HIAL CAMPBELTOWN AIRPORT PAVEMENT REHABILITATION & ASSOCIATED AGL MODIFICATIONS Detailed Design Report 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-RP-MD-0200

MAY 2021

CONTACTS

ERIC MICHAELIDES

Project Manager

Arcadis. m +44 (0)7917 172 431 Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd e [email protected] 80 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4BY

MARK MURRIN-EARP Pavement Engineering Lead

Arcadis. 1st Floor Cornerblock m ++44 (0) 746 4643 189 2 Cornwall Street e [email protected] Birmingham

MASSIMO DENNI RPS Consulting UK & Ireland AGL Lead Sherwood House Sherwood Avenue Newark m +44 (0) 7483 904865 Nottinghamshire e [email protected] NG24 1QQ

GIUSEPPE PINTO

Design Manager Arcadis. 4th Floor, 401 Faraday Street, m +44 (0) 7824 490 402 Birchwood, Warrington, WA3 6GA e [email protected]

PAZ ARMENTA Design and Engineering Lead

Arcadis. m +44 (0) 7392879713 Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd e [email protected] 80 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4BY

In partnership with:

Arcadis (UK) Limited is a private limited company registered in England registration number: 1093549. Registered office, Arcadis House,80 Fenchurch Street, London EC3M 4BY. Part of the Arcadis Group of Companies along with other entities in the UK. Regulated by RICS.

Version control

Version Date Author Checker Approver Changes

Eric Antonio Giuseppe P00 04/05/21 Michaelides Martinez Pinto

Eric Antonio Giuseppe P01 10/05/21 Updates following review Michaelides Martinez Pinto

Eric Antonio Giuseppe P02 11/05/21 Correction to Cost estimate Class Michaelides Martinez Pinto

Eric Antonio Giuseppe P02.1 19/05/21 General updates following review Michaelides Martinez Pinto

Eric Giuseppe Updated for Final Issue with QRA P03 02/07/21 Orrin James Michaelides Pinto cost risk

This report dated 04 May 2021 has been prepared for HIAL (the “Client”) in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment dated 01 February 2021(the “Appointment”) between the Client and Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd (“Arcadis”) for the purposes specified in the Appointment. For avoidance of doubt, no other person(s) may use or rely upon this report or its contents, and Arcadis accepts no responsibility for any such use or reliance thereon by any other third party.

CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6 1.1 Recommendations & Conclusions: ...... 7 Pavement Design ...... 7 Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) Design ...... 7

2 INTRODUCTION ...... 8

3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 8 1.1 Site description and history ...... 8 2.2 Project objectives ...... 9 3.3 Project scope...... 9

4 BASIS FOR DESIGN ...... 9

5 OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS ...... 10

6 DATA COLLECTION AND SURVEYS ...... 10 1.1 Existing data provided by HIAL ...... 10 2.2 Additional Ground Penetrating Radar Survey ...... 11 3.3 Visual Condition Survey ...... 14 4.4 Existing Topographical Data ...... 15 5.5 Existing Geotechnical Data ...... 15 6.6 Existing Drainage Data ...... 15

7 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ...... 15 1.1 Existing Pavement ...... 15 2.2 Existing Geotechnical Information ...... 16 3.3 Existing Surface Water Drainage ...... 16 4.4 Existing Environmental Conditions ...... 16

8 PAVEMENT DESIGN ...... 17 1.1 General ...... 17 2.2 Design Criteria...... 17 3.3 Design Approach ...... 17 4.4 Option 1: Targeted Asphalt Reinforcement ...... 18 5.5 Option 2: Full Extent Asphalt Reinforcement ...... 18

6.6 Conclusion ...... 18

9 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 19 1.1 Analysis & Conclusions ...... 19

10 DRAINAGE DESIGN ...... 21 1.1 General ...... 21 2.2 Design Criteria...... 21 3.3 Recommendations ...... 21

11 AIRFIELD GROUND LIGHTING (AGL) DESIGN ...... 21 1.1 General ...... 21 2.2 Existing Information ...... 21 3.3 Design Criteria...... 22 4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 23 5.5 Summary of Non-Compliance Issues ...... 25

12 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 26 1.1 Ecology ...... 26 2.2 Designated Sites ...... 26 3.3 Breeding Birds ...... 26 4.4 Amphibians and Reptiles ...... 27 5.5 Notable Protected Species ...... 27 6.6 Recommendations for Ecology ...... 27 7.7 Cultural Heritage ...... 28 8.8 Recommendations for Cultural Heritage ...... 29 9.9 Noise and Visual ...... 29 10.10 Recommendations for Noise and Visual ...... 29 11.11 Materials ...... 30 12.12 Waste Management ...... 30 13.13 Recommendations for Waste Management ...... 30 14.14 Surface Water Discharge ...... 31 15.15 Energy Consumption ...... 32

13 PROGRAMME & CONSTRUCTION PLANNING...... 33 1.1 Programme ...... 33 2.2 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Part 1 ...... 33

14 CONSTRUCTION DESIGN & MANAGEMENT (CDM) ...... 34 1.1 Pre-construction Information ...... 34 2.2 Hazard Identification ...... 34

15 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ...... 35 1.1 Introduction ...... 35 2.2 Methodology ...... 35 3.3 Assumptions ...... 37 4.4 Exclusions ...... 37 5.5 Cost Summary ...... 38

16 RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 40

17 SUSTAINABILITY ...... 41

18 INNOVATION ...... 41

19 APPENDICES ...... 42 APPENDIX A ...... 42 APPENDIX B ...... 44 APPENDIX C ...... 44 APPENDIX D ...... 44 APPENDIX E ...... 44 APPENDIX F...... 44 APPENDIX G ...... 44 APPENDIX H ...... 44 APPENDIX J ...... 45 APPENDIX K ...... 45 APPENDIX L...... 45 APPENDIX M – Tender Document Register ...... 47

1 Executive Summary

This report details the development of the Highlands & Islands Airports Ltd (HIAL) Campbeltown Pavement Rehabilitation & Airfield Ground Lighting detailed design project. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the documents developed to specify the pavement resurfacing works of Runway 11/29 Campbeltown Airport. The Environmental Considerations reported in the Jacobs feasibility study for the project were reviewed and further recommendations were made based on the current design plans. The feasibility and further research by Arcadis have concluded that there is currently no impact pathway that may affect protected species and habitats, including the SSSI Machrihanish Dunes. Due to the localised nature of the works and that they are currently located within the current runway footprint, there are no immediate environmental issues. All recommendations should be included in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) by contractors and implemented by them. Information on existing pavement can be found in the Pavement Specification, Appendix A which is a feasibility report carried out by Jacobs - Campbeltown Airport Runway 11/29 Rehabilitation Feasibility Study Report B2335013-0007-CAL-REP-00003001 | 01 September 2020. Pavement Design In summary the surfacing of the Runway 11/29 is now showing multiple cracking defects which require treatment, along with the loss of surfacing of the applied slurry seal. The concrete undershoot is showing loss of joint seal integrity and the ingress of vegetation, if left untreated this will allow the ingress of water into the pavement. The ingress of water and future freeze-thaw cycle will increase risk of FOD and airframe damage across all surfaces affected by these defects The Pavement detailed design was developed around 2 main construction method options. Pavement Option 1 - The feasibility report considered a pavement design that provided targeted asphalt reinforcement in order to address the longitudinal and transverse cracking. Pavement Option 2 - Arcadis recommended method considered the removal of 100mm asphalt and the application of asphalt reinforcement to the full extents of the proposed footprint of Runway 11/29 and application of 100mm of new asphalt to the finished level.

Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) Design The AGL detailed design was developed around 3 main layout options. During a meeting with the Airport Operator on the 9th of April 2021. It was agreed that the runway pavement intended to be used would be only the area in between the two thresholds (Threshold 11 and Threshold 29). AGL Option 1 considered an AGL layout to maintain the current declared distances. However, this AGL layout do not reflect the runway refurbishment as per Option B2 F and furthermore, there are compliancy issues with the RESA and AGL installation.

AGL Option 2 considered an AGL layout to provide the runway refurbishment as per option B2 F and maintain the current declared distance on end LDA 29. The declared distance on end LDA 11 cannot be maintained following the downgrading of the runway pavement to taxiway. This AGL layout has compliance issues with the installation of the runway end red lights at the end of LDA 11 and end of LDA 29. AGL Option 3 considered an AGL layout to provide the runway refurbishment as per option B2 F and provides the new reduced declared distances approved by the Client. This AGL layout has a compliancy issue with the installation of the runway end red at threshold 29, which could be mitigated by installing red lights on the reverse side of the wing bars.

1.1 Recommendations & Conclusions: Pavement Design Following the Visual Condition Survey and identification of longitudinal and transverse cracking, to the extent identified, Arcadis carried out crack propagation modelling. This modelling identified that Option 1 is very likely to omit a significant amount of cracking, such that the risk of cracks propagating to the surface within 4 to 6 years will occur, along with the associated higher maintenance costs and other risks identified. Option 2 was found to provide the required design life and offered the opportunity to reduce the number of joints in the finished surface. It was therefore Arcadis recommendation that HIAL consider Option 2 (Full Extent) as this option will provide the highest level of assurance that all of the cracking is treated and that the design life of 15 years can be realised. Arcadis also recommended that HIAL consider a runway shutdown to allow the most cost- effective and risk adverse construction method to be adopted by a contractor. This would also provide an opportunity for the works to be completed in a shorter duration and in a more controlled environment. Arcadis highlighted the potential risk of disruption to the runway operation that may have resulted from the original intention to maintain operations and carry out the construction work within a restricted window each night. The main concern with this approach was that it would require at least 35 sections over the length of the runway and return each section to operational readiness the following morning. This would also result in a considerable number of day joint along the finished runway surface. HIAL considered the recommendation and have approved the adoption of this approach. The detailed design documents have been developed to meet this construction methodology. Arcadis concludes that Option 2 will provide the highest level of assurance that the cracking is adequately treated and that the design life of 15 years can be realised.

Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) Design Following development of the 3 main options, it was RPS & Arcadis recommendation that HIAL consider the most EASA compliant AGL layout. Following consideration HIAL approved the adoption of Option 3 as their preferred solution.

Option 3 provides the most EASA compliant AGL layout within the reduced runway configuration within the reduced runway footprint and provides the new reduced declared distances approved by the Client. Although this AGL layout has a compliancy issue with the installation of the end of runway red lights at threshold 29, this will be mitigated by installing red lights on the reverse side of the wing bars. This is the Client’s preferred option but requires approval from the CAA.

2 Introduction Highlands & Islands Airports Ltd (HIAL) previously commissioned Jacobs to undertake a feasibility study to identify the suitable pavement rehabilitation options and the potential environmental impacts for the Runway 11/29 Pavement Rehabilitation project at Campbelltown Airport. Jacobs recommended Feasibility Report; Options B and F, were selected by HIAL. Arcadis were appointed to complete the detailed design for Options B and F, of the Jacobs feasibility report, which include a 100 mm asphalt inlay on the main composite pavement of the runway and maintenance only for the Runway 29 undershoot. Impact to Airfield Ground Lighting and Drainage are to be included in the proposed design. HIAL also instructed Arcadis to undertake a Utilities survey of the Runway to establish an up-to-date record of services. 3 Project Background 3.1 Site description and history Campbeltown airport is located three miles west of the town of Campbeltown on the main settlement of Kintyre and is situated on land which is leased to HIAL from the local community.

