DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

UK Coal Operations Limited Proposed extension of time for colliery spoil tipping Environmental Statement operations at Harworth Colliery No. 2 Spoil Heap TECHNICAL APPENDIX 6 – Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact Assessment Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact Assessment in support of an extension to Planning Permission for Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Report ref: HC/HIA Final June 2013 Report prepared for: UK Coal Mining Ltd Harworth Park Blyth Road HARWORTH DN11 8DB BARKERS CHAMBERS • BARKER STREET • SHREWSBURY • UNITED KINGDOM • S Y 1 1 S B TEL : 01743 355770 FAX: 01743 357771 EMAIL : [email protected] Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact Assessment in support of an extension to Planning Permission for Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Report ref: HC/HIA Final June 2013 For Data Protection L Brown MSc FGS CGeol C C Leake BSc MSc FGS UK Coal Mining Ltd Hydrogeological Impact Assessment: Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Final CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 1 1.3 Data sources 1 1.4 Methodology of investigation 1 2 SITE SETTING 3 2.1 Location 3 2.2 Landform 3 3 BASELINE CONDITIONS 4 3.1 Background 4 3.2 Hydrology 4 3.2.1 Rainfall 4 3.2.2 Watercourses 4 3.2.3 Springs 5 3.2.4 Ponds and waterbodies 5 3.2.5 River flows 5 3.2.6 Surface water abstraction 5 3.2.7 Discharge consents 6 3.2.8 Surface water quality 7 3.3 Landfill sites 7 3.4 Protected sites and areas of ecological interest 8 3.5 Geology 9 3.5.1 Regional 9 3.5.2 Local geology 10 3.6 Hydrogeology 11 3.6.1 Aquifer status and regional context 11 3.6.2 Source Protection Zones 11 3.6.3 Aquifer characteristics 11 3.6.4 Groundwater abstractions 11 3.6.5 Groundwater levels and distribution 12 3.6.6 Groundwater quality 13 3.7 Spoil heap operation 13 3.8 Conceptual model 13 4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 15 4.1 Operation 15 4.2 Restoration 15 4.3 Compliance with Mining Waste Directive 15 4.4 Water management during site operation 15 4.5 Water management post restoration 15 5 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 16 5.1 Methodology 16 5.2 Catchment sensitivity 16 5.3 Potential impacts of renewed tipping 16 5.3.1 Groundwater levels and flow 16 5.3.2 Groundwater quality 17 5.3.3 Groundwater abstractions 17 Page i June 2013 P:\Projects\Harworth Colliery (1629)\Reporting\HIA Harworth Colliery Tip FINAL.doc UK Coal Mining Ltd Hydrogeological Impact Assessment: Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Final 5.3.4 Surface water flows 17 5.3.5 Surface water quality 17 5.4 Potential impacts after restoration 18 5.4.1 Groundwater quality 18 5.4.2 Surface water quality 18 5.5 Cumulative impacts 18 6 MITIGATION MEASURES AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS 20 6.1 During tipping operations 20 6.2 Post-restoration 20 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 21 TABLES Table HC/HIA/T1 Long-term average monthly rainfall at the Wiseton raingauge 4 Table HC/HIA/T2 Summary river flow data 5 Table HC/HIA/T3 Licensed surface water abstractions 5 Table HC/HIA/T4 Discharge consents 6 Table HC/HIA/T5 Details of landfill sites within 3 km of site boundary 7 Table HC/HIA/T6 Details of wildlife sites within 3 km of site boundary 9 Table HC/HIA/T7 Summary of regional solid geology 10 Table HC/HIA/T8 Licensed groundwater abstractions 12 FIGURES Figure HC/HIA/01 Location of Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Figure HC/HIA/02 Site setting Figure HC/HIA/03 Landform Figure HC/HIA/04 Surface water features Figure HC/HIA/05 Watercourses maintained by a Water Level Management Board Figure HC/HIA/06 Discharge consent Figure HC/HIA/07 Ecological and chemical status of rivers Figure HC/HIA/08 Landfills within 3 km of site boundary Figure HC/HIA/09 Sites of ecological interest Figure HC/HIA/10 Geology Figure HC/HIA/11 Groundwater levels and monitoring boreholes Figure HC/HIA/12 Groundwater level variations Figure HC/HIA/13 Site drainage Figure HC/HIA/14 Conceptual model APPENDICES Appendix HC/HIA/A1 Assessment methodology Appendix HC/HIA/A2 Summary geological logs Appendix HC/HIA/A3 Groundwater quality data Appendix HC/HIA/A4 Proposed site restoration Page ii June 2013 P:\Projects\Harworth Colliery (1629)\Reporting\HIA Harworth Colliery Tip FINAL.doc UK Coal Mining Ltd Hydrogeological Impact Assessment: Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Final 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The No 2 Spoil Heap at Harworth Colliery is used for the disposal of colliery spoil originating from the mining activities at the colliery. The colliery, operated by UK Coal, has been in care and maintenance since 2006 and currently no spoil is being deposited. The current Planning Permission expires in June 2013 and UK Coal wishes to secure Planning Permission for future tipping to ensure that, in the event of mining re-commencing, work can start with no delays. Hafren Water has been commissioned