DOCSLIB.ORG

Update of the Blithe Hydrology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Update of the Blithe Hydrology 07 August 2017 Mott MacDonald 22 Station Road Cambridge CB1 2JD United Kingdom T +44 (0)1223 463500 F +44 (0)1223 461007 mottmac.com Update of the Blithe 377769 01A B Hydrology http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objaction=overview&objid=2118528682 Mott MacDonald 07 August 2017 Mott MacDonald Limited. Registered in England and Wales no. 1243967. Registered office: Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom Mott MacDonald | Update of the Blithe Hydrology Issue and Revision Record Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A July 2017 Christopher David Ocio Peter Ede Section extracted from DO analysis Rhodes and drought scenarios report B August Christopher David Ocio Peter Ede Including comments from SSW 2017 Rhodes Document reference: 377769 | 01A | B Information class: Standard This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it. This report has been pr epared sol el y for use by the party which commissi oned it (the ‘Client’) i n connecti on with the capti oned proj ect. It should not be used for any other purpose. N o person other than the Client or any party who has expressl y agreed ter ms of r eliance with us (the ‘Reci pient(s)’) may rel y on the content, i nformati on or any vie ws expressed i n the repor t. We accept no duty of care, responsi bility or liability to any other r eci pient of thi s document. T his r eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etar y intell ectual property. No representati on, warranty or under taking, expr ess or i mplied, is made and no responsi bility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Cli ent or any Reci pient(s), as t o the accuracy or completeness of the i nformati on contai ned i n this r eport. For the avoidance of doubt this r eport does not in any way purport to i nclude any legal , insur ance or fi nanci al advice or opi nion. We disclai m all and any liability whether arising i n tort or contract or other wise which it might otherwise have to any party other than the Cli ent or the Reci pient(s), in r espect of this report, or any infor mation attri buted to i t. We accept no r esponsibility for any error or omission i n the r eport which is due to an error or omission i n data, infor mation or statements supplied to us by other par ties incl udi ng the client (‘D ata’). We have not i ndependentl y verified such D ata and have assumed it to be accurate, complete, reli abl e and current as of the date of such infor mation. Forecasts presented i n this document were pr epared usi ng Data and the report is dependent or based on D ata. Inevitabl y, some of the assumptions used to develop the for ecasts will not be realised and unantici pated events and circumsta nces may occur. C onsequentl y M ott MacDonal d does not guarantee or warr ant the concl usi ons contained i n the repor t as there are li kel y to be differ ences between the for ecasts and the actual results and those di ffer ences may be material. Whil e we consi der that the infor mation and opini ons gi ven i n this r eport are sound all parti es must rel y on their own skill and j udgement when ma king use of it. Under no circumstances may this report or any extr act or summar y ther eof be used in connection with any public or pri vate sec urities offering i ncluding any rel ated memorandum or prospectus for any securities offering or stock exchange listing or announcement. 377769 | 01A | B | 07 August 2017 http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objaction=overview&objid=2118528682 Mott MacDonald | Update of the Blithe Hydrology Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Modelling approach 2 2.1 Requirements 2 2.2 HYSIM 2 3 Available input data 4 3.1 Requirements 4 3.2 Rainfall 4 3.3 Potential Evapotranspiration 7 3.4 Hydrometry 7 3.5 Artificial influences 10 4 Calibration-validation process 12 4.1 Approach 12 4.2 Model building 12 4.3 Calibration 13 4.4 Validation 18 5 Simulation 22 6 Summary 24 377769 | 01A | B | 07 August 2017 http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objaction=overview&objid=2118528682 Mott MacDonald | Update of the Blithe Hydrology 1 1 Introduction Blithfield Reservoir, supported during dry periods by the River Blithe Pumpback, is a key component of the SSW supply system. The annual licence of the reservoir is 29,200Ml (equivalent to an average of 80Ml/d) and