Water Management Report for the Proposed Western Extension ... · BSGL has undertaken an extensive...

Water Management Reportfor the

Proposed Western Extensionat

Collyweston Quarry,Duddington,

Northamptonshire.

Date of report: 20th November 2013

Document reference: WEL085

Watermill Environment Ltd,3 Millennium House, Boundary Bank, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 5RR01539 728581

water environment solutions

DOCUMENT INFORMATION AND CONTROL SHEET

Document Status and Approval Schedule

Report Ref. Title

WEL085Water management Report for the Proposed WesternExtension at Collyweston Quarry, Duddington,Northamptonshire.

Issue HistoryVersion Status Prepared By: Position Signature Date

1 Final Rob Harper Director 20/11/13

DISCLAIMER

This report was completed by Watermill Environment Limited (WEL) on the basis of a definedprogramme and scope of works and terms and conditions agreed with the client. This report wascompiled with all reasonable skill and care, bearing in mind the project objectives, the agreed scope ofworks, the prevailing site conditions, the budget, the degree of manpower and resources allocated tothe project as agreed.

WEL cannot accept responsibility to any parties whatsoever, following the issue of this report, for anymatters arising which may be considered outwith the agreed scope of works.

This report is issued solely to the client and WEL cannot accept any responsibility to any third parties towhom this report may be circulated, in part or in full, and any such parties rely on the contents at theirown risk.

Watermill Environment Ltd. WMP/FRA for Collyweston Quarry

C:\Users\Rob\Documents\CLIENTS\Heaton Planning\Collyweston Quarry\5 Report\Collyweston WMP (20-11-13) no appx pages.docx- i -

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background information 11.2 Scope of report 11.3 Information sources 1

2 SITE SETTING 3

2.1 Site location 32.2 Topography 32.3 Geology 32.3.1 General 32.3.2 Site investigation data 42.4 Hydrogeology 42.4.1 Aquifer classification 42.4.2 Groundwater levels and flow 42.4.3 Site investigation data 62.5 Hydrology 62.5.1 Surface water features 62.5.2 Monthly rainfall 62.5.3 Daily rainfall 62.5.4 High intensity rainfall 72.6 Flood risk 7

3 DISCUSSION 9

3.1 Quarry and landfill development 93.2 Water generation 93.3 Restoration levels and future run-off 93.4 Future groundwater monitoring 10

4 CONCLUSIONS 10


C:\Users\Rob\Documents\CLIENTS\Heaton Planning\Collyweston Quarry\5 Report\Collyweston WMP (20-11-13) no appx pages.docx- ii -

TABLES

Table 1 Summary of local geologyTable 2 Groundwater levels for 2009-2013Table 3 Average rainfallTable 4 Daily rainfallTable 5 Summary of flood risk information

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site investigation boreholes and geological section linesFigure 2 Groundwater levels 2009-2013Figure 3 Borehole locations and inferred groundwater contoursFigure 4 Geological Section AFigure 5 Geological Section BFigure 6 Geological Section C

APPENDICES

Appendix A Heaton Planning drawing: Draft scheme design and phasingAppendix B Heaton Planning drawing: Surface elevationsAppendix C Heaton Planning drawing: Borehole locations and geological dataAppendix D Heaton Planning drawing: Thickness of limestoneAppendix E GroundSure FloodInsight report (ref. 228622-7395-120513, 12th May 2013)


C:\Users\Rob\Documents\CLIENTS\Heaton Planning\Collyweston Quarry\5 Report\Collyweston WMP (20-11-13) no appx pages.docx- 1 -

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background information

Watermill Environment Ltd. (WEL) has been appointed by Bullimore Sand and Gravel Ltd.(BSGL) to undertake an assessment of water management for the proposed westernextension to Collyweston Quarry at Duddington in Northamptonshire.

The Water Management Plan (WMP) will support an application for planning permission forthe quarry extension being prepared by Heaton Planning. The report will also supportapplication for variation of the current landfill Permit for the disposal of inert waste.

1.2 Scope of report

This Water Management Plan (WMP) has the following objectives:

a) Develop an understanding of the site’s relationship with the local waterenvironment.

b) Undertake an assessment of flooding potential at the site.

c) Undertake an assessment of potential for water ingress into the proposed quarryvoid.

d) Make recommendations for water management during the operational phase ofthe site and post-restoration.

1.3 Information sources

The following sources of information were used in the preparation of this report:

a) GroundSure FloodInsight report (ref. 228622-7395-120513, 12th May 2013). The fullreport is included at Appendix E.

b) “Proposed extension to Collyweston Quarry, Northamptonshire – Screening andScoping Report”, BSGL, December 2012.

c) Other information provided by Heaton Planning and BSGL, including site location,proposed site plan, ground level survey plan, proposed quarry phasing plan andhistorical environmental reports including:

“Hydrogeological Impact Assessment for Extension to Collyweston Quarry”(revision 3), by JDIH (Water & Environment) Ltd., April 2006.

