Lengard Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road Fiddlers Hamlet

HERTS & ESSEX SITE INVESTIGATIONS ‘THE OLD POST OFFICE’, WELLPOND GREEN, TELEPHONE 01920 822233 STANDON, WARE, HERTS, SG11 1NJ FAX 01920 822200

GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS – ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - DESKTOP STUDY – CONTAMINATED LAND

Report For :

Lengard

PHASE IV –VALIDATION REPORT Planning Number EPF/0735/15 Epping Forest District Council

Site location :

Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG

April 2018 Report No. 13843

Registered No 2203445. A Division of Warren House Limited. V.A.T Registered No 538 5788 89

INDEX

DOCUMENT INFORMATION AND CONTROL SHEET ...... iii REPORT ISSUE RECORD ...... iv 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Aims and objectives ...... 1

1.2 Current Planning Status ...... 1

1.3 Site Details ...... 2

1.4 Previous Reporting ...... 2

1.5 Proposed Site Development ...... 3

1.6 Review of Reports ...... 3

1.6.1 Site Description – Historic Inspection ...... 3

1.6.2 Brief Site History ...... 3

1.6.3 Desk Top Study Conclusions ...... 3

1.6.4 Scope of site investigation Works completed - Preliminary Testing ...... 5

1.7 Conceptual Site Model ...... 7

2 Remediation ...... 11 2.1 Remediation Proposals ...... 11

2.2 Soft Landscaping Areas – Front of site – See Figure 2 ...... 11

2.3 Below Building ...... 12

2.4 Water Main Pipework ...... 12

2.5 Works to be Validated by HESI ...... 12

2.6 Works to be Validated by Third Parties ...... 12

3.0 Validation ...... 13 3.1 Validation Works Completed by HESI ...... 13

3.2 Conclusions ...... 17

DOCUMENT INFORMATION AND CONTROL SHEET

Client : Client Contact :

Lengard Cambridge House, Cambridge Rd, Cheshunt, Harlow CM20 2EQ

Environmental Consultants : Project Manager :

Herts & Essex Site Investigations. C.S.G The Old Post Office, Wellpond Green, Principal Author : Standon, Ware, C.S.G Hertfordshire.

Tel : 01920 822233 Fax : 01920 822200 E-Mail : [email protected] Web : http://www.hesi.co.uk

Qualifications

C.S.Gray

 ONC, HNC, P.G.Cert, P.G.Dip, M.Sc, (Geotechnical Engineering)  SNIFFER modelling course  CONSIM Groundwater Assessment Course.  (28 Years in Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering)  Asbestos Awareness Course;  Non-Licensed Work with Asbestos Including NNLW.  Site Supervisors Safety Training Scheme, (SSSTS).

Document Status and Approval Schedule

Technical review by : Checked By : Prepared by : Rebecca Chamberlain Rebecca Chamberlain Issue No Status Date Chris Gray Martyn Smith Chris Gray Signature / Date Signature / Date Signature / Date

1 Final

iii

REPORT ISSUE RECORD

As part of Herts & Essex Site Investigations approved Quality Management System, the company is required to document the issue of all reports to provide the client with a traceable control mechanism to prevent the issue of unauthorised copies.

All final copy reports are issued to the client on paper headed with Herts & Essex Site Investigations to assist in the identification of copied reports. Additionally, final copies are printed ‘Velum’ coloured paper for easy identification of final copy reports.

Notwithstanding the above, clients are at liberty to make copies of full or parts of these reports as they see fit, should they wish to do so. Additional controlled copies of documents may be supplied upon request, although, may be charged for, dependent upon the number of copies.

Please note, this reports has not been sent to the Local Authority, NHBC or Environment Agency with only the below issues made. Should copies be required for sending the relevant authorities, this can be undertaken upon request.

Controlled copies of this report have been issued according to the following schedule :-

Issue No. of Recipient Type Date No copies 1 1 HESI, (File Copy) Paper 1 March 2018 2 1 Lengard Paper 1 March 2018 3 1 Lengard PDF 1 March 2018 4 5 6 7 8

iv Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Aims and objectives At the request of Lengard Ltd, Herts & Essex Site Investigations have been employed to undertake validation works within the site in order to provide evidence and documentation to support the removal of any risk from the site development as a result of site investigation works undertaken and risk assessments completed as a result of these investigations. The main objectives of the remediation works and validation works undertaken are as follows:  To anticipate regulatory action and provide necessary data to remove risk;  To assess the site for Part IIA;  To ensure development is ‘suitable for use’ status, (status being residential land use);  To assess the site in other regulatory contexts;  To inform acquisition, transfer or sale plans;  To support funding decisions;  For valuation purposes;  For insurance purposes

1.2 Current Planning Status

An application has been submitted to EFDC which confirms the Demolition of the existing barns buildings and structures and the construction of two new dwellings. This falls under planning application number EPF/0735/15 and relates to a varied planning history in which the site has essentially been used as Farm and buildings with a garage use also shown.

Evidence of a historic use is shown to include :-

 Ordnance Depot;  Agricultural;  Wood Working.

Reference : CSG / 13743 Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet, Epping. CM16 7PG Page 2

Consultation with Local Authority

Limited consultation has taken place with the Local Authority although, we understand that some consultation has taken place between the client, (Lengard), and the Environmental Health Officer.

Lengard has also prepared a remediation strategy report to provide appropriate mitigation against human health risks associated with soil contamination. This has been previously submitted to the Local Authority for approval.

1.3 Site Details The site is located within a farm complex within agricultural land on the outskirts of Roydon, the details of which are summarised in Table 1 with the location plan of the site shown in Appendix 2, Sheet 1.

Table 1 Site Detail Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet, Epping. Site Address : CM16 7PG Site assessed under Site owners instruction

Current use of land : Vacant Farm Buildings Previous use of site, (if As Above known) Grid Reference NGR 547242, 200860

Site Area Unknown

Local Authority Epping Forest District Council The site area slopes down from the north of the site to the south of the Gradient of the site site Proximity of Controlled The nearest surface water feature is recorded as 100 meters to the Waters, (if known) south of the site

1.4 Previous Reporting The extent of former report which has been undertaken relating to the site is confirmed as follows :- Table 2 Report Details Submitted to Approved by Developed by with Report Date Local Local Reference Authority Authority

Planning Application Number PA/10/02578

August 2016

Desk Top Study Innervision Design Ltd th Yes Yes Approved 26 October 2016 August 2016 Environmental Innervision Design Ltd th Yes Yes Report Approved 26 October 2016 November 2016 Remediation Lengard st Yes Yes Letter Report Approved 21 April 201 In order to gain a full understanding of the site and site history, a review of these documents should be made.

Reference : CSG / 13743 Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet, Epping. CM16 7PG Page 3

1.5 Proposed Site Development Demolition of existing buildings and structures, and erection of 2 new dwellings.

1.6 Review of Reports

1.6.1 Site Description – Historic Inspection A Desk Top Study report compiled by AGB Environmental Ltd which has been submitted and approved by the Local Authority.

