Bramcote Hills Primary School C1869 ENVIRONMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING

Ground Investigation Report

www.hspconsulting.com T: 0870 600 6090

Bramcote Hills Primary C1869 School

Bramcote Hills Primary School Moor Lane

Beeston

Nottingham NG9 3GE

Ground Investigation Report

HSP Consulting Engineers Ltd Lawrence House Meadowbank Way Eastwood Nottingham NG16 3SB

www.hspconsulting.com

Date: 28/02/2014

Quality Assurance *Checked in accordance with HSP’s IMS (BS EN ISO 9001:2008 and BS EN ISO 14001:2004)

Author L.E.Jones B.Sc (Hons), FGS Checked A.Copestake B.Sc (Hons) FGS Approved H. Pratt B.Eng (Hons), C.Eng, F.Cons.E, M.I.C.E, MI Mgt. Report Ref No. C1869/GIR Revision - Status FINAL

This document is available electronically please contact the author to obtain a copy.

Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ...... 3 2.0 Introduction ...... 5 3.0 Review of Existing Information ...... 6 4.0 Overview of British Legislation ...... 7 5.0 Intrusive Survey Limitations ...... 8 6.0 Factual Report ...... 9 6.1 Fieldwork Procedure ...... 9 6.2 In-Situ Testing ...... 9 6.3 Laboratory Testing ...... 9 6.4 General Geology and Revealed Strata ...... 10 6.5 Groundwater ...... 11 7.0 Geotechnical Interpretative Report ...... 12 7.1 Detailed Ground Model ...... 12 7.2 Cut and Fill ...... 12 7.3 Excavations ...... 13 7.4 Foundations ...... 13 7.5 Concrete Classification ...... 14 8.0 Environmental Interpretative Report ...... 15 8.1 Sample Descriptions ...... 15 8.2 Chemical Investigation ...... 15 8.3 Metals and Inorganic Chemical Analysis and Asbestos Screen ...... 16 8.4 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis ...... 16 8.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons ...... 17 8.6 Water Supply ...... 17 8.7 Human Health Mitigation ...... 18 8.8 Ground Gas Risk Assessment...... 18 9.0 Engineers Conclusions and Risk Mitigation ...... 19 10.0 Appendices ...... 21

1.0 Executive Summary

1.0.1 HSP Consulting was commissioned by GF Tomlinson Ltd on behalf of Nottinghamshire County Council to undertake an intrusive ground investigation upon the area of land currently occupied by the existing Bramcote Hills Primary School, Moor Lane, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 3GE (approximate National Grid Reference E450640, N338400.

1.0.2 Development plans for the site indicate a single storey system built extension to the existing Foundation Stage building which will include toilets and a kitchen area and a single storey system built unit to the northern section of the school site which will form additional teaching accommodation.

1.0.3 The physical methods of investigation employed were 8 No. Window Sample Boreholes (WS1 to WS8) to a maximum depth of 2.00m below existing ground level (begl) and a Foundation Pit to expose the foundation of the existing structure.

1.0.4 The exploratory holes revealed a downward strata succession comprising topsoil and paving slabs with sub base materials to a maximum depth of 0.25m begl. An area of Made Ground was observed within WS1 and WS2 to a maximum depth of 1.00m begl. Natural granular deposits comprising the weathered Nottingham Castle Sandstone Formation were encountered from a minimum depth of 0.05m begl and graded into competent sandstone from 0.80m begl.

1.0.5 For the proposed single storey extension the Made Ground encountered within WS1 and WS2 is not considered to comprise a suitable founding stratum. Therefore, trench fill foundations with a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 150kN/m2 can be assumed for design calculations where the foundations are being taken down to bear on the natural granular deposits of at least medium dense consistency at approximately 1.20m begl. Due to the nature of the development and ground conditions encountered it would be prudent to adopt a similar foundation solution to that of the existing building to avoid undermining the foundations of the existing structure and long term issues with differential settlement. It is recommended that the foundation and engineered fill perimeter in the footprint of the extension is exposed at the earliest opportunity to establish the existing construction along the elevation and confirm the foundation recommendations above are appropriate.

1.0.6 For the proposed single storey classroom unit trench fill foundations with a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 200kN/m2 can be assumed for design calculations where the foundations are being taken down to bear on the natural granular deposits of at least medium dense consistency at approximately 1.00m begl. This value incorporates a factor of safety of 3 and total settlements calculated are not expected

to exceed approximately 25mm, thereby keeping differential settlements within acceptable limits. Should higher loadings be required a member of HSP’s team should be consulted.

1.0.7 Groundwater entries were not encountered within the boreholes during the drilling process. Shallow groundwater entries may be encountered during earthworks operations. However, traditional sump and pump dewatering should be sufficient within all excavations at the site if required.

1.0.8 It is considered appropriate to adopt a basic Design Sulphate Class of DS-1 together with an Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) of AC-1 when considering the concrete classification.

1.0.9 Analysis of the chemical testing undertaken on samples retrieved from the site has suggested that remedial measures should not be required. The approval of the Local Environmental Health Officer should be sought with respect to the contaminated land assessment of the site.

1.0.10 Gas and groundwater monitoring has not been commissioned as part of this assessment. At this stage gas monitoring is not considered to be required as we understand that the proposed single storey system built unit(s) are elevated above ground level on brick plinths or legs which leaves a clear void beneath. Confirmation from the Client’s chosen contractor regarding void cladding materials and ventilation is recommended.

1.0.11 Should a traditional structure be proposed at the site it would be prudent to undertake gas monitoring in order to obtain an indication of the ground gas regime at the site and allow recommendations for gas protection measures to be incorporated within any design.

1.0.12 The executive summary contains an overview of key findings and conclusions. However, no reliance should be placed on the executive summary until the whole of the report has been read. Other sections of the report may contain information which puts into context the findings noted within the executive summary.

1.0.13 If development proposals or boundary lines change, the client should contact HSP Consulting Engineers Ltd to ensure that these changes do not present a necessity for further work or further consideration of the findings of this report.

2.0 Introduction

2.0.1 HSP Consulting was instructed by GF Tomlinson Ltd on behalf of Nottinghamshire County Council to carry out an intrusive geotechnical and environmental investigation of the site. Development plans for the site indicate a single storey system built extension to the existing Foundation Stage building which will include toilets and a kitchen area and a single storey system built unit to the northern section of the school site which will form additional teaching accommodation.

2.0.2 This report presents an outline of the existing ground conditions at the site and gives recommendations regarding the proposed foundations and any remedial measures that may be required with respect to any contamination.

2.0.3 This report presents the findings of the intrusive chemical, physical and visual investigations that were undertaken at Bramcote Hills Primary School, Moor Lane, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 3GE (approximate National Grid Reference E450640, N338400).