to investigate potential impacts on the water environment arising from the continued use of the spoil heap and to support an extension to the Planning Permission for the site. 1.2 Objectives The principal objectives of this study are to: Determine baseline conditions in relation to the water environment at the No 2 Spoil Heap at Harworth Colliery, and its surroundings Identify any potential impacts of the proposed development Assess the magnitude and significance of potential impacts Derivation of appropriate mitigation measures for any identified potential impacts 1.3 Data sources The following sources of data were used in this study: British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 scale geological map, Sheet 101 East Retford Geological logs of nearby boreholes The physical properties of major aquifers in England and Wales. Allen JD, Brewerton LJ, Coleby LM, Gibbs BR, Lewis MA, MacDonald AM, Wagstaff SJ and Williams AT. Ordnance Survey (OS) Explorer 1:25,000 scale map, Sheet 279, Doncaster The Environment Agency (EA) Licensed abstractions Consented discharges Active and historical landfills Rainfall data Surface and groundwater water quality Natural England Sites of Special Scientific Interest Local Authorities (Daventry District Council) Private water abstractions UK Coal Mining Ltd 1.4 Methodology of investigation Baseline conditions of the water environment have been defined by the collation and analysis of Page 1 June 2013 P:\Projects\Harworth Colliery (1629)\Reporting\HIA Harworth Colliery Tip FINAL.doc UK Coal Mining Ltd Hydrogeological Impact Assessment: Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Final existing data and field observations. The potential effects of the proposed development upon the extant water environment have been assessed by reference to the baseline data and a series of matrices (Appendix HC/HIA/A1), developed to ensure a rigorous and consistent approach to the assessment of potential impacts. Mitigation measures have been proposed where appropriate. Baseline conditions have been taken as those existing at the time of operation of the colliery when waste material was being placed on the spoil heap. Page 2 June 2013 P:\Projects\Harworth Colliery (1629)\Reporting\HIA Harworth Colliery Tip FINAL.doc UK Coal Mining Ltd Hydrogeological Impact Assessment: Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Final 2 SITE SETTING 2.1 Location The Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap is located approximately 1 km south of the village of Harworth, Nottinghamshire (Figure HC/HIA/01) and centred on National Grid Reference (NGR) SK 61700 89900. The spoil heap covers an area of approximately 109 hectares (ha). Details of the immediate surroundings of the spoil heap are shown on Figure HC/HIA/02. The No 2 Spoil Heap (‘the site’) is bounded to the north by Selby Road with an industrial estate beyond, to the east by Blythe Road and agricultural land, to the south by agricultural land and to the west by the A1 with agricultural land beyond. The nearest residential properties are located in the village of Styrrup in the northwest, to the west of the A1, and to the southeast. Road access to the site is from an existing site entrance on Blythe Road. When operational, colliery waste is transported from the colliery by an elevated conveyor and placed in its final position by mobile plant. Waste in the form of slurry from the coal processing plant is transported by pipeline. 2.2 Landform The current landform is shown on Figure HC/HIA/03, as reported in the Aftercare Plan, August 2012. The natural ground around the spoil heap falls from around 35 m Above Ordnance Datum (mAOD) in the north to 15 mAOD in the south. The spoil heap rises to its highest point, approximately 77 mAOD, in the north of the site adjacent to the site at which spoil is deposited from the conveyor. The steep slopes (1 in 4 to 1 in 5) to the north and northeast of the peak have been planted with trees. To the east and northeast, the slopes are shallower (1 in 7) and grassed. These slopes have been restored in accordance with the restoration plan reproduced as Figure HC/HIA/A4.1 (Appendix HC/HIA/A4). Over the remainder of the site, the spoil heap rises to approximately 33 mAOD in the east, 36 mAOD in the west with a depression in the south of central area, previously occupied by a slurry lagoon when the site was operational. The peripheral slopes have, in the most part, been planted with trees, while the top is open exposed colliery spoil and unvegetated. Page 3 June 2013 P:\Projects\Harworth Colliery (1629)\Reporting\HIA Harworth Colliery Tip FINAL.doc UK Coal Mining Ltd Hydrogeological Impact Assessment: Harworth Colliery No 2 Spoil Heap Final 3 BASELINE CONDITIONS 3.1 Background Baseline (ie existing) conditions at the site are set out below and include information relating to the environmental setting as well as current activities at the site.
Recommended publications
  • Catchment Management Plan the Environment Agency's Vision for the Rivers Idle and Torne Catchment Management Plan