The ground conditions have been reviewed using on line BGS mapping which can confirm that the site is recorded as within an area of Alluvium with Kempton Park Gravel also recorded in place

1.6.2 Brief Site History The site has been identified as open land which has a pond in the northern section of the site until 1955 when a building is recorded in place to the north eastern section of the site. In 1969 additional buildings are developed around the site with no further changes identified.

The surrounding area was developed for predominantly as housing and farms with the land to the west and north remaining undeveloped. It is not clear from the historical mapping or the site walkover during what period the land use altered from agricultural to the current site use.

1.6.3 Desk Top Study Conclusions Considering the assessment of the site to incorporate the walk over survey, historical mapping and environmental searches undertaken, we can confirm that risks identified in place form :-

Reference : CSG / 13743 Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet, Epping. CM16 7PG Page 4

Table 3 Preliminary Site Model

Source Pathway Receptor Potential Risk Detail

Possible Inhalation of dust, Based upon implementing adequate health and safety measures in accordance with current Site workers Low to negligible guidance. contaminants ingestion and within soil / dermal contact from End users are considered to be at low to moderate risk due to the possible presence of groundwater, exposure to Low to moderate contaminants within soil and soil dust as a consequence of current and / or former site uses, End users including and any contaminated soils. risk in particular from the possible presence of hydrocarbons, VOCs, SVOCs or PAH Made Ground on contaminants within soil. site: Drinking water via buried pipework is considered to be at low to moderate risk of being Low to moderate affected due to the possible presence of hydrocarbons, VOCs, SVOCs or PAH contaminants Impacted soils Services within soil. It is considered unlikely that metals and asbestos containing materials within the Metal, Polycyclic risk soil will affect the potable water supply. Aromatic Hydrocarbons Low to moderate Possible contaminants may have been leached from contaminated soil into the underlying Groundwater (PAH)s, Leaching of risk Secondary (A) Aquifer. Petroleum contaminants Hydrocarbons, through soil. Low to moderate VOCs, SVOCs Surface water The nearest recorded surface water feature is present 69m from the site. risk

Based upon implementing adequate health and safety measures in accordance with current Inhalation of dust, Site workers Negligible risk ingestion and guidance. dermal contact from exposure to Possible Low to moderate End users are considered to be at low to moderate risk as an electricity sub-station is adjacent contaminated soils. End Users contaminants risk the site. within soil / groundwater: Low to moderate Drinking water via buried pipework is considered to be at low to moderate risk due to an Impacted Soils Services electricity sub-station being located adjacent to the site. However, based upon the likely age Hydrocarbons and / risk of the substation it may be applicable to reduce this risk level to low. or Polychlorinated PCBs are of very low solubility and are therefore considered unlikely to significantly affect the biphenyls (PCBs) Groundwater Low Risk Leaching of groundwater, if present within soil. contaminants through soil. A tributary of the River Roding is approximately 70m south of the study site. If there was a Surface Water Low Risk defined and significant leak of oils from the substation this risk level may be considered high.

Reference : CSG / 13743 Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet, Epping. CM16 7PG Page 5

1.6.4 Scope of site investigation Works completed - Preliminary Testing

An environmental assessment was carried out, which included the current site area as submitted with Epping Forest District Council. No actual site works have been undertaken within the site with the site assessment completed through a broad visual assessment which has confirmed a worst case scenario risk considering human health risk.

HESI Phase Investigation.

The client had prepared an original remediation strategy which confirmed thoughts that the rear section of the site did not record any significant historical use. Additionally, the soils within the site did not identify any features which would promote a risk. We have completed inspections of the site which confirm our thoughts are similar that no obvious contamination risk is in place.

A clear and defined geological barrier between the 'Clean' ground and what is considered to be the 'Contaminated' ground is in place which has been demarked on the plans provided and recovered from our visual inspection of the site.

In order to classify the risks, 9No samples have been recovered from the site to consider Asbestos risk specifically from the idealised 'Clean Section' and additionally 2No Samples to assess the soils for full suite analysis. 1No sample has also been recovered from a section of soil which looked recently disturbed topsoil material which was undertaken to prove the contamination status of this soil and see whether the 'Clean' zone could be extended.

Figure 1 Existing Site Plan with Sample Locations

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 6

HESI Results

Based on the results obtained, we can confirm that the rear section of the site confirms no elevated levels of Asbestos and again, no elevated pollution of the standard environmental suite were also recorded and as such, no risk is in place.

Considering the additional sample recovered, we can confirm that the disturbed topsoil at the front section of the 'Clean Zone' recorded elevated Lead and as such, risk is classed as in place to this material and should be included in the 'Remediation Cell' for the main section of the site.

General Source Risk Conclusions and Gaps in information

The Site

 Assumed widespread risk across the front section of the site as detailed on the enclosed plans, (see Figure 2);

 No risk identified across the rear section of the site where appropriate density sampling has been completed for Asbestos, (9 samples), and Standard environmental suites, (2 samples).

 Vapour risk must be assumed to be in place which will include a gas barrier installed in all habitable structures to a Gas Situation 2.

 Water main pipework should be installed as a Protecta-line pipework.

 Clean cover systems should be installed in all areas of soft landscaping;

Figure 2

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 7

1.7 Conceptual Site Model In order to assess the potential risks posed to human health and the surrounding environment from the site condition, a Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment has been used to consider whether risk is in place. This uses Source Pathway Receptor risk assessment methodology in accordance with CLR11. The summary conceptual site model developed within the ground investigation reports has been re created below :-

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 8 Table 8 Risk Assessment A Source Receptors Pathway Mitigation / Discussion

PAH’s Site Users, (current and future); Direct contact Construction Workers; Adjacent Site Users, Fauna. Risks identified across front of site, (See Figure 1) Ingestion dust and soil Ingestion of soils attached to vegetation Inhalation of asbestos fibers Not Applicable Inhalation of vapours, (gas and organic) No vapour risk from PAH contamination identified* Explosive risk from Land Gas Not Applicable Ingestion of contaminated water through water No risk in place from PAH contamination identified* main pipework Inhalation of vapours through contaminated ground waters No vapour risk from PAH contamination identified* Direct contact with contaminated ground waters Surface Water. Lateral migration of shallow groundwater to a target receptor. On site soils do not pose a significant risk to ground waters or surface waters. Ground Water; Migration through fissures / cracks which may Abstraction Well. migrate to a groundwater receptor. Plants; Plant uptake; Plant Risks are considered Low based on assessments with Vegetation. Direct contact. ICRCL old exposure levels. No specific plant risk assessment criteria in place Buildings; Direct contact with contaminated soils; PAH’s pose a low risk to the built environment. Construction Materials. Direct contact with contaminated groundwater No groundwater contamination is likely * Some PAH pollutants can form Volatile Organic Compounds, although, none of the identified pollution forms a VOC