2.0.4 This investigation has been carried out in general accordance with the following publications with the aim of providing an appropriate site investigation report for the development with respect to the construction and environmental impact (when considering the BREEAM assessment):

 BS5930: 1999 – Code of Practice for Site Investigations  BS1377: 1990 (Parts 1 to 9) – Methods of Tests for Soils for Civil Engineering  BS10175: 2011 + A1: 2013 – Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice

3.0 Review of Existing Information

3.0.1 HSP has not been made aware of any other previous reports for the subject site. However some existing outline information has been gleaned from the following sources where it has been useful and necessary to the investigation in the absence of a Phase I report being required:

1. Site walkover survey 2. British Geological Survey a) Map Viewer http://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/mapViewers/home.html b) Lexion of Named Rock Units http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/ c) 1990. Nottingham: A Geological background for planning and Development. BGS Technical Report WA/90/1. d) 1996. Derby Sheet 125. Solid and Drift Geology. 1:50 000. 3. National Grid mapping (where necessary) 4. Environment Agency a) What's in your back yard http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx

3.0.2 Bedrock geology across the site is recorded to comprise the Nottingham Castle Sandstone Formation part of the Sherwood Sandstone Group of Triassic Age. The Nottingham Castle Sandstone Formation is described as Sandstone, pinkish red or buff-grey, medium to coarse-grained, pebbly, cross-bedded, friable; subordinate lenticular beds of reddish brown mudstone.

3.0.3 Superficial deposits are not recorded to be present across the site.

3.0.4 The Nottingham Castle Sandstone Formation is designated as a Principle Aquifer, described as layers of rock or drift deposits that have high intergranular and/or fracture permeability - meaning they usually provide a high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. In most cases, principal aquifers are aquifers previously designated as major aquifer.

4.0 Overview of British Legislation

4.0.1 Historical land contamination legislation is set out within Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990. This legislation adopts a ‘Suitable for Use’ approach by;

 Ensuring land is suitable for its current use and that no contamination is causing unacceptable risk to human health or the environment;

 Ensuring that where land is used for a new use, it is made suitable for that use under the planning regime;

 Limiting requirements for remediation to the work that is necessary to prevent unacceptable risks to human health or the environment in relation to the current or future use of the land for which planning permission is being sought.

4.0.2 Under the planning and development control regime, as set out in the ‘Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2012) National Planning Policy Framework’, the aim is to ensure that there are no unacceptable risks to either receptors relevant to Part 2A, or to others that may be covered by other regimes, taking into account the proposed new land use.

5.0 Intrusive Survey Limitations

5.0.1 This report contains the details of an Intrusive Geo-Environmental Assessment carried out by HSP Consulting Engineers Ltd at Bramcote Hills Primary School, Moor Lane, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 3GE. This report has been prepared for GF Tomlinson Ltd on behalf of Nottinghamshire County Council and must not be relied upon by any other party without the explicit written permission of HSP Consulting.All parties to this report do not intend any of the terms of the Contracts (Rights of Third Party Act 1999) to apply to this report.

5.0.2 There may be special conditions appertaining to the site that have not been revealed by the exploratory holes and field testing (where applicable) that are therefore not taken into account within this report.

5.0.3 Whilst the report may express an opinion on the possible configuration of the strata between or beyond the exploratory holes or on the possible presence of features based on either visual, verbal, or published evidence, this is for guidance only and no liability can be accepted for its accuracy.

5.0.4 Any comments made on ground water conditions are based on the observations made at the time of the investigation unless otherwise stated. It should therefore be noted that the groundwater levels might vary due to seasonal variations or other affects.

5.0.5 This report has been based upon observations made within the site boundary as marked in Appendix I. Should this site boundary alter in any way, the Geotechnical Team at HSP Consulting should be notified in order to reassess if any further works are required or to ensure that the findings of this report remain wholly applicable.

5.0.6 Please note that this report does not purport to provide definitive legal advice.

5.0.7 The executive summary contains an overview of key findings and conclusions. However no reliance should be placed on the executive summary until the whole of the report has been read. Other sections of the report may contain information which puts into context the findings noted within the executive summary.

6.0 Factual Report

6.1 Fieldwork Procedure

6.1.1 The physical methods of investigation employed were 8 No. Window Sample Boreholes to a maximum depth 2.00m (WS2) below existing ground level (begl) and a Foundation Pit (FP1) to expose the foundation of the existing structure. The Exploratory Hole Logs and Foundation Pit Drawing can be found within Appendix II.

6.1.2 The positions of the boreholes and foundation pit are shown on the appended Site Investigation Layout Plan (contained in Appendix III).

6.1.3 Fragmentary bulk and disturbed samples were recovered from materials revealed within the window sample boreholes. Geo-environmental samples were also obtained specifically for contamination testing.

6.1.4 The samples were taken to a UKAS accredited laboratory for further examination and testing.

6.2 In-Situ Testing

6.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) were carried out within each of the window sample boreholes at 1.00m intervals. This testing has been undertaken in accordance with BS 1377:1990 and the results are included on the appended borehole logs (Appendix II).

6.3 Laboratory Testing

6.3.1 The laboratory testing schedules were prepared by HSP Consulting.

6.3.2 Geotechnical testing including the following has been undertaken at a UKAS accredited laboratory as part of the intrusive investigatory works at the site:

 Natural Moisture Content  Particle Size Distribution  Sulphate Analyses

6.3.3 The geotechnical test results can be found within Appendix IV.

6.3.4 The geotechnical laboratory testing has been carried out in accordance with BS 1377: 1990 using calibrated equipment specified for the British Standard.

6.3.5 In addition to the geotechnical testing outlined above selected soil samples were tested at a UKAS accredited laboratory for the presence of a selected suite of contaminants as outlined below:

 Arsenic  Boron  Cadmium  Chromium (III & VI)  Copper  Cyanide (free & Total)  Lead  Mercury  Nickel  PAH (speciated)  Phenol  pH  Selenium  Sulphate (total)  Sulphide  Sulphur  TPH (speciated)  Zinc All values total unless otherwise stated.

6.3.6 Selected samples of Made Ground were also screened for asbestos, with an instruction to identify any detected fibres.

6.3.7 The contamination testing outlined above was carried out during the period 3rd February to 26th February 2014. The results are included in this report as Appendix V.

6.4 General Geology and Revealed Strata

6.4.1 The site lies in an area where, from the British Geological Survey data sheet 125, Derby the underlying geology is expected to comprise sandstone belonging to the Nottingham Castle Sandstone Formation. It is considered likely that the underlying strata may have weathered to sand at or close to the surface. Superficial deposits are not expected.

6.4.2 The exploratory holes undertaken at the site have revealed a general downwards strata succession of:

TOPSOIL - Brown slightly clayey sandy Topsoil. (WS3 – WS8)

- MADE GROUND: Paving slabs over a very sandy gravelly sub-base. (WS1 & WS2) MADE GROUND - MADE GROUND: Brown slightly gravelly Sand with fragments of clinker and occasional clay bands. (WS1 & WS2)

- Red brown slightly silty gravelly SAND. (All WS NOTTINGHAM CASTLE locations) SANDSTONE FORMATION - Weathered red brown SANDSTONE. (All WS locations)

6.4.3 The foundation Pit (FP1) recorded a 1.30m thick concrete foundation, the base of which was approximately 1.30m below existing ground level. The soil beneath the foundation is described as a red slightly clayey gravelly Sand.

