Geotechnical and Phase 11 Contamination Report

Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset BS39 5XP United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

Proposed Redevelopment Windmills Phase 4

Alm Place Portland

DT5 1NH

GE OTECHNICAL

AND PHASE 11

CONTAMINATION

RE PORT

REPORT NO. 20065/A, February 2021

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Intégrale is a trading name of Integrale Limited Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX, United Kingdom Company Registration No. 2855366 England VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

Geotechnical and Phase II Contamination Report Proposed Redevelopment Windmills Phase 4 Alm Place Portland DT5 1NH

Client: Betterment Properties [Weymouth] Limited

Intégrale Report No. 20065/A, February 2021

Signature/Date Project Co-ordinator Phil Cresswell & Report Preparation:

Mentor Consultant & Andrew Harris &

Advice: Gareth Thomas

Technical Director & Kay Boreland Report Approved:

Final Check by: Phil Cresswell

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT

This report is addressed to and may be relied upon by the following:

Betterment Properties [Weymouth] Limited Unit 1, 2 Curtis Way Weymouth Dorset DT4 0TR

Integrale Limited has prepared this report solely for the use of the client named above. Should any other parties wish to use or rely upon the contents of this report, written approval must be sought from Integrale Limited. An assignment fee may then be charged.

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX, United Kingdom Company Registration No. 2855366 England

LIST OF CONTENTS

- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY –

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 General & Background 1 1.2 Current Scope 1

2.0 THE SITE 2 2.1 Location and Description 2 2.2 Published Geology and Mining 2 2.2.1 British Geological Survey Mapping 2 2.2.2 BGS Previous Investigation Records 3 2.3 Previous Investigations 3 2.3.1 Previous Mining/Quarrying 3 2.4 Outline History 3 2.5 Hydrogeology, Hydrology & Groundwater Vulnerability 3 2.6 Environmental Information 4 2.6.1 Pollution Information and Licencing 4 2.6.2 Geological Information 5 2.6.3 Background Soils Chemistry 5 2.6.4 Contemporary Trade Directories 5 2.6.5 Radon Risk Information 5 2.7 Conceptual Exposure Model 5 2.7.1 Proposed Redevelopment 5 2.7.2 Potential Sources of Contamination 6 2.7.3 Potential Pathways 7 2.7.4 Potential Receptors 7

3.0 GROUND INVESTIGATION 8 3.1.1 Mechanical Trial Pitting 8 3.2 Soils Borings 8 3.3 Groundwater and Soils Gas Standpipe Installations and Monitoring 8 3.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing 8 3.5 Contamination Analyses 8 3.6 Referencing 9

4.0 GROUND & GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 10 4.1 Summary of Strata Encountered 10 4.2 Strata Properties 10 4.2.1 Made Ground 10 4.2.2 Portland Freestone Member 10 4.3 Groundwater 10 4.4 Ground Gas 10

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 12 5.1 Scheme Details & Structural Loadings 12 5.2 Site Preparation and Earthworks 12 5.3 Foundations and Ground Floor Slabs 12 5.3.1 Typical Ground Conditions 12

5.3.2 Other Shallow Reinforced Spread Foundations 12 5.3.3 Ground Improvement 13 5.3.4 Piles 13 5.3.5 Ground Floor Slabs 13 5.3.6 Formations 13 5.4 Pavement Design 13 5.5 Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls 13 5.6 Protection of Buried Concrete 14

6.0 GENERIC QUANTITATIVE CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 15 6.1 Summary of Soils Results with Respect to Human Health 15 6.1.1 Generic Human Health Assessment 15 6.2 Summary of Soils Results with Respect to Phytotoxicity 15 6.3 Summary of Soils Results with Respect to WRAS 15 6.4 Leachate Testing 16 6.5 Gas Mitigation 16 6.6 Conceptual Exposure Model & Risk Assessment 16 6.7 Recommendations 16 6.7.1 For Protection of Human Health 16 6.7.2 For Protection of Building Materials & Services 17 6.7.3 Reuse and Disposal of Surplus Spoil 17 6.7.4 Recommended Further Assessment 17

FIGURES 1. Site Plan 2. Tentative Geological Cross-Section

APPENDICES A. Site Location B. Site Description / Photographs C. Desk Study Information D. Trial Pits E. Boreholes F. Gas & Groundwater Monitoring G. Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing H. Results of Contamination Analyses I. Proposed Redevelopment J. Acceptability Criteria

Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 20065- Windmills Phase 4 – Geotechnical and Phase II Contamination Report

Betterment Properties propose to redevelop this former quarry site with 5 No single storey residential dwellings.

The geology map reports artificial ground [Quarry Backfill] over Portland Freestone Member Limestone. Old maps show the site to be quarried from 1902-1929. It is not clear when the quarry was backfilled but must have occurred between 1929 and the 1960s as the site is shown to be open land from the 1960s.

Intrusive investigation by trial pitting and rotary percussiuon boreholes has established Quarry Backfill, comprising typically loosely to moderately compact silty sandy Gravel of limestone with cobbles and rare boulders. The base of this stratum is inferred at c. 15-20m depth. Groundwater was not proven.

The Quarry Backfill is not capable of supporting spread foundations. Consideration may be given to ground improvement of the quarry backfill by vibro replacement. Piled foundations seem to be the most appropriate option, and it is understood that rotary drilled high capacity piles have been adopted on the Windmills Phase 3 site. Suspended ground slabs are recommended. Design CBR values of at least 3-4% onto the Quarry Backfill are feasible. Effective design friction (Ø’) of 32° is appropriate for the Quarry Backfill.

Contamination assessment concludes that, following site strip:

- External garden and soft landscaped areas to be capped with a minimum of 600mm of certified clean/imported topsoil. Topsoil should be placed above a suitable geotextile warning membrane to prevent mixing of topsoil and underlying Quarry Backfill. - 1 No. sample of topsoil should be provided from each garden and tested for a generic contaminant suite, CWG TPH and asbestos screen. - Design Sulphate Class of DS-1 and ACEC Class of AC-1 are recommended for buried concrete. - New water pipes require protection. - Full Radon protection measures are required. - Surplus spoil should be removed to a suitably licenced tip.

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Intégrale is a trading name of Integrale Limited. Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom Company Registration No. 2855366 England VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General & Background Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited are proposing to redevelop this site with 5 No. Residential single storey houses with conventional gardens and short cul-de-sac approach. The project architects are Western Design Architects Limited.

Contaminated land assessment is required in planning conditions imposed by Dorset Council. The following condition (No. 10) applies to the proposed development:

Before the commencement of development…the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority:

(a) a 'desk study' report documenting the site history; (b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site, and incorporating a ‘conceptual model’ of all potential pollutant linkages, detailing the identified sources, pathways and receptors and basis of risk assessment; (c) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed; (d) a detailed phasing scheme for the development and remedial works.

The remediation scheme, as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully implemented before the development is occupied. Any variation to the scheme shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken. On completion of the works the developer shall provide written confirmation that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed details.

SOCOTEC UK Limited have completed a Phase 1 Baseline Desk Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment, aimed at addressing Part (a) of the above condition. It is assumed that has been submitted to and approved by the Local Authority.

1.2 Current Scope Integrale Limited (Intégrale) are commissioned to undertake a ground investigation and complete a Geotechnical and Phase II Contamination Report. This assessment is to provide information for geotechnical aspects as well as addressing Part (b) of the contamination condition.

The investigation scope was determined by Betterment Properties in liaison with Intégrale.

This interpretative report therefore summarises the previous desk study completed by others, describes the scope of current fieldworks, laboratory investigations and monitoring, discusses the ground and groundwater conditions encountered, and gives advice on foundations and other geotechnical aspects.

The results of contamination analyses and generic quantitative risk assessment are reported and used to establish a conceptual model of pollutant linkages. Potential implications for the development are discussed and recommendations for further investigation or potential remedial works or design measures given.

A further 3 No. gas and groundwater monitoring visits are planned and this report will be updated, reissued on completion, although based on the findings to date, it is not anticipated that recommendations will change significantly.

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 1

2.0 THE SITE

2.1 Location and Description As shown in Appendix A, the site is located within the eastern most extents of the former Bottom Coombe Quarry, Park Road, Easton, Portland. It has a central Ordnance Survey Grid Reference of 369298 071484 and postcode DT5 1NH.

Notes describing the site were prepared during the site visit and are included as Appendix B, together with typical photographs. The main features and pertinent aspects on the site and immediately adjacent land are summarised below, and annotated on Figure 1:

Current Use Vacant plot with large boulders of cut stone. Site Area & Plan c.0.3ha in a rough rectangular shape. Shape Maximum c.65m NE-SW by 40m NW-SE. Dimensions Ground Slopes & The site is split into 2 No. relatively level ‘parcels’ with a relatively steep slope Topography running NW-SE through the centre of the site. Buildings & None. Condition Surfacings & Site surfaced is limestone gravel [Quarry Backfill]. Condition Vegetation & Trees Overgrown in W and NE areas. Water Courses English Channel 650m SE. Site Boundary Chain link fence along SE boundary, Overgrown hedges and large boulders along Features NE, NE and SW boundaries. Potential for Asbestos Containing material [ACM] and other industrial contaminants Contamination within Quarry Backfill. Issues Potential former tanks associated with Quarry works. Potentially deep poorly consolidated, variable Quarry Backfill present. Differential Geotechnical Issues settlement, potential for abnormal foundation and slab construction.

2.2 Published Geology and Mining

2.2.1 British Geological Survey Mapping BGS geological maps indicate the following strata beneath and adjacent to the site:

Map / Scale BGS Sheet 341 and part of 342 [West Fleet and Weymouth] at 1:50000 scale BGS On-Line Viewer Accessed 05/10/20 Artificial Ground Infilled Ground [Backfilled Quarry Material] Superficial Deposits None mapped Solid Geology Portland Freestone Member of Jurassic Age

The BGS type description of the Portland Freestone Member is ‘The member comprises ooidal grainstones and packstones with Thalassinoides burrows.. On the Isle of Portland, the ooidal grainstones that form the lower and upper parts of the member are separated by an interval of shelly lime mud-rich limestone. Here, small patch reefs are also developed in the top of the member, formed by masses of oysters and bryozoans cemented around a massive calcareous laminated framework built of the red alga Solenopora. The topmost part of the member on Portland is a highly fossiliferous unit known as the 'Roach', in which shells are dissolved out to leave a rock full of the moulds of gastropods and bivalves

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 2

2.2.2 BGS Previous Investigation Records Previous investigation records available on the BGS website under the Open Government Licence include a trial pit sunk 200m to the south. This indicates topsoil over Made Ground comprising of limestone gravel and cobbles in a silty Clay matrix to 4m depth underlain by light grey moderately weathered moderately strong oolitic limestone. Groundwater was not encountered.

2.3 Previous Investigations A desk study carried out by others was completed in May 2020 [R0054\BDS]. The report indicates that the site is likely to be underlain by Made Ground comprising Quarry Backfill of limestone gravel within a silty clay matrix in composition. The desk study concludes that this backfill has a moderate potential for containing contamination with emphasis on potential ACM and also on the high leaching potential of the soils and the Principal Aquifer below. The following sections summarise and extract information from that desk study.

Intégrale have previously conducted an investigation immediately adjacent to the west at Windmills Phase 3. The investigation by trial pits and rotary probe boreholes established Made Ground comprising loose to medium dense Gravel and Cobbles of Limestone with boulders to between 11.5 and 22m. The inferred Portland Freestone Member was proven below. Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation or during the monitoring.

2.3.1 Previous Mining/Quarrying The desk study Report [R0054\BDS] indicates that the site does not lie within a coal mining area and there is not any such area within 1000m. It highlights that there are 21 No. Britpits [British Pits] within 250m of the site, with the site being demarked as an area known to have formerly been exposed to surface ground workings. Only the Perryfield Quarry 409m south of the site remains open. The site has been recorded as surface ground workings since 1901.

2.4 Outline History Historical maps within the previous desk study report are included in Appendix C. These indicate the following pertinent information:

Adjacent Features Map Date Site Features / Land Use (distance from site) 1864 Site is part of a field Residential adjacent to the East Windmill 150m W and SW 1902 Western half of the site is part of a quarry Bottom Combe Quarry 50m N with buildings mapped along southern Wakeham Quarry 100m S boundary Easton and Church Hope Railway 200m SW Continued development in surrounding areas 1929 Site is mapped as entirely part of the quarry Bottom Coombe and Wakeham Quarries extended to form single quarry Continued development in surrounding areas 1960-94 Site is mapped as open ground no longer Continued development in surrounding areas associated with the quarries

It is not clear when the quarry was backfilled but this must have occurred between 1929 and the 1960s when the site was mapped as open ground.

2.5 Hydrogeology, Hydrology & Groundwater Vulnerability Based on the published geological strata, topographic maps showing surface water courses and the Groundwater Vulnerability maps, the following can be anticipated at this site:

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 3

Variable permeability. Groundwater flow will be controlled by the granular nature and content of quarry Soils Permeability backfill and fractures in limestone bedrock. Potentially very high permeability in quarry backfill and high in bedrock. Deep within bedrock [greater than 10m below ground Anticipated Groundwater Table Depth level]. Anticipated Groundwater Flow Direction To the SE based on topography of surrounding area. Surface Water Courses and Flow Direction None mapped. English Channel 650m SE. Aquifer Type Principal Aquifer. Major Aquifer and Minor Aquifer/High leaching Environment Agency Soils Classification Potential. Hydraulic Continuity of Groundwater and Water Likely continuity or groundwater and English Channel. Courses

2.6 Environmental Information The following pertinent information on activities within 250m of the site has been extracted from the previous ground investigation as Windmills Phase 3 and the desk study completed by others.

2.6.1 Pollution Information and Licencing

Number Distance from Site Surface Water Abstractions 0 None within 2km Groundwater Abstractions 0 None within 2km Contaminated Land Register 233m N. 22/12/2002. Diesel. No 1 Entry/ Enforcement / Prohibition impact to land, water or air. Known Pollution to Controlled Waters 0 Integrated Pollution Control 0 Fuel Station Entry 0 Registered Radioactive Substances 0 91m NW. Soakaway. Park Road Discharge Consent 1 Easton. Sewer Storm Overflow. On site – Bottom Combe Works, Waste Reference – DOR/L/BAT045, license issue February 1992, license surrendered 2008. License Holder – Bath & Portland Stone. Operator – Bath & Portland Stone Limited. (ACS record this as including ‘Difficult Landfill Waste’).

11m SW – Cottonfields Quarry Known Landfills / Waste Management / 5 Park. License Holder – The Stone Transfer Sites within 250m Firms Limited. License issue 1978, Surrendered 1991. Waste Type – Inert, industrial.

189m NE – Broadcroft Quarry, Bumpers Lane, Portland. License 1987-1991. Operator – ARC Limited Southern Hanson Quarry Products Europe. Waste Type – industrial, inert, household.

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 4

Bottom Combe Masonry Works – Waste Disposal Licence WDL/92/165 held by Bath & Portland Stone 1992 accepted inert demolition and construction waste* Non-biodegradable wastes Source Protection Zones 0 Limited potential for Clearwater Floodplain Area / Flood Warning Status 1 Flooding

2.6.2 Geological Information

Hazard Rating Natural and Mining Cavities Potential quarry cavities onsite. Potential for Ground Dissolution Stability Hazard Very Low Potential for Landslide Ground Stability Hazard Very Low Potential for Shrinking/Swelling Clay Ground Stability Hazard Negligible Potential for Compressible Deposits Ground Stability Hazard Moderate Potential for Collapsible Deposits Ground Stability Hazard Very Low Potential for Running Sands Ground Stability Hazard Very Low

2.6.3 Background Soils Chemistry The previous investigation report includes BGS estimated background soil chemistry for 5 metals within shallow soils. This indicates that naturally occurring chromium and nickel are slightly raised in this area. However, interpretation suggests that at these levels, such metals would be unlikely to exceed generic assessment criteria for residential use. Current National Planning Policy guidance does not consider naturally occurring metals as evidence of contamination.

2.6.4 Contemporary Trade Directories

Potentially Contaminative Activities on Site Historical quarry usage on site, including tanks, drain, pond. Historical quarry usage immediately adjacent NW & SE, including tanks (11-40m NW), sawmills (historic). Potentially Contaminative Business Activities Historical railway usage (in cutting) to SW. within 250-300m of Site Works 88m NW. Electricity sub-stations 12m NE. Garage 285m N.

2.6.5 Radon Risk Information The previous investigation report indicates that the specific site lies within a Radon Affected Area, as 10- 30% of the properties are above the Action Level, requiring Full protection measures

2.7 Conceptual Exposure Model This section draws together desk study information, outlines an initial conceptual exposure model, and provides a qualitative assessment of potential contamination via a source-pathway-receptor framework for the proposed redevelopment.

2.7.1 Proposed Redevelopment The proposed redevelopment is the subject of planning application no. WP/17/00371/OUT. Details of the proposed redevelopment are shown on Drawing No. 212 given in Appendix I and can be summarised as:

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 5

Buildings 5 No. single storey dwellings. Car Parking Permeable paved area adjacent to buildings. Tarmacadam roads leading to properties from the west. Access Roads From entrance around western periphery. Landscaping Traditional private gardens. Managed soft landscaping around building. Anticipated Foundations and Floor Slabs Rotary drilled, high capacity rotary drilled piled foundations anticipated, along with suspended (beam & block) type foundations. Building Level At or close to existing grade.

2.7.2 Potential Sources of Contamination The desk study has been used to identify the likely remnant contaminant sources and distribution. The potential current and historical on- and off-site sources and the contaminants associated with these, derived using CLR8 Potential Contaminants for the Assessment of Land, and through experience of industrial land use, are detailed below.

Potential Contaminants Associated with On-Site Sources Description Metals, semi-metals, non- Organic chemicals Ground Gases metals, inorganic chemicals & Vapours and others Former Quarry Range of contaminants possible depending in backfill Usage including backfilling Tanks Unlikely PAHs, Petroleum Petroleum hydrocarbon associated [SETTLEMENT SLURRY] Hydrocarbons possible but vapours possible with quarry unlikely usage

Potential Relevant Contaminants Associated with Off-Site Sources Description Metals, semi-metals, non- Organic chemicals Ground Gases metals, inorganic chemicals & Vapours and others Adjacent Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Oil/fuel hydrocarbons. Petroleum hydrocarbon Quarry As, S2-, Asbestos, pH vapours Usage including sawmills, works, tanks Railway Line Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, V, PAHs, hydrocarbons. Petroleum hydrocarbon 2- and SO4 , Asbestos vapours Spur immediately SW (at lower elevation, but may be above base of backfilled quarry).