    Catchment Management Plan the Environment Agency's Vision for the Rivers Idle and Torne Catchment Management Plan

    catchment management plan The Environment Agency's Vision for the Rivers Idle and Torne Catchment Management Plan he catchment of the Rivers Idle and Torne The key objectives of the plan are therefore to: T covers an area of 1 307 km2 within north Nottinghamshire and south Humberside and has • Establish a balance between the demands of a resident population of about 625,000 people. irrigation and abstraction and the needs of the environment. Man has impacted on the catchment since early times and the area has a rich industrial and • Ensure that the quality of minewater archaeological heritage. The heavily urbanised discharged to the rivers is of a and industrial headwaters contrast sharply with standard appropriate to the needs of the very flat, open and rural lower reaches nearer downstream users. to the confluences with the River Trent. Man's influence is also apparent here though where • Initiate and promote proposals for the drains have been cut and rivers re-routed and improvement of habitats for fisheries straightened to produce highly productive and conservation. agricultural areas. • Ensure that the standard of flood protection The catchment is predominantly rural with the is appropriate to the needs of the adjacent exception of the headwaters, as described above. land use, consistent with the vision. The River Idle and its tributaries flow through the heavily industrialised towns of Mansfield and The achievement of this vision is dependant on Worksop, then through the rolling forested areas the committed and enthusiastic cooperation of of Sherwood Forest and the Dukeries. The River others. Some objectives are common goals, while Torne rises on the edge of Doncaster and others may require a degree of compromise flows through the flat areas of low land, between differing demands on the resources of characterised by the Isle of Axholme, Thorne the catchment.
  • Land Availability Assessment Appendices (LAA)

    Land Availability Assessment Appendices (LAA)

