Cinderhill Bottle Brook Harworth Group Plc. February 2018

Clean Rivers Trust. (Registered Charity Number 103 7414)

Cinderhill Bottle Brook

For Harworth Group plc. February 2018

This document was produced for Harworth Group plc by Clean Rivers Trust.

73 Sir Harrys Road Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2UX

0121 440 8046

Report Date: February, 2018.

Job Number: Carcroft 1/18.

Report Number: 0001/02/18.

This report has been compiled and written by:

Dr Harvey Wood Dip AD, MA, FRSA, FRGS, FGS, FLS, Director, Clean Rivers Trust, 73 Sir Harrys Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2UX Harvey Wood.

Document approved by, Trustee of Clean Rivers Trust.

This report was commissioned by Stuart Ashton for Harworth Group plc.

Front cover photograph, Bottle Brook at Denby Bottles.

This report has been carried out with care and diligence within the terms of the commission instructions from and agreed with the Client and Clean Rivers Trust. This work is confidential to the Client and Clean Rivers Trust who accept no responsibility of whatever nature to any third parties to whom this report may be made known.

Contents

1 Introduction 4

2 The Site 5

3 The Bottle Brook 6

4 Geology 9

5 Site History 11

6 Flood Risk 13

7 Conclusions 15

Bibliography 16

Appendices

I The Environment Agency classification of the Bottle Brook 19 II Borehole records. 21 III Environment Agency Historic Landfill Record. 24 IV Formal Flood Defences on the Bottle Brook. 27

Figures.

Fig. 1. The Site. 5

Fig. 2. Environment Agency Bottle Brook Catchment Outline 6

Fig. 3. The Bottle Brook main river route 7

Fig. 4. The tar pit location in relation to the tributary of the Bottle Brook 7

Fig. 5. The route of the tributary stream to the Bottle Brook 8

Fig. 6. Cross section across the site 9

Fig. 7. Outcrop of coal and approximate line of section 9

Fig. 8. and 9. 1887 and 1913 Ordnance Survey of the site 11

Fig. 10. Environment Agency flood warning area below Smithy House 13

Fig. 11. Environment Agency flood potential of the site 14

Fig. 12. The tributary stream downstream of the site. 15

Fig. 13 The tributary stream after leaving the site. 16

1 Introduction.

1.1 The purpose of this report is to outline and detail the findings of investigations carried out into the known water quality of the Bottle Brook below and above the site identified as the Acid Tar Pits, Cinderhill in Derbyshire located to the north of Kilburn. This examination of data and information is to ascertain the effects, if any, that the contamination from the Tar Pits has caused or if any pollutants from the site currently are infiltrating and damaging the stream chemically or ecologically.

1.2 The research carried out has included visits to the site, to the Environment Agency, Nottingham offices, Derbyshire County Records Office, Matlock, the library at British Geological Survey, Keyworth It has accessed many web sites, those most relevant are detailed in the Bibliography, individuals have been interviewed, several experts as well as residents of the area so as to gain local perspectives and understanding.

1.3 The report will outline possible actions that would benefit water quality, particularly the transportation of silt in the waters of the Bottle Brook and its tributary whilst also lessoning flood risks downstream of the site in the area of Kilburn.

2 The Site.

Fig.1. The site.

2.1 The acid tar pits are set on land directly bordering the A38 road, which when developed and rerouted in the 1970s was driven through a portion of the land that was active in receiving waste and was becoming contaminated. During construction of the A38 a shallow cutting was driven through the site. Initially after the road was completed the cutting on the north bound carriageway leached hydrocarbons which needed removal. Study of photographic evidence of flora established on the roadside now demonstrates a diverse and developing flora.

2.2 The lands surrounding the site on its other three sides have been opencast with the economic coal measures removed. The site was considered at the time for open cast coal extraction but the knowledge that coals across the site had already been removed to some degree across the site and the presence of the acid tar pits made it an uneconomic option.

2.3 The site was visited in February 2018 and both the Bottle Brook and the tributary were examined.

2.4 The tributary stream is a cut ditch with few natural features. The land bordering the stream is made up of both hedgerow of recent establishment and some woodland (also of recent natural development). There are some stretches of wet rush also bordering the stream.

