You will learn
Turn your work into a report people can use
You have done the research, walked the site and built the model. Now it needs to become a report that a client, a planner and an engineer can each pick up and act on. This is where good desk studies stand out.
- Structure a desk study report, and write findings that are clear and honest.
- Write limitations and recommendations that a client can act on.
- Check your report before it is issued, the way a reviewer would.
Why it matters
Write for the busiest reader
Different people read a desk study for different reasons:
The client
Wants to know: is there a problem, how big, and what do I need to do next? Often reads only the summary.
The planning officer
Wants to know: is the site suitable, and has a competent person looked at it properly?
The design engineer
Wants the ground model, the hazards and the gaps, to plan the investigation and the design.
The reviewer
Reads everything, and checks that it all agrees. One mistake makes them doubt the rest.
The point
The best report gives each reader what they need, quickly. That means a strong summary, a clear structure, and findings that always say what they mean.
The idea, in plain words
A structure that works
You have already written most of it. Each lesson gave you one section:
| Section | What it contains |
|---|---|
| Summary | One page: the site, the main findings, the main risks and what to do next. Write it last |
| 1. Introduction | The site, what is proposed, and why the study was done (Lesson 1) |
| 2. Scope and approach | The documents followed and the sources used (Lesson 2) |
| 3. Site history | The timeline from old maps and photos, and possible hazards (Lesson 3) |
| 4. Ground and water | Geology, nearby records, groundwater and flooding (Lesson 4) |
| 5. Constraints and hazards | Nature, heritage, gas, mining, radon, UXO and services (Lesson 5) |
| 6. Site walkover | What was seen, compared with the desk findings (Lesson 6) |
| 7. Conceptual site model | Linkages, risk ranking, ground model and zones (Lesson 7) |
| 8. Conclusions and recommendations | What it all means, and what should happen next (this lesson) |
| Limitations | What the report is based on, and what it could not cover (this lesson) |
| References and appendices | Every source with its date, figures, photographs and records |
Many organisations have their own template, and the order varies. Use your organisation’s template if it has one. The content is what matters.
Figures that help every reader: a site location plan, a site plan showing the features you found, extracts from old maps, and a drawing or table of the conceptual site model. Number every figure and refer to it in the text.
The idea, in plain words
Writing findings that are clear and honest
Every finding should give three things: what you found, the evidence, and what it means. Compare these:
Weak
“The site may be potentially contaminated due to previous uses.”
Vague, no evidence, no location, no consequence.
Strong
“Historical maps show fuel tanks near the northern boundary from about 1925 to 1995, and black staining was seen there on the walkover. Fuel contamination of soil and groundwater is likely in this area and should be tested.”
Specific, evidenced, located, and it says what to do.
- Short sentences. One idea in each.
- Say where it came from. “BGS record BH-A, 1960s, 120 m north”, not “records show”.
- Possible, likely or confirmed. Choose the word the evidence supports, and use it consistently.
- Numbers with units. Distances, depths, areas and dates, always with units.
- Plain words first. Explain a technical term the first time you use it.
The idea, in plain words
Recommendations a client can act on
Recommendations are the most read part of the report after the summary. Good ones are:
Specific
What should be done, where on the site, and why.
Tied to the project
Linked to what is being built: the homes, the road, the gardens.
In order
What must happen before the investigation, during it, and in design.
Frame the next steps as design questions
“To understand the ground” does not help anyone. “To decide the foundation type for the homes over the filled pond” does. When every recommendation for investigation answers a question the designers must decide, the investigation gets planned around what matters, and nothing important is left out.
Every high risk needs a recommendation
Go back to your conceptual site model. Each high or moderate linkage should lead to at least one recommendation. If one does not, either the recommendation is missing or the ranking is wrong.
The idea, in plain words
Limitations: being honest about what you know
Every desk study has limits. Stating them protects the reader, and it protects you. Include:
- What the report is based on: existing records, and a walkover on a stated date.
- That no intrusive investigation has been done, so ground conditions are predicted, not proven.
- That records can be incomplete, especially for old services, landfills and private works.
- Any areas you could not reach, and any records you could not get.
- Any information you relied on from others, such as previous reports or conversations.
- That conditions can change over time, so the findings reflect the date of the study.
Limitations are not excuses
A good limitations section is short and specific to the site. A page of general disclaimers copied from another report helps nobody, and reviewers notice.
The idea, in plain words
Check it like a reviewer
Before you issue the report, go through it with this list. Every item comes from problems that turn up again and again in real report reviews.