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 6

Electricity As, B, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Aromatic hydrocarbons, substation 10- Hg, Ni, Zn, NO3-, SO4 chlorinated aliphatic 30m NE 2-, hydrocarbons, PCBs S2-, asbestos, pH

2.7.3 Potential Pathways To understand the potential risks posed by the contaminants to human receptors, the possible contaminant pathways need identified. The CLEA model (DEFRA & EA 2002) indicates potential exposure routes for assessing risks to human health for a residential setting (with home-grown produce uptake) as follows:

• Dermal exposure; • Inhalation of particulates; • Inhalation of soil vapour (indoor and outdoor); • Inhalation of groundwater vapour (indoor and outdoor); • Direct ingestion of soil; • Ingestion of home-grown produce and soil attached to vegetables.

The potential pathways with respect to Controlled Waters will include:

• Downward migration through Made Ground and to underlying Principal Aquifer; • Lateral migration through Made Ground to surface water; • Lateral migration through groundwater to surface water; • Lateral migration via man-made pathways (e.g. services) to surface water.

2.7.4 Potential Receptors For a residential end use and the known neighbouring land uses, the potential receptors to contamination (if present on site) are:

• Immediately adjacent residents – critical receptor female child; • Construction workers – critical receptor female adult; • Future site users – critical receptor female child.

The likely sensitive Controlled Waters receptors are considered to be:

• Principal Aquifer beneath site • English Channel 650m SE

Due to the topography of the site and surroundings, continuity of geological strata and drainage pattern the Principal Aquifer is considered the most likely receptor.

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 7

3.0 GROUND INVESTIGATION

In view of the anticipated ground conditions, current site layout, proposed redevelopment and previous success of similar strategy, the following scope of investigation was completed.

3.1.1 Mechanical Trial Pitting 7 No. trial pits were mechanically excavated using a tracked 13T excavator on 7th October, 2020. The trial pit locations, chosen by Integrale are shown on Figure 1 and were referenced as TP1-TP 7. The general procedures adopted during trial pitting, together with the detailed trial pit records are included in Appendix D.

3.2 Soils Borings 5 No. boreholes were sunk using rotary percussion open hole drilling equipment, on 8th and 9th October 2020. The borehole locations, chosen by Intégrale are shown on Figure 1 and were referenced as BH1– BH5. Boreholes were sunk to between 18m and 20m depth. The general procedures adopted during drilling, together with the detailed borehole records are included in Appendix E.

3.3 Groundwater and Soils Gas Standpipe Installations and Monitoring Standpipes were installed in Boreholes BH1, BH2 and BH5 typically to between 5m and 9m depth, and details are given on the borehole records. Monitoring has currently been undertaken on 6 No. occasions and the results are included in Appendix F, together with the general procedures adopted for installing standpipes.

3.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing A schedule of complementary soils testing was prepared by Intégrale and the tests were completed in accordance with BS 1377 (1990) by I2 Analytical Limited. The results are provided in Appendix G and the following shows the testing strategy:

Location Depth Stratum Testing Criteria for test selection (m) TP3 3.0 MG Wet Sieve Strata classification and characteristics TP5 0.3 MG Wet Sieve “ TP2 1.0 MG Wet Sieve “ TP1 2.9 MG BRE (reduced) suite Concrete classification TP4 1.1 MG BRE (reduced) suite Concrete classification TP6 1.6 MG BRE (reduced) suite Concrete classification

3.5 Contamination Analyses In view of the desk study and fieldwork findings, a schedule of soils analyses was prepared. The analyses were completed by I2 Analytical Limited and the results are provided in Appendix H. The following shows the testing strategy:

Location Depth Stratum Testing Criteria for test (m) selection TP1 0.05 MG Generic Suite, TPH CWG, Asbestos Screen Coverage of Plot D TP1 2.5 MG Generic Suite, TPH CWG, Asbestos Screen Coverage of Plot D TP2 0.1 MG Generic Suite, TPH CWG, Asbestos Screen Coverage of Plot C TP2 3.9 MG Generic Suite, TPH CWG, Asbestos Screen Coverage of Plot C TP3 1.1 MG Generic Suite, TPH CWG, Asbestos Screen Coverage of Plot B TP4 0.4 MG Generic Suite, TPH CWG, Asbestos Screen Coverage of Plot A TP4 2.6 MG Generic Suite, TPH CWG, Asbestos Screen Coverage of Plot A TP5 1.3 MG Generic Suite, TPH CWG, Asbestos Screen Coverage of Plot D TP6 0.6 MG Generic Suite, TPH CWG, Asbestos Screen Coverage of Plot E

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 8

TP6 2.1 MG Generic Suite, TPH CWG, Asbestos Screen Coverage of Plot E TP3 1.9 MG Generic Leachate Suite Leaching risk to aquifer TP5 2.9 MG Generic Leachate Suite “ TP6 1.0 MG Generic Leachate Suite “

3.6 Referencing Locations of the exploratory positions were set out using taped offsets from existing features. Ground levels at the exploratory positions have been determined by interpolating between spot levels given on the site survey drawing.

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 9

4.0 GROUND & GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

4.1 Summary of Strata Encountered The strata encountered across the site are broadly similar as shown on the tentative geological cross- section in Figure 2. They can be summarised as follows:

Depth (m) Description GL to 15.0/17.0 Made Ground: [Comprising locally loosely to moderately well compact cream to brown silty clayey to very clayey sandy Gravel of fine to coarse limestone.] [QUARRY BACKFILL]

15.0/17.0 Proven Inferred LIMESTONE Bedrock to 20.0 [PORTLAND FREESTONE MEMBER]

The in-situ bedrock was inferred from the behaviour and increase in drilling resistance of the rotary probe drilling rig. No recovery was observed, therefore the description ‘limestone’ is tentatively given.

Localised small voids were encountered during the rotary drilling site investigation.

4.2 Strata Properties

4.2.1 Made Ground Made Ground was proven in all of the exploratory positions and can be categorised as:

Made Ground Type/Location Quarry backfill Min/Max. thickness (m) 15.0/17.0 Main Constituents Sub-angular to angular GRAVEL and COBBLES with localised large boulders of Limestone in a silty sandy locally clayey matrix. Properties Granular, loosely to moderately compact locally moderately to well compact, dry. Gravel=42.8-58.9%, Sand=9.3-35.1%, Fines=22.1-34.1% Visual Contamination/Odours None noted.

Topsoil was not proven in any of the exploratory positions.

4.2.2 Portland Freestone Member The contact between the Portland Freestone Member and overlying Made Ground was inferred from the behaviour of the rotary probe drilling rig and the penetration rate. The drilling technique implemented resulted in no rock or returns recovery.

4.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not proven in any of the exploratory positions.

4.4 Ground Gas Summary of the results are summarised below with full information provided in Appendix F.

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 10

Exploratory BH1 BH2 BH5 Location 8.5 6.0 5.0 Response Zone (m) / Made Ground [Quarry Made Ground [Quarry Made Ground [Quarry Strata Backfill] Backfill] Backfill] Evidence of None None None Contamination Monitoring Visits 6 6 6 (No.) Methane (%) 0.0-0.2 0.0-0.1 0.0-0.1 Carbon Dioxide (%) 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0.0-0.3 Oxygen (%) 20.1-20.7 20.2-21.0 19.8-21.5 VOC (ppm) 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.1 0.0-0.1 Gas Flow 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.2 (litres/hr) Water levels (m) - - - Atmospheric Pressure Range 991-1017 991-1017 991-1017 (mb)

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 11

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Scheme Details & Structural Loadings The proposed redevelopment will be constructed at or close to existing grade. According to the client the development is to comprise 5 No. single storey bungalows as shown on the drawings included in Appendix I. The properties are to be of either timber framed construction or traditional bearing masonry.

Foundation line loads could be between 75-175kN/m run. Combined ‘dead’ and ‘live’ loading on the ground floor slabs will be less than 10kN/m2.

The development will also include a new access road from the west, car parking, conventional gardens, and managed communal soft landscaping.

5.2 Site Preparation and Earthworks Any localised topsoil and localised areas of particularly poor quality Made Ground, should be removed from beneath proposed building and hardstanding areas. Excavations to at least 2-3m depth are likely to be feasible with conventional soils excavating machinery. Pneumatic tools may be required to break out masonry obstructions and large quarry backfill boulders.

Whilst most of the spoil resulting from the excavations in the quarry backfill could prove to be unsuitable for reuse as good quality structural fill, with careful selection and some secondary breaking perhaps 25% or so may be suitable for reuse as general granular fill.

Shallow excavations may encounter slight to moderate infiltration and perched groundwater seepages, especially following heavy and prolonged rainfall. Whilst much of this seepage is likely to simply soakaway, excavations may be kept dry by intermittent pumping from a convenient sump.

Temporary excavations in the Quarry Backfill will probably stand unsupported in the short term at gradients of about 1 on 2. Excavations below approximately 1m depth will require sheeting and shoring, particularly if personnel are to enter.

In general, formations in the Quarry Backfill are likely to be relatively insensitive to deterioration due to site traffic and weather. Localised pockets of silty clay were identified and these will require protection upon exposure with 150mm of granular material or 75mm lean mix concrete. For approximate budget costings, allow for 10% cover of anticipated formations area.

5.3 Foundations and Ground Floor Slabs

5.3.1 Typical Ground Conditions The investigation has proven a thick [15-20m] predominately granular, voided, poorly consolidated with large boulders Quarry Backfill overlying an inferred continuous stratum of limestone bedrock [Portland Freestone Member]. The groundwater was not encountered during the investigation or during the monitoring visits and is believed to be at a significant depth. In view of the variably compact [loose to moderately compact] thick Quarry Backfill, conventional pad and strip foundations are not suitable due to the high risk of differential settlement.

5.3.2 Other Shallow Reinforced Spread Foundations In view of the above, consideration has been given to the adoption of either a ‘flexible’ or a ‘stiff’ flat-slab foundation raft. Due to the total and differential settlement of the Quarry Backfill a ‘raft’ foundation is also not considered a feasible option.

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 12

5.3.3 Ground Improvement Consideration could be given to ground improvement of the Quarry Backfill by the application of vibro replacement (stone columns) of these relatively granular and poor quality soils to reduce the anticipated settlement beneath flexible foundation rafts, as recommended by NHBC.

5.3.4 Piles Piles foundations are another option, and seem best suited to the ground conditions proven.

Driven piles are unlikely to be suitable at this site since they may abort on coarse obstructions in the quarry backfill, of the pile toe could be deflected on steeply sloping rockhead at the base of the quarry backfill without achieving a suitable ‘set’.

Conventional rotary or percussion bored cast insitu concrete piles or continuous flight auger (cfa) bored piles could be taken down through the Quarry Backfill and designed as ‘rock sockets’ into the limestone bedrock as the base of the quarry. However, it must be noted that these piles could also be susceptible to localised boulder sized obstructions. Rotary drilled and temporary cased piles would be the best option, but these can be expensive.

Experienced and specialist bored piling contractors should be provided with a full copy of this report and asked to demonstrate the suitability of their preferred pile type in the ground conditions proven. Intégrale would welcome the opportunity of reviewing those proposals and commenting on the specialist contractors preferred pile types.

5.3.5 Ground Floor Slabs Ground floor slabs should be designed as suspended. In line with NHBC guidelines, suspended ground floor slabs (e.g. ‘beam and block’ type or similar) should be adopted where the slab will be underlain by 600mm or more of ‘non-engineered’ Made Ground.

Alternatively, a ground bearing floor slabs could be adopted following satisfactory ground improvement by vibro-replacement.

5.3.6 Formations All foundation, ground slab and substructure formations should be checked and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced engineer or geotechnical specialist, who can also give guidance on the need for mesh reinforcement to even out formation compressibility.

5.4 Pavement Design The equivalent CBR strength of anticipated pavement formations has been determined using a TRL DCP and judged on the basis of past experience in similar materials. The following (tentative) design values are given for guidance:

Stratum Design CBR Typical Depth (m) BEGL Quarry Backfill 3-4% 0.5-1.5

It would be prudent to allow a contingency for treating ‘soft-spots’ equivalent to 25% of the proposed hardstanding area to a depth of typically 500mm. All soft spots should be excavated and replaced with suitable well compacted granular material. Portland Freestone typically has good resistance to frost. However, it would be prudent to check the details on the BRE website for more details of specific limestone member properties.

5.5 Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls Foundations for retaining walls can be based on the allowable design bearing pressures given in section 5.3.2. Earth pressures may be calculated assuming the following effective shear strength parameters:

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 13

Stratum Effective Effective Angle Bulk Density Cohesion of Friction (Mg/m3) C¹ (kN/m2) Ø¹ (degrees) Quarry Backfill Zero 32° 1.85

5.6 Protection of Buried Concrete In line with BRE Special Digest 1:2005 ‘Concrete in Aggressive Ground’, 3 no. samples of the quarry backfill were tested for water soluble sulphate, total acid soluble sulphate, total sulphur and pH. The results are reported in Appendix G.

The desk study and ground investigation indicate the site can be categorised as being:

Brownfield location including aggressive materials or leachates, but without pyrites. Mobile groundwater conditions, as water will flow into excavations or is percolating slowly through the ground.

The results show a highest water soluble sulphate of 74.1mg/l. The lowest value for pH was 8.4. The results for total acid soluble sulphate (0.151% to 0.185%) and total sulphur (0.058% to 0.078%) indicate pyrite is not present. It is therefore recommended that a Design Sulphate Class of DC-1 and an ACEC Class of AC-1 be adopted for budgeting purposes.

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 14

6.0 GENERIC QUANTITATIVE CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

6.1 Summary of Soils Results with Respect to Human Health The conceptual model based on the source-pathway-receptor linkages is summarised as:

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

Contaminated soils → Dermal exposure → On-site female child

Contaminated soils → Inhalation of soil dust → On-site female child

Contaminated soils → Indoor inhalation of soil vapour → On-site female child

Contaminated soils → Outdoor inhalation of soil vapour → On-site female child

Contaminated soils → Direct ingestion of soil → On-site female child Ingestion of home-grown produce and Contaminated soils On-site female child → soil attached to vegetables →

A generic risk assessment has been undertaken by comparing proven concentrations of contaminants against generic assessment (or screening) criteria (AC).

The AC adopted are the published LQM/CIEH Suitable For Use Levels (S4UL’s), for a generic residential with plant uptake end-use, adopted under licence no. 3580. These provide a precautionary approach, based on the principle of minimal or tolerable risk, but relying on conservative values for soil type (sandy loam) and organic matter contents of 1, 2.5 or 6% as appropriate. Where no S4UL is published, e.g. lead, the alternative AC is the most recently published industry standard value.

If the proven contaminant concentration is less than the respective AC, it is considered there is no significant risk to human health from these substances.

6.1.1 Generic Human Health Assessment The soil samples where contaminants exceed the relevant assessment criteria are:

Standard Substance Stratum Depth BEGL Area / Zone Assessment Naphthalene Made Ground 2.5m TP1 - Northern Area Criteria for AC=2.3mg/kg Residential Use Result=3.5mg/kg & Plant Uptake

No evidence of localised, or widespread contamination was noted in any of the trial pits, boreholes or monitoring (see below). At 2.5m depth, the risk to future users from the slight exceedance of Napthalene in this single sample (from 10 No.) is considered negligible and not considered further.

Although asbestos was not identified in any of the tested samples, suspected ACM was highlighted during the desk study and its presence cannot be discounted.

6.2 Summary of Soils Results with Respect to Phytotoxicity No substances were present in the analysed samples in excess of the phytotoxic criteria.

6.3 Summary of Soils Results with Respect to WRAS The soil samples which exceeded the Water Regulations Advisory Scheme (WRAS) guidance on water supply pipes are:

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 15

Standard Substance Stratum Depth BEGL Area / Zone WRAS Arsenic, pH, sulphate Made Ground GL -4.0m Site wide

This suggests that new water pipes laid through Made Ground will need to be protective against chemical attack. Requirements should be confirmed with the water supply company.

6.4 Leachate Testing There are no exceedances in the samples tested for Leachable contaminants.

6.5 Gas Mitigation Monitoring to date gives the following ‘worst case’ results:

• Maximum Gas Flow: 0.2 litres per hour • Maximum CO2: 0.3% • Maximum CH4: 0.2% • Maximum VOC: 0.2ppm

These indicates a ‘worst case’ Gas Regime classification of Characteristic Situation 1, which is in line with what was found in the Windmills Phase 3 site adjacent west. For low-rise residential buildings this suggests a Green 1 protection level is required in line with the NHBC Traffic Light system.

The desk study indicates that Full Radon Protective Measures will be required.

6.6 Conceptual Exposure Model & Risk Assessment The potential hazards and risks from soils, water and gas contamination have been developed as a Conceptual Exposure Model, based on desk studies, proven ground conditions, analytical and monitoring results and the proposed redevelopment. Substances actually proven, or strongly suspected present, have been assessed against potential exposure pathways and available receptors.

The following hazard-pathway-receptor linkages are therefore established for this site:

▪ WRAS Contaminant Threshold Concentrations are exceeded in the majority of the Made Ground. ▪ Naturally occurring radon gas poses a risk to new building users. ▪ Presence of Asbestos Containing Materials cannot be ruled out within the Quarry Backfill.

6.7 Recommendations

6.7.1 For Protection of Human Health Based on the generic screening assessment undertaken to date, the following remedial works and measures will be necessary to protect the health of groundworkers, neighbours, future occupiers and visitors:

a) External garden and soft landscaped areas to be capped with a minimum of 600mm of certified clean/imported topsoil. Topsoil should be placed above a suitable geotextile warning membrane to prevent mixing of topsoil and underlying Quarry Backfill. b) 1 No. sample of topsoil should be provided from each garden and tested for a generic contaminant suite, CWG TPH and asbestos screen. Details of acceptability criteria are included in Appendix J. c) Provision of suitable pavings, hardstandings and floor slabs in all other areas to break the contaminant pathway. d) Full radon protection measures for all proposed structures. e) Advice and protection to groundworkers during excavations f) Dust suppression during all groundworks and wheelwashing of all haulage vehicles before leaving site.

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 16

6.7.2 For Protection of Building Materials & Services To protect new building materials the following precautions will be necessary:

a) Specification of appropriate concrete protection for the sulphate/pH environment, as detailed in Section 5. b) Use of protective pipework for all water supplies.

6.7.3 Reuse and Disposal of Surplus Spoil Should soils need removal to a suitably licensed tip, waste characterisation and classification in accordance with the Environment Agency's Technical Guidance will need to be undertaken to comply with the Duty of Care. Consideration should be given to whether it will be a requirement to prepare a Materials Management Plan for all soils excavation, reuse or disposal.

6.7.4 Recommended Further Assessment It is considered that the findings of this report are sufficient to discharge Part B of Condition No. 10 of the planning condition. Given the simplistic nature of proposed protection measures described above, it is considered unnecessary to provide a separate Remedial Method Statement. Instead, the developer should complete and evidence the works described above (including evidencing provision of membrane below topsoil, demonstrate 600mm topsoil in all garden areas, laboratory testing to demonstrate suitability of imported topsoil, installation of full radon protection in line with manufacturer requirements and use of protective water pipework).

A copy of this report should be provided to the Local Authority to confirm their agreement with the findings and recommendations.

