Compiled Reference Documents - EXE250036 (As Published) · EXE25/0036

Page 2

                                         NOOSA COUNCIL
                                      REFERENCE DOCUMENT
                                      EXE25/0036 04 SEP 2025
28 July 2025                                                                          J002910-001-L-Rev0

Lisa Morgan


Email: [email protected]

SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - PROPOSED RENOVATION (ALTERATION & ADDITION)
27 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH

Introduction
As requested, Core Consultants Pty Ltd (Core) has carried out a slope stability risk assessment for a
proposed renovation to an existing residence at the above site.

Our assessment was based on a review of available published information, hand auger borehole drilling and
insitu testing, and a walk-over survey. This report presents the results of our desk study, site observations
and investigation results, together with our slope stability assessment and recommendations.
Site Description
The site is described as Lot 22 (No. 27) on RP849523, located north-west of the intersection between
Dolphin Bay Drive and Seaview Terrace and is 676 m2 in area. An existing two-storey residence constructed
above a carport/garage (three level building) is located centrally on the lot. The site is bounded to the north,
and west by residential dwellings as shown in Image 1.

Further description of the site is given in the following sections.




                                                                              Site location




Image 1: Site Location (Aerial image from Noosa Council Interactive Mapping).
Site conditions at the time of our visit are shown in Photographs 1 and 2.

Page 3

J002910-001-L-Rev0
28 July 2025




                                                                                 Approximate
                                                                                  location of
                                                                                proposed pool




Photograph 1: Site Conditions; retaining wall in         Photograph 2: Site Conditions; looking west
proposed location of new pool (22 July 2025).            towards the existing residence with the proposed
                                                         pool location to the right of the stairs (22 July 2025).
Proposed Development
We understand that the client proposes to undertake cosmetic renovations to the existing residence
including the construction of a new pool. The proposed design is shown in Images 2 and 3 below.




Image 2: Cocomo Home Designs – Project No. 25055 - 27 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, Dwg No. A.301 –
Rev C – 15 July 25.

Page 4

J002910-001-L-Rev0
28 July 2025




Image 3: Sections - Cocomo Home Designs – Project No. 25055 - 27 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, Dwg No.
A.400 – Rev C – 15 July 25.

It is anticipated that the proposed works will require minor earthworks for pool footings and associated
services. No filling is proposed.

Based on our observations, we anticipate the existing residence is supported on bored piers or shallow
strip/pad footing systems founded in the underlying extremely weathered sandstone.
Method and Scope of Investigation
As part of our geotechnical assessment, a desktop study was carried out comprising a review of the
published geological maps of the area and the Noosa Council (NC) Landslide Hazard overlay maps.

Following the desktop study, a walkover survey was conducted to make an appraisal of the general condition
of the site, including an assessment of topography, drainage, vegetation cover, geology, erosion, and slope
stability. The walkover survey was carried out by an experienced engineering geologist from Core on
22 July 2025.

The results of the desktop study and walkover survey are given below.

RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT
Geology and Subsurface Conditions
The Queensland Geotechnical Database (QGD) mapping indicates that the site is underlain by Pleistocene
age “Quartz sand; parabolic sand dunes”. However, our investigation (hand auger) results align more closely
with the ‘inferred’ underlying early to middle Jurassic age Tiaro Coal Measures (Jdt) comprising
predominantly “Lithofeldspathic labile and sub-labile to quartzose sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal,
ferruginous oolite marker”. An extract from the geology map is shown in Image 4 below.




                                                       3

Page 5

J002910-001-L-Rev0
28 July 2025




                       Approximate site location




Image 4: Extract from QGD mapping.
Core augered one borehole (BH1) using hand auger techniques which was terminated at a depth of 1.6 m
below existing ground level (bgl). The borehole encountered 0.6 m of loose to medium dense silty sand fill
(garden bed soil), underlain by firm to stiff sandy clay to 1.2 m bgl, then medium dense to dense clayey sand
(inferred extremely weathered sandstone) to the borehole termination depth. Groundwater was not
encountered within the borehole.
One dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test was also performed adjacent to the borehole to assess the
consistency/density of the subsurface soils. The DCP testing indicates that the below the borehole
termination depth of 1.6 m bgl, the material is inferred to be dense grading to very dense.

EXISTING INFORMATION

Topography

The subject lot is sited on the eastern slopes of a north-south trending ridgeline as shown in Image 5
(below). The topography of the lot slopes towards the east to southeast with overall slope angles measured
up to approximately 10°. The existing residence appears to have been constructed to compliment the site
contours.