the recent average abstraction is around 60Ml/d. Drought conditions and demand saving measures are established and are based on stored volume relative to established control curves. Thus, the Level of Service of the whole system is derived from the simulation of this reservoir. Given this, it is essential that simulated inflow series to the reservoir and flow series downstream at the River Blithe Pumpback intake are as accurate as possible. This report describes the methodology followed and the results obtained in this hydrology update. The adopted period of simulation is 1882-2014. The report is structured as follows: ● Modelling approach ● Available input data ● Calibration-validation process ● Simulation ● Summary The conjunctive deployable output of the SSW supply system has been modelled with water resources allocation models since WRMP04. The inflow series was largely based on a single HYSIM model set up by earlier work in 1997. This HYSIM model was calibrated to the naturalised Upper Blithe flow sequence at Blithfield Reservoir and also applied to the Lower Blithe at the location of the pumpback by decomposition. The HYSIM model was progressively refined and extended in time for the Company’s WRMP09 and WRMP14 submissions. During the WRMP14 study work it became apparent that this modelling approach had some shortfalls. In particular, calibration to new flow gauging data on the Upper and Lower Blithe was poor and the model tended to overpredict the low flows observed during the 2011/12 drought. An alternative approach using a HYSIM model developed by Severn Trent Water produced an even higher system yield, and therefore, the WRMP14 submission was made using a hybrid flow series to determine baseline deployable output and the sensitivity of the DO to climate change using the STWL model. As a consequence, for WRMP19, SSW needed a simulated flow series based on a robust calibration across the entire historic record. They required that the impact of significant upstream groundwater abstractions and discharges were explicitly modelled, and that both the reservoir and downstream catchments were separately simulated and calibrated. In addition to improving confidence in the baseline assessment of deployable output, this aimed to allow the simulation of series to study the impact of climate change and other scenarios. 377769 | 01A | B | 07 August 2017 http://pims01/pims/llisapi.dll?func=ll&objaction=overview&objid=2118528682 Mott MacDonald | Update of the Blithe Hydrology 2 2 Modelling approach 2.1 Requirements Assessment of the yield or Deployable Output of a water resources system requires a long period of data (particularly river flows for a reservoir system) to allow the assessment to cover a wide range of climatic conditions. Flow data is rarely available for the length of period required. So models are used to simulate flows over longer periods, taking advantage of the fact that rainfall records are usually much more extensive than flow records. The model selected for this purpose was HYSIM (Hydrological Simulation model). 2.2 HYSIM HYSIM is a lumped and conceptual rainfall-runoff model which was developed by Ron Manley (Water Resource Associates Ltd.) in the 1970s. It comprises a linked set of storages. The capacity of each storage, the maximum rate of transfer between them and equations which govern the transfer processes are all defined by time invariant parameters. Figure 5 shows a flow chart of the inputs, storage and processes that are defined in HYSIM. The key data inputs are rainfall and potential evapotranspiration (PET). The model also incorporates artificial influences (surface water abstractions and discharges, and groundwater abstractions), but in this study there are no sewage treatment works discharges, and abstractions are relatively minor. Although HYSIM has since been refined and further developed, it remains a similar program now compared to the one used at the time of the creation of the original simulations. One of the advantages of HYSIM is its automated optimisation procedures which facilitate rapid calibration. Although HYSIM has the option for inclusion of snowmelt it was decided not to include this element in this study. This was partly because of the lack of readily available temperature data sets but more particularly the fact that including snowmelt would have little or no effect on simulated low flows.
Recommended publications
  • The History of Blithfield Reservoir the History of Blithfield Reservoir