A watching brief should be kept at all times while groundworks are occurring. Should any signs of unforeseen contamination be found during groundworks, Intégrale should be contacted immediately to determine the best course of action.

Windmills Phase 4, Portland, DT5 1NH, 20065/A, January 2021 17 TP1 A1

BH4

TP5 TP2

TP6 Site Investigation Boundary BH5

TP3 BH3 BH2 TP4 DCP2

BH1

A Windmills Phase 3 within DCP1 Blue Line Boundary

TP7 Electric cable

Scale = 1:500 (approx.) @ A3

Windmills Phase 3 within Figure 1 Blue Line Boundary Site Plan Windmills Phase 4 Key: Alm Place Portland Trial Pit DT5 1NH

Job No: 20065 Open Hole Percussion Boreholes December 2020

DCP Adapted from Western Design Architects drawing No.212 - ‘Proposed Site Plan - House Types’ Job No.1819166, April 2020. 1 Section A A

80 BH1 BH2

78 BH3 BH5

74 ? ? ?

72 ?

70 ? ?

? 68 ? Elevation (mAOD) Elevation

66 ?

? 64 ?

? 62 ? ? ?

Scale = 1:200 Horizontal and Vertical Key: (approx.) @ A3

MADE GROUND - Quarry Backﬁll Figure 2 Tentative Geological Cross-Section A-A1 Windmills Phase 4 Inferred LIMESTONE bedrock Alm Place Portland DT5 1NH Job No: 20065 December 2020

Appendix A

Site Location

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

PROJECT: Windmills Phase 4, Alm Place, Portland, DT5 1NH Job No 20065

Site Location Plan

Site

North

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Appendix B

Site Description/ Photographs

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

REFERENCES Project No. 20065 Site Address Windmills Phase 4 Alm Place Portland DT5 1NH Grid Reference 369298 071484 Date of Visit 07/10/20 Names of site owners/ developers/ George engineers met with on site Prepared by PC SITE – GENERAL Plan of site See Figure 1 Site size (area) : % building, % 100% soft landscaping hardstanding, % soft landscaping, % open space, etc. Current use (occupants and operations) Vacant Plot Site Area 0.3ha Maximum Dimensions c.65m NE-SW by 40m NW-SE. Boundaries – e.g. wooden fence/ Chain link fence along SE boundary, Overgrown hedges and large boulders retaining wall along NE, NE and SW boundaries Any access limitations for JCBs, drilling None rigs etc; minimum distances, steps, steep banks, inaccessible areas, need for breaker for SI. Take dimensions of access Any specific working hours for SI; keys Work must be stopped at 4pm each day required for access Any specific Health and Safety hazards/ None noted considerations Water supply on site? Fire hydrant None, water must be got from wash out valve nearby? Power supply on site?

SITE – BUILDINGS Age of building(s) N/A Building appearance: no. of storeys, N/A basement, roofing type, chimneys / stacks?, car park, service areas; State of buildings, i.e. cracks; structural N/A distress etc. Tanks: location (internal / external : N/A above or below ground), age / condition, size / capacity, type, bunding (condition), refuelling point, evidence of stains / spills Heating : electric/gas/oil N/A

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Chemical storage : drums, other chemical N/A stores Gas control measures (e.g. vents, cowls, N/A monitoring / alarms) Other evidence of industrial activity N/A Asbestos / deleterious materials – any N/A asbestos surveys?, removal programmes? Electrical equipment / Transformers – N/A check for PCBs? Backup power supplies (generators)

SITE – EXTERNAL Hard surfacings : type (asphalt/concrete N/A etc.), staining, weathering, subsidence, repairs. Specific reinstatement required. Landscaped areas/ soft landscaping: Site is covered in Gravel [Quarry backfill] vegetation dieback/ growth Invasive species noted (e.g. Japanese None noted Knotweed). Note: absence indicated here by non-specialist does not infer that JKn is not present. Can investigation be in landscaped areas. Yes Specific reinstatement required. Site topography – flat / sloping, The site is split into 2 No. relatively level ‘parcels’ with a relatively steep Level compared to surroundings & slope running NW-SE through the centre of the site. mAOD. Evidence of filling or raising, earthworks, Site is located on a former quarry and been backfilled mounds/ hummocks, soil creep, soil fluction, mass movement, steep/ vertical laces, crater-like holes (in chalk/limestone areas). Sloping ground – any indication of instability (cracks in ground, bulges, leaning trees, walls or poles), rotational slip scars. Soil drainage – marshy/ marsh vegetation/ None noted dry/ surfaces cracked/ surface rutting etc. Trees – effects on buildings, condition, Mature trees in western area species and height; location; maturity; leaning/ upright; rotated trees? Rock/ soil exposures – height/ extent None noted description etc. Drainage : interceptors, disposal of storm None noted water / waste water, mains water supply. Other evidence of Services, e.g. overhead Electrical cable running SW to NE through the site cables, Gas ‘yellow headstone’. Vehicle maintenance : washdown areas, None noted workshops, refuelling points. Waste : skips / compounds, any None noted hazardous waste? Burning grounds or

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

incinerators. Sub-stations : age, condition, None noted transformers, operator, servicing? Ecological features of note – Burrows, None noted bats, nest sites, designated preservation areas. Any seepages on or adjacent to site. None noted Watercourses, water levels, direction English Channel c 650m SE and rate of flow. Other features of note within site. None noted

SURROUNDING LAND USES General site context – industrial, Former industrial commercial, urban, agricultural etc. Land use – north (give distances) Residential Land use – south (give distances) Residential Land use – east (give distances) Residential Land use – west (give distances) Development [Construction site over former quarry] Nearby (<500m) sources of pollution – Site is located on a former backfilled quarry landfills, filling stations, industrial activity. Nearby river / surface water features – English Channel 650m SE culverted, banks, flood plain. If visible, condition of watercourse. Local ground profiles and signs of Ground slopes down to the S instability. Evidence of structural distress on nearby None noted buildings. Evidence of mining history (colliery spoil Site is known to be located on a former quarry heap, miners cottage). Nearby rock/ soil outcrops. None noted Vegetation – distinctive change in None noted vegetation (e.g. hydrophyllic veg). Adjacent geotechnical features of note – Site is known to be located on a former quarry cuttings, quarries, embankments, slopes (particularly if failed), major excavations, deep basements, sources of vibrations (railway or heavy machinery). Other features of note adjacent to site. None noted

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

Plate 1 Location of TP1 Plate 2 Location of TP2

Plate 3 Location of TP3 Plate 4 Location of TP4 and BH2

Plate 5 Location of TP6 Plate 6 Location of TP5, BH 4 and 5

20065 Windmills Phase 4 December 2019

Plate 7 Location of BH1 Plate 8 Location of TP7

20065 Windmills Phase 4 December 2019

Appendix C

Desk Study Information

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

WINDMILLS PHASE 4, ISLE OF PORTLAND

PHASE 1 BASELINE DESK STUDY AND PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT

Carried out for:

Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited Leanne House 6 Avon Close Weymouth Dorset DT4 9UX

May 2020

Report No. R0054\BDS

Report No R0054\BDS

May 2020

Issue Status Prepared by Checked by Approved by No Date

NAME and QUALIFICATIONS NAME and QUALIFICATIONS NAME and QUALIFICATIONS Nic Kirkham Poppy Meighen Simon Mason 1 MSc BSc (Hons) BSc (Hons) BSc BForSc MI Soil Sci FGS CSci

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

FINAL

May 2020

This Report has been prepared by SOCOTEC UK Limited (“SUKL”) with all reasonable skill and care, within the terms and conditions of the contract between SUKL and the Client (“Contract”) and within the limitations of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the Client. Any reliance upon the Report is subject to the Contract terms and conditions.

This Report is confidential between the Client and SUKL. SUKL accepts no responsibility whatsoever to third parties to whom this document, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies upon the Report at their own risk. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 does not apply to this Report nor the Contract and the provisions of the said Act are hereby excluded.

This Report shall not be used for engineering or contractual purposes unless signed above by the author and the approver for and on behalf of SUKL and unless the Report status is ‘Final’.

Unless specifically assigned or transferred within the terms and conditions of the Contract, SUKL asserts and retains all Copyright and other Intellectual Property Rights in and over the Report and its contents. The Report may not be copied or reproduced, in whole or in part, without the written authorisation from SUKL. SUKL shall not be liable for any use of the Report for any purpose other than that for which it was originally prepared.

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data supplied and any analysis derived from it, the possibility exists of variations in the ground and water conditions around and between the exploratory positions. No liability can be accepted for any such variations in these conditions. Furthermore, any recommendations are specific to the development as detailed in this Report and no liability will be accepted should they be used for the design of alternative schemes without prior consultant with SUKL

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1

C O N T E N T S

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ...... 4 3 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 4 3.1 Site Location...... 4 3.2 Site Description and Walkover Survey ...... 4 4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 5 5 HISTORICAL SETTING ...... 6 5.1 Historical Land Usage ...... 6 5.2 Published Geology ...... 10 5.3 Geological Hazards ...... 11 5.4 Mining, Extraction & Natural Cavities ...... 11 5.5 Waste and Landfill ...... 12 5.6 Past Industrial Land Use ...... 12 5.7 Hydrogeology and Groundwater and Surface Water Abstraction ...... 12 5.8 Hydrology and Flooding ...... 14 5.9 Potential Sources of Ground Gas ...... 14 5.9.1 Radon ...... 14 5.9.2 Ground Gas ...... 14 5.9.3 Landfill Gas ...... 15 5.10 Utilities ...... 15 5.11 Historical Petrol and Fuel Sites ...... 15 6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 15 6.1 Topography ...... 15 6.2 Designated Environmentally Sensitive Sites ...... 15 6.3 Current Contaminative Land Uses ...... 17 7 PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ...... 18 7.1 General ...... 18 7.2 Potential Sources of Contamination ...... 18 7.3 Potential Migration Pathways ...... 19 7.4 Potential Receptors ...... 20 7.4.1 Human Health ...... 20 7.4.2 Controlled Waters...... 20 7.4.3 Environmental Receptors ...... 20 7.5 Summary ...... 20 8 PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA)...... 21 8.1 Assessment of Environmental Risks Methodology ...... 21

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Contents

8.2 Preliminary Risk Assessment...... 22 9 CONCLUSION ...... 24 REFERENCES ...... 25

APPENDIX A WDA PROPOSED SITE PLAN DRAWING REFERENCE SK203 A APPENDIX B SITE RECONNAISSANCE NOTES AND PHOTOS APPENDIX C HISTORICAL MAPS APPENDIX D GROUNDSURE ENVIRO AND GEO INSIGHT REPORT REF GS-6724253

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Betterment Properties Limited (BPL) has requested that SOCOTEC UK Limited (SOCOTEC) undertake a desk study for the site known as Windmills Phase 4, Isle of Portland. It is understood that the site is to be cleared in preparation for construction of five residential bungalows. The site is located within a backfilled former stone quarry and considering the potential for the backfill material to generate ground gas and contain contaminants, a Phase 2 site investigation will be required to recover representative soil samples for laboratory analysis and undertake ground gas monitoring to ascertain whether the ground conditions present any risks to human health, controlled waters or the proposed buildings.

As part of the detailed scope of works, a desk study including the geology, hydrology / hydrogeology including any requirements for a flood risk assessment and a review of possible sources of contamination on-site is required. This report uses desk based information and the findings from the walkover survey to assess, if any, the levels of contamination on the site and to identify any risks to construction workers and future end use site users. This report provides documented evidence of current site conditions and will be used to inform the scope of the subsequent ground investigation.

The site is roughly rectangular in shape with an area of approximately 0.29 hectares (ha). Currently the site is mostly clear with the exception of some large boulders of cut stone, roughly 1 m3, two stockpiles of site surface scrapings, possibly imported coarse recycled aggregate (6F2) and small areas of overgrown vegetation. The topography is predominantly flat with two distinct levels. The surface across the site is comprised of crushed limestone chippings with evidence of interbedded Made Ground (demolition rubble). Public access around the western, southern and eastern perimeter is gained via a public footpath and the site can be entered from the western perimeter due to a lack of fencing. The site is located south west of the hamlet of Wakeham and south east of Alm Place.

Available geological information indicates that no superficial geology is under laying the site and that the solid bedrock geology comprises the Lulworth Formation (Interbedded Limestone and Mudstone) and Portland Freestone Member (Limestone) of the Cretaceous and Jurassic epochs.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 1 of 22

Made Ground, which is likely to have been excavated material from the adjacent quarries, is likely to have been used to backfill the former quarry and sculpt the landscape features. This poses a potential threat of contaminants due to the potential asbestos containing material (ACM) present in previous historical works buildings on the site and surrounding industrial works.

The Groundsure report revealed no records for any current or historical fuel sites within 500 m of the site, however, numerous records relating the historical land use of the site and its surroundings including reference of railway sidings, unspecified tanks and unspecified works with 100 m of the site have been noted. Additionally, remnants of cement based corrugated roofing material was noted along the north western perimeter which could potentially be ACM, therefore, a cautious and considerate approach should be undertaken when handling this material for subsequent assessment during the Phase 2 ground investigation.

It is considered that the potential for contamination at the site is moderate. The presence of potential ACM, interbedded imported material, unknown origins of 6F2 material and the high leaching potential of site soils and the risk to the vulnerable Principal aquifer below raises the level of concern. Although, visual signs of hydrocarbon / fuel contamination were not evident this does not discount the potential for contamination to have occurred historically, due to quarry plant vehicles associated with the sites former extractive work.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 2 of 22

1 INTRODUCTION

In April 2020, SOCOTEC UK Limited (SOCOTEC) was commissioned by Betterment Properties Limited (BPL) to carry out a Phase 1 Desk Study and Land Contamination Preliminary Risk Assessment for a site known as Windmills Phase 4, Isle of Portland.

The offer to undertake the work was presented in SOCOTEC proposal reference EN- 113271/002/DH dated 27 March 2020. The instruction to proceed with the work was confirmed via e-mail dated 27 March 2020.

This desk study has been prepared in accordance with British Standards BS5930: 2015 and BS10175:2011+A2:2017 and all normative references, including Environment Agency guidance report CLR 11, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination and AGS Guidelines for Good Practice in Site Investigation.

The desk study presents and discusses the available data obtained for the site and surrounding area’s environmental and geological profile, which have been obtained from site specific Groundsure Enviro and Geo Insight Report (GS-6724253). This desk study report identifies the potential environmental issues at the site, and develops an initial conceptual site model (CSM) for geo-environmental considerations.

The principal objectives of the desk study, and the context of the CSM developed within this report, is to provide an assessment of potentially significant risks in order to:

 Give an account of the anticipated ground conditions at the site based upon published historical, geological, hydrogeological and environmental information;

 Develop an initial conceptual site model identifying potential sources of contamination, receptors that may be affected by contamination and pathways linking the two (pollutant linkages);

 Undertake a preliminary risk assessment for each identified potential pollutant linkage with respect to the likelihood and severity of the hazard; and

 Assess the potential requirements for further investigation and risk assessment to ensure that the site is not causing ‘significant harm’ or ‘significant pollution of the water environment’ (as defined in the Part IIA legislation), or the significant possibility of either of these two events occurring.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 3 of 22

2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The following sources of information have been used in preparation of this report:

 Extracts of available historical Ordnance Survey (OS) maps covering the period from 1864 to 2020, provided by Groundsure, which are presented in Appendix C;

 The site and surrounding area’s environmental, geological, and historical data in site specific Groundsure Enviro and Geo Insight Reports, presented in Appendix D;

 The British Geological Survey (BGS) website;  The Environment Agency (EA) website; and  A site walkover undertaken on 2 April 2020

3 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

3.1 Site Location

The site known as Windmills Phase 4, Isle of Portland is situated approximately 100 m south east of Alm Place and 15 m south west of Wakeham. To the north, the site is bounded by residential dwellings and immediately to the south, west and east the site is bound by a public footpath. The approximate National Grid Reference for the site is SY 69410 71538 and the nearest postal code area is DT5 1HN. A site plan is presented in Appendix A.

3.2 Site Description and Walkover Survey

A SOCOTEC Environmental Scientist attended the site on the 2 April 2020 to undertake a walkover survey of the site. Access to the site complex was gained from the north via Alm Place through a gate within the Heras fencing along the northern site boundary. Windmills Phase 4 is part of a larger ongoing residential development within the Wakeham area. The site is an unsecured roughly rectangular shape with an area of approximately 0.29 hectares (ha). The site is currently vacant with numerous large (1 m3) boulders and 10% overgrown vegetation. The surface is mostly flat with two distinct levels with two stockpiles of mixed quarry chipping and demolition rubble (possibly 6F2 recycled aggregate). The south eastern perimeter of the site is demarked with chain-link fencing.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 4 of 22

Future access to the site is likely to be gained through an access road off of Alm Place, access can also be gained from Wakeham via a public footpath that runs between 84 and 86 Wakeham Road from the north eastern boundary of the site and from the north west via the opposite end of the footpath from Alm Place.

The surface is made up of predominantly of compacted limestone quarry chippings (80%). The remaining surface is grass, overgrown shrubs, perennials and semi-mature to mature trees (20%). The area is open allowing unauthorised public access. Plant species within the site boundary include Fraxinus (Ash sp.), Sycamore (Acer sp.), Butterfly Bush (Buddleja sp.), Old Man’s Beard (Clematis sp.), Fennel (Foeniculum sp.), Nettle (Urtica sp.), Broad-leaved Dock (Rumex sp.) and Cow Parsley (Anthriscus sp.).

Along the north western perimeter suspected asbestos containing material (ACM) was identified between large boulders. The potential ACM has been used to fabricate a makeshift fence. Additional fragments of potential ACM were identified within the vicinity of the initially identified piece. The area is overgrown and therefore other fragments may have been missed.

Further, two stockpiles were identified within the site boundary. It is likely that the stockpiles have been generated from scraping the surface of the site; however, evidence of mixed construction waste (demolition rubble) was noted suggesting that the stockpiles may comprise recycled aggregate (6F2). Both stockpiles had approximately 2 m2 footprints and were 1.5 m in height.

Further notes made during the site walkover undertaken on the 2 April 2020 together with photographs taken are presented in Appendix B.

4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is the construction of five detached bungalow residential properties with associated private gardens, internal roads and car parking spaces as detailed in WDA Proposed Site Plan drawing reference SK203 A presented in Appendix A.