2.5 On visiting the site there were no obvious signs of contamination from tars or other waste evident on the banks of the tributary.

3 The Bottle Brook.

3.1 The Bottle Brook which rises on the southern edge of Ripley, is a tributary stream of the River Derwent which it joins just north of Derby.

3.2 The Bottle Brook and its tributary have a history of poor water quality with problems emanating from the discharge of waste water from sewage treatment, landfill leachate, minewater and industrial discharges.

3.3 The Bottle Brook today is considered by the Environment Agency and classified as of moderate quality ecologically and chemically of good quality. There are issues under the European Water Framework Directive as to the future classifications due to its urbanised nature, altered channel and the effects of diffuse pollutions entering the stream from non-point source infiltrations.

3.4 The watercourse has been heavily influenced by human activity over the centuries with stretches of its course being rechannelled due to mineral extraction or otherwise re-engineered for much of its length. It is though an important ‘green’ corridor for communities and a wildlife habitat of considerable local significance.

Fig. 2. Environment Agency Bottle Brook Catchment Outline. (© Environment Agency/Ordnance Survey) 3.5 The Bottle Brook’s most notable source of waste water today being Severn Trent Water’s sewage treatment works at Marehay. Severn Trent are considering options for the future of the facility.

3.6 Parts of the Bottle Brook and the majority of its tributary that passes on the eastern boundary of the site have had their courses heavily modified to allow for the removal of coal, and in the case of the Bottle Brook industrial and domestic development. Their form and structure have been engineered to return them to near their former route if not nature.

Fig. 3. The Bottle Brook main river route. ((c) Environment Agency/Ordnance Survey)

3.7 The engineering of the tributary at the edge of the Acid Tar site has had its natural meanders removed along much of its length though its general direction and linkage with the Bottle Brook are historically correct.

3.8 The tributary has been used as a water resource and developed as a supply to a small reservoir or lagoon for the use of Denby Colliery and the brick and tile works to the east of the site.

Fig. 4. The tar pit location in relation to the tributary of the Bottle Brook (in yellow).

3.6 The route of the tributary and its

Fig. 5. The route of the tributary stream to the Bottle Brook within a mainly open cast landscape (open cast areas are coloured grey) (site marked by red star). (© Coal Authority)

4 Geology.

4. 1 The geological condition of the area is reasonably simple with all strata showing conformity in dip, the direction being west or south west to east to north east at a gentle incline. This is well demonstrated by the section of strata drawn in 1908 below.

Fig. 6. Cross section across the site with its continuation demonstrating the dip and conformity of the sequence of strata. (Gibson et al, 1908)

4.2 The cross section demonstrates the continuity of the strata that underlies the site and across the area. The nature of the coal measures is shown as a series of seams that outcrop across the district and generally along the border country between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

Fig. 7. Outcrop of coal seams at or close to the surface are signified by the purple lines. The dark line demonstrates the approximate line of section above (Fig. 6.). (© Coal Authority base map.)

4.3 The coal seam sequence of strata are underlain by the Wingfield Flagstones sequence of sandstones that are found throughout Derbyshire, South Nottinghamshire and into Leicestershire underlying the Kilburn coal sequence. This top band of sandstone is the first main sandstone that forms part of a significant sandstone-dominated sequence. The Wingfield element of which is up to 60 meters thick.

4.4 The interbedded and intervening strata of the coal sequence in this region are made up of mudstones, ironstone and clays of a variety of qualities, from course fire clays to that which was suitable for the manufacture of sanitary and salt glazed ceramics both for the building trade and general utility market.

4.5 Gibson et al states that the clays used at the potteries at Denby and at Rowson Green (Maddock’s Brick-pit and producer of sanitary pipes) contained ‘carbonate of lime which rendered the ceramics liable to fuse in glazing’.

4.6 The borehole log (British Geological Survey) of two sites along the planned route of the A38 (rerouted in the 1970s) concur with the section and show no evidence of contamination in 1971 when they were sunk (Borehole records Appendix II).