Campbeltown Airport Location Plan

Campbeltown airport was formally known as the Stath in 1916, and then from its official beginning in 1918, RAF Machrihanish has existed under a variety of names. It has functioned as both a military and a civil airfield, and performed a number of additional roles, over and above that of a simple aerodrome. The present airfield was established during 1940-1941. Built by the Royal Navy, it became RNAS Machrihanish on 23rd June 1941. With the conclusion of World War II and the departure of the military, scheduled operations and civilian flights returned to the smaller airfield. The United States Navy handed the airfield back to the MoD on June 30, 1995, marking the end of its service as a NATO facility since 1960. The airbase was sold to MACC Development Ltd in May 2012, and HIAL took over a licence of the airfield on the 1st of April 1996 and now use the airfield’s runway for its commercial operations which include two scheduled flights a day from Glasgow but is primarily for the provision of lifeline services.

Runway 11/29 has undergone two slurry seal treatments to the underlying asphalt and concrete pavement since 1990, this slurry seal is now highly cracked with regular incidents of blistering and delamination. While generally providing a homogenous surface, the cracking, blistering and delamination of the slurry seal significantly impairs the durability of the runway surface and pose a significant FOD risk. Consequently, Jacobs recommended that resurfacing of the runway is undertaken as a priority. 3.2 Project objectives To provide a safe runway for the future operations at Campbeltown Airport at an affordable cost, with all reasonable alternatives considered and construction targeted for summer 2021. 3.3 Project scope The scope of this project stage is development of the options approved by HIAL at the Feasibility stage into a detailed design for Contractor tender of the works required to rehabilitate Runway 11/29 and the associated AGL works. 4 Basis for Design The following criteria has been used as the basis for design: 1. Design aircraft: Saab 340 2. Runway Code: 3 3. Stopways and Clearways not required 4. RESAs to be provided (RWY 11 RESA as part of the existing taxiway past the RWY 29 threshold) 5. Width of the taxiway leading into RWY 29 to be reduced to 15 m, as per EASA CS ADR- DSN.D.245 (Issue 5) 6. Declared distances as shown on drawings 0046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0541 and -0542 7. Obstacle Limitation Surfaces as shown on drawings 0046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0545 and -0546 8. AGL layout as shown on sketch 0046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-AGL_Layout 9. Runway Ground Lighting (RGL) installed on holding positions for ICAO/EASA compliance, as shown on sketch 0046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-AGL_Layout. Note: HIAL reviewed their requirements and advised that the RGL would not be required.

5 Operational Constraints The airport opening hours are Monday to Friday 0820 to 1740. It is closed on a Saturday and open on a Sunday from April to September between 1740 and 1830. There are two scheduled departing and arriving Loganair flights a day to Glasgow. One arrival and one departure in the morning, and the same in the evening. In addition, there are a number of private flights. As such it was agreed that working construction hours should be assumed to be night time activities (6:30pm to 7am subject to confirmation when construction programme is known), with reinstatement of the runway for operational use at the end of each shift. However, during the detailed design stage it was identified that the impact from Covid-19 had restricted flights to one per day. During the development of construction phasing plans, it became apparent that the risks associated with carrying out the pavement rehabilitation works were extremely high and could put the runway operational availability at risk. Other considerations which contributed to the risk were the travel distances from the nearest asphalt manufacturing plant which would affect the volume and quality of the material available to meet the programme. A construction methodology opportunity & risk table w.as developed and is provided within Appendix H. It was recommended that to allow the most cost-effective and risk adverse solution would be for HIAL to consider a runway shutdown to allow the works to be completed in a shorter duration and in more controlled environment. HIAL have considered this recommendation and have approved the adoption of this approach. The detailed design documents have been developed to meet this construction strategy.

6 Data Collection and Surveys

6.1 Existing data provided by HIAL HIAL provided existing information including the Jacobs feasibility report (B2335013-0007- CAL-REP-00003001 FS Report), cost estimate (B2335013-0007-CAL-REP-00003002 Feasibility Cost Estimate) and base map (HIAL-CAM-COMP Rev M) which have been included within Appendix L for information

6.2 Additional ground penetrating radar survey A GPR survey was carried out by L&M Surveys at Campbeltown Airport between 5th to 30th April 2021. The full survey information is provided within Appendix B. 6.2.1 Survey area The survey area was within the airfield fence, approximately 460,000m2 as indicated by the magenta outline in the layout below:

6.2.2 Data collection The works were carried out using a combination of conventional surveying techniques and Leica Smartnet RTK GPS. 6.2.3 Data presentation All survey information was initially processed using McCarthy Taylor’s LSS ground modelling software for preparation and input into the AutoCAD 2017 drawing package for final post processing. 6.2.4 Types of services Utilities/services being surveyed shall include the following. The list is not to be considered as exhaustive but reflects the types and quantities of services expected. • High Voltage Cables • Steam • Low Voltage Cables including Street Lighting • Public Address Cables • Ancillary power (Gates, Signs, Barriers etc) • CCTV Cables/Ducts • Street Lamps • Heating • Water Mains • Drainage - Main networks • Data Network Cables • Drainage - down pipes, gullies, and minor connections from buildings • Gas Mains • Other underground utility features inc. service tunnels or ducts, storage tanks. • ‘BT’ Duct Network • Fuel/Oil (where sub-surface) • Overhead lines • Surface running temporary feeds found – e.g., Water.

6.2.5 Approach L&M Survey Services shall provide your utility survey using a combination of the following methods: 6.2.5.1 Manhole inspections Access to be gained and covers lifted for all manholes and service ducts where permissible/possible non-intrusively. 6.2.5.2 Visual awareness Service pipes, ducts and trenches often present scarring if collapsed, recently laid but not resurfaced and from trenching. This visual evidence can often prove valuable to any survey. 6.2.5.3 Full investigation (non-intrusive) To locate and identify, where possible, all service/utility types throughout the survey area. By using electromagnetic location/detection and GPR, we endeavour to provide the routes of non-metallic and metallic services, along with frequent depth measurements. 6.2.5.4 Existing utility plans One of the most important features of a utility location survey is to obtain as much existing utility plan work as possible. It is the client’s responsibility to supply these drawings. Where this is not possible L & M Survey Services will order the plans and the cost will be charged to the client account. It is a pre-requisite that statutory undertaker’s plans are obtained. It takes around 14 working days to obtain this information and clients should allow for this within their programme of works. All existing guide plans supplied by the client or directly by the utility’s companies shall be booked in, in accordance with incoming document control procedures. Any historic information that can neither be located, nor totally discounted shall also be shown on the plan using suitable notation and line type. 6.2.5.5 Considerations L & M Survey Services deploy the latest and most advanced locating equipment in the provision of an underground survey. As the leading experts in the field of location equipment and electromagnetism, they have a very strong technical support team who can help deliver the best results possible from even the most complex of sites. Nevertheless, due to the non- intrusive nature of their service, in certain circumstances their ability to pinpoint a buried service or its depth may be limited by physical conditions or obstructions. Please refer to the following section ‘Capabilities and Accuracies’ for an indication of some of the issues that can be encountered. It is, however, L & M Survey Services’ goal to deliver the most comprehensive and accurate plan covering your survey area possible from our deployment of their non-intrusive investigations.

6.2.6 Extract of surveyors notes

The full report and information can be found within Appendix B

6.2.6.1 Survey detection success.

The EML aspect of the survey was carried out to a detection method of M4 while the GPR was used to a detection method of M1.

6.2.6.2 Limitations found on-site.

The large, hatched areas that run parallel to the runway on the north side was rough ground and vegetation which made locating services difficult.

6.2.6.3 Utility records available at time of the survey

All utility records provided.

6.2.6.4 Undetectable services

All drainage marked on the drawing as’ EOT’ (End of Trace) was due to the line tracer becoming stuck within the pipes or them being too deep to survey. Where possible the remainder of the routes have been added to the drawing from record information. Some manholes are marked on the drawing as ‘UTR’ (Unable to Raise) due to the covers being completely stuck to the frame. The unknown services marked as EOT (End of Trace) was due to loss of signal from this point onwards. End of Trace does not necessarily mean the service terminates at this point. Proceed with caution. Some of these services were located with the GPR only. These have been noted on the drawing. Part of the mains water was added to the drawing from record information as they surveyor was unable to locate this on site. The two hatched areas to the south of the runway were detected on radio frequency only. Proceed with caution. The BT marked as EOT (End of Trace) was due to loss of signal from this point onwards. End of Trace does not necessarily mean the service terminates at this point. Proceed with caution. Some electric services have been added to the drawing from records where the surveyor was unable to locate them on site. They have been annotated as ‘UTT/TFR’ (Unable to Trace/Taken from Records). This was mostly in the areas where the ground lights had been removed. Proceed with caution in these areas. 6.2.7 Comments from Arcadis Design Team 6.2.7.1 Undetectable items Most of the undetectable features appear to be cable ducts. The shallowest duct crossing the runway at Threshold 29 is the one hidden under the marking which is identified as being 0.5m depth as shown in the image below:

When planning operations of the top finishes is carried out, this shallow potential duct should be brought to the attention of the construction team.

6.2.7.2 Water main crossing catch pit chamber An existing Water main was identified as crossing through the catch pit chamber, but it was verified that it was above the water line, with no sign of debris on the pipe, so should not be an issue with restriction of surface water flow. Photo included below for information:

6.3 Visual condition survey Arcadis conducted a Visual Condition Survey (VCS) in February 2021 and the results were recorded using the Arcadis ARC GiS platform to capture defects and to assist the detailed design process.

The VCS information has been processed and details for access to the information is provided within Appendix L for information. Note: at this point in time no access has been enabled, please can HIAL provide names and email addresses to the Arcadis Project Manager of team members who may require access.

6.4 Existing topographical data Existing topographical survey information was available and has been provided within Appendix L for information. 6.5 Existing geotechnical data Existing studies were available and have been provided within Appendix L for information. 6.6 Existing drainage data Existing CCTV Surveys were available and have been provided within Appendix L for information. 7 Existing Site Conditions 7.1 Existing pavement Arcadis were provided with the feasibility report carried out by Jacobs (Report No Campbeltown Airport Runway 11/29 Rehabilitation - Feasibility Study Report B2335013-0007- CAL-REP-00003001 | 01 September 2020) along with the supporting data to assess the condition of the pavement and propose feasibility options that were intended to input into the detailed design stage. In addition to this Arcadis conducted a VCS in February 2021 using the ArcGIS System to capture defects and to assist the detailed design process. Several key pavement defects were identified during the review of the data that was provided at feasibility stage and data collected from the VCS, as follows:

Defect Type Defect Description

Cracking that travels perpendicular to the pavement direction Transverse Cracking either for part or whole width of the surface. Largely emanating from lower pavement layers. Cracking that travels parallel to the pavement direction either for Longitudinal Cracking part or whole length of the surface. Largely emanating from lower pavement layers.

Loss of Surfacing An area where the Slurry Seal has de-bonded from the surface. Risk of FOD & damage to airframe. Crack Repair A crack that has previously been repaired.

Patch An area of surfacing loss that has had a treatment applied to form a repair. Historic Core Hole Filled core hole from previous pavement investigation works carried out. Failed Crack Repair A crack repair that is showing signs of failure.

Failed Concrete Joint Loss of the compound that prevents the ingress of water to the pavement. May also contain ingress of vegetation.

Shrinkage Cracking Cracking that has occurred in the slurry seal. The cracks are interconnecting and resemble a pattern.