The development has been approved with conditions by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) under application number WP/17/00371/OUT with a site name as Land Rear of 82b to 82d Wakeham, Portland. Condition 10 relates to contaminated land and states that a desk study and site investigation must be submitted prior to the commencement of the development.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 5 of 22

5 HISTORICAL SETTING

5.1 Historical Land Usage

The development of the site and surrounding area has been reviewed by reference to the available Ordnance Survey historical maps from 1864 to 2020 and is summarised in Table 1. Table 1 Summary of Site History DATE SCALE ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT NEARBY DEVELOPMENT The surrounding area is largely open and undeveloped with the exception of residential dwellings and associated gardens north and east of the site along an unnamed road distinguishable by the name ‘Chene Water Pipe’. A flagstaff is noted approximately 60 m The site is shown to be on north of the site. Two corn windmills are predominantly open land divided into located approximately 300 m south east of the 1864 1:2,500 two sections by a pathway that leads site. The ‘Mermaid Inn’ is sited 250 m south from the north to the south east. east of the site and a Methodist Chapel (Wesleyan) is noted approximately 300 m north west of the site. An unnamed lane leads down from the chapel to a small building comprised of two dwellings and a small out building. Zion Chapel is noted 100 m north west of the site. Bottom Combe Quarries has established directly north west of the site with associated saw mills sited to the north west. Unnamed road now referred to as Wakeham Two standalone buildings exist one Street. Further dwelling and workhouses have larger than the other and an been constructed within close proximity to the elongated building that extends from quarries. 1901 1:10,560 a property on Wakeham Street. Further development and extension of Patchy vegetation is evident. Former residential dwellings and associated buildings pathway now traverses the site from at the end of the lane south from the chapel west to east. now referred to as Park Road. Wakeham Quarries is situated approximately 250 m to the south of the site. A U-shaped railway (Easton & Church Hope Railway) has been installed approximately 200 m to the

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 6 of 22

DATE SCALE ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT NEARBY DEVELOPMENT west, south and east with an extension directly south past Pennsylvania Castle. Park Quarries has established 400 m to the north west. Long Acre Quarries is sited approximately 600 m north of site. Inmosthay Quarries, Independent Quarries, Trade Quarries, Tont Quarries, Admiralty Quarries and Withies Croft Quarries are all sited between 750 and 1000 m towards the north of the site. Shepherds Dinner Quarry is sited 700 m east of site adjacent to the railway. Various castles and religious building remains are noted around Church Hope Cove. The parish of Weston is sited 750 south west of site. Weston Street links Weston and Wakeham via Pennsylvania Castle. Suckthumb Quarry, Weston Quarries are all sited around Weston. Chene Pumping Station (Admiralty Water Works) is sited at the end of Southwell Road, approximately 1,250 m south of site with Coombefield and Duncecroft Quarries site to the north and east. His Majesty’s Prison is site 1,000 to 1,250 m north east of site. A gas works is sited 1,250 m north east of site. Further development and extension of residential dwellings and associated buildings at the end of Park Road. Cranes and traverse crane installed in Bottom 1902 1:2,500 No significant changes noted. Combe Quarries. An increase in the number of out buildings associated with the properties that line Wakeham Street is observed. All buildings on-site have been Additional saw mills have been set up south of demolished. Bottom Coombe Park Quarries and west of Long Acre Quarries. 1927 1:10,560 Quarries appears to have taken Cottonfields Quarries has established 250 m possession of the land parcel. south west of site and west of Wakeham

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 7 of 22

DATE SCALE ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT NEARBY DEVELOPMENT quarries. Chalkland Quarries has established 250 m south east of site. Silklake Quarries has established 500 m east of site. Broadcroft Quarries has established 500 m north east. Higher Headlands Quarry has established 750 m north east of site. A football stand has also been developed adjacent to Long Acre Quarries. Railway dismantled south of Wakeham Quarries. 1929 1:2,500 No significant changes noted. No significant changes noted. 1938 1:10,560 No significant changes noted. No significant changes noted. Expansion of Bottom Coombe Quarries works buildings. Tank and pond noted 110 m west of site. Two new buildings (Nordar and Exbourne) located 20 and 30 m north of site. Footpath is now featured traversing Bumpers Lane noted directly east of the site the site from the north west to the leading into Silklake Quarries. Works building 1960 1:2,500 east. sited south of Bumpers Lane. Additional footpath featured leading Portland Museum noted approximately 300 m to Nordar then on to Exbourne. south west of site. Cranes installed at Cottonfields Quarries. Glen Caravans Holiday Park noted 200 m south east of site. Chalklands Quarries, Independent Quarries and Trade Quarries now disused. Wakeham East Quarries noted 500 m south east of site. Railway south of Bottom Coombe Quarries appears to have been reinstated leading to Perryfield Quarries and associated works 1963 1:10,560 No significant changes to site. buildings. Many lawnsheds (strip fields) have been instated 300 to 750 m south east of site. Increase in residential development is apparent including the appearance of two schools approximately 400 and 750 m north west of the site. Various roads comprise an estate referred to as Pound Piece.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 8 of 22

DATE SCALE ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT NEARBY DEVELOPMENT Westcliffe Site is sited approximately 1,000 m west of the site north of Weston.

Silklake Quarries has substantially expanded north west. Yeolands Quarry has established 500 m west of site. Long Acre Quarries, Higher Headlands Quarry, Independent Quarry, 1968 1:2,500 No significant changes to site. Duncecroft Quarries are now disused. France Quarrries has established 500 m north of site. Easton and Church Hope Railway appears to have been decommissioned. Cottonfield Quarries now disused. Two tanks are site approximately 70 m west of 1969 1:2,500 No significant changes to site. the site and a further two tanks approximately 150 m west of the site. Additional tanks are located 200 m north west of the site Exbourne and Nordor now have established The pathway appears to have been boundaries and planting including a track 1975 altered to run from west towards leading from Wakeham Street. Silklake and 1:2,500 north east then exit the site Quarries appears to have expanded further 1976 boundary. north and west with evidence of residential buildings having been demolished. 1978 1:10,000 The track from Bottom Coombe Quarries continues to lead from their Broadcroft Quarries, France Quarries, and works buildings and round the Wakeham East Quarries now disused. southern and eastern perimeter of Further residential development 400 to 750 m the site exiting onto Wakeham west of the site. Weston and Southwell are Street. The footpath running through sprawling north and west. the middle of the site no longer exists. 1983 1:2,500 No significant changes to site. No significant changes to site. Two tanks have been removed from the west of the site. An increase in residential property Various paths leading into and out of is noticeable 25 m north east of the site. One 1994 1:1,250 the site with no specific direction. tank has also been removed west of the works associated with Bottom Combe Quarries. The works at Bottom Combe Quarries are now

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 9 of 22

DATE SCALE ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT NEARBY DEVELOPMENT referred to as Isle of Portland Works. A small increase in residential out buildings is noticeable north east of the site on the eastern side of Wakeham Street. Tracks have been transformed into roads mainly connecting Easton to West via Weston 2001 1:10,000 No significant changes noted. Road. Map type is now in colour with reduced detail. Dwellings now have numbers assigned. 2003 1:1,250 No significant changes noted. Exbourne and Nordor are now 64b and 64d. An increase in street names is apparent. Broadcroft Gardens and Victoria Place has 2010 1:10,000 No significant changes noted. expanded in Easton and Freshwater has expanded in Weston. The school north of Weston has now become a college. No significant changes noted apart from a small amount of vegetation The college north of Weston has now become 2020 1:10,000 intersecting the western corner of an Education Facility. the site.

5.2 Published Geology

The Groundsure Report and the British Geological Survey (BGS) Geology of Britain Viewer has identified that the Solid Bedrock geology comprises Portland Freestone Member (Limestone) from the Jurassic epoch and the Lulworth Formation (Limestone) from the Jurassic and Cretaceous epoch. Records indicate that there are no superficial deposits on the proposed site.

Neither the Groundsure Report nor the BGS Geology of Britain Viewer indicates the presence of faults within 1,000 m of the site.

Made Ground is not noted to be present on the site as such; artificial ground however is noted to be on-site in the Groundsure report and can be distinguished as infilled ground presumed to be backfill within Bottom Coombe Quarries.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 10 of 22

5.3 Geological Hazards

Information on various geological hazards is contained within the Groundsure Report where the risks are classified from negligible to moderate; these are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of On-site Geological Risks HAZARD RISK CATEGORY

Shrink-Swell Clay Negligible

Landslides Very Low

Ground Dissolution of Soluble Rocks Very Low

Compressible Deposits Moderate

Collapsible Deposits Very Low

Running Sand Very Low

5.4 Mining, Extraction & Natural Cavities

According to the Groundsure Report, there are no identified coal mining areas within 1,000 m of the site. The nearest natural cavity point is found 500 m south east of the site. 21 No. Britpits (British Pits) are identified within 250 m of the site, with the site also being demarked as an area formerly exposed to surface ground workings. All Brit Pits have since closed with the exception of Perryfield Quarry sited 409 m south of the site. Surface ground workings have been recorded on-site from 1901. There are no records of underground coal workings within 1,000 m of the site although there is likely to have been underground mining for non-coal commodities over 600 m north west of the site. Furthermore, 10 No. records of historical mineral planning areas within 500 m of the site are noted including one record for surface mineral workings in the location of the proposed development(s).

5.5 Potentially Infilled Land

The Groundsure report highlights several potentially artificial and made ground features within 500 m of the site as summarised in Table 3.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 11 of 22

Table 3 Summary of Infilled Ground Features FEATURE DISTANCE FROM SITE ROCK DESCRIPTION Infilled Ground On-site Artificial Deposit Infilled Ground 78 m north west Artificial Deposit

Infilled Ground 138 m north east Artificial Deposit Infilled Ground 160 m south west Artificial Deposit Infilled Ground 170 m south Artificial Deposit Infilled Ground 172 m south west Artificial Deposit Worked Ground (Undivided) 205 m south Void

Worked Ground (Undivided) 244 m south west Void Infilled Ground 247 m west Artificial Deposit Infilled Ground 375 m south Artificial Deposit

Worked Ground (Undivided) 431 m north east Void

5.5 Waste and Landfill

Numerous landfill and waste sites are located within 500 m of the proposed development, with nine located within 50 to 250 m of the site. Of the nine one is classified as an active or recent landfill, four are historical landfill sites with Environment Agency (EA) / NRW (National Resource Wales) records and five are licensed waste sites. None of the aforementioned is within 50 m of the site.

5.6 Past Industrial Land Use

Within 500 m of the sited 29 No. historical tanks, 10 No. historical energy features, 121 No. historical industrial land uses and three historical garages were identified. However, no historical petrol stations were revealed during the desk study search. The site itself has been flagged as being within an area of historical industrial land use with a further six records of industrial land use and two historical tanks being recorded within 50 m of the site.

5.7 Hydrogeology and Groundwater and Surface Water Abstraction

The hydrogeological characteristics of the site as indicated by the Groundsure report are summarised below in Table 4.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 12 of 22

Table 4 Summary of Hydrogeological Characteristics CHARACTERISTIC OBSERVATIONS Superficial Aquifer Details A Secondary Undifferentiated aquifer is noted to by 312 m south east of the site Bedrock Aquifer Details The Portland Freestone Member (Limestone) underlying part of the site is classified as a Principal aquifer – these are rock layers of high intergranular and / or fracture permeability, usually providing a high level of water storage and may support water supply / river base flow on a strategic scale. Part of the site is also underlain with the Lulworth Formation (Limestone) classified as a Secondary A aquifer – these are permeable rock layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers Groundwater Abstraction None identified within 2,000 m of the site. Licences Surface Water Abstraction None identified within 2,000 m of the site. Licences Potable Water Abstraction None identified within 2,000 m of the site. Licences Drinking Water Safeguard Zone Environmental Agency website indicates that the site is not within a (Surface Water) drinking water safeguard zone or Nitrate vulnerable zone. Source Protection Zone No source protection zones have been identified within 500 m of site. Groundwater Vulnerability and On-site is classified as a high leaching potential. A Soil Vulnerability Soil Leaching Potential Category has not been issued although it can be assumed, based on the geological information provided, that the soils are highly permeable (infiltration value > 70 %) which can lead to high levels of leaching, thus creating potential pathways for pollution incidences. River Quality None identified within 250 m of the site. Surface Water Body The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is an EU-led framework for the Catchments protection of inland surface waters, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwater through river basin-level management planning. One record is held on-site relating to coastal catchment, however, this is not part of if a river water body catchment.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 13 of 22

Groundwater Quality Groundwater bodies are also covered by the WFD and the same regime of objectives is in place. Considering the permeable solid geology and proximity to the coast, any underlying groundwater is likely to be at significant depth and in hydraulic connectivity with the sea.

5.8 Hydrology and Flooding

The Groundsure Enviro Insight report identified that there are no surface water features within 250 m of the site. The nearest surface water is the English Channel located 650 m south east of the site.

No records of Flood Zone 2 or Flood Zone 4 are held for the site. The risk of flooding from Rivers and the Sea (RoFRas) flood rating onsite has been classified as ‘Very Low’. The highest risk within 50 m of the site is considered to be surface water flooding as a result of extreme rainfall events, with a 1 in 30 year event risk, however most urban drainage systems are built to cope with such events.

5.9 Potential Sources of Ground Gas

5.9.1 Radon

According to the Groundsure report, the site is in a Radon Affected Area, due to 10 - 30 % of properties being above the Action Level. The report states that radon protective measures are considered necessary in the area and full protection measures are required.

5.9.2 Ground Gas

One record of superficial deposits or drift geology was identified by The Groundsure report 312 m south east of the site area. Depending on the backfill within the former quarry, there is the potential for it to generate ground gas at the site and the risk from ground gas from the underlying Made Ground is considered as moderate. Additionally, 13 No. historic or active landfills sites are noted within 500 m of the site and. No records of underground workings area within 50 m of the site were recorded.

There are no records of land determined as contaminated land under Part 2a of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 within 500 m of this site.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 14 of 22

5.9.3 Landfill Gas

Records from the EA / NRW disclose two closed landfill sites which accepted inert waste 150 m east of site and another 464 m north east of the site. Other historical landfill records held by the EA and NRW mostly refer to the landfills as accepting inert waste although one licensed waste site is noted as a household waste landfill site which is sited 434 m north east of the proposed site. Based on the above the risk of landfill gas is believed to be moderate.

5.10 Utilities

The site and surrounding area are likely to contain underground services in association with the residential buildings nearby. However, this information has not been made available to SOCOTEC at the time of writing the desk study.

5.11 Historical Petrol and Fuel Sites

The Groundsure Enviro Insight database search did not reveal any records of historical petrol stations and fuel sites within 500 m of the site boundary.

6 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

6.1 Topography

The site topography noted during the site walkover is generally flat lying with some undulating raised Made Ground, whilst the surrounding area is also generally flat.

6.2 Designated Environmentally Sensitive Sites

In the context of this report sensitive land usage covered by the Groundsure report includes the following:

 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);  Conserved wetland sites (Ramsar sites);  Special Areas of Conservation (SAC);  Special Protection Areas (SPA);  Local and National Nature Reserves (LNR and NNR);  Designated Ancient Woodland;

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 15 of 22

 Biosphere Reserves;  Forest Parks;  Marine Conservation Zones;  Green Belt;  Proposed Ramsar sites;  World Heritage Sites and Ancient Woodlands;  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);  National Parks;  Green Belt;  Possible Special Areas of Conservation (pSAC);  Possible Special Protection Areas (pSPA);  Nitrate Sensitive Areas and Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NSA, NVZ);  SSSI Impact Risk Zones;  SSSI Units;  Open Mosaic Habitat; and  Habitat Designations; o Habitat Networks; and o Priority Habitat Inventory.

According to the Groundsure report, five of the sensitive land uses described above are listed within 2,000 m of the study site noted as:

 SSSI – nine records;  SSSI Impact Risk Zone – one record;  SSSI Units – 35 No. records;  SAC – five records;  Open Mosaic Habitat located on-site; and  11 No. records of Habitat Networks within 250 m of site; o Priority Habitat Inventory – Lowland calcareous grassland and deciduous woodland; o Network Enhancement Zone 1 located on-site; and o Network Enhancement Zone 2 located on-site.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 16 of 22

6.3 Current Contaminative Land Uses

The Groundsure Enviro Insights Report details other potential contamination sources close to the site including ‘Current Industrial Data’. The report lists 26 No. current industrial land uses listed within 250 m of the site; these are summarised in the table below.

Table 5 Current Industrial Data and Potential Contamination Sources ACTIVITY SOURCE LOCATION

Electrical features Infrastructure and facilities 62 m north west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 92 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 97 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 101 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 107 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 110 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 115 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 120 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 130 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 135 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 135 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 141 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 147 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 152 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 157 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 162 m west Unspecified works or factories Industrial features 181 m west Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 198 m east Tanks (Generic) Industrial features 205 m east Unspecified quarries or mines Extractive industries 221 m south west Construction and tool hire Hire services 223 m north Container and storage Transport, storage and deliveries 224 m east Service industry equipment Repair and servicing 234 m north repairs General construction supplies Industrial products 237 m north west Electrical features Infrastructure and facilities 239 m north Dairy products Foodstuffs 239 m north

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 17 of 22

7 PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

7.1 General

In line with existing legislation and the current good practice guidance for the management of contaminated land, assessments are undertaken using a risk based approach. It is necessary to define a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the site which identifies the potential sources of contamination, the receptors and the pathways that can connect them. In order for there to be a risk from contamination, one or more relevant pollutant linkages must exist, connecting a contamination source, a receptor (an entity which might be affected by the contamination) and a pathway (or mechanism) by which the receptor can be exposed to the contaminant.

A discussion of potential sources, pathways and receptors and a tabulated summary of the CSM indicating potential pollutant linkages follow below. The criteria used for assessing the relevance of identified potential pollutant linkages are based on the objectives stated above. It is understood that the purpose of this desk study and walkover is a means to assess, if any, the levels of contamination on the site and to identify any risks to construction workers and future end use site users.

7.2 Potential Sources of Contamination

Potential sources of contamination are usually associated with current and former industrial activities, where the processing, storage, use, transportation and disposal of raw materials, products and wastes often leads to the contamination of underlying ground and groundwater. In addition, natural processes can also give rise to contamination such as hazardous gases.

Based on the information presented above, potential sources of contamination from current and historical site uses and from potentially significant off site sources have been assessed. Potential sources of contamination and contaminants at and within the site boundary are summarised in the table below. These are based in the desk study data obtained and published guidance. Many of the potential current and historical off sites sources identified in previous sections have been discounted on the basis of their distance and direction (e.g. down inferred topographic and groundwater flow gradient) from the site.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 18 of 22

Table 6 Potential Sources of Contamination SITE USE / ACTIVITY SOURCES CONTAMINANTS AND AREA Heavy metals and metalloids. Site wide Made Ground / Fuels oils. backfill within former Lubricating oils. Vehicle oil / fuel spills. quarry. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Made Ground / quarry backfill Former industrial units. Organic solvents. material. Unspecified works. Asbestos containing material (ACM). Extractive industries. Ground gas (methane and carbon dioxide). Underlying Solid Geology Radon gas Radon gas Hydrocarbons. Historical features Unspecified tanks. Fuel oils. (within 500 m of the site) Former landfills. Ground gas (methane and carbon dioxide).