4.6 Banks et al states that there may be a fault passing beneath the southernmost tar pit, but this has not made itself apparent in any pollution movement towards the steam bed. The site of this tar pit is part of the earliest clay pit on site. The removal of clay is likely to have sealed any fracture within the underlying strata.

4.7 Banks et al further suggests that the site has the potential to allow lateral movement of contaminant from the acid tar pits towards the natural watercourses, the Bottle Brook and its tributary via made ground.

4.8 The makeup and nature of the ground across the site is uncertain due to the nature and deposition of the fill deposited and although Banks et al reported tar welling up and seep flow paths through fractured ground both observations were ‘close’ to the pits themselves and no excavations appear to have been carried out to assess their source or exact nature. The nature of the ground fracture hypothesised was not proven as to pathways to the potential receptor, the watercourses.

4.9 The two seams of coal that were worked on and below the site were the Mickley (shallow) and Kilburn which is the deeper and further to the east from the site the lowest in the succession of coals worked in this part of the coalfield. The Kilburn seam is underlain by clays, rock and sandstones.

5 Site History.

5.1 The history of human activity on the site is demonstrable over a 150 to 200 year period. The maps in fig. 8 and fig. 9 show the site and surrounding land use from 1887 to 1913. The maps further demonstrate mining activity that had already ceased around the edges of the sites marked ‘old coal pit’ or ‘air shaft’

Fig. 8. 1887 Ordnance Survey.

Fig. 9. 1913 Ordnance Survey.

5.2 The site was developed as a clay pit over many years till final closure in the 1980s. Apart from clay, coal was won from across the site from the Kilburn and Mickley coals that underlay and in part outcropped across the site.

5.3 Derbyshire County Council granted planning permission for various opencast clay, coal and stone workings in April 1961. Belper Rural District Council granted planning permission in August 1972 to tip tar wastes and ash in quarried clay pits on the site. It is known that other materials, including oil- saturated Fuller’s Earth and foundry sand were deposited with the tar. Attempts to stiffen stabilise and/or neutralise the tar have been made by addition of lime and ash. Acid tar disposal continued up to August 1977 when the County Surveyor refused a licence (under the Control of Pollution Act 1974) to continue tipping. Permission to continue clay working after 1980 was refused in order to allow reinstatement of the site to commence and to prevent damage to the existing tar pits by further clay extraction works. When deposition of the acid tar wastes ceased, the pits were covered with a variety of waste materials. (Site history outline taken from Amber Valley Borough Council document 504 9217/077/mw/31384 of 2007).

(Note. The reason for the refusal to extend the license to tip acid tars being the appearance of tar seepage through the western cutting wall of the new A38 via a bed of fractured sandstone.)

5.4 The deposition of tars may have begun prior to the landfill licensing of 1972.

5.5 During the widening of the original cutting of the A38 the western bank became unstable with several small (believed to have been 8 in number) tar pits having to have been remediated and much of their contents added to the fill in those east of the road cutting.

5.5 The site has been considered for development since deposition of waste ceased. The last plan included the proposal to leave the tar wastes in place but capped off (2010).

6 Flood Risk.

6.1 The Bottle Brook is considered a flood risk to the community of Kilburn downstream of the site to the south.

6.2 Fig. 10 demonstrates the possible scenarios in the Environment Agency contingency documentation. Whilst Fig. 11 gives a more detailed overview of the site.

6.3 The site has also been accessed for its flood potential and by such contaminated water leaving the site. The potential is classified by the Environment Agency as low to medium risk. The tributary main course is though considered of high risk. The plan (fig. 11) shows that there is no apparent continuity of surface water flow likely between the tar pits and the tributary.

6.4 The Bottle Brook has a short length of formal flood defence located south of the site. (Appendix IV)

6.5 The route of tributary may lend itself to some flood attenuation works that might be developed towards its bottom end, close to its confluence with the Bottle Brook. The pits to the east of the site that were formed prior to the establishment of Denby Colliery and utilised by it may be one such optimal location.

Fig. 10. Environment Agency flood warning area below Smithy House river level monitoring point. The ‘Bottle Brook’ as signified by the plan is the tributary. The pointers have no relevance.