“Collyweston Landfill 2012 Monitoring Report”, by Hafren Water Ltd.,January 2013.



d) DEFRA/EA Flood and Coastal Defence R&D Programme Report: “Preliminary rainfallrunoff management for developments”, ref. W5-074/A/TR/1 Revision E (January2012).



2 SITE SETTING

2.1 Site location

The site is located approx. 0.25 km east of the village of Duddington, in Northamptonshire,and immediately west of the currently permitted inert landfill at Collyweston Quarry (EAPermit ref. LP3036SB).

The proposed quarry extension approximately centres on National Grid Reference (NGR) SK993 008 and is some 16 hectares (ha) in area. The extension area will be worked in anorthward direction and comprises 11 quarry phases as shown in the draft scheme design inAppendix A. BSGL estimate that the quarry extension will take 10-13 years to be fullyworked out.

The current site spans four fields from the Bund Field in the southern part of the site,Farnsworth’s South Field, Farnsworth’s North Field and Mitchells Field in the northern partof the site.

The proposed quarry (see Appendix A) comes within approx. 40-50 m of the A43 to the westof the site and the A47 to the north of the site.

2.2 Topography

The site is located on the northwestern side of a broad hill which rises to some 90 metresrelative to Ordnance Datum (mOD) within 0.5 km east of the site. Ground elevation withinthe proposed quarry area declines westwards from around 80 mOD to around 70 mOD inthe northern part of the site, 65 mOD in the central part and 60 mOD in the southern part ofthe site. A plan of the site showing spot heights and ground level contours is included atAppendix B.

The quarry to the east of the extension area is being infilled to an elevation of some 75-80mOD. Infilling operations are near completion at the time of this report.

2.3 Geology

2.3.1 General

The composition of bedrock and superficial deposits at the site is similar to that describedfor the rest of Collyweston Quarry in the previous JDIH report (dated 2006 and referenced inSection 1.3). The geology is summarised as follows:



Unit within InferiorOolite Group

Description Estimated thickness(eastern extension)

Lower Lincs.Limestone

Oolitic peloidal and bioclasticlimestones with calcilutites/calcisiltites.

10-15 m

Northampton Sand Fine-grained sands,mudstones and clays.

4-7 m

Upper Lias. Mainly clays 45-60 m

Table 1: Summary of local geology

2.3.2 Site investigation data

BSGL has undertaken an extensive investigation of the subsurface within the proposedwestern quarry extension area. A total of 68 boreholes have been drilled to prove thedistribution of the economic deposit (limestone). The locations of the boreholes, with thegeological descriptions, are included at Appendix C (also in Figure 1).

Collation of geological data from these site investigation boreholes has been undertakenand three geological sections are presented in Figures 3-5 (the section lines are indicated inFigure 1). The following is noted:

A thickness of around 5-12 m of Lincs. Limestone strata has been proven at the site.A plan showing thickness of the limestone deposit across the site is included atAppendix D.

The base of the Northampton Sand is not proven beneath the western quarryextension area.

The top of the Lias clays is also not proven (inferred depth presented based onpreviously reported thickness of the sand strata).

2.4 Hydrogeology

2.4.1 Aquifer classification

The Lincs. Limestone is classified by the Environment Agency (EA) as a Principal Aquifer(formerly ‘Major Aquifer’), while the underlying Northampton Sand is classified as aSecondary Aquifer (formerly ‘Minor Aquifer’), probably a Secondary ‘A’ Aquifer. The site isnot within any groundwater Source Protection Zone.

2.4.2 Groundwater levels and flow

Five groundwater monitoring boreholes (BH A-E) have been drilled across the currentquarry/landfill site and regular monitoring of the watertable in undertaken. The followinggroundwater level data has been provided by BSGL:



Borehole BH A BH B BH C BH D BH E

Datum(mOD)

90.95 75.75 80.93 80.65 81.54

Groundlevel (mOD)