From the findings above, of key concern is the quantity and severity of the longitudinal and transverse cracking which is likely to be emanating from the lower concrete layers of the pavement. If left untreated, this will result in the continued deterioration of the pavement structure. 15

Additionally, there are several areas where the slurry seal has de-bonded and has been repaired or is showing signs of debonding and will need further repairs. The slurry seal will have previously been applied to restore skid resistance and prolong the life of the pavement, whilst preventing ingress of water. The current condition shows accelerated delamination and hence runs the risk of FOD and airframe damage. In summary the surfacing of the Runway 11/29 is now showing multiple cracking defects which require treatment, along with the loss of surfacing of the applied slurry seal. The concrete undershoot is showing loss of joint seal integrity and the ingress of vegetation, if left untreated this will allow the ingress of water into the pavement. The ingress of water and future freeze-thaw cycle will increase risk of FOD and airframe damage across all surfaces affected by these defects. Access to the ArcGIS data and geotagged photography can be requested by contacting the Arcadis Project Manager. An example of the data available is shown below.

Example of ArcGIS data captured 7.2 Existing geotechnical information The following items were reviewed by the Arcadis Geotechnical Team, in the development of this design specification and a summary of the information pertinent to the assessment of the geotechnical risk associated with pavement rehabilitation at Campbeltown is as follows:  BGS Onshore GeoIndex Data (Published Geology)  PTS – Campbeltown Airport – Trial Pit Report – Reference 2045-03  PTS – Campbeltown Airport – Laboratory Testing – Reference 2045-03  PTS – Campbeltown Airport – Report on Core Sampling, Core Logging & Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Testing – Reference 2045-03  PTS – Campbeltown Airport – Unbound Material Sampling (UMS) report – Reference 2045-03.

7.3 Existing surface water drainage A CCTV survey of the existing drainage system was carried out in 2020. An analysis of the CCTV survey showed that it is currently in good condition. Defects are mostly located within the Runway 11 undershoot area, where multiple occurrences of displaced joints and cracks were found on both sides of the runway. 7.4 Existing environmental conditions A feasibility study (Campbeltown Airport Runway 11/29 Rehabilitation - Feasibility Study Report B2335013-0007-CAL-REP-00003001) was undertaken in September 2020 to identify the suitable pavement rehabilitation options and the potential environmental impacts.

8 Pavement Design 8.1 General Arcadis was engaged to carry out a detailed design process based upon Jacobs Report No Campbeltown Airport Runway 11/29 Rehabilitation - Feasibility Study Report B2335013-0007- CAL-REP-00003001 | 01 September 2020. In this report there were several options proposed to the HIAL Board. Arcadis reviewed all available data in order to produce the design options.

8.2 Design criteria The design criteria are based upon the following:  15 years design life  Traffic movement data provided by HIAL and referenced in the feasibility study stage  Design Aircraft – Saab 340a  Pavement Survey Data.

8.3 Design approach The drawing below, extracted from the Feasibility Report, shows the extents and areas proposed to be treated.

Figure 1 – Extents & Areas of proposed Pavement treatment

8.4 Option 1: Targeted Asphalt Reinforcement Runway 11/29 Option B2 (Area 1) – Asphalt inlay with repair of reflection cracks – Plane 100mm of the existing asphalt on the proposed footprint. Additionally, plane 1.5m wide trenches along any reflection crack down to the concrete level (approximately 170mm from existing level). Repair any exposed defects and install geosynthetic asphalt reinforcement in trench base. Lay Marshall Asphalt to the original finished level. Runway 11/29 shoulders Option B2 (Areas 2 & 3) – Surface maintenance without slurry seal. Runway 11/29 undershoot Option D (Area 4, Flexible Pavement) – Surface maintenance without slurry seal. Option F (Area 5, Concrete Pavement) – Maintenance only. Replace all concrete joint sealant. Repair distresses on remaining slabs as required.

8.5 Option 2: Full Extent Asphalt Reinforcement Following the assessment of the data provided at feasibility stage and as a result of the VCS carried out, it was identified that there was an increased amount of longitudinal and transverse cracks. This cracking identified is largely as a result of reflection from the underlying concrete portion of the pavement. The surface deterioration is largely as a result of the harsh environment at Campbeltown. Failure to treat cracks that reach the surface of the pavement will result in the ingress of moisture, freeze/thaw and further rapid deterioration leading to the liberation of FOD and risks of damage to the airframe. Runway 11/29 Area 1 – Remove 100mm of the existing asphalt and the application of geosynthetic asphalt reinforcement to the full width and length of the footprint to be treated. Apply 100mm of new asphalt to finished level. (Full details of this are available in the Pavement Specification Document provided, 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-SP-CE-0001). Runway 11/29 shoulders Areas 2 & 3 – Surface maintenance without slurry seal. Runway 11/29 undershoot Area 4 (Flexible Pavement) – Surface maintenance without slurry seal. Area 5 (Concrete Pavement) – Maintenance only. Replace all concrete joint sealant. Repair distresses on remaining slabs as required. 8.6 Conclusion Arcadis concludes that Option 2 will provide the highest level of assurance that the cracking is adequately treated and that the design life of 15 years can be realised. Option 1 is very likely to omit a significant amount of cracking, such that the risk of cracks propagating to the surface within 4 to 6 years will occur, along with the associated higher maintenance costs and other risks identified. Therefore Option 2 has been selected by HIAL as the preferred solution.

9 Geotechnical Considerations 9.1 Analysis & Conclusions The British Geological Survey (BGS) information indicates that the geology beneath the operational extent of Runway 11/29 and the surrounding land/airfield (the Site) comprises peat deposits underlain by raised marine deposits and glacial till (boulder clay) in turn underlain by solid geology/bedrock of the Western Midland Valley Westphalia to early Permian sills (microgabbro) in the east and Scottish Middle coal measures formation in the west. There are a significant number of historical borehole and trial pit records associated with the site however those located closest to Runway 11/29 were trial pits and indicate:  Topsoil (approx. 0.20 to 0.3m thick); underlain by  Medium dense sand and gravel (possibly made ground although not denoted as such*). Trial pits were formed to a maximum depth of 3mbgl. *Superficial peat deposits have been recorded at many locations around the airfield however the records suggest that all superficial peat was removed (and possibly replaced with sand and gravel) prior to runway pavement construction as this would not be a suitable material onto which pavement could be constructed. Trial pits undertaken and reported by PTS were formed to depths of between 1.2 and 2mbgl adjacent to the runway and identified:  Topsoil (approx. 0.25 to 0.35m thick); underlain by a layer of  Sand, clay, and 5/40mm aggregate (described as being compact inTP4) – Assumed made ground. The water table was identified at depths of between 1.2 and 2.0mbgl. According to the PTS report on core sampling and DCP testing, pavement thickness (excluding pavement foundation/subbase) is generally around 500mm thick (typically ~200mm bituminous over ~300mm cementitious however this varies). Construction of the paved surfaces has in the most part resulted in the removal of all topsoil and superficial organic soils. Sampling of unbound material at the base of the pavement cores generally indicated red brown sand and gravel of mixed lithologies, variably fine to coarse, rounded to angular. Relatively minor inclusions of black organic material were encountered in the sand and gravel at cores 11, 16, 19, 20 and 24. Only in one location, Core 13 beyond the threshold and operation extent of Runway 11, was a distinct layer of peat encountered at 0.9- 1.05m bgl and described as black sandy silty amorphous peat. A layer of sandy silt was encountered in Core 6 at 0.87 to 0.93mbgl and rare clay inclusions were encountered in Cores 19 and 24. These observations indicate that the material beneath the runway pavement is Made Ground/fill. DCP tests undertaken at the base of core holes (i.e., from the top of the sand and gravel fill) recorded total penetrations generally between 72mm and 956mm. Equivalent CBR values were recorded over a wide range (as low as 8% and high as >100%). Together with the UMS and trial pit data, the DCP results indicate the sand and gravel generally has equivalent CBR values in the range of 30 to 60% though there may be weaker layers within the material that are silt and clay inclusions. Soils below the sand and gravel fill are expected to comprise peat (locally where not removed in entirety), clay, silt and sand (of glacial provenance) and generally have lower equivalent CBR values of between 8 and 20%. Cobbles and boulders, or possibly layers of sand and gravel in the Glacial Till are likely causing the higher equivalent CBR values recorded between 40 and 60%. No obvious pavement defects were identified that would be indicative of pavement foundation failure (such as surface rutting, excessive subsidence/sink holes etc) and the site investigation information indicates superficial peat was removed prior to runway construction. Therefore, 19

geotechnical risks associated with the pavement rehabilitation options at Campbeltown are considered Low.

Equivalent CBR vs Depth beneath Core Hole Base

Equivalent CBR% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0

200

Compact Sand & 400 Gravel

CBR 600 Depth (mm)

800

Natural Clay, Peat, Silt and Sand

1000

1200

Chart showing plot of Equivalent CBR vs Depth beneath Core Hole Base. Data extracted from PTS report. Annotated interpretation by Arcadis. Points plotted at 100% are actually indicative of >100%.

10 Drainage Design 10.1 General The purpose of this document is to provide recommendation for maintenance works to the drainage network on the basis of the CCTV survey carried out by Jacobs/Laser Surveys and provided by HIAL for the pavement at Campbeltown Airport. The planned refurbishment of the pavement extends to only around 100mm depth on the central 30m wide strip of the existing runway. The existing cross falls will be retained, taking any surface water to the sides of the runway. There is an unequal gradient across the runway that takes the bulk of any accumulated surface water to one side to be collected by a series of gullies along the apron. 10.2 Design criteria The Drainage scope covers the main working areas of runway and taxiway, where data gathered by previous surveys have identified a range of defects and silting of the existing drains, affecting the overall capacity of the system. 10.3 Recommendations The intention is to clean, repair or replace any sections that may compromise the functionality of the drainage in years to come. This will entail reconstruction in very limited sections of the drainage system, where pipework is irreparable and lining sections where moderate cracking has occurred. The full recommendations are detailed by the Drainage Specification provided within Appendix D.

11 Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) Design 11.1 General The AGL system is the set of ground lights, with their respective mounting systems, their power lines and control systems, used to provide visual guidance to pilots during landing, taxiing and take-off.

An AGL system also includes a Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) which provides to the pilot information related to the correct angle of approach during the landing. At Campbeltown Airport, the AGL lights are electric portable lights with antennas for remote control. Therefore, there are no power lines that supply the AGL lights. The glide path indicators are a simplified system called Abbreviated Precision Approach Path Indicator (APAPI).

11.2 Existing Information Information on the existing AGL and APAPI can be found in following documents:

 Jacobs - Campbeltown Airport Runway 11/29 Rehabilitation Feasibility Study Report B2335013-0007-CAL-REP-00003001 | 01 September 2020  Campbeltown – Aerodrome Chart ICAO - EGEC 2949. See Appendix L.  Campbeltown – EGEC AD 2.2 Aerodrome Geographical and Administrative Data issue on the 21/01/2021. See Appendix L.  DWG drawing filename: HIAL-CAM-COMP Rev M. See Appendix L.

The relevant information related to the existing runway characteristics is summarised in Table 1 and Table 2.