7.3 Potential Migration Pathways

To develop further an understanding of the potential risks posed by the contaminants to human receptors, the pathways through which contaminants may impact receptors need to be identified. The potential migration pathways and / or exposure routes are:

 Direct soil, soil dust and / or water ingestion;  Inhalation of soil dust, soil vapour and / or water vapour;  Dermal contact with contaminated soil, soil dust and / or water;  Lateral and vertical migration of gases and / or vapours through permeable strata;  Permeable ground conditions / rainfall infiltration;  Leaching of contaminants from soils into soil pore water and shallow groundwater;  Downward migration of soil pore water and shallow groundwater (including via preferential pathways created by foundations);

 Lateral groundwater flow;  Preferential pathways including existing services and proposed ground improvements and/or foundations; and

 Surface water runoff into drains.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 19 of 22

7.4 Potential Receptors

Potential receptors have been identified and categorised as follows:

7.4.1 Human Health

 Future site users, including critical receptor of a female child aged 0-6;  Neighbouring site occupants; and  Construction-site workers of the site.

7.4.2 Controlled Waters

 The underlying Principal and Secondary (A) Aquifers; and  The nearest Surface Water is the English Channel 650 m south east of the site.

7.4.3 Environmental Receptors

 SSSI – Isle of Portland 213 m south;  SSSI Impact Risk Zone – On-site;  SSSI Units – 213 m south;  SAC – Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs 367 m south east; and  Habitat Networks – 4 m south east.

However, it is understood that the ecological assessment of the site is being carried out by others and environmental receptors have not been assessed further by SOCOTEC.

7.5 Summary

The relevant pollutant linkages based on the potential sources, pathways and receptors outlined above are tabulated below.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 20 of 22

Table 7 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

 Ingestion of soils / soil dust and / or  Construction groundwater. workers.

 Dermal contact with soil, soil/dust and / or  Future users of groundwater. the site; critical  Inhalation of soil dust and / or soil / receptor of a groundwater vapours. female child aged

 Inhalation of asbestos fibres. 0-6.  Permeation / corrosion of water supply  Neighbouring site pipes. occupants. Sources and contaminants  Leaching and downward migration via as identified in Table 6 permeable or cracked/ fractured (secondary  Groundwater in above. permeability) ground. any bedrock

 Lateral Groundwater Migration. aquifers.  Migration via man made pathways (services,  Open drains. service trench backfill).

 Surface run off.  Ingress of radon, bulk ground gases and vapour into buildings, accumulation and

asphyxiation or explosion.  Future site users  Migration via man made pathways (services).

8 PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA)

8.1 Assessment of Environmental Risks Methodology

The identification of potential pollutant linkages is a key aspect of the evaluation of potentially contaminated land. An approach based on CIRIA report C552 has been adopted. For each of the pollutant linkages, an estimate is made of the potential 'Severity of Risk' and the 'Probability of Risk Occurring'. These are then used for an overall qualitative evaluation of the level of risk, as defined below in tables taken from CIRIA report C552.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 21 of 22

Table 8 Severity of Risk

RISK FACTOR TYPICAL EXAMPLES Acute risks to human health; Severe Major pollution of the water environment. Chronic (long-term) risk to human health; Medium Pollution of the water environment. Minor Damage to non-sensitive species or ecosystems, buildings or services.

The probability of risk occurring is classified according to the criteria provided in Table 9 below.

Table 9 Probability of Risk Occurring PROBABILITY DESCRIPTION RATING Pollutant linkage may be present, and risk is almost certain to occur in the long High Likelihood term, or there is evidence of harm to the receptor.

Pollutant linkage may be present, and it is probable that the risk will occur over the Likely long term. Pollutant linkage may be present and there is a possibility of the risk occurring, Low Likelihood although there is no certainty that it will do so. Pollutant linkage may be present but the circumstances under which harm would Unlikely occur are improbable.

An overall qualitative evaluation of the level of risk is gained from a comparison of the severity and probability as represented in Table 10 below.

Table 10 Risk Rating Evaluation SEVERITY SEVERE MEDIUM MINOR HIGH Very High Risk High Risk Moderate / Low Risk LIKELIHOOD LIKELY High risk Moderate risk Low risk

LOW LIKELIHOOD Moderate risk Moderate/ low risk Very low risk

PROBABILITY UNLIKELY Moderate / low risk Low risk Very low risk

8.2 Preliminary Risk Assessment

The following table details the potential risks associated with the various potential pollutant linkages identified through the assessment of the data collated in this report. The risk category should be reviewed if further information is made available or the environmental setting of the site changes, for example through a proposed change in the development layout or end use.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 22 of 22

Table 11 Preliminary Risk Assessment

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR SEVERITY PROBABILITY RISK RATING COMMENTS

 Soil ingestion  Construction Medium Low likelihood Moderate / Contaminants are likely to be Low Risk present within Made Ground / quarry  Dermal contact workers Future site users backfill and due suspected ACM  Inhalation of soil /  including critical identified during site walkover. dust / asbestos receptor of a Further intrusive site investigation fibres / vapours female child aged and risk assessment required to  Permeation / 0-6 address uncertainty and detail corrosion of water Neighbouring site remedial measures. supply pipes users  Generation and  Future site users / Medium Likely Moderate Risk The site is within a Radon Affected migration of ground buildings Area and radon gas protection gases and  Neighbouring site measures will be required within the Sources and asphyxiation or buildings new buildings. Further intrusive site Contaminants as explosion upon investigation including ground gas identified in Table 6 ignition monitoring and assessment is  Radon gas required to address uncertainty and detail any additional gas protection measures.  Leaching and  Principal Aquifer Medium Unlikely Low Risk There are no groundwater downward migration and Secondary A abstractions within 2,000 m and the of contaminants in Aquifer nearest surface water is the English soils  English Channel Channel 650 m from the site. Given  Lateral Groundwater the groundwater is likely to be at Migration significant depth, the risk to  Migration via man controlled waters is considered to be made pathways low. (services, service trench backfill)

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 23 of 22

9 CONCLUSION

Following completion of the desk study and the development of the initial Conceptual Site Model and Preliminary Risk Assessment, the risks posed by land contamination are anticipated to be moderate, primarily due historic industrial activities on the site and in the immediate vicinity. Sources of contamination at the site are primarily associated with the Made Ground used to backfill the former quarry and potential ACM from demolished works buildings.

The site walkover indicated that the surfacing of the site comprised approximately 80% hard standing (quarry chippings) and 20% grassed / vegetation. The site walkover also identified two small stockpiles of recycled aggregate and fragments of suspected ACM were noted on-site.

There are no surface water features within 500 m of the site boundary or nearby groundwater abstractions. The Groundsure report indicates that the site is on a Principal and Secondary A Aquifer with soil of high leaching potential, however, risks to controlled waters are considered to be low.

The site is within a Radon Affected Area and radon protection measures are necessary in all new buildings. Ground gas monitoring will be required to further assess the potential risks from bulk ground gasses and any additional ground gas protection measures.

Based on the findings of the above, the site is considered to be moderate risk to human health (construction site workers and future residents) due to the presence of Made Ground across the site and fragments of suspected ACM. Therefore, a Phase 2 intrusive ground investigation will be required to further assess the risks and detail any remedial measures required to ensure the completed development is safe and suitable for use.

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 24 of 26

REFERENCES

BGS Geology of Britain Viewer : 2020 : www.bgs.ac.uk. British Geological Survey.

BS 5930:2015 : Code of practice for ground investigations. British Standards Institution.

BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 : Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice. British Standards Institution.

CIRIA : 2004 : Contaminated Land Risk Assessment. A Guide to Good Practice. C552. Construction Industry Research and Information Association.

EA : 2004 : Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination. Environment Agency. Bristol.

EA : 2013 : Drinking Water Protected Areas Safeguard Zones. Environment Agency. Bristol.

Groundsure : 2020 : Report Ref: GS-6724253, 01 April 2020, including Ordnance Survey Maps and GS-6724252-1864 (large scale) and GS6724252 – 1901 (small scale).

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1 Page 25 of 26

APPENDIX A WDA PROPOSED SITE PLAN DRAWING REFERENCE SK203 A

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1

APPENDIX B SITE RECONNAISSANCE NOTES AND PHOTOS

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1

APPENDIX C HISTORICAL MAPS

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1

APPENDIX D GROUNDSURE ENVIRO AND GEO INSIGHT REPORT REF GS-6724253

May 2020 Report No R0054\BDS Issue 1

Appendix D

Trial Pit Records

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

Trialpit No Trial Pit Log TP1 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Project No. Co-ords: - Date Windmills Phase 4, Portland Name: 20065 Level: 07/10/2020 Dimensions 2.7 Scale Location: Alm Place, Portland, DT5 1NH (m): 1:25

Depth 0.7 Logged Client: Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited 3.40 PC Samples and In Situ Testing Depth Level Legend Stratum Description Depth Type Results (m) (m) Water Strike 0.05 MADE GROUND: (Comprising loosely compact dark 0.10 brown sandy gravelly Silt with metal and ash fragments.) 0.20 MADE GROUND: (Comprising loosely compact pale yellowish grey sandy fine to coarse subangular Gravel of 0.30 limestone.) MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately compact dark yellowish grey clayey sandy fine to coarse subangular Gravel of limestone.)

1.00 1

2.20 2.30 MADE GROUND: (Comprising soft dark yellowish grey silty very gravelly Clay with cobbles and boulders.) 2.50

2.70 MADE GROUND: (Comprising soft yellow grey silty very gravelly Clay with cobbles.) 2.90 3

3.20 MADE GROUND: (Comprising soft brown and yellow 3.30 grey silty very gravelly Clay with cobbles.)

3.40 End of pit at 3.40 m

5 Remarks: No groundwater encountered. No visual or olfactory contamination.

Stability: Spalling throughout. Trialpit No Trial Pit Log TP2 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Project No. Co-ords: - Date Windmills Phase 4, Portland Name: 20065 Level: 07/10/2020 Dimensions 3.2 Scale Location: Alm Place, Portland, DT5 1NH (m): 1:25

Depth 1.1 Logged Client: Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited 4.30 PC Samples and In Situ Testing Depth Level Legend Stratum Description Depth Type Results (m) (m) Water Strike MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well 0.10 compact pale cream silty sandy fine to coarse Gravel of limestone with cobbles and small boulders.) 0.25 MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact dark grey silty sandy gravelly Clay.) 0.40 0.50 MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact yellowish brown clayey silty sandy fine to coarse subangular Gravel of limestone with abundant cobbles and frequent small boulders (30-50mm).) From 0.50-0.90m depth: Clay pockets.

1.00 D 1

2.20

From 2.50m depth: Boulder frequency increases.

3.40

4.30 End of pit at 4.30 m

5 Remarks: No groundwater encountered. No visual or olfactory contamination.

Stability: Spalling throughout. Trialpit No Trial Pit Log TP3 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Project No. Co-ords: - Date Windmills Phase 4, Portland Name: 20065 Level: 07/10/2020 Dimensions 3.5 Scale Location: Alm Place, Portland, DT5 1NH (m): 1:25

Depth 1.2 Logged Client: Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited 4.20 PC Samples and In Situ Testing Depth Level Legend Stratum Description Depth Type Results (m) (m) Water Strike MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact pale cream silty sandy fine to coarse Gravel of 0.20 limestone with cobbles and small boulders.)

0.50 MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well 0.60 compact dark grey silty sandy gravelly Clay.) From 0.50-0.90m depth: Clay pockets. 0.80 MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact yellowish brown clayey silty sandy fine to coarse subangular Gravel of limestone with abundant 1 cobbles and frequent small boulders (30-50mm).) 1.10

1.90 2

3.00 D From 3.0m depth: Clay pockets. 3

From 3.50m depth: Boulder frequency increases (Limestone size c.500-750mm).

4 4.10

4.20 End of pit at 4.20 m

5 Remarks: No groundwater encountered. No visual or olfactory contamination.

Stability: Spalling throughout. Trialpit No Trial Pit Log TP4 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Project No. Co-ords: - Date Windmills Phase 4, Portland Name: 20065 Level: 07/10/2020 Dimensions 3.7 Scale Location: Alm Place, Portland, DT5 1NH (m): 1:25

Depth 0.8 Logged Client: Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited 3.40 PC Samples and In Situ Testing Depth Level Legend Stratum Description Depth Type Results (m) (m) Water Strike MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact pale cream silty sandy fine to coarse Gravel of limestone with cobbles and small boulders.)

0.40

From 0.50-0.90m depth: Clay pockets.

0.70 MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact yellowish brown clayey silty sandy fine to coarse subangular Gravel of limestone with abundant cobbles and frequent small boulders (30-50mm).) 1

1.30

1.70 1.80

At 2.0m depth: Large boulder. 2 2.10 From 2.10m depth North side of pit and 0.90m depth South side of pit: MADE GROUND: (Comprising soft to firm dark brown silty gravelly Clay with infrequent boulders.)

2.60

3.40 At 3.40m depth: Refusal on large boulder. End of pit at 3.40 m

5 Remarks: No groundwater encountered. No visual or olfactory contamination.

Stability: Spalling throughout. Trialpit No Trial Pit Log TP5 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Project No. Co-ords: - Date Windmills Phase 4, Portland Name: 20065 Level: 07/10/2020 Dimensions 3.2 Scale Location: Alm Place, Portland, DT5 1NH (m): 1:25

Depth 0.8 Logged Client: Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited 3.60 PC Samples and In Situ Testing Depth Level Legend Stratum Description Depth Type Results (m) (m) Water Strike MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact pale cream silty sandy fine to coarse Gravel of limestone with cobbles and small boulders.) 0.30 D

0.50 MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact yellowish brown clayey silty sandy fine to 0.70 coarse subangular Gravel of limestone with abundant cobbles and frequent small boulders (30-50mm).) From 0.50-0.90m depth: Clay pockets.

From 1.20m depth: Limestone boulder. 1.30

From 2.0-3.10m depth: Clay pockets. 2 2.10

2.90 3

3.40

3.60 At 3.60m depth: Refusal on large boulder. End of pit at 3.60 m

5 Remarks: No groundwater encountered. No visual or olfactory contamination.

Stability: Spalling throughout. Trialpit No Trial Pit Log TP6 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Project No. Co-ords: - Date Windmills Phase 4, Portland Name: 20065 Level: 07/10/2020 Dimensions 3.4 Scale Location: Alm Place, Portland, DT5 1NH (m): 1:25

Depth 2.1 Logged Client: Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited 3.20 PC Samples and In Situ Testing Depth Level Legend Stratum Description Depth Type Results (m) (m) Water Strike MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact pale cream silty sandy fine to coarse Gravel of 0.20 limestone with cobbles and small boulders.)

0.40 MADE GROUND: (Comprising yellow brown silty gravelly Clay. Gravel is fine to coarse subangular of 0.60 limestone.) From 0.50-0.90m depth: Clay pockets. 0.70 MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact yellowish brown clayey silty sandy fine to coarse subangular Gravel of limestone with abundant cobbles and frequent small boulders (30-50mm).) 1.00 1

1.40 1.50 MADE GROUND: (Comprising dark grey silty gravelly Clay with ash fragments. Gravel is fine to coarse 1.70 subangular of limestone.) MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well 1.80 compact yellowish brown clayey silty sandy fine to coarse subangular Gravel of limestone with abundant cobbles and frequent small boulders (30-50mm).) 2 2.10

From 2.80m depth: Large boulders (1.2m across).

3.00 3

3.20 At 3.20m depth: Refusal on large boulder. End of pit at 3.20 m

5 Remarks: No groundwater encountered. No visual or olfactory contamination.

Stability: Spalling throughout. Trialpit No Trial Pit Log TP7 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Project No. Co-ords: - Date Windmills Phase 4, Portland Name: 20065 Level: 07/10/2020 Dimensions 2.9 Scale Location: Alm Place, Portland, DT5 1NH (m): 1:25

Depth 0.9 Logged Client: Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited 3.40 PC Samples and In Situ Testing Depth Level Legend Stratum Description Depth Type Results (m) (m) Water Strike MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact pale cream silty sandy fine to coarse Gravel of limestone with cobbles and small boulders.)

0.40

From 0.50-0.90m depth: Clay pockets. From 0.50-0.90m depth: North end of pit: Soft to firm dark grey slightly 0.65 gravelly clay. 0.70 MADE GROUND: (Comprising loose to moderately well compact yellowish brown clayey silty sandy fine to 0.90 coarse subangular Gravel of limestone with abundant cobbles and frequent small boulders (30-50mm).) 1

From 1.90m depth: Clay pockets. From 2.0-2.40m depth: North end of pit: Pocket of dark grey clayey 2 gravelly silt with brick fragments and ash.

2.20 At 2.20m depth: 1 medium sized boulder.

2.70

3.40 At 3.40m depth: Multiple boulders. End of pit at 3.40 m

5 Remarks: No groundwater encountered. No visual or olfactory contamination.

Stability: Spalling throughout. Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road Bishop Sutton BS39 5XP Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com EXPLORATORY HOLE EXPLANATION SHEET

SAMPLES AND TESTS AMAL Amalgamated sample J Jar sample HVP Hand-held shear vane test B Bulk disturbed sample LB Large bulk disturbed sample HSV Hand-held shear vane test BLK Block sample M Mazier type sample MEX Mexicone penetrometer test C Core sample SPTLS Standard penetration sample PID Photoionization detector (gas) CBR CBR mould sample TW Thin-walled push in sample D Small disturbed sample U Undisturbed sample - open drive ES Environmental sample UT Thin wall open drive tube sampler EW Environmental water sample W Water sample G Gas sample SOILS SEDIMENTARY IGNEOUS

Topsoil Chalk Coarse Grained Igneous

Concrete Limestone Medium Grained Igneous

Made Ground (Fill) Conglomerate Fine Grained Igneous

Peat Breccia

Clay Sandstone METAMORPHIC

Silt Siltstone Coarse Grained Metamorphic

Sand Mudstone Medium Grained Metamorphic

Gravel Shale Fine Grained Metamorphic

Cobbles Coal er Boulders Pyroclastic (Volcanic Ash) INSTALLATIONS Gypsum, Rocksalt, etc. ver Note: composite soil types will be Upstanding cov signiﬁed by combined soil types e.g. Flush co Void/Broken Ground Plain Pipe Silty Sand Concrete Plain Pipe

Bentonite WATER SYMBOLS Slotted Pipe Sand Filter Slotted Pipe Water Level (after 20 minutes)

Gravel Filter

Water Strike Arisings

Grout

GEOLOGICAL l GEOTECHNICAL l ENVIRONMENTAL l ENGINEERING Intégrale is a trading name of Integrale Limited Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX, United Kingdom Company Registration No. 2855366 England VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37 Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

STANDARD METHODOLOGY FOR MECHANICAL TRIAL PITTING

Trial pits are mechanically excavated using a wheeled or tracked backhoe or mini-excavator, typically fitted with toothed buckets. The trial pit locations are selected using information on the proposed redevelopment, existing buried services and structures, ongoing site use, reinstatement requirements and time constraints. Those positions are shown on Figure 1 and the trial pit records included as a separate appendix.

Trial pitting was directed and supervised full-time by an experienced engineering geologist who carried out insitu testing, kept a record of the strata encountered, noted the pit side stability and ease of digging, any water ingresses, took photographs and recovered representative disturbed samples.

