Clerk to Lower Allithwaite Parish Council Lower Allithwaite Parish

Clerk to Lower Allithwaite Parish Council South Lakeland District Council Lower Allithwaite Parish Council South Lakeland House Mr P Turner Lowther Street Sunnyside Kendal Holme Lane Cumbria LA9 4DL Allithwaite GRANGE over SANDS Tel: 01539 733333 LA11 7QD www.southlakeland.gov.uk

Our Ref: SL/2018/0331 Your Ref: Date: 24 April 2018

Dear Sir

LOCATION: Car Park, Cartmel Park, Cartmel Racecourse, Park View, Cartmel, GRANGE-OVER-SANDS GEOCODE: Easting: 337681 Northing: 478705 DEVELOPMENT: Extension to existing car park REFERENCE NUMBER: SL/2018/0331 (Please use this whenever you contact us) PLANNING OFFICER: Chris Harrison

We have received the above application that you may wish to comment upon. The following link will take you directly to the application: http://kdc- pam.southlakeland.gov.uk/AniteIM.websearch/ExternalEntryPoint.aspx?SEARCH_TYPE=1&DOC _CLASS_CODE=DC&folder1_ref=SL/2018/0331 Or go to our website: http://applications.southlakeland.gov.uk/planningapplications/welcome.asp to view the documents. Please send your comments by email: [email protected] before 21 days (15 May 2018). If you do not reply within that period I will assume you have no comments.

Yours faithfully

Chris Harrison Development Management PROPOSED CARPARK EXTENSION, CARTMEL RACECOURSE, CARTMEL, CUMBRIA

Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holbeck Ltd

NGR: 337673 478747

April 2018

Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, Lower Brook Street, Ulverston, Cumbria, LA12 7EE

Tel: 01229 588 500 Email: [email protected] Web: www.greenlanearchaeology.co.uk

Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1

Contents Illustrations and Tables ...... 2 List of Figures ...... 2 List of Plates ...... 2 List of Tables ...... 2 Non-Technical Summary ...... 3 Acknowledgements ...... 3 1. Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Circumstances of the Project ...... 4 1.2 Location, Geology, and Topography ...... 4 2. Methodology ...... 6 2.1 Desk-Based Assessment ...... 6 2.2 Site Visit ...... 6 2.3 Archive ...... 6 3. Results ...... 7 3.1 Introduction ...... 7 3.2 Desk-Based Assessment ...... 7 3.3 Map Regression ...... 9 4. Site History ...... 11 4.1 Prehistoric Period (c11,000 BC – 1st century AD) ...... 11 4.2 Romano-British to Early Medieval Period (1st century AD – 11th century AD) ...... 11 4.3 Medieval Period (11th century AD – 16th century AD) ...... 12 4.4 Post-medieval Period (16th century AD – present) ...... 14 4.5 Previous Archaeological Work ...... 15 4.6 Site Visit ...... 18 4.7 Conclusion ...... 18 5. Discussion ...... 19 5.1 Introduction ...... 19 5.2 Significance ...... 19 5.3 Potential for Unknown Archaeological Remains ...... 20 5.4 Disturbance ...... 20 5.5 Impact ...... 20 5.6 Conclusion ...... 20 6. Bibliography ...... 22 6.1 Primary and Cartographic Sources...... 22 6.2 Secondary Sources...... 22 Appendix 1: Site Gazetteer ...... 26 Appendix 2: Significance Criteria ...... 31

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 2 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Illustrations and Tables List of Figures Figure 1: Site location ...... 5 Figure 2: Gazetteer site plan ...... 8 Figure 3: Previous archaeological work ...... 17

List of Plates Plate 1: Extract from the enclosure map of 1807 (CAC(K) WPR 89 Z3 1807) ...... 9 Plate 2 (left): Extracts from the Ordnance Survey maps of 1851 ...... 9 Plate 3 (right): Extracts from the Ordnance Survey maps of 1890 ...... 9 Plate 4 (left): Extract from the Ordnance Survey map of 1913 ...... 10 Plate 5 (right): Extract from the Ordnance Survey map of 1933 ...... 10 Plate 6 (left): Area of hard standing within the area of the proposed extension carpark extension, viewed from the west ...... 18 Plate 7 (right): Area of hard standing within the area of the proposed carpark extension adjoining the existing carpark, viewed from the east ...... 18

List of Tables Table 1: Summary of sites of archaeological interest within the study area ...... 7 Table 2: Significance of known sites within the proposed development area ...... 19 Table 3: Statutorily protected sites within the study area ...... 20 Table 4: Degree of potential for unknown archaeological remains by period ...... 20

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 3 Non-Technical Summary Prior to the submission of a planning application for an extension to the carpark at Cartmel racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria, Greenlane Archaeology was commissioned to carry out a desk-based assessment of the site. The work from which this report derives was carried out in August and September 2016 and amended in April 2018. The known history of the area is inevitably dominated by the development of Cartmel Priory in the late 12th century, which covered a large part of the present village. However, there is evidence for human activity in the wider area from the prehistoric period onwards, although the earlier evidence typically comprises stray finds, and reliable evidence for Roman and early medieval activity is severely lacking. The area is located to the west of the village of Cartmel. Information contained in the Historic Environment Record revealed a variety of sites within the study area, including two stray finds of prehistoric date, although these are not well located, although it is dominated by the presence of the medieval priory at Cartmel. There has also been a considerable amount of archaeological work in Cartmel, most within the last 10 years, including the investigation of a number of historic buildings but also the excavation and observation of areas mostly within the precinct of Cartmel Priory While there are a considerable amount of remains of archaeological interest from the immediate area these tend to be concentrated within the extent of the village, while the proposed development area was essentially open land until the creation of the racecourse in the early 19th century. The site visit also demonstrates that the area has subject to some recent disturbance and so it is relatively unlikely that archaeological material would be encountered in this area or disturbed by the present proposals. Acknowledgements Greenlane Archaeology would like to thank Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd for commissioning the project. Additional thanks are due to Jeremy Parsons, Historic Environment Officer at Cumbria County Council, for providing access to the Historic Environment Record, and the staff of the Cumbria Archives Centres in Barrow-in-Furness and Kendal. The project was managed by Dan Elsworth, who also carried out the desk-based assessment. The report was written by Dan Elsworth and Tom Mace, the latter of whom also produced the illustrations, and the report was edited by Jo Dawson.

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 4 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 1. Introduction 1.1 Circumstances of the Project 1.1.1 Prior to the submission of a planning application for a scheme of works for the development of the racecourse at Cartmel, Cumbria (NGR: 337673 478747) Greenlane Archaeology was commissioned by Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd (hereafter ‘the client’) to carry out an archaeological desk-based assessment for the affected areas. This was intended to establish at an early stage whether the areas were likely to have any known sites of archaeological interest within them or whether there was any potential for as yet unknown sites to be present. The work was originally carried out in August and September 2016 as part of an earlier proposal, which was amended to produce this report in April 2018. 1.1.2 Cartmel has at least medieval origins and was the site of a substantial priory, which was constructed in the late 12th century. The village developed around this following the Dissolution, but there are other structures associated with iron mining and smelting around the periphery of the village. Evidence for earlier activity is uncertain, although there is persistent evidence for a Roman presence, largely in the form of stray finds, as well as earlier activity. 1.1.3 The proposed redevelopment area (see Figure 1) is at the racecourse carpark, which is to be extended. The additional areas of parking are located immediately to the north side and curving around the south side of the existing car park. 1.2 Location, Geology, and Topography 1.2.1 The proposed extension to the racecourse carpark is to the west of Cartmel, at approximately 30m above sea level (Figure 1; Ordnance Survey 2011). The ‘exceptional’ and ‘largely unspoilt’ village of Cartmel, situated approximately 3.5km north-west of Grange-over-Sands to the south of the South Cumbria Low Fells on the northern side of Morecambe Bay (Countryside Commission 1998, 69; Ordnance Survey 2011), is now protected by Conservation Area status (Countryside Commission 1998, 73). 1.2.2 Cartmel lies on the junction of a complex series of solid geology comprising Bannisdale Slates of Silurian age and carboniferous limestone, covered by thick glacial debris, including deposits of cobbles, pebbles and sandy material (Mitchell 1990, 43; Moseley 1978, plate 1). The local topography is typically that of improved undulating pasture set between areas of limestone, and more locally to Cartmel, slate outcrops.

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 5 500m

338000 338000 Figure 1: Site location 0 © Crown Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. Licence number 100045169. © Crown Copyright 2011. 0 500m © Crown Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. Licence number 100045169. © Crown Copyright 2011. 479000

337000 proposed redevelopment area Key: 479000 Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd Ltd, April 2018 © Greenlane Archaeology Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Desk-Based Archaeological Cumbria: Cartmel, Racecourse, Cartmel Extension, Carpark Proposed 6 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 2. Methodology 2.1 Desk-Based Assessment 2.1.1 A desk-based assessment was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA 2014). The bulk of the information has been gleaned from earlier archaeological investigations carried out in Cartmel (Greenlane Archaeology 2011; 2012a; 2014a; 2014b; 2016). This principally comprised examination of early maps of the site and published secondary sources. A number of sources of information were used during the compilation of the desk-based assessment: • Cumbria Archive Centre, Barrow-in-Furness (CAC(B)): this was visited primarily in order to examine early maps of the site and other documentary sources, but published material such as local histories, were also consulted; • Cumbria Archive Centre, Kendal (CAC(K)): this was also visited primarily in order to examine early maps of the site, but other sources, both primary and secondary, were also consulted; • Cumbria Historic Environment Record (HER): this is a list of all the known sites of archaeological interest within the county, which is maintained by Cumbria County Council and is the primary source of information for an investigation of this kind. All of the known sites of archaeological interest within approximately 200m of the edge of the proposed development area were examined; each identified site comes with a grid reference, description and source, and any additional information which was referenced was also examined as necessary; • Greenlane Archaeology library: copies of the majority of the relevant maps and secondary sources are held by Greenlane Archaeology, and information on the historical and archaeological background to the site was taken from previous reports carried out in Cartmel by Greenlane Archaeology. 2.2 Site Visit 2.2.1 A rapid site visit was carried out on 9th September 2016. This was equivalent to a Level 1 survey as defined by English Heritage (English Heritage 2007). Photographs showing the general arrangement of the site were taken and notes made based on these. Any areas where there were constraints to further archaeological work were noted. 2.3 Archive 2.3.1 A comprehensive archive of the project has been produced in accordance with the project design, and current CIfA and English Heritage guidelines (Brown 2007; English Heritage 1991). The paper and digital archive and a copy of this report will be deposited in the Cumbria Record Office in Barrow-in-Furness following the completion of the project. A copy of this report will be provided for the client, and a copy will be retained by Greenlane Archaeology. In addition, at a suitable time a digital copy will be provided to the Historic Environment Record Officer at Cumbria County Council, and a record of the project will be made on the OASIS scheme.

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 7 3. Results 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 A total of 15 sites of archaeological interest are recorded within the study area in the Historic Environment Record (Figure 2); no additional sites were identified during the desk-based assessment and site visit (Appendix 1; summarised in Table 1 below). These range from prehistoric to post-medieval in date, although one is undated (Site 12). Some of the find spots are not accurately located so their significance to the study area is uncertain (e.g. Sites 5 and 6). Sites included in the gazetteer that relate to periods of the study area’s history are individually mentioned in the site history (see Section 4 below). Site No. Type Period Site No. Type Period 1 Deer park Medieval 9 House Post-medieval 2 Priory walls Medieval 10 Gatehouse Medieval 3 Priory (Augustinian) Medieval 11 Site of vintage Modern telephone box (now removed) 4 House Post-medieval 12 Well Unknown 5 Find spot (stone axe) Prehistoric 13 Barn Post-medieval 6 Find spot (bronze Bronze Age 14 Cross, obelisk, and Medieval axe) fish stones 7 House Post-medieval 15 House Post-medieval 8 House Post-medieval Table 1: Summary of sites of archaeological interest within the study area

3.2 Desk-Based Assessment 3.2.1 The results of the desk-based assessment have been used to produce two separate elements. Firstly, all sites of archaeological interest recorded within the study area were compiled into a gazetteer (Appendix 1). The gazetteer is used to assess the general type of historic landscape that makes up the study area, contribute to the compilation of the general history of the site (see Section 4) and, more importantly, identify sites that are likely to be affected by the proposed development. The significance of each of these sites and the degree to which they are likely to be affected is considered in Section 5. 3.2.2 The second purpose of the desk-based assessment is to produce a background history of the site. This is intended to cover all periods, in part to provide information that can be used to assess the potential of the site (particularly for the presence of remains that are otherwise not recorded in the study area), but more importantly to present the documented details of any sites that are known (see Section 4).

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 8 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment © Crown Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. Licence number 100045169.

2 479000

1 3a

3b 7 5, 6 9 10 4 3d 8 12 14 13 11 15

Key: proposed redevelopment area study area (200m buffer)

10 HER gazetter site 0 250m 338000 HER gazetteer site extent (if known)

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd Figure 2: Gazetteer site plan © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 9

3.3 Map Regression 3.3.1 Introduction: early maps of the area tend to be relatively lacking in detail, the earliest useful maps therefore date from the 19th century onwards. There is no tithe map as the area was not subject to tithe, having formerly belonged to Cartmel Priory, and the earliest detailed map is that which accompanied the enclosure award of 1807. 3.3.2 Enclosure map, 1807 (CAC(K) WPR 89 Z3 1807): this map shows a track running across the centre of the proposed carpark on a north-east/south-west alignment (Plate 1). The area of fields to this side of Cartmel is otherwise undeveloped.

Plate 1: Extract from the enclosure map of 1807 (CAC(K) WPR 89 Z3 1807) 3.3.3 Ordnance Survey, 1851: the area remains undeveloped on the 1851 edition of the Ordnance Survey mapping (Plate 2), although the route of the racecourse is marked, with a footpath cutting across it and through the north-east end of the proposed redevelopment area. 3.3.4 Ordnance Survey, 1890: the route of the race course had apparently been extended so that the area of the proposed carpark falls entirely inside it by the time the 1890 edition of the Ordnance Survey map was produced, which was surveyed in 1889 (Plate 3).

Plate 2 (left): Extracts from the Ordnance Survey maps of 1851 Plate 3 (right): Extracts from the Ordnance Survey maps of 1890

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 10 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 3.3.5 Ordnance Survey, 1913: a small pavilion had been built towards the north end of the race course centre by this time but the proposed redevelopment area has not changed greatly since the 1890 edition (Plate 4; cf. Plate 3). 3.3.5 Ordnance Survey, 1933: the race course has been extended to the north but the proposed redevelopment area is unchanged (cf. Plate 4).

Plate 4 (left): Extract from the Ordnance Survey map of 1913 Plate 5 (right): Extract from the Ordnance Survey map of 1933 3.3.7 Modern mapping: the central part of the area is now used as a carpark (Figure 1). This forms a ‘D’ shape across and to the south of the track north-east/south-west shown on the earlier maps.

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 11

4. Site History 4.1 Prehistoric Period (c11,000 BC – 1st century AD) 4.1.1 While there is limited evidence for activity in the county in the period immediately following the last Ice Age, this is typically found in the southernmost part on the north side of Morecambe Bay. Excavations of a small number of cave sites have found artefacts of Late Upper Palaeolithic type and the remains of animal species common at the time but now extinct in this country (Young 2002). The county was also clearly inhabited during the following period, the Mesolithic (c8,000 – 4,000 BC), as large numbers of artefacts of this date have been discovered during field walking and eroding from sand dunes along the coast, but these are typically concentrated in the west coast area and on the uplands around the Eden Valley (Cherry and Cherry 2002). Slightly closer to the site, however, a large number of finds of this date were discovered during excavations carried out in the 1970s in the park belonging to Levens Hall, and, although largely ignored at the time, they were subsequently published (Cherry and Cherry 2000). In addition, a small amount of Mesolithic material has been found at the north end of Windermere during excavations on the Roman fort site (see for example Finlayson 2004). These discoveries, particularly those at Levens, demonstrate that further remains of similar date are likely to exist in the local area and that river valleys, lakesides, and coastal areas are a common place for such remains to be discovered (Middleton et al 1995, 202; Hodgkinson et al 2000, 151-152). 4.1.2 In the following period, the Neolithic (c4,000 – 2,500 BC), large scale monuments such as burial mounds and stone circles begin to appear in the region and one of the most recognisable tool types of this period, the polished stone axe, is found in large numbers across the county, having been manufactured at Langdale (Hodgson and Brennand 2006, 45). During the Bronze Age (c2,500 – 600 BC) monuments, particularly those thought to be ceremonial in nature, become more common still, and it is likely that settlement sites thought to belong to the Iron Age have their origins in this period. These are not well represented in the area around the site, although an enclosure on Hoad Hill near Ulverston perhaps has its origins in this period (Elsworth 2005), as might another one at Skelmore Heads near Urswick, although this was also associated with evidence for activity in the Neolithic (Powell 1963). Stray finds of Bronze Age date are found throughout the county and a number have been found in the Cartmel area. These include a stone axe hammer, which was found in Cartmel before 1909 at an unknown location (the HER point is marked at Site 5). This is perhaps the same as one said to be at Aynsome, although the find spot of this was also not known (Rigge 1885, 266). A bronze axe with a very pronounced stop ridge was also found in a peat moss near Cartmel, but the find spot and current whereabouts of this find are unknown (Site 6; Clough 1969, 8). Sites that can be specifically dated to the Iron Age (c600 BC – 1st century AD) are very rare; the enclosures at Ulverston and Urswick may represent hillforts, a typical site of this period, but they have not been dated. Closer to the site, immediately to the east of Cartmel on Hampsfell, a group of over 50 structures identified as hut circles was reported in the late 19th century (Rigge 1885). No further details relating to these are known but it is possible that they represent the remains of a later prehistoric settlement or even a hillfort. At Levens, burials radiocarbon dated to the Iron Age have been discovered (OA North 2004), but these remain a rarity both regionally and nationally.

4.2 Romano-British to Early Medieval Period (1st century AD – 11th century AD) 4.2.1 Late 18th and 19th century antiquarians considered a Roman military presence in the Furness area, which included the Cartmel peninsula, beyond question, but by the 20th century there was a complete reversal of opinion (summarised in Elsworth 2007, 31-37). It is evident that in this part of the country, initially at least, the Roman invasion had a minimal impact on the native population in rural areas (Philpott 2006, 73-74), but ultimately the evidence suggests a strong Roman influence or “background” presence in the peninsula during the Roman period, which doubtless would have been attractive for its rich iron reserves (Shotter 1995, 74; Elsworth 2007, 37, 41-43). Traditionally, a Roman camp is thought to have been located in the meadow in front of the house at Fairfield (Stockdale 1872, 253; HER 2420; NGR 337910 478930), in an area known as ‘Castle Meadows’ (Stockdale 1872, 253), although at the present time there is scant evidence to support this theory (Castle Meadows is actually

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 12 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment marked some distance to the north on the Ordnance Survey map of 1851). That said, Stockdale recalls having the suspected agger [cambered embankment of a Roman road] of this castellum [small fort] pointed out to him by an acquaintance (Stockdale 1872, 253). The site was held to stretch along the side of the River Eea, “It was then not very traceable, but he said it had been levelled down and much of it taken away” (ibid.). Elsewhere, in Stockdale’s unpublished manuscript notes, it is recalled that an ‘oblong (parallelogram) mound in the meadows at Cartmel called Castle Meadows exactly in the shape of a Roman Camp – [was] destroyed partly by the encroachment of [the] River – the formation of the present road and cheefly [sic] by Mr Fell when he was building his house [at Fairfield] and improving his meadow’ (CAC(B) DDHJ/4/2/1/8 1860s-1872). Unfortunately, the location of “Castle Meadows” is now slightly ambiguous; the extent of the Scheduled Monument area would suggest that the fort lay to the west of the River in front of Fairfield (Site 3a), which corresponds with Stockdale’s recollection, whereas Mitchell identifies the field north of the east end of the Priory wall to The Beck as Castle Meadows (Mitchell 1990, figure 1). The issue is clouded somewhat by Stockdale who implies that both fields may have been called “Castle Meadows” (Stockdale 1872, 253), potentially owing to the former location of the fort thereabouts, while the first edition of the Ordnance Survey labels a large general area to the north- east of Fairfield as ‘Castle Meadows’ (Ordnance 1851; HER 2399; NGR 338050 479150). The will of Thomas Fell of Fairfield, written in 1838 but proved in 1840, states that his house had “three fields adjoining” but does not give their name (CAC(B) BDKF/1/22 1840), while a later account states that Castle Meadows was “a field on the right has side of the road which goes up to Green Bank from Cartmel” (Women’s Institute Cartmel Branch 1928, 2). 4.2.2 A coin of Constantine I, Roman Emperor from AD 306-337, was found in Cartmel, but the exact location is unknown; a general location for the find spot is recorded on the HER (HER 18949, NGR 338000 479000). The HER lists it as a silver coin but both references describe it as a copper alloy, such as bronze (Shotter 1986, 257; 1989, 43). Various other Roman coins and hoards of Roman coins have been found in or around Cartmel (e.g. HER 2402, 19086, and 19097), dating from the first to the fourth centuries AD (Shotter 1988, 241; Shotter 1989). The exact find spots for these are unknown, but their presence perhaps points to the contemporary importance of the south Cumbrian coast and its integration into the economy of the Roman north-west and its links to other Roman centres such as Lancaster and Ravenglass (Shotter 1995). Further Roman sites may yet be discovered in the areas of Barrow and Cartmel, but firm evidence for a Roman military presence remains elusive (Shotter 1995, 77; 2004, 67). A recent evaluation at Fairfield (Greenlane Archaeology 2011) recovered three sherds of what may be Roman pottery from a road surface, but these were not dated with certainty and may be medieval. 4.2.3 The Historia de Sancto Cuthberto records that Cartmel was granted to St Cuthbert in the 670s or 680s AD through an agreement made with the local British community, and it is clear from place-name evidence that native British population survived in the area into the post-Roman period and perhaps as late as the 10th century (Edmonds 2013, 20-21). Other place-names denote the presence of Viking settlers, with an unusual example being Hesketh Wood (HER 5559), to the east of the main part of the village, which perhaps indicates the existence of a Viking 'racecourse', the element Hesketh being derived from the Old Norse 'hestre', a horse, and 'skieo', which implies a track or course. The Domesday Book of 1086 calls Cartmel “Cherchebi”, deriving from the Old English for church, rather than the Norse form “kirk”, which implies that a Northumbrian church existed on the site ahead of the Conquest, at which time it belonged to one Duann (Crowe 1984, 61, 65). The earliest forms of the place-name ‘Cartmel’, which are recorded from the 12th century, probably derive from the Old English “ceart” and “mel” from the Old Norse word “melr” (Crowe 1984, 61) and broadly mean “sand bank by rocky ground” (Dickinson 1991, 9).