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 9

Table 7 Risk Assessment B Source Receptors Pathway Mitigation / Discussion

Metals Site Users, (current and future); Direct contact Construction Workers; Adjacent Site Users, Fauna. Risks identified across front of site, (See Figure 1). Ingestion dust and soil Ingestion of soils attached to vegetation Inhalation of asbestos fibers Not Applicable Inhalation of vapours, (gas and organic) No vapour risk from Metal contamination identified* Explosive risk from Land Gas Not Applicable Ingestion of contaminated water through water No risk in place from Metal contamination identified* main pipework Inhalation of vapours through contaminated ground waters No vapour risk from Metal contamination identified* Direct contact with contaminated ground waters Surface Water. Lateral migration of shallow groundwater to a target receptor. On site soils do not pose a significant risk to ground waters or surface waters. Ground Water; Migration through fissures / cracks which may Abstraction Well. migrate to a groundwater receptor. Plants; Plant uptake; Plant Risks are considered Low based on assessments with Vegetation. Direct contact. ICRCL old exposure levels. No specific plant risk assessment criteria in place Buildings; Direct contact with contaminated soils; PAH’s pose a low risk to the built environment. Construction Materials. Direct contact with contaminated groundwater No groundwater contamination is anticipated based on leaching tests. EA confirm no risk.

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 10

Table 8 Risk Assessment C Source Receptors Pathway Mitigation / Discussion

Land Gases CO2 Site Users, (current and future); Inhalation of vapours, (gas and organic) Mitigation measures should be installed Construction Workers; Adjacent Site Users, Fauna. Levels recorded within the site do not promote this risk to be Explosive risk from Land Gas in place

Table 9 Risk Assessment D Source Receptors Pathway Mitigation / Discussion

Asbestos Site Users, (current and future); Construction Workers; Adjacent Site Users, Risks identified across front of site, (See Figure 1). Complete Inhalation of Fibers Fauna. full remediation and validation.

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 11

2 Remediation

2.1 Remediation Proposals This section provides summary of the remediation proposals set out in the Remediation Strategy Report. The proposed site layout will not change to any extent. The site currently forms communal open space and will be retained as communal open space. As such, no specific changes are recorded in place. Whilst this is the case, remediation will be required where contamination has been identified in place, as detailed in Figure 2. The scope of works based on end use will be recorded as follows :-

Soft Landscaping Excavation and removal of soils to remove in full all contaminated soil and validate. Front of the site ONLY

Hard Landscaping, (Roads, No Action. Pavements)

Under Buildings Install Gas mitigation measures to Land Gas 2 Scenario – Building Control to Validate. The strategy adopted for the remediation of the site are defined as follows :-

2.2 Soft Landscaping Areas – Front of site – See Figure 2  The extent of contamination has been selected based on a detailed sampling density within the communal space area and defines a section to the front of the site which requires remediation due to the elevated levels of metals and PAH's and the potential for Asbestos, (although, this has not been proven);  The selected remediation proposal for the area has been chosen based on speed and economical choices and forms excavation and disposal of the identified contamination to an off site landfill. The excavations will extend to the full remediation cell as detailed by all previous sampling completed at the site;  All soils within each remediation cells will be excavated in full and removed directly from the site via a local haulier. All muck away certificates will be retained for inclusion in a verification report and to confirm that the soils have been disposed of in an appropriate manner;  Photographic evidence should then be recovered from each remediation cell from a number of angles which should depict the size and scale of the remediation cell is appropriate and in line with that proposed within the previous reporting prepared and submitted;  Validation sampling should be completed from the base of the remediation cell at appropriate centres based on the size and scale of the excavation. We would also confirm that sampling must be completed from uniform soils recorded as present across the sides of the excavation. Any soils which exhibit signs of contamination or differ from that of the other soils exposed at the sides of the excavation should also be sampled and tested where appropriate;  As such, a visual and olfactoral appraisal of the remediation cell should be undertaken by a competent person to confirm that the soils which are proposed to remain in place do not pose a serious risk to human health;  Upon completion of the validation sampling, any and all soils should be placed in appropriate containers dependent upon the proposed testing scheme, (likely to form plastic tubs). These samples should then be placed in a cool box in order to preserve the sample;  Chemical analysis should be completed to identify contamination concentrations for the identified pollutants originally recorded, (Lead and PAH's);

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 12

 The remediation strategy will then incorporate an assessment of these validation samples and where risk identified, additional remediation works undertaken. Where no contamination is identified and the validation samples confirm no risk, the excavation can be backfilled with clean and inert soils to the desired finished ground level;  All data should be retained for inclusion and submission in a validation report, (i.e. this report).

2.3 Below Building

 Install gas mitigation measures to a land gas scenario 2. All of these works will be validated by Building Control.

2.4 Water Main Pipework  Install water main pipework in Protecta-Line pipework and provide validation of its route. .

2.5 Works to be Validated by HESI Validation works are required in order to provide the lines of evidence that the contamination risk identified within all reporting up until the preparation of this report have been removed and that the development is fit for the proposed end use of residential land use.  Validation that any soils which expose clean ground sample that ground for confirmation that the risk associated with the soils which potentially remain in place are below a human health risk level;  Confirmation that any soils brought onto the site do not exceed the human health criteria for residential land use standards through appropriate certification and / or assessment.

2.6 Works to be Validated by Third Parties Additional validation work will be required by third parties as set out in Lengard’s Remediation statement which we understand has been approved by Local Authority. This is detailed below :-  Mitigation against potential Ordnance Discovery – This will include an Ordnance awareness briefing for the site manager and all ground staff. It will additionally include the UXO Specialist using a magnetometer to assess any and all excavations to confirm absence of any ordnance materials.

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 13

3.0 Validation

3.1 Validation Works Completed by HESI Herts & Essex Site investigations were asked to undertake site inspections at strategic points in the construction of the entire development. This was completed and recorded the following :-

Under Buildings Validated by others – Building Control at Epping Forest District Council. Landscaping General  The client was informed through a reporting as to the location of the identified contamination;  The client was then advised of the specific requirements in place to remove any risk associated with the contamination identified;  All investigation works completed have confirmed the extent of contamination in place and detailed where remediation works are required in full. No additional site investigation works are required and the areas defined as remediation cells have been approved as full and final;  The depth of removal of soils has been confirmed full removal of any and all made ground and / or any materials which have a potential visual or olfactoral risk in place from contaminated land. The remediation works will remove in FULL, any and all contamination from areas proposed for soft landscaping.  Validation Photographs

Validation of the West section of the site.