6.5 Groundwater

6.5.1 Groundwater was not encountered during the exploratory drilling at the site.

6.5.2 Shallow groundwater entries may be encountered during earthworks operations including foundation excavations. However, traditional sump and pump dewatering should be sufficient within all excavations at the site if required.

7.0 Geotechnical Interpretative Report

7.1 Detailed Ground Model

7.1.1 Topsoil and Made Ground 7.1.1.1 Brown slightly clayey sandy Topsoil was encountered within six of the window sample boreholes to a maximum depth of 0.25m begl (WS6 and WS7).

7.1.1.2 Made ground comprising paving slabs with very sandy gravelly sub-base over light brown slightly gravelly sand with occasional fragments of clinker and clay bands was encountered within WS1 and WS2 to a maximum depth of 1.00m begl.

7.1.2 Nottingham Castle Sandstone Formation 7.1.2.1 Natural granular deposits comprising the weathered Nottingham Castle Sandstone Formation were determined generally in a medium dense consistency within all of the boreholes. These deposits were evident from depths generally in the range of 0.05m begl (WS3) to 1.00m (WS2) below existing ground level.

7.1.2.2 These deposits generally consisted of red-brown slightly silty gravelly Sand the deposits increase in strength with depth and the boreholes were terminated at depths in the range of 0.80m and 2.00m due to refusal upon the competent Nottingham Castle Sandstone.

7.1.2.3 A series of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) undertaken within the boreholes have returned a SPT ‘N’ values in the range of 10 at 1.00m to >50 at 2.00m depth generally confirming the observations made in the field. The following table summarises the N values at depth across the site within the Made Ground and natural strata.

Depth Range of ‘N’ Values ‘N’ Mean 1m 10 - 88 51.5 2m 88 – 130 109.0

7.1.2.4 Four particle size distribution tests have been undertaken to confirm the visual description and engineering behaviour of the soils. The results are included in Appendix IV. 7.2 Cut and Fill

7.2.1 Cut and fill operations are not anticipated at the site.

7.3 Excavations

7.3.1 Excavations to proposed formation level for new foundations and infrastructure should generally be readily achievable adopting standard excavation plant. Based upon the findings of WS1 and WS2 there is a potential that some localised deepening of foundations could be necessary within Made Ground. If these materials are encountered it would be advised that random and potentially severe falls may be anticipated from the faces of near vertically sided unsupported excavations carried out at the site. However, where personnel are required to enter near vertically sided excavations, it is considered that full support should be provided to the full depth.

7.3.2 It is recommended that all support systems are continually assessed by fully trained or experienced personnel. 7.4 Foundations

7.4.1 Development plans for the site indicate a single storey system built extension to the existing Foundation Stage building which will include toilets and a kitchen area and a single storey system built unit to the northern section of the school site which will form additional teaching accommodation. Should development plans alter a geotechnical engineer from HSP must be consulted to review the foundation options.

7.4.2 For the purpose of this foundation assessment each development area will be considered separately.

7.4.3 Proposed single storey extension. 7.4.3.1 For the purpose of this foundation assessment the information gained from boreholes WS1, WS2, WS3, WS4 and FP1 has been used.

7.4.3.2 The Made Ground encountered within WS1 and WS2 not considered to comprise a suitable founding stratum.

7.4.3.3 Trench fill foundations with a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 150kN/m2 can be assumed for design calculations where the foundations are being taken down to bear on the natural granular deposits (sands) of at least medium dense consistency at approximately 1.20m begl. This value incorporates a factor of safety of 3 and total settlements calculated are not expected to exceed approximately 25mm, thereby keeping differential settlements within acceptable limits. Should higher loadings be required a member of HSP’s team should be consulted.

7.4.3.4 Due to the nature of the development and ground conditions encountered it would be prudent to adopt a similar foundation solution to that of the existing building to avoid undermining the foundations of the existing structure and long term issues with differential settlement.

7.4.3.5 It is recommended that the foundation and engineered fill perimeter in the footprint of the extension is exposed at the earliest opportunity to establish the existing construction along the elevation and confirm the foundation recommendations above are appropriate.

7.4.4 Proposed single storey classroom unit. 7.4.4.1 For the purpose of this foundation assessment the information gained from boreholes WS5, WS6, WS7 and WS8 has been used.

7.4.4.2 Trench fill foundations with a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 200kN/m2 can be assumed for design calculations where the foundations are being taken down to bear on the natural granular deposits (sands) of at least medium dense consistency at approximately 1.00m begl. This value incorporates a factor of safety of 3 and total settlements calculated are not expected to exceed approximately 25mm, thereby keeping differential settlements within acceptable limits. Should higher loadings be required a member of HSP’s team should be consulted. 7.5 Concrete Classification

7.5.1 The results of sulphate and pH testing carried out on selected soil samples taken during this investigation have been compared with the recommendations outlined in BRE Special Digest 1, Part 1: 2005.

7.5.2 The guidelines given in BRE Special Digest 1 are based upon a site classification relating to its previous usage. It is considered appropriate to define this site as a ‘brownfield site’ location for the purposes of concrete classification.

7.5.3 On the basis of the above, it is considered appropriate to adopt a basic Design Sulphate Class of DS-1 together with and Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) of AC-1.

8.0 Environmental Interpretative Report

8.0.1 Reference to the documentation published by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency has been made with respect to the potential contaminants considered likely to affect the site.

8.0.2 The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Model published by the Environment Agency (EA) contains Soil Guideline Values. These SGV’s are set according to proposed land use. For the purposes of this report, ‘Residential without plant uptake’ land use figures have generally been adopted where necessary with parameters within the CLEA software adapted to model a school building.

8.0.3 The CLEA Model includes only selected contaminants and therefore where there is an absence of a published SGV for one of the analytes contained within the testing suite for this site, the Land Quality Management Ltd (LQM) and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) 2nd Edition have been utilised. 8.1 Sample Descriptions

8.1.1 Samples were selected from the top metre of each borehole at the site and sealed in appropriate containers. Four samples were taken from the development areas to provide a basis for characterising the materials to outline the potential impacts on human health and any environmental receptors from any contamination found.

8.1.2 The samples selected from the site were as follows;

WS1 @ 0.25 - 0.45m MADE GROUND: gravelly SAND WS2 @ 0.50 – 0.70m MADE GROUND: gravelly SAND WS6 @ 0.10 – 0.30m Gravelly SAND WS8 @ 0.10 – 0.30m Gravelly SAND 8.2 Chemical Investigation

8.2.1 Samples chosen were analysed for a basic suite of common contaminants including fractionated Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and speciated Polycyclic Aromatic. The results of the analysis can be collated into three sets, each specific to a generic type of contaminant.

 Inorganic Analysis and Asbestos Screen  Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis  Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analysis

8.2.2 Geo-environmental samples were retained specifically for chemical analysis from the exploratory holes and stored in appropriately refrigerated containers until delivery to UKAS accredited laboratory No. 2183 Chemtest Ltd.