Slope angles were measured on site using a hand-held clinometer.




                                                      4

Page 6

J002910-001-L-Rev0
28 July 2025




                                                             7°

                                                           10°




Image 5: Topography (Sunshine Coast Council Interactive Maps)
Groundwater
No seepage or pooling of surface or ground water was observed.
Surface Drainage
Surface drainage across the site is generally good due to the sloping nature of the ground. Stormwater runoff
was observed to be directed from pipes and strip drains to discharge outside the property boundaries.
Vegetation
Some mature trees up to approximately 6 m vertical height were observed surrounding the existing
residence (offsite). Trees were generally straight with signs of minor inclination/tilting downslope. This may
be due to downslope creep.
Existing Structures
Minor signs of settlement and/or movement were observed in retaining walls (landscaping), however overall,
no signs of movement associated with landslide activity were observed on the existing residence. No
observations were made inside the residence.
Photograph 3 shows movement/settlement in the retaining walls in the rear section (pathway) of the
residence (west). Photograph 4 shows minor deflection in the paved pathway adjacent to the location of the
proposed new pool. The observation of deflection and/or settlement in structures can be an indication of
slope instability or creep.




                                                       5

Page 7

J002910-001-L-Rev0
28 July 2025




                                                                               Minor
                                                                                 Minordifferential
                                                                                        deflectionsettlement
                                                                               in paved
                                                                                   in fence
                                                                                          walkway
                                                                                             line




                     Minor differential
                     settlement in retaining wall




Photograph 3: Site Conditions; retaining wall             Photograph 4: Site Conditions; paved walkway on
adjacent to the western boundary (22 July 2025).          northern fence line (22 July 2025)

ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS
Existing Conditions
The NC landslide hazard (susceptibility) overlay (refer Image 6) indicates the lot has areas mapped as being
Moderate to High Hazard.



                           Subject site




Image 6: Extract from SCC Landslide Hazard Overlay.

Slope Stability Risk Assessment
A global slope stability risk assessment has been carried out following the Australian Geomechanics Society
‘Landslide Risk Management Guidelines’, (AGS 2007). Relative levels of risk and their implications are
given in Table 1 below and the Qualitative Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property is attached.

Page 8

J002910-001-L-Rev0
28 July 2025


Table 1: Stability Risk Levels
 Risk Level                  Example Implications

                               Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning
           VERY HIGH
 VH                            and implementation of treatment options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too
           RISK
                               expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of property.

                               Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of
 H         HIGH RISK           treatment options required to reduce risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in
                               relation to the value of the property.

                               May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulators’ approval) but requires
           MODERATE
 M                             investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options to reduce risk to Low.
           RISK
                               Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be implemented as soon as practicable.

                               Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to
 L         LOW RISK
                               this level, ongoing maintenance required.

           VERY LOW            Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
 VL
           RISK

 Note:

      1)   The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may
           depend on the nature of the property at risk; these are only given as a general guide.


With reference to the qualitative measures of likelihood and consequence given in the attachment Qualitative
Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property, the likelihood of global instability, (i.e., failure through the
underlying inferred extremely weathered sandstone) impacting the proposed pool and additions during the
design life is Rare (i.e., the event is conceivable but only under exceptional circumstances over the design
life), and the consequential property loss could be Minor (i.e., limited damage to part of the structure, and/or
part of the site requiring some reinstatement stabilisation works). A combination of these measures in the
risk matrix results in a property risk classification of Very Low.
Based on the available information and the proposed works, it is our opinion that there is a Very Low Risk of
slope instability for the proposed development assessed in accordance with the AGS 2007, subject to
implementation of the recommendations in this report. This level of risk is generally acceptable to regulators
(i.e., NC).
Site Classification

The site classification derived in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2870-2011 Residential slabs and
footings provides an indication of the likely magnitude of reactive (shrink and swell) movements associated
with normal seasonal soil moisture variations (ys).

The estimated range of ys is calculated in accordance with the methodology presented in AS 2870-2011, by
assessment of the soil suction change, factored for lateral restraint multiplied by the soil layer thickness and
the instability index (estimated from Shrink-Swell index (Iss)).
For the Noosa region, AS 2870-2011 recommends a depth of design suction change Hs of 1.5 m.

Based on our experience in the nearby area within the Tiaro Coal Measures formation, the site is classified
as ‘Class M’ in accordance with AS 2870-2011. The estimated characteristic ground surface movement due
to seasonal moisture variation (ys) is less than 40 mm.

The predicted order of movement is based on the existing soil profile (i.e., no cutting or filling), and moisture
content changes within soils due to normal seasonal moisture variations only (i.e., does not consider soil
settlement).