    The History of Blithfield Reservoir the History of Blithfield Reservoir

    The History of Blithfield Reservoir The History of Blithfield Reservoir The land before Blithfield Reservoir Prior to the development of Blithfield Reservoir, the landscape consisted largely of fields with small areas of woodland, and was formed in the shape of a wide flat valley with a floor of alluvial sand and gravel; the land was used mainly by farmers for growing crops and grazing their animals. The River Blithe meandered for three miles through these woods and fields, with the small Kitty Fisher Brook winding alongside. The Tad Brook, slightly larger than the Kitty Fisher Brook, flowed into the north eastern part of the area. There were two buildings within the area that would eventually be flooded. In Yeatsall Hollow, at the foot of the valley, there was a small thatched cottage called Blithmoor Lodge. This was demolished to make way for the causeway that now allows vehicles to cross the Reservoir. The second building was an old mill called Blithfield Mill, positioned on the western bank of the River Blithe, and having an adjacent millpond; the mill’s water wheel was driven by the flowing water of the River Blithe. Although some maps show the mill as having been demolished, the foundation stones and the brick wall around the millpond remain. At times when the level of the Reservoir becomes low enough these remains become visible. During the 1930s and 1940s, The South Staffordshire Waterworks Company, as it was then known, purchased 952 hectares, (2,350 acres) of land, of which 642 hectares, (1,585 acres) was purchased from Lord Bagot.
  • St Stephen's Hill Farm, Rugeley Flood Risk Assessment

    St Stephen's Hill Farm, Rugeley Flood Risk Assessment

    WWW.RABCONSULTANTS.CO.UK [email protected] P/2016/01267 Received 12 Sept 2016 St Stephen’s Hill Farm, Rugeley Flood Risk Assessment 24/03/2016 Version 1.0 RAB: 1291L Second Floor, Cathedral House, Unit 13, St Stephens Court, Willington, Kingsbrook House, 7 Kingsway, Beacon Street, Lichfield WS13 7AA Crook, County Durham DL15 0BF Bedford, Bedfordshire MK42 9BA T. 01543 547 303 T. 01388 748 366 T. 01234 363 582 Registered Office: Langard Lifford Hall, Lifford Hall, Lifford Lane, Kings Norton, Birmingham B30 3JN. Registered in England. Company No 5799647. VAT registration No. 884 0481 08 1291L St Stephen’s Hill Farm March 2016 Version 1.0 Revision History Version Date Amendments Issued to 1.0 24/03/16 M. Pope Quality Control Action Signature Date Prepared P. Batty 07/03/16 Checked G. Wilson 17/03/16 Approved R. Burton 23/03/16 Disclaimer This document has been prepared solely as a Flood Risk Assessment for Mr P. Brown. RAB Consultants accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the client for the purpose for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of the Managing Director of RAB Consultants Ltd. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. RAB Office Lichfield Office Second Floor Cathedral House Beacon Street Lichfield WS13 7AA i | P a g e 1291L St Stephen’s Hill Farm March 2016 Version 1.0 This page intentionally left blank ii | P a g e 1291L St Stephen’s Hill Farm March 2016 Version 1.0 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................
  • 68. Needwood & South Derbyshire Claylands

    68. Needwood & South Derbyshire Claylands

    National Character 68. Needwood & South Derbyshire Claylands Area profile: Supporting documents www.naturalengland.org.uk 1 National Character 68. Needwood & South Derbyshire Claylands Area profile: Supporting documents Introduction National Character Areas map As part of Natural England’s responsibilities as set out in the Natural Environment White Paper,1 Biodiversity 20202 and the European Landscape Convention,3 we are revising profiles for England’s 159 National Character Areas North (NCAs). These are areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which East follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision-making framework for the natural environment. Yorkshire & The North Humber NCA profiles are guidance documents which can help communities to inform West their decision-making about the places that they live in and care for. The information they contain will support the planning of conservation initiatives at a East landscape scale, inform the delivery of Nature Improvement Areas and encourage Midlands broader partnership working through Local Nature Partnerships. The profiles will West also help to inform choices about how land is managed and can change. Midlands East of Each profile includes a description of the natural and cultural features England that shape our landscapes, how the landscape has changed over time, the current key drivers for ongoing change, and a broad analysis of each London area’s characteristics and ecosystem services. Statements of Environmental South East Opportunity (SEOs) are suggested, which draw on this integrated information. South West The SEOs offer guidance on the critical issues, which could help to achieve sustainable growth and a more secure environmental future.
  • Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Land at Blythe

    Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Land at Blythe

    ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT LAND AT BLYTHE VALE STAFFORDSHIRE JULY 2017 Planning Authority: Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Site centred at: NGR 396575, 340501 Author: Nathan Thomas BSc (Hons), MSc, ACIfA Approved by: Steve Weaver BA, MCIfA Report Status: Final Issue Date: July 2017 CgMs Ref: SW/NT/22916 © CgMs Limited No part of this report is to be copied in any way without prior written consent. Every effort is made to provide detailed and accurate information, however, CgMs Limited cannot be held responsible for errors or inaccuracies within this report. © Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723 Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Blythe Vale, Staffordshire CONTENTS Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction and Scope of Study 2.0 Planning Background and Development Plan Framework 3.0 Geology and Topography 4.0 Archaeological and Historical Background, including Assessment of Significance 5.0 Site Conditions, the Proposed Development and Impact on Archaeological Assets 6.0 Summary and Conclusions Sources Consulted LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Gazetteer of HER and HEA entries LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 Site Location Fig. 2 1817 Stone House Estate Map Fig. 3 1839 Dilhorne Tithe Map Fig. 4 1888-1889 Ordnance Survey Map Fig. 5 1901 Ordnance Survey Map Fig. 6 1925 Ordnance Survey Map Fig. 7 1938-1951 Ordnance Survey Map Fig. 8 1954-1955 Ordnance Survey Map Fig. 9 1971-1977 Ordnance Survey Map Fig. 10 2000 Ordnance Survey Map Fig. 11 2016 Ordnance Survey
  • East Staffordshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

    East Staffordshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

    East Staffordshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 Report East Staffordshire Borough Council February 2008 Final Report 9S8995/R/Bham/02 HASKONIN G UK LTD. COASTAL & RIVERS Regus Business Centre Central Boulevard Blythe Valley Business Park Solihull B90 9AG United Kingdom +44 (0)1564 711875 Telephone 01564 711258 Fax [email protected] E-mail www.royalhaskoning.com Internet Document title East Staffordshire Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Level 1 Report Document short title Level 1 SFRA Status Final Report Date February 2008 Project name East Staffordshire SFRA and Water Cycle Strategy Project number 9S8995 Client East Staffordshire Borough Council Reference 9S8995/R/Bham/02 Drafted by R Ranger Checked by M Stringer Date/initials check …………………. …………………. Approved by Date/initials approval …………………. …………………. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Level 1 - iv - 9S8995/R/Bham/02 Final Report February 2008 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GLOSSARY ABBREVIATIONS Page 1 BACKGROUND 1 1.1 General Overview 1 1.2 Scope 1 1.3 Study Area 2 1.4 Data Used 3 1.5 Limitations and Assumptions 3 2 CATCHMENT DESCRIPTION AND CAUSES OF FLOODING 5 2.1 Catchment Description 5 2.1.1 General 5 2.1.2 River Trent Catchment 5 2.1.3 River Dove Catchment 8 2.1.4 River Blithe 10 2.1.5 Trent and Mersey Canal 10 2.2 Causes of Flooding 11 3 DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW 13 3.1 Historic Flooding 13 3.1.1 General 13 3.1.2 Flooding from Watercourses 13 3.1.3 Sewer flooding 14 3.1.4 Highway drainage and overland flooding 14 3.1.5 Groundwater flooding
  • APPENDIX 3 – Blythe Bridge & Forsbrook and Brown Edge & Endon 1. Blythe Bridge & Forsbrook

