{"id":2096,"date":"2025-04-24T15:34:42","date_gmt":"2025-04-24T15:34:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/?p=2096"},"modified":"2025-04-24T15:35:45","modified_gmt":"2025-04-24T15:35:45","slug":"soakaway-testing-suds-solutions-guide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/soakaway-testing-suds-solutions-guide\/","title":{"rendered":"Comprehensive Guide to Soakaway Tests and Sustainable Drainage Systems"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Soakaways are increasingly recognised as an essential component of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), playing a critical role in modern urban planning and development. However, the reality of implementing a soakaway system is far more complex than the common perception of a simple buried reservoir filled with gravel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Understanding Soakaways and Their Importance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>A soakaway typically functions as an underground reservoir, collecting excess water and gradually allowing it to infiltrate the surrounding soil. While seemingly straightforward, proper soakaway design requires detailed infiltration tests to ensure efficiency and compliance with local regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Soakaway Tests: BRE 365 Method<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The BRE 365 Soakaway Test is the most commonly referenced method for assessing soil infiltration potential:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Procedure:<\/strong> A trial pit, usually 2.5 meters deep, is excavated, filled with water to approximately 1 meter depth, and the rate of water drainage is measured.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Complexity:<\/strong> The full BRE 365 method recommends conducting three separate tests, each lasting up to 24 hours, potentially requiring up to five days for comprehensive data.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Industry Practice:<\/strong> Given the extensive time and cost, many industries adopt a condensed version of this test, typically running a single test for around eight hours, an approach frequently accepted by local planning authorities.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-media-text is-stacked-on-mobile\"><figure class=\"wp-block-media-text__media\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"data:image\/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP\/\/\/yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7\" data-src=\"http:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/IMG-20240130-WA0003-768x1024.webp\" alt=\"soakaway test\" class=\"wp-image-2097 size-full lazyload\"\/><noscript><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"768\" height=\"1024\" src=\"http:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/IMG-20240130-WA0003-768x1024.webp\" alt=\"soakaway test\" class=\"wp-image-2097 size-full lazyload\"\/><\/noscript><\/figure><div class=\"wp-block-media-text__content\">\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Challenges with BRE 365 Tests<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>A significant limitation of the BRE 365 test emerges when dealing with clay-heavy soils, where the water level fails to reach the required 25% mark to calculate infiltration accurately. This limitation often leads to an erroneous conclusion that a site is unsuitable for a soakaway, despite potentially viable drainage conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Alternative Methods: Borehole Infiltration Tests (BS5930)<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Due to limitations of the BRE 365 method, alternative approaches like Borehole Infiltration Tests (BS5930) have become popular:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Applicability:<\/strong> This method enables deeper infiltration analysis, making it suitable for sites initially failing BRE 365 tests and facilitating the construction of borehole soakaways that tap into deeper, more permeable strata.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Advantages:<\/strong> Boreholes assess infiltration over a deeper geological profile, providing a reliable infiltration rate even under challenging conditions.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Specialised Approach: BS6297 Method<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Additionally, the BS6297 method caters specifically to small-scale wastewater treatment systems like septic tanks, reflecting its specialised application in certain development contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">GeoEnviro Solutions: Expert Soakaway Assessments<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>GeoEnviro Solutions specialises in comprehensive soakaway testing and system design. Our experienced team applies advanced testing methods, including <a href=\"https:\/\/www.boreholesolutions.co.uk\/blog\/why-do-i-need-bre365-testing\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">BRE 365<\/a>, BS5930, and BS6297, ensuring accurate assessments and optimal drainage solutions tailored to your project&#8217;s specific geological conditions. Learn more about soakaways: <a href=\"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/5-reasons-you-need-a-soakaway\/\">5 Reasons You Need a Soakaway: The Essential Guide to Water Management<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Contact GeoEnviro Solutions Today<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Take the first step toward efficient, sustainable drainage. Contact GeoEnviro Solutions to learn how our soakaway solutions can benefit your property and the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Contact us<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/contact-us\/\"> today<\/a><\/strong> to optimise your property&#8217;s drainage efficiency with professional soakaway testing and installation from GeoEnviro Solutions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Soakaways are increasingly recognised as an essential component of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), playing a critical role in modern urban planning and development. However, the reality of implementing a soakaway system is far more complex than the common perception of a simple buried reservoir filled with gravel. Understanding Soakaways and Their Importance A soakaway typically [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><strong>By Andrew Dickinson, Associate Director at GeoEnviro Solutions<\/strong><\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Following the introduction of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities have been legally obligated to identify and manage land affected by contamination. The primary mechanism for addressing this issue has been through the planning system, utilizing conditions attached to planning approvals.<\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading -->\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Understanding Land Contamination vs. Contaminated Land<\/h2>\n<!-- \/wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>It is important to clarify terminology. While many refer to 'contaminated land,' this term has a strict legal definition under Part 2A, requiring mandatory remediation overseen by the Environment Agency. To avoid confusion, professionals in the field refer to 'land contamination' or 'land containing contamination.'<\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading -->\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Evolution of Guidance: From CLR11 to LCRM<\/h2>\n<!