4.3 Medieval Period (11th century AD – 16th century AD) 4.3.1 That a parish church existed in Cartmel before the establishment of the Priory is attested in records of Furness Abbey, which name one ‘Willelmus, clericus de Kertmel’ c1135 and by ‘Uccheman, persona de Chertmel’ c1155 (Curwen 1920, 107). By 1168 the parish of Cartmel was a royal estate and in 1186 it was granted to the Marshall family, the Earls of Pembroke, by Henry II (Crowe 1984, 65). Much of the present village of Cartmel lies within the precinct of the Priory (Site 3), which was founded with the legal permission of the future King John (who was at the time Count of Mortain) between August 1190

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 13 and 1196 by William Marshall, a wealthy and important Norman baron and Earl of Pembroke from 1189 to 1219, although the monastery may not have been established until 1202 (Dickinson 1980, 98; 1991, 10-11). The charter endowed the Priory “all my land of Cartmel” and a list of rights and privileges, which unusually included rights to iron mines (Dickinson 1980, 97; 1991, 10-11). 4.3.2 Unfortunately, it is not possible to get a detailed view of the possessions acquired by the Priory due to the loss of its archives, although it evidently received a number of further grants in the 13th and 14th century and eventually acquired a number of comparatively large farms (Dickinson 1991, 14-19). Its ecclesiastical wealth was valued at £46. 13s. 4d. in 1291 in the Taxation of Pope Nicholas (Dickinson 1980, 15). However, like much of the north of England, it was subject to raids by the Scots throughout the 14th century (Dickinson 1991, 29-30); the raids of 1316 and 1322 ‘wrought immense damage in the area’ and on the latter occasion the Lanercost Chronicle records that the Scottish raiders “burnt the lands around the priory… and took away cattle and booty” (Dickinson 1980, 13). The Priory was also affected by the Black Death, which may explain why, probably like many English monasteries, it is recorded as having fewer brethren than normal in 1381 (Dickinson 1980, 16). The defensive potential of the priory should not be overlooked (Hyde and Pevsner 2010, 268); the main priory gatehouse (Site 10) leading into the precinct was built between 1330 and 1340 and land surrounding the Priory was also enclosed by a precinct wall during the 14th century (Curwen 1920, 111; Site 2). The gatehouse is the only remaining building associated with Cartmel Priory, although vestiges of other buildings are incorporated in later structures (e.g. HER 5310, 5311, 5312, 5313, and 5320 outside the study area elsewhere in Cartmel). Elements of the precinct wall evidently survived in reasonable condition into the early 19th century; Baines describes it as running west from the gatehouse, before running north past Fairfield where ‘about one hundred yards of the wall exist of rough ragcoble [sic] stone’ before it turned east then south-east (Baines 1836, 725). What is probably the earliest plan delineating the presumed and known elements of the priory and its precinct wall, produced by Ffoliott in 1854, is of interest as it seems to have been used as the basis for determining the position of these features in subsequent accounts (e.g. Dickinson 1981, 83), although the manner in which these structures were positively identified is uncertain. 4.3.4 In 1390 a papal mandate to the archbishop of York ordered an investigation of the prior of Cartmel, William, accused of simony in admitting canons to profession and of ‘too frequent visits to taverns’, to the extent that the monastery was falling into disrepair (Dickinson 1980, 13). This may have been the catalyst for a period of reputedly much needed reconstruction and restoration of the Priory, possibly begun in the final years of the 14th century (ibid., 19); Hyde and Pevsner state, somewhat enigmatically, that ‘something drastic [emphasis added] made it necessary for the canons to rebuild their monastic precinct on the [north] side’ in approximately the mid-15th century (Hyde and Pevsner 2010, 267) and the surrounding lofty precinct wall is also suggested to have been largely rebuilt and partly re- sited in the 15th century (Dickinson 1980, 18). It has elsewhere been suggested that rebuilding was needed as a result of the devastation wrought by the Scottish raids, which perhaps burnt the Priory buildings to the ground (Curwen 1920, 111-112), or else the relocation of the cloistral buildings became necessary out of consideration for the underlying geological properties of the respective sides of the church (Mitchell 1990, 45-46). 4.3.5 The small field to the north side of Priest Lane (immediately to the north of the Priory Church) is called “farmery” field, which Dickinson interprets as a reference to the old word for infirmary, which in this case would have provided treatment for the sick and infirm brethren (Dickinson 1980, 21; 1991,109). Another suggestion for the origins of its name is that it derived from being near the Monastic Dairy (Women’s Institute Cartmel Branch 1928, 2). In either case, its layout can allegedly be determined from aerial photographs, which show that its main structure, most likely a large hall, with twin aisles and an open area at one end, ran north/south and it had a subsidiary block on its eastern side (Dickinson 1991, 109). The walling of the monastic precinct continues to the east and the area to the north, towards the beck, is low-lying and prone to flooding (Dickinson 1991, 109-110). The land between Farmery field and the beck to the west may have been gardens and orchards with fields to the north (Dickinson 1980, 21). The field immediately to the south-east of Fairfield Lodge formed part of the priory's outer court, which would have housed the agricultural and industrial buildings essential to the priory's economy, which potentially included barns, granaries, brew house, bake house, guesthouse, wool house, swine house,

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 14 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment stables, mills, dovecots, tannery, and blacksmiths etcetera, and nowadays forms part of the Scheduled Monument area associated with the Priory (Scheduled Monument Number: 34796). 4.3.6 The value of the site of the Priory appears greatly diminished by 1535 when it was valued at £8. 16s. 8d. in a survey of English ecclesiastical revenue, the so-called Valor Ecclesiasticus, although it still received rents and similar income estimated at £91. 6s. 3d. net (Dickinson 1980, 15-16). Besides, Frith Hall grange was erected in the 16th century on the Leven Estuary where the Priory held fishing rights (Dickinson 1991, 16-17) and the valuation was raised to £212. 12s. 10½d., following protests by the priory that it had been undervalued, perhaps to avoid falling foul of the Act for the Suppression of the smaller English monasteries of 1536 (Curwen 1920, 113-114; Dickinson 1980, 21-22). It was to no avail - the Act for the Suppression of the smaller English monasteries of 1536 began the Dissolution of the monasteries, which, despite violent protest, led to the Priory being dissolved between 1536-7 (Curwen 1920, 113-114; Dickinson 1980, 21-22; Wild and Howard-Davis 1999, 31); however, following the unusual decision ordered by Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy that it should ‘stand still’ as it served a parochial as well as monastic purpose, the Priory church was preserved as being the only place of worship available for its parishioners (Curwen 1920, 114; Dickinson 1980, 24). After the Dissolution the Priory’s assets became Crown property and ultimately became part of the Holker Hall Estate (Dickinson 1991, 40), some of which now forms part of the Scheduled Monument area associated with the Priory (Site 3). 4.3.7 The HER records additional medieval sites within the study area, including a deer park (Site 1) that used to occupy the area of the modern racecourse and Cartmel Park and Cartmel Wood to the west of the village, and the Cross, obelisk, and fish stones located in the Square (Site 14). A set of stocks was located at the main entrance to the churchyard, approximately 120m to the east of the Cross, but no trace now remains (HER 2340). Additional medieval sites outside the current study area but located nearby include the pedestal for the Headless Cross (HER 16123), approximately 270m to the south-east of the current study area, and find spots for a 15th century silver signet ring (HER 42346) and part of a 12th century scabbard (HER 42344), found to the east and south sides of Cartmel respectively. The mining remains recorded in Hesketh Wood (HER 44070), to the south-east of Cartmel, are potentially medieval although they have not been investigated in detail and this has not been established, while the bloomery site at Cark Shaws (HER 2405), which is outside the area to the south, probably had at least medieval origins, although it continued in use for some time.

4.4 Post-medieval Period (16th century AD – present) 4.4.1 By the early 17th century the Preston family, then at Holker, owned much of the land formerly owned by the Priory, and the church was further improved and refurbished under their benefaction (Curwen 1920, 115; Dickinson 1980, 25). Cromwellian soldiers stayed in the village on 1st October 1643, stabling their horses in the church after a minor battle in Furness (Dickinson 1985, 115). In 1660 came the re-establishment of Anglicanism and the church bells were re-cast in 1661 (Dickinson 1980, 25). Being on the edge of the core of the village the proposed development area is less obviously connected to the post-Dissolution of the priory. It is, however, in proximity to a number of areas connected to iron mining and smelting, some of which at least seems to have continued in use into the post-medieval period. In general though, this is considered to have been a period of decline compared to the rapid development of the industry that took place at the beginning of the 18th century (Moseley 2010, 59-60). 4.4.2 The HER records several post-medieval sites of interest within the study area (some of which are no longer extant), including several Listed Buildings (Sites 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 15). Additional post- medieval sites of interest in Cartmel include a former smithy (HER 16119), a cattle pound (HER 16120), Meeting House (HER 43251), limekiln (HER 16118), quarry (HER 16117), and the stone cross (HER 2406). A modern cast iron and wood constructed telephone call box, located near The Square, was previously Listed Grade II (Site 11), but it was delisted in 1994 and has since been removed. A circular well (Site 12) of unknown date is also recorded on the HER, which was uncovered below the floor of an 18th century building on The Square, but it is said not to have appeared medieval. Post-medieval find spots recorded include a large 'face jug' of the Bellarmine type (or Bartmann jug), which was dug up in the garden of May Cottage, Cartmel, in the early 1960s (HER 17755; Marsh 1980).

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 15 4.5 Previous Archaeological Work 4.5.1 A large number of previous pieces of archaeological work have been carried out within the study area and nearby, mostly within the core of Cartmel itself (Figure 3), including: • the excavation of a 29.6m pipe trench in “Farmery Field” in 1983, which may have formed part of the lay cemetery possibly in use until the mid-15th century (Wilson and Clare 1990; Dickinson 1980, 21); • an archaeological evaluation carried out at Priory Gardens in April 1998 and the subsequent targeted excavation, carried out in August and September of the same year, which revealed significant evidence of probably monastic activity at the site during the medieval period as well as post-monastic features dating to the late post-medieval and modern usage of the site (LUAU 1998a; 1998b; Wild and Howard-Davis 1999, 31-32; 2000, 163, 177; summarised in Greenlane Archaeology 2012a). A further watching brief at the site recorded industrial residue relating to medieval ironworking or smithing that further suggests that a bloomery operated on the site within what would have been the outer court of the medieval priory (Greenlane Archaeology 2015a); • surface finds of post-medieval pot and residual human bone found in the topsoil during the excavation of a foundation within the graveyard for underpinning St Mary's Lodge in 2002, but no other finds or features were recorded (Note with HER No. 2403); • a Conservation Plan, which included a laser scanning survey and a public opinion survey, carried out in 2003 for the future management and preservation of the 14th century Priory Gatehouse and attached late-17th or early-18th century Gatehouse Cottage (NAA 2004a; 2004b; 2004c; 2004d); • an appraisal of the internal architectural features of the Grade II Listed Parkside House, formerly an alehouse known as The Nags Head and built in 1658 (JCA 2006); • a photographic record of the Ford House Barns was produced in 2007 (JCA 2007); • excavation of trial trenches at Unsworth’s Yard, Devonshire Square, in June 2007, which revealed a number of post-medieval features, including a possible wall and an irregular cobbled surface, possibly a small enclosed yard or ephemeral garden structure, sewerage pipes, field drains, and rubbish pits (NPA 2007); • building recordings at Bluebell House and the Kings Arms (Greenlane Archaeology 2012b; 2012c), both of which were essentially domestic properties primarily of 17th or 18th century date; • an archaeological evaluation and watching brief carried out at Fairfield (Greenlane Archaeology 2011; 2014a). Fragments of at least medieval or potentially Roman pottery were recovered from deposits making up a ‘road’ surface orientated north/south, but due to their much-abraded condition it was not possible to date them with any certainty; • an archaeological building recording was carried out at Park House in 2012. This revealed that this was part of a much larger building that contained a cruck truss but was mostly of 18th century date (Neil Archaeological Services 2012); • an archaeological building recording was carried out at 5 Park View in 2013. This revealed that while the majority of the building is probably 18th century and later in date, this fabric was seemingly built around a very tall thick wall that ran through the centre of the building and may represent the line of the former priory precinct (Greenlane Archaeology 2013a); • an archaeological building recording was carried out at Priory Close in 2013. This revealed that elements of the building probably comprise parts of the inner court of the medieval prior, which were subsequently reused in later buildings and hidden behind largely Georgian facades (Greenlane Archaeology 2013b); • a desk-based assessment and archaeological evaluation was undertaken within part of the area of the Scheduled Monument relating to Cartmel Priory (Abacus Archaeology nd; 2012). The evaluation discovered a number of finds and features of medieval and post-medieval date,

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 16 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment including human burials, which were already known to exist in this area (see first bullet point in this list); • an archaeological building recording was carried out of a former agricultural building at Ford Byre, of which only part remains although this had evidence for various alterations and had seemingly been at least partially used as a slaughterhouse at one time (Greenlane Archaeology 2015b).

Lych Gate

Area1 1

30.8m 26 e of) all (cours P riory W r ive R a E e 7, 8 479000

Fairfield (GA 2011; 2014a)

Springs

Fairfield Lodge 51

l l

y r

o i r Cartmel

Stables 9

s r

u o Vicarage 11 C

e c Area2 2 a R 10a3a

30.7m Wheelhouse Land adjacent to Bridge Cartmel Priory Wheelhouse 10c3c (AA nd; 2012) C hestn Priory Gardens ut C P ottage R IE Anvil S T L Brook (LUAU 1998a; 1998b; ANE House y m Ho 5 Park View WildS and Howard-Davis 1999; 2000; (GA 2013a)

P GA 2012a; 2015d) a

1 r 2

k P O Nursery

V i e Church Green w Prioryri 12 T Site of View Croft

E 10b3b Houseou 4 E The Old 1 FB R Priory T S FBF Coach (Augustinian) H S I House 3 D Farmery Field P R IE S T N L ANE Parkside House E V A (see Wilson and Clare 1990) C Pepper (JCA1 2006) Cavendish Abbotsbeck 13 Tithe Barn Arms Bridge Priory Gatehouse buildings House H 177 (Inn) a 15, 16 e NAA 2004a; 2004b; z Park House Waterside Priory Cottage Close Priory Church 2004c; 2004d Y (NAS 2012) 199 of St Mary e C Park 10d3d Priory Church w Priory Close o

t T t House 2 P ri of St Mary a 9 ory g e .

5 2010 Ho (GA 2013b) 144 m818 tel

Eacott The 1222 Larch Tree TCB2111 Field Cross King’s Arms (GA 2012c) 25 Beck Fish THE C hurch Bridge 29.7m Pp 2414 Stone SQUARE Kings G atehouse Arms 2313 (PH) 478750 Bluebell House (GA 2012b) Troy's Bank

Barn Court A

F R ORD 2615 N Town R O Laburnum Cott AD Hall FordClose House

W G a A y Barns (JCA 2007) Ford s i R d T Unsworth’se 30.4m Yard House H (NPA 2007) Cross Garth House L Royal Ford Byre (GA 2015b) St Mary’s Lodge

Key: 0 100m previous archaeological work study area (200m buffer) 338000 8 HER gazetter site HER gazetteer site extent (if known) Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd Figure 3: Previous archaeological work © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Oxford Archaeology Archaeology 2005 18 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 4.6 Site Visit 4.6.1 A rapid site visit was carried out. The site comprises an area of relatively level hard standing and grass adjoining the current carpark, which comprises a tarmac surface surrounded by metal fencing (Plate 6 and Plate 7).

Plate 6 (left): Area of hard standing within the area of the proposed extension carpark extension, viewed from the west Plate 7 (right): Area of hard standing within the area of the proposed carpark extension adjoining the existing carpark, viewed from the east 4.7 Conclusion 4.7.1 The enclosure map of 1807 shows that the site was undeveloped apart from a track which cut across it from the south-west to the north-east. The route of the race course is marked on the 1851 edition of the Ordnance Survey mapping and a footpath is showing crossing the area. The route of the racecourse has changed since then to form a bigger loop but the area of the proposed carpark extension did not change until some point after 1933. More recently much of the area has already been occupied by an area of hardstanding in use as a carpark. 4.7.2 Archaeological remains in Cartmel record activity from at least the Roman period but are dominated by finds relating to the medieval priory, the history of which has had a significant impact on the local area. 4.7.3 The site visit did not reveal any additional sites of archaeological interest or any constraints to further archaeological work. However, it is likely that the creation of the existing area of hardstanding within the area of the proposed extension to the carpark would have required some ground reduction, which may have had an impact on any archaeological remains that might be present.

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 19

5. Discussion 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 The discussion of the results of the desk-based assessment is intended to determine the archaeological significance and potential of any known remains (above or below ground) located within the proposed development area and the potential for any as yet unidentified remains being present. It also assesses the likely impact on any significant remains within the study, principally standing buildings. The system used to judge the significance of the remains identified within the development area, or those thought to have the potential to be present within the development area, is based on the criteria used to define Scheduled Monuments (DoE 1990, Annex 4; Appendix 2). Of the 15 sites identified within the study area, only the medieval deer park (Site 1) is situated within the proposed redevelopment area and is therefore likely to be affected by subsequent groundworks. The exact location of the find spots, Sites 5 and 6, are not accurately located so these have not been considered in Section 5.2 but are considered in Section 5.3 below.

5.2 Significance 5.2.1 The medieval deer park (Site 1) is not statutorily protected. Its level of significance is categorised, according to each criterion, as high, medium, or low, and an average of these has been used to produce an overall level of significance for each site (see Table 2 below: H=high, M=medium, L=low). As can be seen in Table 2, it is considered to be of low significance. It is also worth noting that the proposed development area is entirely within the circuit of the extant racecourse, which is of at least early-19th century date but not recorded in the Historic Environment Record. Its archaeological significance is also considered to be low. Site 1 Period M Rarity L Documentation M Group value M Survival/condition L Fragility/Vulnerability L Diversity L Potential L Significance L Table 2: Significance of known sites within the proposed development area 5.2.2 Within the wider study area there are number of statutorily protected extant buildings and two Scheduled Monuments that are included in the Historic Environment Record, although there are several other Grade II Listed Buildings within the study area. Those recorded in the HER and listed in the gazetteer (Appendix 1) are summarised in Table 3 below. Of these Scheduled Monuments are considered to be of national significance as are Grade I buildings, Grade II* Listed Buildings are of regional significance, and Grade II Listed Buildings of local significance. Only Sites 7 and 8 are in immediate proximity to the proposed development area, but the low-level nature of the development and the number of intervening structures and vegetation mean that any impact on the setting would be very minimal.

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 20 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Site Name Designation 3 Elements of Cartmel Priory Scheduled Monument; Priory church Listed Grade I 4 Priory Close House Listed Grade II* 7 Parkside House Listed Grade II 8 Park House Listed Grade II 10 Cartmel Priory gatehouse Schedule Monument, Listed Grade II* 14 Cross, obelisk and fish stones Listed Grade II 15 House Listed Grade II Table 3: Statutorily protected sites within the study area

5.3 Potential for Unknown Archaeological Remains 5.3.1 The likelihood of as yet unidentified archaeological remains being present is based on the known occurrence of such remains within the proposed development area and elsewhere in the study area and local environs (see Section 4). Where there are no remains known within the study area the potential is based on the known occurrence within the wider local area. The degree of potential is examined by period and the results are presented in Table 4 below; in each case the level of potential is expressed as low, medium, or high. Period Present in study area? Potential Late Upper Palaeolithic No Low Mesolithic No Low Neolithic Yes Low Bronze Age Yes Low Iron Age No Low Roman No Low Early Medieval No Low Medieval Yes Medium Post-medieval Yes High Table 4: Degree of potential for unknown archaeological remains by period 5.3.2 In consideration of Table 4 it is worth noting that while there are a number of stray finds, including coins of Roman date from the locality of Cartmel, as well as stray prehistoric (Site 5) and Bronze Age (Site 6) finds, none of these are accurately located and some could have come from within the study area. The likelihood of remains of this date being discovered within the proposed development area remains low, however. Medieval and post-medieval finds and sites are known from within the study area, and these remain the most likely thing to be present within the proposed development site.

5.4 Disturbance 5.4.1 The proposed area of the extension to the carpark has been partially covered by areas of hardstanding and this will probably have damaged any buried archaeological remains. Any areas of the proposal which are within the existing carpark will have almost certainly have seen some disturbance.

5.5 Impact 5.5.1 The creation of an extension to the existing carpark is likely to have an impact on any archaeological remains that might be present, although this would not necessarily be very severe as deep excavation would presumably not be required. Changes within the existing carpark would probably be less severe, although in both cases the addition of features requiring power and work relating to drainage would presumably necessitate the excavation of service trenches.

5.6 Conclusion 5.6.1 There is considerable evidence for remains of archaeological significance in and around Cartmel, but while the proposed development area is close to a number of areas of potential archaeological interest these are inevitably concentrated within the village itself. The area was largely undeveloped until

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 21 the creation of the racecourse in the early 19th century, so any archaeological remains that are present are likely to be relatively well-preserved, but as there is little evidence for anything of significance within the area itself there is likely to be minimal risk. The development of the existing carpark and adjoining area of hardstanding also means that any archaeological deposits or finds that might have been present are likely to have already been disturbed.

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 22 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 6. Bibliography 6.1 Primary and Cartographic Sources CAC(B) BDKF/1/22 1840 Will, Thomas of Fairfield, near Cartmel church, Cartmel, Gentleman CAC(B) DDHJ/4/2/1/8, 1860s-1872 Cartmel: Coins and Urns Found in Cartmel Parish CAC(K) WPR 89 Z3, 1807 Plan of Ancient Inclosures in the Division of Upper Holker and Part of the Allotments Within the Parish of Cartmel Ordnance Survey, 1851 Lancashire Sheet 17, 1:10,560, surveyed in 1847-1848, contoured in 1850 Ordnance Survey, 1890 Lancashire Sheet 17.3, 1:2,500, surveyed in 1889 Ordnance Survey, 1913 Lancashire Sheet 17.3, 1:2,500, revised in 1910 Ordnance Survey, 1933 Lancashire Sheet 17.3, 1:2,500, revised in 1932 Ordnance Survey, 2011 The English Lakes South-Eastern Area: Windermere, Kendal and Silverdale, OL7, 1:25,000 6.2 Secondary Sources Abacus Archaeology (AA), nd Land Adjacent to Cartmel Priory, Cartmel, Cumbria: Desk-Based Assessment, unpubl rep AA, 2012 Land Adjacent to Cartmel Priory, Cartmel, Cumbria: Site Evaluation, unpubl rep Anon, 1929 Proceedings, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 29, 316-338 Baines, E, 1836 History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster, 4, London Brown, DH, 2007 Archaeological Archives: A Guide to Best Practice in Creation, Compilation, Transfer, and Curation, IfA, Reading Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA), 2014 Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment, revised edn, Reading Cherry, PJ, and Cherry, J, 2000 A Late Mesolithic Assemblage from Levens Park, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 100, 25-32 Cherry, PJ, and Cherry, J, 2002 Coastline and Upland in Cumbrian Prehistory – A Retrospective, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 3rd ser, 2, 1-20 Clare, T, 1980 Archaeological Sites of the Lake District, Ashbourne Clough, THM, 1969 Bronze Age metalwork from Cumbria, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 69, 1-39 Countryside Commission, 1998 Countryside Character, Volume 2: North West, Cheltenham Crowe, CJ, 1984 Cartmel, The Earliest Christian Community, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 84, 61-66 Curwen, JF, 1920 Cartmel Priory Church, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 20, 106-116 Department of the Environment (DoE), 1990 Planning Policy Guidance: Archaeology and Planning, PPG16 Dickinson, JC, 1980 The Land of Cartmel, Kendal Dickinson, JC, 1985 The Harrington Tomb at Cartmel Priory Church, Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 85, 115-122 Dickinson, JC, 1991 The Priory of Cartmel, Milnthorpe

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 23 Edmonds, F, 2013 The Furness Peninsula and the Irish Sea Region: Cultural Interactions from the Seventh Century to the Twelfth, in C Downham (ed), Jocelin of Furness: Essays from the 2011 Conference, Donnington, 17-44 Elsworth, DW, 2005 Hoad, Ulverston, Cumbria: Archaeological Landscape Investigation, unpubl rep Elsworth, D, 2007 The “Streetgate” at Conishead, the “Castellum” at Dalton, and Roman Furness, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 3rd ser, 7, 31-48 English Heritage, 1991 The Management of Archaeological Projects, 2nd edn, London English Heritage, 2007 Understanding of Archaeology of Landscapes A Guide to Good Recording Practices, Swindon Ffoliott, W, 1854 Cartmel Parish and Parish Church, London Finlayson, B, 2004 Chipped Stone, in D Drury and A Dunwell, Excavation and Watching Briefs at Borrans Road, Ambleside 1990-93, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 3rd ser, 4, 95 Greenlane Archaeology (GA), 2011 Fairfield, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Evaluation, upubl rep GA, 2012a Priory Gardens, Priest Lane, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, upubl rep GA, 2012b Bluebell House, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Building Recording, upubl rep GA, 2012c King’s Arms, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Building Recording, upubl rep GA, 2013a 5 Park View, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Building Recording, unpubl rep GA, 2013b Priory Close, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Building Recording, unpubl rep GA, 2014a Fairfield, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Watching Brief, unpubl rep GA, 2014b Land at Pit Farm, Haggs Lane, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, unpubl rep GA, 2015a Priory Gardens, Priest Lane, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Watching Brief, unpubl rep GA, 2015b Ford Byre, the Square, Cartmel: Archaeological Building Recording, unpubl rep GA, 2016 Land off Haggs Lane, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, unpubl rep Hodgkinson, D, Huckerby, E, Middleton, R, and Wells, CE, 2000 The Lowland Wetlands of Cumbria, North West Wetlands Survey 6, Lancaster Imprints 8, Lancaster Hodgson, J, and Brennand, M, 2006 The Prehistoric Period Resource Assessment, in M Brennand (ed) The Archaeology of North West England: An Archaeological Research Framework for the North West Region, Volume 1: Resource Assessment, Manchester, 23-58 Hyde, M, and Pevsner, N, 2010 The Buildings of England Cumbria: Cumberland, Westmorland, and Furness, London John Coward Architects (JCA), 2006 Parkside House, Cartmel: Conservation Appraisal, upubl rep JCA, 2007 Photographic Record of Existing Buildings: Ford House Barns, Cartmel, Cumbria, unpubl rep Lancaster University Archaeological Unit (LUAU), 1998a Priory Gardens, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Evaluation, unpubl rep LUAU, 1998b Priory Gardens, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Excavation, unpubl rep Marsh, J, 1980 A Bellarmine Jug from Cartmel, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 80, 163-4 Middleton, R, Wells, CE, and Huckerby, E, 1995 The Wetlands of North Lancashire, North West Wetlands Survey 3, Lancaster Imprints 4, Lancaster