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 14

Validation photo showing removal of made ground through foundation excavation

Validation photo of a Northern view of the site

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 15

Validation photo showing removal of made ground through foundation excavation

Validation photo of the reduced dig at the front of the site

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 16

Specific Validation Completed

Validation Samples have been recovered from the site. These validation works are as follows :-

Table 6 Validation Testing Location Validation Completed Comments Validation Samples A1 and A2 were recovered from this area after VAL- A Validation Sample Fails further remediation works were completed. This confirmed risk is subsequently removed. VAL- B

VAL- C

VAL- D

VAL- E All samples confirm low risk – Full Validation Samples Pass removal of contamination risk has VAL- F been completed from these areas.

VAL- G

VAL- H

VAL- I

Validation sampling has been detailed above and confirm that the risks from the site were not initially passed in Validation Sample A, although, the additional sampling from Validation Samples A1 and A2 after further remediation works were completed confirmed low risks.

Figure 3 Validation Sampling Locations

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG Page 17

Topsoil Importing

Topsoil has been brought onto the site and placed in areas of soft landscaping. Topsoil testing has been supplied by the client to confirm the level and extent of risk, although, this is restricted to supplier chemical data and has not been sampled by ourselves. As such, HESI do not confirm the validation of the topsoil and would place this reliance on the supplier.

Excavated Soils

Any excavated soils were disposed off-site to a suitable landfill via an external haulier. Muck Away certificates have been included within this report.

Water Main Pipework

Water main pipework has been installed using Protecta-Line pipework, although, no details of this installation have been provided. A site plan has been provided showing the water main route within the site area.

3.2 Conclusions This report forms a validation report for the completion of the site area with a residential land use.

Two sections of land were recorded in place, an area free of contamination within the rear of the site area and the remaining area of the site classed as contaminated where full removal of all made ground has been completed, with photo and validation samples collected to confirm this.

Protective pipework and land gas mitigation measures have been installed.

It is not proposed to undertake any long term monitoring or maintenance programmes within the site.

We can confirm that no permanent installations are in place within the site.

Reference : CSG/ REM / 13843 Home Farm Barns Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet Epping CM16 7PG

APPENDIX ONE

SITE PLANS

HERTS & ESSEX SITE INVESTIGATIONS

THE OLD POST OFFICE’, WELLPOND GREEN, TELEPHONE 01920 822233 STANDON, WARE, HERTS, SG11 1NJ FAX 01920 822200

APPENDIX FOUR

MUCK AWAY TICKETS

APPENDIX TWO

SOFT LANDSCAPING VALIDATION

Sampling and Chain of Custody Record

Tel. 01638 606070 Fax: 01638 606071 Email: [email protected]

Client: Project Code Type of Analysis Herts and Essex Site Investigations 13843 Office: Quote No. Suite / Determinand Purchase order No. The Old Post Office, Wellpond Green, Standon, Ware Project Manager Herts SG11 1DJ Chris Gray Site Name: Contact Details Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers Hamlet,Tel.no. Epping, Essex. 01920 833322 CM16 7PG Email:[email protected] Asbestos Asbestos Container MCERTS Sample Reference Information Matrix HESI Suite 1 Type Sample Sample Sample Depth PT/PB/AJ/ Location Depth 2 Soil Water Other Date Time No. 1 AB/V 1 15 11 17 Val A PT   2 15 11 17 Val B PT   3 15 11 17 Val C PT   4 15 11 17 Val D PT   5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 Total No. Of tests 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMMENTS:

Sampler Sign Date/ Time Received Sign Take Copy, pass Turnaround Time Chemtest Use Only on original Agreed, days Relinquished Sign Date/ Time Received Sign Take Copy, pass Sample Receipt Temps, °C Trip blanks, Y/N on original 3 5 Relinquished Sign Date/ Time Chemtest Received Sign Original to be retained in Job Condition of Sample Containers: Folder Chemtest Ltd. Depot Road Newmarket CB8 0AL Tel: 01638 606070 Email: [email protected] Final Report

Report No.: 17-30873-1

Initial Date of Issue: 24-Nov-2017

Client Herts & Essex Site Investigations

Client Address: The Old Post Office Wellpond Green Standon Ware Hertfordshire SG11 1NJ

Contact(s): Chris Gray Rebecca Chamberlain

Project 13843 Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers H

Quotation No.: Date Received: 21-Nov-2017

Order No.: Date Instructed: 21-Nov-2017

No. of Samples: 4

Turnaround (Wkdays): 3 Results Due: 23-Nov-2017

Date Approved: 24-Nov-2017

Approved By:

Details: Martin Dyer, Laboratory Manager

Page 1 of 5 Results - Soil

Project: 13843 Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road, Fiddlers H Client: Herts & Essex Site Chemtest Job No.: 17-30873 17-30873 17-30873 17-30873 Investigations Quotation No.: Chemtest Sample ID.: 542059 542060 542061 542062 Order No.: Client Sample Ref.: Val A Val B Val C Val D Sample Type: SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL Date Sampled: 15-Nov-2017 15-Nov-2017 15-Nov-2017 15-Nov-2017 Asbestos Lab: COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY Determinand Accred. SOP Units LOD ACM Type U 2192 N/A - - - - No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos Asbestos Identification U 2192 % 0.001 Detected Detected Detected Detected Moisture N 2030 % 0.020 21 17 18 23 Stones and Removed Materials N 2030 % 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 Soil Colour N 2040 N/A Brown Brown Brown Brown Other Material N 2040 N/A NONE NONE NONE NONE Soil Texture N 2040 N/A Clay Loam Loam Clay pH M 2010 N/A 7.8 6.1 5.7 7.7 Electrical Conductivity (2:1) N 2020 µS/cm 1.0 290 310 200 230 Boron (Hot Water Soluble) M 2120 mg/kg 0.40 0.94 0.67 0.68 0.74 Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 M 2120 g/l 0.010 < 0.010 0.047 < 0.010 < 0.010 Cyanide (Free) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 Cyanide (Total) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 Sulphate (Total) M 2430 % 0.010 0.065 0.051 0.055 0.036 Arsenic M 2450 mg/kg 1.0 9.4 8.1 9.9 11 Cadmium M 2450 mg/kg 0.10 0.71 < 0.10 0.19 0.20 Copper M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 23 19 24 24 Mercury M 2450 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Nickel M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 24 15 17 34 Lead M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 100 100 120 54 Zinc M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 96 93 150 98 Chromium (Trivalent) N 2490 mg/kg 1.0 35 30 32 48 Chromium (Hexavalent) N 2490 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 Organic Matter M 2625 % 0.40 5.2 1.7 2.9 1.9 Naphthalene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Acenaphthylene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Acenaphthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Fluorene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Phenanthrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 0.39 < 0.10 0.32 0.20 Anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 1.0 0.28 0.47 0.46 Pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 1.1 0.25 0.49 0.49 Benzo[a]anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 0.62 < 0.10 0.16 0.23 Chrysene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 1.0 < 0.10 0.30 0.25 Benzo[b]fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 0.89 < 0.10 0.25 0.23 Benzo[k]fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 0.53 < 0.10 0.15 0.11 Benzo[a]pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 0.75 < 0.10 0.23 0.23 Page 2 of 5 Results - Soil

Page 3 of 5 Test Methods

SOP Title Parameters included Method summary 2010 pH Value of Soils pH pH Meter

Electrical conductivity (EC) of aqueous extract Measurement of the electrical resistance of a 2020 Electrical Conductivity or calcium sulphate solution for topsoil 2:1 water/soil extract.