    LAA Appendices Appendix A: Methodology Flowchart Appendix B: Settlement Site Plans Appendix C: Draft Local Plan Housing Trajectory (2019 to 2037) Includes sites with planning permission, Neighbourhood Plan allocations, proposed LP allocations, pending pp sites (subject to s106) Appendix D: Harworth and Bircotes LAA - sites without planning permission Appendix E: Retford LAA – sites without planning permission Appendix F: Tuxford LAA – sites without planning permission Appendix G: Worksop LAA – sites without planning permission Appendix H: Potential new settlement LAA Appendix A: Methodology Flowchart Appendix B Site Plans Appendix C: Draft Bassetlaw Plan Housing Trajectory (2019 to 2037) Application Full/Res, Remaining Number /NP Outline, NP Capacity Completions Allocation / LP allocation Greenfield/ April 1st from previous 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 2025- 2026- 2027- 2028- 2029- 2030- 2031- 2032- 2033- 2034- 2035- Justification for lead in time and build out Settlement Allocation LAA Name Brownfield 2019 years 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2036- 2037 Total Losses rate Five Year Land Supply methodology: Full pp = 20 months lead in and 20 dwellings Rear of 1 to 29 per annum build rate for sites under 50 Beckingham 16/00877/FUL Full Vicarage Lane Greenfield 33 0 20 13 33 0 dwellings Five Year Land Supply methodology: Full pp = 20 months lead in and 20 dwellings Land off Station per annum build rate for sites under 50 Beckingham 18/00361/RES Res Road Greenfield 24 0 20 4 24
  • 151207 402-05891-00001 Licensed Abstractions.Xlsx

    151207 402-05891-00001 Licensed Abstractions.Xlsx

    IGas Energy Appendix 9/2: December 2015 Tinkers Lane 1 Licensed Abstractions SLR Ref: 402-05891-00001 Distance from Ref No Licence Number Licence Holder Grid Reference Type Source Purpose Annual Quanity (m3) Site (km) A1 Mineral Products - General Use (Medium Loss) 44825 03/28/77/0048/2/R01 The Rotherham, Sand & Gravel Co Ltd SK 65120 889 3.6 Groundwater Lagoon A2 Mineral Products - Mineral Washing 273900 Borehole - Sherwood A3 MD/028/0075/008 F L Green and Sons Ltd SK 62309 820 4.3 Groundwater Agricultural - Spray Irrigation - Direct 126000 Sandstone A4 03/28/77/0041 Bawtry Farms Limited SK 64720 884 3.1 Groundwater Borehole Agricultural - Spray Irrigation - Direct 72133 A5 36067 03/28/77/0033 D Skelton & Sons SK 64720 884 3.1 Groundwater Borehole Agricultural - Spray Irrigation - Direct A6 32433 A7 SK 6660 8872 3.7 03/28/77/0031 H W Smith& Sons Groundwater Gravel Pit Agricultural - Spray Irrigation - Direct 9092 A8 SK 6715 8884 4.1 A9 90920 03/28/77/0028 Grange Farm (Barnby Moor) SK 66123 847 1.2 Groundwater Borehole Agricultural - Spray Irrigation - Direct A10 55690 A11 03/28/77/0025 W Moore & Son SK 6479 8687 1.5 Groundwater Borehole Agricultural - Spray Irrigation - Direct 45461 A12 03/28/77/0020 Mattersey Rifle & Pistol Club SK 684 878 4.2 Groundwater Borehole Extractive Mineral Washing 32731.2 A13 03/28/77/0001 W Moore & Son SK 627 863 2.5 Groundwater Borehole Agricultural - Spray Irrigation - Direct 68190 A14 Agriculture - Spray Irrigation - Direct 54553 03/28/76/0023 Peter Taylor (Oldcotes) Ltd SK 6060 8720 4.8 Groundwater Borehole
  • Report No. 121 Peaks-Over-Threshold Fl Ood Database

