. I was ‘head hunted’ (well that’s what I like to call it) by the contracting division and over the following 15 years steadily progressed to Board level. In 2008, when the company became part of a much larger organisation and lost its focus I decided to leave and set up Equipe which has now been established for nearly ten years. I have always been keen to help promote and move the industry forward and so have also been involved with the AGS and BDA for over 15 years now.

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?
The reality is that I fell into geotechnics as my geology course at Plymouth was more aimed at the petroleum industry. So whilst many of my peers became mud loggers offshore I wanted to stay on terra firma and so had to weigh up joining Soil Mechanics, a ground investigation company or the National Rivers Authority (now the Environment Agency). However, once at Soil Mechanics I was continually inspired as I was surrounded and supported by people who were simply just good at their job and cared about doing the job right. I am lucky that some of them are still around for advice now but alas not all.

What does a typical day entail?
Where do I start? I can honestly say that no one day is the same. The first decision I have to make is to what office or site should I go that day. I always have to weigh up the practicalities of sorting out technical and commercial aspects of our work with the day to day role of overseeing and keeping my companies solvent and operational. This clearly is very varied and each day can include aspects from tendering for work, paying suppliers, chasing payments, speaking to trainers, logging, mentoring and strategic decisions. Oh, and somewhere I have to fit in my work for AGS.

Are there any projects which you’re particularly proud to have been a part of?
I have been lucky enough to have been involved in many interesting geotechnical projects including Sellafield Deep Repository where we cored to 2km as well as numerous logistically and technically challenging projects including M1, M25, M3 & M4 Widening projects, GCHQ, Kings Cross, Rugby Remodelling to name a few. I am also particularly proud of what Equipe has achieved in the last ten years especially the training courses, innovative products and Geotechnica.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?
My aim for the last 10 years has been to assist where I can to move the industry forward whether through training, promotion or innovation. I often feel that most of the industry is slow to change but often through no fault of its own it is strapped by the procurement of work by lowest price and not quality. This massively restricts innovation and provides no incentive to invest whether that be in equipment or people. The challenges at business level are to develop products and deliver services which break the mould and at a higher level to help elevate the industry so that procurers recognise its value.

What AGS Working Group(s) are you a Member of and what are your current focuses?
I have been involved in the Safety Working Group and the focus is always to develop and maintain succinct industry related guidance which is both pragmatic and compliant. This is often a challenge as most occupational safety and health regulations require a level of interpretation to relate them to our workplace and activities. Representing a specialist industry which is often on the fringes of construction adds another level of complexity and we sometimes fall foul of interpretations which work on large sites but not for our specialist and often transient operations.

I am also a current member of the Business Practice Working Group, Executive Committee, and Senate where all aspects of the association are discussed, healthily debated and agreed. The current focus is to improve the marketing and visibility of all of the good things the AGS does and would like to do more of moving forward.

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS Member?
I really enjoy networking and working with other like-minded people who want to make a difference. I also like the fact that the committees and working groups are inclusive and want a representation across the sectors and specialisms. It is not a club or an old boys network, it is a trade association which tries very hard to represent the industry and deliver tangible benefits.

What do you find beneficial about being an AGS Member?
The quality of both the safety and commercial guidance is very useful. The collaboration with other associations and bodies means that members can have reliance that the information which AGS produces is up to date and at the forefront.

Why do you feel the AGS is important to the industry?
The AGS is the only body which actively represents the best interests of both the geotechnical and geoenvironmental sectors and addresses both commercial and technical issues. It is the only body which includes consultants, contractors and clients across these sectors. The AGS is also the largest contributor to industry guidance and Standards which helps these to become workable documents and not detrimental to UK practice.

What changes would you like to see implemented in the geotechnical industry?
I would like to see a better understanding and compliance to the British Standards as I believe that this will improve the efficiency and quality of what we do as an industry. Whilst we have Class 1 samples being specified using sampling techniques which will not achieve them and laboratory tests being scheduled on inappropriate samples there is room for improvement.

This Q&A was featured in the March/April 2018 issue of the AGS Magazine, which can be viewed here.

Article

AGS Guide: The Selection of Geotechnical Soil Laboratory Testing

- by
Tags: Featured

It was at a fateful AGS Committee meeting in 2015 that John Powell from Geolabs suggested that the AGS guide: The Selection of Geotechnical Soil Laboratory Testing might require some updating. The genesis of the guide stretches back some 25 years to previous AGS Committee meeting in 1993 where the need for such a guide was identified. Some 5 years later, with contributions from over 20 individuals the first edition of the guide was published in 1998.