8.2.3 Extracts of the reports produced by Chemtest Ltd are reproduced within the text where they are considered relevant to discussion. However, full copies of the laboratory reports are contained within the appendices (Appendix V). 8.3 Metals and Inorganic Chemical Analysis and Asbestos Screen

8.3.1 The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency (EA) have Published Soil Guideline Values (SGV’s) for only selected contaminants within our testing suite. SGV’s have been published for arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel and selenium. Review of the test results indicates that none of the individual contaminant concentrations exceeds the relevant SGV for a School use under the classification of a ‘Residential without plant uptake’ end land use scenario.

8.3.2 Land Quality Management Ltd (LQM) and Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) Generic Assessment Criteria GACs have been made available for boron, beryllium, chromium (III & IV), copper, vanadium and zinc. Review of the test results indicate that none of the individual contaminant concentrations of metals or inorganic contaminants exceeds the relevant GAC for the site.

8.3.3 One sample of Made Ground was scheduled for an asbestos screen and identification, the results indicate no asbestos fibres were detected.

8.3.4 It is therefore considered that identified metals and inorganic contaminants do not pose a risk to future end users at the site.

8.3.5 It should be remembered that the approval of the Local Environmental Health Officer will be required with respect to the soil contamination proposals. 8.4 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis

8.4.1 Following the withdrawal of the ICRCL trigger values for TPH contamination, the Environment Agency has published guidance for the modelling of TPH data within the CLEA framework. In general the guidance is to speciate the total fraction into several smaller equivalent carbon fractions.

8.4.2 No Soil Guideline Values are currently published for any Petroleum Hydrocarbon equivalent band. However the LQM CIEH has produced GACs for the TPH working groups.

8.4.3 The four soil samples tested for the contamination suite have also been submitted for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon analysis. All of the samples analysed recorded results below the laboratory limits of detection (<10mgkg).

8.4.4 It is therefore considered that Petroleum Hydrocarbon contamination should not pose a significant risk of significant harm to potential receptors at the site.

8.4.5 The approval of the Local Environmental Health Officer should be sought in respect of the soil contamination proposals. 8.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

8.5.1 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) are a family of chemicals that can be toxic to humans, some are carcinogenic and toxic at any level of exposure; others can be tolerated by the human body until a concentration limit is reached.

8.5.2 LQM and CIEH (2nd Edition 2009) have produced GACs for the priority 16 PAHs as defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which have been adopted as those to monitor within the environment.

8.5.3 The four soil samples tested for the contamination suite have also been submitted for PAH analysis. All of the samples analysed recorded results below the laboratory limits of detection (<2mgkg).

8.5.4 It is therefore considered that Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon contamination should not pose a significant risk of significant harm to potential receptors at the site.

8.5.5 The approval of the local Environmental Health Officer should be sought with respect to the soil contamination assessment and proposals. 8.6 Water Supply

8.6.1 The environmental testing for the site has been compared to the following document in order to assess the most appropriate pipe material that should be used upon the site for mains water supply:

‘Guidance for the selection of water supply pipes to be used in Brownfield sites – UK Water Industry Research – Ref: 10/WM/03/21.’

8.6.2 Based on the chemical analysis report it is considered that specialist materials are unlikely to be required for water supply pipes at the site, however confirmation of supply pipes should be sought from utility providers. 8.7 Human Health Mitigation

8.7.1 Review of the test results indicates that none of the individual contaminant concentrations exceeds the relevant SGV or GAC for a School use under the classification of a ‘Residential without plant uptake’ end land use scenario. No sources of potential contamination have been identified on site and therefore no remedial measures are required prior to development.

8.7.2 HSP would recommend that the guidance in HSG 66 ‘Protection of workers and the General Public during Redevelopment of Contaminated Land’ should be followed during any development works undertaken on site. Site workers should take precautions to ensure that they wear sufficient PPE during development to ensure a minimum contact with any generated dust or with exposed soils. All workers having manual contact with exposed soils should wear gloves. Following contact with soils hands should be washed before eating or smoking.

8.8 Ground Gas Risk Assessment

8.8.1 Ground gas monitoring has not been commissioned as part of this assessment. At this stage gas monitoring is not considered to be required as we understand that the proposed single storey system built unit(s) are elevated above ground level on brick plinths or legs which leaves a clear void beneath. Confirmation from the Client’s chosen contractor regarding void cladding materials and ventilation is recommended.

8.8.2 Should a traditional structure be proposed at the site it would be prudent to undertake gas monitoring in order to obtain an indication of the ground gas regime at the site and allow recommendations for gas protection measures to be incorporated within any design.

8.8.3 The approval of the Local Environmental Health Officer should be sought with respect to the gas protection proposals.

9.0 Engineers Conclusions and Risk Mitigation

9.0.1 It is the opinion of HSP Consulting that the information collated within this report gleaned from the intrusive site investigation undertaken to recommend that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the site should pose no significant risk to Human Health or any Environmental Receptors.

9.0.2 The exploratory holes revealed a downward strata succession comprising topsoil and paving slabs with sub base materials to a maximum depth of 0.25m begl. An area of Made Ground was observed within WS1 and WS2 to a maximum depth of 1.00m begl. Natural granular deposits comprising the weathered Nottingham Castle Sandstone Formation were encountered from a minimum depth of 0.05m begl and graded into competent sandstone from 0.80m begl.

9.0.3 For the proposed single storey extension the Made Ground encountered within WS1 and WS2 is not considered to comprise a suitable founding stratum. Therefore, trench fill foundations with a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 150kN/m2 can be assumed for design calculations where the foundations are being taken down to bear on the natural granular deposits of at least medium dense consistency at approximately 1.20m begl. Due to the nature of the development and ground conditions encountered it would be prudent to adopt a similar foundation solution to that of the existing building to avoid undermining the foundations of the existing structure and long term issues with differential settlement. It is recommended that the foundation and engineered fill perimeter in the footprint of the extension is exposed at the earliest opportunity to establish the existing construction along the elevation and confirm the foundation recommendations above are appropriate.

9.0.4 For the proposed single storey classroom unit trench fill foundations with a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 200kN/m2 can be assumed for design calculations where the foundations are being taken down to bear on the natural granular deposits of at least medium dense consistency at approximately 1.00m begl. This value incorporates a factor of safety of 3 and total settlements calculated are not expected to exceed approximately 25mm, thereby keeping differential settlements within acceptable limits. Should higher loadings be required a member of HSP’s team should be consulted.

9.0.5 Groundwater entries were not encountered within the boreholes during the drilling process. Shallow groundwater entries may be encountered during earthworks operations. However, traditional sump and pump dewatering should be sufficient within all excavations at the site if required.

9.0.6 It is considered appropriate to adopt a basic Design Sulphate Class of DS-1 together with an Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) of AC-1 when considering the concrete classification.

9.0.7 Gas and groundwater monitoring has not been commissioned as part of this assessment. At this stage gas monitoring is not considered to be required as we understand that the proposed single storey system built unit(s) are elevated above ground level on brick plinths or legs which leaves a clear void beneath. Confirmation from the Client’s chosen contractor regarding void cladding materials and ventilation is recommended.