Moisture and Stone Content of Determination of moisture content of soil as a 2030 Soils(Requirement of Moisture content percentage of its as received mass obtained at MCERTS) <37°C.

Soil Description(Requirement of As received soil is described based upon 2040 Soil description MCERTS) BS5930

Water Soluble Boron, Sulphate, 2120 Boron; Sulphate; Magnesium; Chromium Aqueous extraction / ICP-OES Magnesium & Chromium

2192 Asbestos Asbestos Polarised light microscopy / Gravimetry Allkaline extraction followed by colorimetric Cyanides & Thiocyanate in Free (or easy liberatable) Cyanide; total 2300 determination using Automated Flow Injection Soils Cyanide; complex Cyanide; Thiocyanate Analyser. Acid digestion followed by determination of 2430 Total Sulphate in soils Total Sulphate sulphate in extract by ICP-OES.

Metals, including: Arsenic; Barium; Beryllium; Cadmium; Chromium; Cobalt; Copper; Lead; Acid digestion followed by determination of 2450 Acid Soluble Metals in Soils Manganese; Mercury; Molybdenum; Nickel; metals in extract by ICP-MS. Selenium; Vanadium; Zinc

Soil extracts are prepared by extracting dried and ground soil samples into boiling water. 2490 Hexavalent Chromium in Soils Chromium [VI] Chromium [VI] is determined by ‘Aquakem 600’ Discrete Analyser using 1,5-diphenylcarbazide.

Determined by high temperature combustion 2625 Total Organic Carbon in Soils Total organic Carbon (TOC) under oxygen, using an Eltra elemental analyser.

Acenaphthene; Acenaphthylene; Anthracene; Benzo[a]Anthracene; Benzo[a]Pyrene; Speciated Polynuclear Benzo[b]Fluoranthene; Benzo[ghi]Perylene; 2700 Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Benzo[k]Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Dichloromethane extraction / GC-FID in Soil by GC-FID Dibenz[ah]Anthracene; Fluoranthene; Fluorene; Indeno[123cd]Pyrene; Naphthalene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene

Phenolic compounds including Resorcinol, 60:40 methanol/water mixture extraction, Phenol, Methylphenols, Dimethylphenols, 1- 2920 Phenols in Soils by HPLC followed by HPLC determination using Naphthol and TrimethylphenolsNote: electrochemical detection. chlorophenols are excluded.

Page 4 of 5 Report Information

Key U UKAS accredited M MCERTS and UKAS accredited N Unaccredited S This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is accredited for this analysis SN This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is not accredited for this analysis T This analysis has been subcontracted to an unaccredited laboratory I/S Insufficient Sample U/S Unsuitable Sample N/E not evaluated < "less than" > "greater than"

Comments or interpretations are beyond the scope of UKAS accreditation The results relate only to the items tested Uncertainty of measurement for the determinands tested are available upon request None of the results in this report have been recovery corrected All results are expressed on a dry weight basis The following tests were analysed on samples as received and the results subsequently corrected to a dry weight basis TPH, BTEX, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, Phenols For all other tests the samples were dried at < 37°C prior to analysis All Asbestos testing is performed at the indicated laboratory Issue numbers are sequential starting with 1 all subsequent reports are incremented by 1

Sample Deviation Codes A - Date of sampling not supplied B - Sample age exceeds stability time (sampling to extraction) C - Sample not received in appropriate containers D - Broken Container E - Insufficient Sample (Applies to LOI in Trommel Fines Only)

Sample Retention and Disposal All soil samples will be retained for a period of 45 days from the date of receipt All water samples will be retained for 14 days from the date of receipt Charges may apply to extended sample storage

If you require extended retention of samples, please email your requirements to: [email protected]

Page 5 of 5 Sampling and Chain of Custody Record

Tel. 01638 606070 Fax: 01638 606071 Email: [email protected]

Container MCERTS Sample Reference Information Matrix HESI Suite 1 Type Sample Sample Sample Depth PT/PB/AJ/ Location Depth 2 Soil Water Other Date Time No. 1 AB/V 1 01/12/2017 10.30 Val E T SS PT   2 01/12/2017 10.30 Val F T SS PT   3 01/12/2017 10.30 Val G T SS PT   4 01/12/2017 10.30 Val H T SS PT   5 01/12/2017 10.30 Val I T SS PT   6 7 8 9 10 11 16 Total No. Of tests 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMMENTS:

Report No.: 17-32160-1

Initial Date of Issue: 06-Dec-2017

Client Herts & Essex Site Investigations

Client Address: The Old Post Office Wellpond Green Standon Ware Hertfordshire SG11 1NJ

Contact(s): Chris Gray Rebecca Chamberlain

Project 13843 Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road, Fidddlers Ham

Quotation No.: Date Received: 04-Dec-2017

Order No.: Date Instructed: 04-Dec-2017

No. of Samples: 5

Turnaround (Wkdays): 3 Results Due: 06-Dec-2017

Date Approved: 06-Dec-2017

Approved By:

Details: Glynn Harvey, Laboratory Manager

Page 1 of 5 Results - Soil

Project: 13843 Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road, Fidddlers Ham Client: Herts & Essex Site Chemtest Job No.: 17-32160 17-32160 17-32160 17-32160 17-32160 Investigations Quotation No.: Chemtest Sample ID.: 548498 548499 548500 548501 548502 Order No.: Client Sample Ref.: Val E Val F Val G Val H Val I Sample Type: SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL Date Sampled: 01-Dec-2017 01-Dec-2017 01-Dec-2017 01-Dec-2017 01-Dec-2017 Asbestos Lab: COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY Determinand Accred. SOP Units LOD ACM Type U 2192 N/A - - - - - No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos No Asbestos Asbestos Identification U 2192 % 0.001 Detected Detected Detected Detected Detected Moisture N 2030 % 0.020 15 14 19 19 17 Stones and Removed Materials N 2030 % 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 Soil Colour N 2040 N/A Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Other Material N 2040 N/A Roots Roots Roots Roots NONE Soil Texture N 2040 N/A Sand Clay Clay Clay Sand pH M 2010 N/A 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.4 5.5 Electrical Conductivity (2:1) N 2020 µS/cm 1.0 350 260 560 580 680 Boron (Hot Water Soluble) M 2120 mg/kg 0.40 0.80 0.62 0.73 0.63 1.0 Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 M 2120 g/l 0.010 0.076 0.018 0.10 0.17 0.071 Cyanide (Free) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 Cyanide (Total) M 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 Sulphate (Total) M 2430 % 0.010 0.048 0.023 0.054 0.058 0.047 Arsenic M 2450 mg/kg 1.0 11 13 14 16 13 Cadmium M 2450 mg/kg 0.10 0.11 < 0.10 0.13 < 0.10 < 0.10 Copper M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 27 12 30 24 18 Mercury M 2450 mg/kg 0.10 0.27 0.32 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Nickel M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 14 17 41 20 23 Lead M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 42 20 24 27 24 Zinc M 2450 mg/kg 0.50 47 47 84 55 70 Chromium (Trivalent) N 2490 mg/kg 1.0 29 35 54 36 56 Chromium (Hexavalent) N 2490 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 Organic Matter M 2625 % 0.40 1.9 1.0 1.6 1.2 1.0 Naphthalene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Acenaphthylene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Acenaphthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Fluorene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Phenanthrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Benzo[a]anthracene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Chrysene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Benzo[b]fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Benzo[k]fluoranthene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Benzo[a]pyrene M 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Page 2 of 5 Results - Soil