90.45* 75.23 80.43* 80.19 81.03

Date: mbgl mOD mbgl mOD mbgl mOD mbgl mOD mbgl mOD

29/01/2009 25.05 65.90 16.52 59.23 18.17 62.76 18.00 62.65 12.50 69.04

01/05/2009 25.37 65.58 16.58 59.17 18.25 62.68 18.16 62.49 12.82 68.72

12/08/2009 25.74 65.21 16.63 59.12 18.21 62.72 18.14 62.51 13.68 67.86

16/12/2009 25.54 65.41 16.61 59.14 18.25 62.68 18.22 62.43 13.76 67.78

01/02/2010 25.21 65.74 16.50 59.25 18.16 62.77 18.15 62.50 12.09 69.45

28/04/2010 25.06 65.89 16.50 59.25 18.17 62.76 16.67 63.98 12.34 69.20

31/08/2010 25.30 65.65 16.53 59.22 18.32 62.61 18.13 62.52 13.58 67.96

29/10/2010 25.19 65.76 16.54 59.21 18.34 62.59 18.16 62.49 13.61 67.93

17/11/2011 26.54 64.41 16.64 59.11 18.54 62.39 18.30 62.35 14.51 67.03

01/02/2012 27.22 63.73 16.83 58.92 18.74 62.19 18.51 62.14 14.71 66.83

02/05/2012 26.82 64.13 16.72 59.03 18.58 62.35 18.41 62.24 12.18 69.36

16/08/2012 25.90 65.05 16.56 59.19 18.24 62.69 18.22 62.43 12.10 69.44

28/11/2012 25.32 65.63 16.43 59.32 18.02 62.91 18.03 62.62 11.89 69.65

06/02/2013 23.60 67.35 16.25 59.50 17.91 63.02 17.50 63.15 8.88 72.66

17/05/2013 24.52 66.43 16.34 59.41 17.88 63.05 17.67 62.98 10.65 70.89

Table 2: Groundwater levels for 2009-2013 (*top of pipe approx. 0.5 m above groundlevel).

The above data are shown in Figure 2 and borehole locations are shown in Figure 3 alongwith inferred groundwater contours for the site. A report summarising the groundwaterconditions at the site during 2012 has been prepared by Hafren Water (referenced inSection 1.3) includes groundwater level data from which the following conditions are noted(along with data for 2013 provided by BSGL):

Groundwater level across the current site declines from around 71 mOD at BH E(northeastern corner of the site), based on the data for May 2013, to around 59mOD at BH B (southwestern corner).

Groundwater flow is observed to be westwards in the northern part of the site andsouthwestwards in the eastern part of the site.

The hydraulic gradient is around 0.02 in the northern part of the site and around0.01 in the eastern part of the site.

Beneath the proposed western quarry extension, groundwater flow is westwardsand extrapolation of the watertable elevation based on a hydraulic gradient of



approx. 0.02 indicates that the watertable elevation declines from around 63 mOD(BH C and D) to around 57 mOD at the western limit of the proposed extraction area.The watertable in the southwest of the extension area is likely to be below 57 mOD.No groundwater monitoring boreholes are as yet drilled along the westwardboundary of the quarry extension, although this is recommended in Section 3.4.

2.4.3 Site investigation data

The base of the Lincs. Limestone beneath the western part of the quarry extension area islikely to be close to the watertable based on the inferred groundwater level in this part ofthe site (see Figure 4). However, all site investigation boreholes were noted as dry with theexception of one (BH 45) although boreholes immediately west of this were also dry.

2.5 Hydrology

2.5.1 Local water features

There are no surface water features present on-site or in its immediate vicinity. The closestwatercourse is the River Welland which flows through Duddington some 0.5 km west of thesite. In addition, there are no known licensed or private groundwater abstraction in thevicinity of the site.

2.5.2 Monthly rainfall

Local rainfall is estimated from data recorded by the Met. Office at Bedford, approx. 50 kmsouth of the site and at Sutton Bonnington, some 55 km northwest of the site. These raingauges are located at elevations of 85 and 43 mOD respectively (in comparison with 60-80mOD at the site). Rainfall at the site is likely to be between the two ranges of monthly valuesgiven in the table below. Detailed site specific meteorological data (MORECS data) could bepurchased from the Met. Office if more detailed assessment is required. The following long-term annual average rainfall is noted for the period 1981-2010:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecB 49.0 36.7 40.8 47.3 48.3 51.4 49.2 54.5 54.9 62.5 53.4 49.7

SB 52.2 38.9 43.9 48.9 44.2 60.2 54.1 55.5 51.0 61.0 54.5 55.9

Site 50.6 37.8 42.4 48.1 46.3 55.8 51.7 55.0 53.0 61.8 54.0 52.8

Table 3: Average rainfall (in mm) at Bedford (B) and Sutton Bonnington (SB) and site

The estimated total annual average rainfall at the site is therefore 609 mm (based on 598mm at Bedford and 620 mm at Sutton Bonnington).