    APPENDIX 3 – Blythe Bridge & Forsbrook and Brown Edge & Endon 1. Blythe Bridge & Forsbrook

    Appendix 3: of Staffordshire Moorlands HEA APPENDIX 3 – Blythe Bridge & Forsbrook and Brown Edge & Endon 1. Blythe Bridge & Forsbrook 1.1 BFHECZ 1 – South of Stonehouses 1.1.1 Statement of heritage significance The zone covers 20ha and lies at around 170m AOD. The historic landscape character has been identified as planned enclosure which was probably created in the 18 th or 19 th century (cf. map 1). It is typified by the straight field boundaries and lanes laid out by surveyors. The surrounding landscape is also predominantly rectilinear in form, but does not have the overall regularity of this field system. This may consequently indicate not only enclosure at different periods but also differences in historic land ownership (cf. BFHECZ 2). The majority of the field boundaries have been removed although the overall regularity of the pattern survives. The zone lies within 200m of the line of a Roman road which connected Littlechester, Derbyshire and Chesterton (north of Newcastle under Lyme)1. There is consequently the potential for archaeological remains to be associated with Roman activity. However, besides a few prehistoric and Roman artefacts which have been found, little research has so far been carried on these periods within the wider area. 1.1.2 Heritage values: Evidential value: There is the potential for below ground remains to Low survive related to late prehistoric or Roman activity, which would provide new insights into the history not only of the Forsbrook/Drayton-in-the-Moors parishes, but of Staffordshire Moorlands more generally. Historical value: The overall character of the historic field system is Low still legible in the regularity of what remains.
  • Advisory Visit River Blithe, Hamstall Ridware, Staffordshire Sutton Coldfield Angling Society 2Nd September, 2008

    Advisory Visit River Blithe, Hamstall Ridware, Staffordshire Sutton Coldfield Angling Society 2Nd September, 2008

    Advisory Visit River Blithe, Hamstall Ridware, Staffordshire Sutton Coldfield Angling Society 2nd September, 2008 1.0 Introduction This report is the output of a site visit undertaken by Tim Jacklin of the Wild Trout Trust to the River Blithe, Staffordshire on 2nd September 2008. Comments in this report are based on observations on the day of the site visit and discussions with Don Jones and Steve Russell of Sutton Coldfield Angling Society (SCAS). Normal convention is applied throughout the report with respect to bank identification, i.e. the banks are designated left hand bank (LHB) or right hand bank (RHB) whilst looking downstream. 2.0 Fishery Overview The River Blithe rises to near Blythe Bridge near Stoke-on-Trent and flows in a south-easterly direction to join the River Trent at the hamlet of Nethertown. Near Abbots Bromley, the river flows into Blithfield reservoir (www.blithfieldeducationcentre.co.uk/reservoir.htm) operated by South Staffordshire Water. The reservoir was constructed in the early 1950s by the building of an impounding dam across the river. Flows in the Blithe downstream of the reservoir (where the SCAS water is located) rely on the release of compensation water from the reservoir at the rate of 23 Ml/d (0.27 m3 per second). SCAS have approximately 170 members, although most fish the club’s other waters leaving the Blithe very lightly fished; there are estimated to be only half a dozen trout fly fishermen in the club. SCAS operates the fishery as a mixed coarse and trout fishery, and allows any legal method of fishing that complies with Environment Agency bylaws.
  • Flooding Survey June 1990 River Tame Catchment