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 24 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Mitchell, M, 1990 Lake Cartmel – A Post-Glacial Lake and its Probable Effect on the Buildings at Cartmel Priory, The Amateur Geologist, 13:2, 43-49 Moseley, F (ed), 1978 The Geology of the Lake District, Yorkshire Geological Society, occ publ 3, Leeds Moseley, M, 2010 The Metalliferous Mines of Cartmel and South Lonsdale, British Mining, 89, Nelson Neil Archaeological Services (NAS), 2012 Park House, Park View, Cartmel, South Lakeland District, Cumbria: Heritage Statement, unpubl rep North Pennines Archaeology (NPA), 2007 Archaeological Desk Based Assessment and Evaluation at Unsworth’s Yard, Devonshire Square, Cartmel, Cumbria, unpubl rep Northern Archaeological Associates (NAA), 2004a The Priory Gatehouse Buildings, Cartmel, Cumbria: Conservation Plan Phase I – Understanding the Site, Volume I Main Report, unpubl rep NAA, 2004b The Priory Gatehouse Buildings, Cartmel, Cumbria: Conservation Plan Phase I – Understanding the Site, Volume II Figures and Plates, unpubl rep NAA, 2004c The Priory Gatehouse Buildings, Cartmel, Cumbria: Conservation Plan Phase II – Statement of Significance, unpubl rep NAA, 2004d The Priory Gatehouse Buildings, Cartmel, Cumbria: Conservation Plan Phase III – Conservation Policies, unpubl rep Oxford Archaeology North (OA North), 2004 7 Nelson Square, Levens: Excavation Assessment Report, unpubl rep Philpott, R, 2006 The Romano-British Period Resource Assessment, in Brennand, M, (ed) The Archaeology of North West England: An Archaeological Research Framework for the North West Region – Volume 1, Resource Assessment, Archaeology North West 8, Manchester, 59-90 Powell, TGE, 1963 Excavations at Skelmore Heads near Ulverston, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 63, 1-27 Rigge, HF, 1885 The Name of Cartmel, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 1st ser, 8, 263-266 Shotter, D, 1986 Numismatic Notes from Cumbria, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 86, 255-257 Shotter, D, 1988 Roman Coin finds from Cumbria, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 88, 240-241 Shotter, D, 1989 Roman Coin-finds in Cumbria, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 89, 41-50 Shotter, D, 1995 Romans in South Cumbria, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 95, 73-77 Shotter, D, 2004 Romans and Britons in North-West England, Lancaster Stockdale, J, 1872 Annales Caermoelenses or Annals of Cartmel, Ulverston Wild, C, and Howard-Davies, C, 1999 Excavations at Priory Gardens, Cartmel, Cumbria, Archaeology North, 15, 31-34 Wild, C, and Howard-Davies, C, 2000 Excavations at Priory Gardens, Cartmel, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Arch Soc, 2nd ser, 100, 161-180 Wilson, PR, and Clare, T, 1990 Farmery Field, Cartmel, Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, 2nd ser, 90, 195-198 Women’s Institute Cartmel Branch, The, 1928 Notes on Old Cartmel and the Valley, Ulverston (1980 facsimile)

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 25 Young, R, 2002 The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Periods in Northern England: An Overview, in Brooks, C, Daniels, R, and Harding, A, (ed), Past, Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England, Architect Archaeol Soc Durham Northumberland, res rep 5, 19-36

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 26 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

Appendix 1: Site Gazetteer

Site Number: 1 NGR: SD 37300 78500 HER No: 43700 Sources: Cumbria Historic Landscape Characterisation Project Designation: none Site Type: deer park Description: site of a deer park, documented in 1770. Period: medieval

Site Number: 2 NGR: SD 37970 79030 HER No: 16121 Sources: Ordnance Survey 1851; Ordnance Survey 1913 Designation: none Site Type: priory wall Description: Cartmel priory walls; elements of the precinct wall survived in reasonable condition into the early 19th century. Baines (1936) described it as running west from the gatehouse (Site 10), turning north past Fairfield (SD 3783 7899) for a hundred yards, then turning east and south-east. Period: medieval

Site Number: 3 NGR: 337910 478830 HER No: 2403 Sources: HER; Baines 1836; Hyde and Pevsner 2010; Anon 1929, 329-330; Dickinson 1980; 1985; 1991; LUAU 1998a; 1998b; Stockdale 1872; Wild and Howard-Davis 1999; 2000; Wilson and Clare 1990 Designation: Listed Building (Priory Church: Grade I); Scheduled Monument Site Type: Priory (Augustinian) Description: an Augustinian Priory was founded at Cartmel around the year 1190 by William Marshall, later to become Earl of Pembroke and Regent of England and, though never particularly wealthy, developed over the course of the next three and a half centuries into a complex of some size and complexity. The first monks came from Bradenstoke Priory in Wiltshire and were Canons Regular of the Order of St Augustine. Major rebuilding took place during the 14th century. This included removal of the cloisters and refectory from the south side of the priory to the north, construction of the main priory gatehouse leading into the precinct between 1330-40, and the enclosure of land surrounding the priory by a precinct wall. The so-called ‘Harrington Tomb’, an elaborate chantry chapel commemorating Lord John Harrington (d. 1347), probably dates from this period (Dickinson 1985). During the dissolution the church was spared in its entirety since it also served as the parish church. In 1537 the priory was dissolved. The only other remaining building associated with the priory is the Grade II* Listed gatehouse, which is also Scheduled (Site 10), and vestiges of other buildings are incorporated in later structures. The gatehouse is situated on the north side of the village square at the south end of Cavendish Street. Period: medieval

Site Number: 4 NGR: SD 37930 78790 HER No: 24264 [part of Group Number 2403] Sources: HER Designation: Listed Building Site Type: house

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 27 Description: Priory Close House, situated in the courtyard facing the west end of Cartmel Priory, is a two-storey stone and roughcast Listed Grade II* building of the 15th to 18th centuries. It has a gabled three-storey wing at the rear and a low, two-storey block slightly recessed to the right. The appearance of the front is mainly Georgian. The house is believed to be an early 17th century reconstruction of the medieval Prior's lodging and guesthouse. Outshut has segmental arch and bench with decorative panels and figure work said to come from pew in church. Period: post-medieval

Site Number: 5 NGR: SD 37700 78800 HER No: 4144 Sources: Gaythorpe 1909, 201; Rigge 1885, 266 Designation: none Site Type: find spot (stone axe) Description: a stone axe hammer found at an undisclosed location in Cartmel. Period: prehistoric

Site Number: 6 NGR: 337700 478800 HER No: 4145 Sources: HER; Clough 1969, 8 Designation: none Site Type: find spot (bronze axe) Description: bronze axe found in a peat moss near Cartmel. It had a very pronounced stop-ridge. Its present whereabouts are unknown. Period: Bronze Age

Site Number: 7 NGR: SD 37780 78800 HER No: 24258 Sources: John Coward Architects 2006 Designation: Listed Building Site Type: house Description: Parkside House was formerly an ale house known as The Nags Head; Listed Grade II house and barn, now a gallery. A datestone above the front door reads 'IBE/1658'. In the early 20th century it was owned by the Teasdale family who are believed to have owned all the properties on the west side of Park View. An appraisal of the internal architectural features in 2006 found that the property had been subjected to many changes over the years, and in recent times the architectural and historic quality of the building had been significantly eroded with badly thought out alterations and poorly chosen fitted furnishings, decorations and finishes (John Coward Architects 2006). Period: post-medieval

Site Number: 8 NGR: SD 37780 78790 HER No: 24257 Sources: John Coward Architects 2006 Designation: Listed Building Site Type: house

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 28 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Description: Park House is believed to have been built around 1590; the current building is probably 17th or early 18th century. In the early 20th century it was owned by the Teasdale family who are believed to have owned all the properties on the west side of Park View (John Coward Architects 2006). Period: post-medieval

Site Number: 9 NGR: SD 37820 78790 HER No: 40759 Sources: NAA 2004a Designation: Listed Building Site Type: house Description: Gatehouse Cottage comprises a three-storey building constructed of roughly coursed limestone and covered in roughcast render. It is orientated north to south and is a single bay deep, although divided internally by partition walling. It measures internally 7.2m by 3.80m with the west wall of the Priory Gatehouse (see Site 10) forming its east wall. The foundation of the building probably dates to the late-17th or early-18th century although the roof has been modified in the 19th century to incorporate an additional storey. There appears to have been an attempt at this time to unify the front elevation of the cottage with Market Cross Cottage (formerly Bank Court) [see Listed Building SMR Number 24270] to the west. This may have been in the 1860s or 1870s by James Field who took over ownership of both properties and opened a grocer and ironmonger's shop (NAA 2004a, 32-3). Period: post-medieval

Site Number: 10 NGR: SD 37827 78788 HER No: 4710 [part of Group Number 2403] Sources: Clare 1980, 127; Hyde and Pevsner 2010; NAA 2004a; 2004b; 2004c; 2004d; Anon 1929, 329-330 Designation: Listed Building Site Type: gatehouse Description: The only remaining building associated with Cartmel Priory (see Site 3), it is a 14th century Listed Grade II* structure with a high archway and two long windows of ogee lights high up. The gable side has a stepped 17th century window. The interior room is reached by a stone spiral staircase. The first floor room is heated by a large fireplace. The broad chronological history of the gatehouse is summarised thusly: Medieval to Reformation (1300-1536 AD): construction; Post Reformation (1536- 1624): gatehouse used as a Court House with associated alterations [although no documentary evidence exists for this]; Early 17th to late 18th century (1624-1790): conversions of the gatehouse for use as a school house [with possible new roof], and construction of the attached Gatehouse Cottage [see Site 19]; Late 18th to early 20th century (1790-1920): conversion of the gatehouse for use as a shop, dwelling and store, plus partial abandonment; Early 20th century (1920-1946): gatehouse bought and restored by local solicitor [Reuben] O'Neill Pearson and converted into a Heritage Museum; 20th century (1946- ): gatehouse and Gatehouse Cottage donated to the National Trust and leased to the Cartmel Village Society, several alterations and restorations including a new roof in the 1960s (NAA 2004a, 10; 12; 23). Period: medieval

Site Number: 11 NGR: SD 37803 78777 HER No: 43365 Sources: Previously Grade II Listed, but delisted in 1994; now removed. Designation: none Site Type: site of vintage telephone box, now removed.

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 29 Description: K6-type telephone call box, probably dating from between 1936 and 1939, by Sir Giles G. Scott. Cast iron and wood constructed tall kiosk; square on plan, with sail vault. Front and return faces have raised panels; front door panels are glazed, with iron glazing bars; the door is wooden, with (replacement) plastic glazing. Top glass panels have the lettering: 'TELEPHONE', and have relief crowns above. Period: modern

Site Number: 12 NGR: SD 37840 78780 HER No: 16773 Sources: L Hopkins pers comm. Jan 1993 Designation: none Site Type: well Description: a circular well, partially capped by a large rough-hewn limestone slab and an additional piece of flagging, was uncovered during building works about 0.3m below present floor level. This did not appear to be its original height; it probably was lowered when the present 18th century building was erected. The well was approximately 1.20m in diameter and 2m deep. Its construction did not appear Medieval and associations with Cartmel Priory seem doubtful. Period: unknown

Site Number: 13 NGR: SD 37795 78765 HER No: 40365 Sources: Ordnance Survey 1851 Designation: none Site Type: barn Description: stone-built barn attached to Old Barn Cottage (Listed Building SMR Number 24287) on Park Lane, Cartmel, shown on the first edition Ordnance Survey map of 1851. Cart doors extant although now seemingly disused. The western end of the barn is used as a shop and sky lights were added at some point. Period: post-medieval

Site Number: 14 NGR: SD 37820 78770 HER No: 2404 Sources: HER Designation: Listed Building Site Type: cross, obelisk, and fish stones Description: a cross is shown on Hogenbergins Map of 1577, but this has been replaced by an obelisk which is probably 18th or 19th century. It is square in section, slightly tapering, and with a pyramidal top. It stands on a pedestal of indeterminate date consisting of three stone slab steps. Immediately to the east of the obelisk are fish stones in the form of a table 3.7m long, 0.75m wide, 0.8m long. The table is formed by two limestone slabs supported on three upright stones. One of the slabs is cracked. No evidence for dating. Period: medieval

Site Number: 15 NGR: SD 37860 78740 HER No: 24281 Sources: John Coward Architects 2007

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 30 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Designation: Listed Building Site Type: house Description: Listed Grade II house, probably 18th century; a photographic record of the barn was made in 2007, possibly ahead of its conversion. Period: post-medieval

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 Proposed Carpark Extension, Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel, Cumbria: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment 31

Appendix 2: Significance Criteria After DoE 1990, Annex 4: ‘Secretary of State’s Criteria for Scheduling Ancient Monuments’ i) Period: all types of monuments that characterise a category or period should be considered for preservation; ii) Rarity: there are some monument categories which in certain periods are so scarce that all surviving examples which retain some archaeological potential should be preserved. In general, however, a selection must be made which portrays the typical and commonplace as well as the rare. This process should take account of all aspects of the distribution of a particular class of monument, both in a national and regional context; iii) Documentation: the significance of a monument may be enhanced by the existence of record of previous investigation or, in the case of more recent monuments, by the supporting evidence of contemporary written records; iv) Group Value: the value of a single monument (such as a field system) may be greatly enhanced by its association with related contemporary monuments (such as a settlement and cemetery) or with monuments of different periods. In some cases, it is preferable to protect the complete group of monuments, including associated and adjacent land, rather than to protect isolated monuments within the group; v) Survival/Condition: the survival of a monument’s archaeological potential both above and below ground is a particularly important consideration and should be assessed in relation to its present condition and surviving features; vi) Fragility/Vulnerability: highly important archaeological evidence from some field monuments can be destroyed by a single ploughing or unsympathetic treatment; vulnerable monuments of this nature would particularly benefit from the statutory protection which scheduling confers. There are also existing standing structures of particular form or complexity whose value can again be severely reduced by neglect or careless treatment and which are similarly well suited by scheduled monument protection, even if these structures are already listed historic buildings; vii) Diversity: some monuments may be selected for scheduling because they possess a combination of high quality features, others because of a single important attribute; viii) Potential: on occasion, the nature of the evidence cannot be specified precisely but it may still be possible to document reasons anticipating its existence and importance and so to demonstrate the justification for scheduling. This is usually confined to sites rather than upstanding monuments.

Client: Cartmel Steeplechase Holker Ltd © Greenlane Archaeology Ltd, April 2018 31 30 28 28 .01 .29 .17 30 29 .24 .80 30 .61 28.70 30 29.61 .11 30.90 .01 28 28.81 30.98 31 .25 28 30.98 29 29.68 .74 28.68 28.72 .29 30 .32 29.32 28 WALL 30.84 30.76 .74 30.88 30.81 28.66 28 .88 30 30.84 29.86 .93 28.71 .92 .81 .74 30 28 .83 30 29 30.95 30 30.92 .78 30.77 30 28 .80 .20 .57 29 .02 30.73 30.65 STONE 30.88 .10 .76 28 31 30.70 29.65 30.39 30.91 29 30.80 28 30.97 30.93 30.41 30 TANNOY 29.77 .43 478900N 478900N .79 .14 28.79 28.79 .17 28 28

30 .89 30.66 29.90 28 .92 30.85 .67 28.76 30.97 .78 28.74 30 .68 .47 29 30.83 30.81 .29 28 28.72 30.90 .89 30 30 29.24 30 30.64 30 30.80 28 .05 28.74 31.06 30.75 30 .12 .75 29.78 29 .49 .88 .2930 .84 30.75 30 28.78 28 .59 28 .24 29 30.27 31.09 30.59 29.94 28 30.65 .18 .79 30.77 30.91 .57 .66 .85 29 .44 .15 .88 30.66 .86 30.10 30.74 28 30.97 30 30 30.81 28.78 31 31 30 30 28 .73 30 28 28.75 28.73 30.89 30 30.45 .78 30 30 .72 .73 31.06 30.77 30.57 .48 .83 .41 CB 29 30.92 .33 28.64 30.02 .78 28.96 28 28.73 28 30.73 .70 .92 30 .74 .20 .40 30.01 .92 30.82 30.76 30.46 30.16 28 31.12 30 30.47 .80 30 29.43 29 29 30 30.80 28 .53 30.38 28 .64 30.73 30 .65 28.71 30.01 31.07 30.86 28 30.61 .77 CONC28 30.78 .62 .95 30.33 30 29 28 .73 30.74 28.74 .11 31.17 .01 .62 28 .66 30.80 30.82 .95 30.86 30.53 30 30 29 31 30.42 30.21 WL28.02 IC 30 30.80 .69 .65 28 28 18/05/17 31.25 30.76 30.41 29.03 .61 .60 CL28.78 .57 30 29.62 30.89 30.83 SoL28.44 28.77 .99 31.02 30.36 30.46 .80 30 30.60 28 28 .09 28 28 30.80 .82 30 .66 .04 .57 WL28.05 29.89 .91 31.24 31 30.76 30.51 .07 28.68 .42 .14 28 28 18/05/17 30 30 30.91 .62 .08 31 31 30 30.22 30 30.66 30.86 31 30.97 .89 .61 30.35 29.44 28 .14 .88 30.61 .58 28 28 .53 .89 .84 30 .81 30.87 31.35 30 30 .05 31.20 30.22 30.69 30 30.50 .60 28 31 .87 30 .86 SoL28.46 30.91 30.39 30.72 28.55 28 .90 30 SP 29.19 WL28.03 30 IC .39 31.38 31.34 30.68 18/05/17 29.52 31.28 30.24 30.28 30 30 CL30.86 .21 28 .56 .78 .23 30.89 .55 .59 (29.71)28 .65 29.18 31 30.97 31 .78 30.83 31.17 30 28.59 .84 30.36 30 30 30.42 .36 30.21 .89 30.79 30.96 .88 31 31.37 31 30.60 .48 30 30.43 .45 30 30 29.44 .40 30.22 .23 31.11 28.49 29.33 31 .40 .57 30 30.89 30 SP 30.73 .24 31 31 .42 31 .38 .11 30.63 .64 .92 31 31.52 TANNOY 30.90 31 31 28.96 31.39 .36 31.00 30.37 30.21 .82 29.70 30.55 30.95 30.50 28.90 .50 31.46 28 .59 .59 30.67 30 31 30 31 30 30.25 30 29.20 31.50 30.85.75 .86 30.62 31.40 31.32 30.31 30 .20 31.58 PT 28.40 .55 30.73 30.91 .91 30.76 31.58 30.07 28 .91 30.68 31 .64 31.19 30.41 31.33 PT 29.31 29.52 31 30.81 .70 30.09 .50 .72 30 30.34 30.90 28 28 30 30.53 30 29 28.79 30.95 30.56 .92 29 478850N 478850N 31.36 .80 28.63 .76 30.86 .19 30.12 30.67 30.47 .98 31.54 31 30.66 30.90 28.91 .40 31.79 .57 .51 30.82 30 TANNOY 31 30 30.81 28 .66 29.42 31.59 30.41 30.21 30.79 .77 30.78 30 28 29.05 31.32 .52 .76 28 30.64 30.06 29 .35 30 NP .66 MH 31 31.28 30.05 .27 .64 30 30.30 30.81 .72 29.07 28.68 CL31.40 .16 30.77 31.29 31 30.50 30.20 29.93 31 30.05 30.35 31.03 30 30 .81 .14 .46 30.38 30.74 28.77 .34 31.39 30.83 .62 28 .03 .47 29 31 .21 29 31 31.60 30.12 .01 30.46 29 .66 28.93 31.47 31.58 31 30.84 30.39 30.73 30.68 29 RIDGE .89 31.22 31 IC 29.68 .37 ICCL30.50 30.10 .34 28 37.53 31 .33 31.31 CL30.52 .15 30.62 IC 30 30 29 28.74 EAVES 31.19 31 .31 30.03 CL30.76 30.66 .60 29.86 30.68 30.09 30 .46 .18 34.75 31 29.98 .21 .42 31.33 30.19 28.78 29 30.71 .76 29 31 31.13 30.53 30 .98 30.24 .40 29.96 28 .38 28.90 28 .19 30.59 D 30.43 29 29.38 31.24 31.29 29.16 .C 31 30.98 .95 30.32 30.66 .23 30.20 29 30.67 30.51 29.60 29.12 31.14 .24 29.98 31 .60

.21 SP 31 31.31 30.75 29.71 30.09 30.45 29 28 31.30 31 31 30.08 30.62 30.39 .97 .16 .70 30.68 30.05 28.88 .95 31.28 .89 28 30.06 30.47 30 .19 30.04 30.55 .67 29.10 28.94 28 29 29 31.18 31.24 .14 .25 31 30.51 30.62 .55 31.15 31 29.05 31.11 31.09 30.14 29.24 29.98 30.41 29.42 30.37 30.65 30 28.83 .79 31.22 .26 31.27 .00 28 31 31.04 30.20 30.25 NP 29.96 28.82 31.28 30.29 30.62 29 30.30 29.90 .39 28.77 .17 30.98 30.07 31.15 29.95 .29 31 30.24 .81

31 30.38 30.50 29 31.26 29.77 29.23 28 31.12 30.87 30.00 .23 31.19 .33 30.21 31.18 31 31.27 30.80 30.08 30.44 30.26 28.86 28.67 30.10 .77 31.26 30.46 31.24 31.21 28 .13 30.81 30.13 30.12 29 .37

31 .41 IC 30.04 30 .11 29.10 31.38 CL31.07 30.44 30 31 .75 31.27 31.14 30.74 .28 31.08 30.16 31.21 29.96 29.92 28 31.16 .42 .38 31.28 30.90 28.74 28.71 478800N 478800N 31 31 30.17 29 30.60 30.33 28 31.42 29.88 29.64

.05 31.33 31.54 31.26 29.49 .62

30.47 .35 30.21 .66 .15

28 31.16 30.24 30 31.48 28 31 .53 29.94

.52 .52 31.59

31 30 30.41 .26 30.04

29 29.06 31.21 31 .87 28.91

.67 31.08 .04 .10 31.60 28.75 31 30.07 .75 31 31.82 30.29

31.31 30.30 29.77 28 29 31.65 30 30.92 .76 30.08 30.25 .08 32.13 .27 29.56 .21 28.89 31.29 31.52 30.10 30 .02 .79 31 30.00 30.27 28 31.23 31.73 .30 29 .63 .67 IC .07 TANNOY 32.43 29.91 CL30.73 30 31 31 30.22 28 31 IC 29.01 28.89 32.11 32.56 30.47 CL30.04 28.94 .99 31.75 .96 30 .11 30.18 .74 28.71 .06 29.81 .53 28 31.39 30 .71 32.27 28 30.01 28 31 32.68 30.25 30 28.87 .93 IC 31 .15 29 .75 31.75 .75 30.09 30.15 .26 .28 .92 28 31.29 CL31.23 31.95 30.52 30 30.06 28 31 29.79 30.08 30 .77 28 .26 31.59 30 28.14 28 30.39 (30.33) 28 .87 .90 33.09 .54 .84 28 31.73 29 31 31.73 30 .32 .79 28.87 .10 31.85 31.51 .63

.75 33.33 29.87 29.83 31 28 .56 31.32 28.92 .76 .63

31 32.16 .15 .61 31.04 28 30 31 .02 28.90 28 28

.83 29.83 .02 30 30 .79 .58 .59 31.23 .71 31 .64 28 31.78 30 .81 .48 31.03 28 33.28 31.24 29.72 30 .30 31 31.31 27

29 .31 32.83 30 .79 29 31 .34

30 29.77 31.68 SO8 .65 BENCH .02 29.18 .78 31 28 .63 32.93 29.92 BENCH 31.37 .98 .01 27

.66 31.39 .76 .35 31.65 33 28 LP 33.39 .74 30.76 27 G .10 31 31.59 28.95 .96

29 32.36 29.70 29.94 31.76 .71 .94 .91 31 .74 IC .68 28.80 28 33 30 31 31 .58 28.92 30 31

.76 28 33 CL29.70 31 .81 NP .81 28 .61 32.20 .75 30.21 29 .61 29 .81 27 31.21 31 31.99 29.97 BENCH .55 .88 G .08 28 31.74 .94 29.73 30.08 .54 28 PT 28.84 28.80 .22 LP 28.86 .82 .53 32.03 33.73 29.88 31 31.40 29 28 SW .69 29 28.95 .09 31 31 30.64 31.47 PT .91 29 31.91 31 28 33 .52 33.95 .94 .99 .76 .77 28 32.61 31.14 30.42 .08 28 28.32 G2.0 .40 31.16 29.76 29 29 .76 28 31.49 .43 33 29.63 .68 30.92 .90 .85 29 28 28 31 29 .78 29.96 .69 31 31 .87 PT .26 28 .60 P\R 30 29.79 G4.7 29 MG 31.01 29 .77 33.03 33 33.91 33.31 .13 .41 .65 .38 28 31.33 30.49 29.66 .61 G 28 .80 .98 31 33 28.56 28.76 31