2.5.3 Daily rainfall

The estimated average instantaneous rainfall depends on the average number of rain daysat the site (recorded by the met. Office), as follows (estimated from rain days at Bedfordand Sutton Bonnington):



Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecB 10.5 8.8 9.7 9.2 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.3 8.6 9.9 10.2 10.1

SB 10.9 9.1 10.6 9.7 8.7 9.4 8.7 8.6 8.2 10.2 10.2 10.9

Site 10.7 9.0 10.2 9.5 8.9 9.1 8.7 8.5 8.4 10.1 10.2 10.5

mm/d 4.7 4.2 4.2 5.1 5.2 6.2 5.9 6.5 6.3 6.1 5.3 5.0

Table 4: Days of >1 mm rainfall (in days) at Bedford (B) and Sutton Bonnington (SB) andsite (with estimated daily on-site rainfall in mm/d)

The estimated daily rainfall at the site is calculated from the estimated monthly rainfall (seeTable 1 above) divided by the estimated number of rain days at the site (see Table 2 above).The result is a slight overestimate due to days when <1 mm rainfall not being included.

2.5.4 High intensity rainfall

The following values for high intensity rainfall events in the Duddington area are indicated inthe DEFRA/EA Report W5-074/A/TR/1 (January 2012):

100 year, 6-hour event (M100 6hr) = 63 mm.

100 year, 12 hour event (M100 12hr) = 72 mm.

2.6 Flood risk

The available flood risk information included in the GroundSure report (see Appendix X) issummarised in the table below:



Information type Y/N

Is the site within 250 m of an Environment Agency indicative Zone 2floodplain?

No

Is the site within 250 m of an Environment Agency indicative Zone 3floodplain?

No

Are there any Flood Defences within 250 m of the study site? No

Are there any areas benefiting from Flood Defences within 250 m of the studysite?

No

Are there any areas used for Flood Storage within 250 m of the study site? No

What is the National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) Flood Rating for the site? Neg*

Has the site been subject to past flooding as recorded by the EA? No

Is the site or any area within 50 m at risk of surface water (pluvial) flooding? Yes

What is the maximum BGS groundwater flooding susceptibility within 50 m ofthe boundary of the study site?

High

What is the BGS confidence rating in this result? High

Are there any geological indicators of historic flooding within 250 m of thesite?

No

Is the site located in an area identified as being at potential risk in the event ofa reservoir failure?

No

Table 5: Summary of flood risk information

Note *: Neg = negligible.

The following is noted:

The proposed development site is located within the EA indicative Flood Risk Zone(FRZ) 1. FRZ1 has an annual likelihood of <0.1% of being inundated by rivers – i.e. thesite is considered not susceptible by inundation by any river flood event of less than(more frequent than) a one in one thousand year return period.

No flooding has been recorded at the site by the EA (records dating back to 1947).

There is currently negligible risk of pluvial flooding at the site (prior to developmentas a quarry/landfill). It is considered that, upon commencement of quarryingoperations, the excavated void has the potential to experience ingress of surfacewater although flooding is not considered likely due to the presence of unsaturatedbut highly-permeable underlying geological deposits (Northampton Sand). Wateringress potential is discussed further in Section 3.2.

The area to the west of the site, between the site and the River Welland, moderateto high susceptibility to groundwater flooding. No such zones exist on-site.



3 DISCUSSION

3.1 Quarry and landfill development

Disposal of inert waste into the quarry void will commence after construction of an artificialgeological barrier using quarry fines (subject to Permit variation) and would lag behindquarrying by approx. 6 years (pers. comm. BSGL).

The size of open quarry void will depend on the rate of mineral extraction although BSGLestimate that the life of the quarry to be some 10-13 years. The time lag for waste disposalmeans that around half the proposed extension area (some 8 Ha) may have been extractedby the time waste disposal commences within the quarry void. The size of the void mayincrease further if the rate of waste disposal is exceeded by mineral extraction.

3.2 Water generation

The only potential source of water ingress into the quarry extension is by direct rainfall.Groundwater ingress is not considered possible due to the site being above the watertableand the degree of surface run-off into the void is considered to be negligible.

Based on the rainfall rates described in Section 2.5, an open quarry void of around 8 Ha inarea will receive the following estimated volumes of rainfall:

336 m3 to 520 m3 per day of >1 mm rainfall.

5040 m3 during a 100 year, 6-hour rainfall event (M100 6hr).

5760 m3 during a 100 year, 12 hour rainfall event (M100 12hr).

3.3 Restoration levels and future run-off

The full thickness of Lincs. Limestone is to be extracted within the extension area, with thequarry floor at the top of the underlying Northampton Sand horizon. As such, any directrainfall and any surface water ingress into the site will infiltrate the subsurface via thequarry floor, with minimal accumulation of water within the void expected.

It is considered that surface water can easily be controlled by creation of a sump, andsloping of the quarry floor towards the sump, to prevent ponding within the void.

Waste will be disposed at the site up to almost pre-quarrying ground levels and the sitefinished with the original topsoil (it having been used in formation of on-site bunds) to thepre-excavation levels given at Appendix B. No increase in run-off potential is envisaged withand therefore no consequent impacts are likely to arise from surface water run-off west ofthe site.