After a slightly longer than anticipated gestation period, the AGS is pleased to announce the publication of the 2018 version of the guide, which can be downloaded here. Like most AGS publications, the guide is being published in electronic format and is available to download from the AGS website.

The updating of the guide has had its challenges – not least because no electronic version of the original publication could be found and neither were there originals of the numerous figure available. The remit from the AGS Committee was simply to update the guide where necessary and not to re-write the document. Therefore whilst the text has been updated by and large most of the original figures and the overall format of the have been retained.

When the working group embarked on a review of the guide it was heartening to have colleagues offering well-thumbed and slightly dog-eared versions of the guide to start the laborious task of scanning and retyping the document. Clearly many practicing engineers had regularly consulted the guide when preparing specifications and scheduling laboratory testing.
One of the key drivers in updating the guide was to reflect the gradual withdrawal of BS1377 and its replacement with BS EN 17892 in its various parts. The AGS recognises the evolving situation with regard to the publication of European standards and it is anticipated that periodic updates of the document will undertake to reflect this. The original publication includes a significant list of references, not just British Standards but also a significant number of ASTM as well as Russia, Danish and other national standards. The 2018 version cites the latest version of these standards.

Despite the fact that 20 years have elapsed since the first edition there are very few innovations and new forms of test that have emerged in the interim. This perhaps reflects the fact that the 1998 edition of the guide covered all of the modern testing techniques that were available at the time such as various small strain testing techniques, the use of bender elements and resonant column testing.

The contents list of the 2018 edition will be familiar to users of the 1998 edition. Changes of note include the re-titling of Chapter 8 which is now ‘Testing of Anthropogenic Soils’ and Chapter 9 –which is ‘Tests for Special Applications’. Chapter 9 is now split into two sections. The short section 9.1 on ‘Special Testing’ includes tests not readily included elsewhere in the guide, for example durability and testing of stabilised soils. However the majority of Chapter 9 comprises section 9.2 Advanced Geotechnical Testing. This section has been substantially reviewed updated and expanded and the original 14 pages of text now runs to some 20 pages. The AGS has Professor Chris Clayton to thank for producing this part of the guide – which not only benefits from Chris’s personal experience and knowledge but includes input from internationally renowned experts who Chris was able to call upon for their opinion and input. We are confident that experienced practitioners and those relatively new to the industry alike will find this a useful reference document for those contemplating use of advanced triaxial testing as part of their ground investigation.

Special thanks are extended to fellow members of the task group. Lynne Llewellyn (Structural Soils) and Geraint Williams (ALS Global) for updating several chapters as well dealing with many of the formatting challenges.

It is not intended that a further 20 years will elapse before the next version of the guide is published and the baton for the next update has already been handed to Neil Chadwick and the recently formed AGS Geotechnical Working Group.

The AGS Guide: The Selection of Geotechnical Soil Laboratory Testing can be downloaded here.

This article was contributed by Peter Boyd, Operations Director, Ground Engineering, AECOM and featured in the March/April 2018 issue of the AGS Magazine, which can be viewed here.

Article Business Practice Contaminated Land Executive Laboratories Loss Prevention Safety

Making a Difference: A look at some of our members’ who volunteer outside of the AGS to make positive change for the industry

- by
Tags: Featured

With over 130 different member companies, the AGS has a huge network of talented and influential practitioners which form the Association and its nine different working groups.

Our practitioners don’t just look to improve best practice within the AGS; they work to improve and enhance the industry as a whole by working across numerous external committees and working groups.

AGS Secretariat, Katie Kennedy, speaks to 10 of our Working Group members to see what committees outside of the AGS they belong to, and how they hope to improve our industry for the better.

Jim Cook
Director at Geotechnical Services Bureau
Past AGS Chairman, past Treasurer and current Member of the AGS Senate
• RoGEP (UK Register of Ground Engineering Professionals)
http://www.ukrogep.org.uk/
As the Chair of RoGEP since it was established 10 years ago, Jim’s role includes the general management of the association, attending up to eight meetings a year and reviewing membership applications. Jim is currently developing RoGEP to include technician and incorporated engineer levels, and to open the organisation to Irish chartered engineers and professional geologists.
• European Ground Engineering Organisation
Jim is working with the European Ground Engineering Organisation to develop “levels of competence” and a “common platform” for undertaking ground engineering work in accordance with EC7 Part 1.
• The Geological Society
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/
As a Scrutineer for the Geological Society, Jim is called upon several times a year to interview candidates for chartership. This involves reviewing candidate applications followed by an in-depth face to face interview.