33 28 31 30.11 29 PT .62 33 28 31.94 .43 29.62 .45 PT .26 .42 IC .70 31.28 33.83 34.01 .88 29 29.08 .67 28.69 31 CL34.01 29.82 29 MH .44 28 28.46 31.67 SP .03 .17 32.42 29.75 CL29.55 .03 29 NP 29 PT 28.74 .11 IC 34 .26 34 CB 29.68 29.08 G SAP 29 31.27 31 31.50 31 .06 29.76 PT .04 33 29 29 .03 .35 .12 .92 .81 .09 .13 33 31.14 32 .05 .89 31.53 29.76 29.74 .51 29.07 28 .81 30.70 31 34 .60 .67 IC 478750N 478750N 31.68 P\R 29 29 28 .52 28.66 .02 31 29 CB .90 29.73 MH CL29.40 .06 28 28.34 33 .66 .52 29.46 31.84 29 29 28 28.10 G3.2 CL29.79 29.78 29 29.06 28 30 .39 30.79 .55 G SAP 29.10 31.45 .35 29 EIC 29 .86 32.11 32.77 29 30.94 34 34 29.74 .70 .06 .99 30 29 .59 .08 33 29 29.78 .89 .13 .25 29 .20 29.20 28 .46 .85 31.57 29 29 .07 .19 30.22 .78 30 P\R 27 30.37 .59 30.90 30.95 29.82 .76 .36 BIN .17 28 30 .64 .12 29 29 29 29 .49 .79 29 29 .96 30 34 28.44 29.90 .43 29.12 30.39 .33 FL29.70 28 28.23 .72 30.73 31.93 .84 .70 29 28 31.06 32.90 .25 29 29 .14 30.44 .82 29 27.99 30 29 28 30 34.28 .23 .53 .69 30.47 29.84 SAP 29 31.16 31 .76 MG .63 29 29 .76 33 30.26 .93 .47 29.36 SW 29 29 29 34 .87 .78 .64 29 .71 .06 30.32 29 EAVES .44 29 .24 .22 29 31.38 .54 29.91 29 27 30 30 31.87 28 30.29 33.38 .95 .68 .68 .55 .84 29.16 BT 28.38 .29 .58 29 34 .64 29 .63 SW 30.03 29 29 RIDGE 28 .02 33 .43 EIC IC 28.18 30 32.35 .01 29.92 .00 .73 35.09 IC 30.02 30.37 G3.2 30 SAP 30 .88 IC 30 29 .12 29.04 30 29 IC .20 .03 33 .39 27.92 .21 .48 .94 31.30 .78 .70 29 29 .94 NP IC IC 30 31 29 29 29.94 30 CB 29 33 30.05 .10 29 CL29.37 .64 .77 .57 30 .84 29.73 LP .61 30.34 .74 .00 .56 .52 30.43 29.39 27 30 .74 29 29.61 29 29 33 28 29 30 .78 .48 G2.5 .08 SAP .16 29 IC 28 29.58 30 .88 .33 29 30 .05 29 29 .01 CL29.39 28.89 28.42 29 .63 .07 SP 29.53 30 30 29 29 .40 30.10 .41 30.11 29.74 29 .39 .96 .20 .93 29 29.86 30.47 .42 .10 .63 .42 29 28.15 32 30.12 30 29 .88 30 30 29 EIC 29 .12 29 .44 .63 G2.5 31 .37 30.19 30.61 .98 29 29.50 .69 .67 29 29.06 27.96 30 30 .15 29.25 29.10 .00 .36 .20 SAP 29 .06 .96 30.41 30 29 SP .42 .58 30 29 30 .03 29 29 30.22 30.45 .57 30.37 IC .95 .50 .33 30 29.27 29.01 29.33 .14 IC 28 .51 29 29 SO9 CL30.15 .57 .03 .49 .23 29.51 30 30 .22 29.87 29 CL29.08 .28 29 29 .01 27 .33 30 29 .06 29 .23 29 28.38 30.34 30.21 BIN 29.41 29.34 30.23 30.35 .41 29.35 29.58 .14 BIN 29.49 28.18 .70 .33 28 29.30 NP EIC .09 30 30.24 30 30.08 29.72 29 29.02 28.96 29 .27 PT .83 29 LP 29.54 29 .07 29.51 29.88 30 29 CB SAP 29.11 29 28.10 .27 .26 .23 .59 29 29 .24 29.25 .73 29.94 .16 30.04 29.60 TM 29 .22 30.13 .93 28

29 .32 30.25 29 30 29 .42 .03 29.28 29 30.00

.26 IC 29.29 SP .98 29.45 .32 29.24 29 30.10 29 .55 30.15 .04 29 .80 SAP CL29.03 .60 29 29.20 30 30 29 29 29 29.07 .18 30 .07 28.34 30 .19 30.17 .88 .44 .32 27 30 29 29 29.07 30.08 .11 .06 .01 29 28.22 30.17 30 29.46 .22 .96 28 TANNOY SO10 SP 29.45 29.46 29 29.32 .13 .97 29 28 29.16 .12 29 29.86 .23 .23 30.14 30 30 SAP 28.71 .39 28.04 29 .15 30 30.08 29 29.34 30 .75 29 29 .12 .14 .08 29 29 .08 28 30.13 .08 29 .91 29 .09 30 30 .52 .43 29 29.72 .71 29 29.08 30 .92 29 .39 .33 29 .06 29.40 .15 .14 .05 .83 29.36 .24 30 29 .43 29 30.11 30 29.20 .55 28.39 29 30 .48 .01 .29 30.16 .91 29 29.83 .11 29.97 29 .71 29 .37 29 29.49 29 29 .08 29 28 28.25 .55 29.97 .13 .13 .11 29 30 .10 .67 29 .45 29 29 .31 29.04 .48 .13 .11 29 27 30 30 29 .38 29

29 .81 29 29 29.88 .87 29 .51 .12 30.11 29 29 29.06 28.07 .03 .11 30 .75 .67 .62 28.79 30 .04 29 28 .99 29.06 29 .42 29.34 .16 .10 29.89 30 29.88 29 29 29 28.58 29 29 29 .59 28 29.80 .75 .55 29.24 .17 29.07 .11 .07 28.92 478700N 478700N 30 30.15 30.04 .82 .76 .15 .01 28 .08 29 29 28.47 29 29.81 30 .1929 29 29.05 30.10 30.10 29 .54 29 29 29.84 .62 .44 .20 28.94 .07 .10 .02 29 28.27 30 30 .74 29 29 29 30.02 30 29.34 29 29.25 .23 .17 29.94 29 29.11 .72 29 .42 .09 29.76 28.05 29.11 .06 .74 29 .51 28 .47 .96 .69 .33 27.94 28.98 30 29.90 29 .58 29 .16 28

.93 29 29 .08 29 29 29 .04 28 29.96 .70 29.64 29

.73 28 30 .39 29 28.75 29.32 30.01 .25 29.95 .01 29.76 29 .30 29 .79 .49 EIC .97 29 28.95 29 29 30 29 .56 28.94 .06 .56 30 29.09 30.28 30 .2930 29 .61 29.52 29 29.25 29.60 29.83 .22 29 .41 29.35 29.28 28.57 27 .67 .47 .11 28.50 29.66 .85 29 .81 28.85 29 29 .07 30.85 29.68 28 28.99 .11 .39 29.41 29.35 28.23 30 30 .45 28 29.67 29.22 28.87 29 29.96 30 28 .46 .22 29 .10 28

.86 28.05 29.40 .70 .03 .17 .09 SAP 29.32 29.12 .71 29 30 29.17 31.01 30 28.86 29.67 30 G4.0 29.09 28.89 27.88 31.46 29.50 29 28.99 28.66 28.85 29.39 28.86 .48 .38 29 .02 30.57 29.29 .67 28 31.61 32.34 28.86 30 28.55 29.67 .05 27 .71 .24 .25 30.08 .39 2828.42.42 29 29.46 30 32.55 32.45 29.95 29.09 29.82 30 28 28 29.52 28.18 28.83 .98 29 .79 29.95 29 G3.0 32.41 .33 27.92 28.78 28.99 29.80 28.77 29 30.07 32.48 27.83 28.73 .11 .35 .51 31.75 29.68 28.77 29 .37 G1.0 SAP 28.61 29 .08 29 29.69 30 .53 .15 G2.0 .76 29.86 30 .25 29.51 30.34 27 29.68 .00 30 31.91 29 28 28.73 29 29.71 28.40 30 .09 28.39 .24 29.86 30 29.34

.57 30.20 28 30.18 .47 32.78 28.48 28 28.09 28.76 .02 G4.0 .68 30 30.21 29.93 29 29.14 29 28 27.80 .20 G2.5 29 29.74 .01 G2.0 .91 28.67 29 .20 .86 32.66 30 .91 .58 28.64 .81 30.57 32.54 29.73 27.65 30 29 28.93 .19 .08 31.73 28.79 27 30.49 30 28.36 28.64 30 SAP .17 31 .03 29.47 28.56 28 .82 28 28.68 G3.0 .65 .95 G3.0 28.00 .49 28 28.43 32.26 30 28 G3.0 29.85 28.21 .60 30 G4.0 30.91 28.77 29 30.42 28 .96 31.41 .85 .91 32.14 27.72 .39 .63 28.57 28.59 29 29 27.62 28 29.53 30.98 30.15 28 .87 G3.0 .16 .96 .52 28 28 .49 30.07 31.78 29 32.04 29 28 29.62 .01 .39 28.36 28.96 31 .93 32.69 30.02 G3.0 29 .59 28.64 28.69 28 31 30.90 28.39 TANNOY 28.82 29 28.58 .88 .90 .91 28.00 28 .65 32.57 G2.5 28 28.59 28 29.63 .55 29 30.60 G3.0 .38 28.29 28.57 28 .74 32.28 .37 27.76 IC .85 .48 G3.0 .31 28.63 31 31 28 CL28.55 .63 29 30.49 28 28 28 28 .69 28 31 .33 27.65 478650N 478650N .99 .67 31.64 28.45 .97 G3.5 .12 .54 28.57 G3.0 .79 32.19 30 30 .52 30.88 .80 30 28.70 29 SP 28.24 27 28.58 .59 31.47 32.08 .80 28.53 28 .65 32.29 28 337550E 337600E 337650E 337700E 337750E 28 29 G4.0 28.08 28.49 .91 32.25 30 28 .63 G1.0 28.60 .47 .57 32.27 .77 27.99 28.54 28.63 28 .96 G3.5 IC 28.79 29 .78 28 .54 31.83 27.71 28.43 .67 CL28.44 30 G3.5 .61 28.58 28.56 29 30.58

28.50 28 28 28 32.22 28.59 337550E 29.91 337600E 337650E 337700E .98 29 .88 30.41 28.46 28.36 .66 32.17 28.56 .54 .53 30.64 31.33 28 29 .46 .61 28.67 29 28.39 32.15 .57 .44 29 29 28 28 31.43 G5.0 28.57 28.51 .03 28 28.36 .82 29.38 32.05 31.67 31.48 28.75 G2.0 30.77 G3.0 28 .80 30.68 30.52 28.46 .48 28.72 28.23 28 .99 29 29.70 G5.0 28.64 .46 28.53 29 31.59 31.61 29 30.15 30.23 28 28.43 28.74 29.26 .23 .27 30 32.32 .73 28.62 .47 29 30.60 .14 28.54 G4.0 28 IC G1.0 32.28 29.11 29.04 28.52 28.60 .38 MH 28.47 .11 CL30.03 29 CL28.50 .53 28.52 29.04 G4.0 SO9A 31.26 28 29 29.70 28.77 28 29 32.21 28.39 28.50 IC DR .88 31.76 30.59 .16 .54 .48 28.61 29.10 CL29.79 .78 32.53 29 28 30.14 29 G3.3 31.54 32.33 28.25 28.56 28 IC 28.70 29.10 .01 .54 28.74 CL29.60 EAVES G2.2 28 .21 G 32.33 30 31.72 .73 28.74 28.62 29.05 31.91 28.62 29 RIDGE .22 .48 .56 31.74 33.00 31.54 28 28.55 34.13 G2.5 G2.8 29 28.79 29.15 29 30.09 29 P\R

29 G 29 .23 IC .35 28.60 28 32.96 .11 28.28 .55 CL29.57 IC 31.76 28.85 28.47 28.90 .31 .33 .70 29 28 28.85 28.61 29.68 DR 29 32.03 28.80 29 IC .57 .24 28.66 .07 29.62 RIDGE 29 G2.8 28.20 28.69 34.24 29 28.92 IC .49 28 29 CL29.27 29 SO11B .29 28.83 G3.8 .55 29 .30 29 .74 28.45 .02 29 31.02 28 .99 BW .10 SO11 29.14 29 EAVES 29.10 .30 29 28.83 TANOY 28 .14 IC 32.27 FL29.62 .23 28.92 28.73 28.67 29.09 29 G 30.90 28.86 28 CL29.19 30.63 29.14 .82 .59 FL29.57 30.53 28 28.23 G2.0 IC 28 .04 CL29.13 MG G2.8 28.88 28 29 28.86 29 30.65 28.89 .56 .30 .25 28.87 28.65 .87 29.20 .27 G 30.39 IC 29 28.10 29 CL29.51 .60 .02 28 28.89 29 .56 29 29 29.08 28.74 28.75 .53 .32 29 G G 29.41 29.46 28.46 29.29 .17 29.01 28 29.00 .37 29 29.15 29.00 478600N 28.05 .61 28.72 29 SO11A 29.26 29.10 28.19 28.66 29.30 29.39 29.41 28.75 28.79 29.07 29.40 28.73 29.38 29.49 29.08 28.51 28 28.73 28.84 .27 29.50 29.26 28.12 .64 28.79 29 28 29.01 29.05 29.05 29.20 P\R 28.26 28.89 29.46 29.31 .98 .22 29.06 29.26 29.40 29.43 27 28.11 28.74 28.71 29.09 29.18 29.17 29.46 28.66 28 28.75 29.46 .65 29.37 29.26 .18 28.87 28.30 28 28.78 29.34 29.31 28 .70 28.99 29.50 29.09 29.16 29.24 28.51 28.59 29.52 .01 28.04 27.98 28 28 28.86 29.44 .67 28.88 29.30 29.33 28.21 28.95 29.07 29.15 29.19 .37 28 28.35 28.56 .80 29.69 28.43 28 28 27.91 .88 28.95 .40 .61 28.63 29.02 29.09 29.15 29.19 29 29.39 28 28.92 27.97 28.30 29.11 .40 28.16 29.19 29 .20 28 28.49 28 .38 28.59 28.84 29.13 .55 28.05 29.05 29 27.94 .12

.33

28 28.38 28.62 28.02 .55 28 .83 28.91 28 29 .18 .31 28 28 29.23 27.98 .83 .95 .94 28.24 28.22 29 28.15 28.62 28.88 28 P\R

Rev. Initial Date Note

WORK IN PROGRESS

project CARTMEL RACECOURSE Site Plan drawing title Carpark - As Existing

drwg. no. 5595 b/b/05 date Jun-17 rev -

Drawings are based on survey data and may not accurately represent what is physically present. Do not scale from this drawing. All dimensions are to be verified on site before proceeding with works. All dimensions are in millimetres unless stated otherwise. Mason Gillibrand Architects are to be notified in writing of any discrepencies immediately. © MASON GILLIBRAND ARCHITECTS

R. G. PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CONSULTING CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT CARTMEL RACECOURSE CARTMEL

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE STRATEGY

Our ref: K35058/01/FRA/RH ISSUE A th 13 APRIL 2018

R. G. PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CONSULTING CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

Proposed Development At Cartmel Racecourse Cartmel

Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy

Report Version Amendment Date A Original Issue 13 th April 2018

Notice

This report was produced by R G Parkins & Partners Ltd for Cartmel Steeplechasers (Holker) Ltd for the specific purpose of providing a Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy for Development at Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel.

This report is for the sole use of Cartmel Steeplechases (Holker) Ltd. R G Parkins & Partners Ltd will not be held responsible for any actions taken or decisions made by any third party as a result of this report.

Meadowside Shap Road Kendal Cumbria LA9 6NY

Tel: (01539) 729393 Fax: (01539) 740609 Email: [email protected]

Also at: 97 King Street Lancaster LA1 1RH Tel: (01524) 32548 Fax: (01524) 843989

Directors :- A Roberts BEng (Hons) CEng MICE J R Parkins Dip Eng HNC

Associates :- T Melhuish MEng PhD CEng MICE E Roberts MEng (Hons) CEng MICE S Winstanley EngTech MICE CMaPS O Sugden MEng

Registered Office: Meadowside Shap Road Kendal Cumbria LA9 6NY Reg No: 4107150

www.rgparkins.com

Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Planning Policy ...... 1 1.3 The Development in the Context of Planning Policy ...... 1 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISATION ...... 3 2.1 Site Location ...... 3 2.2 Site Description ...... 3 2.3 Development Proposals ...... 4 2.4 Geology & Hydrogeology ...... 4 2.5 Existing Watercourses...... 4 2.6 Existing Sewers ...... 5 3.0 PRELIMINARY GROUND INVESTIGATION AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT ...... 6 3.1 Introduction ...... 6 3.2 Ground Conditions ...... 6 3.3 Percolation Test Methodology & Results ...... 6 4.0 ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD RISK ...... 7 4.1 Background ...... 7 4.2 Flood Risk Terminology...... 7 4.3 Data Collection ...... 8 4.4 Environment Agency Flood Map ...... 9 4.5 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) ...... 10 4.6 Surface Water Flood Map ...... 11 4.7 Groundwater Flooding ...... 12 4.8 Flooding from Reservoirs, Canals or Other Artificial Sources...... 13 4.9 Flooding from Sewers ...... 13 5.0 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE STRATEGY ...... 14 5.1 Introduction ...... 14 5.2 Climate Change ...... 15 5.3 Surface Water Disposal...... 15 5.3.1 Infiltration ...... 16 5.4 Rate of Runoff Assessment ...... 16 5.5 Surface Water Drainage Design ...... 16 5.6 Surface Water Quality ...... 17 5.7 Designing for Local Drainage System Failure ...... 18 5.7.1 Exceedance ...... 18

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH ii Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

5.8 Maintenance ...... 19 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 20 7.0 DISCLAIMER ...... 21 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 22

FIGURES Figure 2.1 Site Location ...... 3 Figure 2.2 River Eea Catchment Boundary ...... 5 Figure 4.1 Environment Agency Flood Map ...... 9 Figure 4.2 EA Flood Map for Planning & Proposed Site Layout ...... 10 Figure 4.3 Environment Agency Surface Water Flood Map ...... 11 Figure 4.4 BGS Groundwater Flood Map ...... 12 Figure 4.5 Flooding from Reservoirs ...... 13

TABLES Table 1.1 Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification ...... 2 Table 2.1 Site Geological Summary ...... 4 Table 4.1 Return Periods and Exceedance Probabilities ...... 8 Table 5.1 Peak Rainfall Intensity Allowance in Small & Urban Catchments (use 1961 to 1990 baseline) ...... 15 Table 5.2 Greenfield Runoff Rates ...... 16 Table 5.3 Pollution Hazard & Mitigation Indices- Parking ...... 18 Table 5.4 Pollution Hazard & Mitigation Indices- Roads ...... 18

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS APPENDIX B: GROUND INVESTIGATION INFORMATION APPENDIX C: CALCULATIONS

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH iii Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Term Description

AEP Annual Exceedance Probability

AOD Above Ordnance Datum

BGL Below Ground Level

BGS British Geological Survey

CC Climate Change

CCC Cumbria County Council

DSM Digital Surface Model

DTM Digital Terrain Model

EA Environment Agency

FEH Flood Estimation Handbook

FRA Flood Risk Assessment

GIS Geographical Information System

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging

LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

OS Ordnance Survey

RGP R G Parkins and Partners Ltd

SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

SuDS Sustainable Drainage System

UU United Utilities

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH iv Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This following report has been prepared by R. G Parkins & Partners Ltd (RGP) for Cartmel Steeplechasers (Holker) Ltd in support of proposals for a car park extension at Cartmel Racecourse, Cartmel.

RGP has been appointed to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to support a planning application that fulfils the requirements of the Local Planning Authority.

The following study assesses flood risk to the site and proposed development and demonstrates the proposed development will not adversely affect flood risk elsewhere.

1.2 Planning Policy

The NPPF [1] and its Technical Guidance [2] states “a site-specific flood risk assessment is required for proposals of 1 hectare or greater in Flood Zone 1; all proposals for a new development in Flood Zone 2 and 3, or in an area of Flood Zone 1 that has critical drainage problems or where proposed development or change of use to a more vulnerable class may be subject to other sources of flooding.”

The development is classed as minor development in accordance with The Town and Country Planning Order 2015 [3].

1.3 The Development in the Context of Planning Policy

The area covered by the application is 0.88 ha (hectares) and reference to the Environment Agency Flood Map indicates the site lies in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3. The latest site layout plan by Mason Gillibrand Architects (drawing number 5595C/B/04) is included in Appendix A for reference.

The NPPF’s Technical Guidance [2] classifies each development into a vulnerability class, depending on the type of development (Table 1.1), car parks are not defined within the table. Car parks are non-residential and there is no requirement for parking to remain operational during a flood. They can therefore be considered water compatible.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 1 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

Table 1.1 Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification Vulnerability Development Classification • Essential transport infrastructure, which must cross the area at risk • Essential Infrastructure Essential utility infrastructure, which must be located in a flood risk area for operational reasons, include waste water treatment works and electricity generating power stations

• Police stations, ambulance and fire stations • Basement dwellings Highly Vulnerable • Caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use

• Hospitals • Residential institutions such as residential care homes, prisons and hostels More Vulnerable • Buildings used for dwelling houses, nightclubs and hotels • Sites used for holiday or short let caravans and camping, subject to a specific warning and evacuation plan

• Police, ambulance and fire stations which are NOT required to be operational during flooding. • Buildings used for shops, financial, professional and Less Vulnerable other services, restaurants and cafes • General industry • Land and buildings used for agriculture

• Flood control infrastructure • Docks, marinas and wharves • Lifeguard and coastguard stations Water-Compatible • Development Amenity open space, outdoor sports and recreation and essential facilities such as changing rooms • Water based recreation (excluding sleeping accommodation)

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 2 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

2.0 SITE CHARACTERISATION

2.1 Site Location

The proposed site is located approximately 150 m west of Cartmel village square at National Grid Co Ordinates 337646E 478720N. The site’s location is shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Site Location

2.2 Site Description

The site is a mix of Greenfield and Brownfield and covers an area of approximately 0.88 ha (8755 m²). At present the site is utilised as a formal car park with 77 no. parking spaces, the parking bays surface consist of porous gravel material, while the access road is permeable tarmac. An informal overflow car park lies immediately to the north,

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 3 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

with a granular hardcore surface, while the remaining landcover to the south east and west remains undeveloped.

2.3 Development Proposals

The development proposals consist of a car park extension to the existing site located in the south-east corner of the racecourse. The car parks currently capacity is 77 no. parking spaces (74 overflow spaces), with plans to expand the area to include a further 81 (5085 m²). No ground levels will be raised as part of the works.

2.4 Geology & Hydrogeology

British Geological Survey (BGS) [4] and Land Information Systems (LandIS) [5] mapping indicates the site is underlain by the geological sequences outlined in Table 2.1. The EA Groundwater Vulnerability Map [6] indicates there are no Groundwater Source Protection Zones or Groundwater Abstraction Licenses within 10 km of the site.

Table 2.1 Site Geological Summary Geological Aquifer Classification Description Unit Classification Freely draining slightly Soil Soilscape 6 N/A acid loamy soils

Till, Devensian- Silt, sands, gravels and Drift N/A Diamicton clays

Summary: Bannisdale Solid Sandstone Secondary A- locally Formation productive aquifer.

2.5 Existing Watercourses

The closest surface water feature to the proposed development site is Middlefield Beck (40 m east), which flows in a southerly directly for c. 150 m before discharging into the River Eea 120m south east of the site.

The River Eea is a relatively short watercourse that arises from numerous becks and streams throughout the Cartmel Valley. It is approximately 6 miles long and discharges into Morecambe Bay at Flookburgh, principally flowing in a south westerly direction.

The river’s catchment boundary as indicated in the Flood Estimation Online Web Service covers an area of 31.20 km² and is shown in Figure 2.2.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 4 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

Site Location

Figure 2.2 River Eea Catchment Boundary

2.6 Existing Sewers

Reference to the United Utilities sewer records (included in Appendix B) indicates that there are no sewers crossing the site. The nearest sewer is a 300 mm diameter combined sewer on the right bank of the River Eea.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 5 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

3.0 PRELIMINARY GROUND INVESTIGATION AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

3.1 Introduction

In order to establish ground conditions and soil infiltration characteristics at the site, a series of 4 no, machine excavated trial pits have been undertaken within the site. RGP attended site on 10 th April 2018. A copy of the Trial Pit Location Plan and associated Trial Pit Logs are included in Appendix B for reference.

3.2 Ground Conditions

Upon arrival, the site was wet following a night of heavy rainfall. The topsoil was a tight compact subsoil that impeded downward water movement, causing the sub surface soils to become waterlogged, resulting in surface wetness. The ground conditions below the topsoil layer were dry and varied across the site, consisting of silty, sandy, clayey GRAVEL and sandy, gravelly CLAY. Trial hole depths varied between 0.45 m- 1.50 m.

Groundwater ingress was recorded in TP01 at a depth of 1.50 mBGL.

3.3 Percolation Test Methodology & Results

The preparation of the holes for percolation testing was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of BRE-Digest 365-Soakaway Design [7] and with guidance from the Buildings Regulations 2000- Drainage and Waste Disposal, H2, Cl, 1.34 [8]. The tests holes were excavated by hand at the base of the trial pits at the test depth and generally measured 0.30 m x 0.30 m x 0.30 m. The test holes were filled with water and the time taken for the water to drop from 75%-25% recorded.

Percolation testing was undertaken within all 4 no. of the trial holes, with 3 holes providing suitable infiltration rates. The test results are included in Appendix B for reference. Percolation tests were repeated within three of the trial holes and it was noted that the infiltration rates reduced slightly due to the saturation of the underlying soils.

Of the 3 trial holes that provided suitable infiltration, the average rate has been calculated as 5.2 x 10ˉ⁵, with the lowest recorded infiltration rate calculated as 1.0 x 10ˉ⁵. Therefore, based on the results undertaken to date the existing underlying soils do provide satisfactory drainage characteristics to develop a SuDS based on natural infiltration.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 6 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD RISK

4.1 Background

The following risk assessment has been carried out in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework [1] and its Technical Guidance [2] on Flood Risk. The broad aim of the guidance is to reduce the number of people and properties within the natural and built environment at risk of flooding. To achieve this aim, planning authorities are required to ensure that flood risk is properly assessed during the initial planning stages.

Responsibility for this assessment lies with the developers and they must demonstrate:

• Whether the proposed development is likely to be affected by flooding.

• Whether the proposed development will increase flood risk in other parts of the hydrological catchment.

• That the measures proposed to deal with any flood risk are sustainable.

The developer must prove to the Local Planning Authority that the existing flood risk or the flood risk associated with the proposed development can be satisfactorily managed.

4.2 Flood Risk Terminology

Flood risk considers both the probability and consequence of flooding.