Description Characteristic Source of Information ICAO Runway Code: 3 Confirmed by Client Instrument – Non-Precision ICAO Runway Type: Confirmed by Client Approach ICAO Runway Category: Not Applicable EGEC AD 2.2 Type of Traffic permitted VFR EGEC AD 2.2 (IFR/VFR): Departures when the reported MET visibility is Use of Runway: EGEC AD 2.2 400 m or less are not permitted Table 1 - Runway Characteristics

RUNWAY TORA TODA ASDA LDA DESIGNATOR (m) (m) (m) (m) 11 1750 1750 1750 1500 29 1750 1750 1750 1500 TORA = TAKE - OFF RUN AVAILABLE TODA = TAKE - OFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE ASDA = ACCELERATE - STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE LDA = LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE Table 2 - Current Runway declared distances

11.3 Design Criteria During a meeting with the Airport Operator on the 9th of April 2021 it was agreed that the declared runway distances would be limited to the length between the two thresholds (Threshold 11 and Threshold 29). This agreement has resulted in the approval of the declared distances shown in Table 3.

RUNWAY TORA TODA ASDA LDA DESIGNATOR (m) (m) (m) (m) 11 1412 1412 1412 1412 29 1412 1412 1412 1412 TORA = TAKE - OFF RUN AVAILABLE TODA = TAKE - OFF DISTANCE AVAILABLE ASDA = ACCELERATE - STOP DISTANCE AVAILABLE LDA = LANDING DISTANCE AVAILABLE

Table 3 – Approved Declared Distances

The AGL layout has been designed to meet the declared distances shown on drawings 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0541 and 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0542, provided within Appendix E.

11.4 Conclusions and recommendations The Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) design has been undertaken using three different design approaches.

Option 1 Option 1 considers an AGL layout to maintain the current declared distances. However, this AGL layout does not reflect the runway refurbishment as per Option B2 F and furthermore, there are compliancy issues with the RESA and AGL installation.

Option 2 Option 2 considers an AGL layout to provide the runway refurbishment as per option B2 F and maintain the current declared distance on end LDA 29. The declared distance on end LDA 11 cannot be maintained following the downgrading of the runway pavement to taxiway. This AGL layout has compliance issues with the installation of the runway end red lights at the end of LDA 11 and end of LDA 29. Option 3 Option 3 considers an AGL layout to provide the runway refurbishment as per option B2 F and provides the new reduced declared distances approved by the Client. As previously described this AGL layout has a compliancy issue with the installation of the runway end red at threshold 29, which could be mitigated by installing red lights on the reverse side of the wing bars. This is the Client’s preferred option and accepts that approval from the CAA is required. The proposed AGL layout schematic, that complies with the approved declared distances, is shown below in Figure 1. The full AGL Design Report is included within Appendix E, along with the specification.

Figure 1 - AGL Layout Schematic

AGL Layout Schematic – Figure 1 This consist of  AGL portable blue lights on the downgraded runway to taxiway. (Lights spaced at 30m).  AGL portable green lights on Threshold 11. (5 + 5 No. unidirectional green lights as wing bar) + (1+1 No. green/red lights in line with runway edge lights)  AGL portable red lights on End LDA 29 (4 unidirectional red lights as red bar) + (1+1 No. green/red lights in line with runway Edge lights)  AGL portable white/yellow lights on runway edge 500m prior the runway end on both directions. (Lights spaced at 30m)  AGL portable white lights on runway edge excluded the locations mentioned above. (Lights spaced at 30m)  AGL portable green lights on Threshold 29. (5 + 5 No. green/red lights as wing bar) + (1+1 No. green/red lights in line with runway edge lights).

Bi-directional green/red wing bars are not included in the ICAO and EASA regulatory standards. However, as the portable lights cannot be installed on the pavement due to the fact that the threshold area is subject to aircraft traffic to and from the former Runway 29 undershoot to be now reclassified as taxiway, we believe the proposed green/red wing bar lights are a valid alternative solution to provide information of the runway end. However, this proposal requires the issuing of a derogation by CAA. The proposed AGL layout is compliant to the EASA standard as illustrated within Table 4 except for the Runway end lights at threshold 29.

EASA EASA Sub- Compliance Statement Reference chapter Runway edge lights are placed outside the edges of the area declared for use as the runway at a distance of 1.5m. Runway The lights are uniformly spaced in rows at intervals of not more than CS ADR- edge 60 m as per an instrument runway. DSN.M.675 lights A section of the lights one-third of the runway length, at the remote end of the runway from the end at which the take-off run is started, are shown yellow. Wing bar lights are provided on the non-precision approach runway where the threshold is displaced, and runway threshold lights are Runway required but are not provided. threshold CS ADR- Wing bar lights are symmetrically disposed about the runway centre and wing DSN.M.680 line at the threshold in two groups, i.e., wing bars. Each wing bar is bar lights formed by five lights extending 10m outward from, and at right angles to, the line of the runway edge lights, with the innermost light of each wing bar in the line of the runway edge lights. On threshold 11 the lighting consists of six lights. The lights are equally spaced between the rows of runway edge lights. On threshold 29 the lighting cannot be installed on the pavement. It is Runway CS ADR- proposed a wing bar formed by six red lights on each side. extending end DSN.M.685 10 m outward from, and at right angles to, the line of the runway edge lights lights, with the innermost light of each wing bar in the line of the runway edge lights. This proposal requires CAA approval. Taxiway edge lights are provided on the runway forming part of a standard taxi-route and intended for taxiing at night where the runway Taxiway CS ADR- is not provided with taxiway centre line lights. edge DSN.M.720 On the runway forming part of a standard taxi-route are spaced at lights uniform longitudinal intervals of not more than 60 m. The lights are located outside the runway edges at a distance of 1.5m. Table 4 - EASA - AGL Compliant Matrix

As the proposed AGL lights are portable units with an internal rechargeable battery, these are not permanently installed to the runway pavement.

Specific markings on the pavement are required to indicate to the airport operator the exact location of each single portable light.

The proposed markings are coloured spots to indicate the colour of the lights to be positioned as specified in Table 5. The colours of the spot will represent the colour of the lights to be located at that position.

AGL LIGHT SPOT DESCRIPTION COLOUR Threshold unidirectional green Half sector green Threshold unidirectional green + Runway End Half sector green/Half sector red unidirectional red Runway End unidirectional red Half sector red Runway Edge white/yellow Half sector white/Half sector yellow Runway Edge white Round spot white Threshold unidirectional green + Runway End Half sector green/Half sector red unidirectional red Table 5 - AGL Marking Colours

11.5 Summary of non-compliance issues The following non-compliance issues have been noted during the AGL review and detailed design.

Area Issue 1. The safety area RESA associated to the runway Head 29 is not compliant with the ICAO Annex 14 cl 3.5.3 and EASA, because the Starting TORA 29 is declared at the beginning of the Runway pavement with no sufficient distance to the Option 1 – current fence. Current Runway 2. The runway end red lights at the End LDA 11 cannot be 09/27 installed as per ICAO Annex 14 cls 5.3.11.1, 5.3.11.3 and 5.3.11.5 3. The runway end red lights at the End LDA 29 cannot be installed as per ICAO Annex 14 cls 5.3.11.1, 5.3.11.3 and 5.3.11.5

Option 2 - 1. The runway end red lights at the End LDA 11 cannot be Refurbished installed as per ICAO Annex 14 cls 5.3.11.1, 5.3.11.3 and Runway 09/27 as 5.3.11.5 option B2 F – 2. The runway end red lights at the End LDA 29 cannot be confirming current installed as per ICAO Annex 14 cls 5.3.11.1, 5.3.11.3 and End LDA29 5.3.11.5

Option 3 - 1. The runway end red lights at the End LDA 11 (Threshold 29) Refurbished cannot be installed as per ICAO Annex 14 cls 5.3.11.1, Runway 09/27 as 5.3.11.3 and 5.3.11.5. This issue could be mitigated installing option B2 F – with the red lights on the wing bar as per proposed configuration new declared shown on Figure 1. distances Derogation approval by the CAA is required. Table 3 - Noted non-compliances for AGL

12 Environmental Considerations Arcadis has carried out a review of the environmental considerations in light of the detailed design for the Pavement Rehabilitation & AGL works. A feasibility study was conducted in September 2020. The environmental considerations and recommendations in this section have built upon the existing information and recommendations identified at the feasibility stage, reviewing these against the emerging detailed design information and supporting design assumptions.

12.1 Ecology A desk study was undertaken during the feasibility stage of the project and reviewed protected species and habitats within a 2km radius of the works. Due to the location of the project site, the habitats surrounding were considered suitable for a variety of protected species such as otter and water vole however, due to the level of anthropogenic activity on site and the localised nature of the works, it is unlikely these species will be impacted during the works and operation of the site. An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was completed by Atmos Consultancy on behalf of HIAL in August 2019. The survey results found that the airport site is semi-improved acid grassland with wet dwarf shrub heath, with no notable protected species observed.

12.2 Designated sites The nearest designated site is the Machrihanish Dunes, classed as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The area covers 293.35 ha, running approximately 5 km along the coast, and extending 0.5 km to 1.0 km inland. The SSSI is located approximately 2.5km to the North- West of the site.

It is the largest sand dune system in mainland Argyll and holds a variety of different dune habitats, ranging from exposed strandline and fore dune vegetation to fixed dune grassland and dune slacks. This variety of habitats supports a diverse flora. Machrihanish Dunes is the only site in Kintyre for pyramidal orchid (Anacampti s pyramidalis).

The feasibility study indicated there are potential hydrological links between the airport and the SSSI as Machrihanish Water runs along the south of the airport and is connected to the periphery of the site through multiple field ditches. Whilst this link could give rise to localised impacts, the notified habitats are supported primarily by coastal and groundwater sources. The detailed design does not include any proposals for changing the existing drainage infrastructure, however, some maintenance and repair works may be required to ensure the existing infrastructure can operate to its full capacity. As agreed with SEPA, this would not result in a change in the parameters of the existing CAR licence and therefore no new environmental effects are envisaged. In addition, with the localised nature of the works and with the implementation of best practice measures to control dust and noise generating activities, disturbance as a result of construction phase dust and noise is not likely to occur.

12.3 Breeding birds All wild birds are protected in Scotland under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is illegal to disturb any wild birds including their nests and eggs. There is one record of barn owl (2006) on site and 49 historic records of birds under part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Due to the age of the records (with the majority of these being more than 10 years old), the localised nature of the works and the level of anthropogenic activity within the site area, there are no immediate concerns of breeding birds being affected by the project. Additionally, the feasibility study noted that there was a lack of suitable breeding features within the airport grounds, however, this should be confirmed prior to construction commencing.

Following a review of the detailed design proposals, the recommendations proposed at the feasibility stage remain valid. Potential effects to birds, including breeding birds, can be managed through best practice measures implemented during construction and specified through a Construction Environmental Management Plan, including: – Inspections of the areas adjacent to the proposed work areas are to be carried out by a competent ornithologist 2 weeks prior and 24 hours prior to works commencing. The ornithologist will check these areas for nesting birds to ensure that no active (or in the process of being built) nests are present. – If a bird is discovered to be nesting within the working areas during the inspections, then an appropriate buffer will be determined around the nest to protect it. Works will not be able to proceed in this area until the chicks have successfully fledged.

12.4 Amphibians and reptiles There are currently no records of amphibians and reptiles within a 2km radius of the site of works, however, the feasibility study has noted that the terrestrial habitats within the site are considered suitable for widespread amphibian species (i.e., common frog and common toad). At both feasibility and detailed design stage vegetation clearance outside of the footprint of the paved runway would not be required as part of the project proposals and therefore potential effects from the loss of suitable habitat are not envisaged. It is recommended that tool-box talks are carried out for site operatives detailing the steps to avoid injuring or killing amphibians and reptile species.