9.0.8 Should a traditional structure be proposed at the site it would be prudent to undertake gas monitoring in order to obtain an indication of the ground gas regime at the site and allow recommendations for gas protection measures to be incorporated within any design.

10.0 Appendices

Appendix I – Proposed Development Areas Appendix II – Exploratory Hole Logs Appendix III – Site Investigation Layout Plan Appendix IV – Laboratory Test Results - Geotechnical Appendix V – Laboratory Test Results – Chemical

Appendix I

www.hspconsulting.com DO NOT SCALE NOTES: Do not scale

- Proposed Development Areas

Lawrence House, Meadowbank Way, Eastwood, Nottingham, NG16 3SB Tel: 0870 600 6090 Fax: 0870 600 6091 www.hspconsulting.com CLIENT:

PROJECT: Bramcote Hills Primary School

TITLE: Proposed Development Layout Plan

SCALE@SIZE : ISSUE: NTS FINAL DESIGN/DRAWN : DATE: AC Mar 2014 PROJECT No: DRAWING No: C1869 PDLP

Appendix II

www.hspconsulting.com HSP Consulting (Nottingham) Borehole No Tel: 08706006090 Fax: 08706009091 WS1 email: [email protected] Sheet 1 of 1 Project Name Project No. Hole Type Co-ords: - Bramcote Hills Primary School C1869 WS Location: Nottinghamshire Scale Level: - 1:50 Logged By Client:GF Tomlinson Building Ltd Dates: 31/01/2014 JPJ Water Samples & In Situ Testing Depth Level Well Legend Strikes Depth (m) Type Results (m) (m AOD) Stratum Description 0.05 MADE GROUND - paving slabs. 0.25 ES 0.20 (MG) MADE GROUND - very sandy gravel sub base. (MG) MADE GROUND - brown slightly gravelly SAND. Sand is fine to 1.00 SPT N=14 1.00 coarse. Gravel is rounded quartzite. 1 (2,1/ (MG) 1.00-1.60 B 2,2,3,7) Medium dense red slightly silty slightly gravelly SAND. Sand is 1.50 fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse rounded to subrounded 1.60 SPT 50 1.60 quartzite. (21,4 for 5mm/ Very weak weathered red brown SANDSTONE. 30,20 for 40mm) End of Borehole at 1.60 m 2

Type Results Remarks: 1.No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process. 2. Borehole was terminated at 1.60m depth due to refusal and backfilled with arisings. HoleBASE 3.1 (Bld 408) Standard Borehole Log v2 dated 27th Nov 03 Nov 27th Borehole Log v2 dated (Bld 408) Standard 3.1 HoleBASE HSP Consulting (Nottingham) Borehole No Tel: 08706006090 Fax: 08706009091 WS2 email: [email protected] Sheet 1 of 1 Project Name Project No. Hole Type Co-ords: - Bramcote Hills Primary School C1869 WS Location: Nottinghamshire Scale Level: - 1:50 Logged By Client:GF Tomlinson Building Ltd Dates: 31/01/2014 JPJ Water Samples & In Situ Testing Depth Level Well Legend Strikes Depth (m) Type Results (m) (m AOD) Stratum Description 0.05 MADE GROUND - paving slabs. 0.20 (MG)

0.50 ES MADE GROUND - very sandy gravel sub base. (MG) MADE GROUND - brown slightly gravelly SAND. Sand is fine to 1.00 SPT N=10 1.00 coarse. Gravel is rounded quartzite. 1 (2,1/ (MG) 2,2,2,4) . . . with clinker and clay at 0.50m depth. Medium dense red slightly silty slightly gravelly SAND. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse rounded to subrounded quartzite. 1.90 2.00 SPT 50 2.00 Very weak weathered red brown SANDSTONE. 2 (16,9 for 30mm/ End of Borehole at 2.00 m 22,20,8 for 20mm)

Type Results Remarks: 1.No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process. 2. Borehole was terminated at 2.00m depth due to refusal and backfilled with arisings. HoleBASE 3.1 (Bld 408) Standard Borehole Log v2 dated 27th Nov 03 Nov 27th Borehole Log v2 dated (Bld 408) Standard 3.1 HoleBASE HSP Consulting (Nottingham) Borehole No Tel: 08706006090 Fax: 08706009091 WS3 email: [email protected] Sheet 1 of 1 Project Name Project No. Hole Type Co-ords: - Bramcote Hills Primary School C1869 WS Location: Nottinghamshire Scale Level: - 1:50 Logged By Client:GF Tomlinson Building Ltd Dates: 31/01/2014 JPJ Water Samples & In Situ Testing Depth Level Well Legend Strikes Depth (m) Type Results (m) (m AOD) Stratum Description 0.10 ES 0.05 Grass overlying brown slightly clayey sandy TOPSOIL. Medium dense red slightly silty slightly gravelly SAND. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to medium rounded quartzite.

0.70-1.00 ES 0.90 1.00 SPT 50 1.00 Very weak weathered red brown SANDSTONE. 1 (8,8/ End of Borehole at 1.00 m 10,12,16,12 for 40mm)

Type Results Remarks: 1.No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process. 2. Borehole was terminated at 1.00m depth due to refusal and backfilled with arisings. HoleBASE 3.1 (Bld 408) Standard Borehole Log v2 dated 27th Nov 03 Nov 27th Borehole Log v2 dated (Bld 408) Standard 3.1 HoleBASE HSP Consulting (Nottingham) Borehole No Tel: 08706006090 Fax: 08706009091 WS4 email: [email protected] Sheet 1 of 1 Project Name Project No. Hole Type Co-ords: - Bramcote Hills Primary School C1869 WS Location: Nottinghamshire Scale Level: - 1:50 Logged By Client:GF Tomlinson Building Ltd Dates: 31/01/2014 JPJ Water Samples & In Situ Testing Depth Level Well Legend Strikes Depth (m) Type Results (m) (m AOD) Stratum Description 0.05 Grass overlying brown slightly clayey sandy TOPSOIL. Medium dense red slightly silty slightly gravelly SAND. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to medium rounded quartzite.

0.90 1.00 SPT 50 1.00 Very weak weathered red brown SANDSTONE. 1 (8,12/ End of Borehole at 1.00 m 15,15,18,2 for 5mm)

Type Results Remarks: 1.No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process. 2. Borehole was terminated at 1.00m depth due to refusal and backfilled with arisings. HoleBASE 3.1 (Bld 408) Standard Borehole Log v2 dated 27th Nov 03 Nov 27th Borehole Log v2 dated (Bld 408) Standard 3.1 HoleBASE HSP Consulting (Nottingham) Borehole No Tel: 08706006090 Fax: 08706009091 WS5 email: [email protected] Sheet 1 of 1 Project Name Project No. Hole Type Co-ords: - Bramcote Hills Primary School C1869 WS Location: Nottinghamshire Scale Level: - 1:50 Logged By Client:GF Tomlinson Building Ltd Dates: 31/01/2014 JPJ Water Samples & In Situ Testing Depth Level Well Legend Strikes Depth (m) Type Results (m) (m AOD) Stratum Description 0.10 ES 0.10 Grass overlying dark brown slightly clayey sandy TOPSOIL. Medium dense brown slightly silty slightly gravelly SAND. Sand 0.40-0.60 ES is medium. Gravel is fine to medium rounded quartzite.