River flood events are often described in terms of their probability of recurrence or probability of occurring in any one year. The threshold between a medium flood and a large flood is often regarded as the 1 in 100-year event. This is an event which statistical analysis suggests will occur once every hundred years. However, this does not mean that such an event will not occur more than once every hundred years. Table 4.1 shows the event return periods expressed in years and annual expectance probabilities as a fraction and a percentage.

For example, a 1 in 100-year event has a 1% probability of occurring in any one year, i.e. a 1 in 100 probability. A 1000-year event has a 0.1% probability of occurring in any one year, i.e. a 1 in 1000 probability.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 7 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

Table 4.1 Return Periods and Exceedance Probabilities

Return Annual Exceedance Period Probability (AEP) (years) Fraction Percentage 2 0.5 50% 10 0.1 10% 25 0.04 4% 50 0.02 2% 100 0.01 1% 200 0.005 0.5% 500 0.002 0.2% 1000 0.001 0.1%

4.3 Data Collection

The following information was referred to for the Flood Risk Assessment:

• Environment Agency Flood Map covering the site and adjacent area.

• Environment Agency Surface Water Flood Maps.

• Topographic Survey.

• United Utilities Sewer Records.

• British Geological Survey Groundwater Flooding Vulnerability Classification.

• South Lakeland District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

• Latest Development Proposals.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 8 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

4.4 Environment Agency Flood Map

The Environment Agency Flood Map [6] (Figure 4.1) has been reviewed to assess the level of flood risk to the area. The flood map shows areas that may be at risk of fluvial flooding in a 1% (1 in 100 year, dark blue) or 0.1% (1 in 1000 year, light blue) Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event. Alternatively, if the flood risk is tidal the flood map will show areas predicted to be at risk of flooding from the sea in a 0.5% AEP event (1 in 200 year, dark blue) or a 0.1% AEP event (1 in 1000 year, light blue).

The Flood Map shows the current best information on the extent of the extreme flood from rivers or the sea that would occur without the presence of flood defences. The potential impact of climate change is not considered by the mapping.

Figure 4.1 Environment Agency Flood Map

Reference to Figure 4.1 indicates the site lies predominately within Flood Zone 1, with land to the southern and eastern boundaries within Flood Zones 2 and marginally within

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 9 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

Flood Zone 3. Figure 4.2 shows the flood zone outlines overlaying the proposed site layout, and it can be seen that a minimum of 4 no. parking bays will be located within Flood Zone 3 and a small section of access road.

Figure 4.2 EA Flood Map for Planning & Proposed Site Layout

The proposed car park extension is considered ‘Water compatible’ development, this type of land use is acceptable within all three flood zones.

4.5 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

South Lakeland District Council commissioned a SFRA covering the village of Cartmel which was completed by Jacobs Engineering in October 2007 [9]. The report relied on Environment Agency mapping for the predicted fluvial flood extents in the vicinity of the development site. Since the report was issued it appears the EA flood maps have been refined / updated and therefore the current mapping outlined in Section 4.4 should be used in preference to the SFRA flood extents.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 10 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

4.6 Surface Water Flood Map

The Environment Agency (EA) have mapped areas prone to surface water flooding based on historic flooding information received from the Lead Local Flood Authority and modelling based on a LiDAR / IfSAR digital terrain model, Ordnance Survey information on urban areas and a direct rainfall approach using Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) methodology. The critical (worst case) of the 1, 3 and 6-hour storm durations have been mapped. No allowance is made for climate change, the mapping therefore indicates the current predicted flood risk.

The maps do not account for culverts / underground drainage and due to digital terrain model resolution may also underestimate or omit small drainage channels / ditches. Figure 4.3 shows the resulting predicted flood risk from surface water.

Figure 4.3 Environment Agency Surface Water Flood Map

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 11 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

The EA surface water flood map indicates the site is not at risk of surface water flooding, with a predicted AEP of less than 0.1% (1 in 1000 year).

4.7 Groundwater Flooding

British Geological Survey (BGS) records are incomplete in the Cartmel area and do not cover the proposed development (Figure 4.4).

The sandstone bedrock is highly permeable and it is likely there is some hydraulic connectivity with the River Eea. However, the sandstone bedrock is overlain by glacial deposits and groundwater flooding at the surface is considered unlikely.

Figure 4.4 BGS Groundwater Flood Map

Although groundwater flooding was reported at a depth of 1.50 mBGL in TP01, the maximum depth of the permeable paving will be 0.48 mBGL.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 12 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

4.8 Flooding from Reservoirs, Canals or Other Artificial Sources

The Ordnance Survey map indicates that there are no reservoirs, canals or artificial structures in the proximity of the site however further upstream the River Eea is shown to be at risk of flooding from High Newton Reservoir by the EA risk of flooding from Reservoirs Flood Map [6]. The associated flood risk is not shown to encroach on the proposed development site.

Figure 4.5 Flooding from Reservoirs

The likelihood of reservoir flooding is, however, considered to be much lower than other forms of flooding. Current reservoir regulations which has been further enhanced by the Flood and Water Management Act, aims to make sure that all reservoirs are properly maintained and monitored in order to detect and repair any problem

4.9 Flooding from Sewers

United Utilities (UU) do not provide information on flood risk from their assets, although it is known that there are no sewers within the vicinity of the site.

It is therefore considered the site is not at risk of flooding from this source.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 13 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

5.0 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE STRATEGY

5.1 Introduction

The principal aim of the following drainage strategy is to design the development to avoid, reduce and delay the discharge of rainfall to public sewers and watercourses in order to protect watercourses and reduce the risk of localised flooding, pollution and other environmental damage.

In order to satisfy these criteria this surface water runoff assessment and drainage design has been undertaken in accordance with the following reports and guidance documents:

• SuDS Manual, CIRIA Report C753, 2015 [9].

• Code of Practice for Surface Water Management, BS8582:2013, November 2013. [11]

• Preliminary Rainfall Runoff Management for Developments, Defra/EA, W5- 074/A/TR/1, Revision D [12].

• Designing for Exceedance in Urban Drainage – Good Practice, CIRIA Report C635, 2006 [13].

• Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) [14].

• Flood Studies Report (FSR), Volume 1, Hydrological Studies, 1993 [15].

• Flood Studies Supplementary Report No 14 (FSSR14), Review of Regional Growth Curves, 1983 [16].

• Flood Estimation for Small Catchments, Marshall & Bayliss, Institute of Hydrology, Report No. 124 (IoH 124), 1994 [17].

The following assessment and drainage strategy is based on the latest site layout plan by Mason Gillibrand Architects (5595/C/B/04), which is included in Appendix A for reference.

Any alterations to the site plan resulting in changes to impermeable areas will require the drainage strategy to be revised.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 14 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

5.2 Climate Change

Projections of future climate change indicate that more frequent short-duration, high intensity rainfall and more frequent periods of long-duration rainfall are likely to occur over the next few decades in the UK. These future changes will have implications for river flooding and for local flash flooding. These factors will lead to increased and new risks of flooding within the lifetime of planned developments.

In February 2016, new climate change guidance issued by the Environment Agency came into effect outlining the anticipated changes in extreme rainfall intensity.

Table 5.1 shows anticipated changes in extreme rainfall intensity in small and urban catchments. Guidance states that for site-specific flood risk assessments and strategic flood risk assessments, both the central and upper end allowances should be assessed to understand the range of impacts. A climate change allowance of 30% has been selected for the purpose of drainage design based on the 100-year anticipated design life of the proposed development. This intermediate figure has been selected for conservative design. No properties are located immediately downstream of the site and therefore the site poses low risk to neighbouring property.

Although design is undertaken considering a 30% climate change allowance, a 40% allowance has also been analysed to understand the range of impacts.

Table 5.1 Peak Rainfall Intensity Allowance in Small & Urban Catchments (use 1961 to 1990 baseline)

Total potential Total potential Total potential change change change Applies across anticipated for anticipated for anticipated for all of England the ‘2020s’ (2015 the ‘2050s’ (2040 the ‘2080s’ (2070 to 2039) to 2069) to 2115) Upper end 10% 20% 40% Central 5% 10% 20%

5.3 Surface Water Disposal

Surface water disposal has been considered in line with the hierarchy outlined in the SuDS Manual. The approach considers infiltration drainage in preference to disposal to watercourse, in preference to discharge to sewer.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 15 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

5.3.1 Infiltration

Infiltration testing indicates soil on the site is suitable for the disposal of surface water by this method. The entire site will therefore drain via natural infiltration. For further information refer to Section 3.0.

5.4 Rate of Runoff Assessment

The site is less than 200 ha therefore the Greenfield calculations have been undertaken in accordance with methodology described in IoH 124 [17]. For catchments of less than 50ha the Greenfield runoff rate is scaled according to the size of the catchment, which is based on the proposed developed areas (5085 m²) in relation to a 50 ha site. Currently the site is a mix of greenfield to the south and west and granular hardcore to the north for the overflow car park.

Full details of the calculations and the methodology for deriving the Peak Rate of Runoff are in included in Appendix C. A summary of the results is included in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Greenfield Runoff Rates

Rate of Runoff (l/s)

Event Greenfield

Q1 1.91 QBAR 2.19 Q10 3.03 Q30 3.73 Q100 4.57

Without attenuation or infiltration, the proposed development would increase the Rate of Runoff from the developed areas of the site. To mitigate the potential increase in runoff, a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) is proposed, utilizing the natural infiltration of the underlying soils.

5.5 Surface Water Drainage Design

It is proposed the car park extension will match the existing car park with the road surface consisting of a permeable tarmac surface, while the parking bays shall have a permeable gravel surface.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 16 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

A Type A paving system will be adopted, which allows all water falling on to the surface to infiltrate down into the subgrade. Some retention of the water will occur temporarily in the permeable sub base layer allowing for initial storage before it eventually passes through.

System A is sometimes known as ‘Zero Discharge’, as no additional water from the new development is discharged into traditional drainage systems, therefore the need for pipes and gulley’s is eliminated.

In order to attenuate the future 100-year design storm + 30% climate change flows for the site, a conservative attenuation volume of approximately 225 m³ is required. This is based on a sub base depth of 380 mm for structural integrity. The required storage volume can be contained within this sub base to a depth of 300 mm. This storage estimate is based on the lowest infiltration rate across the site (1 x 10ˉ⁵) and a safety factor of 2, and is therefore highly conservative.

For the 40% climate change scenario, there will be an addition of 33 mm of depth, which will still be contained within the sub base.

5.6 Surface Water Quality

The treatment of surface water is not a statutory requirement. Water quality remains a material consideration but there are no prescriptive standards to be imposed in terms of treatment train management. In the absence of a design standard, the SuDS Manual has been used which outlines best practice.

A number of pollutants such as suspended solids, heavy metals and organic pollutants may be present in surface water runoff, the quantity and composition of the runoff is highly dependent on site use. For low traffic areas, the pollutant load is expected to be low.

The SuDS Manual [10] outlines best practice with regards to treatment of surface water by SuDS components prior to discharge to the environment. SuDS components can be effective in reducing the amount of pollutants within the surface water discharged and therefore environmental impact of the development. SuDS components may be installed in series to form a treatment train in order to treat the runoff.

The simple index approach as outlined in the SuDS manual has been used to assess the pollution hazard indices and proposed treatment components, the calculations are included in Appendix C. For the two categories of runoff areas served by the drainage system, non-residential parking and low traffic roads, treatment is proposed by

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 17 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

permeable paving. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 summarise the pollution hazard and mitigation indices for each type of runoff.

Table 5.3 Pollution Hazard & Mitigation Indices- Parking NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING AREAS Indices Suspended Solids Metals Hydrocarbons Pollution Hazard 0.5 0.4 0.4 Pollution Mitigation 0.7 0.6 0.7 Treatment Suitability Adequate Adequate Adequate Table 5.4 Pollution Hazard & Mitigation Indices- Roads LOW TRAFFIC ROADS Indices Suspended Solids Metals Hydrocarbons Pollution Hazard 0.5 0.4 0.4 Pollution Mitigation 0.7 0.6 0.7 Treatment Suitability Adequate Adequate Adequate

It is considered the use of permeable surfacing will provide sufficient treatment for surface water across the site.

5.7 Designing for Local Drainage System Failure

In accordance with the general principles discussed in CIRIA Report C635 – Designing for Exceedance in Urban Drainage [13] the proposed surface water drainage, where practical, should be designed to ensure there is no increased risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere as a result of extreme rainfall, lack of maintenance or other causes.

5.7.1 Exceedance

The site drainage will be designed to attenuate a 100-year design storm including a 30% allowance for climate change. The drainage system will also provide capacity for lower probability (greater design storm events) which are not critical duration. Exceedance flows shall be retained on site within the drainage system as far as practical however for storms of a greater return period it may be necessary to spill flows.

The following general measures will be implemented as part of the detailed drainage design:

Surface Storage & External Levels – where possible parking areas should be designed to offer additional surface storage volume and conveyance of flood water should the attenuation system fail, flood or exceed capacity. Where appropriate, the kerb lines should be raised via half batter kerbs (0.1m) to channel surface water runoff back into the drainage system.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 18 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

Overland Flow Route – The overland flow route in the highly unlikely event of exceedance of surface storage would be towards the south corner of the site, which is currently greenfield. No property lies immediately downstream of the proposed car park.

Drainage Contingency – the proposed surface water system will be designed to provide adequate storage volume against flooding including a 30% allowance to account for climate change.

5.8 Maintenance

In addition to the above measures, where applicable, a SUDs Operations & Maintenance Plan will be made available to the site owners detailing the requirements for future maintenance of the drainage system.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 19 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In consideration of the Flood Risk Assessment and proposed Surface Water Drainage Strategy for the site the following conclusions and recommendations are made:

• The south and east of the site is located partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and is considered to be at Medium-High risk of fluvial flooding from Middlefield Beck and the River Eea. The remainder of the site lies within Flood Zone 1 and is at very low risk of fluvial flooding.

• The proposed development site is shown to be at very low risk of flooding from surface water, sewers and artificial sources.

• BGS data is incomplete in the Cartmel area, however, preliminary ground investigations carried out by RGP located groundwater in TP03 at a depth of 1.5mBGL, this is marginally greater than 1m below the sub base.

• By reference to the National Planning Policy Framework [1] on Flood Risk, Water Compatible development is acceptable within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3.

• Surface water drainage for the site shall utilise natural infiltration across the site with discharge into the underlying subsoils via a permeable tarmac road and permeable gravel parking bays. This will also provide sufficient surface water treatment.

• The site layout and drainage systems will be designed to ensure that there is no increased risk of flooding on or off site as a result of extreme rainfall, lack of maintenance or other causes. The measures that will be implemented include additional flow conveyance capacity on the access road and car parking areas.

• In addition to the above measures, where applicable a SUDs Operations & Maintenance Plan will be made available to the site owners detailing future maintenance requirements of all sustainable drainage systems.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 20 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

7.0 DISCLAIMER

Prepared by:

Rachel Heron BSc MSc

R G Parkins & Partners Ltd

Checked by:

Oliver Sugden MEng

R G Parkins & Partners Ltd

Approved by:

Dave Heron BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MCIHT RMaPS

R G Parkins & Partners Ltd

13 th April 2018

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 21 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

8.0 REFERENCES

[1] Department for Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework , March 2012.

[2] Department for Communities and Local Government, Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework , March 2012.

[3] Defra/Environment Agency, The Town and Country Planning Order 2015, 2015 No.595, April 2015.

[4] British Geological Survey (BGS), GeoIndex Onshore, Superficial Deposits and Bedrock Geology, 1: 50,000.

[5] Land Information System (LANDIS)- Soilscapes viewer, April 2018. http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes

[6] Environment Agency Database, “What’s in your backyard?” April 2018. http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/

[7] BRE Digest 365, Soakaway Design Guide, March 2007

[8] The Buildings Regulations 2000, Approved Document H, Drainage and Waste Disposal, 2015 Edition

[9] Jacobs, South Lakeland District Council, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, October 2007.

[10] CIRIA, The SUDS Manual , Report C753, 2015.

[11] BS8582:2013, Code of practice for surface water management, November 2013.

[12] DEFRA/EA, Preliminary Rainfall Runoff Management for Developments , W5-074/A/TR/1, Revision D, September 2005.

[13] CIRIA, Designing for Exceedance in Urban Drainage – Good Practice , Report C635, London, 2006.

[14] Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Flood Estimation Handbook, Vols. 1 – 5 & FEH CD- ROM 3, 2009.

[15] Institute of Hydrology, Flood Studies Report, Volume 1, Hydrological Studies , 1993.

[16] Institute of Hydrology, Flood Studies Supplementary Report No 14 – Review of Regional Growth Curves, August 1983.

[17] Marshall & Bayliss, 1994. Flood Estimation for Small Catchments , Report No. 124 (IoH 124) , Institute of Hydrology.

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 22 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

APPENDIX A: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

MASON GILLIBRAND ARCHITECTS (5595/C/B/04)

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 23 30

.52 .76 28 .66 29 .35 30.05 30 .66 31 31.28 30 .27 .64 30 30.30 30.81 .72 29.07 28.68 CL31.40 .16 30.77 31.29 31 30.50 30.20 29.93 31 30.05 30.35

31.03 30 .64 30 .81 .14 .46 30.74 30.38 28.77 .03 .34 31.39 30.83 .62 28 30 .47 29 31 .21 29 .69 31 31.60 30.12 .01 .74 30.46 .66 28.93 31 29 31 31.58 30.84 30.73 29 30

.47 30.39 30.68 RIDGE 30 .89 31.22 31 29.68 28 .37 CL30.50 30.10 .34 37.53 CL30.68 31 .33 31.31 CL30.52 .15 WST 31 30.62 30 30 29 28.74 EAVES 31 .31 31.19 30.03 CL30.76 30.66 .60 29.86 .02 30.68 30.09 30 .46 .18 34.75 31 29.98 .70 .21 .42 31.33 30.19 28.78 29 30.71 .76 29 30 31 31.13 30.53 30 .98 30.24 .40 30 29.96 28 .38 28.90 28 .19 30.59 D 30 .74 30.43 29 29.38 31.24 31.29 29.16 .C FH 31 .72 30 30.98 .95 30.32 30.66 .23 30.20 29 30.67 30.51 29.60 29.12 .74 31.14 .24 29.98 31 .60

.21 SP 31 31.31 30.75 29.71 31 CL30.80 30.09 30.45 29 28 31.30 31 31 30.08 30.62 30.39 .97 .22 .16 .70 30 30.68 30.05 28.88 .95 .28 31.28 .89 28 .77 30.06 30.47 30 31 .19 30.04 30.55 .67 29.10 28.94 28 29 29 31.18 31.24 .14 .25 31 30.51 30.62 .55 31.15 31 .60 31.11 29.24 29.05 31.09 30.14 29.42 31 29.98 30.41 30.37 30.65 30 28.83 .79 31.22 .26

31.27 .00 28 NP 31 31.04 30.20 30.25 29.96 28.82 31.28 30.29 30.62 29

30.30 .90 .39 .22 29 28.77 .17 30.98 30.07 31.15 29.95 31 .29 31 30.24 30.38 .81 31 31.26 30.50 29.77 29 29.23 28 31.12 30.87 30.00 Permeable .23 31.19 .33 30.21 31.18 31 31.27 30.80 30.08 30.44 Hardstanding30.26 28.86 .22 28.67 30.10 .77 31 31.26 30.46 31.24 31.21 28 .13 30.81 30.13 30.12 29 .37

31 .41 30.04 30 .11 29.10 31.38 30 .13 CL31.07 30.44 31 .75 31.27 31.14 30.74 .28 31 31.08 30.16 31.21 29.96 29.92 28 31.16 .42 .38 31.28 30.90 28.74 28.71 478800N 478800N 31 31 30.17 29 30.60 30.33 28 31.42 29.88 29.64

.05 31.20 31.33 31.54 31.26 29.49 .62

30.47 .35 30.21 .66 .15

28 31.48 31.16 30.24 30 .53 28 31 29.94 .52 .52 31.59

31 30 30.41 .26 30.04 29.06

29 31.21 31 .87 28.91

.67 31.08 .04 .10 31.60 28.75 .21 31 30.07 .75 31 31.82 30.29

31.31 30.30 29.77 28 29 31 31.65 30 31.16 30.92 .76 30.08 30.25 .08 32.13 .27 29.56 .21 28.89 31.29 31.52 30.10 30 .02 .79 31 30.00 30.27 28 31.23 6000mm 29 31.73 .30 .07 TANNOY .63 .67 32.43 29.91 CL30.73 30 31 31 30.22 28 31 .99 29.01 28.89 30.47 CL30.04 .99 .27 32.11 32.56 28.94 30 31.75 .96 30 .11 30.18 .74 28.71 31 .06 29.81 31.39 .53 28 .71 32.27 30 28 28 31.11 31 30.01 28 31 32.68 30.25 30 .87 .93 .02 31 .15 29 .75 .08 31.75 .75 30.09 30.15 .26 .28 .92 28 31 31.08 31.29 CL31.23 31.95 30.52 30 30.06 28 31 29.79 30.08 30 .77 28 .26 31.59 30 28.14 30.39 (30.33) 28 .87 28 .90 30 33.09 .54 .84 28 31.73 29 .97 31 31.73 30 .32 .03 .79 28.87 .10 31.09 31.85 31.51 .63

31 .75 33.33 29.87 29.83 31 28 .76 .63 32.16 .15 .56 31.32 28.92 31 .61 30 31.04 28 31 .02 28.90 28 28

.83 29.83 30 30 .79 .58 .93 .02 .59 31 .64 28 31.23 31.78 30 .81 .71 .48 31.03 28 33.28 31.24 29.72 30 .30 31 31 27 30 .01 .31

29 .31 32.83 .34 30 .79 29 31

30 31.68 .65 31 SO8 .02 29.18 29.77 .78 BENCH 31 28 .63 32.93 29.92Gravel BENCH 31.37 .98 .01 31.01 27

.66 31.39 .76 .35 31.65 33 28 LP 33.39 .74 30.76 27 .10 31 31.59 28.95 .96

.92 31

.92 .94 32.36 29.70 29.94 31.76 .71 .91 31 .74 .68 28.80 28 33 30 31 31 .58 28.92 30 30 31 30 .76 28 CL29.70 31 .81 NP .81 33 28 .61 32.20 .75 30.21 29 .61 29 .81 27 P\R 30.91 .55 31.21 31 31.99 29.97 BENCH .88 .08 28 31.74 .94 29.73 30.08 .54 28 PT 28.84 28.80 30 .22 LP 28.86 .82 .53 32.03 33.73 31 31.40 29 28 SW .69 29.88 29 28.95 .09 .88 31 31 31.91 Bonfire 30.64 31.47 PT .91 29 31 33 28 .52 33.95 .94 .99 .76 .77 28 30.85 32.61 31.14 30.42 .08 28 28.32 .40 31.16 29.76 29 29 .76 28 .43 30.92 31.49 33 29.63 .68 .90 .85 29 28 28 30.84 31 29 .78 29.96 .69 31 31 .87 PT .26 28 .60 P\R 30 29.79 29 31.01 29 .77 33 33.91 33.31 .13 33.03 .41 .65 .38 28 31.33 30.49 29.66 .61Number plate recognition Access28 via 30 .80 .98 31 33 28.56 28.76 31 33 28 31 30.11 29 PT .62 33 SW Low level estate .74 28 31.94 .43 .45 PT

.42 29.62 .26 .70 automatic barriers 31.28 34.01 .88 29 .08 Cartmel28.69 31 33.83 CL34.01 29 .67 fencing to match29.82 29 .44 28 28.46 30.64 31.67 32.42 5800mm SP .03 .17 .03 29.75 CL29.55 29 NP 29 PT 28.74 30.51 .11 34 .26 34 31 CB 29.08 existing 29.68 Way29 31.27 31 31.50 .06 PT .09 31 29.76 .04 33 29 29 .03 .35 .12 .92 .81 .09 .13 33 31.14 32 .05 .89 31.53 29.76 29.74 .51 29.07 28 .81 30.70 31 34 .60 .67 Out 478750N 478750N 31.68 P\R Gravel 29 29 28 .52 28.66 .02 31 29 CB .90 29.73 CL29.40 .06 28 28.34 33 Permeable .66 29 .52 29.46 31.84 29 29.06 28 28.10 CL29.79 29.78 29 5800mm 28 30 .39 30.79 .55 .35 .1029 31.45 32.11 32.77 29 EIC 29 29 30 .86 30.94 34 Tarmac .99 34 29.74 .70 .06 30 30 29 .59 .08 33 29 .89 .41 29.78 30.37 .13 .25 29 .20 29.20 28 .46 .36 30.33 .85 31.57 29 29 .07 .19 30.22 30 P\R .78 28 27 .59 30.95 29.82 .76 .36 30.37 30.90 .64 BIN .17 .12 30 29 29

P\R 29 .79 29 29 .49 29 .96 30 28.44 34 29.90 .43 Way 29.12 30.39 .33 FL29.70 28 28.23 .72 30.73 31.93 .84 .70 29 28 31.06 32.90 .25 29 29 .14 .82 Gravel 27.99 30.44 29 30 29 28 30 30 34.28 .23 .53 .69 30.47 29.84 In 29 31.16 31 6340mm .76 .63 29 29 .76 .35 33 30.26 .93 .47 29.36 SW 29 29 29 34 .87 .78 .64 29 .71 .06 30.32 .95 29 EAVES .44 29 29 .24 .22 29 31.38 .54 29.91 29 27 Existing Woodland 30 31.87 28 30 30 30.29 33.38 .68 .68 .55 .84 29.16 BT 28.38 30.11 .29 .58 .63 30.14 34 .64 29 SW RIDGE .13 30.03 29 29 28 .02 33 .43 EIC 28.18 30 32.35 .01 29.92 .00 .73 35.09 30.02 30.37 30 30 .88 29 .12 29.04 30 30 29