Ken Marsh
Director at Ian Farmer Associates
Member of the AGS Senate and Business Practice Working Group
• Ground Forum
http://ground-forum.org.uk/
Ken is the immediate past Chair of the Ground Forum and is also involved with the CIC Council and Parliamentary & Scientific Committee. He believes it is important for the industry to be represented at the highest level and to lobby key industry issues to this form. The Ground Forum / CIC link enables this, and the Parliamentary & Scientific Committee provides an opportunity to present key industry issues to Parliamentarians. His involvement with the Ground Forum includes attending four meetings a year plus additional time preparing for meetings and completing actions.

Adam Latimer
Operations Director at Ian Farmer Associates
Leader of the AGS Safety Working Group
• BGA (British Geotechnical Association)
https://www.britishgeotech.org/
Adam is the AGS’ representative at the BGA; the principal association for geotechnical engineers in the United Kingdom. Adam believes it is important that all working groups and committees work collaboratively to improve the industry, and that knowledge sharing between groups is invaluable. His involvement with the BGA includes attending regular technical meetings and events with other learned groups.

Roger Clark
Director at Marlowclark Consulting Ltd
Member of the AGS Contaminated Land Working Group
• AGS Director for SiLC and AGS representative for SiLC PTP (Professional and Technical Panel)
https://www.silc.org.uk/
Roger believes it is important to be involved with SiLC to assist in the professional development in the land contamination field. He also feels that as the profession has supported him over the years, he wants to give something back to the industry.
Roger plays a hugely active role within SiLC. This includes attending regular SiLC Board and PTP meetings, carrying out interviews, drafting Disciplinary Procedures for SQPs, coordinating the new assessors, participating in the Marketing Sub-Committee and developing a SiLC Affiliate Scheme. Roger is also a member of the Exam Sub-Committee so is instrumental in setting examine questions and ‘Answer Guidelines’ for each exam and assessing/marking completed candidates’ exam papers.

David Hutchinson
Honorary Member of the AGS
Member of the AGS Loss Prevention Working Group
• Geotechnical Asset Owners Forum (GAOF)
https://www.ciria.org/gaof/
David’s involvement with the Geotechnical Asset Owners Forum includes attending up to four meetings a year, which are attended by representatives from organisations such as Highways England, Network Rail, London Underground, Canals and Rivers Trust, ADEPT and HS2. He believes involvement with this forum helps the communication and the sharing of knowledge between UK infrastructure owners which should benefit the UK by more efficient use of its resources.

Neil Holford
Technical Manager at SOCOTEC UK
Member of the AGS Laboratories Working Group
• UKAS Construction Industry Technical Advisory Committee
https://www.ukas.com/about/our-structure/technical-committees/
Neil believes it is important to be involved with this committee to ensure the AGS has a voice and is made aware of industry developments and related issues. Being on the UKAS Construction Industry Technical Advisory Committee involves attending up to two meetings each year which take place at UKAS HQ.

Matthew Baldwin
Technical Director at Soil Engineering
Immediate past AGS Chair and Member of the Senate, Executive Committee and Business Practice Working Group
• A convenor for Task Group 1 of Working Group 2 of the TC250 SC7 group, tasked with the update and rewriting of Eurocode 7
• Lead UK expert for ISO-TC182-WG4, which is the committee involved with the update and rewriting of BS EN ISO 22475-1
• Member of B526 03 on Ground Investigation
• Committee member of the Engineering Group of the Geological Society https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/engineering
• Committee member of Ground Forum
http://ground-forum.org.uk/
Matthew explains that although many industry practitioners feel the geotechnical and ground investigation sector is slow-moving, European and international standards are constantly changing. Over the past five years, there have been more standards published (that affect these sectors), than were published in the past thirty years.
He believes it is vital for UK practitioners to make their views known in terms of the technical content of these standards and has joined the above committees where he feels he can make a positive contribution.
Matthew attends a large volume of meetings over the year as well as teleconference calls to allow for progress to be monitored. He gives up a significant proportion of his time to review and update existing standards and documents. He also plays a role alerting the AGS and the wider industry of new initiatives and trends.