12.5 Notable protected species The extended phase 1 habitat survey completed by Atmos in 2019 found that there were no signs of protected species within the airport site and no suitable habitats were identified. There are currently no records of bats, otters or water voles within a 2km radius of the site. Due to the high level of anthropogenic activity on the site and lack of suitable roost habitats, the project is unlikely to affect bat roosts, hibernation or affect the maternity season.

The surrounding terrestrial and marine habitats could be considered suitable for widespread otter and water vole species; however, the desk study has confirmed that there are no historic records of both species being present within the proposed area of works. Due to the very localised nature of the works within the footprint of the existing runway, an impact pathway to these species is not envisaged. Good practice construction measures to prevent animals from entering and becoming trapped in any open excavations and pits should be specified as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan for implementation during the works.

12.6 Recommendations for ecology In conclusion the construction works are unlikely to result in any adverse effects on designated sites and protected species in the surrounding area. However, it is recommended that best practice measures specified within a Construction Environmental Management Plan should be implemented by contractors. Measures specific to the works and site characteristics are summarised in Table 01. No adverse effects are likely to occur once the pavement renewal works are completed.

Recommendations for implementation by the Potential effect Contractor

 Inspection of work area undertaken 2 weeks prior Disturbance of breeding birds due to and 24 hours prior to work commencing by activities undertaken during the competent ecologist. breeding bird season (March to Determine any active nests present/inform any August)  necessary mitigation

 Implementation of biosecurity measures to control non-native invasive species, including:  Cleaning stations for washing and brushing boots Introduction and/or spread of non- and equipment for site operatives before leaving native invasive species the site  Where feasible, vehicle use on site kept to minimum and wheel and vehicle washing for plant leaving the construction site

Disturbance and killing of amphibians and reptile species potentially present  Tool-box talk to site operatives to provide within the vegetated areas adjacent to information the existing paved surface

 Construction site lighting should implement Nuisance and disturbance to nocturnal directional lighting aimed towards works only to species and surrounding properties minimise potential disturbance to nocturnal caused by construction site lighting foraging/commuting habits of wildlife

 Open excavations should be covered at night or a Animals potentially entering site means of escape be provided to avoid animal excavations such as trenches and pits trapping Table 01 - Construction phase recommendations for Ecology

12.7 Cultural heritage The desk study carried out during the feasibility stage confirmed that there are no listed buildings, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, conservation areas and designated landscapes within 100m of the proposed site. Three cultural heritage features of interest were identified as part of the desk study, including two archaeological remains within 60m of the proposed works and the airfield itself. The proposed works are restricted to the refurbishment of the existing pavement within the boundary of the current runway footprint so there will be no physical impacts on identified archaeological remains.

Further, the depths of the refurbishment works will not extend beyond the existing sub-grade, therefore it is unlikely that the works would impact unrecorded archaeology resource. There is potential for noise and visual intrusion on the setting of the Machrihanish Airfield during construction however these would be in the context of an operational airport as well as being temporary and short term in nature.

Archaeological Remains Canmore Approximate distance Description Name Reference from proposed works

Machrihanish Airfield/ RNAS 91750 Airfield 40m Strabane / HMS Landrail

Findspot, Arrowhead Aros Moss 38418 57m (Flint), Axe head (Stone)

Findspot, Spearhead Aros Moss 38414 57m (Bronze) (Bronze Age)

12.8 Recommendations for cultural heritage Currently the likelihood of any historic findings on site are low. Contact has been made with the Local Planning Authorities and the County Archaeologist to request more information on local knowledge following the feasibility study.

In addition, the nature of the works, including depths of excavations, is unlikely to result in an adverse effect on any cultural heritage receptors, therefore, there are no cultural heritage recommendations.

12.9 Noise and visual Potential noise and visual impacts have been considered for both construction and operation however, due to the nature of the project there should not be any additional issues following completion of the pavement renewal.

The closest residential properties are located 160m East of the existing runway. The Environmental Health Officer for Campbeltown has been contacted regarding noise.

Due to the localised nature of the works, any visual impacts of the site are expected to be temporary.

An airport shut down will be taking place during day-time hours for the duration of the works. Short-term noise levels will increase for the duration of the works.

The nature and timing of activities have the potential to disturb sensitive receptors such including off-site domestic properties and protected species.

Due to the possibility of noise and visual impact pathways during the construction phase of this project, recommendations have been made both by Jacobs during the feasibility study and by Arcadis during further study.

12.10 Recommendations for noise and visual

Engagement with the Environmental Health Officer at the local planning authority has been made to discuss the possibility of noise impact pathways during construction.

The recommendations issued in the feasibility study are still relevant to the project. Noise will be controlled at the source (equipment) and implementation of best practice measures will include;  If works are undertaken at night, noise emission limits will need to be agreed with the local Environmental Health Officer. 29

 Replacing use of lighting powered by mobile generators with battery powered, LED flood lights;  Noise abatement directly controlling noise e.g., retrofitting controls on equipment plants, turning off noise sounders (when safe);  Indirect methods of controlling noise e.g., acoustic screes, use of quieter equipment, application of quieter processes

Controls across site will be by administrative and legislative control, the control of working hours, delivery areas and times; If works are undertaken at night, noise monitoring will be required to check compliance with noise level limits. If agreed levels are exceeded works will need to be ceased until an alternative method is found.

These recommendations will need to be implemented by contractors and included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

12.11 Materials Feasibility study recommendations chose options B (Marshall Asphalt) and F (Joint Sealand and Cement Material). Once a decision has been reached about which design to take forward to the detailed design stage, accurate calculations can be made to quantify the volumes and type of materials needed.

There were no recommendations in the feasibility report; however, the contractor should be required to manage material storage, laydown areas and stockpiles to avoid wastage in line with the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

12.12 Waste management The HIAL Environmental Strategy 2020-2030 sets out the strategic intentions to “Contribute to Scottish Government’s Zero Waste Policy2 by reducing wase to landfill through minimising waste streams. Promoting re-using and recycling.

Waste types may include:  Marshall asphalt wearing course  Marshall asphalt base course  Marshall asphalt  Regulating course  Pavement quality  Concrete.

Discussions have included the possibility of waste reuse of asphalt and crushed concrete for repairs of internal roads or surfacing of internal trackways. SEPA have been contacted to ensure that any reused waste is supported by the necessary licenses.

12.13 Recommendations for waste management

Recommendations have been made during the feasibility study and additional recommendations have been added by Arcadis after further study and review of current design plans.

A Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) should be drafted to be implemented by the contractor. This would include an estimate of the types and volumes of wastes likely to be generated following detailed design.

Construction waste minimisation targets shall be set in accordance with HIALs Waste Management targets set out in the Environmental Strategy 2020-2030. The construction

contractor shall record and report the volume of construction waste reused, recycled and landfilled against such targets.

The construction contractor shall develop the outline SWMP to further refine estimates of waste types and volumes and record the proposed reuse and disposal options for each waste type. The SWMP shall also identify responsibilities for obtaining the appropriate waste management licences and registration and to ensure that all wastes are managed in accordance with waste duty of care requirements.

Opportunities shall be explored to identify potential options for reuse of planning arisings onsite as part of the design proposals. For example, for repair and upgrade of site tracks or motor vehicle parking/standing areas.

Hazardous materials will, where possible, be substituted for non-hazardous alternatives. If there are no alternatives this will be discussed with HIAL in advance of construction or specification.

All waste products and raw materials shall be managed, used, and stored appropriately.

A COSHH inventory shall be maintained, and a method statement produced setting out the process for preferentially selecting chemical products with lower health and environmental impacts subject to performance needs.

All recommendations should be included by contractors in a Construction Environmental Management Plan and implemented.

12.14 Surface water discharge Existing drainage Campbelltown Airport show gully drains south of the main runway and filter drains north of the main runway, both discharging into separate chambers before discharging to a common chamber and finally a ditch connected to Machrihanish Water.

An oil interceptor and soakaway were identified adjacent to the Fire Training Ground. However, no other interceptors or silt traps could be identified for surface water run-off prior to discharge into tributaries of Machrihanish Water.

Flood risk The current project will not increase the impermeable area of the existing pavement, as the project option will be repairing and resurfacing an existing pavement of the same size or less, depending upon the final option selection.

Grooving will be applied to the Marshall Asphalt to prevent water pooling on the runway and presenting a surface water hazard to aircraft.

It is unlikely that the project will be associated with an increased flood risk and no additional flood risk mitigation is recommended.

Construction water waste and oil During the construction works, small amounts of water may be consumed:  during the surface planning activities to control dust generation and to cool any equipment that is prone to heat caused by friction  from repairs to the Runway 29 undershoot slabs and to the exposed concrete in the deeper layers of the runway main pavement.

During the construction phase the use of fuel oil will be limited to the fuelling of mobile plant and mobile generator used to power lighting for the work to be completed at night.

To ensure that there are no fuel leaks during operation and re-fuelling activities, all mobile plant must be correctly maintained as per manufacturer instructions and should be operated by trained and competent personnel only.

Overall, there is likely to be a minimal risk of escape of fuel oils into surface water and groundwater bodies, and to land.

Operation water discharge

There is the potential contaminated surface water run-off from the runway, and other paved areas of the airport to be generated, that will include:  Fuel spillages from the operation of aircraft and other vehicles within the project area.  Discharge of de-icing solution in the project area due to aircraft and ground de-icing activities.  Discharge of firefighting waters containing chemical foams during training and emergencies.

There are no proposals to alter the drainage design of the Campbeltown Airport which prevents contaminated water entering surface water and ground waters, and through infiltration of damaged pavement.

During operation, the resurfaced and repaired pavement will aid the collection and treatment of surface water by preventing contaminated water entering surface water and ground water and instead channelling this via site drainage to gullies, French drains, oil interceptors, silt traps and soakaways before discharge.

There are no immediate concerns regarding drainage currently, however recommendations have been made both during the feasibility study and by Arcadis in the event of changes to drainage during construction and operation.

Recommendations Spillage kits containing appropriate containments including temporary drain covers, absorbent pads/socks and absorbent materials should be made available during construction to control, contain and clean up all minor spillages that occur. Operatives should be trained and knowledgeable in the use of spillage kits.

All recommendations must be included by contractors in their Construction Environmental Management Plan and implemented.

Engagement with SEPA was made by Arcadis and confirm that the drainage changes will comply with the requirements of the current CAR License.

12.15 Energy Consumption In accordance with the HIAL Environmental and Energy Policy, HIAL commits to continuously improving energy management across the HIAL Group and reduce energy consumption (electricity and gas) by 14% (against 1990 baseline) by 2025.

During construction, opportunities to use electrical mobile plant and generators for running lighting stands at night will be explored. For example, a fuel powered mobile generator used to power lighting for the work to be completed at night could be replaced by rechargeable LED floodlights.

During operation, there will be no change in energy consumption as a result of the works.

13 Programme & Construction Planning 13.1 Programme The indicative schedule included in Appendix F is based upon the following criteria: -  The site works are to be completed this year (2021)  Design and procurement procedures are to follow public projects procurements guidelines  Minimise cost increase risk  Minimise disruption to all stakeholders  Preferred delivery methodology would be to undertake the site works during a complete closure of the airfield principal asset (runway).