.03 27.92 .20 33 .39 .21 SW .78 .48 .94 31.30 .70 29 29 .94 29 NP 30 31 29 29.94 30 CB 29 33 30.05 .10 29 CL29.37 .64 .77 30 .84 29.73 LP .61 .57 30.34 .74 .00 .56 .52 30.43 29 29.39 27 30 33.74 29 29.61 29 29 30 .78 28 28 .48 .08 .16 29 29.58 .88 .33 29 30 .05 29 29 .01 28.89 28.42 30 29 CL29.39 29.53 30 29.63 .07 SP 30 29.74 29 .40 29.92 30.10 .41 30.11 29 .39 29.92 .96 .20 .93 29 29 29.86 30.47 .42 32 30.12 .10 .63 .42 29 28.15 29 30 29 .88 30 30 29 EIC 29 29 .44 31 .12 .82 30.19 .63 30.61 .37 .82 29.50 .98 29 29.06 27.96 .15 .69 .67 29.25 29 30 30 29 29.10 .06 .00 .36 .96 30.41 .20 30 29 SP .42 .58 30 29 30 .03 29 29 30.22 30.45 30.37 .50 .57 30 .95 29.27 29.33 .33 .14 29 29.01 28 .51 29 SO9 CL30.15 .57 .03 .23

P\R .49 29.51 30 30 .22 29.87 29 CL29.08 27 29 29 29 .33 .28 29 .01 30 Gravel 29 .06 29 30.34 29.41 29 .23 29 28.38

.89 BIN .74 30.21 13000mm .34 30.23 30.35 .41 29.35 29.58 .14 BIN 29.49 28.18 .70 .33 28 29.30 NP EIC .09 30 30.24 30 30.08 29.72 29 29.02 28.96 29 PT .83 29 29.54 29 .07 29 29.50 .27 LP 29.54 29.51 29.88 30 29 CB 29.11 29 28.10 .26 .23 .27 .59 29 29 .24 .65 29.25 .73 29.94 .16 30.04 .93 29.60 TM 29 .22 30.13 28 29 .32 30.25 29 29 29 30 .42 .03 .28 29 30.00 .26 29.29 SP .98 29.45 .32 29.24 29 30.10 29 .55 30.15 .04 29 .80 CL29.03 .60 SW 29 29.20 30 30 29 29 29 29.07 .18 30 .07 28.34 30 .19 30.17 .88 .44 .32 27 30 29 29 29.07 30.08 .11 30.17 .06 .01 29 28.22 30 29.46 .22 .96 28 TANNOY SO10 SP 29.45 29.46 29 .13 .97 29 28 29.16 29.32 30.14 .12 29 29.86 .23 .23 30 30 Permeable 28.71 .39 28.04 29 .15 30 30.08 29 29.26 29.34 30 .75 29 29 .12 .14 .08 29 29 .08 28 29.23 30.13 .08 29 .91 29 .09 30 30 .52 .43 29 Tarmac 29.72 .71 29 29 .92 29 29 29.08 30 .39 .33 .06 .15 .36 29 29.40 30.14 .05 .83 29 .24 30.11 29 .43 29 29.20 28.39

.52 30 .55

29 .48 .01 .60 30 .29 30.16 .91 29 29 29.83 .11 29.97 29 .71 .37 28 29 29.49 29 29 .08 29 .55 29.97 .13 .13 .11 28.25 29 .10 .67 29 30 .45 29 29 Existing Car Park 29 29.04 .48 .31 .13 .11 27 30 30 29 .38 29

29 .81 29 29 29.88 .87 29 .51 .12 30.11 29 29 29.06 28.07 .03 .11 30 .75 .67 .62 28.79 P\R 30 .04 29 28 .99 29.06 29 .42 29.34 .16 .10 29.89 30 29.88 29 29 29 28.58 29.24 29 29 29 .59 28 29.80 .07 .75 .55 .17 29.07 .11 .15 .15 .50 28.99 30.04 .41 28.92 478700N 478700N 30 30 .82 .76 .01 28 .08 29 29 28.47 29 29 29 29 29 29.81 30 .19 29.05 30.10 30.10 29 .54 29 29 29.84 .62 .44 .20 28.94 .07 .10 .02 29 28.27 30 30 .74 29 29 29 30.02 30 29.34 29 29.25 .23 .17 .27 29.94 29 29.11 .72 29 .42 .09 29.76 29 .51 .47 28.05 29 .06 .74 28 29.11 .96 .69 .33 27.94 28.98 30 29.90 29 .58 29 .16 28 29 .93 29 .08 29 29 29 28 29.96 .70 29.64 29 .04

.73 28 30 .39 29 28.75 29.32 30.01 .25 29.95 .01 29.76 29 .30 29 .79 .49 EIC .97 29 28.83 28.95 29 29 30 29 29.09 .56 28.79 28.94 .06 30.28 30.56 30.2930 .61 29.52 29 .25 6000mm 29 29 27 29.60 29.83 .22 29 .41 29.35 29.28 28.57 .66 .67 .47 .11 .81 28.50 29 29 .85 29 .99 28.85 29 .07 30.85 29.68 28 28.99 .11 .39 29.41 29.35 28.23 30 30 .45 28 28 29.67 29.22 28.87 29 29.96 30 28 .22 .46 29 29 .10 28

.86 28.05 29.40 .70 .03 .17 .09 29.32 29.12

.71 29 29.17 30 30 .04 28.86 31.01 28.89 .28 29.67 30 29.09 31.46 29.50 29 .99 28.66 27.88 29 28 28.73 28.86 28.85 29.39 .38 Additional/Overflow 28.74 29.48 .02 30.57 29.29 .67 28 31.61 32.34 28.86 30 28.55 29.67 .05 Carpark 27 .71 .24 .25 30.08 .39 2828.42.42 29 29.46 30 32.55 32.45 29.95 29.09 29.82 30 28 28 29.52 28.18 Low level lighting 28.83 .98 29 .79 29.95 29 32.41 .33 27.92 28.78 28.99 29.80 28.77 29 30.07 32.48 Gravel 27.83 .99 .75 28.69 28.73 .11 .35 .51 29 31.75 .37 29.68 28 28.71 28.77 28.61 28 29 .08 29 29.69 30 .53 Pay Machines .15 30 .25 29.51 28 .76 29.86 30.34 27 29.68 .00 30 31.91 29 28 28.73 29 29.71 28.40 .59 30 .09 28.39 .24 29.86 30 29.34 Drainage channel .57 30.20 28 30.18 .47 28.48 28 28.09 28.76 .02 32.78 .68 30 30.21 29.93 29 29.14 29 28 27.80 .20 29 29.74 .01 Low level estate fencing to .91 .68 28.65 28.67 .20 .86 29 30 .91 32.66 28 28.63 28.64 .81 30.57 32.54 29.73 27.65 .58 30 29 28.48 28 28.93 .19 .08 31.73 match existing 28.79 27 30.49 30 28.36 28.64 30 .17 .54 31 .03 29.47 28.56 28 .82 28 28.68 .95 .65 28.00 .49 28 28.43 28 32.26 30 .67 29.85 28.21 .60 30 30.91 28 28.77 29 30.42 28 .89 .85 .91 27.72 .96 31.41 32.14 .63 28 .39 28.40 28.57 28.59 29 29 Total Parking Spaces - 232 28.60 28 30.98 30.15 27.62 .53 29.53 28 .87 .16

28 .96 .52 28 28 28 .49 30.07 31.78 29 32.04 29 28 29.62 .01 .39 28.36 WALL .51 28.96 31 .93 32.69 30.02 29 .59 .69 28.64 28 28 31 30.90 28.39 221 Cars TANNOY 28.82 29 28.58 .88 .90 .91 28.00 28.32 28.19 28 .65 28 28 29.63 32.57 STONE 28.59 28 .55 29 .38 28.29 5 Disabled .31 30.60 28.57 28 .74 32.28 .37 27.76 .44 28.60 .85 .48 .31 .43 28.63 31 31 .63 28 28 CL28.55 29 30.49 28 28 28 28 28 6 Buses 28 .69 478650N 478650N 28 31 .33 28.45 27.65 .99 .67 31.64 .51 .97 .12 .54 28.57 .79 32.19 30 30 .52 28.08 .80 30 28.07 28 30.88 29 SP 28.24 27 .59 28.70 .80 .27 28.58 31.47 32.08 28.53 28 .65 337450E .34 337500E 28 337550E 337600E 32.29 337650E 337700E 337750E 337800E 28 29 28.08 28 28.49 .91 32.25 30 .14 28 28 .63 28 28 28.18 28.60 .47 28 .57 32.27 .77 27.99 .52 28 .96 .09 28 28.54 28.63 28.79 28 28.05 .08 29 31.83 .78 .25 .67 .54 27.71 27.95 .20 28.43 CL28.44 30

28 .61 28.58 28.56 29 30.58 ELB 28.50 28 28 28 28 32.22 337450E 27 337500E 28.59 337550E 29.91 337600E 337650E 337700E 28 .98 29 30.41 .89 .44 .88 28.46 28.36 .66 32.17 28.03 .04 28.56 .54 .53 31.33 28 28 29 .46 30.64 .61 28.03 28.67 29 28.39 32.15 .57 .19 .18 .44 29 29 28 28 27.92 28 31.43 28 .16 28.57 28.51 .03 28 28.36 Race Weekend .82 29.38 32.05 31.67 31.48 .63 28 28 28.75 30.77 .19 .63 28 .80 30.52 27.91 28.46 .48 30.68 28.72 28.23 28 27 28 .99 29 29.70 .14 Camping .94 28.64 .46 28.53 29 31.59 31.61 28 27.86 29 30.15 30.23 28 28.74 29 30 .09 .35 28.43 .26 29.23 .27 .14 32.32 .73 28.62 27.88 28 .47 30.60 28 28 28.54 .04 .94 32.28 29.11 29 28.52 .38 28.47 .00 28.60 27 .11 CL30.03 28 .22 28.52 29 SO9A CL28.50 28 27.82 .10 .53 29.04 31.26 29 29.70 27.79 28 28 28 28.77 28.39 .31 27.73 27.92 28 28.50 29 32.21 .16 .54 .87 DR .88 31.76 30.59 .48 28.61 29.10 .78 32.53 29 28 28 27 CL29.79 31.54 .94 28 .26 30.14 29 32.33 .26 27.77 28 27.78 27 .21 28 28.25 28.56 28.70 28.32 27 29.10 EAVES .01 .93 .78 .54 28.74 CL29.60 27.83 28 .21 32.33 30 31.72 .73 28.74 28.62 27 .89 .09 .16 29.05 31.91 .48 28.62 29 RIDGE 31.74 33.00 .22 27.70 27.76 27 28 28 .56 31.54 28 .86 .09 28 28.55 34.13 29 28.79 29 30.09 29 P\R 27 .88 28 .11 29.15 29 29 27 27 .23 .35 27 27.65 28.60 28 .64 .11 32.96 27.72 27 28 .19 28.28 CL29.57 28.85 .83 .59 .06 28 .55 31.76 27 27.65 28.12 28.47 28.90 .31 .33 .70 .86 .11 29 28 28.85 27.97 .93 27 .98 .09 28.61 29.68 DR 29 32.03 28.80 28 29 27 28 .57 .24 27.84 28.66 .07 29.62 RIDGE 27 27 27 28.69 29 29 .77 .54 .70 28.20 34.24 .75 27.45 28 28.92 .49 29 .29 .64 27 27 27 27.98 29 CL29.27 SO11B 28.83 .52 .60 .55 29 .30 29 .74 27 .02 .08 .96 28.45 29 31.02 28 .99 BW .10 SO11 29.14 29 EAVES 27.95 28 Ticket Booths .70 .95 27 29.10 .30 29 28.83 27.57 .88 TANOY 28 32.27 .23 .59 27 27 27 .14 FL29.62 28.92 .49 27 28.73 29.09 29 30.90 28.86 Rev. Initial Date Note 27 27.97 28.67 CL29.19 27.81 27.71 27 27.76 28 30.63 .54 27.45 .66 .59 29.14 30.53 .82 .81 FL29.57 28 27 28.23 27 28 .04 CL29.13 28.88 27 27 28 29 28.86 29 30.65 28.89 .38 .43 .56 .30 .25 28.87 27.50 27 .89 .87 29.20 .27 30.39 29 .65 28.65 .60 .02 27 .38 .80 27 28.10 28 29 CL29.51 29 29 27.46 27 27.77 .53 28.89 29 29.56 29.08 27.68 .48 27 28.74 28.75 .32 29.46 ISSUED FOR COMMENT .78 27.68 29.41 27 28.46 29.29 .17 29.01 27.43 27 .40 27 28 29.00 .37 29 29.15 29.00 478600N 27 .31 .53 28.05 .61 28.72 29 .35 27 28 SO11A 29.26 29.10 27 .84 28.19 .66 29.30 29.39 29.41 27 28.75 .34 27.37 .71 27.62 28.79 29.07 29.40 27 .57 28.73 .38 27.45 27 27 .60 28.51 29 29.49 29.26 29.08 .30 28 28.73 28.84 29.27 29.50 27.48 27 27.55 28.12 .64 28.79 29 27.40 27.31 28 28.26 28.89 .01 29.05 29.05 29.20 29.46 P\R .22 29.31 27 .98 29.06 29.26 29.40 29.43 27 28.11 28.74 28.71 29.09 29.18 29.17 CARTMEL RACECOURSE 27 .41 .71 project 27 29.46 .38 .52 .54 27 27.27 .26 27 .92 28.66 28 28.75 29.46 27 27 .58 27 .65 27.44 .35 27.52 27.55 29.37 29.26 .57 27 27.53 .18 28 28.87 29.34 27 27 P\R 28.30 28.78 28.99 29.31 Site Plan 28 .70 29.09 29.24 29.50 27.23 BIN .94 29.16 .57 28.51 28.59 29.52 27.28 27.25 27.78 .01 drawing title CL27.44 27 27.98 28 28.04 28 28.86 29.44 Car Park - Proposed 27.27 27 South West .53 .67 29.33 .29 28.88 29.30 27 27.53 28.21 28.95 29.07 29.15 29.19 .37 28 .47 27.43 28.56 .80 28.35 28 29.69 Entrance27 .42 28.43 28 drwg. no. 5595 c/b/04 date Jun-17 rev B 27.13 27.37 27.67 27.91 .88 28.95 .40 27 .61 28.63 29.02 29.09 29.15 29 29.39 27.22 27.18 27 27 29.19 27.21 .10 27.17 .46 28 28.92 27.16 .39 .43 28 .40 27.49 27.97 .30 29.11 29.19 27 .33 27 28.16 29 27 SP .31 .53 .20 28 28.49 scale 1:500 @ A1P drawn by RN checked by SM 27 27 P\R .38 27 28 27 28.59 .42 27.61 27.80 28.84 .27 .42 .55 .27 Race Weekend Camping 29.13 27.17 27 28.05 29.05 29 27 27.94 .12 27 .33

27.13 27.16 27.01 .27 .33 28 MASON GILLIBRAND .40 .22 27.69 28 28.38 27.06 27 27 27.39 28.62 28.02 .55 A R C H I T E C T S 27.01 27 27 28 28 27.19 27 28.83 .91 29 .08 .18 27 .30 .18 .31 .14 27.34 27.85 16 WILLOW MILL | FELL VIEW | CATON | LANCASTER | LA2 9RA 27 .23 28 28 29.23 27.36 27.59 27.98 .83 .95 .94 27.05 29 27.12 28.24 28.22 28.62 28 26.97 27 28.15 28.88 T: (01524) 771 377 | F: (01524) 771 330 | www.masongillibrand.com 27 .11 P\R 27.07 .06 27 28.42 27.15 .31 28.01 Drawings are based on survey data and may not accurately represent what is physically present. Do 27.34 27.90 28.77 .40 26.96 .10 26 27.80 29 not scale from this drawing. All dimensions are to be verified on site before proceeding with works. All 27 .10 .99 26.91 27 26.88 .40 29.04 dimensions are in millimetres unless stated otherwise. Mason Gillibrand Architects are to be notified in 27 Existing Woodland writing of any discrepencies immediately. 27 27 28.25 .69 © MASON GILLIBRAND ARCHITECTS 26.93 27.03 28.74 29 .13 .02 .05 27 27.62 27 27.21 .24 27.91

.09 .12 27 28.98 27 .12 CB 29 26.88 .03 28.34 27 27.96 Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

APPENDIX B: GROUND INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

TRIAL PIT LOCATION PLAN TRIAL PIT LOGS PERCOLATION TEST ASSESSMENT

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 24 31.26 29.03

29.05 28.87 31.26 31.24 32.24 29.88 29.37 31.29 31.27 31.21 30.54 DR 29.79 IC CL28.85 31.81 30.32 IC 30.45 30.82 EAVES DR 28.98 SAP 30.15 DR 29.56 29.23 29.20 CL28.90 NP 30.64 31.56 DR 37.92 CL29.62 IC G0.4 29.59 29.04 30.47 31.28 CW 29.59 29.45G1.2 29.19 SAP 29.45 PT 30.61 DR FL30.47 SW 29.36 29.63 31.21 CL29.49 31.05 Survey Operations Limited 2017 31.24 CB MG 28.85 28.87 30.06 31.29 ER 30.42 MH SW 28.94 32.17 31.30 31.26 29.71 29.57 30.15 31.21 (30.88) 29.69 CL29.54 28.94 31.25 DR 29.65 29.06 29.48 Reproduction in whole or in part by any means IC I\R 29.73 29.09 31.31 MH EAVES 28.86 29.19 30.91 31.85 31.21 31.25 32.99 CB 28.89 30.10 31.27 31.32 CL31.26 46.58 30.45 28.98 30.25 29.35 29.54 is prohibited without the prior permission of 31.37 EAVES MP 29.52 29.11 30.30 31.25 SW/I/R 29.38 30.01 31.59 31.08 29.69 31.26 46.84 30.41 29.61 29.22 28.98 30.15 28.97 29.49 Survey Operations Limited. 31.35 31.31 EAVES DR 29.68 29.33 28.87 30.89 33.52 29.81 31.11 31.28 37.08 MH 29.45 BT 31.30 28.97 28.89 31.38 CL29.65 28.95 30.83 31.30 31.26 29.53 30.37 LP 31.28 TBM1 29.15 31.19 PT EAVES 29.61 31.27 33.54 EAVES FL37.01 29.73 IC 31.25 MH 32.26 RIDGE 36.98 IC CL28.92 29.07 31.38 37.93 30.20 29.23 29.88 CL31.24 31.32 40.57 TBM2 MH 28.96 CL28.98 31.02 31.34 29.43 29.39 28.95 31.84 CL30.43 29.75 31.58 29.84 29.89 I\R PT 29.02 29.83 31.37 ER 29.56 29.01 29.03 31.32 31.03 I\R PT 29.68 PT SAP 28.95 30.99 28.96 33.55 29.06 28.96 SAP 31.34 31.15 ER 31.29 32.27 30.38 PT 34.06 29.51 29.22 31.33 PT 29.18 SAP 31.15 30.73 28.96 29.74 31.28 31.33 PT 29.28 33.34 29.73 29.39 BT 28.99 SP 31.27 31.37 29.41 28.88 28.88 PT PT 29.36 SAP 29.02 31.23 IC 29.78 PT MH 29.35 29.00 31.25 28.85 CL29.46 29.52 SAP 29.14 29.88 31.57 31.33 MH MH 29.47 29.18 29.36 29.99 31.05 33.54 30.38 29.56 29.13 32.29 31.02 31.31 29.00 29.12 G MH MH G1.2 29.22 G 31.00 31.37 LP MH 29.93 31.31 31.41 CL30.24 CL30.22 MH PT 31.34 31.41 30.47 29.49 MH 29.16 CL29.04 28.89 29.00 31.01 29.00 31.03 CL30.14 30.36 31.41 31.41 IC 30.77 31.90 29.94 (29.39) 29.16 29.28 31.18 29.05 G 30.69 31.21 31.20 29.49 28.94 SW MH 29.60 29.49 29.60 29.72 29.18 CL30.25 29.01 30.86 31.32 IC 31.28 ER 29.22 31.61 29.62 29.14 31.07 29.64 29.10 29.82 30.01 31.39 CL31.41 31.38 28.88 28.91 28.82 28.77 31.40 29.08 STONE WALL 31.11 28.91 31.38 31.43 31.34 28.89 30.40 29.69 29.15 28.92 28.85 28.83 30.82 31.17 28.88 30.07 30.79

31.05 28.83 31.28 28.79 29.88 30.97 28.88 29.67 31.08 30.86 29.62 28.81 31.15 29.24 28.85 30.00 IC 31.10 31.09 30.50 IC 29.04 31.40 28.87 31.74 CL31.14 LP CL29.42 IC LP 31.13 29.63 28.80 28.66 30.26 31.18 29.58 31.36 29.72 CL28.92 31.11 CB 30.63 30.98 31.40 31.29 CONC BT 32.19 31.28 30.23 31.40 29.73 MH 29.14 IC 31.18 31.18 28.72 28.79 30.86 32.72 28.92 31.33 CL29.56 CL28.68 30.89 30.79 28.80 29.91 TANNOY 29.04 30.42 30.87 29.22 29.22 TP 31.83 29.99 29.57 31.37 31.20 30.90 29.25

31.24 28.78 30.27 31.29 30.72 N

28.74 32.15 31.02 31.49 28.77 28.78

31.32 29.73 31.24 31.33 28.76 29.21 31.28 29.55 29.17 28.73 30.99 31.36 31.26 30.51 29.57 28.89 30.14 CB 29.85 31.22 31.35 29.94 PT 30.34 30.04 30.54 30.98 28.98 31.28 31.23 29.00 31.11 30.66 28.98 31.86 30.99 28.73 30.18 31.49 31.39 30.36 G0.9 28.96 31.28 31.25 28.75 29.76 30.76 29.19 CB NP 29.23 29.42

30.95 30.26 30.02 29.19 30.86 31.43 31.28 30.98 31.25 28.66 31.28 31.28 28.67 30.97 32.21 IC 31.31 30.46 29.58 28.71 LP 30.71 31.57 CL31.29 29.64 29.88 31.96 31.08 28.64 32.98 31.31 29.89 29.71 31.01 30.92 29.89 31.23 30.30 29.84 28.95 31.41 29.33 28.78 30.18 30.94 28.67 32.12 31.38 29.00 31.25 29.91 28.66 32.27 30.64 30.62 BT 31.60 30.33 31.00 28.83 30.96 31.42 30.85 STONE WALL SP 28.64 29.72 32.12 31.31 29.30 31.92 31.31 30.86 29.28 32.18 29.26 31.32 31.28 29.13 29.80 29.90 WST LP 28.62 30.90 30.01 STUMP LP 31.30 28.62 30.03 31.55 31.26 30.26 31.59 31.23 SoL29.27 28.60 31.38 30.78 29.87 29.10 WL28.58 31.02 31.35 31.20 30.64 IC 30.28 31.09 31.70 31.05 28.61 SW 29.66 30.40 29.30 28.56 31.57 31.24 CL30.05 IC 18/05/17 31.85 G2.5 31.47 NP MG G2.5 MH 30.53 30.99 STUMP 31.67 G2.5 29.64 28.94 29.83 STUMP SO5B1 31.24 IC CL31.68 31.01 31.04 MH 31.49 31.36 RIDGE 30.92 30.05 CL29.99 IC 31.19 30.80 30.70 CL28.66 G 30.86 31.83 31.29 CL31.52 MH 30.95 30.94 31.83 30.43 39.51 31.76 LP 31.02 28.69 CL28.58 29.22 DR 31.20 31.18 31.21 CL31.48 STUMP 30.36 WST 31.65 30.00 32.07 LP 28.57 SO5A 28.93 30.09 30.79 30.35 28.88 28.51 32.31 28.56

31.82 IC 28.48 31.43 28.73 28.53 TANNOY 31.40 29.95 29.17 31.82 30.79 CL30.82 30.07 31.05 30.78 28.60 31.63 30.33 G 30.33 31.47 31.00 MG 31.29 32.18 29.93 IC 28.77 29.00 31.37 IC 31.17 31.03 30.44 LP 31.66 G 31.70 30.60 CB CL31.43 FL31.44 31.31 31.54 32.03 31.08 DR 28.50 28.06 29.81 31.58 IC 30.86 31.64 31.42 G 31.07 30.67 30.98 31.76 IC 31.14 IC 28.50 28.02 31.28 31.83 31.66 30.84 CL31.04 32.25 NP 31.12 31.03 CL30.84 30.14 28.91 28.34 IC 31.34 30.97 30.48 29.54 28.81 G2.5 31.25 31.80 RIDGE IC CB 30.07 31.69 28.10 31.06 CL31.02 31.38 IC 30.74 CL30.04 31.13 30.87 31.23 35.93 30.82 30.00 30.93 MG 31.37 30.97 31.53 31.76 DR 28.84 28.54 30.15 CL31.17 WL28.19 28.66 28.99 30.93 MG 32.26 31.21 SO1 G EAVES 30.88 30.56 31.43 G 30.47 29.87 17/05/17 30.48 30.79 29.66 33.87 DR 30.87 30.84 31.34 31.63 28.98 30.27 31.93 LP 30.75 DR 30.82 28.51 28.11 28.51 28.71 30.97 G 30.76 31.80 31.74 NP 31.20 28.60 28.03 31.45 31.20 32.34 28.35 30.06 28.55 30.83 SO5B 31.70 30.52 DR 31.56 31.20 29.91 G SW 30.91 30.94 30.49 30.21 31.18 30.79 30.90 30.94 31.12 TANNOY 28.67 30.83 31.30 28.73 MG G 32.68