Insitu testing comprised hand shear vane measurement in appropriate cohesive strata to provide a direct reading of insitu undrained shear strength. Tests were completed from within the pit to depths of approximately 1.2m below ground level and within excavated spoil below this. The hand shear vane is inserted into cohesive soil and rotated at an even speed equivalent to one rotation per 60 seconds. Three tests are typically taken and the average result used as the undrained shear strength in kN/m2.

Mexicone penetrometer testing was undertaken either from ground level or at shallow depth within trial pits and the test results are included in the trial pit records. The mexicone penetrometer is a simple, hand-held device which gives a direct read out of equivalent CBR strength, on a cylindrical gauge. Readings are recorded for each 75mm penetration and where suitable soils are present, successive readings up to 0.6m total penetration can be achieved. However, the test can abort on coarse granular soils or other obstructions and in this case the term ‘refusal’ is given in the test records.

On completion the pits were backfilled with their spoil, compacted with the excavator bucket and the surplus left mounded to allow for subsequent consolidation settlement. If specific reinstatement has been requested by the client, this is confirmed in the main text of this report.

The trial pit records have been prepared using Gint software, taking into account both site descriptions and subsequent laboratory testing.

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Appendix E

Borehole Records

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

Open Hole Penetration Rate Job Ref: 20065 Job Name: Windmills Phase 4 Hole: BH1 Penetration Rate per 250mm (Seconds) 0 100 0.250 0.750.5 1.251 1.751.5 2.252 CASING installed 2.752.5 3.253 3.753.5 4.254 Made Ground: Quarry Backfill 4.754.5 5.255 5.755.5 6.256 Possible boulders of Limestone 6.756.5 c.7.25-8.0m & c.10.0-11.25m 7.257 7.757.5 8.288 8.758.5 9.259 9.759.5 10.2510 10.7510.5 11.2511 11.7511.5 Depth Depth (mBEGL) 12 12.25 DRILL BIT CHANGED c.12.0m 12.7512.5 13.2513 13.7513.5 14.2514 14.7514.5 15.2515 15.7515.5 16.2516 16.7516.5 17.2517 17.7517.5 18.2518 INFERRED BOUNDARY BETWEEN QUARRY BACKFILL AND LIMESTONE BEDROCK 18.7518.5 19.2519 19.7519.5 Open Hole Penetration Rate Job Ref: 20065 Job Name: Windmills Phase 4 Hole: BH2 Penetration Rate per 250mm (Seconds) 0 100 0.250 0.750.5 1.251 1.751.5 2.252 2.752.5 3.253 3.753.5 Made Ground: Quarry Backfill 4.254 4.754.5 5.255 5.755.5 6.256 Possible boulders of Limestone 6.756.5 c.7.25-8.0m & c.10.0-11.25m 7.257 7.757.5 8.288 8.758.5 9.259 9.759.5 10.2510 10.7510.5 11.2511 11.7511.5 Depth Depth (mBEGL) 12.2512 12.7512.5 13.2513 13.7513.5 14.2514 14.7514.5 15.2515 15.7515.5 16.2516 16.7516.5 17.2517 17.7517.5 18.2518 INFERRED BOUNDARY BETWEEN QUARRY BACKFILL AND LIMESTONE BEDROCK 18.7518.5 19.2519 19.7519.5 Open Hole Penetration Rate Job Ref: 20065 Job Name: Windmills Phase 4 Hole: BH3 Penetration Rate per 250mm (Seconds) 0 100 0.250 0.750.5 1.251 1.751.5 2.252 2.752.5 Made Ground: Quarry Backfill 3.253 3.753.5 4.254 4.754.5 5.255 5.755.5 6 Possible boulders of Limestone 6.256.5 6.757 c.1.25-1.75m, c.7.25-8.0m, 7.25 c.8.75-9.25 & c.13.0-13.5m 7.757.5 8.288 8.758.5 9.259 9.759.5 10.2510 10.7510.5 11.2511 11.7511.5 Depth Depth (mBEGL) 12 12.2512.5 12.7513 13.2513.5 13.7514 14.2514.5 14.75 INFERRED BOUNDARY BETWEEN QUARRY BACKFILL AND LIMESTONE BEDROCK 15.2515 15.7515.5 16.2516 16.7516.5 17.2517 17.7517.5 18.2518 18.7518.5 19.2519 19.7519.5 Open Hole Penetration Rate Job Ref: 20065 Job Name: Windmills Phase 4 Hole: BH4 Penetration Rate per 250mm (Seconds) 0 100 0.250 0.750.5 1.251 1.751.5 2.252 2.752.5 3.253 Made Ground: Quarry Backfill 3.753.5 4.254 4.754.5 5.255 5.755.5 6.256 Possible boulders of Limestone 6.756.5 c.7.25-8.0m & c.11.75-12.5m 7.257 7.757.5 8.288 8.758.5 9.259 9.759.5 10.2510 10.7510.5 11.2511 11.7511.5 Depth Depth (mBEGL) 12 12.2512.5 12.7513 13.25 INFERRED BOUNDARY BETWEEN QUARRY BACKFILL AND LIMESTONE BEDROCK 13.7513.5 14.2514 14.7514.5 15.2515 15.7515.5 16.2516 16.7516.5 17.2517 17.7517.5 18.2518 18.7518.5 19.2519 19.7519.5 Open Hole Penetration Rate Job Ref: 20065 Job Name: Windmills Phase 4 Hole: BH5 Penetration Rate per 250mm (Seconds) 0 100 0.250 0.750.5 1.251 1.751.5 2.252 2.752.5 3.253 3.753.5 Made Ground: Quarry Backfill 4.254 4.754.5 5.255 5.755.5 6 Possible boulders of Limestone 6.256.5 6.757 c.7.25-8.0m, c.10.5-11.25m & 7.25 c12.25-13m 7.757.5 8.288 8.758.5 9.259 9.759.5 10.2510 10.7510.5 11.2511 11.7511.5 Depth Depth (mBEGL) 12.2512 12.7512.5 13.2513 13.7513.5 14.2514 14.7514.5 INFERRED BOUNDARY BETWEEN QUARRY BACKFILL AND LIMESTONE BEDROCK 15.2515 15.7515.5 16.2516 16.7516.5 17.2517 17.7517.5 18.2518 18.7518.5 19.2519 19.7519.5 Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

STANDARD METHODOLOGY FOR ROTARY PERCUSSIVE PROBEHOLES

Rotary percussive open hole probe drilling was completed using a crawler or track mounted drilling rig fitted with a 'down the hole' hammer.

The type of drilling rig and diameter of equipment are identified on each of the borehole records included as a separate appendix. The locations are given in Figure 1 and selected using information on the proposed redevelopment, existing buried services and structures, ongoing site use, reinstatement requirements and time constraints. Locations aimed to provide information at corners of proposed structures, to give a spread of strata information across the site or to identify likely coal seam occurrences.

The equipment uses compressed air flush to penetrate the strata with a rock roller bit.

The probing was directed and supervised full-time by an experienced geologist who recorded the rate of penetration noted changes in the air flush returns, noted the drilling behaviour in relation to possible voids, broken ground and backfilled workings and described the rock cuttings returned to the ground surface.

On completion the boreholes were either backfilled with their spoil, or a standpipe installation fitted.

The borehole records have been prepared by interpreting the strata using details of the penetration rates, dust returns and drilling behaviour, together with other investigation information from nearby trial pits to boreholes. It remains an tentative interpretation since no samples are recovered by this technique.

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Appendix F

Gas and Groundwater Monitoring

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

Site Windmills Phase 4 Job No. 20065 Client Betterment Properties Monitored By PC Date Tuesday, October 20, 2020 Visit No 1

Weather Cloudy Atmospheric Pressure (mbar) 991 Air Temperature 991 Ground Conditions Dry

Time Carbon Depth to Depth to Product Gas Flow Methane Oxygen VOC Well Depth Position ID Elapsed %LEL Dioxide Product Water Thickness (l/hr) (%/vol) (mbgl) (secs) (%/vol) (%/vol) (ppm)(mbgl) (mbgl) (mm) 0 0.1 BH130 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 20.3 0.2 - Dry - 8.72 60 0.1

Comments:

0 0.1 BH230 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 20.2 0.2 - Dry - 6.07 60 0.2

Comments:

0 0.1 BH530 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 19.8 0.0 - Dry - 5.18 60 0.1

Comments: Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

Site Windmills Phase 4 Job No. 20065 Client Betterment Properties Monitored By PC Date Monday, November 09, 2020 Visit No 2

Weather Cloudy Atmospheric Pressure (mbar) 1008 Air Temperature 14°C Ground Conditions Dry

Comments:

0 0.1 BH230 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 20.3 0.1 - Dry - 6.07 60 0.2

Comments:

0 0.2 BH530 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 - Dry - 5.18 60 0.2

Comments: Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

Site Windmills Phase 4 Job No. 20065 Client Betterment Properties Monitored By PC Date Tuesday, December 01, 2020 Visit No 3

Weather Sunny Atmospheric Pressure (mbar) 1017 Air Temperature 7°C Ground Conditions Dry

Comments: PID not operational

0 0.1 BH230 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 20.5 - - Dry - 6.07 60 0.2

Comments: PID not operational

0 0.2 BH530 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 - - Dry - 5.18 60 0.2

Comments: PID not operational Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

Site Windmills Phase 4 Job No. 20065 Client Betterment Properties Monitored By PC Date Wednesday, January 27, 2021 Visit No 4

Weather Overcast Atmospheric Pressure (mbar) 1001 Air Temperature 9°C Ground Conditions Damp

Time Carbon Depth to Depth to Product Gas Flow Methane Oxygen VOC Well Depth Position ID Elapsed %LEL Dioxide Product Water Thickness (l/hr) (%/vol) (mbgl) (secs) (%/vol) (%/vol) (ppm)(mbgl) (mbgl) (mm) 0 0.2 BH130 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 20.2 0.1 - Dry - 8.72 60 0.2

Comments:

0 0.1 BH230 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 20.4 0.1 - Dry - 6.07 60 0.2

Comments:

0 0.2 BH330 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 20.2 0.1 - Dry - 5.18 60 0.2

Comments: Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

Site Windmills Phase 4 Job No. 20065 Client Betterment Properties Monitored By GS Date Thursday, February 04, 2021 Visit No 5

Weather Rainy Atmospheric Pressure (mbar) 992 Air Temperature 2°C Ground Conditions Damp

Comments:

0 0 BH230 0.1 2% 0.1 0.1 20.8 0.1 - Dry - 6.05 60 0.1

Comments:

0 0.1 BH530 0.2 2% 0.1 0.1 21.0 0.1 - Dry - 5.09 60 0.2

Comments: Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

Site Windmills Phase 4 Job No. 20065 Client Betterment Properties Monitored By GS Date Wednesday, February 10, 2021 Visit No 6

Weather Dry Atmospheric Pressure (mbar) 1006 Air Temperature minus 3°C Ground Conditions Dry

Time Carbon Depth to Depth to Product Gas Flow Methane Oxygen VOC Well Depth Position ID Elapsed %LEL Dioxide Product Water Thickness (l/hr) (%/vol) (mbgl) (secs) (%/vol) (%/vol) (ppm)(mbgl) (mbgl) (mm) 0 0.0 BH130 0.2 2.0 0.1 0.2 20.1 0.0 - Dry - 8.6 60 0.2

Comments:

0 0.1 BH230 0.2 2.0 0.1 0.1 21.0 0.0 - Dry - 6.05 60 0.2

Comments:

0 0.1 BH530 0.1 2.0 0.1 0.1 21.5 0.0 - Dry - 5.09 60 0.1

Comments: Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

STANDARD METHODOLOGIES FOR STANDPIPE INSTALLATIONS, SAMPLING and MONITORING FOR GAS AND GROUNDWATER

Standpipe Installations in Trial Pits Simple 30-50mm diameter plastic standpipes are installed in trial pits during backfilling. These consist of slotted pipe throughout the buried length to within 0.5m of the ground surface, with unslotted pipe above. These are capped off with removable stop-ends above ground level. They provide a useful guide to soil gas conditions within the backfilled trial pit, however some soil gas will be lost by dispersal within the loose backfill at the surface of the pit. They are commonly used for monitoring standing groundwater levels which would develop within excavations, however careful consideration has to be given to the possible infiltration of rainfall and throughflow into the sump created by the excavated pit.

Standpipe Installations in Boreholes Simple standpipes to measure the hydrostatic head of groundwater are formed in boreholes using 50mm diameter pipe. The details of individual installations are provided on borehole records. Typically the lower length is formed in slotted pipe, with the upper 1m unslotted. The annulus between the riser pipe and the borehole wall is filled with clean granular material. Details of any bentonite seals or grouting are given on the borehole records. A removable gas tap is fitted where gas monitoring is required and standpipes typically have a metal access cover concreted in at ground level.

Standpipe piezometers are formed by using a Casagrande type piezometer tip at the base of the pipe, set in a granular response zone of sand or pea gravel. The response zone is isolated from the strata above and below by placing 500mm thick bentonite seals. The remaining annulus above the bentonite seal is filled with a cement bentonite grout or similar.

Groundwater Monitoring & Sampling Details of return monitoring visits are included in this appendix. Groundwater standing levels are measured by inserting an electrically operated dip meter into the standpipe and recording the level to 2 decimal places, relative to existing ground level. Where groundwater levels are critical to calculation of hydraulic gradients or flow directions, the measurement is taken to 3 decimal places and to a marked point on the standpipe cover. That point is then surveyed and levelled to provide accurate calculations.

Groundwater samples are recovered using either Waterra valves and sample tubing or by manually lifting water from the standpipe using a bailer. For contamination analyses, the boreholes are initially purged by removing up to 3 borehole volumes of water, allowing the rest level to redevelop and taking a sufficient sample into custom containers. If groundwater does not recover sufficiently, the purged water may be used as the sample.

Gas Monitoring Monitoring is usually completed in standpipes prior to groundwater measurements, using portable instruments. Details are given on the monitoring tables, and typically using a PhoCheck Tiger photoionisation detector to measure volatile organic compounds in ppm and a GA5000 Gas meter to measure oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane, both by % Lower Explosive Limit and % Volume. Atmospheric pressure and temperature are also recorded. Measurements are taken immediately on opening the gas valve and the highest to lowest levels recorded. If levels fluctuate, then this is recorded, with the maximum reading and a more typical or rest level given.

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Appendix G

Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Results

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

TEST CERTIFICATE

Particle Size Distribution

Tested in Accordance with: BS 1377-2: 1990

Client: Integrale Limited Client Reference: 20065 Client Address: Unit 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Job Number: 20-36194 Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Date Sampled: 09/10/2020 Somerset, BS39 5XP Date Received: 16/10/2020 Contact: Phil Cresswell Date Tested: 23/10/2020 Site Address: Windmills Phase 4 Sampled By: Client Testing carried out at i2 Analytical Limited, ul. Pionierow 39, 41-711 Ruda Slaska, Poland Test Results: Laboratory Reference: 1654234 Depth Top [m]: 3.00 Hole No.: TP3 Depth Base [m]: Not Given Sample Reference: Not Given Sample Type: D Sample Description: Mottled brown slightly sandy very clayey GRAVEL Sample Preparation: Sample was whole tested, oven dried at 106.0 °C and broken down by hand. SILT SAND GRAVEL CLAY COBBLES BOULDERS Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

20 Percentage Passing % Passing Percentage 10 0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Particle Size mm

Sieving Sedimentation Sample Proportions % dry mass Very coarse 0.00 Particle Size mm % Passing Particle Size mm % Passing Gravel 58.90 500 100 Sand 9.30 300 100 150 100 Fines <0.063mm 31.80 125 100 90 100 75 100 Grading Analysis 63 100 D100 mm 63 50 84 D60 mm 24.2 37.5 78 D30 mm 28 62 D10 mm 20 58 Uniformity Coefficient > 380 14 54 Curvature Coefficient 10 51 Uniformity Coefficient and Coefficient of Curvature calculated in 6.3 47 accordance with BS EN ISO 14688-2: 2004 + A1: 2013 5 46 3.35 43 2 41 1.18 39 0.6 37 0.425 37 0.3 36 0.212 36 0.15 35 0.063 32 Note: Tested in Accordance with BS1377:Part 2:1990, clause 9.2 Remarks: The material submitted - fails to meet the minimum mass requirements as stated in BS1377 Part 2 Table 3

Signed: Szczepan Bielatowicz Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside of the scope of the UKAS Accreditation. This PL Deputy of Head of Geotechnical Section report may not be reproduced other than in full without the prior written approval of the issuing for and on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd laboratory. The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing. Page 1 of 1 Date Reported: 02/11/2020 GF 100.19 TEST CERTIFICATE

Particle Size Distribution

Tested in Accordance with: BS 1377-2: 1990

Client: Integrale Limited Client Reference: 20065 Client Address: Unit 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Job Number: 20-36194 Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Date Sampled: 09/10/2020 Somerset, BS39 5XP Date Received: 16/10/2020 Contact: Phil Cresswell Date Tested: 23/10/2020 Site Address: Windmills Phase 4 Sampled By: Client Testing carried out at i2 Analytical Limited, ul. Pionierow 39, 41-711 Ruda Slaska, Poland Test Results: Laboratory Reference: 1654235 Depth Top [m]: 0.30 Hole No.: TP5 Depth Base [m]: Not Given Sample Reference: Not Given Sample Type: D Sample Description: Light grey very clayey very sandy GRAVEL Sample Preparation: Sample was whole tested, oven dried at 108.1 °C and broken down by hand. SILT SAND GRAVEL CLAY COBBLES BOULDERS Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

20 Percentage Passing % Passing Percentage 10 0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Particle Size mm

Sieving Sedimentation Sample Proportions % dry mass Very coarse 0.00 Particle Size mm % Passing Particle Size mm % Passing Gravel 42.80 500 100 Sand 35.10 300 100 150 100 Fines <0.063mm 22.10 125 100 90 100 75 100 Grading Analysis 63 100 D100 mm 37.5 50 100 D60 mm 2.88 37.5 100 D30 mm 0.181 28 92 D10 mm 20 86 Uniformity Coefficient > 46 14 76 Curvature Coefficient 10 71 Uniformity Coefficient and Coefficient of Curvature calculated in 6.3 65 accordance with BS EN ISO 14688-2: 2004 + A1: 2013 5 63 3.35 61 2 57 1.18 52 0.6 45 0.425 41 0.3 36 0.212 32 0.15 28 0.063 22 Note: Tested in Accordance with BS1377:Part 2:1990, clause 9.2 Remarks: The material submitted - fails to meet the minimum mass requirements as stated in BS1377 Part 2 Table 3

Particle Size Distribution

Tested in Accordance with: BS 1377-2: 1990

Client: Integrale Limited Client Reference: 20065 Client Address: Unit 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Job Number: 20-36194 Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Date Sampled: 09/10/2020 Somerset, BS39 5XP Date Received: 16/10/2020 Contact: Phil Cresswell Date Tested: 23/10/2020 Site Address: Windmills Phase 4 Sampled By: Client Testing carried out at i2 Analytical Limited, ul. Pionierow 39, 41-711 Ruda Slaska, Poland Test Results: Laboratory Reference: 1654236 Depth Top [m]: 1.00 Hole No.: TP2 Depth Base [m]: Not Given Sample Reference: Not Given Sample Type: D Sample Description: Brownish grey sandy very clayey GRAVEL Sample Preparation: Sample was whole tested, oven dried at 106.0 °C and broken down by hand. SILT SAND GRAVEL CLAY COBBLES BOULDERS Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

20 Percentage Passing % Passing Percentage 10 0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Particle Size mm

Sieving Sedimentation Sample Proportions % dry mass Very coarse 0.00 Particle Size mm % Passing Particle Size mm % Passing Gravel 54.20 500 100 Sand 11.70 300 100 150 100 Fines <0.063mm 34.10 125 100 90 100 75 100 Grading Analysis 63 100 D100 mm 50 50 100 D60 mm 20 37.5 75 D30 mm 28 66 D10 mm 20 60 Uniformity Coefficient > 320 14 57 Curvature Coefficient 10 54 Uniformity Coefficient and Coefficient of Curvature calculated in 6.3 50 accordance with BS EN ISO 14688-2: 2004 + A1: 2013 5 49 3.35 47 2 46 1.18 44 0.6 42 0.425 41 0.3 40 0.212 39 0.15 38 0.063 34 Note: Tested in Accordance with BS1377:Part 2:1990, clause 9.2 Remarks: The material submitted - fails to meet the minimum mass requirements as stated in BS1377 Part 2 Table 3

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

STANDARD METHODOLOGY FOR GEOTECHNICAL SAMPLING

Soil samples are recovered from trial pits or borehole samples using a stainless steel trowel and immediately placed into airtight plastic tubs or bags, as appropriate for the testing. If required the soil samples may be wrapped in cling film, particularly in suspected desiccated soils. Samples are labelled with the site name, investigation location and depth and placed into either cool boxes or large bulk bags for transit from site. An analytical schedule is drawn up in line with the actual ground conditions proven, proposed site use and likely design parameters.