Fig. 11. Environment Agency surface water flood potential of the site, the Bottle Brook and its tributary. (© Environment Agency/Ordnance Survey/Weetwood.)

7 Conclusions.

7.1 The site is unique as all such sites are. The deposition of waste such as acid tars in the fashion they were is regrettable but the effects within the environment are less than might have been feared. (Local pressure groups and individuals have demonstrated a far reaching knowledge of other historic sites elsewhere and reasonably raised fears of likely similar damaging scenarios.

7.2 The dip of the local strata (west to east) is to a great degree not valid on this particular site as the area has been historically quarried and dug through to a considerable depth.

7.3 The mineral workings to the north, east and south of the site would appear to have removed the sequence of remnant coal deposits from the area. This would ensure that lateral flows of tar deposits would be severely obstructed and ensured the local water courses were not impacted upon.

Fig. 12. The tributary stream downstream of the site.

Fig. 13. The tributary stream after leaving the site.

7.4 The tributary of the Bottle Brook (see Figs. 12 and 13 above) is not set in a natural channel but a cut channel that allows the water to drain swiftly from the area. The sediment loading is apparent from the photographs and shows drainage of the field system from the north of the site.

7.5 The channel is cut with sharp sides with at least four feet of depth of water. This allows free flow of water and appears to scour its channel bed and continually removing silts.

7.6 There is no visual evidence of tar pit interaction with the tributary or the Bottle Brook.

Acknowledgements.

Environment Agency, Coal Authority, Derbyshire Records Office, British Geological Survey, Mike Wood, ADDC Architects.

Bibliography. Web Sites https://www.belpernews.co.uk/news/cinderhill-tarpits-a-history-1-586108 https://www.ripleyandheanornews.co.uk/news/your-say/time-to-act-on-tar-pits-1-726753 http://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/WaterBody https://brownfieldbriefing.com/37640/saga-of-the-terrible-tarpits https://www.ripleyandheanornews.co.uk/news/environment/action-group-slams-site-as-acid-tar- death-trap-1-4250554 https://brownfieldbriefing.com/38573/more-angst-for-amber-valley http://www.derbyshireuk.net/kilburn.html https://www.facebook.com/supportourstruggle/ http://www.pick- upau.org.br/site_english/environmental_panorama/2007/2007.03.31/environment_agency_takes.h tm https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Need%20for%20Housing%20Growth%20in%20AVBC%20- %20Cinderhill_tcm44-203289.pdf http://info.ambervalley.gov.uk/docarc/docviewer.aspx?docGuid=14fe51b7672349bba04c7fbd5de92 085 http://info.ambervalley.gov.uk/docarc/docviewer.aspx?docguid=129dbbb7f81047e5897b66e16180 081f http://environment.data.gov.uk/water-quality/view/download http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html http://www.spanglefish.com/ambervalleysos/index.asp?pageid=367318 https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Need%20for%20Housing%20Growth%20in%20AVBC%20- %20Cinderhill_tcm44-203289.pdf https://data.gov.uk/data/contracts-finder.../8fe27576-6412-4839-b130-c17c3b3418ce

Printed Material

Gibson W et al, 1908. The Geology of the Southern Part of the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Coalfield. Geological Survey, HMSO, London.

Frost DV and Smart JG, 1979. Geology of the country north of Derby. NERC, BGS, Keyworth.

Anon, 1990. Flooding Survey Summer 1990 River Derwent Catchment. National Rivers Authority, Bristol.

Banks D et al, 1998. Contaminant migration from disposal of acid tar wastes in fractured Coal Measures strata, southern Derbyshire. (Geological Society of London publication: Groundwater Contaminants and their Migration, London.

Anon, 1998. Derbyshire Derwent LEAP Consultation Report. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Anon, 1999. Derbyshire Derwent LEAP Action Plan. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Westwood M and Skinner A, 2007. CINDERHILL TAR PITS INSPECTION UNDER PART 2A OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL POLLUTANT LINKAGES AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT. Atkins/Amber Valley Borough Council.

Hao Xu, 2007. Acid Tar Lagoons: Assessment and Environmental Interaction. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Sheffield.

Cheney CS, 2007. The Hydrogeology of the Chesterfield, Matlock and Mansfield district. BGS, Keyworth.