Page 3 of 5 Test Methods

SOP Title Parameters included Method summary 2010 pH Value of Soils pH pH Meter

Electrical conductivity (EC) of aqueous extract Measurement of the electrical resistance of a 2020 Electrical Conductivity or calcium sulphate solution for topsoil 2:1 water/soil extract.

Moisture and Stone Content of Determination of moisture content of soil as a 2030 Soils(Requirement of Moisture content percentage of its as received mass obtained at MCERTS) <37°C.

Soil Description(Requirement of As received soil is described based upon 2040 Soil description MCERTS) BS5930

Water Soluble Boron, Sulphate, 2120 Boron; Sulphate; Magnesium; Chromium Aqueous extraction / ICP-OES Magnesium & Chromium

Determined by high temperature combustion 2625 Total Organic Carbon in Soils Total organic Carbon (TOC) under oxygen, using an Eltra elemental analyser.

Page 4 of 5 Report Information

If you require extended retention of samples, please email your requirements to: [email protected]

Page 5 of 5 Sampling and Chain of Custody Record

Tel. 01638 606070 Fax: 01638 606071 Email: [email protected]

Container MCERTS Sample Reference Information Matrix HESI Suite 1 Type Sample Sample Sample Depth PT/PB/AJ/ Location Depth 2 Soil Water Other Date Time No. 1 AB/V 1 15 2 18 Val A1 SS PT   2 15 2 18 Val A2 SS PT   3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 Total No. Of tests 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMMENTS:

Report No.: 18-04853-1

Initial Date of Issue: 22-Feb-2018

Client Herts & Essex Site Investigations

Client Address: The Old Post Office Wellpond Green Standon Ware Hertfordshire SG11 1NJ

Contact(s): Chris Gray Rebecca Chamberlain

Project 13843 Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road

Quotation No.: Date Received: 20-Feb-2018

Order No.: 13843 Date Instructed: 20-Feb-2018

No. of Samples: 2

Turnaround (Wkdays): 3 Results Due: 22-Feb-2018

Date Approved: 22-Feb-2018

Approved By:

Details: Martin Dyer, Laboratory Manager

Page 1 of 5 Results - Soil

Project: 13843 Home Farm Barns, Stewards Green Road Client: Herts & Essex Site Chemtest Job No.: 18-04853 18-04853 Investigations Quotation No.: Chemtest Sample ID.: 581427 581428 Order No.: 13843 Client Sample Ref.: Val A1 Val A2 Sample Type: SOIL SOIL Date Sampled: 15-Feb-2018 15-Feb-2018 Asbestos Lab: COVENTRY COVENTRY Determinand Accred. SOP Units LOD ACM Type U 2192 N/A - - No Asbestos No Asbestos Asbestos Identification U 2192 % 0.001 Detected Detected Moisture N 2030 % 0.020 18 18 Stones and Removed Materials N 2030 % 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 Soil Colour N 2040 N/A Brown Brown Other Material N 2040 N/A NONE NONE Soil Texture N 2040 N/A Clay Clay pH U 2010 N/A 7.9 7.9 Electrical Conductivity (2:1) N 2020 µS/cm 1.0 2100 2000 Boron (Hot Water Soluble) U 2120 mg/kg 0.40 1.4 1.2 Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 U 2120 g/l 0.010 1.3 1.2 Cyanide (Free) U 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 Cyanide (Total) U 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 Sulphate (Total) U 2430 % 0.010 0.72 0.73 Arsenic U 2450 mg/kg 1.0 15 15 Cadmium U 2450 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Copper U 2450 mg/kg 0.50 21 22 Mercury U 2450 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Nickel U 2450 mg/kg 0.50 37 38 Lead U 2450 mg/kg 0.50 13 13 Zinc U 2450 mg/kg 0.50 64 66 Chromium (Trivalent) N 2490 mg/kg 1.0 44 44 Chromium (Hexavalent) N 2490 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 Organic Matter U 2625 % 0.40 0.41 0.47 Naphthalene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Acenaphthylene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Acenaphthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Fluorene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Phenanthrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Benzo[a]anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Chrysene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Benzo[b]fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Benzo[k]fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Benzo[a]pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 Page 2 of 5 Results - Soil

Page 3 of 5 Test Methods

SOP Title Parameters included Method summary 2010 pH Value of Soils pH pH Meter

Electrical conductivity (EC) of aqueous extract Measurement of the electrical resistance of a 2020 Electrical Conductivity or calcium sulphate solution for topsoil 2:1 water/soil extract.

Moisture and Stone Content of Determination of moisture content of soil as a 2030 Soils(Requirement of Moisture content percentage of its as received mass obtained at MCERTS) <37°C.

Soil Description(Requirement of As received soil is described based upon 2040 Soil description MCERTS) BS5930

Water Soluble Boron, Sulphate, 2120 Boron; Sulphate; Magnesium; Chromium Aqueous extraction / ICP-OES Magnesium & Chromium

Determined by high temperature combustion 2625 Total Organic Carbon in Soils Total organic Carbon (TOC) under oxygen, using an Eltra elemental analyser.

Page 4 of 5 Report Information

If you require extended retention of samples, please email your requirements to: [email protected]

Page 5 of 5

APPENDIX THREE

TOPSOIL VALIDATION

Declaration of Compliance BS3882:2015

Soil source: British Sugar TOPSOIL

This declaration confirms that the topsoil represented by the attached Topsoil Analysis Report conforms to the requirements of the British Standard for Topsoil (BS3882:2015).