    Report No. 121 Peaks-Over-Threshold Fl Ood Database

    Institute of Hydrology Rep ort N o. 12 1 Pe aks -ove r-thre shold fl ood datab as e : Sunm i ary statistic s and s e as onality N atu ral Env ironme nt Re se arch Counc il á Report No. 121 Pe aks -ove r-thre shold fl ood datab as e : Sum m ary statistic s and s e asonality Adrian C. Bay liss & Richard C. Jone s M arc h 1993 Institute of Hydr ology Crowmarsh Giff ord Wall ingford Oxfords hire OXIO 813B UK © Copyright Institute of Hydr ology 1993 ISBN 0948 540 47 8 IH Rep ort No. 121 pub li shed by the Institute of Hydrology March 1993 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publi cation Data A catalogue record for this book is availab le from the British Library Abstrac t This report describes the growth of the peaks- received from other organizations and over-threshold (POT) database , the data individuals . extraction procedures adopted and considers briefly the seasonality of flooding . The datab ase Section 3 examines the seasonality of flooding now holds over 77,000 peaks for 857 gauging using two statistics - the modal month of flood stations throughout the lJK, with an ave rage (MMF) and the mean POT day of flood (MPD). record length of nearly 20 years. Annual MMF is calculated simply by identifying the maximum data are held for a further 116 calendar month during which most floods occur . stations where re cords proved unsuitable for Circular statistics are used to calculate MPD, POT extraction. Substantive appendices list the where each day of flood is plotted around the records he ld for individual stations, pre se nt circumfere nce of a circle and the mean of the statistics on POT series re cord length and angles found.
  • Twenty-Fifth Annual Report 1991-92

    Twenty-Fifth Annual Report 1991-92

    NaITINGHAMSHIRE BUILDING PRESERVATION TRUST LIMITED A company limited by guarantee and Registered in England Registration No. 897822 Registered Charity No. 254094 Registered Office: 2 Priory Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 SHU Telephone: Nottingham 819622 (STD 0602) Twenty-Fifth Annual Report 1991-92 REPORT ON THE YEAR'S ACTIVITIES OffICERS During the year, the Trust has suffered from the effects of the recession, Chairman: Cllr. R.P. Gilbert especially from the fall in property prices and the slump in the housing market. Vi ce-Chairman: Cllr. M.E. Adlington This would be an ideal time to purchase buildings under threat and to invest in Honorary Legal Adviser: Mr. C.P. McKay MA future projects for the revolving fund programme. Honorary Secretary: Mr. G.A. Turner RIBA Ho norary Treasurer: Mr. J. farrer IPfA IRRV Unfortuna tely, the Trust, like many ot·her Building Preserva tion Trusts, is caught in the situation where its capital and money borrowed is tied up in buildings which stand restored but unsold. This six almshouses at St. Leonard's Court, Newark, purchased by the Trust and MEMBERS Of THE COUNCIL Of MANAGEMENT largely financed by a loan from the Architectural Heri t.age Fund, have been restored and refurbished to a high standard. The contribution to the street scene Mrs. C. Atkins (CPRE - Nottinghamshire Branch) in the heart of Newark Town Centre is considerable and represents an excellent Mrs. J. Bennett example of conservation in action. The decision whether to let the properties on Cllr. K. Bullivant (Nottinghamshire County Council) short term leases or to reduce the selling price dramatically has been exercising Mr.
  • Heritage at Risk Register 2018, East Midlands