0.90 1.00 SPT 50 1.00 Very weak weathered red brown SANDSTONE. 1 (17,8 for 30mm/ End of Borehole at 1.00 m 50 for 70mm)

Type Results Remarks: 1.No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process. 2. Borehole was terminated at 1.00m depth due to refusal and backfilled with arisings. HoleBASE 3.1 (Bld 408) Standard Borehole Log v2 dated 27th Nov 03 Nov 27th Borehole Log v2 dated (Bld 408) Standard 3.1 HoleBASE HSP Consulting (Nottingham) Borehole No Tel: 08706006090 Fax: 08706009091 WS6 email: [email protected] Sheet 1 of 1 Project Name Project No. Hole Type Co-ords: - Bramcote Hills Primary School C1869 WS Location: Nottinghamshire Scale Level: - 1:50 Logged By Client:GF Tomlinson Building Ltd Dates: 31/01/2014 JPJ Water Samples & In Situ Testing Depth Level Well Legend Strikes Depth (m) Type Results (m) (m AOD) Stratum Description 0.10 ES Grass overlying dark brown slightly clayey sandy TOPSOIL. 0.25 Medium dense brown slightly silty slightly gravelly SAND. Sand is medium. Gravel is fine to medium rounded quartzite.

0.90 1.00 SPT 50 1.00 Very weak weathered red brown SANDSTONE. 1 (6,5/ End of Borehole at 1.00 m 6,6,19,19 for 50mm)

Type Results Remarks: 1.No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process. 2. Borehole was terminated at 1.00m depth due to refusal and backfilled with arisings. HoleBASE 3.1 (Bld 408) Standard Borehole Log v2 dated 27th Nov 03 Nov 27th Borehole Log v2 dated (Bld 408) Standard 3.1 HoleBASE HSP Consulting (Nottingham) Borehole No Tel: 08706006090 Fax: 08706009091 WS7 email: [email protected] Sheet 1 of 1 Project Name Project No. Hole Type Co-ords: - Bramcote Hills Primary School C1869 WS Location: Nottinghamshire Scale Level: - 1:50 Logged By Client:GF Tomlinson Building Ltd Dates: 31/01/2014 JPJ Water Samples & In Situ Testing Depth Level Well Legend Strikes Depth (m) Type Results (m) (m AOD) Stratum Description Grass overlying dark brown slightly clayey sandy TOPSOIL. 0.25 Medium dense brown slightly silty slightly gravelly SAND. Sand is medium. Gravel is fine to medium rounded quartzite. 0.70 0.80 SPT 50 0.80 Very weak weathered red brown SANDSTONE. (14,11 for 50mm/ End of Borehole at 0.80 m 1 20,21,9 for 20mm

Type Results Remarks: 1.No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process. 2. Borehole was terminated at 0.80m depth due to refusal and backfilled with arisings. HoleBASE 3.1 (Bld 408) Standard Borehole Log v2 dated 27th Nov 03 Nov 27th Borehole Log v2 dated (Bld 408) Standard 3.1 HoleBASE HSP Consulting (Nottingham) Borehole No Tel: 08706006090 Fax: 08706009091 WS8 email: [email protected] Sheet 1 of 1 Project Name Project No. Hole Type Co-ords: - Bramcote Hills Primary School C1869 WS Location: Nottinghamshire Scale Level: - 1:50 Logged By Client:GF Tomlinson Building Ltd Dates: 31/01/2014 JPJ Water Samples & In Situ Testing Depth Level Well Legend Strikes Depth (m) Type Results (m) (m AOD) Stratum Description 0.10 ES Grass overlying dark brown slightly clayey sandy TOPSOIL. 0.20 Medium dense brown slightly silty slightly gravelly SAND. Sand 0.40-0.50 ES is medium. Gravel is fine to medium rounded quartzite.

0.80 0.90 SPT 50 0.90 Very weak weathered red brown SANDSTONE. 1 (15,10 for 50mm/ End of Borehole at 0.90 m 21,23,6 for 20mm

Type Results Remarks: 1.No groundwater was encountered during the drilling process. 2. Borehole was terminated at 0.90m depth due to refusal and backfilled with arisings. HoleBASE 3.1 (Bld 408) Standard Borehole Log v2 dated 27th Nov 03 Nov 27th Borehole Log v2 dated (Bld 408) Standard 3.1 HoleBASE Foundation Exploratory Pit FEP1

Existing Brick Building

G.L Tarmacadam

Sub-base 350

220

25 25

Brown very clayey slightly gravelly SAND Foundation 980

Red silty gravelly SAND

Client Scale (A4) Rev. By Date Details Chkd GF Tomlinson Building Ltd 1:16 Drawing Status Date. Feb 2014

Project Drawn by. Bramcote Hill Primary School, DRS Checked by. Moor Lane, Bramcote LAB h s p

Title HSP Drg. No. Rev. Foundation Exploratory Pit C1869-504 c o n s u l t i n g Lawrence House, Meadowbank Way, Eastwood, Nottingham, NG16 3SB Tel: 0870 600 6090 www.hspconsulting.com

Appendix III

www.hspconsulting.com GRASS METAL FENCE 73.0 KEY

- Window Sampling Borehole Location 72.5

GRASS 71.5 72.0 - Foundation Pit Location 72.0

72.5 71.5 GRASS 73.0 71.0 71.0

PAVING

CONC 70.5 PAVING

ASPHALT

EXISTING BUILDING

BIN AREA PAVING 71.5 WS7 WS6 BUILDING

METAL FENCE Retaining Wall HEDGE FEATURE MH 11 SW CL 69.48 71.0 IL 68.79 BRICK WALL 3,3(6 CONCRETE MH 01 FW CL 70.38 IL 69.70 70.5 WS8 3,3(6 BUSHES 70.5 WS5

PAVING

MH 03 FW CL 70.09 MH 02 FW PAVING CL 70.14 IL 69.80 PLAYAREA IL 69.60 3,3( 3,3(6 70.0 EXISTING BUILDING

70.0

EXISTING BUILDING

PAVING MH 08 SW CL 69.39 IL 68.07 3,3(,1 3,3(287

MH 04 SW CL 69.35 PLAY AREA MATTING IL 68.54 3,3( 69.5 EXISTING BUILDING MH 07 FW PAVING BRICK WALL CL 69.38 IL 67.88 PAVING 3,3(6 BT VEGETATION PAVING BT METAL FENCE MH 06 FW