The sample was sampled and tested in accordance with the requirements of BS3882:2015

 Samples are taken for analysis every 8000 tonnes (5000 m3) of product  Samples are taken from all TOPSOIL products ready for despatch  Landscape 20 is sampled after screening  Analysis certificates are retained for a period of 5 years

 Laboratory analysis is undertaken at a UKAS and MCERTS accredited laboratory  All laboratory methods are in accordance with BS3882:2015  All British Sugar TOPSOIL products are produced to a Quality Management System approved by Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance to ISO 9001:2008 standard

Signed

Andy Spetch British Sugar TOPSOIL, National TOPSOIL Manager Sugar Way, Peterborough, PE2 9AY Telephone 0870 2402314

Mr Andy Spetch British Sugar plc Co-Products Oundle Road Peterborough PE2 9QU

20th October 2017 Our Ref: TOHA/17/7338/SS Your Ref: 60035574

Dear Mr Spetch Co-Products Topsoil Analysis Report: Bury St Edmunds – Bury L20 We have completed the analysis of the LANDSCAPE 20 TOPSOIL sample recently submitted, referenced Bu-L20-8KT-Oct17 and have pleasure reporting ourplc findings. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the suitability of the LANDSCAPE 20 TOPSOIL sample for general landscape purposes. In addition, this sample has been assessed to determine its compliance with the requirements of the British Standard for Topsoil (BS3882:2015 - Specification for topsoil – Table 1, Multipurpose Topsoil). This report presents the results of analysis for the sample submitted to our office, and it should be considered ‘indicative’ of the topsoil source. The report and results should therefore not be used by third parties as a means of verification or validation testing or waste designation purposes, especially after the topsoil has left the British Sugar factory. Sugar

SAMPLE EXAMINATION The sample was described as a dark greyish brown (Munsell Colour 10YR 4/2), moist, slightly plastic, moderately calcareous SANDY CLAY LOAM with a weakly developed, fine to medium granular structure*. The sample was virtually stone-free and no unusual odours, deleterious materials, roots or rhizomes of pernicious weeds were observed. *This Britishappraisal of soil structure was made from examination of a disturbed sample. Structure is a key soil characteristic that may only be accurately assessed by examination in an in-situ state.

Tim O’Hare Associates LLP Howbery Park Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8BA T:01491 822653 E:[email protected] www.toha.co.uk

Registered in England No. OC324049 Registered Office: The Innovation Centre, Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BA

British Sugar plc Co-Products Tim O’Hare Associates LANDSCAPE 20 TOPSOIL Analysis Bury St Edmunds – Bu-L20-8KT-Oct17

ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE The sample was submitted to a UKAS and MCERTS accredited laboratory for a range of physical and chemical tests to confirm the composition and fertility of the soil, and the concentration of selected potential contaminants. The following parameters were determined: • particle size analysis and stone content; • pH and electrical conductivity values; • exchangeable sodium percentage; • major plant nutrients (N, P, K, Mg); • organic matter content; • C:N ratio; • heavy metals (As, B, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, V, Zn); • total cyanide and total (mono) phenols; • aromatic and aliphatic TPH (C5-C35 banding); • speciated PAHs (US EPA16 suite); • benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene; • asbestos screen. The results are presented on the attached Certificate of Analysis and an interpretation of the results is given below. The interpretation considers the use of the LANDSCAPE 20 TOPSOIL for general landscape purposes and its compliance/non-compliance with our general landscape specification.

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Particle Size Analysis and Stone Content Co-Products The sample fell into the sandy clay loam texture class, which is usually considered suitable for general landscape applications provided the soil’s physical condition is satisfactory. Such soils usually have good water and nutrient retentionplc capacities, but they are also prone to structural degradation and compaction during handling, and especially when plastic in consistency. Any damage to the structural condition of this soil is likely to reduce its drainage and aeration properties. The sample was virtually stone-free and as such, stones should not restrict the use of the soil for general landscape purposes. pH and Electrical Conductivity Values The sample was alkaline in reaction (pH 7.6). This pH value would be considered suitable for general landscape purposes providingSugar species with a wide pH tolerance or those known to prefer alkaline soils are selected for planting, turfing and seeding. The electrical conductivity (salinity) value (water extract) was moderate, which indicates that soluble salts should not be present at levels that would be harmful to plants.

The electrical conductivity value by CaSO4 extract (BS3882 requirement) fell below the maximum specified value (3300 μS/cm) given in BS3882:2015 – Table 1. OrganicBritish Matter and Fertility Status The sample was adequately supplied with organic matter and all major plant nutrients. The C:N ratio of the sample was acceptable for general landscape purposes. Potential Contaminants With reference to BS3882:2015 - Table 1: Notes 3 and 4, there is a recommendation to confirm levels of potential contaminants in relation to the topsoil’s proposed end use. This includes human health, environmental protection and metals considered toxic to plants. In the absence of site-specific criteria, the concentrations that affect human health have been assessed for residential with home grown produce end-

TOHA/17/7338/SS/Oct Page 2

British Sugar plc Co-Products Tim O’Hare Associates LANDSCAPE 20 TOPSOIL Analysis Bury St Edmunds – Bu-L20-8KT-Oct17

use against the Suitable For Use Levels (S4ULs) presented in the LQM/CIEH S4ULs for Human Health Risk Assessment (2015) and the DEFRA SP1010: Development of Category 4 Screening Levels for Assessment of Land Affected by Contamination – Policy Companion Document (2014). The concentration of barium has been compared with the residential land use given in the document EIC/AGS/CL:AIRE Soil Generic Assessment Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessment (2010). Of the potential contaminants determined, none was found at levels that exceeded their guideline values. Phytotoxic Contaminants Of the phytotoxic (toxic to plants) contaminants determined (copper, nickel, zinc), none was found at levels that exceeded the maximum permissible levels specified in BS3882:2015 – Table 1.

CONCLUSION The purpose of the analysis was to determine the suitability of the LANDSCAPE 20 TOPSOIL sample for general landscape purposes. From the soil examination and subsequent laboratory analysis, the sample was described as an alkaline, non- saline, moderately calcareous sandy clay loam with a weakly developed structure and low stone content. The sample was adequately supplied with organic matter and all major plant nutrients. Of the potential contaminants determined, none was found at levels that exceeded their guideline values. Based on our findings, the topsoil represented by this sample would be considered suitable for general landscape purposes (trees, shrubs and amenity grass), provided species with a wide pH tolerance or those known to prefer alkaline soils are selected for planting and the physicalCo-Products condition of the soil is satisfactory. The topsoil was also fully compliant with the requirements of the British Standard for Topsoil (BS3882:2015 – Specification for Topsoil - Table 1, Multipurpose Topsoil). RECOMMENDATIONS plc Soil Handling Recommendations It is important to maintain the physical condition of the soil and avoid structural damage during all phases of soil handling (e.g. stockpiling, respreading, cultivating, planting). As a consequence, soil handling operations should be carried out when soil is reasonably dry and non-plastic (friable) in consistency. It is important to ensure that the soil is not unnecessarily compacted by trampling or trafficking by site machinery, and soil handling should be stopped during and after heavy rainfall and not continued until the soil is friable in consistency. If theSugar soil is structurally damaged and compacted at any stage during the course of soiling or landscaping works, it should be cultivated appropriately to relieve the compaction and to restore the soil’s structure prior to any planting, turfing or seeding. Further details on soil handling are provided in Annex A of BS3882:2015. Further guidance on the management, preparation and handling of soils is provided in the DEFRA publication Construction code of practice for the sustainable use of soils on construction sites, 2009. British