Reviewers read across sections
A reviewer will compare the introduction with the conclusions, and the tables with the text. A route that is 1.5 km in one section and 2 km in another, or a hole that moves between two tables, does not just cause a comment. It makes the reader doubt everything else. Consistency is what makes a report trusted.
On our site
Finishing the Brindlemere Yard desk study
Here is the summary, written last, and the final section. Every recommendation traces back to a finding from an earlier lesson.
Brindlemere Yard: Desk Study Report (fictional example)
Summary
Brindlemere Yard is a vacant site of about 1.2 hectares beside the River Brindle, proposed for 36 homes. It was used as an iron works and then an engineering works from about 1905, and was demolished by 2005.
Made ground is expected across the site, over soft clay near the river, sand and gravel, and mudstone. Groundwater is likely at about 2 to 3 m. A strip along the eastern boundary is in Flood Zone 3.
The highest possible risks are fuel contamination near the former tanks, ground gas from a filled pond in the south-east corner, and asbestos in demolition rubble. The walkover also found Japanese knotweed, an old drain running to the river, and evidence of a former metal plating shop.
A ground investigation is needed before design. Unexploded ordnance, services and ecology checks should be completed first. The homes should be kept out of Flood Zone 3.
8. Conclusions and recommendations
| Recommendation | Why |
|---|---|
| Before the investigation | |
| Preliminary UXO risk assessment by a specialist | Industrial site in wartime (Section 5) |
| Services survey, including old pipes from the works | Records incomplete; unrecorded drain found (Sections 5, 6) |
| Ecology survey for bats and nesting birds; knotweed management plan | Old sheds, trees and river bank; knotweed seen (Sections 5, 6) |
| Ask the council whether an archaeological watching brief is needed | The iron works is on the HER (Section 5) |
| Investigation contractor to visit before mobilising | Soft ground near the river in wet weather; low line over the side gate (Section 6) |
| Ground investigation, to decide | |
| The foundation type for the homes, including over the filled pond | Variable made ground, soft clay, soft pond fill (Sections 4, 7) |
| Whether contamination needs treatment, and where | Former tanks, plating shop, sidings and drain (Section 7) |
| Whether ground gas protection is needed in the homes | Filled pond and former tip (Section 7) |
| How excavations will deal with groundwater | Groundwater at about 2 to 3 m in sand and gravel (Section 4) |
| Whether demolition rubble contains asbestos | Demolished industrial buildings (Section 7) |
| In design | |
| Keep the homes out of Flood Zone 3 | Flood map (Section 4) |
| Allow for clean cover in gardens and protective water pipes, until the investigation shows otherwise | Possible contamination near the surface (Section 7) |
Limitations
This report is based on publicly available records and a walkover in March after a week of rain. No intrusive investigation has been carried out, so ground conditions are predicted, not proven. The steep river bank was viewed from the top only. Utility records do not show the former works’ pipes. Information about the plating shop came from one conversation with a neighbour and has not been confirmed by records.
Look back over the course
Every line of this summary and table came from one of the earlier lessons. That is what a desk study is: careful research, joined up, and written so that someone can act on it.
Your turn
Finish your own desk study
Task (about 2 hours, at your own pace)
- Put your sections from Lessons 1 to 7 together in the structure above.
- Write your conclusions and recommendations, sorted into before, during and after the investigation, each with a reason.
- Write a short limitations section that is specific to your site.
- Write the one-page summary last.
- Check it with the reviewer’s list, then ask someone else to read it.
Then: the final assessment
When you are ready, the final assessment gives you a new fictional site and a data pack, and you write the desk study from start to finish. It is free to do. If you would like detailed written feedback, you can choose to have it marked.
Quick check
Five quick questions
This is not a test. It simply shows you whether you are ready for the final assessment. Choose an answer to see the explanation.
Key points
What to take away
- Write for the busiest reader: a strong summary, written last.
- Every finding says what was found, the evidence, and what it means.
- Recommendations are specific, tied to the project, in order, and framed as decisions to be made.
- Every high and moderate risk leads to a recommendation.
- Limitations are short, honest and specific to the site.
- Check it like a reviewer, and have someone else read it.
You can now write a desk study
Over eight lessons you have learned what a desk study is, why the rules exist, how to read a site’s history, ground and water, how to find its constraints and hazards, how to walk it, how to make sense of it all, and how to write it up. That is the whole job. Well done.
Your feedback
How was the course?
Please rate the course overall and tell me what worked and what could be better. I read every response, and it shapes what I improve and what I build next.
If you say yes to sharing, I may show your review on my website with your first name only. You can say no and still send your feedback.
Thank you, your feedback has been sent.
Next: the final assessment
Put it all together by writing your own desk study for a new site, using a data pack. It is free to do, and you can choose to have it marked.