TIMBER FENCE CL 69.38 BT MH 05 SW IL 68.01 CL 69.37 PAVING 3,3(6 IL 68.27 PAVING 3,3(

69.0

MH WS1 CL 69.35 Rev. By Date Details Chkd UTR

Drawing Status

PAVING WS4 EXISTING BUILDING

WS2 WS3

68.5 FP1 TIMBER DECKING SHED

BUILDING CANOPY Play Area h s p

METAL FENCE

METAL FENCE c o n s u l t i n g Lawrence House, Meadowbank Way, Eastwood, Nottingham, NG16 3SB Tel: 0870 600 6090 www.hspconsulting.com

Client ASPHALT PLAYGROUND Shed GF Tomlinson Building Ltd

Project METAL FENCE Bramcote Hill Primary School, Moor Lane, Bramcote

Title Ground Investigation Layout Plan

Scale (A3) Drawn by. HSP Drg. No. Rev. NTS DRS Date. Checked by. C1869-503 Feb 14 LAB

Appendix IV

www.hspconsulting.com

CONFIDENTIAL SOILS TEST REPORT

24 February 2014

FAO Mr Linden Baker HSP Consulting Ltd Lawrence House Meadowbank Way Eastwood, Nottingham NG16 3SB

Fax: +44 (0) 870 600 6091

Dear Linden,

Thank you for consulting GSSL Ltd for your Geotechnical testing needs. GSSL Ltd is pleased to submit this final interim test report for laboratory testing.

Client Ref/Order No: C1869

Test Report Number: GS-C1869

Contract Reference: Bramcote Hills School

Sample ID & Type(s): See page 2

Results: Page 3-6

Test(s) Requested;

Determination of Particle Size Distribution by wet method {BS 1377-2:1990 Cl. 9.2}

If you have any questions or require additional information, then please do not hesitate to contact us Yours Sincerely

Tony Dixon Managing Director

Any opinions and interpretations expressed within this report are outside the scope of our UKAS Accreditation. This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 1 of 6

Summary of laboratory soil descriptions

Contract Ref: Bramcote Hills School Report Ref. No: GS-C1869

Client ID Depth (m) Description of Sample WS1 1.10-1.60 Reddish brown slightly silty SAND WS3 0.70-1.00 Reddish brown slightly silty SAND WS5 0.40-0.60 Reddish brown SAND WS8 0.40-0.50 Reddish bown SAND

Approved Signatory:

Date Reported: 24/02/14

This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 2 of 6

Determination of Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving)

Report Ref. No: GS-C1869 GSSL Sample ID A1

Client ID WS1 @ 1.00-1.60m

BS Test Sieve % Material Client: HSP Consulting Ltd (mm) Passing Site: Bramcote Hills School 100 100 90 100 Date Sampled: N/A 75 100 Sampled from: - 63 100

50 100 Material Specification: N/A 40 100 Sample Description: Reddish brown slightly silty SAND 37.5 100 Sample Type: Disturbed 28 100 Sampled by: Client 20 100 Date Sampled: N/A 14 100 10 100 Remarks: - 6.3 100 5 100 3.35 100 2 100 Soil Total 1.18 88 Fraction Percentage 0.6 62 COBBLES - 0.425 45 GRAVEL - 0.3 28 SAND 95 0.15 13 SILT /CLAY 5 0.063 5

) % (

assin

p e g

ercenta p

Cumulative

Nominal aperture test sieve size (mm)

Sample Preparation: In accordance with BS 1377-1 & 2:1990 Certification:- Certified that the Particle Size Distribution was determined in accordance with BS 1377-2: 1990 Method 9.2 Test results reported herein do not apply to samples other than those supplied. GSSL Ltd neither accepts responsibility for nor makes claim as to the final use & purpose of the materials(s)

Approved Signatory:

Date Reported: 24/02/14

This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 3 of 6

Determination of Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving)

Report Ref. No: GS-C1869 GSSL Sample ID A2

Client ID WS3 @ 0.70-1.00m

BS Test Sieve % Material Client: HSP Consulting Ltd (mm) Passing Site: Bramcote Hills School 100 100 90 100 Date Sampled: N/A 75 100 Sampled from: - 63 100

50 100 Material Specification: N/A 40 100 Sample Description: Reddish brown slightly silty SAND 37.5 100 Sample Type: Disturbed 28 100 Sampled by: Client 20 100 Date Sampled: N/A 14 100 10 100 Remarks: - 6.3 100 5 100 3.35 100 2 100 Soil Total 1.18 80 Fraction Percentage 0.6 71 COBBLES - 0.425 43 GRAVEL - 0.3 25 SAND 96 0.15 14 SILT /CLAY 4 0.063 4

) % (

assin

p e g

ercenta p

Cumulative

Nominal aperture test sieve size (mm)

Approved Signatory:

Date Reported: 24/02/14

This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 4 of 6

Determination of Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving)

Report Ref. No: GS-C1869 GSSL Sample ID A3

Client ID WS5 @ 0.40-0.60m

BS Test Sieve % Material Client: HSP Consulting Ltd (mm) Passing Site: Bramcote Hills School 100 100 90 100 Date Sampled: N/A 75 100 Sampled from: - 63 100

50 100 Material Specification: N/A 40 100 Sample Description: Reddish brown SAND 37.5 100 Sample Type: Disturbed 28 100 Sampled by: Client 20 100 Date Sampled: N/A 14 100 10 100 Remarks: - 6.3 100 5 100 3.35 100 2 100 Soil Total 1.18 78 Fraction Percentage 0.6 60 COBBLES - 0.425 42 GRAVEL - 0.3 27 SAND 97 0.15 16 SILT /CLAY 3 0.063 3

) % (

assin

p e g

ercenta p

Cumulative

Nominal aperture test sieve size (mm)

Approved Signatory:

Date Reported: 24/02/14

This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 5 of 6

Determination of Particle Size Distribution (Wet Sieving)

Report Ref. No: GS-C1869 GSSL Sample ID A4

Client ID WS8 @ 0.40-0.50m

BS Test Sieve % Material Client: HSP Consulting Ltd (mm) Passing Site: Bramcote Hills School 100 100 90 100 Date Sampled: N/A 75 100 Sampled from: - 63 100

50 100 Material Specification: N/A 40 100 Sample Description: Reddish brown SAND 37.5 100 Sample Type: Disturbed 28 100 Sampled by: Client 20 100 Date Sampled: N/A 14 100 10 100 Remarks: - 6.3 100 5 100 3.35 100 2 100 Soil Total 1.18 76 Fraction Percentage 0.6 57 COBBLES - 0.425 37 GRAVEL - 0.3 19 SAND 98 0.15 11 SILT /CLAY 2 0.063 2

) % (

assin

p e g

ercenta p

Cumulative

Nominal aperture test sieve size (mm)

Approved Signatory:

Date Reported: 24/02/14

This Test Report may not be reproduced other than in full, except with prior written approval of GSSL LTD Page 6 of 6

Appendix V

www.hspconsulting.com Depot Road Newmarket CB8 0AL Tel: 01638 606070

HSP Consulting Engineers Limited Lawrence House Meadowbank Way Eastwood Notts NG16 3SB

FAO L Baker 26 February 2014

Dear L Baker

Test Report Number 250525a Amended Test Report Your Project Reference Bramcote Please find enclosed the results of analysis for the samples received 3 February 2014.