TOHA/17/7338/SS/Oct Page 3

British Sugar plc Co-Products Tim O’Hare Associates LANDSCAPE 20 TOPSOIL Analysis Bury St Edmunds – Bu-L20-8KT-Oct17

______

We hope this report meets with your approval and provides the necessary information. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if we can be of further assistance. Yours sincerely

Ruth Flower Laura Hathaway-Jenkins BSc BSc MSc EngD MISoilSci Graduate Soil Scientist Senior Associate

For & on behalf of Tim O’Hare Associates LLP

Co-Products

plc

Sugar

British

TOHA/17/7338/SS/Oct Page 4 Client: British Sugar plc Co-Products Client Ref: Bury St Edmunds Job: Topsoil Analysis Date: 20/10/2017 Job Ref No: TOHA/17/7338/SS

Sample Reference Bu-L20-8KT-Oct17

Clay (<0.002mm) % U 23 ✓ Silt (0.002-0.063mm) % U 24 ✓ Sand (0.063-2.0mm) % U 53 ✓ Texture Class (UK Classification) -- U SCL -- Stones (2-20mm) % DW G 1 ✓ Stones (20-50mm) % DW G 1 ✓ Stones (>50mm) % DW G 0 ✓ pH Value (1:2.5 water extract) units G 7.6 ✓ Electrical Conductivity (1:2.5 water extract) uS/cm U 1370 ✓ Electrical Conductivity (1:2 CaSO4 extract) uS/cm U 2780 ✓ Exchangeable Sodium Percentage % U 5.0 ✓ Moisture Content % U 17 -- Organic Matter (LOI) % U 6.0 ✓ Total Nitrogen (Dumas) % U 0.42 ✓ C : N Ratio :1 U 8 ✓ Extractable Phosphorus mg/l U 76 ✓ Extractable Potassium mg/l U 902 ✓ Extractable Magnesium mg/l U 103 ✓

Total Arsenic (As) mg/kg M 11 ✓ Total Barium (Ba) mg/kg M 56 ✓ Total Beryllium (Be) mg/kg M 0.71 ✓ Total Cadmium (Cd) mg/kg M 0.4 ✓ Total Chromium (Cr) mg/kg M 25 ✓ Hexavalent Chromium (Cr VI) mg/kg M < 4.0 ✓ Total Copper (Cu) mg/kg M 29 ✓ Total Lead (Pb) mg/kg M 25 ✓ Total Mercury (Hg) mg/kg M < 0.3 ✓ Total Nickel (Ni) mg/kg M 17 ✓ Total Selenium (Se) mg/kg M < 1.0 ✓ Total Vanadium (V) mg/kg M 37 ✓ Total Zinc (Zn) mg/kg M 72 ✓ Water Soluble Boron (B) mg/kg M 2.7 ✓ Total Cyanide (CN) mg/kg M < 1 ✓ Total (mono) Phenols mg/kg M < 1.0 ✓

Naphthalene mg/kg M < 0.05 ✓ Acenaphthylene mg/kg M < 0.05 ✓ Acenaphthene mg/kg M < 0.05 ✓ Fluorene mg/kg M < 0.05 ✓ Phenanthrene mg/kg M 0.15 ✓ Anthracene mg/kg M < 0.05 ✓ Fluoranthene mg/kg M 0.27 ✓ Co-Products Pyrene mg/kg M 0.22 ✓ Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg M 0.16 ✓ Chrysene mg/kg M 0.15 ✓ Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg M 0.2 ✓ Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg M 0.13 ✓ Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg M 0.16 ✓ Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg M < 0.05 plc✓ Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene mg/kg M < 0.05 ✓ Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg M < 0.05 ✓ Total PAHs (sum USEPA16) mg/kg M 1.44 ✓

Aliphatic TPH (C5-C6) mg/kg M < 0.001 ✓ Aliphatic TPH (C6-C8) mg/kg M < 0.001 ✓ Aliphatic TPH (C8-C10) mg/kg M < 0.001 ✓ Aliphatic TPH (C10-C12) mg/kg M < 1.0 ✓ Aliphatic TPH (C12-C16) mg/kg M < 2.0 ✓ Aliphatic TPH (C16-C21) mg/kg M < 8.0 ✓ Aliphatic TPH (C21-C35) mg/kg M 27 ✓ Aliphatic TPH (C5-C35) mg/kg M 34 ✓ Aromatic TPH (C5-C7) mg/kg M < 0.001 ✓ Aromatic TPH (C7-C8) mg/kgSugarM < 0.001 ✓ Aromatic TPH (C8-C10) mg/kg M < 0.001 ✓ Aromatic TPH (C10-C12) mg/kg M 1.5 ✓ Aromatic TPH (C12-C16) mg/kg M < 2.0 ✓ Aromatic TPH (C16-C21) mg/kg M < 10 ✓ Aromatic TPH (C21-C35) mg/kg M 35 ✓ Aromatic TPH (C5-C35) mg/kg M 43 ✓

Benzene mg/kg M < 0.001 ✓ Toluene mg/kg M < 0.001 ✓ Ethylbenzene mg/kg M < 0.001 ✓ o-xylene mg/kg M < 0.001 ✓ m & p-xylene mg/kg M < 0.001 ✓ Asbestos BritishND/D I Not-detected ✓ Visual Examination The sample was described as a dark greyish brown (Munsell Colour 10YR 4/2), moist, slightly plastic, moderately calcareous SANDY CLAY LOAM with a weakly developed, fine to medium granular structure. The sample was virtually stone-free and no unusual odours, deleterious materials, roots or rhizomes of pernicious weeds were observed. ✓ Meets General Landscape Specification X Fails General Landscape Specification SCL SANDY CLAY LOAM Texture Class M MCERTS accredited method (& UKAS accredited method) I ISO 17025 accredited method U UKAS accredited method G GLP accredited method This report presents the results of analysis for the sample submitted to our office, and it should be Ruth Flower considered ‘indicative’ of the topsoil source. The report and results should therefore not be used by BSc third parties as a means of verification or validation testing. Graduate Soil Scientist

Results of analysis should be read in conjunction with the report they were issued with

The contents of this certificate shall not be reproduced without the express written permission of Tim O'Hare Associates LLP. Tim O'Hare Associates LLP Howbery Park Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8BA www.toha.co.uk

APPENDIX FIVE

WATERMAIN PIPEWORK VALIDATION