Samples are sent to a specialist testing laboratory. Testing is completed in line with BS1377 as far as possible and details of the test method and UKAS accreditation are provided by the laboratory on the results sheets in a separate appendix.

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Appendix H

Results of Contamination Analyses

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Exceeds GAC Value Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4 Exceeds WRAS Value

Exceeds Phytotoxic Value Lab Sample Number 1652883 1652884 1652885 1652886 1652887 1652888 Sample Reference TP1 TP1 TP2 TP2 TP3 TP4 Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied Depth (m) 0.05 2.5 0.1 3.9 1.1 0.4 Date Sampled 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Accreditat

ion Status ion

detection

Limit of Limit

Units Analytical Parameter (Soil Analysis)

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Moisture Content % N/A NONE 14 13 8.1 13 9.8 4.8 Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1 1.2 1.2 1 1 1

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected

General Inorganics pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 8.1 8.5 8.6 8.8 8.5 8.6 Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Thiocyanate as SCN mg/kg 5 NONE < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 Total Sulphate as SO4 % 0.005 MCERTS 0.123 0.214 0.091 0.19 0.198 0.095 Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS ------Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS ------Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 31 10 < 1.0 < 1.0 7.8 Elemental Sulphur mg/kg 5 MCERTS < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 Total Sulphur % 0.005 MCERTS ------Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS 7.1 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.9 0.6

Total Phenols Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Speciated PAHs Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.7 3.5 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 0.66 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 0.2 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.42 0.18 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.39 Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.93 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.39 Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.83 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.35 Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.66 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.52 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.87 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.27 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.56 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.35 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.4 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Total PAH Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS 6.51 4.51 < 0.80 < 0.80 < 0.80 1.13

Heavy Metals / Metalloids Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 6.4 9.7 1.5 19 7.5 1.9 Barium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 100 110 75 710 25 52 Beryllium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.06 MCERTS 0.26 0.23 < 0.06 0.24 0.23 < 0.06 Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.5 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 7.1 5 2.1 6.8 5.9 6.3 Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 16 5.4 3.1 13 5.2 5 Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 49 8.1 6.3 19 7.4 16 Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 8.6 11 3.5 19 8.5 6.3 Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 Vanadium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 12 9 3.5 21 10 3.9 Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 85 20 14 78 16 23

Monoaromatics & Oxygenates Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 < 1.0 - Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 < 1.0 - Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 < 1.0 - p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 < 1.0 - o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 < 1.0 - MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 < 1.0 -

Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH C10 - C40 mg/kg 10 MCERTS - 44 23 - - 29

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC6 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 < 1.0 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 - - < 2.0 < 2.0 - Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Exceeds GAC Value Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4 Exceeds WRAS Value

Accreditat

ion Status ion

detection

Limit of Limit

Units Analytical Parameter (Soil Analysis)

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 8 MCERTS < 8.0 - - < 8.0 < 8.0 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTS 29 - - 20 64 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 29 - - 21 64 -

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC7 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 < 1.0 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS 2.8 - - < 2.0 < 2.0 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - - < 10 < 10 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS 82 - - < 10 < 10 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 95 - - < 10 < 10 -

U/S = Unsuitable Sample I/S = Insufficient Sample Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Lab Sample Number 1652889 1652890 1652891 1652892 1652893 1652894 1652895 Sample Reference TP4 TP5 TP6 TP6 TP1 TP4 TP6 Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied Depth (m) 2.6 1.3 0.6 2.1 2.9 1.1 1.6 Date Sampled 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 10/09/2020 Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied

Accreditat

ion Status ion

detection

Limit of Limit

Units Analytical Parameter (Soil Analysis)

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Moisture Content % N/A NONE 18 12 15 15 15 10 14 Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1 1 1 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected - - -

General Inorganics pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 8.1 8.6 8.2 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.5 Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - - - Thiocyanate as SCN mg/kg 5 NONE < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 - - - Total Sulphate as SO4 % 0.005 MCERTS 0.142 0.203 0.145 0.23 0.151 0.179 0.185 Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS - - - - 0.039 0.038 0.074 Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS - - - - 38.7 37.9 74.1 Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS 1.5 13 3.3 8.6 - - - Elemental Sulphur mg/kg 5 MCERTS < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 - - - Total Sulphur % 0.005 MCERTS - - - - 0.058 0.059 0.078 Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS 2.1 0.9 1.4 0.8 - - -

Total Phenols Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 - - -

Speciated PAHs Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 - - - Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 - - - Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 - - - Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 - - - Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.22 0.27 0.59 0.67 - - - Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 - - - Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.31 0.33 1.3 0.69 - - - Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.32 0.26 1.1 0.54 - - - Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.22 < 0.05 0.92 0.27 - - - Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.25 < 0.05 0.88 0.33 - - - Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.29 < 0.05 1.2 0.37 - - - Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.13 < 0.05 0.57 0.15 - - - Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.23 < 0.05 0.86 0.2 - - - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.15 < 0.05 0.54 < 0.05 - - - Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 - - - Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.22 < 0.05 0.63 < 0.05 - - -

Total PAH Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS 2.34 0.86 8.62 3.22 - - -

Heavy Metals / Metalloids Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 20 9.8 20 16 - - - Barium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 170 540 120 880 - - - Beryllium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.06 MCERTS 0.99 0.24 0.79 0.38 - - - Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 1.4 0.4 0.6 < 0.2 - - - Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 - - - Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 - - - Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 25 6.3 20 9.1 - - - Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 19 7.6 15 8.8 - - - Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 50 40 25 31 - - - Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 - - - Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 25 11 23 16 - - - Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 - - - Vanadium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 38 13 28 18 - - - Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 63 27 37 35 - - -

Monoaromatics & Oxygenates Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - - - - Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - - - - Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - - - - p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - - - - o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - - - - MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - - - -

Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH C10 - C40 mg/kg 10 MCERTS - < 10 - 17 - - -

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC6 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 - < 2.0 - - - - Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Accreditat

ion Status ion

detection

Limit of Limit

Units Analytical Parameter (Soil Analysis)

TPH-CWGStone Content - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg% 0.18 MCERTS NONE < 8.0 - < 8.0 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTS < 8.0 - < 8.0 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - < 10 - - - -

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC7 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 - < 2.0 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - < 10 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - 15 - - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - 24 - - - -

U/S = Unsuitable Sample I/S = Insufficient Sample Phil Cresswell Integrale Limited i2 Analytical Ltd. Unit 7 7 Woodshots Meadow, Westway Farm Business Park Croxley Green Wick Road Business Park, Bishop Sutton Watford, Somerset Herts, BS39 5XP WD18 8YS t: 01923 225404 f: 01923 237404 e: [email protected] e: [email protected]

Analytical Report Number : 20-35975

Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4 Samples received on: 14/10/2020

Your job number: 20065 Samples instructed on/ 16/10/2020 Analysis started on:

Your order number: Analysis completed by: 26/10/2020

Report Issue Number: 1 Report issued on: 26/10/2020

Samples Analysed: 3 leachate samples - 13 soil samples

Signed:

Will Fardon Technical Reviewer (CS Team) For & on behalf of i2 Analytical Ltd.

Standard Geotechnical, Asbestos and Chemical Testing Laboratory located at: ul. Pionierów 39, 41 -711 Ruda Śląska, Poland.

Accredited tests are defined within the report, opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of accreditation.

Standard sample disposal times, unless otherwise agreed with the laboratory, are : soils - 4 weeks from reporting leachates - 2 weeks from reporting waters - 2 weeks from reporting asbestos - 6 months from reporting Excel copies of reports are only valid when accompanied by this PDF certificate.

Any assessments of compliance with specifications are based on actual analytical results with no contribution from uncertainty of measurement. Application of uncertainty of measurement would provide a range within which the true result lies. An estimate of measurement uncertainty can be provided on request.

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report are representative of the samples submitted for analysis. Page 1 of 14 Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Lab Sample Number 1652883 1652884 1652885 1652886 Sample Reference TP1 TP1 TP2 TP2 Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied Depth (m) 0.05 2.50 0.10 3.90 Date Sampled 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied Limit of Limit Accredi detecti Status tation tation Units

Analytical Parameter on (Soil Analysis)

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Moisture Content % N/A NONE 14 13 8.1 13 Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1 1.2 1.2 1

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected

General Inorganics pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 8.1 8.5 8.6 8.8 Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Thiocyanate as SCN mg/kg 5 NONE < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 Total Sulphate as SO4 % 0.005 MCERTS 0.123 0.214 0.091 0.19 Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS - - - - Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS - - - - Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 31 10 < 1.0 Elemental Sulphur mg/kg 5 MCERTS < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 Total Sulphur % 0.005 MCERTS - - - - Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS 7.1 1.3 1.1 0.4

Total Phenols Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Speciated PAHs Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.7 3.5 < 0.05 < 0.05 Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 0.66 < 0.05 < 0.05 Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 0.2 < 0.05 < 0.05 Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.42 0.18 < 0.05 < 0.05 Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.93 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.83 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.66 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.52 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.87 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.27 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.56 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.35 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.4 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Total PAH Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS 6.51 4.51 < 0.80 < 0.80

Heavy Metals / Metalloids Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 6.4 9.7 1.5 19 Barium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 100 110 75 710 Beryllium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.06 MCERTS 0.26 0.23 < 0.06 0.24 Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.5 Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.5 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 7.1 5 2.1 6.8 Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 16 5.4 3.1 13 Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 49 8.1 6.3 19 Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 8.6 11 3.5 19 Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 Vanadium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 12 9 3.5 21

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing. Page 2 of 14 Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Analytical Parameter on (Soil Analysis)

Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 85 20 14 78

Monoaromatics & Oxygenates Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0

Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH C10 - C40 mg/kg 10 MCERTS - 44 23 -

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC6 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 - - < 2.0 TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 8 MCERTS < 8.0 - - < 8.0 TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTS 29 - - 20 TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 29 - - 21

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC7 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - < 0.001 TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - < 1.0 TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS 2.8 - - < 2.0 TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - - < 10 TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS 82 - - < 10 TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 95 - - < 10

U/S = Unsuitable Sample I/S = Insufficient Sample

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing. Page 3 of 14 Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Lab Sample Number 1652887 1652888 1652889 1652890 Sample Reference TP3 TP4 TP4 TP5 Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied Depth (m) 1.10 0.40 2.60 1.30 Date Sampled 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied Limit of Limit Accredi detecti Status tation tation Units

Analytical Parameter on (Soil Analysis)

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Moisture Content % N/A NONE 9.8 4.8 18 12 Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1 1 1 1

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected Not-detected

General Inorganics pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 8.5 8.6 8.1 8.6 Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Thiocyanate as SCN mg/kg 5 NONE < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 Total Sulphate as SO4 % 0.005 MCERTS 0.198 0.095 0.142 0.203 Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS - - - - Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS - - - - Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 7.8 1.5 13 Elemental Sulphur mg/kg 5 MCERTS < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 Total Sulphur % 0.005 MCERTS - - - - Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS 0.9 0.6 2.1 0.9

Total Phenols Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Speciated PAHs Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 0.39 0.22 0.27 Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 0.39 0.31 0.33 Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 0.35 0.32 0.26 Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 0.22 < 0.05 Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 0.25 < 0.05 Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 0.29 < 0.05 Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 0.13 < 0.05 Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 0.23 < 0.05 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 0.15 < 0.05 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 0.22 < 0.05

Total PAH Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS < 0.80 1.13 2.34 0.86

Heavy Metals / Metalloids Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 7.5 1.9 20 9.8 Barium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 25 52 170 540 Beryllium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.06 MCERTS 0.23 < 0.06 0.99 0.24 Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.4 0.2 1.4 0.4 Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 5.9 6.3 25 6.3 Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 5.2 5 19 7.6 Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 7.4 16 50 40 Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 8.5 6.3 25 11 Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 Vanadium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 10 3.9 38 13

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing. Page 4 of 14 Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Analytical Parameter on (Soil Analysis)

Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 16 23 63 27

Monoaromatics & Oxygenates Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 -

Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH C10 - C40 mg/kg 10 MCERTS - 29 - < 10

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC6 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 - < 2.0 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 8 MCERTS < 8.0 - < 8.0 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTS 64 - < 8.0 - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 64 - < 10 -

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC7 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - < 0.001 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - < 1.0 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 - < 2.0 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - < 10 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - < 10 - TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - < 10 -

U/S = Unsuitable Sample I/S = Insufficient Sample

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing. Page 5 of 14 Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Lab Sample Number 1652891 1652892 1652893 1652894 Sample Reference TP6 TP6 TP1 TP4 Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied Depth (m) 0.60 2.10 2.90 1.10 Date Sampled 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied Limit of Limit Accredi detecti Status tation tation Units

Analytical Parameter on (Soil Analysis)

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Moisture Content % N/A NONE 15 15 15 10 Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 1 1.2 0.6 0.6

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 Not-detected Not-detected - -

General Inorganics pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 8.2 8.6 8.4 8.4 Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1 < 1 - - Thiocyanate as SCN mg/kg 5 NONE < 5.0 < 5.0 - - Total Sulphate as SO4 % 0.005 MCERTS 0.145 0.23 0.151 0.179 Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS - - 0.039 0.038 Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS - - 38.7 37.9 Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS 3.3 8.6 - - Elemental Sulphur mg/kg 5 MCERTS < 5.0 < 5.0 - - Total Sulphur % 0.005 MCERTS - - 0.058 0.059 Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS 1.4 0.8 - -

Total Phenols Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - -

Speciated PAHs Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - - Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - - Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - - Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - - Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.59 0.67 - - Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - - Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 1.3 0.69 - - Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 1.1 0.54 - - Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.92 0.27 - - Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.88 0.33 - - Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 1.2 0.37 - - Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.57 0.15 - - Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.86 0.2 - - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.54 < 0.05 - - Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS < 0.05 < 0.05 - - Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS 0.63 < 0.05 - -

Total PAH Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS 8.62 3.22 - -

Heavy Metals / Metalloids Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 20 16 - - Barium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 120 880 - - Beryllium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.06 MCERTS 0.79 0.38 - - Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS 0.6 < 0.2 - - Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS < 0.2 < 0.2 - - Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS < 4.0 < 4.0 - - Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 20 9.1 - - Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 15 8.8 - - Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 25 31 - - Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS < 0.3 < 0.3 - - Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 23 16 - - Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 < 1.0 - - Vanadium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 28 18 - -

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing. Page 6 of 14 Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Analytical Parameter on (Soil Analysis)

Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS 37 35 - -

Monoaromatics & Oxygenates Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - - Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - - Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - - p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - - o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - - MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - -

Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH C10 - C40 mg/kg 10 MCERTS - 17 - -

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC6 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 8 MCERTS < 8.0 - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTS < 8.0 - - - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - - -

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC7 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS < 0.001 - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS < 1.0 - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS < 2.0 - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS < 10 - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS 15 - - - TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS 24 - - -

U/S = Unsuitable Sample I/S = Insufficient Sample

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing. Page 7 of 14 Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Lab Sample Number 1652895 Sample Reference TP6 Sample Number None Supplied Depth (m) 1.60 Date Sampled 09/10/2020 Time Taken None Supplied Limit of Limit Accredi detecti Status tation tation Units

Analytical Parameter on (Soil Analysis)

Stone Content % 0.1 NONE < 0.1 Moisture Content % N/A NONE 14 Total mass of sample received kg 0.001 NONE 0.6

Asbestos in Soil Type N/A ISO 17025 -

General Inorganics pH - Automated pH Units N/A MCERTS 8.5 Total Cyanide mg/kg 1 MCERTS - Thiocyanate as SCN mg/kg 5 NONE - Total Sulphate as SO4 % 0.005 MCERTS 0.185 Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) g/l 0.00125 MCERTS 0.074 Water Soluble SO4 16hr extraction (2:1 Leachate Equivalent) mg/l 1.25 MCERTS 74.1 Sulphide mg/kg 1 MCERTS - Elemental Sulphur mg/kg 5 MCERTS - Total Sulphur % 0.005 MCERTS 0.078 Organic Matter % 0.1 MCERTS -

Total Phenols Total Phenols (monohydric) mg/kg 1 MCERTS -

Speciated PAHs Naphthalene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Fluorene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Chrysene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS - Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.05 MCERTS -

Total PAH Speciated Total EPA-16 PAHs mg/kg 0.8 MCERTS -

Heavy Metals / Metalloids Arsenic (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - Barium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - Beryllium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.06 MCERTS - Boron (water soluble) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS - Cadmium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.2 MCERTS - Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 4 MCERTS - Chromium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - Copper (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - Lead (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - Mercury (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 0.3 MCERTS - Nickel (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - Selenium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS - Vanadium (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS -

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing. Page 8 of 14 Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Lab Sample Number 1652895 Sample Reference TP6 Sample Number None Supplied Depth (m) 1.60 Date Sampled 09/10/2020 Time Taken None Supplied Limit of Limit Accredi detecti Status tation tation Units

Analytical Parameter on (Soil Analysis)

Zinc (aqua regia extractable) mg/kg 1 MCERTS -

Monoaromatics & Oxygenates Benzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS - Toluene µg/kg 1 MCERTS - Ethylbenzene µg/kg 1 MCERTS - p & m-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS - o-xylene µg/kg 1 MCERTS - MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) µg/kg 1 MCERTS -

Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH C10 - C40 mg/kg 10 MCERTS -

TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC5 - EC6 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC6 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 8 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 8 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aliphatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS -

TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC5 - EC7 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC7 - EC8 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC8 - EC10 mg/kg 0.001 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC10 - EC12 mg/kg 1 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC12 - EC16 mg/kg 2 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC16 - EC21 mg/kg 10 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aromatic >EC21 - EC35 mg/kg 10 MCERTS - TPH-CWG - Aromatic (EC5 - EC35) mg/kg 10 MCERTS -

U/S = Unsuitable Sample I/S = Insufficient Sample

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing. Page 9 of 14 Analytical Report Number: 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Lab Sample Number 1652896 1652897 1652898 Sample Reference TP3 TP5 TP6 Sample Number None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied Depth (m) 1.90 2.90 1.00 Date Sampled 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 09/10/2020 Time Taken None Supplied None Supplied None Supplied Limit of Limit Accredi detecti Status tation tation Units

Analytical Parameter on (Leachate Analysis)

General Inorganics pH pH Units N/A ISO 17025 8.1 8.2 8.2 Total Cyanide µg/l 10 ISO 17025 < 10 < 10 < 10 Sulphate as SO4 mg/l 0.1 ISO 17025 2.9 16.8 4.8 Sulphide µg/l 5 NONE < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 Hardness - Total mgCaCO3/l 1 NONE 44.8 45.8 42.3

Total Phenols Total Phenols (monohydric) µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Speciated PAHs Naphthalene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Acenaphthylene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Acenaphthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Fluorene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Phenanthrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Anthracene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Pyrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Benzo(a)anthracene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Chrysene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Benzo(a)pyrene µg/l 0.01 ISO 17025 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/l 0.01 NONE < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/l 0.01 NONE < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Benzo(ghi)perylene µg/l 0.01 NONE < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Total PAH Total EPA-16 PAHs µg/l 0.2 NONE < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2

Heavy Metals / Metalloids Arsenic (dissolved) µg/l 1 ISO 17025 < 1.1 2.6 < 1.1 Barium (dissolved) µg/l 0.05 ISO 17025 15 96 57 Beryllium (dissolved) µg/l 0.2 ISO 17025 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 Boron (dissolved) µg/l 10 ISO 17025 25 26 23 Cadmium (dissolved) µg/l 0.08 ISO 17025 < 0.08 < 0.08 < 0.08 Chromium (dissolved) µg/l 0.4 ISO 17025 0.8 < 0.4 0.7 Copper (dissolved) µg/l 0.7 ISO 17025 3 1.7 2.2 Lead (dissolved) µg/l 1 ISO 17025 3.2 1.5 4 Mercury (dissolved) µg/l 0.5 ISO 17025 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Nickel (dissolved) µg/l 0.3 ISO 17025 1.3 0.8 0.9 Selenium (dissolved) µg/l 4 ISO 17025 < 4.0 < 4.0 < 4.0 Vanadium (dissolved) µg/l 1.7 ISO 17025 3.5 < 1.7 2.8 Zinc (dissolved) µg/l 0.4 ISO 17025 3.7 2.5 5.9

Calcium (dissolved) mg/l 0.012 ISO 17025 15 15 14 Magnesium (dissolved) mg/l 0.005 ISO 17025 1.9 2 1.7

U/S = Unsuitable Sample I/S = Insufficient Sample

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report relate only to the sample(s) submitted for testing. Page 10 of 14 Analytical Report Number : 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

* These descriptions are only intended to act as a cross check if sample identities are questioned. The major constituent of the sample is intended to act with respect to MCERTS validation. The laboratory is accredited for sand, clay and loam (MCERTS) soil types. Data for unaccredited types of solid should be interpreted with care.

Stone content of a sample is calculated as the % weight of the stones not passing a 10 mm sieve. Results are not corrected for stone content.

Lab Sample Sample Sample Depth (m) Sample Description * Number Reference Number

1652883 TP1 None Supplied 0.05 Brown loam and sand with gravel and vegetation. 1652884 TP1 None Supplied 2.5 Light brown clay and sand with gravel. 1652885 TP2 None Supplied 0.1 Light brown sandy loam with gravel and vegetation. 1652886 TP2 None Supplied 3.9 Light brown clay and sand with gravel. 1652887 TP3 None Supplied 1.1 Light brown clay and sand with gravel. 1652888 TP4 None Supplied 0.4 Light grey sandy loam with gravel and vegetation. 1652889 TP4 None Supplied 2.6 Brown clay and sand with gravel. 1652890 TP5 None Supplied 1.3 Light brown clay and sand with gravel. 1652891 TP6 None Supplied 0.6 Light brown clay and sand with gravel. 1652892 TP6 None Supplied 2.1 Light brown clay and sand with gravel. 1652893 TP1 None Supplied 2.9 Light brown clay and sand with gravel. 1652894 TP4 None Supplied 1.1 Light brown clay and sand with gravel. 1652895 TP6 None Supplied 1.6 Brown clay and sand with gravel.

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report are representative of the samples submitted for analysis. Page 11 of 14 Analytical Report Number : 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Water matrix abbreviations: Surface Water (SW) Potable Water (PW) Ground Water (GW)

Method Wet / Dry Accreditation Analytical Test Name Analytical Method Description Analytical Method Reference number Analysis Status

Metals in soil by ICP-OES Determination of metals in soil by aqua-regia digestion In-house method based on MEWAM 2006 L038-PL D MCERTS followed by ICP-OES. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil.

NRA Leachate Prep 10:1 extract with de-ionised water shaken for 24 hours In-house method based on National Rivers L020-PL W NONE then filtered. Authority

Asbestos identification in soil Asbestos Identification with the use of polarised light In house method based on HSG 248 A001-PL D ISO 17025 microscopy in conjunction with disperion staining techniques.

Metals by ICP-OES in leachate Determination of metals in leachate by acidification In-house method based on MEWAM 2006 L039-PL W ISO 17025 followed by ICP-OES. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil.

Boron in leachate Determination of boron in leachate. Sample acidified and In-house method based on MEWAM L039-PL W ISO 17025 followed by ICP-OES.

Boron, water soluble, in soil Determination of water soluble boron in soil by hot water In-house method based on Second Site Properties L038-PL D MCERTS extract followed by ICP-OES. version 3

Hexavalent chromium in soil Determination of hexavalent chromium in soil by In-house method L080-PL W MCERTS extraction in water then by acidification, addition of 1,5 diphenylcarbazide followed by colorimetry.

Elemental sulphur in soil Determination of elemental sulphur in soil by extraction in In-house method based on Secondsite Property L021-PL D MCERTS acetonitrile followed by HPLC. Holdings Guidance for Assessing and Managing Potential

Total Hardness of leachates Determination of hardness in leachates by calculation In-house method based on Examination of Water L045-PL W NONE from calcium and magnesium. and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton

Moisture Content Moisture content, determined gravimetrically. (30 oC) In house method. L019-UK/PL W NONE

Monohydric phenols in leachate - LOW Determination of phenols in leachate by distillation In-house method based on Examination of Water L080-PL W ISO 17025 LEVEL 1 ug/l followed by colorimetry. and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (skalar)

Monohydric phenols in soil Determination of phenols in soil by extraction with sodium In-house method based on Examination of Water L080-PL W MCERTS hydroxide followed by distillation followed by colorimetry. and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (skalar)

Organic matter (Automated) in soil Determination of organic matter in soil by oxidising with In house method. L009-PL D MCERTS potassium dichromate followed by titration with iron (II) sulphate.

Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in leachate Determination of PAH compounds in leachate by In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L102B-PL W NONE extraction in dichloromethane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards.

Speciated EPA-16 PAHs in soil Determination of PAH compounds in soil by extraction in In-house method based on USEPA 8270 L064-PL D MCERTS dichloromethane and hexane followed by GC-MS with the use of surrogate and internal standards.

pH in soil (automated) Determination of pH in soil by addition of water followed In house method. L099-PL D MCERTS by automated electrometric measurement.

pH at 20oC in leachate Determination of pH in leachate by electrometric In house method. L005-PL W ISO 17025 measurement.

This certificate should not be reproduced, except in full, without the express permission of the laboratory. Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM The results included within the report are representative of the samples submitted for analysis. Page 12 of 14 Analytical Report Number : 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Water matrix abbreviations: Surface Water (SW) Potable Water (PW) Ground Water (GW)

Method Wet / Dry Accreditation Analytical Test Name Analytical Method Description Analytical Method Reference number Analysis Status

Sulphide in leachate Determination of sulphide in leachate by ion selective In-house method L010-PL W NONE electrode.

Sulphide in soil Determination of sulphide in soil by acidification and In-house method L010-PL D MCERTS heating to liberate hydrogen sulphide, trapped in an alkaline solution then assayed by ion selective electrode.

Thiocyanate in soil Determination of thiocyanate in soil by extraction in water In-house method L082-PL D NONE followed by acidification followed by addition of ferric nitrate followed by discrete analyser (spectrophotometer).

Stones content of soil Standard preparation for all samples unless otherwise In-house method based on British Standard L019-UK/PL D NONE detailed. Gravimetric determination of stone > 10 mm as Methods and MCERTS requirements. % dry weight.

Total cyanide in leachate Determination of total cyanide by distillation followed by In-house method based on Examination of Water L080-PL W ISO 17025 colorimetry. and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)

Total cyanide in soil Determination of total cyanide by distillation followed by In-house method based on Examination of Water L080-PL W MCERTS colorimetry. and Wastewater 20th Edition: Clesceri, Greenberg & Eaton (Skalar)

BTEX and MTBE in soil (Monoaromatics) Determination of BTEX in soil by headspace GC-MS. In-house method based on USEPA8260 L073B-PL W MCERTS

TPHCWG (Soil) Determination of hexane extractable hydrocarbons in soil In-house method with silica gel split/clean up. L088/76-PL W MCERTS by GC-MS/GC-FID.

TPH Banding in Soil by FID Determination of hexane extractable hydrocarbons in soil In-house method, TPH with carbon banding and L076-PL W MCERTS by GC-FID. silica gel split/cleanup.

Sulphate in leachates Determination of sulphate in leachate by acidification In-house method based on MEWAM 1986 L039-PL W ISO 17025 followed by ICP-OES. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Soil""

Total Sulphate in soil as % Determination of total sulphate in soil by extraction with In house method. L038-PL D MCERTS 10% HCl followed by ICP-OES.

Total Sulphur in soil as % Determination of total sulphur in soil by extraction with In house method. L038-PL D MCERTS aqua-regia, potassium bromide/bromate followed by ICP- OES.

Sulphate, water soluble, in soil (16hr Determination of water soluble sulphate by ICP-OES. In house method. L038-PL D MCERTS extraction) Results reported directly (leachate equivalent) and corrected for extraction ratio (soil equivalent).

Sulphate, water soluble, in soil Determination of water soluble sulphate by ICP-OES. In house method. L038-PL D MCERTS Results reported directly (leachate equivalent) and corrected for extraction ratio (soil equivalent).

For method numbers ending in 'UK' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in the United Kingdom. For method numbers ending in 'PL' analysis have been carried out in our laboratory in Poland. Soil analytical results are expressed on a dry weight basis. Where analysis is carried out on as-received the results obtained are multiplied by a moisture correction factor that is determined gravimetrically using the moisture content which is carried out at a maximum of 30oC.

Analytical Report Number : 20-35975 Project / Site name: Windmills Phase 4

Sample Lab Sample Sample Test Sample ID Other ID Test Name Test Ref Type Number Deviation Deviation

TP1 None Supplied S 1652883 c Sulphide in soil L010-PL c TP1 None Supplied S 1652883 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c TP1 None Supplied S 1652884 c Sulphide in soil L010-PL c TP1 None Supplied S 1652884 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c TP2 None Supplied S 1652885 c Sulphide in soil L010-PL c TP2 None Supplied S 1652885 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c TP2 None Supplied S 1652886 c Sulphide in soil L010-PL c TP2 None Supplied S 1652886 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c TP3 None Supplied S 1652887 c Sulphide in soil L010-PL c TP3 None Supplied S 1652887 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c TP4 None Supplied S 1652888 c Sulphide in soil L010-PL c TP4 None Supplied S 1652888 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c TP4 None Supplied S 1652889 c Sulphide in soil L010-PL c TP4 None Supplied S 1652889 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c TP5 None Supplied S 1652890 c Sulphide in soil L010-PL c TP5 None Supplied S 1652890 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c TP6 None Supplied S 1652891 c Sulphide in soil L010-PL c TP6 None Supplied S 1652891 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c TP6 None Supplied S 1652892 c Sulphide in soil L010-PL c TP6 None Supplied S 1652892 c Total cyanide in soil L080-PL c

Key: a - No sampling date b - Incorrect container Iss No 20-35975-1 Windmills Phase 4 20065.XLSM c - Holding time d - Headspace e - Temperature Page 14 of 14 Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

BRIEFING NOTE - SOIL CONTAMINANT GUIDELINE VALUES

Integrale Limited has produced a suite of generic Soil Guideline Values to enable quantitative assessment of risks to human health for various Conceptual Models. The CLEA v1.06 model was used to generate a robust database of guideline values for preliminary quantitative risk assessments. Integrale believe that CLEA v1.06 can be used with caution to derive Generic and Site Specific Assessment Criteria. All CLEA v1.06 assessments have been based on the series of reports published by DEFRA and the Environment Agency (EA), including Science report(s): SC050021/SR2, /SR3, /SR4 and /SR7.

Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) have been generated for: • Metals and semi-metals: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, vanadium and zinc. The previously published CLEA 2002 SGV for lead has been retained. • Aliphatic TPH (C5-C6, C6-C8, C8-C10, C10-C12, C12-C16, C16-C35, C35-C44). Aromatic TPH’s (C5-C7, C7-C8, C8-C10, C10-C12, C12-C16, C16-C21, C21-C35 and C35-C44). • Priority PAHs: Naphthalene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Fluorene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene. • Dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs • Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes. • Cyanide, phenol. • Chlorinated solvents: 1,2 dichloroethane, tetrachloroethanes, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride.

Default library values provided within CLEA v1.06 have been used where available. The contaminant library physio-chemical data has been updated where necessary. All new physio-chemical and toxicological data has been obtained from Soil Guideline Value (SGV) & TOX reports, EA and DEFRA published Science Reports and LQM CIEH where possible; otherwise, data has been sourced from other accredited sources.

Generic AC have been calculated for generic land uses, based on CLEA default building types, receptor types and characteristics, age classes, exposure pathways and averaging periods, and site characteristics.

Integrale have calculated generic AC’s for typical housing with homegrown produce and without homegrown produce, primary school’s and commercial end uses, using CLEA v1.06 default sandy loam soils, with an organic matter content of 6% and a pH value of 7.0.

Evaluation of health risks from petroleum hydrocarbons has been based on the US Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Working Group (TPHCWG) approach, extensively used in the UK, as developed in ‘The UK Approach for Evaluating Human Health Risks From Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soils, EA 2005’ and ‘Principals for Evaluating the Human Health Risks for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soils, EA 2003’. The TPHCWG method uses a combination of indicator compounds (surrogates) and 13 petroleum hydrocarbon fractions, representing a range of aliphatic and aromatic TPH’s. The indicator compounds represent the most toxic contaminants and those found most frequently at petroleum-hydrocarbon contaminated sites. Priority is given to the assessment of non-threshold indicator compounds likely to be present, including benzene and individual Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons.

Integrale also employ ICRCL 59/83 target values for phytotoxic contaminants boron, copper and zinc as well as Water Regulations Advisory Scheme (WRAS) guidance for the selection of materials for water supply pipes to be laid in contaminated land.

Defra Category 4 Screening Levels are also listed and referred to where appropriate within the planning regime.

May 2015

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP, United Kingdom

Tel: 01275 333036 www.integrale.uk.com

STANDARD METHODOLOGY FOR CONTAMINATION SAMPLING & SCHEDULING

Soil samples for contamination analyses are recovered from trial pits or borehole samples using a stainless steel trowel and immediately placed into airtight amber glass jars, vials, or plastic tubs, as appropriate for the testing. These samples are labelled with the site name, investigation location and depth and placed into cool boxes for transit from site. Groundwater samples recovered during subsequent monitoring visits are similarly treated.

An analytical schedule is drawn up in line with the desk study findings, guidance given in CLR 8 and any relevant industry information, the actual ground conditions proven and proposed site use.

Samples are sent via overnight courier to the specialist testing laboratory. Testing is scheduled for MCERTS accredited analyses as far as possible and details of the test method are provided by the laboratory on the results sheets in a separate appendix. A standard turnaround of 10 working days is adopted unless otherwise agreed with the client at the time of instruction.

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Appendix I

Proposed Redevelopment

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

Appendix J

Acceptability Criteria

GEOLOGICAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING

Integrale Limited, Suite 7, Westway Farm Business Park, Wick Road, Bishop Sutton, Somerset, BS39 5XP United Kingdom Tel: 01275 333 036 www.integrale.uk.com

Registered Office: The Granary, Chewton Fields, Ston Easton, Somerset, BA3 4BX United Kingdom VAT Reg. No. 609 7402 37

Testing Frequency Schedule Windmills Phase 4: Table 1

Type Testing Rate Testing Suites

Imported Topsoil 1 test per 50m3 See Table 2 Acceptability Criteria for Imported Topsoil within Garden/Soft Landscaping Areas Windmills Phase 4: Table 2

All figures in mg/kg Acceptable Upper Limit

Arsenic 37 Beryllium 1.7 Boron 290 Cadmium 11 Chromium Total 910 Chromium VI 6 Copper 2400 Inorganic Mercury 40 Elemental Mercury 1.2 Methyl Mercury 11 Nickel 130 Selenium 250 Vanadium 410 Zinc 3700 Phenol 280 Lead 200

TPH Total TPH 25mg/kg (if exceeded, CWG TPH completed and checked against critria given below) Aliphatic C5-C6 42 Aliphatic C6-C8 100 Aliphatic C8-C10 27 Aliphatic C10-C12 130 Aliphatic C12-C16 1100 Aliphatic C16-C35 65000 Aliphatic C35-C44 65000 Aromatic C5-C7 (benzene) 70 Aromatic C7-C8 (toluene) 130 Aromatic C8-C10 34 Aromatic C10-C12 74 Aromatic C12-C16 140 Aromatic C16-C21 260 Aromatic C21-C35 1100 Aromatic C35-C44 1100

Priority PAHs Naphthalene 2.3 Fluorene 170 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.2 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.24 Acenaphthene 210 Acenaphthylene 170 Anthracene 2400 Benzo(a) anthracene 7.2 Benzo(b) fluoranthene 2.6 Benzo(ghi) perylene 320 Benzo(k) fluoranthene 77 Chrysene 15 Fluoranthene 280 Ideno (123-cd) pyrene 27 Phenanthrene 95 Pyrene 620 Total PAH

Asbestos Not detected <0.001%