    Heritage at Risk Register 2018, East Midlands

    East Midlands Register 2018 HERITAGE AT RISK 2018 / EAST MIDLANDS Contents The Register III Nottingham, City of (UA) 66 Content and criteria III Nottinghamshire 68 Criteria for inclusion on the Register V Ashfield 68 Bassetlaw 69 Reducing the risks VII Broxtowe 73 Key statistics XI Gedling 74 Mansfield 75 Publications and guidance XII Newark and Sherwood 75 Key to the entries XIV Rushcliffe 78 Entries on the Register by local planning XVI Rutland (UA) 79 authority Derby, City of (UA) 1 Derbyshire 2 Amber Valley 2 Bolsover 4 Chesterfield 5 Derbyshire Dales 6 Erewash 7 High Peak 8 North East Derbyshire 10 Peak District (NP) 11 South Derbyshire 11 Leicester, City of (UA) 14 Leicestershire 17 Charnwood 17 Harborough 20 Hinckley and Bosworth 22 Melton 23 North West Leicestershire 24 Lincolnshire 25 Boston 25 East Lindsey 27 Lincoln 35 North Kesteven 37 South Holland 39 South Kesteven 41 West Lindsey 45 North East Lincolnshire (UA) 50 North Lincolnshire (UA) 52 Northamptonshire 56 Corby 56 Daventry 56 East Northamptonshire 58 Kettering 61 Northampton 61 South Northamptonshire 62 Wellingborough 65 II HERITAGE AT RISK 2018 / EAST MIDLANDS LISTED BUILDINGS THE REGISTER Listing is the most commonly encountered type of statutory protection of heritage assets. A listed building Content and criteria (or structure) is one that has been granted protection as being of special architectural or historic interest. The LISTING older and rarer a building is, the more likely it is to be listed. Buildings less than 30 years old are listed only if Definition they are of very high quality and under threat.
  • Bassetlaw Heritage at Risk Strategy & Update To

    Bassetlaw Heritage at Risk Strategy & Update To

    Bassetlaw Heritage at Risk Strategy & Update to Heritage at Risk Register – July 2020 Prepared by the Conservation Team July 2020 Document details Title: Bassetlaw District Council: Bassetlaw Heritage At Risk Strategy & Update to Heritage at Risk Register – July 2020. Summary: This document sets out the Council’s strategy to tackle heritage identified as being ‘at risk’, both in the short, medium and long term. Approved: This strategy document, including the updated Heritage at Risk Register, was adopted at Cabinet on 7th July 2020. Document availability: Copies of this document, together with details of heritage ‘at risk’ in general, are available on the Council’s website (www.bassetlaw.gov.uk) or by contacting the Conservation Team by telephone (01909 533427) or email ([email protected]). 2 Foreword Bassetlaw has a rich tapestry of built heritage, spread across the district, covering a vast range of types of buildings and structures, both large and small in scale, many of which are designated. These sites are often in prominent locations and help to establish or reinforce a settlement’s sense of place. In some cases, these ‘heritage assets’ can fall into disrepair, for a variety of reasons. In these circumstances, the buildings and structures are identified as being ‘at risk’. Heritage ‘at risk’ can impact on local communities and the environment in which we live – not only are there the visual signs of neglect, but there can also be social, economic and public safety concerns too. As the Heritage Champion for Bassetlaw District Council, it is my role to raise the profile of built heritage in Bassetlaw, particularly with regard to its care and its future.
  • Mining and Power Harworth Estates UK COAL PLC Annual Report And

    Mining and Power Harworth Estates UK COAL PLC Annual Report And

    14705UKCOALCVR with throwout:Layout 1 4/4/08 11:45 Page 1 CONTENTS Highlights 1 Chairman’s Statement 2 Operating and Financial Review (OFR) — Business overview 6 — Strategy 6 UK COAL PLC — Objectives 7 Annual Report and Accounts 2007 — Mining and Power 9 — Market overview 10 — Deep mines 13 UK COAL PLC Annual Report and Accounts 2007 — Surface mines 17 — Power 20 — Harworth Estates 21 — Financial review 32 Mining and Power Harworth Estates — Key risks and uncertainties 36 — Corporate Social Responsibility 38 Board of Directors 42 Directors’ report 44 Corporate governance 48 Directors’ remuneration report 54 Independent auditors’ report 61 Consolidated income statement 63 Consolidated statement of recognised income and expense 64 Balance sheets 65 Cash flow statements 66 Notes to the financial statements 67 UK COAL PLC Harworth Park Blyth Road Harworth Doncaster South Yorkshire DN11 8DB t: +44 (0)1302 751751 f: +44 (0)1302 752420 [email protected] www.ukcoal.com 14705 04/04/2008 Proof 11 14705 04/04/2008 Proof 11 14705UKCOALCVR with throwout:Layout 1 4/4/08 11:45 Page 1 CONTENTS Highlights 1 Chairman’s Statement 2 Operating and Financial Review (OFR) — Business overview 6 — Strategy 6 UK COAL PLC — Objectives 7 Annual Report and Accounts 2007 — Mining and Power 9 — Market overview 10 — Deep mines 13 UK COAL PLC Annual Report and Accounts 2007 — Surface mines 17 — Power 20 — Harworth Estates 21 — Financial review 32 Mining and Power Harworth Estates — Key risks and uncertainties 36 — Corporate Social Responsibility 38 Board of Directors
  • Severn Trent Water Ltd