    Flooding Survey June 1990 River Tame Catchment

    Flooding Survey June 1990 River Tame Catchment NRA National Rivers Authority Severn-Trent Region A RIVER CATCHMENT AREAS En v ir o n m e n t Ag e n c y NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICE HEAD OFFICE Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury. Bristol BS32 4UD W EISH NRA Cardiff Bristol Severn-Trent Region Boundary Catchment Boundaries Adjacent NRA Regions 1. Upper Severn 2. Lower Severn 3. Avon 4. Soar 5. Lower Trent 6. Derwent 7. Upper Trent 8. Tame - National Rivers Authority Severn-Trent Region* FLOODING SURVEY JUNE 1990 SECTION 136(1) WATER ACT 1989 (Supersedes Section 2 4 (5 ) W a te r A c t 1973 Land Drainage Survey dated January 1986) RIVER TAME CATCHMENT AND WEST MIDLANDS Environment Agency FLOOD DEFENCE DEPARTMENT Information Centre NATONAL RIVERS AUTHORrTY SEVERN-TRENT REGION Head Office SAPPHIRE EAST Class N o 550 STREETSBROOK ROAD SOLIHULL cession No W MIDLANDS B91 1QT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 0 9 9 8 0 6 CONTENTS Contents List of Tables List of Associated Reports List of Appendices References G1ossary of Terms Preface CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY 1.1 Introducti on 1.2 Coding System 1.3 Priority Categories 1.4 Summary of Problem Evaluations 1.5 Summary by Priority Category 1.6 Identification of Problems and their Evaluation CHAPTER 2 THE SURVEY Z.l Introduction 2.2 Purposes of Survey 2.3 Extent of Survey 2.4 Procedure 2.5 Hydrological Criteria 2.6 Hydraulic Criteria 2.7 Land Potential Category 2.8 Improvement Costs 2.9 Benefit Assessment 2.10 Test Discount Rate 2.11 Benefit/Cost Ratios 2.12 Priority Category 2.13 Inflation Factors
  • Historic Environment Character Area Overview Reports This Appendix

    Historic Environment Character Area Overview Reports This Appendix

    Appendix 2: Historic Environment Character Area Overview Reports This appendix provides an overview of the historic environment for each of the Historic Environment Character Areas (HECAs) which fall within Lichfield District. It should be noted that the information and any recommendations contained within each of the documents is subject to amendment should any new information become available. For further information regarding the Historic Environment Record (HER); Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) and designated sites please contact: Cultural Heritage Team Environment & Countryside Development Services Directorate Staffordshire County Council Riverway Stafford ST16 3TJ Tel: 01785 277281/277285/277290 Email: [email protected] Staffordshire County Council February 2009 1 Historic Environment Character Area (HECA) 2a Introduction This document forms an overview of the HECA which specifically addresses the potential impact of medium to large scale development upon the historic environment. The character area covers 5,645ha lies wholly within Lichfield District boundary and to the west of Tamworth. Archaeological and Historic Documentation Archaeological work within the character area has tended to concentrate along the A5 and the M6 (Toll) roads. The information on this character area mostly comes from the HER data, whilst VCH has covered part of the area. Historic Environment Assets Summary The current understanding on the later prehistoric landscape of the character area suggests that it had mostly been heavily wooded until Bronze Age, when some clearance may have begun to take place to support a small scale pastoral economy. The earliest evidence for human activity from the character area dates to the Mesolithic period; however, this comes from flint artefacts and probably represents the presence of mobile hunting groups and transitory occupation.
  • Blythe Bridge and Forsbrook, and Brown Edge