The team considered two options for the delivery of the site works. Option one was to undertake the re-surfacing works during non-operational hours (night working). The second option was to consider a total closure of the runway and undertake the site works during a shortest possible window. After careful consideration it was proposed to recommend the second option as a preferred solution.

The advice for a complete closure is based upon the following considerations: -  Schedule delivery certainty  Close management of costs  Minimal risk to airfield operations  Facilitates the complete segregation of construction activities from other airfield activities  Material and resource management  Reduces the impacts of severe weather events  Close alignment between construction delivery methodology and design  Reduces the risk of high labour costs and abortive works.

The advice to select the preferred option contains the following assumptions: -  The HIAL service obligations for the runway can be mitigated  The supply chain will provide a compliant tender  The design and procurement timescales can be met  The project will proceed as planned  New materials can be sourced locally  The arisings from removal of the existing surface can be disposed of in a sustainable manner  The CAA will approve the proposed methodology.

Arcadis have produced an indicative construction programme for the proposed works which is included in Appendix F.

13.2 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) part 1 As part of our design submission, Arcadis have completed and submitted form SRG2011: Application of Changes to an EASA Certificated Aerodrome to the HIAL Aerodrome Manager for submission to the CAA in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014. This form is required to notify the CAA of any changes to an aerodrome.

The form highlights any changes to the specifications set out in the European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA’s) Certification Specifications and Guidance Material for Aerodrome Design (CS-ADR-DSN - Issue 5) applicable to the proposed designs related to this project that affects Campbeltown Airport.

Design proposals include changes to the following features:  Runways  Runway End Safety Areas  Taxiways  Obstacle Limitation Surfaces  Visual Aids. 14 Construction Design & Management (CDM) Arcadis have been engaged by HIAL to provide CDM and Principal Designer Duties. 14.1 Pre-construction Information This Pre-Construction Information (PCI) sets out to ensure that the design and construction of the works is implemented in a safe manner and complies with current health and safety legislation. In particular it follows the requirements of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 in particular Appendix 2 of the guidance document and is intended to impart relevant information about the works to enable due allowance to be made in respect of health and safety. The PCI document and appendices are included within Appendix K for information.

14.2 Hazard identification Hazard identification and residual risk registers have been compiled as a result of design risk workshops, though comprehensive, the Principal Contractor is to review and conduct his own risk assessment and bring any concerns to the attention of the design team. The document is included within Appendix K for information.

15 Construction Cost Estimate 15.1 Introduction High level (Class 3) cost estimates have been developed for each of the options (both targeted/recommended and night-time/daytime) proposed for the rehabilitation of Runway 11/29. These options have been compared against the original Feasibility Study figures and are summarised in the table below.

Capex for each of the above has been calculated using the methodology below.

15.2 Methodology In developing the cost estimates, the following methodology has been used: Measurement  The scope has been based upon the design information developed by Arcadis, with the drawing information produced reviewed and measured  From these measurements, indicative expenditure has been calculated using bottom-up estimates checked against facility-level benchmarks. Benchmarking  Pricing of the estimates has been carried out using Arcadis’ database of benchmark data collated from project out-turn cost information, adjusted for both inflation and location using appropriate indices  The above produces a base construction cost for each of the estimates to which the following percentage additions are applied. Prelims & OHP  The base cost includes for the actual labour, plant and materials required to construct the works. Therefore, such items as the Contractor’s site set up, safety and welfare accommodation, site management and head office overheads and profit are assessed by applying a percentage reflective of the nature of the works  For these estimates, main contractors’ overheads and profit has been applied at 6% and prelims at 12%, reflective of local market conditions across all options. Project On-Cost  Project on-costs cover the client management costs and include the full design, project and cost management fees from project inception to hand over  An allowance of £531,000, derived from both costs to date and projected expenditure as per the table below, has been applied across all options.

Project On-Cost Total (£)

HLO Phase

1. Designer Fees (spent) 9,000

2. PM Fees (spent) 9,000

Feasibility Phase

1. Designer Fees (spent) 104,000

2. PM Fees (spent) 28,000

Design Phase

1. Designer Fees 123,000

2. PM Fees 29,000

3. Surveys (GPR +Environmental Surveys) 43,000

Tender and Procurement

1. Designer Fee (Arcadis) 50,000

2. PM Fees 28,500

Construction

1. Class 3 Cost in Feasibility Report (Option B2 + F) 10,000

2. Designer Support Fees (Arcadis) 30,000

3. PM of ECC and NEC Site Supervisor 60,000

Project Close-Out

1. PM Fee 8,000

531,000

 This totals approximately 17% of the base construction cost; in line with Arcadis’ experience of similar HIAL projects.

Risk  A risk value is required to account for costs which will occur on projects that are unidentifiable at the time of estimating (i.e. scope creep, design development, quantification inaccuracy, construction risks, etc). The earlier the stage of project definition the higher the appropriate risk value should be  A costed risk register shall be developed to provide greater definition around the level of risk allowance, however at this stage of the estimating process a percentage-based approach has been taken  As such, a figure of between 20-30% of the cost has been applied to the estimates at this stage to account for the low maturity of the design information (RIBA 1); split as below: – Daytime works with full runway closure at 20% – Night-time works with runway reopening daily at 25% – Night-time Targeted works with runway reopening daily at 30% to account for unforeseen and additional patch and crack repairs  T&T conducted a Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) for the current plan and the output selected by HIAL for inclusion as the Risk value was P80, £1,156,000.  The T&T QRA presentation has been provided in Appendix G.

15.3 Assumptions The following assumptions have been made:  Drainage costs are high level allowances. Following review of CCTV and condition surveys the drainage scope can be further developed  AGL costs are high level allowances. Following manufacturer input into the AGL scope the cost estimate can be refined accordingly  It has been assumed that the asphalt required for the programme of works can be supplied locally without the construction of on-site batching plant.

15.4 Exclusions The following is a list of items not yet able to be defined for inclusion within the cost estimate. These items shall be discussed to determine whether it is appropriate to include some or all of the following within future iterations of the estimate.  Value Added Tax  Inflation  Client finance, insurance and legal costs  Statutory charges  Costs associated with third party agreements  Currency and exchange rate fluctuations  Costs resulting from charges applied by foreign countries following withdrawal of the UK from the EU  Costs resulting from working adjustments due to Covid-19 (i.e. site-based social distancing)  Asbestos removal and associated survey costs  Costs associated with environmental mitigation  Construction of on-site batching plant.

15.5 Cost Summary The following table and graph provide a cost summary of each of the estimates, inclusive of an extrapolation of operating expenditure (OPEX) over of a 15-year period.

Option Capex Opex Total

Feasibility £ 3,512,000 £ 808,000 £ 4,320,000

Feasibility £ 4,214,000 £ 808,000 £ 5,022,000 (inc. 20% uncertainty)

Recommended + Area 4 Min £ 5,057,000 £ 569,000 £ 5,626,000 (No Runway Shutdown) Recommended £ 5,510,000 £ 417,000 £ 5,927,000 (No Runway Shutdown)

Targeted £ 4,573,000 £ 1,506,000 £ 6,079,000 (No Runway Shutdown)

Recommended + Area 4 Min £ 4,851,000 £ 569,000 £ 5,420,000 (Runway Shutdown) Recommended £ 5,177,000 £ 417,000 £ 5,594,000 (Runway Shutdown)

The summary table below provides further information, while the detail behind each of the cost estimates can be found in the spreadsheet accompanying this report in Appendix G.

Detailed Design Feasibility Stage Option 1 (Night) Option 2 (Night) Option 1 (Day) Option 2 (Day) Stage No Runway Shutdown Runway Shutdown Arcadis Arcadis Arcadis Arcadis Arcadis (Recommended (Recommended Feasibility (Targeted Rehab (Recommended (Recommended Description Full Area 1 + Full Area 1 + (Option B2 & F) for Area 1 Full Area 1 & Area Full Area 1 & Area Area 4 Maint. Area 4 Maint. as Feasibility) 4) 4) Only) Only) CAPEX

1 Base Construction Cost 2,281,000 2,516,000 3,266,000 2,961,000 2,939,400 2,664,900

1.1 Area 1 - Main Runway Strip 1,736,000 1,982,000 2,427,000 2,427,000 2,427,000 2,427,000

1.2 Area 2 - Northern Shoulder 53,000 53,000 53,000 53,000 53,000 55,000 1.3 Area 3 - Southern Shoulder 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000

1.4 Area 4 - Runway 29 Undershoot - Asphalt 60,000 63,000 368,000 63,000 368,000 63,000

1.5 Area 5 - Runway 29 Undershoot - Concrete 44,000 49,000 49,000 49,000 49,000 49,000

1.6 Surface Markings 30,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

1.7 Drainage (allowance) excluded 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000

1.8 AGL (allowance) excluded 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000

1.9 Uplift for labour outside core hours 356,000 included included included- 326,600 - 296,100

2 Main Contractor's Preliminaries 12% 277,000 12% 302,000 12% 392,000 12% 355,000 12% 353,000 12% 320,000

3 Main Contractor's Overheads & Profit 10% 257,000 6% 169,000 6% 219,000 6% 199,000 6% 198,000 6% 179,000

4 On-Costs (Design, Project Management, etc) 11% 316,000 18% 530,893 14% 530,893 15% 530,893 15% 530,893 17% 530,893

5 Risk Allowance 12% 381,000 30% 1,055,000 25% 1,102,000 25% 1,011,000 0% - 0% - Capex Total £3,512,000.00 £4,572,893.00 £5,509,893.00 £5,056,893.00 £4,021,293.00 £3,694,793.00 Uncertainty / HIAL P80 Risk Allowance at Tender Stage 20% 702,000 0% inc in risk 0% inc in risk 0% inc in risk 29% 1,156,000 31% 1,156,000

Capex Total (including estimating uncertainty) £4,214,000.00 £4,572,893.00 £5,509,893.00 £5,056,893.00 £5,177,293.00 £4,850,793.00 Variance Between Nightime & Daytime Options -£332,600.00 -£206,100.00 (Capex)

OPEX

1 Maintenance Costs (15 years) 808,000 936,000 241,000 346,000 241,000 346,000

1.1 Area 1 - Main Runway Strip 563,000 595,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000

1.2 Area 2 - Northern Shoulder 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 15,000 1.3 Area 3 - Southern Shoulder 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000

1.4 Area 4 - Runway 29 Undershoot - Asphalt 119,000 120,000 15,000 120,000 15,000 120,000

1.5 Area 5 - Runway 29 Undershoot - Concrete 111,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000

1.6 Surface Markings excluded 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000

1.7 Drainage (allowance) excluded 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

1.8 AGL (allowance) excluded 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

1.9 Uplift for labour outside core hours included included included included included included

2 Main Contractor's Preliminaries inc. included inc. included inc. included inc. included inc. included inc. included

3 Main Contractor's Overheads & Profit inc. included inc. included inc. included inc. included inc. included inc. included

4 On-Costs (Design, Project Management, etc) exc. excluded 18% 168,000 12% 29,000 12% 42,000 12% 29,000 12% 42,000

5 Risk Allowance inc. included 25% 402,000 20% 77,000 20% 111,000 20% 77,000 20% 111,000

Opex Total £808,000.00 £1,506,000.00 £417,000.00 £569,000.00 £417,000.00 £569,000.00

Estimating Uncertainty (Arcadis at Detailed Design Stage) exc. excluded 0% inc in risk 0% inc in risk 0% inc in risk 0% inc in risk 0% inc in risk

Opex Total (including estimating uncertainty) £808,000.00 £1,506,000.00 £417,000.00 £569,000.00 £417,000.00 £569,000.00

Variance from Feasibility Stage Estimate (Opex) £0.00 £698,000.00 -£391,000.00 -£239,000.00 -£391,000.00 -£239,000.00

Variance from Current Detailed Design Estimate (Opex) £0.00 -£1,089,000.00 -£937,000.00 -£1,089,000.00 -£937,000.00

Opex & Capex Total £5,022,000.00 £6,078,893.00 £5,926,893.00 £5,625,893.00 £5,594,293.00 £5,419,793.00 Variance from Feasibility Stage Estimate (Opex & Capex) £0.00 £1,056,893.00 £904,893.00 £603,893.00 £572,293.00 £397,793.00

Variance from Current Detailed Design Estimate (Opex & Capex) £0.00 -£152,000.00 -£453,000.00 -£484,600.00 -£659,100.00

Risks and Opportunities

Action Risk Owner

If a bird is discovered to be nesting within the working areas during the inspections, then ARC ENV 1.0 an appropriate buffer will be determined around the nest to protect it. Works will not be able to proceed in this area until the chicks have successfully fledged. MW,CSS,RJ

Night time working may impact local residents and would require a noise survey to be Nominated 2.0 undertaken by the contractor. Noise emission limits will need to be agreed with the local Contractor Environmental Health Officer.