Should any problem arise in relation to run-off from the restored landfill, it is considered



that ground conditions are favourable to install an infiltration drainage system (e.g. Frenchdrain or borehole soakaway) at an appropriate location adjacent to the landfill. However,such action is considered unlikely to be required.

3.4 Future groundwater monitoring

The likely groundwater levels at the site are described in Section 2.4.2, based on theinferred hydraulic gradient across the current site. It is considered that three newgroundwater monitoring boreholes should be drilled along the western boundary of the siteat the earliest opportunity to provide groundwater level and quality data that can be usedto inform an application for variation of the current landfill Permit. Suggested locations fornew monitoring boreholes are indicated in Figure 3.

Any existing boreholes that may be lost due to the westward extension (e.g. BH B and BH D)of the quarry will require replacement to allow continued monitoring of the groundwaterlevel in the Northampton Sand at the same/similar location.



4 SUMMARY

4.1 Conclusions

Based on the information obtained during this report, the following conclusions are made:

1 The quarry will fully remove the Lincs. Limestone, exposing the Northampton Sandsin the quarry floor. The watertable elevation is likely to be below the proposedquarry floor based on observed groundwater levels across the entire site.

2 There are no surface watercourses that are intercepted by the proposed quarryextension and therefore the only significant source of water ingress into the site isvia direct rainfall.

3 However, no surface water accumulation within the quarry void is expected due tothe permeable nature of the quarry floor (sand deposits). Consequently, there is norequirement for water management operations at the site.

4.2 Recommendations

The following is recommended with regard to water environment:

1 Additional groundwater monitoring boreholes should be drilled along the westernlimit of the proposed quarry extension area. These will confirm the watertableelevation (likely to be <57 mOD) and allow baseline groundwater sampling of thedowngradient side of the proposed landfill (this data to be required in the Permitvariation process).

2 A sump should be constructed within the quarry floor, along with levelling of thequarry floor and grading towards the sump, in the event that surface wateraccumulation does occur (not envisaged). The detailed design of this feature can beconsidered at such time when it is necessary to be implemented.

3 Due to the likely high permeability of the quarry floor (sand) and its proximity to thewatertable, a simple action plan should be formulated to minimise the potentialimpact on the water environment of any oil (or other chemical) spillage within thequarry. The plan should include for excavation of contaminated sand and theintroduction of oxygenating compounds to degrade any residual hydrocarboncontamination within the subsurface. The plan should be submitted to the EA foragreement, possibly as part of the Permit variation application.

The above conclusions are based on environmental information obtained during the studyand the professional judgement of Watermill Environment Ltd. New information relating toon-site conditions may be obtained before/during the site development that maynecessitate revision of the concepts presented in this report and warrant furtherinvestigation or assessment.


C:\Users\Rob\Documents\CLIENTS\Heaton Planning\Collyweston Quarry\5 Report\Collyweston WMP (20-11-13) no appx pages.docx

FIGURES



APPENDICES



APPENDIX A:

Heaton Planning drawing: Draft scheme design and phasing

C:\Users\Rob\Documents\CLIENTS\Heaton Planning\Collyweston Quarry\5 Report\Collyweston WMP (20-11-13) appx pages.docx

APPENDIX B:

Heaton Planning drawing: Surface elevations

0 12

0 11

0 10

0 0 9

0 0 8

0 0 7

0 0 6

0 0 5

0 0 4

0 0 3

0 12

0 11

0 10

0 0 9

0 0 8

0 0 7

0 0 6

0 0 5

0 0 4

0 0 3

996995994993992991990

996995994993992991990

former

nu c lear

s helter

A READ EEM ED

RES TO REDB Y TH E

EN VIRO N -M EN T

A GEN C Y

A READ EEM ED

RES TO REDB Y TH E

EN VIRO N -M EN T

A GEN C Y

´·³»¬±²»

¼«¬

´·³»¬±²»

¼«¬

®±½µ º±®

½®«¸·²¹

®±½µ º±®

½®«¸·²¹

½¿´°·²¹½¿´°·²¹

¾´«»´·³»¬±²»

¬¿µ»² ±«¬

¾´«»´·³»¬±²»

¬¿µ»² ±«¬

¾´«»

´·³»¬±²»

¬¿µ»² ±«¬

¾´«»

´·³»¬±²»

¬¿µ»² ±«¬

½®«¸»¼

´·³»¬±²»

¬±½µ°·´»

½®«¸»¼

´·³»¬±²»