Seamus Lefroy-Brooks
Principal at LBH Wembley
Past AGS Chair and Member of the Contaminated Land and Loss Prevention Working Groups
• Land Forum – Chair of Land Forum NQMS Steering Panel
https://www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/land-forum
The Land Forum brings central government departments together with the devolved administrations, local authorities, expert agencies and industry organisations (including the AGS) to discuss issues of brownfield development. The Forum also oversees and coordinates contaminated land and brownfield policy and encourages the exchange of best practice and knowledge.
• Chair Elect of CL:AIRE TRG
The CL:AIRE Technology and Research Group (TRG) supports CL:AIRE on issues associated with technology development, providing guidance on issues relating to sustainable land reuse and offering strategic review and steering functions for all its activities.
• JIWG – Joint Industry Working Group on Asbestos in Soil
The JIWG brings together the asbestos management, occupational hygiene and brownfield management sectors along with the HSE & HSL to promote the development of a consistent and harmonised approach to the regulation, investigation, analysis, assessment and management of asbestos in soil.

Seamus is also involved on the BSI 526/03 “Site Investigation and ground testing”, EIC Contaminated Land Working Group, EIC Waste Management Group and BS 8485 Drafting Committee “Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings”.

Chris Raison
Director at Raison Foster Associates
Member of the AGS Senate and Geotechnical Working Group
• BSI B/526 Geotechnics, TC250/SC7/WG3/TG3 Piling and TC250/SC7/WG3/TG7 Ground Improvement
Focusing on the evolution and development of British and European Standards within the geotechnical and foundation areas, Chris works as a convenor and UK principal expert covering pile design within TG3, and as a UK member of the TG7 task group. His involvement includes attending regular meetings and the review of drafts and proposals for revisions to existing standards. The groups also involve discussions with experts across the UK and Europe and providing feedback to other UK associations including the Federation of Piling Specialists, the British Geotechnical Association and the Midland Geotechnical Society.

Tim Carrington
Head of Geotechnical Services at Fugro GB Marine Ltd
Member of the AGS Laboratories Working Group
• Technical Panel working on ISO19901-8 Marine Soil Investigations and Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Committee affiliated to Society of Underwater technology (OSIG)
https://www.sut.org/specialist-interest-group/osig-offshore-site-investigation-and-geotechnics/
Tim and the OSIG committee meet four times a year and produce industry guidance notes, run training courses on offshore geotechnics and geophysics, and organise an international conference on a 4-yearly basis.
He also sits on the ISO19901-8 Marine Soil Investigations and Offshore Site Investigation panel, which meet in person annually. Currently, the panel are starting on the first revision to the standard, expected for publication in 2020. Sub-committees of the panel will hold video conference calls on a quarterly basis to review and propose updates to the different chapters and annexes of the standard. Tim feels that it is important to make sure the ISO standards reflect the capabilities and the needs of the industry and his involvement within the standard allows the AGS to have a voice.

This article was featured in the March/April 2018 issue of the AGS Magazine, which can be viewed here.

Article Loss Prevention

Japanese Knotweed – Professionals should know the law and their responsibilities

- by
Tags: Featured Japanese Knotweed LPA

Photo of Japanese knotweed invading a site recorded during a walkover survey.

Japanese knotweed is a non-native invasive bamboo-like plant that is very strong and grows incredibly quickly. It can cause damage to drains, paths, walls and foundations. Many mortgage lenders will not agree to lend against a property that is located within 7m of the plant.

In the County Court case of Waistell v Network Rail (2017), Network Rail was ordered to pay compensation to two home owners whose properties backed on to Network Rail land which was rife with Japanese knotweed. This case potentially opens the way for claims against owners of land containing Japanese knotweed and to property professionals advising them. The AGS have published Loss Prevention Alert No 67 which reminds Members of the law relating to Japanese knotweed, describes the Waistell case and the reasoning behind the Court’s decision, and discusses the responsibility Members have relating to Japanese knotweed when advising their clients on the purchase of land or on construction activities. AGS Members should also be aware of other invasive species such as giant hogweed which land owners could have a responsibility to control.

The case is significant as it holds landowners to account and imposes a positive duty on them to ensure that any knotweed that is on their property is not preventing neighbouring landowners from being able to sell their property for market value.