-- \/wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Government guidance dictates the application and management of contamination conditions. Previously, this was outlined in CLR11 (Contaminated Land Report No. 11), but since October 2020, it has been replaced by LCRM (Land Contamination Risk Management), which remains in force. Despite this change, industry terminology such as \"Phase I\" is still commonly used.<\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading -->\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Step-by-Step LCRM Process<\/h2>\n<!-- \/wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>LCRM establishes a structured approach to land contamination assessment:<\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":4} -->\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Stage 1: Risk Assessment<\/strong><\/h4>\n<!-- \/wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li><strong>Preliminary Risk Assessment<\/strong> (PRA):<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Historical data review (e.g., Ordnance Survey maps, regulatory data)<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Site reconnaissance visit (walkover)<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Online portal data analysis (e.g., Coal Authority, Environment Agency, UXO search)<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Development of a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to evaluate pollutant linkages<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Outcome: Determine whether risks are acceptable or if further investigation is needed<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><\/ul>\n<!-- \/wp:list --><\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li><strong>Generic Qualitative Risk Assessment<\/strong> (GQRA) (commonly known as Phase II Site Investigation):<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Soil sampling and chemical analysis<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Hazardous gas monitoring<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Validation against Soil Guidance Values (SGVs)<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Outcome: If contamination is negligible, no further action is needed; otherwise, remediation may be required<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><\/ul>\n<!-- \/wp:list --><\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li><strong>Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment<\/strong> (DQRA):<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Rarely required but involves in-depth risk modeling<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Often bypassed in favor of moving directly to remediation<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><\/ul>\n<!-- \/wp:list --><\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><\/ul>\n<!-- \/wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":4} -->\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Stage 2: Options Appraisal<\/strong><\/h4>\n<!-- \/wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Identification of feasible remediation options<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Detailed evaluation of each option<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Selection of the most effective and cost-efficient remediation strategy<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><\/ul>\n<!-- \/wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading {\"level\":4} -->\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Stage 3: Remediation and Verification<\/strong><\/h4>\n<!-- \/wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Implementation of the selected remediation strategy<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Comprehensive record-keeping of remediation activities<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Production of a <strong>Validation Report<\/strong> for regulatory approval<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><\/ul>\n<!-- \/wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>The Validation Report is essential in confirming that the site has been appropriately remediated. Even if no contamination was found, planning authorities often require documentation verifying that no previously unidentified contamination was encountered.<\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading -->\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Compliance and Competency Requirements<\/h2>\n<!-- \/wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>To conduct land contamination assessments, a <strong>'Competent Person'<\/strong> is required, as defined in Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). A Competent Person must meet one or more of the following criteria:<\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:list -->\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>A <strong>Suitably Qualified Person (SQP)<\/strong> under the National Quality Mark Scheme (NQMS)<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Accreditation from the <strong>SoBRA<\/strong> scheme<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Recognition as a <strong>Specialist in Land Condition (SiLC)<\/strong><\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Membership in a professional organization relevant to land contamination<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Certification under the <strong>Gas Protection Verification Scheme (GPVS)<\/strong><\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item -->\n\n<!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Demonstrated experience in managing land contamination<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><\/ul>\n<!-- \/wp:list -->\n\n<!-- wp:heading -->\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why Choose GeoEnviro Solutions?<\/h2>\n<!-- \/wp:heading -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>At GeoEnviro Solutions, we meet and exceed these competency requirements. As leaders in the field, we align our remediation and validation strategies with guidance from the <strong>Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Pollution Advisory Group (YALPAG)<\/strong>\u2014a trusted authority comprised of local government contaminated land teams. Our extensive industry experience enables us to provide effective, regulatory-compliant, and cost-efficient solutions for land contamination issues.<\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>For expert consultation on land contamination assessments, contact <strong>GeoEnviro Solutions<\/strong> today. Our team ensures compliance with planning regulations while optimizing risk management strategies for developers and stakeholders alike.<\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[64,62,65,61,63],"class_list":["post-2096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog","tag-contaminated-land-management","tag-environmental-planning-regulations","tag-geoenviro-solutions-environmental-consulting","tag-land-contamination-risk-assessment","tag-remediation-and-validation-reports"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2096","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2096"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2096\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2101,"href":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2096\/revisions\/2101"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/growth-labs.dev\/geobu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}