RECOMMENDATIONS
To obtain a ‘Very Low’ risk classification, the following measures must be implemented for the proposed
construction:




                                                              7

Page 9

J002910-001-L-Rev0
28 July 2025



     Footings must be founded into the inferred underlying extremely weathered sandstone, using high-
           level strip/pad footings or piers (e.g., bored piles). For preliminary design purposes, an allowable
           bearing capacity of 100 kPa (for strips/pads) or an allowable end bearing pressure of 400 kPa (for
           piles) could be adopted. Founding stratum and bearing capacity must be confirmed during
           construction by a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer.
     All footings should found such that they are not adversely affected by any adjacent excavations
           batter slopes, trenches or retaining walls that are not designed to support building loads. To
           minimise the potential for any adverse interaction effects, footings should found at least below a
           plane extending 1 m horizontally from the base of trenches/batter slopes/excavations/retaining walls,
           then rising up at 1V:1H.
     Footings must not be founded in fill materials.
     Retaining walls greater than 1 m in height should be engineer (RPEQ) designed and must include a
           global stability analysis.
     Surface water diversion drainage should be installed upslope of the proposed development, with
           subsurface drainage behind any retaining walls (including existing walls). All captured stormwater,
           including overflow from roofs and tanks, should be directed by pipes or drains away from
           foundations and to the legal point of discharge.
     Site drainage should shed water and prevent ponding. Any groundwater seepage or surface water
           flows that enter the footing excavations (prior to casting the concrete) should be immediately
           removed from the excavation and discharged at the legal point of discharge.
     Any exposed soils should be protected from erosion, through revegetation, erosion matting or hard
           surfaces.

LIMITATIONS
Your attention is drawn to the document Limitations, which is also attached to this letter report.

Please contact the undersigned should you wish to discuss any of the above matters.
Yours sincerely,
CORE CONSULTANTS PTY LTD




Scott Prince                                        Brodie Hare
BSc (Applied Geology)                               MEngSc BEng(Hons) MIEAust CPEng NER RPEQ 29565
Engineering Geologist                               Senior Geotechnical Engineer

SP/BH/sp

Attachments:       Qualitative Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property, Some Guidelines for Hillside
                   Construction
                   Limitations

A.B.N. 75 603 384 050




                                                          8

Page 10

                                      PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
                                                              APPENDIX C: LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
                                    QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY


   QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF LIKELIHOOD

Approximate Annual Probability
                                             Implied Indicative Landslide
                                                                                                                     Description                                           Descriptor               Level
Indicative          Notional                    Recurrence Interval
  Value             Boundary
   10-1                5x10-2
                                              10 years                           The event is expected to occur over the design life.                                ALMOST CERTAIN                   A
                                                                    20 years     The event will probably occur under adverse conditions over the
        -2
   10                                      100 years
                                                                                 design life.
                                                                                                                                                                     LIKELY                           B
                            -3
     -3               5x10                                       200 years
   10                                      1000 years                            The event could occur under adverse conditions over the design life.                POSSIBLE                         C
                      5x10-4                                     2000 years
                                                                                 The event might occur under very adverse circumstances over the
   10-4                                   10,000 years
                                                                                 design life.
                                                                                                                                                                     UNLIKELY                         D
     -5               5x10-5                                     20,000 years
   10                                                                            The event is conceivable but only under exceptional circumstances
                                         100,000 years                                                                                                               RARE                             E
                                                                                 over the design life.
     -6                5x10-6                                    200,000 years
   10                                   1,000,000 years                          The event is inconceivable or fanciful over the design life.                        BARELY CREDIBLE                  F
   Note:     (1)   The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Annual Probability or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa.


   QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY

  Approximate Cost of Damage
                                                                                               Description                                                                 Descriptor               Level
Indicative           Notional
  Value              Boundary
                                         Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or large scale damage requiring major engineering works for
   200%                                                                                                                                                             CATASTROPHIC                      1
                                         stabilisation. Could cause at least one adjacent property major consequence damage.
                     100%
                                         Extensive damage to most of structure, and/or extending beyond site boundaries requiring significant
   60%                                                                                                                                                              MAJOR                             2
                                         stabilisation works. Could cause at least one adjacent property medium consequence damage.
                       40%
                                         Moderate damage to some of structure, and/or significant part of site requiring large stabilisation works.
   20%                                                                                                                                                              MEDIUM                            3
                                         Could cause at least one adjacent property minor consequence damage.
                       10%
    5%                 1%                Limited damage to part of structure, and/or part of site requiring some reinstatement stabilisation works.                 MINOR                             4
                                         Little damage. (Note for high probability event (Almost Certain), this category may be subdivided at a
   0.5%                                                                                                                                                             INSIGNIFICANT                     5
                                         notional boundary of 0.1%. See Risk Matrix.)
   Notes:    (2)   The Approximate Cost of Damage is expressed as a percentage of market value, being the cost of the improved value of the unaffected property which includes the land plus the
                   unaffected structures.
             (3)   The Approximate Cost is to be an estimate of the direct cost of the damage, such as the cost of reinstatement of the damaged portion of the property (land plus structures), stabilisation
                   works required to render the site to tolerable risk level for the landslide which has occurred and professional design fees, and consequential costs such as legal fees, temporary
                   accommodation. It does not include additional stabilisation works to address other landslides which may affect the property.
             (4)   The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Cost of Damage or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa


   91                                                          Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007

Page 11

                                        PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
                APPENDIX C: – QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY (CONTINUED)


      QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS MATRIX – LEVEL OF RISK TO PROPERTY
                      LIKELIHOOD                                                  CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY (With Indicative Approximate Cost of Damage)
                                           Indicative Value of         1: CATASTROPHIC                 2: MAJOR                3: MEDIUM                4: MINOR                    5:
                                          Approximate Annual                 200%                         60%                      20%                     5%                INSIGNIFICANT
                                              Probability                                                                                                                         0.5%
A –    ALMOST CERTAIN                              10-1                          VH                         VH                      VH                       H                   M or L (5)
                                                     -2
B -    LIKELY                                      10                            VH                         VH                       H                       M                       L
C -    POSSIBLE                                    10-3                          VH                          H                       M                       M                      VL

D -    UNLIKELY                                    10-4                           H                         M                        L                       L                      VL
                                                     -5
E -    RARE                                        10                             M                          L                       L                      VL                      VL
                                                     -6
F -    BARELY CREDIBLE                             10                             L                         VL                      VL                      VL                      VL
      Notes:    (5)   For Cell A5, may be subdivided such that a consequence of less than 0.1% is Low Risk.
                (6)   When considering a risk assessment it must be clearly stated whether it is for existing conditions or with risk control measures which may not be implemented at the current
                      time.


      RISK LEVEL IMPLICATIONS
                         Risk Level                                                                                  Example Implications (7)
                                                                  Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of treatment
           VH                    VERY HIGH RISK                   options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of the
                                                                  property.
                                                                  Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options required to reduce
           H                          HIGH RISK
                                                                  risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in relation to the value of the property.
                                                                  May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulator’s approval) but requires investigation, planning and
           M                     MODERATE RISK                    implementation of treatment options to reduce the risk to Low. Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be
                                                                  implemented as soon as practicable.
                                                                  Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is
           L                          LOW RISK
                                                                  required.
                                                                  Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
           VL                     VERY LOW RISK

       Note:    (7)   The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may depend on the nature of the property at risk; these are only
                      given as a general guide.




      92                         Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007