Damages can be claimed for costs of removing the Japanese knotweed or an order requiring the defendant to remove it, costs of any remedial works to the claimant’s property and diminution in value of the property.

The full Loss Prevention Alert 67 – Japanese Knotweed – Professionals should know the law and their responsibilities can be downloaded here.

Further information on Japanese knotweed and related issues can be found on the following websites.
Environment Agency (www.environment-agency.gov.uk)
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (www.sepa.org.uk)
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (www.rics.org/standards)
UK Government (www.gov.uk/guidance/prevent-japanese-knotweed-from-spreading)
The Invasive Non-Native Specialists Association (www.innsa.org)

This article was contributed by David Hutchinson, Honorary Member of the AGS and featured in the March/April 2018 issue of the AGS Magazine, which can be viewed here.

Article Business Practice

John Talbot; Honorary Life Member of the AGS

- by
Tags: Featured

John Talbot, one of the AGS’s longer serving members, is stepping down as Leader of the Business Practice Working Group in April 2018, following 12 years of service to the committee, the last three of which he was its Leader.

Having been a member of the AGS for over 28 years, John has been closely involved for the last 5 years with the updating of AGS governance, which involved producing a huge volume of documents. Here, we look at John’s history within the AGS and some of his contributions and changes he’s helped to make for the industry:

• 2006: became a member of the Business Practice Working Group
• 2011-12: drafted the AGS Code of Business Conduct
• 2013: drafted new Membership Bye-laws, with the assistance of Diane Jennings
• 2013-2014: developed a new and rational model for the AGS annual subscriptions
• 2014: appointed an Honorary Life Member of the AGS in recognition of his sustained contributions to AGS matters
• 2015: drafted the new AGS bye-laws in collaboration with Andrew Milne, which generated;
o the removal of the Executive Committee and the introduction of the AGS Senate in its place 2016
o the introduction of the AGS Executive Council 2016
o new membership categories and production of the associated revised and additional membership application forms 2016
• 2015-2017: drafted the new Articles of Association with Johanna Jennings
• 2015-2018: Chairman/Leader of the Business Practice Working Group
• 2015-2018: revived liaison with AGS Hong Kong
• 2016: drafted the AGS Complaints Procedure
• 2016: instigated registration of AGS for tax relief on members’ subscriptions
• 2016: wrote the Terms of Reference & modus operandi for most of the AGS’ Working Groups, committees and panels, based on the newly instated bye-laws
• 2017: presented with the first Senate Award in recognition of his further contributions to modernising the governance of AGS

We spoke to John before his biannual trip to Hong Kong, when he hopes to be talking to AGS HK, in continuation of our liaison with them, and managed to extract the following snippet:

“I suppose that the greatest challenge during my 12-year membership of the BPWG has been the updating of the Association’s governance. The review of the AGS and its future direction that took place in 2012-15, enabled the production of completely new Bye-laws in collaboration with Andrew Mine. These led to the need to rewrite the Articles of Association (with Johanna Jennings) to ensure that the two documents were mutually aligned.

Sitting quietly, researching and bashing a keyboard to draft these documents, with their concomitant revisions, changes of thought and amendments, was as nothing when compared to the prospect of putting both the Bye-laws and the new Articles to the vote at successive AGMs. All sorts of possible nightmare scenarios were envisaged, of argumentative – even vitriolic – ‘discussions’ that might potentially happen. This impacted adversely not only on those of us who had written the drafts, but on the entire membership of both the Business Practice Working Group and the Executive Committee where a very considerable amount of fingernail biting resulted. However, in the event and to our immense relief, we were given a very easy ride by the AGS Members at the AGMs, when the two governing documents were voted for acceptance, effectively without quibble – huge sighs of relief all round, not to mention profound thanks to the AGM attendees for their positive support!”

John is also the current Vice-President Chartership of the Geological Society and Chair if its Professional Accreditation Chartership Committees. In his ‘spare time’ he is a Director and Trustee of the Wey & Arun Canal Trust, dedicated to restoring a 19th century derelict canal in Surrey and West Sussex.

This article was featured in the March/April 2018 issue of the AGS Magazine, which can be viewed here.

Report Data Management

AGS Data Management Working Group: March 2018 Meeting Update

- by
Tags: Featured

The first AGS Data Management Working Group meeting of 2018 took place on 7th March 2018 and the Data Management Leader, Jackie Bland of Geotechnics, has provided an update on the top three current issues the Data Management Working Group are discussing.