    Blythe Bridge and Forsbrook, and Brown Edge

    1 8 , 0 0 0 Registered Parks and Gardens Ancient Woodland Scheduled Ancient Monument Sites of Biological Interest Nature Reserve Visual Open Space No Window Conservation Area Environmentally Sensitive Area Floodzone Main Road Network Staffs Moorlands DC Boundary 000 18, Contours (20m interval) No Window CLIENT Staffordshire Moorlands District Council PROJECT 0 0 ,0 Landscape & Settlement 8 1 Character Assessment DRAWING TITLE Blythe Bridge & Forsbrook Constraints Plan DRG No SCALE DATE ST10553-7a 1:10 000 at A3 July 2008 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY MJH BJ CAH STOKE-ON-TRENT TEL 0845 111 7777 CARDIFF TEL 029 2038 2465 (HEAD OFFICE) NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TEL 0191 232 0943 LEIGH TEL 01942 260101 WEST BROMWICH TEL 0121 580 0909 SHEFFIELD TEL 0114 245 6244 LONDON TEL 020 7287 2872 EDINBURGH TEL 0131 555 3311 1 8 , 0 0 0 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence No. 100018384. 2008. This map is reproduced from © Intermap Technologies Inc. All rights reserved. DSTA 100. 2008 y a Small scale w il a structured Significant public footpaths R landscape with m Staffordshire Way a te hedgerows Cycleway S ld and hedgerow fie Railway Fox trees Poor vegetation Remnant historic landscape structure - loss of hedgerows Important landscape setting to settlement Rocky outcrops Vegetation along W Ridgeline ea streamline
  • Spatial Framework

    Spatial Framework

    C. Wilkinson Transforming the Trent Valley Landscape Partnership Spatial Framework Final Report Prepared by LUC May 2018 Project Title: Transforming the Trent Valley Landscape Partnership – Spatial Framework Client: Staffordshire Wildlife Trust Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by v1 24.03.18 Draft report EL PMcr DM V2 29.03.18 Final draft report EL DM DM V3 02.05.18 Final report EL DM DM Transforming the Trent Valley Landscape Partnership Spatial Framework Final Report Prepared by LUC May 2018 Planning & EIA LUC EDINBURGH Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Design 28 Stafford Street Bristol Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning Edinburgh Glasgow Registered Office: Landscape Management EH3 7BD Lancaster 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)131 202 1616 London London NW1 1JD GIS & Visualisation [email protected] Manchester FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper Contents 1 Executive Summary 2 2 Background 3 3 Methodology 4 GIS Data and Information Gathering 4 Liaison with Other Consultants Undertaking Related Projects 5 Data Gaps 5 Data Assessment 6 Project Boundary Change 6 4 The Physical Environment 8 Location and Context 8 Hydrology 10 5 The Built Environment 18 Existing Infrastructure 18 Settlements 19 Planning and Development 20 6 Recreation and Visitor Facilities 27 Recreation 27 Visitor Facilities 29 7 Cultural Heritage 30 National Designations 30 Local Designations 33 Cultural Heritage at Risk 36 8 Natural Heritage 41 International and National Designations
  • Staffordshire Water Meadows Survey

    Staffordshire Water Meadows Survey

    Staffordshire Water Meadows Survey March 2008 March 2008 Staffordshire Water Meadows Survey By Paul Breeze, Keith Challis and Mark Kincey HP VISTA Centre [email protected] for Staffordshire County Council For further information please contact: Alex Jones (Director) Birmingham Archaeology The University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT Tel: 0121 414 5513 Fax: 0121 414 5516 E-Mail: [email protected] Web Address: www.barch.bham.ac.uk © 2008 University of Birmingham Page 1 Survey of Water Meadows in Staffordshire SUMMARY The Staffordshire water meadows survey was commissioned in September 2007 by Staffordshire County Council, and took the form of a large scale landscape assessment of the location, extent and survival of the predominantly post-medieval agricultural systems known as water meadows within the county. This survey comprised the analysis of 1st edition Ordnance Survey data for the entire length of all identifiable watercourses within the county of Staffordshire, followed by the examination of identified targets within two series of aerial photographs, and was focused around the major river valleys. A total of 1543km of watercourses were visually examined within the 1st edition dataset, followed by an estimated 300 aerial photographs, from two catalogues of imagery, the Staffordshire County Council 1963 and 2000 vertical series. This analysis was intended to allow the identification of the location and extent of possible water meadows within Staffordshire, and the assessment of the changing condition of water meadow sites over time, through the production of a GIS database. This desk-based assessment was then to be followed by field examination of a representative sample of targets in order to test the veracity of the GIS model.