30.62 29.38 31.61 32.79 31.30 IC SP 30.26 31.45 30.30 29.65 32.71 28.72 G1.5 DR FL31.46 BW 30.73 31.10 31.02 G 30.88 30.83 30.75 30.76 30.90 31.22 31.13 30.74 30.57 DR 28.71 29.92 30.86 28.79 31.53 31.14 31.13 DR 31.10 29.54 28.71 30.43 IC 29.97 29.75 SO2 28.64 31.41 PT 31.43 28.66 30.00 MG 30.81 CL31.28 31.52 28.67 30.93 Z FL31.47 28.33 31.31 30.97 30.77 30.76 30.84 30.37 31.24 WST 31.12 31.26 30.76 29.57 31.14 CB 31.29 28.68 STAND 30.77 31.12 30.72 30.85 31.15 28.72 28.75 31.24 PT 31.30 28.62 30.91 MH 30.65 31.47 30.41 30.92 28.62 30.91 31.29 30.35 31.10 31.16 30.24 31.70 31.15 G2.5 30.89 CB STUMP G DR CL30.97 SO3 29.38 31.16 31.02 SP 30.63 30.75 28.28 30.41 30.83 IC 31.15 30.69 BW 31.02 31.17 29.88 30.03 30.55 TP 30.82 30.73 31.42 IC CL31.27 30.88 28.61 30.11 31.00 29.66 28.68 29.16 30.61 30.78 31.95 IC 31.02 31.14 CL31.23 Z 31.18 31.06 31.23 31.07 CL29.11 30.75 30.72 31.10 SAT 30.79 30.19 31.22 31.03 31.04 SO1A 30.82 29.66 (32.65) 28.63 30.91 P\R 30.87 BW 30.53 30.36 29.34 28.60 MG 30.95 30.15 32.01 30.24 31.15 29.50 28.75 MG 30.12 30.21 32.00 30.98 30.70 31.07 31.17 30.96 31.07 30.48 28.60 30.87 G 31.09 28.29 28.61 29.92 30.32 30.64 29.67 30.78 G 30.15 31.20 IC 28.79 30.45 31.41 30.77 30.88 30.91 31.12 29.64 CL31.06 28.62 28.68 30.47 30.17 30.96 29.12 28.73 28.78 31.06 31.06 29.16 28.60 28.65 30.69 30.95 30.92 28.63 28.63 30.84 29.98 28.23 30.70 30.60 30.86 IC BENCH 29.92 G2.5 31.15 30.97 31.06 30.92 29.86 30.12 CL29.28 30.67 29.40 30.66 31.02 30.87 30.27 28.62 28.71 30.09 29.53 28.56 30.25 G G2.5 MH 30.90 (32.47) 30.75 29.29WST SW 30.41 30.14 31.06 30.90 28.63 IC 30.41 30.65 30.85 31.03 30.50 CL28.66 30.21 31.43 PT CL28.67 30.16 30.86 30.55 28.65 29.27 WST IC 28.69 29.72 30.54 30.58 30.98 30.78 28.18 28.78 30.17 31.24 30.41 30.65 31.07 CL29.21 30.22 30.12 30.94 30.83 30.88 30.95 29.81 29.50 CB 29.70 30.46 30.84 28.64 30.10 30.89 31.03 28.56 CB IC 30.11 30.85 30.88 G SO5B2STONE WALL 30.90 30.99 28.67 30.75 29.95 CL28.82 28.68 30.62 30.09 30.97 29.80 31.00 30.92 29.04 30.68 30.14 SO3A 30.20 31.06 30.09 29.40 30.45 30.80 29.73 30.14 (29.90) 30.44 30.21 29.70 30.90 28.71 30.57 30.61 30.09 30.89 30.12 30.97 30.93 30.32 BT 30.94 28.80 29.65 30.52 31.01 28.59 30.76 30.88 28.22 CB 28.52 29.09 28.75 30.42 G 28.94 30.47 30.81MH 30.62 30.79 29.41 CB 28.64 STANDARD REFERENCE & ABBREVIATIONS 30.81 30.78 29.68 28.67 30.26 CL30.86 G2.5 31.10 28.65 CB 30.32 30.78 30.97 30.36 30.67 30.87 30.97 30.99 28.79 30.49 30.41 PT PT 30.83 29.75 30.21 LP 28.70 29.46 30.95 30.82 30.92 29.36 SO6 31.61 29.0428.68 30.06 G 30.78 30.95 29.26 (AR)...... Assumed Route IL...... Invert Level 29.93 30.34 PT 30.11 31.22 30.84 29.09 28.68 30.09 28.75 30.59 29.84 30.95 30.48 WL28.28 28.7828.80 30.82 30.98 30.99 30.58 30.12 31.01 30.17 18/05/17 BW AB...... Air Brick IP...... Inlet Pipe 30.93 28.24 29.13 30.89 (32.41) 28.61 PT 30.08 30.83 30.06 30.43 SO5 30.07 30.80 30.78 30.29 29.11 28.70 30.07 IC 29.61 31.23 30.25 TP 30.22 IC IC G CL30.13 AV...... Air Valve KO...... Kerb Outlet

30.08

30.90 30.12 28.74 28.81 30.48 30.84 30.98 31.01 28.29 CL30.27 30.04 29.32 CL30.11 30.98 28.68 28.72 30.77 G2.5 G2.5 30.35 29.37 30.74 29.68 30.09 29.44 B/W...... Barbed Wire LB...... Letter Box 29.32 28.93 30.16 30.84 30.30 30.76 28.74 30.88 30.81 30.79 30.08 28.66 30.61 30.81 30.84 29.86 28.71 BAR...... Barrier LP...... Lamp Post 30.20 28.57 30.30 30.18 G 30.88 29.92 30.95 30.80 30.92 31.09 30.05 SO4 30.77 30.10 28.76 30.18 30.73 30.65 29.83 30.16 BB...... Belisha Beacon MG...... Multi-Girth STONE WALL 28.78 G2.5 30.11 30.88 SP 30.26 31.02 30.70 29.65 30.39 30.83 SP 30.91 29.43 31.12 G2.5 BH...... Borehole MH...... Manhole 30.80 28.14 30.97 30.93 30.41 30.17 TANNOY 29.77 30.40 30.98 30.10 28.79 28.79 30.75 C\B 28.78 28.67 30.08 BL...... Bed Level MKR...... Marker 30.79 30.32 30.27 30.66 29.90 28.47 30.26 30.85 28.74 28.76 30.71 30.77 30.05 G2.5

30.97 30.16 30.19 30.89 30.83 30.81 28.72 29.92 BOL...... Bollard MP...... Mooring Point 28.05 30.36 30.27 31.14 30.90 30.29 30.12 29.24 30.68 30.64 30.89 28.84 28.74 31.06 30.88 30.80 30.77 30.75 29.59 30.71 30.27 BS...... Bus Stop NP...... Street Name Plate 30.24 29.78 30.26 30.75 30.29 28.78 28.75 28.18 30.22 29.49 30.27 G2.5 (31.88) 31.02 30.75 30.27 30.25 30.00 30.59 29.94 30.16 29.57 BT Box...... British Telecom Box O/H...... Overhead 31.09 31.11 30.65 28.57 30.22 30.32 30.91 30.49 30.15 30.77 29.79 30.66 30.10 30.18 30.28 BT...... British Telecom IC O/P...... Open Paling 30.74 28.66 30.65 30.97 30.85 30.86 28.78 30.22 31.44 31.15 30.88 30.73 30.81 28.78 30.28 30.89 30.83 30.45 30.41 28.7228.75 28.73 30.64 30.33 SW 30.29 BRTW...... Brick Retaining Wall OE...... Overhead Electric Wire 31.06 30.77 30.57 30.48 CB 29.78 SO4A 30.92 28.64 30.20 30.02 28.96 28.74 28.73 28.73 30.24 30.73 31.33 C\B BW...... Brick Wall OP...... Outfall Pipe 31.45 30.33 30.92 30.01 30.94 (31.88) 30.82 30.76 28.70 29.96 30.92 30.46 30.16 29.40 30.53 29.20 30.32 30.26 31.12 30.47 30.80 29.43 28.64 C/B...... Close Boarded OSBM...... Ordnance Survey Bench Mark 30.80 28.65 (32.33) SO5D 30.77 30.38 30.01 30.70 30.73 28.71 30.57 C\B 31.07 30.86 28.73 31.27 G3.0 30.61 30.78 CONC28.62 30.06 30.93 G3.0 SO5C C/I...... Corrugated Iron OT...... Overhead Telecom Wire 29.95 28.62 30.95 30.63 30.33 30.66 30.74 28.74 30.57 30.97 31.17 28.95 SW 30.80 TP 30.14 C/P...... Chestnut Paling P/C...... Post & Chain 30.53 30.82 30.69 30.86 30.65 29.11 31.01 30.42 30.21 WL28.02 IC 30.79 30.57 28.61 30.53 31.25 30.76 30.80 29.03 28.6018/05/17 CL28.78 CB...... Control Box P/R...... Post & Rail 30.80 30.41 30.89 29.62 30.61 CB 31.02 30.46 30.83 30.82 30.60 SoL28.44 28.77 CBW...... Concrete Block Wall P/W...... Post & Wire 30.36 28.66 30.76 28.04 28.57 28.99 BT 30.80 30.07 WL28.05 29.89 31.24 31.09 28.68 29.91 CCTV...... Closed Circuit TV PAV...... Paving 30.76 30.51 28.62 28.08 18/05/17 30.47 30.91 30.61 30.91 WST 31.42 31.14 30.89 30.22 30.58 30.66 30.86 31.14 30.97 30.35 29.44 28.53 CD...... Cable Duct PB...... Pillar Box 28.05 30.60 30.88 30.61 30.87 28.60 31.35 30.87 30.86 31.20 28.89 30.57 30.22 30.69 30.81 30.50 CEL...... Cellar Light PC...... Pedestrian Crossing 30.90 SoL28.46 MH 30.54 30.91 30.39 30.72 28.55 28.39 30.21 SP 29.19 WL28.03 CL30.54 30.78 IC CH/L...... Chain Link PP...... Petrol Pump 31.38 31.34 30.68 18/05/17 29.52 31.28 30.24 30.28 30.55 30.59 CL30.86 28.65 30.89 (29.71) 30.97 28.84 29.18 29.89 30.47 CHY...... Chimney PT...... Post or Pillar 31.23 30.83 30.89 28.59 30.57 31.17 30.78 30.42 G 30.21 30.36 30.88 CL...... Cover Level RE...... Rodding Eye 30.79 30.96 31.48 31.37 31.36 30.60 30.45 30.43 30.24 29.44 CM...... Cable Marker RS...... Road Sign 30.57 30.49 30.22 28.49 30.57 31.11 30.64 30.92 SP 30.73 29.33 31.38 31.40 30.89 30.56 31.23 30.63 COL...... Column RTW...... Retaining Wall 31.40 31.52 30.90 G TANNOY 31.11 28.96 31.39 31.36 31.00 30.37 30.21 29.70 30.45 30.55 30.95 30.50 28.90 CONC...... Concrete RWP...... Rain Water Pipe 31.46 28.82 30.67 30.86 31.50 30.59 CP...... Catch Pit SAP...... Sapling 30.75 30.25 30.20 29.20 31.50 30.85 30.62 31.32 30.31 30.91 30.53 31.40 31.58 30.60 PT 30.91 30.76 28.40 CRTW...... Concrete Retaining Wall SL...... Sump Level 31.58 30.07 30.73 28.55 31.19 30.68 30.41 30.33 CTV...... Cable Television SoL...... Soffit Level 31.33 PT 29.31 29.52 31.64 30.09 30.81 SO7 30.92 30.34 CUL...... Culvert SP...... Sign Post 30.90 28.5028.72 30.47 30.70 30.53 30.80 29.98 28.79 30.95 30.56 29.19 30.12 31.36 30.86 28.63 30.61 30.12 30.67 30.47 CW...... Concrete Block Wall SPL...... Springing Level 31.54 31.76 30.66 30.35 31.79 30.90 28.91 30.82 30.77 TANNOY DC...... Drainage Channel SRTW...... Stone Retaining Wall 30.57 28.51 29.42 30.81 30.87 31.59 30.41 30.21 30.79 30.78 30.76 28.66 DPC...... Damp Proof Course SV...... Stop Valve (unspecified) 31.32 28.66 29.05 30.64 30.06 29.64 30.72 NP MH 31.52 30.05 31.28 30.66 DR...... Drain SVP...... Soil Vent Pipe 30.35 30.30 30.77 30.81 29.07 28.68 CL31.40 31.29 31.27 30.50 30.20 29.93 31.16 30.05 30.35 DSW...... Dry Stone Wall SW...... Stone Wall 31.03 30.62 30.38 30.74 30.47 28.77 31.39 30.83 28.81 30.64 29.14 ECP...... Electricity Cable Pit TAC...... Tactile Paving 31.46 31.60 30.12 29.03 31.47 30.46 29.34 28.93 31.21 29.01 31.58 30.84 30.73 IC 30.69 IC 30.39 30.68 RIDGE 30.74 EIC...... Electricity Inspection Cover TB...... Traffic Bollard 31.37 29.68 28.66 ICCL30.50 30.10 37.53 CL30.68 31.31 CL30.52 WST 31.02 30.62 IC 30.46 30.18 29.15 28.74 EAVES EJ...... Expansion Joint TBM...... Temporary Bench Mark 31.19 31.33 30.68 30.03 30.09 CL30.76 30.66 30.60 29.86 34.75 31.31 29.98 31.33 30.19 28.78 EJB...... Electricity Junction Box TCB...... Telephone Call Box 29.40 30.71 29.21 30.70 31.13 30.53 30.38 30.24 30.74 28.76 EL SUB STN..Electricity Sub Station TFR...... Taken From Records 29.96 28.90 28.98 30.59 D.C 30.72 30.43 29.95 29.38 FH 31.29 29.16 30.74 EL...... Eaves Level TIE...... Anchor Point (Masts/Poles) 31.19 30.98 30.32 30.66 30.20 29.60 29.60 31.14 29.98 30.67 30.51 29.12 ELB...... Electricity Box TL...... Traffic Light 31.23 SP MH 31.24 31.31 30.75 29.71 31.22 CL30.80 30.09 30.45 29.70 28.97 31.30 31.16 31.21 30.08 30.62 30.39 EP...... Electricity Pole TLB...... Traffic Light Control Box

30.77 30.68 30.05 28.88 ER...... Earth Rod TM...... Ticket Machine 31.28 28.95 30.06 30.47 30.14 30.04 30.55 29.67 29.10 28.94 28.89 31.24 29.55 ETL...... Electricity Transmission Line TMC...... Tarmac 31.19 30.51 30.62 31.15 31.25 29.05 31.11 31.09 30.14 29.24 FB...... Flower Bed TP...... Telecommunications Pole 29.98 30.41 29.42 30.65 30.00 28.83 31.22 30.37 31.27 28.79 FH...... Fire Hydrant TPIT...... Trial Pit 31.26 30.20 NP 31.04 29.96 30.25 28.82 FL...... Floor Level TS...... Trash Screen 31.28 30.29 30.62 29.39 30.30 30.98 30.07 29.90 28.77 29.95 FP...... Flagpole U/C...... Under Construction 31.17 30.24 30.38 31.29 30.50 29.23 31.26 29.77 28.81 G*.*...... Girth (of tree) U/G...... Underground 30.87 30.00 29.23 G...... Gulley UTL...... Unable to Lift (MH,IC etc) 31.19 30.21 31.18 31.33 31.27 30.80 30.08 30.44 30.26 28.86 28.67 GAB...... Gabion UTS...... Unable to Survey 30.10 30.46 31.26 28.77 31.21 30.81 30.13 GIP...... Gas Inlet Pipe VDP...... Vehicle Detector Pad 30.12 29.11

31.13 IC 30.04 30.28 29.10 31.38 CL31.07 30.37 GMKR...... Gas Marker VP...... Vent Pipe 31.41 30.44 31.27 31.14 30.74 30.16 31.21 29.96 29.92 28.75 GST...... Gas Stop Tap (Domestic) W/M...... Wire Mesh 31.16 31.28 30.90 28.74 28.71 31.42 31.38 GSV...... Gas Stop Valve (Mains) WL...... Water Level 30.17 29.05

30.60 30.33 28.62 31.42 29.88 29.64 31.26 31.33 31.54 29.49 HSE...... Housing WM...... Water Meter 30.47 30.21

28.52 30.24 30.35 31.48 31.16 28.66 Ht...... Height WO...... Wash Out 31.15 31.59 29.94 31.53 30.87 30.41 30.04 29.06 29.04 31.21 31.52 28.91 HV...... High Voltage WP...... Waste Pipe 31.08 30.26 31.60 30.07 28.75 31.67 31.82 30.29 I/R...... Iron Railing WST...... Water Stop Tap (domestic)

31.31 30.30 29.77 28.75 29.08 31.65 30.76 30.92 30.08 30.25 32.13 29.56 IC...... Inspection Cover WSV...... Water Stop Valve (mains) 31.29 30.27 28.89 31.52 30.10 31.21 30.00 30.27 28.79 31.73 29.02 TANNOY 32.43 IC 29.91 CL30.73 30.30 31.63 31.67 IC 30.22 28.99 30.47 CL30.04 29.01 28.89 31.75 32.11 32.56 28.94 30.53 29.81 30.18 28.71 31.39 28.96 28.93 32.27 30.11 32.68 30.25 30.01 30.15 28.74 28.87 IC 31.75 31.71 29.92 30.09 30.15 28.75 CL31.23 31.95 30.52 30.28 30.06 28.87 31.75 30.08 29.79 28.90 31.59 30.26 30.32 28.14 30.39 (30.33) 28.84 28.79 33.09 28.77 31.26 31.73 31.73 30.54 29.63 31.85 31.51 28.87 33.33 29.87 29.83 31.61 28.10 1 2 32.16 31.32 28.92 31.75 30.56 31.04 31.79 28.59 28.90 28.76 28.63 29.83 30.15 30.81

31.48 28.02 31.78 30.34

30.02 28.83 33.28 31.24 29.72 31.71 31.31 27.58 32.83 30.30 29.64 29.02 31.63 29.77 30.01 31.68 SO8 BENCH 29.18 32.93 29.92 BENCH 31.37 28.79 31.39 27.65 31.65 33.74 28.78 LP 33.39 30.76 31.76 31.59 28.95 27.98 G

31.66 32.36 29.70 29.94 31.76 29.35 31.81 IC 28.80 28.91 30.10 31.68 31.61 28.92 33.75 30.96 31.55 33.74 CL29.70 31.71 28.94 28.81 NP 30.21 29.94 32.20 29.76 27.58 31.61 31.99 29.97 BENCH 28.88 G 3 4 31.74 28.81 28.80 29.73 30.08 LP 28.86 PT 28.84 33.73 31.54 31.40 29.08 SW 32.03 29.88 28.82 28.95 31.53 29.94 30.64 31.47 28.91 29.09 31.91 31.40 PT 33.69 28.52 32.61 33.95 31.14 30.42 28.77 31.16 29.76 29.78 28.32 G2.0 29.99 28.76 31.49 33.87 29.63 30.92 29.68 29.08 28.76 28.90 31.60 29.96 31.85 31.43 PT 28.69 P\R 30.41 29.79 G4.7 MG 29.61 29.26 33.03 33.80 33.91 33.31 28.77 31.33 30.49 29.66 G 28.65 33.43 28.98 28.56 28.76 31.38 31.26 33.42 30.11 29.45 PT 33.88 28.62 31.94 IC 29.62 PT 5 31.28 33.83 34.01 29.44 29.08 28.69 31.17 CL34.01 29.70 MH 28.46 31.67 29.82 SP 28.67 32.42 29.75 CL29.55 29.26 NP IC 34.03 29.08 29.03 PT 28.74 34.06 CB G 29.68 SAP 29.35 31.27 31.11 31.09 31.50 29.76 PT 33.89 29.12 29.04 33.60 31.14 32.52 31.53 29.76 29.74 29.07 28.92 34.13 29.51 IC 28.81 31.68 P\R 29.67 29.52 28.66 31.05 CB 29.73 MH CL29.40 28.81 28.34 33.39 29.46 31.84 29.66 29.55 29.0629.06 28.90 28.10 28.02 G3.2 30.86 CL29.79 29.78 30.79 G SAP 29.06 31.45 32.11 32.77 29.59 EIC 29.10 29.08 30.94 34.13 34.25 29.74 30.35 29.70 29.07 33.19 6 29.78 29.36 28.99 31.57 29.64 29.20 29.20 P\R 30.22 30.90 30.79 30.95 29.78 29.82 29.76 BIN 28.46 27.89 30.85 29.43 29.17 29.12 29.70 28.44 34.25 29.90 29.12 30.73 FL29.70 28.49 28.23 31.06 31.93 32.90 29.84 29.53 29.33 28.96 30.44 29.76 29.14 28.76 27.99 30.47 30.72 30.63 34.28 29.84 SAP 29.69 MG 31.16 31.82 29.64 33.23 29.78 29.36 SW 30.26 29.93 29.47 29.24 30.32 34.54 29.87 29.22 EAVES Sheet Layout 29.68 29.68 31.38 29.84 27.71 30.58 29.91 31.87 28.44 30.29 33.38 29.95 29.16 BT 28.38 34.02 29.73 29.63 SW RIDGE 33.64 29.88 EIC IC 28.55 28.18 30.29 32.35 29.92 IC 30.37 G3.2 30.43 SAP 30.00 35.09 IC 30.02 30.48 30.01 29.78 29.04 33.94 29.94 IC 27.92 31.30 29.39 29.12 29.70 NP IC IC 30.20 31.03 29.84 29.94 CB 29.21 30.05 30.00 29.52 CL29.37 30.34 33.74 30.10 29.73 LP 29.56 29.39 27.64 30.43 29.88 29.33 30.48 33.74 29.61 28.57 30.05 29.78 28.61 G2.5 SAP 30.16 29.01 IC 30.08 29.39 28.89 28.42 29.93 29.07 CL29.39 29.53 30.10 29.63 SP 30.10 30.42 30.11 29.74 29.63 29.42 29.44 30.47 32.41 30.20 29.40 28.15 30.63 30.12 29.98 30.15 29.88 29.67 EIC 29.96 30.19 G2.5 31.20 30.61 29.00 27.96 29.50 30.37 30.12 29.69 29.25 29.06 29.06 SAP 30.03 29.10 30.41 29.50 SP 29.36 30.33 30.57 29.57 29.96 30.22 30.45 30.37 IC 29.27 30.22 29.95 29.01 29.33 IC 28.42 30.33 CL30.15 SO9 29.51 30.14 29.87 29.01 CL29.08 30.28 29.49 29.23 29.06 27.51 29.03 30.34 29.41 29.34 29.23 28.38 30.23 30.35 30.21 BIN 29.58 BIN 29.49 28.18 29.30 30.14 NP EIC 29.02 28.41 30.27 30.08 29.72 29.07 28.96 29.70 30.24 PT 29.54 29.33 30.23 29.59 LP SAP 29.09 28.10 29.88 29.83 CB 29.22 29.11 29.25 29.94 30.04 29.60 TM 29.42 29.32 30.13 28.27 29.28 30.25 30.16 29.93 29.24 29.29 29.73 30.00 IC 29.55 SP 29.45 29.24 30.15 30.10 29.98 SAP 29.07 29.03 CL29.03 30.19 29.80 29.32 29.07 29.20 30.0430.01 28.34 30.11 30.17 29.44 27.60 30.08 30.17 30.18 29.88 29.22 29.07 28.22 SO10 30.06 SP 29.46 29.46 28.32 29.32 29.86 29.45 29.23 28.96 30.14 30.13 30.12 29.97 SAP 28.71 28.04 30.12 30.08 29.91 29.52 29.23 29.08 30.08 28.39 29.92 29.75 29.71 29.09 30.13 30.14 30.08 29.33 30.15 29.72 29.43 29.39 29.24 29.40 30.14 29.83 29.36 30.11 30.05 29.37 29.20 28.39 30.11 30.16 29.43 29.83 29.97 29.91 29.67 29.97 30.13 29.71 29.49 29.4829.48 29.31 29.01 28.55 28.25 29.29 29.13 29.11 29.08 29.04 27.55 30.13 30.10 29.87 29.11 29.45 29.88 29.81 29.75 29.62 30.11 29.38 29.06 28.07 Client 30.12 29.42 28.79 29.06 30.11 29.67 29.34 28.51 29.89 30.04 29.88 29.75 29.55 29.17 28.58 29.80 29.24 29.16 29.15 29.10 30.07 30.15 30.04 28.59 29.82 29.76 28.47 Garner Planning 29.11 29.81 30.08 29.20 29.01 29.05 30.10 30.10 29.84 29.74 29.44 29.19 29.17 28.27 28.94 30.07 30.10 29.62 29.54 29.34 29.23 30.02 30.02 29.09 29.25 29.94 29.74 29.11 29.76 29.69 29.58 28.05 29.11 30.06 28.72 27.94 Drawing Title 28.98 29.96 29.90 29.70 29.42 29.25 29.51 29.30 29.16 28.47 29.96 29.64 29.33 29.32 30.08 30.01 29.76 29.49 29.04 28.75 29.06 29.95 EIC 29.79 29.39 28.95 29.97 30.01 29.61 29.09 Topographical Survey of Land at 30.28 30.56 30.2930.22 29.52 29.41 29.25 29.60 29.83 29.67 29.47 29.35 29.28 28.57 27.56 29.66 28.50 29.11 29.85 30.85 29.68 29.11 28.81 28.99 30.39 29.41 29.35 28.23 29.67 30.07 29.22 Cartmel Racecourse 28.87 29.22 29.46 29.96 30.09 29.40 29.32 29.12 28.45 28.05 29.70 30.17 SAP 29.17 30.10 28.86 29.67 30.03 31.01 G4.0 29.09 28.89 31.46 29.50 29.38 28.66 27.88 28.85 29.39 28.99 Cumbria 29.48 30.57 29.29 31.61 32.34 28.86 30.02 28.55 29.67 28.42 27.67 29.24 29.46 30.08 29.09 30.05 30.25 32.55 32.45 29.95 Sheet 4 of 6 29.82 28.39 28.83 29.52 28.18 29.95 29.33 29.98 G3.0 32.41 27.92 28.99 29.80 28.77 29.51 30.07 32.48 27.83 29.35 31.75 29.68 Scale(s) Surveyor 28.77 29.11 G1.0 SAP 28.61 29.76 29.69 30.37 G2.0 29.86 30.08 29.51 30.34 29.09 27.53 SB 30.25 31.91 28.73 29.15 29.68 29.71 28.40 1:500 30.47 29.86 28.39 30.00 30.20 29.34 30.18 28.48 28.24 28.09 28.76 32.78 G4.0 30.20 30.21 29.93 29.02 29.14 Date Drawn 29.20 28.91 27.80 G2.5 29.86 29.74 G2.0 29.01 30.81 32.66 29.73 30.19 30.57 32.54 27.65 AC 29.91 Jun 17 28.93 31.73 28.79 27.58 30.03 28.64 30.49 30.08 SAP 28.36 31.65 29.47 28.56 G3.0 28.17 28.68 G3.0 28.00 32.26 30.82 28.43 Job Number Checked 28.95 29.85 28.21 30.96 G3.0 G4.0 30.91 28.77 29.39 30.42 28.63 31.41 32.14 27.72 17D006 TP 29.85 29.91 28.87 30.98 30.15 27.62 29.53 G3.0 30.07 29.01 28.39 28.16 31.78 29.96 32.04 28.59 29.62 28.36 28.96 31.49 32.69 30.02 G3.0 28.64 28.69 28.88 31.90 29.91 30.90 28.39 28.82 29.93 Sheet Size & Drg Number & Revision 28.00 28.65 29.63 32.57 G2.5 28.38 29.48 32.28 30.60 G3.0 28.29 IC 28.85 G3.0 27.76