5 Year Plan
The Data Management Working Group have been discussing their five year plan, in order to know what the Group will be doing during the next five years. The plan was drafted in this meeting.

AGSi / Ground Modelling
Transferring ground models is a holy grail for the Data Management Working Group and the topic has been discussed on and off for the last five years. The sub-group working on this issue has been recently reassembled to continue their good works.

ERES Code Approval
Environmental / Contaminant codes are the key to AGS Data transfer for geoenvironmental laboratories – if there is no code available for a specific contaminant, then no data can be transferred. The AGS Laboratories Working Group and AGS Contaminated Land Working Groups have been informed of this issue and have agreed to take over the process of authorising the codes. However, guidelines will need to be drafted before this can happen.

Report Loss Prevention

AGS Loss Prevention Working Group: January 2018 Meeting Update

- by
Tags: Featured

The first AGS Loss Prevention Working Group meeting of 2018 took place on 23rd January 2018 and the Loss Prevention Leader, Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold, has provided an update on the top three current issues the Loss Prevention Working Group are discussing.

Loss Prevention Guidance (formerly known as the “Tool Kit”)
All the former toolkit papers have now been reviewed, checked and re-drafted. The papers that had become no longer relevant to current practice have been archived. All the other 23 papers will all be re-issued as the “AGS Loss Prevention Guidance – 2017” at AGS Members’ Day on 11th April 2018. (The 2017 date refers to the date the laws and legal citations were checked). The Loss Prevention Guidance is important to the AGS as the Guidance provides a substantial body of advice to members on matters ranging from the basis upon which members are appointed to provide their professional services, the potential for professional liability and how this can be managed, through to the risks of working alone and the implications of the Freedom of Information Act. The Guidance provides essential information for all members and their staff. Knowing that the legal aspects have all been checked for current relevance and up-dated should increase the confidence of member’s employees in dealing with these matters. AGS Members should always aware that specific matters can always be discussed via the AGS legal advice line managed by BLM Solicitors.

Loss Prevention Alerts on the Case of MT Hojgaard AS v E.ON (LPA 65), Construction Act Payment Provisions (LPA 66) and Japanese Knotweed (LPA 67)
These Loss Prevention Alerts have been developed and prepared over the last year. All three LPA’s were published on the AGS website in January and February 2018. The three new Loss Prevention Alerts respond to recent issues that have been raised with or on behalf of the Working Group. They provide members with an explanation of the issues that gave rise to concern and advice as to how to mitigate potential risks. The LPA’s can be downloaded here.

The Shortage of Reservoir Panel Engineers
A Position Paper highlighting the issue of the shortage of reservoir Panel Engineers has been drafted and discussed at AGS Senate. This is not solely an AGS matter of concern and it is proposed for the AGS Chairman to discuss the paper and the issues it raises to the President of the ICE. The shortage of registered Panel Engineers was identified by a member of the Loss Prevention Working Group as a looming problem due to the increased required for inspection of reservoirs, the decreasing number of persons qualified to do so and the difficulties of entry onto the register for young engineers. The position paper to be discussed with the ICE is very much a plea for action to address this gap between the requirements of the regulations and the ability of the wider industry to deliver people with the necessary skills and experience to fulfil those responsibilities.

News

Supporting the Aldous Bill

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS have joined a confederation of almost 70 trade bodies and industry groups to back the so-called ‘Aldous Bill.’

The aim of the Aldous Bill (named after Peter Aldous MP who introduced it), is to change the practice of retentions and protect monies from insolvency; hopefully releasing millions of pounds back into the industry. To put it into perspective, the abuse of retentions has been abandoned by many other countries, including the USA, Germany, France, New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Yet here in the UK, recent government research indicated that £700 million worth of retentions was lost as a result of insolvencies over the past three years. This means that for each working day, the construction industry is haemorrhaging almost £1 million of cash retentions.

This statistic alone justifies urgent intervention to ring-fence the monies, but in the aftermath of the Carillion liquidation, there is an unprecedented campaign from the industry calling on government to act. Proposals to stop the abuse of retentions have been made before, but in January 2018 the Aldous Bill passed its first reading unopposed and as we approach the second reading on April 27th ‘Aldous Bill’ has the broad backing of many industry associations, and cross-party support from over 100 MPs.

For further information, visit the BESA website.