¬±½µ°·´»

tops oiltops oil

69. 9 m69. 9 m

L angd ale

The L ittle H o

S heepwas h

C attle Grid

0 132

S mallhold ingS mallhold ing

B u llimoresS and and GravelL td

COLLYWESTON

QUARRY

D u d d ingtonN orthamptons hire

ïðð ³»¬®»

SURFACEELEVATIONS

1 : 2 , 50 0 atA 3 s ize

KEY

Extentoftip

B u nd s oftopsoil&s u bs oil

Tip

L evelledheight

B oreholenu mber

26

7 1 . 4

69. 469. 4

69. 469. 4

7 1 . 87 1 . 8

7 2 . 27 2 . 2

7 2 . 27 2 . 2

7 1 . 27 1 . 2

7 2 . 27 2 . 2

69. 469. 4

7 1 . 37 1 . 3

7 2 . 37 2 . 3

7 1 . 4

7 9. 87 9. 8

7 9. 27 9. 2

7 4. 3

7 7 . 07 7 . 0

7 5. 07 5. 0

7 5. 27 5. 2

7 4. 57 4. 5

7 8 . 77 8 . 7

7 9. 7

7 6. 87 6. 8

7 4. 87 4. 87 1 . 97 1 . 9

66. 966. 9

68 . 868 . 864. 264. 2

7 5. 17 5. 1

7 8 . 17 8 . 1

7 0 . 77 0 . 7

7 4. 57 4. 5

7 6. 27 6. 2

7 1 . 37 1 . 3

7 5. 37 5. 3

7 5. 47 5. 4

7 5. 77 5. 7

7 6. 87 6. 8

8 0 . 18 0 . 1

7 8 . 67 8 . 6

7 8 . 77 8 . 7

6565

7 5. 47 5. 4

7 5. 47 5. 4

69. 569. 5

63. 563. 5

297 4297 4

67 . 867 . 865. 765. 7

7272

7373

74747575

7 2 . 37 2 . 3

7878

7 9. 67 9. 6

7 9. 77 9. 7

7 8 . 47 7 . 0

7 6. 1

7 5. 1

7 3. 6

7 3. 47 3. 4

7 1 . 77 1 . 7

7 1 . 77 1 . 7

7 1 . 87 1 . 8

7 1 . 57 1 . 5

7 1 . 77 1 . 7

7 7 . 0

7 7 . 47 7 . 4

7 7 . 57 7 . 5

7 7 . 17 7 . 1

66. 7

66. 6

66. 1

66. 3

66. 666. 6

7 0 . 17 5. 87 5. 87 3. 87 3. 8

7 9. 3

3442

7 8 . 67 8 . 6

7 9. 77 9. 7

66. 4

657 3. 9

66. 766. 7 69. 469. 4


APPENDIX C:

Heaton Planning drawing: Borehole locations and geological data

SAMPLENUMBER

SURFACEHEIGHT OD(m)