Anon, 2009. FOCUSED CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY FOR ACID TAR PITS SWMU GROUP TECUMSEH REDEVELOPMENT SITE LACKAWANNA, NEW YORK. Prepared for: ArcelorMittal Tecumseh Redevelopment Inc. by Turnkey Environmental Restoration.

Anon, 2009. Amber Valley Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Faber Maunsell.

Družina, Branko and Perc, Andrej, 2010. Remediation of Acid Tar Lagoon. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water and Energy: Vol. 15, Article 17. Available at: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/soilsproceedings/vol15/iss1/17

Anon, 2011. Briefing Note to Amber Valley Borough Council on Potential Flooding of Site North of Denby. Westwood.

Brand E et al, 2012. Human health risk assessment of the acid tar pits in Vasse : Counter-expertise, exposure. Ministry of Health, Netherlands.

Spriggs P, 2014. The Derbyshire Derwent Catchment Exploring a Partnership Approach. Clearer Thinking, Workshop Report.

Anon, 2016. Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. BA Consulting, Amber Valley Borough Council.

Anon, 2016. DATASHEET: Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) designation 2017 - Surface Water NVZ ID: S313 NVZ Name: Bottle Brook catchment (trib of R Derwent) NVZ. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Appendices.

The Environment Agency classification of the Bottle Brook. Sample point downstream of the acid tar pits.

Note: The objective qualities 2015 objectives were implemented so that water quality of rivers and other waterways could be improved within set time scales so as to be compliant with the Water Framework Directive.

Borehole records, A38 construction 1971.

The plan above shows the site outlined in orange.

Borehole 1

Borehole 2

III Environment Agency Historic Landfill Record. The Site is named Cinderhill Farm.

Historic landfill (Grid reference: X: 437,682.42; Y: 346,966.31)

Page 1 of 1 (1 result for selected location)

First waste Last waste Site name Site address received received

Cinderhill Farm Kilburn, Belper, Derbyshire 05 FEB 1973 30 JUN 1981

Licence no. 0

Types of waste buried:

A 'Yes' is shown in the right hand box where there is evidence that the type of waste may have been buried. If there is no evidence or no data currently available, then the box is left blank.

Inert: Waste which remains largely unaltered once buried such as glass, concrete, bricks, tiles, Yes soil and stones.

Industrial: Waste from a factory or industrial process. It excludes waste from mines, quarries and Yes agricultural wastes.

Historic landfill (Grid reference: X: 437,904.71; Y: 347,124.92)

Page 1 of 1 (1 result for selected location)

First waste Last waste Site name Site address received received

Slaters Pipeworks Denby, Derbyshire 31 DEC 1930 30 APR 1994

Historic landfill

Site details

Site name Slaters Pipeworks

Site address Denby, Derbyshire

Site operator Parker Foundry Limited

Licence no. 0

Types of waste buried:

A 'Yes' is shown in the right hand box where there is evidence that the type of waste may have been buried. If there is no evidence or no data currently available, then the box is left blank.

Industrial: Waste from a factory or industrial process. It excludes waste from mines, quarries and Yes agricultural wastes.

Household: Waste from dwellings of various types including houses, caravans, houseboats, campsites, Yes prisons and wastes from schools, colleges and universities.

IV Formal Flood Defences on the Bottle Brook.

Amber Valley Borough Council plan of flood defences south of the site. Defences: Denby / Denby Bottles Denby and Denby Bottles, located in the south of the borough, benefit from a number of defences. There are three embankments located on the left bank of the Bottle Brook, through Denby, with a combined length of 243m. There are two embankments located of the right bank of the Bottle Brook, through Denby, with a combined length of 116m. The defences are not continuous and are divided upstream of the A609 Rawson Green Road. These defences provide up to a 1:100-year design standard of protection. At Kilburn Toll Bar, on the left bank of the Bottle Brook, there is one flood wall 53m in length and one adjoining embankment 42m in length, which provide a 1:100-year design standard of protection. The defended model flood outlines shown in Figure 7-3 are taken from the 2012 ISIS-TUFLOW Bottle Brook model.