28.63 31.74 31.37 28.69 28.31 CL28.55 29.67 30.49 28.33 28.63 28.99 27.65 28.97 31.54 31.64 28.45 A0 17D006/004 G3.5 G3.0 32.19 30.12 30.80 30.88 30.80 28.70 29.79 SP 28.24 27.52 31.47 32.08 28.91 32.29 28.65 29.63 G4.0 28.08 32.25 G1.0

28.47 29.57 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD TRIAL PIT LOG Page 1 / 4 Meadowside Job No. K35058 Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Job Proposed Development Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NY Cartmel Racecourse Checked OS

TRIAL PIT NO. 1 50m south of the car park entrance, along race course fence line GROUND LEVEL 28.58

Depth of Strata Samples & Groundwater Level (m) Legend Description (mbgl) Type Depth (mbgl)

0.00-0.25 0.00-28.33 Topsoil and Rootlets N/A Dry

Loose brown/grey silty sandy GRAVEL 0.25-0.75 28.33-27.83 N/A Dry with small angular cobbles

COMMENTS Dimensions 0.84m x 1.80 m x 0.75 deep Stability Generally loose, firmer with depth, sides stable Groundwater Groundwater encountered at a depth of 1.50 mBGL Notes N/A R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD TRIAL PIT LOG Page 2 / 4 Meadowside Job No. K35058 Date 10/04/2018 Shap RoadJob Proposed Development Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NY Cartmel Racecourse Checked OS

TRIAL PIT NO. 2 96m south west of the site entrance, behind coach parking areas GROUND LEVEL 29.88

Depth of Strata Samples & Groundwater Level (m) Legend Description (mbgl) Type Depth (mbgl)

0.00-0.30 0.00-29.58 Topsoil and Rootlets N/A Dry

Loose to firm light brown silty sandy, 0.30-0.75 29.58-29.13 gravelly CLAY getting firmer with N/A Dry depth, small angular cobbles

COMMENTS Dimensions 0.80m x 2.00m x 0.75m deep Stability Loose at top, firmer with depth, stable sides Groundwater Not encountered, hole dry Notes N/A R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD TRIAL PIT LOG Page 3 / 4 Meadowside Job No. K35058 Date 10/04/2018 Shap RoadJob Proposed Development Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NY Cartmel Racecourse Checked OS

TRIAL PIT NO. 3 West of the car park overflow, 65m north west of site entrance GROUND LEVEL 29.66

Depth of Strata Samples & Groundwater Level (m) Legend Description (mbgl) Type Depth (mbgl)

0.00-0.25 29.66-29.41 Topsoil and Rootlets N/A Dry

Loose brown/grey silty sandy gravelly 0.25-0.75 29.41-28.91 N/A Dry CLAY with small angular cobbles

COMMENTS Dimensions 0.75m x 2.00m x 0.75m deep Stability Loose at top, firmer with depth, more clay at base of trial pit Groundwater N/A Notes N/A R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD TRIAL PIT LOG Page 4 / 4 Meadowside Job No. K35058 Date 10/04/2018 Shap RoadJob Proposed Development Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NY Cartmel Racecourse Checked OS

TRIAL PIT NO. 4 47.5m north of site entrance GROUND LEVEL 30.12

Depth of Strata Samples & Groundwater Level (m) Legend Description (mbgl) Type Depth (mbgl)

0.00-0.25 30.12-29.87 Topsoil and Rootlets N/A Dry

Loose to firm light brown silty sandy, 0.25-0.75 29.87-29.37 clayey GRAVEL getting firmer with N/A Dry depth, small angular cobbles

COMMENTS Dimensions 0.80m x 2.00m x 0.75m deep Stability Loose at top, firmer with depth Groundwater Not encoutered, hole was dry Notes N/A R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 1 / 19 Meadowside JobCartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

DESIGN BASIS MEMORANDUM - SOIL INFILTRATION RATE ASSESSMENT

Design Brief The following calculation determines the soil infiltration rate for the ground at specific depths to assist in the design of soakaways. The soil infiltration rate is calculated using the results from a series of percolation tests undertaken at the site. The percolation tests are undertaken in accordance with the recommendations in BRE Digest 365 - Soakaway Design and with guidance from the Building Regulations 2000 – Drainage and Waste Disposal, H2, Cl. 1.34.

Percolation Test Methodology The trial pits are generally dug with a mechanical excavator to the required depth (generally up to 1m below ground level). The trial holes tend to vary in size depending on the plant used and the underlying ground conditions but are generally 0.3 - 1.0m wide and 1 - 3m long. Each hole is filled with water, and the time taken for the water level to drop from 75% to 25% is monitored and recorded. The tests are generally repeated 3 times (where time permits) on the same or consecutive days.

Results Summary

The following table summarises the results for percolation tests and soil infiltration rate.

Soil Infiltration Test No. Test Depth (mBGL) f (m/hr) Rate, f (m/s) 1-1 0.75 1.2E-04 0.44 1-2 0.75 5.3E-05 0.19 1-3 0.75 7.1E-05 0.26 2-1 0.75 1.9E-05 0.07 2-2 0.75 1.0E-05 0.04 3-1 0.75 0.00 4-1 0.75 6.3E-05 0.23 4-2 0.75 4.2E-05 0.15 4-3 0.75 4.0E-05 0.14 Mean 5.2E-05 0.19 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 2 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 1-1

GROUND CONDITIONS: Loose to firm light brown silty sandy, gravelly CLAY getting firmer with depth, small angular cobbles

TEST HOLE SIZE: Width 300 mm Length 300 mm Depth of hole 750 mm Depth of water 300 mm

MONITORING RESULTS:

Recorded Time Depth of water Total Time (secs) Hours Minutes Seconds (mm) 10 45 0 0 300 10 50 0 300 150 10 55 0 600 65 11 0 0 900 0 0 0 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 3 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 1-1

300

262.5

225 75%

187.5

150 50%

112.5 Depth of water (mm) water of Depth 25% 75

37.5

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Time to empty (secs)

SOIL INFILTRATION RATE ASSESSMENT:

Vol. Outflowing between 75% and 25% effective depth: 3 V p75-25 = 0.0135 m

Mean surface area (pit sides to 50% effective depth + base of pit): 2 A p50 = 0.27 m

Time for the outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth: t p75-25 = 410 secs

Soil Infiltration rate: f = 1.2E-04 m/s R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 4 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 1-2

GROUND CONDITIONS: Loose to firm light brown silty sandy, gravelly CLAY getting firmer with depth, small angular cobbles

TEST HOLE SIZE: Width 300 mm Length 300 mm Depth of hole 750 mm Depth of water 300 mm

MONITORING RESULTS:

Recorded Time Depth of water Total Time (secs) Hours Minutes Seconds (mm) 11 0 0 0 300 11 5 300 220 11 10 600 140 11 20 1200 80 11 30 1800 35 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 5 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 1-2

150

112.5 75%

75 50% Depth of water (mm) water of Depth 25% 37.5

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Time to empty (secs)

SOIL INFILTRATION RATE ASSESSMENT:

Vol. Outflowing between 75% and 25% effective depth: 3 V p75-25 = 0.0135 m

Mean surface area (pit sides to 50% effective depth + base of pit): 2 A p50 = 0.27 m

Time for the outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth: t p75-25 = 950 secs

Soil Infiltration rate: f = 5.3E-05 m/s R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 6 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 1-3

GROUND CONDITIONS: Loose to firm light brown silty sandy, gravelly CLAY getting firmer with depth, small angular cobbles

TEST HOLE SIZE: Width 300 mm Length 300 mm Depth of hole 750 mm Depth of water 300 mm

MONITORING RESULTS:

Recorded Time Depth of water Total Time (secs) Hours Minutes Seconds (mm) 11 30 0 0 300 11 40 600 210 11 55 1500 150 12 5 2100 70 12 15 2700 20 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 7 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 1-3

150

112.5 75%

75 50% Depth of water (mm) water of Depth 25% 37.5

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Time to empty (secs)

SOIL INFILTRATION RATE ASSESSMENT:

Vol. Outflowing between 75% and 25% effective depth: 3 V p75-25 = 0.0135 m

Mean surface area (pit sides to 50% effective depth + base of pit): 2 A p50 = 0.27 m

Time for the outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth: t p75-25 = 700 secs

Soil Infiltration rate: f = 7.1E-05 m/s R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 8 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 2-1

GROUND CONDITIONS: Loose to firm light brown silty sandy, gravelly CLAY getting firmer with depth, small angular cobbles

TEST HOLE SIZE: Width 300 mm Length 300 mm Depth of hole 750 mm Depth of water 300 mm

MONITORING RESULTS:

Recorded Time Depth of water Total Time (secs) Hours Minutes Seconds (mm) 9 0 0 0 300 9 15 900 160 9 40 2400 130 10 10 4200 100 10 45 6300 35 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 9 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 2-1

150

112.5 75%

75 50% Depth of water (mm) water of Depth 25% 37.5

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Time to empty (secs)

SOIL INFILTRATION RATE ASSESSMENT:

Vol. Outflowing between 75% and 25% effective depth: 3 V p75-25 = 0.0135 m

Mean surface area (pit sides to 50% effective depth + base of pit): 2 A p50 = 0.27 m

Time for the outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth: t p75-25 = 2600 secs

Soil Infiltration rate: f = 1.9E-05 m/s R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 10 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 2-2

GROUND CONDITIONS: Loose to firm light brown silty sandy, gravelly CLAY getting firmer with depth, small angular cobbles

TEST HOLE SIZE: Width 300 mm Length 300 mm Depth of hole 750 mm Depth of water 300 mm

MONITORING RESULTS:

Recorded Time Depth of water Total Time (secs) Hours Minutes Seconds (mm) 11 0 0 0 300 12 30 5400 120 13 0 7200 75 13 30 9000 25 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 11 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 2-2

300

225 75%

150 50% Depth of water (mm) water of Depth 25% 75

0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Time to empty (secs)

SOIL INFILTRATION RATE ASSESSMENT:

Vol. Outflowing between 75% and 25% effective depth: 3 V p75-25 = 0.0135 m

Mean surface area (pit sides to 50% effective depth + base of pit): 2 A p50 = 0.27 m

Time for the outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth: t p75-25 = 5000 secs

Soil Infiltration rate: f = 1.0E-05 m/s R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 12 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 3-1

GROUND CONDITIONS: Loose brown/grey silty sandy gravelly CLAY with small angular cobbles. Groundwater present

TEST HOLE SIZE: Width 300 mm Length 300 mm Depth of hole 750 mm Depth of water 300 mm

MONITORING RESULTS:

Recorded Time Depth of water Total Time (secs) Hours Minutes Seconds (mm) 9 30 0 0 300 9 45 30 930 270 10 10 0 2400 270 10 45 30 4530 300 13 0 0 12600 300 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 13 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 3-1

300

75%

225

50% 150 Depth of water (mm) water of Depth 25% 75

0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Time to empty (secs)

SOIL INFILTRATION RATE ASSESSMENT:

Vol. Outflowing between 75% and 25% effective depth: 3 V p75-25 = 0.0135 m

Mean surface area (pit sides to 50% effective depth + base of pit): 2 A p50 = 0.27 m

Time for the outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth: t p75-25 = secs

Soil Infiltration rate: f = #DIV/0! m/s R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 14 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 4-1

GROUND CONDITIONS: Loose to firm light brown silty sandy, clayey GRAVEL getting firmer with depth, small angular cobbles

TEST HOLE SIZE: Width 300 mm Length 300 mm Depth of hole 750 mm Depth of water 300 mm

MONITORING RESULTS:

Recorded Time Depth of water Total Time (secs) Hours Minutes Seconds (mm) 10 0 0 300 10 5 300 160 10 15 900 80 10 20 1200 0 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 15 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 4-1

300

225 75%

150 50% Depth of water (mm) water of Depth 25% 75

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Time to empty (secs)

SOIL INFILTRATION RATE ASSESSMENT:

Vol. Outflowing between 75% and 25% effective depth: 3 V p75-25 = 0.0135 m

Mean surface area (pit sides to 50% effective depth + base of pit): 2 A p50 = 0.27 m

Time for the outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth: t p75-25 = 800 secs

Soil Infiltration rate: f = 6.3E-05 m/s R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 16 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 4-2

GROUND CONDITIONS: Loose to firm light brown silty sandy, clayey GRAVEL getting firmer with depth, small angular cobbles

TEST HOLE SIZE: Width 300 mm Length 300 mm Depth of hole 750 mm Depth of water 300 mm

MONITORING RESULTS:

Recorded Time Depth of water Total Time (secs) Hours Minutes Seconds (mm) 10 20 0 300 10 30 600 180 10 40 1200 110 10 50 1800 50 10 55 2100 0 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 17 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 4-2

300

225 75%

150 50% Depth of water (mm) water of Depth 25% 75

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Time to empty (secs)

SOIL INFILTRATION RATE ASSESSMENT:

Vol. Outflowing between 75% and 25% effective depth: 3 V p75-25 = 0.0135 m

Mean surface area (pit sides to 50% effective depth + base of pit): 2 A p50 = 0.27 m

Time for the outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth: t p75-25 = 1200 secs

Soil Infiltration rate: f = 4.2E-05 m/s R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 18 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 4-3

GROUND CONDITIONS: Loose to firm light brown silty sandy, clayey GRAVEL getting firmer with depth, small angular cobbles

TEST HOLE SIZE: Width 300 mm Length 300 mm Depth of hole 750 mm Depth of water 300 mm

MONITORING RESULTS:

Recorded Time Depth of water Total Time (secs) Hours Minutes Seconds (mm) 11 5 0 300 11 15 600 130 11 30 1500 75 11 40 2100 0 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 19 / 19 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 10/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Soil Infiltration Rate Checked OS

PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS AND SOIL INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT

TEST NO.: 4-3

300

225 75%

150 50% Depth of water (mm) water of Depth 25% 75

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Time to empty (secs)

SOIL INFILTRATION RATE ASSESSMENT:

Vol. Outflowing between 75% and 25% effective depth: 3 V p75-25 = 0.0135 m

Mean surface area (pit sides to 50% effective depth + base of pit): 2 A p50 = 0.27 m

Time for the outflow between 75% and 25% effective depth: t p75-25 = 1250 secs

Soil Infiltration rate: f = 4.0E-05 m/s Proposed Development Cartmel Racecourse Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy ______

APPENDIX C: CALCULATIONS

GREENFIELD CALCULATIONS SURFACE WATER TREATMENT

______

K35058/01/FRA/RH 25 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 1 of 3 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 11/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NY Title Greenfield Rate of Run-Off Calculations Checked OS

DESIGN BASIS MEMORANDUM - GREENFIELD PEAK RATE OF RUN-OFF CALCULATION

Design Brief The following peak rate of run-off calculations have been undertaken to determine peak flow from a greenfield site. These calculations are for the Peak Rate of Run-Off requirements only. The Volume of Run-Off calculations for the 1 in 100 year event of 6 hours duration are covered in a separate spreadsheet where applicable.

Background Information & References The site area is less than 200ha and the Greenfield calculation has been undertaken in accordance with methodology described by Marshall & Bayliss, Institute of Hydrology, Report No. 124, Flood Estimation for Small Catchments, 1994 (IoH 124).

In addition, the following references have been used in the preparation of these calculations: ● Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS), CIRIA, 2004 ● SUDS Manual, CIRIA Report C753, 2015 ● Flood Studies Report, 1975 ● Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH)

Results Summary

Rate of Runoff (l/s) Event Greenfield Q1 1.91 QBAR 2.19 Q10 3.03 Q30 3.73 Q100 4.57 R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 2 of 3 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 11/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NY Title Greenfield Rate of Run-Off Calculations Checked OS

ESTIMATION OF QBAR (RURAL) (GREENFIELD RUNOFF RATES)

IoH 124 based on research on small catchments < 25 km2

Method is based on regression analysis of response times using catchments from 0.9 to 22.9 km 2

QBAR rural is mean annual flood on rural catchment

QBAR rural depends on SOIL, SAAR and AREA most significantly

0.89 1.17 2.17 QBAR rural = 0.00108 x AREA x SAAR x SOIL

For SOIL refer to FSR Vol 1, Section 4.2.3 and 4.2.6 and IoH 124

Contributing watershed area Area, A = 500000 m2 insert 50 ha for EA = 0.500 km 2 small catchment method = 50.000 ha

SAAR = 1192 mm From UKSuds website (point data)

Soil index based on soil type, SOIL = (0.1S1+0.3S2+0.37S3+0.47S4+0.53S5) (S1+S2+S3+S4+S5)

Where: S1 = % S2 = 50 % S3 = 50 % UK Suds website provides a value of 2 S4 = % based on the equivalent Host value. S5 = % Based on GI, this seems a little high in 100 % certain areas of the site.

So, SOIL = 0.34

Note: for very small catchments it is far better to rely on local site investigation information.

3 QBAR rural = 0.216 m /s = 215.8 l/s

Small rural catchments less than 50 ha The Environment Agency recommends that this method should be used for development sizes from 0 to 50 ha and should linearly interpolate the formula to 50 ha.

2 So, catchment size = 5085 m Excluding significant open space which = 0.005 km 2 would remain disconnected from the = 0.509 ha positive drainage system during flood events. 3 QBAR rural site = 0.00219 m /s = 2.19 l/s R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 3 of 3 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Racecourse Drg no. Date 11/04/2018 Shap Road Cartmel Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NY Title Greenfield Rate of Run-Off Calculations Checked OS

GREENFIELD RETURN PERIOD ORDINATES

QBAR can be factored by the UK FSR regional growth curves for return periods <2 years and for all other return periods to obtain peak flow estimates for required return periods.

These regional growth curves are constant throughout a region, whatever the catchment type and size.

See Table 2.39 for region curve ordinates Reference- Pg 173-FSR V.1, ch 2.6.2 Use FSSR2 Growth Curves to estimate Qbar

Region = 10 Use Figure A1.1 to determine region

GREENFIELD RETURN PERIOD FLOW RATES

Return Period Ordinate Q (l/s) 1 0.87 1.91 Ordinate from FSSR2 2 0.93 2.04 5 1.19 2.61 10 1.38 3.03 25 1.64 3.60 30 1.7 3.73 50 1.85 4.06 100 2.08 4.57 200 2.32 5.09 500 2.73 5.99 1000 3.04 6.67 Interpolation taken from Figure 24.2 (pg 515) SuDS Manual R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTDCALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 1/3 Meadowside JobCartmel Drg no. Date 11/04/2018 Shap Road Racecourse Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NY Title Sustainable Drainage - Treatment Checked OS

DESIGN BASIS MEMORANDUM - SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE TREATMENT OF SURFACE WATER

Design Brief The following calculations outline the recommended treatment requirements for a sustaionable drainage system as outlined in the SuDS Manual 2015. The method used is the simple index approach outlined in section 26. The requirement for oil interceptors has been assessed in line with the now withdrawn Pollution Prevention Guidance document PPG3, produced by the Environment Agency. An oil interceptor is not required for the proposed development.

Treatment within SuDS components is affected by the flow rate and volume of water which passes through the component. It is not reasonable or practical to treat the entirety of the runoff for infrequent greater intensity design storms. In any case the majority of the pollutants are removed from surfaces by the more frequent rainfall events and in the first flush resulting from the initial runoff from the larger events. and to a certain capacity.

The following references have been used in the preparation of these calculations: ● SUDS Manual, CIRIA Report C753, 2015 ● Pollution Mitigation Indicies provided by Hydro International

Results Summary

Non Residential Parking: Treatment component 1 Pervious pavement underlain by 300 mm Treatment component 2 None

Indices Suspended Solids Metals Hydrocarbons Pollution Hazard 0.5 0.4 0.4 Pollution Mitigation 0.7 0.6 0.7 Treatment Suitability Adequate Adequate Adequate

Low Traffic Roads: Treatment component 1 Pervious pavement underlain by 300 mm Treatment component 2 None

Indices Suspended Solids Metals Hydrocarbons Pollution Hazard 0.5 0.4 0.4 Pollution Mitigation 0.7 0.6 0.7 Treatment Suitability Adequate Adequate Adequate R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 2/3 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Drg no. Date 11/04/2018 Shap Road Racecourse Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Sustainable Drainage - Treatment Checked OS

POLLUTION HAZARD INDEX Pollution Hazard Indices Suspended Hydro- Source of Runoff Pollution Hazard Solids Metals carbons Non-residential parking with infrequent change (e.g. schools, Low 0.5 0.4 0.4 offices, < 300 traffic movements a day)

POLLUTION MITIGATION INDEX

The receiving water body shall be: Ground Water

Pollution Mitigation Indices

Suspended Hydro- Suds Component Solids Metals carbons Pervious pavement underlain by 300 mm 1 minimum depth of soils with good 0.7 0.6 0.7 contamination attenuation potential

2 None 0 0 0

3 None 0 0 0

4 None 0 0 0

Total Pollution Mitigation Index 0.7 0.6 0.7

ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT PROPOSAL

Indices Suspended Solids Metals Hydro-carbons Pollution Hazard 0.5 0.4 0.4 Pollution Mitigation 0.7 0.6 0.7 Adequate Adequate Adequate R G PARKINS & PARTNERS LTD CALCULATION Job No. K35058 Page 3/3 MeadowsideJob Cartmel Drg no. Date 11/04/2018 Shap Road Racecourse Revision Initial RH KENDAL LA9 6NYTitle Sustainable Drainage - Treatment Checked OS

POLLUTION HAZARD INDEX Pollution Hazard Indices Suspended Hydro- Source of Runoff Pollution Hazard Solids Metals carbons

Low traffic roads (e.g. residential roads and general access roads, < Low 0.5 0.4 0.4 300 traffic movements/day)

POLLUTION MITIGATION INDEX

The receiving water body shall be: Ground Water

Pollution Mitigation Indices

Suspended Hydro- Suds Component Solids Metals carbons Pervious pavement underlain by 300 mm 1 minimum depth of soils with good 0.7 0.6 0.7 contamination attenuation potential

2 None 0 0 0

3 None 0 0 0

4 None 0 0 0

Total Pollution Mitigation Index 0.7 0.6 0.7

ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT PROPOSAL

Indices Suspended Solids Metals Hydro-carbons Pollution Hazard 0.5 0.4 0.4 Pollution Mitigation 0.7 0.6 0.7 Adequate Adequate Adequate Rev. Initial Date Note

ISSUED FOR CLIENT COMMENT

project Cartmel Racecourse Location Plan drawing title Carpark

drwg. no. 5595 b/b/01-3 date Jan-18 rev -

Drawings are based on survey data and may not accurately represent what is physically present . Do not scale from this drawing. All dimensions are to be verified on site before proceeding with works. All dimensions are in millimetres unless stated otherwise . Mason Gillibrand Architects are to be notified in writing of any discrepencies immediately . © MASON GILLIBRAND ARCHITECTS