Page 12

     PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007



          APPENDIX G - SOME GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION

                 GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE                                                            POOR ENGINEERING PRACTICE
ADVICE
GEOTECHNICAL     Obtain advice from a qualified, experienced geotechnical practitioner at early       Prepare detailed plan and start site works before
ASSESSMENT       stage of planning and before site works.                                             geotechnical advice.
PLANNING
SITE PLANNING    Having obtained geotechnical advice, plan the development with the risk              Plan development without regard for the Risk.
                 arising from the identified hazards and consequences in mind.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
                 Use flexible structures which incorporate properly designed brickwork, timber        Floor plans which require extensive cutting and
                 or steel frames, timber or panel cladding.                                           filling.
 HOUSE DESIGN
                 Consider use of split levels.                                                        Movement intolerant structures.
                 Use decks for recreational areas where appropriate.
SITE CLEARING    Retain natural vegetation wherever practicable.                                      Indiscriminately clear the site.
    ACCESS &     Satisfy requirements below for cuts, fills, retaining walls and drainage.            Excavate and fill for site access before
   DRIVEWAYS     Council specifications for grades may need to be modified.                           geotechnical advice.
                 Driveways and parking areas may need to be fully supported on piers.
EARTHWORKS       Retain natural contours wherever possible.                                           Indiscriminatory bulk earthworks.
                 Minimise depth.                                                                      Large scale cuts and benching.
      CUTS       Support with engineered retaining walls or batter to appropriate slope.              Unsupported cuts.
                 Provide drainage measures and erosion control.                                       Ignore drainage requirements
                 Minimise height.                                                                     Loose or poorly compacted fill, which if it fails,
                 Strip vegetation and topsoil and key into natural slopes prior to filling.           may flow a considerable distance including
                 Use clean fill materials and compact to engineering standards.                       onto property below.
      FILLS      Batter to appropriate slope or support with engineered retaining wall.               Block natural drainage lines.
                 Provide surface drainage and appropriate subsurface drainage.                        Fill over existing vegetation and topsoil.
                                                                                                      Include stumps, trees, vegetation, topsoil,
                                                                                                      boulders, building rubble etc in fill.
 ROCK OUTCROPS   Remove or stabilise boulders which may have unacceptable risk.                       Disturb or undercut detached blocks or
  & BOULDERS     Support rock faces where necessary.                                                  boulders.
                 Engineer design to resist applied soil and water forces.                             Construct a structurally inadequate wall such as
                 Found on rock where practicable.                                                     sandstone flagging, brick or unreinforced
   RETAINING
                 Provide subsurface drainage within wall backfill and surface drainage on slope       blockwork.
     WALLS
                 above.                                                                               Lack of subsurface drains and weepholes.
                 Construct wall as soon as possible after cut/fill operation.
                 Found within rock where practicable.                                                 Found on topsoil, loose fill, detached boulders
                 Use rows of piers or strip footings oriented up and down slope.                      or undercut cliffs.
   FOOTINGS
                 Design for lateral creep pressures if necessary.
                 Backfill footing excavations to exclude ingress of surface water.
                 Engineer designed.
                 Support on piers to rock where practicable.
SWIMMING POOLS   Provide with under-drainage and gravity drain outlet where practicable.
                 Design for high soil pressures which may develop on uphill side whilst there
                 may be little or no lateral support on downhill side.
   DRAINAGE
                 Provide at tops of cut and fill slopes.                                              Discharge at top of fills and cuts.
                 Discharge to street drainage or natural water courses.                               Allow water to pond on bench areas.
    SURFACE      Provide general falls to prevent blockage by siltation and incorporate silt traps.
                 Line to minimise infiltration and make flexible where possible.
                 Special structures to dissipate energy at changes of slope and/or direction.
                 Provide filter around subsurface drain.                                              Discharge roof runoff into absorption trenches.
                 Provide drain behind retaining walls.
   SUBSURFACE
                 Use flexible pipelines with access for maintenance.
                 Prevent inflow of surface water.
                 Usually requires pump-out or mains sewer systems; absorption trenches may            Discharge sullage directly onto and into slopes.
    SEPTIC &
                 be possible in some areas if risk is acceptable.                                     Use absorption trenches without consideration
    SULLAGE
                 Storage tanks should be water-tight and adequately founded.                          of landslide risk.
   EROSION       Control erosion as this may lead to instability.                                     Failure to observe earthworks and drainage
  CONTROL &      Revegetate cleared area.                                                             recommendations when landscaping.
 LANDSCAPING
DRAWINGS AND SITE VISITS DURING CONSTRUCTION
   DRAWINGS      Building Application drawings should be viewed by geotechnical consultant
   SITE VISITS   Site Visits by consultant may be appropriate during construction/
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE BY OWNER
   OWNER’S       Clean drainage systems; repair broken joints in drains and leaks in supply
RESPONSIBILITY   pipes.
                 Where structural distress is evident see advice.
                 If seepage observed, determine causes or seek advice on consequences.




                         Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007                                                                 113

Page 13

      PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007




114             Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007

Page 14

                                             LIMITATIONS

This Document has been provided by Core Consultants Pty Ltd (“Core”) subject to the following
limitations:

This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Core’s proposal and no
responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for
any other purpose.

The scope and the period of Core’s Services are as described in C o r e ’s proposal, and are
subject to restrictions and limitations. Core did not perform a complete assessment of all possible
conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service
is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not
assume that any determination has been made by Core in regards to it.

Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Core was
retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between
investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not
been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in
the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required.

In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided
in this Document. Core’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the
production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Core to form no
more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot
be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings,
or any laws or regulations.

Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published
sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that
the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.

Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation
data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated.
No responsibility is accepted by Core for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.

Core may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Core to provide Services for the benefit of
Core. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will not have
any direct legal recourse to, and waives any claim, demand, or cause of action against, Core’s
affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors.

This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional
advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any
person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance
on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Core accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or
actions based on this Document.




Limitations                                Page 1 of 1                                   Date: 12/07/2018
FRM-065                             Uncontrolled When Printed                                  Issue: 1.02