Please see additional analysis. Disregard all previous reports.

All soil samples will be retained for a period of one month and all water samples will be retained for 7 days following the date of the test report. Should you require an extended retention period then please detail your requirements in an email to [email protected]. Please be aware that charges may be applicable for extended sample storage.

If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the Customer Services team.

Yours sincerely

Keith Jones, Technical Manager Notes to accompany report: • The sign < means 'less than' • Tests marked 'U' hold UKAS accreditation • Tests marked 'M' hold MCertS (and UKAS) accreditation • Tests marked 'N' do not currently hold UKAS accreditation • Tests marked 'S' were subcontracted to an approved laboratory • n/e means 'not evaluated' 2183 • i/s means 'insufficient sample' • u/s means 'unsuitable sample' • Comments or interpretations are outside of the scope of UKAS accreditation • The results relate only to the items tested • Stones represent the quantity of material removed prior to analysis • All results are expressed on a dry weight basis • The following tests were analysed on samples as received and the results subsequently corrected to a dry weight basis TPH, BTEX, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, phenols • For all other tests the samples were dried at < 37°C prior to analysis • Uncertainties of measurement for the determinands tested are available upon request • Soil descriptions, including colour and texture, are beyond the scope of MCertS accreditation • None of the test results included in this report have been recovery corrected

Test Report 250525 Cover Sheet

Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 6511736 - Registered Office: 11 Depot Road Newmarket Suffolk CB8 0AL HSP Consulting Engineers Limited Lawrence House LABORATORY TEST REPORT Meadowbank Way Results of analysis of 4 samples Eastwood Notts NG16 3SB received 3 February 2014 Report Date 26 February 2014 FAO L Baker Bramcote

Login Batch No 250525 Chemtest LIMS ID AJ78642 AJ78643 AJ78646 AJ78647 Sample ID WS1 WS2 WS6 WS8 Sample No Sampling Date Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided Depth 0.25m 0.50m 0.10m 0.10m Matrix SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOPi Determinandi CAS Noi Unitsi * 2030 Moisture % M 12.4 10.8 9.96 8.85 Stones content (>50mm) % M <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 2040 Soil colour M brown brown brown brown Soil texture M sand sand sand sand Other material M none stones roots stones 2010 pH M 8.5 8.1 6.6 7.6 2180 Sulfur (elemental) 7704349 mg kg-¹ M < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 2300 Cyanide (free) 57125 mg kg-¹ M <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Cyanide (total) 57125 mg kg-¹ M <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 2325 Sulfide (Easily Liberatable) 18496258 mg kg-¹ M 0.88 1.4 <0.50 0.54 2175 Sulfur (total TRL report 447) % M 0.18 2625 Organic matter % M 1.2 1.6 2220 Chloride (extractable) 16887006 g l-¹ M <0.010 Nitrate (extractable) 14797558 g l-¹ N <0.010 2120 Boron (hot water soluble) 7440428 mg kg-¹ M <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 Sulfate (2:1 water soluble) as SO4 14808798 g l-¹ M <0.01 2420 Magnesium (soluble) 7439954 g l-¹ N <0.01 2425 Ammonium as NH4 (extractable) 7664417 mg kg-¹ M 3 2430 Sulfate (total BS1377 HCl extract) 14808798 % M <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 2450 Arsenic 7440382 mg kg-¹ M 4.4 6.0 5.8 5.4 Cadmium 7440439 mg kg-¹ M <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Chromium 7440473 mg kg-¹ M <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Copper 7440508 mg kg-¹ M <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Mercury 7439976 mg kg-¹ M <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10

¹No sampling date was specified, stability times for this analyte may have been exceeded and these results may be compromised. The accreditation for these results remains unaffected.

All tests undertaken between 04/02/2014 and 11/02/2014 Column page 1 * Accreditation status Report page 1 of 2 This report should be interpreted in conjunction with the notes on the accompanying cover page. LIMS sample ID range AJ78642 to AJ78647 HSP Consulting Engineers Limited Lawrence House LABORATORY TEST REPORT Meadowbank Way Results of analysis of 4 samples Eastwood Notts NG16 3SB received 3 February 2014 Report Date 26 February 2014 FAO L Baker Bramcote

250525 AJ78642 AJ78643 AJ78646 AJ78647 WS1 WS2 WS6 WS8

Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided Not Provided 0.25m 0.50m 0.10m 0.10m SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL

2450 Nickel 7440020 mg kg-¹ M <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Lead 7439921 mg kg-¹ M 12 120 30 17 Selenium 7782492 mg kg-¹ M <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Zinc 7440666 mg kg-¹ M 13 22 24 12 2670 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg kg-¹ M < 10 ¹ < 10 ¹ < 10 ¹ < 10 ¹ 2701 PAH (total EPA 16) mg kg-¹ M <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 2920 Phenols (total) mg kg-¹ M <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

¹No sampling date was specified, stability times for this analyte may have been exceeded and these results may be compromised. The accreditation for these results remains unaffected.

All tests undertaken between 04/02/2014 and 11/02/2014 Column page 1 * Accreditation status Report page 2 of 2 This report should be interpreted in conjunction with the notes on the accompanying cover page. LIMS sample ID range AJ78642 to AJ78647 Depot Road Newmarket CB8 0AL Tel: 01638 606070

HSP Consulting Engineers Limited Lawrence House Meadowbank Way Eastwood Notts NG16 3SB

FAO L Baker 26 February 2014

Dear L Baker

Test Report Number 250525a Amended Test Report Your Project Reference Bramcote Please find enclosed the results of analysis for the samples received 3 February 2014.

Please see additional analysis. Disregard all previous reports.

If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the Customer Services team.

Yours sincerely

Keith Jones, Technical Manager Notes to accompany report: • The in-house procedure is employed to identify materials and fibres in soils • The sample is examined by stereo-binocular and polarised light microscopy • Sample size is reduced by coning and quartering to obtain a representative sub-sample if necessary • The bulk identification is in accordance with the requirements of the analyst guide (HSG 248) • Samples associated with asbestos are retained for six months • The results relate only to the items tested as supplied by the client 2183 • Comments or interpretations are beyond the scope of UKAS accreditation

Test Report 250525 Cover Sheet

Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 6511736 - Registered Office: 11 Depot Road Newmarket Suffolk CB8 0AL HSP Consulting Engineers Limited Lawrence House LABORATORY TEST REPORT Meadowbank Way Asbestos in Soils Eastwood Notts Results of analysis of 1 sample NG16 3SB received 3 February 2014 Report Date FAO L Baker Bramcote 26 February 2014

Qualitative Results SOP 2192 ACM Type Asbestos Identification Chemtest ID Sample ID Sample Desc Depth (m) AJ78642 WS1 0.25 - No Asbestos Detected

The detection limit for this method is 0.001%

Signed

Lauren Quinn Asbestos Analyst

All tests undertaken between 26-Feb-2014 and 26-Feb-2014 at our asbestos testing facility in Report page 1 of 1 Coventry LIMS sample ID range AJ78642 to AJ78642