THICKNESSES UNDERLYINGROCK &THICKNESS

HEIGHTOF BASEOF L/S

NOTES

TOPSOIL&COLLUVIUM

LIME-STONE

BLUELIME-STONE

1 76.9 0.2 9.3 0.3 sand >0.8 67.4

2 74.8 0.1 8.4 0.5 sand >1.5 66.3

3 71.9 0.1 >6.9 <64.9 voids

4 69.5 0.1 >6.8 0.4 sand >3.1 62.6

5 66.9 0.3 6.8 - sand 0.2 57.8 voids

6 63.5 0.3 6.2 - sand >0.5 57.0

7 79.6 0.3 10.7 - sand >1.0 68.7 voids

8 79.7 0.2 11.6 0.3 sand >3.0 67.8 voids

9 78.7 0.1 10.8 0.4 sand >2.1 67.8 sand layers

10 74.4 2.6 5.4 1.0 sand >4.2 66.4

11 72.3 3.5 3.7 0.8 sand >0.6 65.1 stained l/s

12 70.7 3.2 2.8 - sand >3.0 64.7

14 79.7 0.6 >12.6 >3.3 <66.7

15 67.8 3.8 1.0 - sand >3.2 63.0

16 65.1 6.0 - - sand >0.2 61.1 no l/s

17 71.3 0.1 8.8 0.1 sand >0.4 62.4 voids

18 72.2 0.1 8.7 1.3 sand >0.1 63.4 voids

19 72.1 0.2 6.2 - sand >0.4 65.7 voids

20 71.3 0.7 4.3 sand >2.0 66.3

21 72.2 0.4 4.9 0.6 sand >1.7 66.9

22 72.2 0.4 6.3 1.9 sand >0.2 65.5

23 69.4 0.9 0.5 - ironstone >2.4 67.8 no l/s

24 74.5 0.2 6.6 0.6 sand >0.2 67.7

25 76.8 0.2 8.9 0.7 sand >0.9 67.7 sand layers

26 80.1 0.5 11.7 2.4 sand >0.2 67.9

27 79.2 0.2 11.6 0.8 sand >1.2 67.4

28 78.6 0.2 12.4 0.2 sand >0.4 66.0

29 78.7 0.3 12.6 0.6 sand >0.1 65.8 voids

30 78.6 0.5 11.1 1.9 sand >0.9 67.0

31 75.1 0.2 11.5 3.7 sand >0.1 63.4

32 75.4 0.2 10.6 - ironstone >2.3 64.6 many voids

33 75.5 0.3 >11.1 1.6 <64.1 voids

34 74.3 0.1 9.5 - sand >0.1 64.7 voids

35 75.0 0.2 11.9 2.2 sand >0.1 62.9 voids

36 75.4 0.5 10.3 2.4 sand >0.2 64.6 voids

37 75.2 0.4 9.5 1.1 sand >0.2 65.3 voids

38 75.3 0.7 10.7 1.6 clay >0.1 63.9 voids

39 76.2 0.2 11.1 2.6 sand >0.2 64.9 voids

40 79.6 0.3 12.5 ? sand >0.2 66.8

41 78.4 0.3 >9.7 0.3 68.4

42 77.0 0.2 11.1 ? 65.7 voids

43 75.8 0.2 8.8 1.9 sand & i/s >3.9 66.8 many voids

44 73.8 0.3 8.1 1.4 sand >1.6 65.4 much hard l/s

45 70.1 0.2 >6.8 0.2 <63.1 wet at base

46 66.7 0.6 6.5 1.3 sand >0.7 59.6

47 77.1 0.2 12.5 1.2 sand >0.3 64.4 much hard l/s

48 77.5 0.3 12.5 3.1 sand >0.2 64.7 much hard l/s

49 77.4 0.3 12.5 1.7 sand & i/s >1.1 64.6 much hard l/s

50 77.0 0.3 11.7 3.9 sand >0.2 65.0

51 76.1 0.2 12.2 1.7 sand >1.7 63.7

52 75.1 0.4 11.3 5.0 sand >0.2 63.4 much blue

53 71.7 0.5 9.7 1.3 sand & i/s >0.6 61.5 voids

54 71.5 0.6 9.6 2.0 sand >0.3 61.3 voids

55 71.8 0.4 10.8 3.5 sand >0.3 60.6 much hard l/s

56 71.7 0.3 10.1 3.7 sand >0.2 61.3 much hard

57 71.7 0.3 >8.5 1.8 crumbly l/s >1.2 <62.9

58 73.4 0.5 >8.8 1.6 crumbly l/s >2.1 <64.1 voids

59 73.0 0.3 >9.7 ? voids <63.0 many voids

60 66.6 0.8 7.8 2.2 sand >0.2 58.0 much hard

61 66.6 0.4 6.9 2.0 sand >0.4 59.3 voids & hard l/s

62* 66.1 0.3 5.0 sand, cl & i/s >3.9 60.8 voids & hard l/s

63* 66.3 0.4 3.8 sand, cl & i/s >2.9 62.1 much soft l/s

64 66.4 0.3 3.8 0.1 sand, cl & i/s >1.9 62.3

65 73.9 0.4 9.7 0.9 sand >0.4 63.8 voids

66 71.7 0.4 >6.7 <64.6 voids & hard l/s

67 69.1 0.5 7.8 ? Sand & i/s >1.7 60.8 many voids

68 66.7 0.6 5.0 clay & i/s >1.4 61.1

*the base of these boreholes is a mixture of limestone, sand, clay and ironstone – commercially

worthless

Often the blue limestone is thicker than indicated as there are sand layers between beds of blue

and only the thickest blue layer is recorded.

Where the level of the base of the limestone is a minimal figure the values are shown in italics

The topsoil is in the dry valley between the Farnsworth Fields and is soil that has been ploughed/

washed off the adjacent fields.


APPENDIX D:

Heaton Planning drawing: Thickness of limestone

69. 4

7 2 . 26. 3

7 2 . 24. 9

7 1 . 26. 2

7 2 . 28 . 7

8 . 8

7 9. 211 . 6

9. 5

7 5. 011 . 9

9. 5

7 4. 55. 4

7 8 . 710 . 8

11 . 6

7 6. 89. 3

8 . 48 . 4>6. 9

6. 86. 811 . 5

2 . 82 . 8

7 4. 56. 6 8 . 9

7 6. 211 . 1

7 1 . 34. 3

7 5. 310 . 7

7 5. 410 . 3

8 0 . 111 . 7

7 8 . 612 . 4

7 8 . 712 . 6

10 . 6

7 5. 4>11 . 1

62 . 6>6. 8

57 . 06. 2297 4297 4

67 . 81 . 065. 7Lim estonea bsent

Lim estonea bsent

7 2 . 33. 7

7 9. 610 . 7

7 9. 7>12 . 8

3442

7 8 . 611 . 1

22

55

7 8 . 77 8 . 77 8 . 710 . 87 8 . 77 8 . 710 . 810 . 810 . 8

11 . 6

7 6. 87 6. 89. 39. 39. 39. 3

11 . 5

10 . 6

7 5. 4>11 . 17 5. 47 5. 4>11 . 1>11 . 1

7 9. 67 9. 610 . 710 . 710 . 710 . 7

7 9. 7>12 . 87 9. 77 9. 7>12 . 87 9. 7>12 . 8>12 . 8>12 . 8>12 . 8

3442

9. 39. 39. 39. 3

>11 . 1>11 . 1

77

66

1212

1212

7 5. 011 . 97 5. 011 . 911 . 911 . 911 . 9

10 . 37 5. 47 5. 410 . 310 . 3

7 8 . 77 8 . 77 8 . 77 8 . 77 8 . 712 . 612 . 612 . 612 . 6

7 8 . 67 8 . 611 . 111 . 111 . 111 . 1

8 0 . 111 . 78 0 . 18 0 . 111 . 711 . 711 . 77 9. 211 . 67 9. 211 . 611 . 611 . 611 . 6

7 6. 211 . 17 6. 211 . 111 . 111 . 1

7 5. 37 5. 310 . 710 . 710 . 710 . 7

7 8 . 67 8 . 612 . 412 . 412 . 412 . 4

9. 5

10 . 310 . 37 5. 410 . 310 . 3

11 . 111 . 1

0 12

0 11

0 10

0 0 9

0 0 8

0 0 7

0 0 6

0 0 5

0 0 4

0 0 3

0 12

0 11

0 10

0 0 9

0 0 8

0 0 7

0 0 6

0 0 5

0 0 4

0 0 3

996995994993992991990

996995994993992991990

former

nu c lear

s helter

former

nu c lear

s helter

A READ EEM ED

RES TO REDB Y TH E

EN VIRO N -M EN T

A GEN C Y

A READ EEM ED

RES TO REDB Y TH E

EN VIRO N -M EN T

A GEN C Y

´·³»¬±²»

¼«¬

´·³»¬±²»

¼«¬

®±½µ º±®

½®«¸·²¹

®±½µ º±®

½®«¸·²¹

½¿´°·²¹½¿´°·²¹

¾´«»´·³»¬±²»

¬¿µ»² ±«¬

¾´«»´·³»¬±²»

¬¿µ»² ±«¬

¾´«»

´·³»¬±²»

¬¿µ»² ±«¬

¾´«»

´·³»¬±²»

¬¿µ»² ±«¬

½®«¸»¼

´·³»¬±²»

¬±½µ°·´»

½®«¸»¼

´·³»¬±²»

¬±½µ°·´»

tops oiltops oil

69. 9 m69. 9 m

L angd ale

The L ittle H o

S heepwas h

C attle Grid

0 132

S mallhold ingS mallhold ing

B u llimoresS and and GravelL td

COLLYWESTON

QUARRY

D u d d ingtonN orthamptons hire

ïðð ³»¬®»

THICKNESSOF LIMESTONE

1 : 2 , 50 0 atA 3 s ize

KEY

L oc ationofbu nd s ands et-as id e

P otentialextentofres ou rc e

L imes tonegreaterthen10m thic k

Tip

B oreholeloc ation

Thic knes soflimes tonein metres

23

22

16

12 . 512 . 5>9. 111 . 111 . 18 . 1>6. 8

6. 5

7 . 8

5. 05. 0

3. 8

3. 8

12 . 512 . 5

12 . 512 . 5

12 . 512 . 5

11 . 7

12 . 2

11 . 3

9. 69. 6

10 . 8

10 . 110 . 1

>8 . 5>8 . 5

>8 . 8>8 . 8

>9. 7>9. 7

6. 96. 9

9. 79. 7

>6. 7

5. 05. 0

7 . 87 . 8

8 . 88 . 8

9. 7

FARNSWORTH’SSOUTH FIELD

FARNSWORTH’SSOUTH FIELD

BUND FIELDBUND FIELD

FARNSWORTH’SNORTH FIELD



MITCHELL’SFIELD

MITCHELL’SFIELD

MITCHELL’SFIELD

MITCHELL’SFIELD


APPENDIX E:

GroundSure FloodInsight Report(ref. 228622-7395-120513, 12th May 2013)

Submitted separately to this report.

Water Management Report for the Proposed Western Extension ... · BSGL has undertaken an extensive...

Documents

Transcript of Water Management Report for the Proposed Western Extension ... · BSGL has undertaken an extensive...