The AGL layout does not comply fully with EASA requirements and will need derogations HIAL 3.0 to be agreed with the CAA Aerodrome Manager

The remote location of the site and distance of asphalt manufacturing plants from the site HIAL 4.0 could restrict the number of Contractors that are capable of completing the works which Procurement may impact the tender returns.

Programme may push out into the winter period which would affect the ability to complete HIAL 5.0 the works in a stable weather environment Planning

Cost forecast may be impacted following tender returns HIAL 6.0 Procurement Table 1 Risk Log

Action Opportunity Owner

Construction works could be carried out during a Runway Shutdown to reduce the risk to 1.0 HIAL operational activities when completing work at night to maintain daytime flights.

The construction work programme could be reduced by 50% if carried out during a 2.0 HIAL Runway shutdown

Evaluation of the existing AGL equipment could provide an opportunity to reduce the 3.0 amount of new equipment required if some can be re-used. A list of the items that HIAL HIAL currently have would help to confirm the options.

A temporary Asphalt batching Plant could be set-up on site to provide a stable 4.0 manufacturing facility on site. This would need to be reviewed with the selected contractor HIAL to confirm viability and cost-effectiveness.

Existing out-buildings and facilities; if suitable, could be utilised by the Contractor for 5.0 Construction works. Would need to be assessed and agreed with HIAL Operations HIAL manager.

Arcadis have provided a Recommended Drainage scope of works for the Runway 6.0 Rehabilitation Contractor to price to allow HIAL to select any recommended work carried HIAL out during the construction works or gain alternative quotes from their own supply chain.

RPS have advised that as the proposed AGL lights are portable units with an internal 7.0 rechargeable battery, these could be recharged by Photo Voltaic supply to reduce carbon HIAL emissions. Table 2 Opportunity Log

16 Sustainability Some of the considerations made during the development of the Detailed Design for the Campbeltown Pavement Rehabilitation and AGL improvements are listed below: 1. Recommendations for stock-piling the waste materials produced on site within the Landlords area were made to potentially reduce the localised traffic from the numerous trips required to remove the waste as it is produced. A more environmental and economic way would be to store on site and schedule bulk removal. 2. Consideration of the use of material shipment by water was also discussed as a potential opportunity for the contractor to reduce the impact on the environment. 3. Recommendations were made for the recycling of Asphalt planings that arise from the site, they will have a value to someone and could be reused in asphalt depending on who wins the contract. This could not be used in the asphalt re-laid on the runway, so the potential would be for the Contractor to agree with HIAL on an amount that could be used by the local council for local roads and for the benefit of the local community. 4. RPS proposed a Solar Powered Runway Ground Lighting (RGL) options for HIAL consideration but following review they advised that the RGL was not required. 5. Consideration should be given for adapting the portable Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) to allow their internal rechargeable batteries to be recharged by Photo Voltaic supply to reduce carbon emissions.

17 Innovation 1. Arcadis employed their innovative approach by utilising the ArcGiS to carry out a Visual Inspection Survey. This provided a reduction in site attendances from an environmental impact perspective as well as risk reduction in respect to the COVID-19 restrictions.at the time of the survey. This also provided a cost reduction for travel and accommodation expenses. 2. Arcadis considered the original recommendation from the Feasibility Report and provided their recommendation to HIAL for the adoption of an alternative method of Construction which would provide an improved design life and more consistent finish. 3. This method was accepted by HIAL following detailed analysis of the cost benefit over the Runway life expectancy which considered CAPEX & OPEX spend. 4. Arcadis considered the remoteness of the site and the challenges that may be encountered by the Contractors. A recommendation for utilising a temporary Asphalt batching Plant which could be set-up on site to provide a stable manufacturing facility was provided for consideration as part of the tender proposal. 5. RPS proposed an innovative approach for the provision of AGL Runway Ground Lights (RGL) utilising a Solar power source. However, following consultation with HIAL it was confirmed that the provision of RGL was not required.

18 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Detailed Design Drawings PAVEMENT

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0001 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals General Arrangement

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0002 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Layout Sheet 1

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0003 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Layout Sheet 2

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0004 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Layout Sheet 3

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0005 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Layout Sheet 4

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0006 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Cross Sections

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0007 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Cross Sections

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0008 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Demolition Sheet 1 of 4

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0009 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Demolition Sheet 2 of 4

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0001 Airfield Markings and Signage - General Layout

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0002 Airfield Markings and Signage - Runway Threshold and Side Stripe Marking

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0003 Airfield Markings and Signage - Runway Designator and Centre Line Marking

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0004 Airfield Markings and Signage - Aiming Points Marking & Touch Down Zones

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0005 Airfield Markings and Signage - Runway - Taxiway Connection & Holding Points

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0005A Airfield Markings and Signage - Turning Bays and Closed Runway Markings

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0006 Airfield Markings and Signage - Runway Signs Holding Points & Exits

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0006A- Airfield Markings and Signage - Signage Details

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0007 Swept Path Analysis - Runway Straight Path Clearance

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0008 Swept Path Analysis - Taxiway Alfa Ingress & Egress

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0009 Swept Path Analysis - Taxiway Bravo Ingress & Egress

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0010 Swept Path Analysis - Taxiway Charlie Ingress & Egress

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0011 Swept Path Analysis - Saab 340 180 Degrees Turns at Runway Ends

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0012 Swept Path Analysis - ATR 42-500 180 Degrees Turns at Runway Ends

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0012B ATR & Saab Exit TWY Charlie

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0013 Existing Contour Plan - Sheet 1

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0014 Existing Contour Plan - Sheet 2

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0015 Proposed Contour Plan and Long Section - Sheet 1

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0016 Proposed Contour Plan and Long Section - Sheet 2

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0017 Proposed Contour Plan and Long Section - Sheet 3

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0018 Isopachytes - Sheet 1

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0019 Isopachytes - Sheet 2

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0020 Cross Sections - Sheet 1

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0021 Cross Sections - Sheet 2

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0022 Cross Sections - Sheet 3

AIRFIELD GROUND LIGHTING (AGL) 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0501 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Location Plan 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0502 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 General Arrangement Sheet 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0503 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 General Arrangement Sheet 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0504 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 General Arrangement Sheet 3 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0505 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 General Arrangement Sheet 4 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0506 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL List and Setting Out Sheet 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0507 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL List and Setting Out Sheet 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-050 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Legend 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0511 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Portable LED Light Markings Location Plan 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0512 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Portable LED Light Markings Sheet 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0513 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Portable LED Light Markings Sheet 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0514 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Portable LED Light Markings Sheet 3 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0515 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Portable LED Light Markings Sheet 4 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0516 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Marking List and Setting Out Sheet 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0517 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Marking List and Setting Out Sheet 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0521 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 11 General Arrangement 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0522 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 11 Glide Path Detail 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0523 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 11 Calculation Sheets 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0524 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 11 Calculation Sheets 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0525 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 11 Calculation Sheets 3 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0531 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 29 General Arrangement 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0532 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 29 Glide Path Detail 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0533 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 29 Calculation Sheets 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0534 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 29 Calculation Sheets 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0535 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 29 Calculation Sheets 3 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0541 Campbeltown Airport Proposal Runway 11-29 Declared Distances Approach 11 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0542 Campbeltown Airport Proposal Runway 11-29 Declared Distances Approach 29 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0545 Campbeltown Airport Proposal Runway 11-29 Obstacle Limitation Surface Approach 11 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0546 Campbeltown Airport Proposal Runway 11-29 Obstacle Limitation Surface Approach 29 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0551 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Civil Works Location Plan 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0552 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Civil Works Sheet 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0554 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Civil Works Sheet 4 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0561 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Wing Bar Plinth 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0563 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Plinth Detail 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-SE-0564 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Plinth Concrete Reinforcement Detail 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0565 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 Pit Manufacturing Detail 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-SE-0566 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 Pit Concrete Reinforcement Detail 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-SE-0567 Runway 11-29 AGL Proposal Runway 11-29 Signage Plinth Detail

APPENDIX B Utility Data

10046531-LMS-XX-XX-SU-BS-0001 - GRP Survey information

APPENDIX C Pavement Detailed Design Specification

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-SP-CE-0001 - CAL Pavement Specification

APPENDIX D Drainage Works Specification

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-SP-CE-0001 - Campbeltown Pavement Drainage Specification

APPENDIX E AGL Design Report & Specification

10046531-RPS-XX-XX-RP-LE-0001 - CAL AGL Report

10046531-RPS-XX-XX-SP-LE-0001 – CAL Runway 11-29 AGL Specification

APPENDIX F Indicative Construction Programme 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-PR-MD-0001 – Indicative Construction Programme

APPENDIX G Construction Cost Estimate

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-PP-QS-0001 - Campbeltown High-Level Cost Assessment

T&T - CAL Runway Resurfacing Pre-Tender Quantitative Risk Analysis

APPENDIX H Construction Methodology Opportunities & Risks

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-PP-CM-0002 Comparison of Construction Methodology Final 29-04-2021

APPENDIX J Civil Aviation Authority Part 1 Matrix

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-CO-ZA-0001 - CAA Part 1 Application Matrix

APPENDIX K Construction Design and Management (CDM)

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-RP-PD-200-P1 Pre-Construction Information

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-RG-PD-100-P1 Design Hazard Risk Register

APPENDIX L Existing Drawings & Reference Information

10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-1-REF 2016 Campbeltown Airport Airfield Maintenance - Rev01 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-2-REF 2017-18 CAL Runway Load Factor by Aircraft Type 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-3-REF 2018.10.15 CAL AIP 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-4-REF 56054 Campbeltown Airport Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes v1.2 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-5-REF 56054_HB_004a_Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results Campbeltown 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-6-REF 1027301-1027301-1 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-7-REF 1027301-1027301-2 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-8-REF 1027301-1027301-3 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-9-REF 1027301-1027301-4 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-10-REF 1027301-1027301-5 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-11-REF 1027301-1027301-6 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-12-REF 1027301-1027301-7 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-13-REF 1027301-1027301-8 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-14-REF 1027301-1027301-9 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-15-REF 1027301-1027301-10 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-16-REF 1027301-1027301-11 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-17-REF 1027301-1027301-12 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-18-REF 1027301-1027301-13 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-19-REF 1027301-1027301-14 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-20-REF 1027301-1027301-15 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-21-REF 1027301-1027301-16 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-22-REF 1027301-1027301-17 - TOPO Survey 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-23-REF ATR 42-500 data sheet 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-24-REF B2335013-0007-CAL-REP-00003001 FS Report (final) 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-25-REF B2335013-0007-CAL-REP-00003002 Feasibility Cost Estimate (final) 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-26-REF CamCAL Topo Survey Campbeltown Runway 11-29 - H&S File 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-27-REF HIAL CAL CCTV drainage survey files N9698

10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-28-REF PTS 2045-03 Campbeltown Airport Core Log and DCP Report 060320 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-29-REF PTS Campbeltown trial pit report 2045-03 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-30-REF PTS2045-03 Campbeltown Airport FWD- Full Report 4-5-2020 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-31-REF PTS2045-03 Campbeltown Airport UMS Final R 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-32-REF HIAL-CAM-COMP Rev M 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-33-REF xref Drainage Services 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-34-REF xref Electrical Services 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-35-REF xref MOD Fuel Pipe Line Services 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-36-REF xref Water Services 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-37-REF Campbeltown Safeguarding of Navaids 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-38-REF HIAL CAL CCTV drainage survey files N9698-R0 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-1-REF Campbeltown Airport Airfield Maintenance - Rev01

APPENDIX M – Tender Document Register

PROJECT: HIAL 01345 CAL Runway 11/29 Pavement Rehabilitation & AGL

Arcadis Project Code: 10046531

Project Manager: Eric Michaelides

Project Description: Detailed Design for Pavement Rehabilitation and associated Services

Document Name: Campbeltown Airport - PAV & AGL Tender Document Register

Document Number: 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-SH-DM-0003-P3

FULL DOCUMENT NUMBER TITLE 02/07/2021 SuitabilityCode Reports 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-RP-DM-100-P1 Campbeltown Airport - Pavement & AGL Detailed Design & Cost Report D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-RP-PD-200-P1 Pre-Construction Information D2 P1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-RP-LE-0001-P3 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Recommendation D2 P3 Report Drawings 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0001-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals General Arrangement D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0002-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Layout Sheet 1 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0003-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Layout Sheet 2 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0004-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Layout Sheet 3 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0005-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Layout Sheet 4 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0006-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Cross Sections D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0007-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Cross Sections D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0008-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Demolition Sheet D2 P1 1 of 4 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0009-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Demolition Sheet D2 P1 2 of 4 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0010-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Demolition Sheet D2 P1 3 of 4 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0011-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Demolition Sheet D2 P1 4 of 4 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-CE-0012-P1 Campbeltown Airport Pavement Proposals Pavement Utilisation D2 P1

10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0501-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Location Plan D2 P1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0502-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 General D2 P1 Arrangement Sheet 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0503-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 General D2 P1 Arrangement Sheet 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0504-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 General D2 P1 Arrangement Sheet 3 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0505-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 General D2 P1 Arrangement Sheet 4 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0506-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL List and D2 P1 Setting Out Sheet 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0507-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL List and D2 P1 Setting Out Sheet 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0508-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Legend D2 P1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0511-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Portable LED Light D2 P1 Markings Location Plan 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0512-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Portable LED Light D2 P1 Markings Sheet 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0513-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Portable LED Light D2 P1 Markings Sheet 2

10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0514-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Portable LED Light D2 P1 Markings Sheet 3 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0515-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Portable LED Light D2 P1 Markings Sheet 4 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0516-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Marking List D2 P1 and Setting Out Sheet 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0517-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Marking List D2 P1 and Setting Out Sheet 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0521-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 11 D2 P1 General Arrangement 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0522-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 11 D2 P1 Glide Path Detail 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0523-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 11 D2 P1 Calculation Sheets 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0524-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 11 D2 P1 Calculation Sheets 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0525-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 11 D2 P1 Calculation Sheets 3 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0531-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 29 D2 P1 General Arrangement 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0532-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 29 D2 P1 Glide Path Detail 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0533-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 29 D2 P1 Calculation Sheets 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0534-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 29 D2 P1 Calculation Sheets 2 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0535-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Approach 29 D2 P1 Calculation Sheets 3 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0541-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposal Runway 11-29 Declared Distances D2 P1 Approach 11 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0542-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposal Runway 11-29 Declared Distances D2 P1 Approach 29 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0545-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposal Runway 11-29 Obstacle Limitation D2 P1 Surface Approach 11 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-LE-0546-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposal Runway 11-29 Obstacle Limitation D2 P1 Surface Approach 29 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0551-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Civil Works D2 P1 Location Plan 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0552-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Civil Works D2 P1 Sheet 1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0554-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Civil Works D2 P1 Sheet 4 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0561-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 Wing Bar Plinth D2 P1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0563-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Plinth Detail D2 P1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-SE-0564-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 APAPI Plinth Concrete D2 P1 Reinforcement Detail 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-CE-0565-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 Pit Manufacturing Detail D2 P1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-SE-0566-P1 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 Pit Concrete D2 P1 Reinforcement Detail 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-DR-SE-0567-P1 Runway 11-29 AGL Proposal Runway 11-29 Signage Plinth Detail D2 P1

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0001-P1 Airfield Markings and Signage - General Layout D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0002-P1 Airfield Markings and Signage - Runway Threshold and Side Stripe D2 P1 Marking 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0003-P1 Airfield Markings and Signage - Runway Designator and Centre Line D2 P1 Marking 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0004-P1 Airfield Markings and Signage - Aiming Points Marking & Touch Down D2 P1 Zones 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0005-P1 Airfield Markings and Signage - Runway - Taxiway Connection & D2 P1 Holding Points 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0005A-P1 Airfield Markings and Signage - Turning Bays and Closed Runway D2 P1 Markings 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0006-P1 Airfield Markings and Signage - Runway Signs Holding Points & Exits D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0006A-P1 Airfield Markings and Signage - Signage Details D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0007-P1 Swept Path Analysis - Runway Straight Path Clearance D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0008-P1 Swept Path Analysis - Taxiway Alfa Ingress & Egress D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0009-P1 Swept Path Analysis - Taxiway Bravo Ingress & Egress D2 P1

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0010-P1 Swept Path Analysis - Taxiway Charlie Ingress & Egress D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0011-P1 Swept Path Analysis - Saab 340 180 Degrees Turns at Runway Ends D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0012-P1 Swept Path Analysis - ATR 42-500 180 Degrees Turns at Runway Ends D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0012B-P1 ATR & Saab Exit TWY Charlie D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0013-P1 Existing Contour Plan - Sheet 1 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0014-P1 Existing Contour Plan - Sheet 2 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0015-P1 Proposed Contour Plan and Long Section - Sheet 1 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0016-P1 Proposed Contour Plan and Long Section - Sheet 2 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0017-P1 Proposed Contour Plan and Long Section - Sheet 3 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0018-P1 Isopachytes - Sheet 1 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0019-P1 Isopachytes - Sheet 2 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0020-P1 Cross Sections - Sheet 1 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0021-P1 Cross Sections - Sheet 2 D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-DR-YY-0022-P1 Cross Sections - Sheet 3 D2 P1 Models 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-M2-LE-0501-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 - Model D2 P1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-M2-LV-0001-P1 Campbeltown Airport AGL Proposals Runway 11-29 - Campbeltown D2 P1 Background map Calculations ------Specifications 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-SP-CE-0001-P1 Campbeltown Airport - Pavement Specification D2 P1 10046531-RPS-XX-XX-SP-LE-0001-P4 Campbeltown Airport Proposals Runway 11-29 AGL Specification D2 P4 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-SP-DR-0001-P1 Campbeltown Airport - Drainage Specification D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-SP-CM-0001-P1 Campbeltown Airport - Environmental Requirements D2 P1 Surveys 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-SU-BS-0001-P1 Campbeltown Airport - Visual Condition Survey access information D2 P1 10046531-LMS-XX-XX-SU-BS-0001-P1 Campbeltown Airport - GPR Survey information & report D2 P1 Schedules

10046531-ARC-XX-XX-SH-DM-0003-P3 CAL- PAV & AGL Detailed Design Document Register D2 P3 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-PP-QS-0001-P2 Campbeltown High-Level Cost Assessment D2 P2 Registers 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-RG-PD-100-P1 Design Hazard Risk Register D2 P1 Sketches 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-SK-CM-0001-P1 Proposal for Contractors Compound: D2 P1 Programmes 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-PR-PM-0001-0 Design Programme 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-PR-MD-0001-P1 Indicative Construction Programme for Runway Shut-down D2 P1 Applications 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-CO-ZA-0001-P1 CAA Part 1 Application Matrix D2 P1 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-CO-ZA-0002-P1 CAA Part 1 Application D2 P1 Presentations 10046531-ARC-XX-XX-PP-CM-0001-P1 Environmental Constraints Updated from Feasibility Report D2 P1

Reference Information 0000 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-1-REF 2016 Campbeltown Airport Airfield Maintenance - Rev01 REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-2-REF 2017-18 CAL Runway Load Factor by Aircraft Type REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-3-REF 2018.10.15 CAL AIP REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-4-REF 56054 Campbeltown Airport Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes v1.2 REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-5-REF 56054_HB_004a_Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results Campbeltown REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-6-REF 1027301-1027301-1 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-7-REF 1027301-1027301-2 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-8-REF 1027301-1027301-3 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-9-REF 1027301-1027301-4 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-10-REF 1027301-1027301-5 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-11-REF 1027301-1027301-6 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-12-REF 1027301-1027301-7 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-13-REF 1027301-1027301-8 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-14-REF 1027301-1027301-9 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-15-REF 1027301-1027301-10 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-16-REF 1027301-1027301-11 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-17-REF 1027301-1027301-12 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-18-REF 1027301-1027301-13 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-19-REF 1027301-1027301-14 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-20-REF 1027301-1027301-15 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-21-REF 1027301-1027301-16 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-22-REF 1027301-1027301-17 - TOPO Survey REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-23-REF ATR 42-500 data sheet REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-24-REF B2335013-0007-CAL-REP-00003001 FS Report (final) REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-25-REF B2335013-0007-CAL-REP-00003002 Feasibility Cost Estimate (final) REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-26-REF CamCAL Topo Survey Campbeltown Runway 11-29 - H&S File REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-27-REF HIAL CAL CCTV drainage survey files N9698 REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-28-REF PTS 2045-03 Campbeltown Airport Core Log and DCP Report 060320 REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-29-REF PTS Campbeltown trial pit report 2045-03 REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-30-REF PTS2045-03 Campbeltown Airport FWD- Full Report 4-5-2020 REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-31-REF PTS2045-03 Campbeltown Airport UMS Final R REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-32-REF HIAL-CAM-COMP Rev M REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-33-REF xref Drainage Services REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-34-REF xref Electrical Services REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-35-REF xref MOD Fuel Pipe Line Services REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-36-REF xref Water Services REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-37-REF Campbeltown Safeguarding of Navaids REF 10046531-HIAL-XX-XX-XX-XX-38-REF HIAL CAL CCTV drainage survey files N9698-R0 REF

Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd 80 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4BY T: +44 (0)20 7812 2000

arcadis.com