    Severn Trent Water Ltd

    Severn Trent Water Ltd Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Report ________________________________ ___________________ Report for Severn Trent Water Ltd ED62813 | Issue Number 1 | Date 18/01/2017 Ricardo Energy & Environment Severn Trent Water Ltd | i Customer: Customer Contact: Severn Trent Water Ltd John Sanders Ricardo Energy & Environment Customer reference: Enterprise House, Lloyd Street North, Manchester, United Kingdom. M15 6SE SVT/SEA Confidentiality, copyright & reproduction: e: [email protected] This report is the Copyright of Severn Trent Water/Ricardo Energy & Environment. It has been prepared by Ricardo Energy & Environment, a trading name of Ricardo-AEA Ltd, Authors: under contract to Severn Trent Water Ltd. The contents of this report may not be reproduced in Alexandra Scarlat, Ed Hargreaves and Ed whole or in part, nor passed to any organisation Fredenham or person without the specific prior written permission of Severn Trent Water Ltd. Ricardo Approved By: Energy & Environment accepts no liability John Sanders whatsoever to any third party for any loss or damage arising from any interpretation or use of Date: the information contained in this report, or reliance on any views expressed therein. 18 January 2017 Ricardo Energy & Environment reference: Ref: ED62813- Issue Number 1 Ricardo in Confidence Ref: Ricardo/ED62813/Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy & Environment Severn Trent Water Ltd | 2 Table of contents 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................
  • Lodge Farm Fisheries Landscape & Visual Effects Assessment Angling Lakes

    Lodge Farm Fisheries Landscape & Visual Effects Assessment Angling Lakes

    LODGE FARM FISHERIES LANDSCAPE & VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ANGLING LAKES December 2012 Our Ref: JSL1930/REP/01 Rev B RPS Lakesbury House Hiltingbury House Chandlers Ford Hampshire S053 5SS Tel: 023 8081 0440 Fax: 023 8081 0449 Email: [email protected] rpsgroup.com QUALITY MANAGEMENT Prepared by: Paul Hopper Authorised by: Craig Thomson Date: December 2012 Project Number/Document JSL1930/REP/01 Rev B Reference: COPYRIGHT © RPS The material presented in this report is confidential. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Lodge Farm Fisheries and shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or person without the knowledge and written consent of RPS. rpsgroup.com CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 4 3 PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE .............................................................................................. 9 4 LANDSCAPE BASELINE.................................................................................................................14 5 VISUAL BASELINE..........................................................................................................................20 6 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS...........................................................................................................22 7 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................29
  • Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012

    Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012

    Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012 BUILDINGS AT RISK REGISTER 2012 AT RISK REGISTER BUILDINGS 2012 LISTED 2 Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012 Document details Title: Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012. Summary: This document provide service users with information about how redundant, vulnerable or decay historic buildings and a register of which buildings are currently regarded as being at risk by the Council. Approved: This document was approved by Planning Committee on 6th February 2013 at Retford Town Hall. The document was published on 7th February 2013. Document availability: Copies of the document are available at Bassetlaw District Council Planning Services and on the Council’s website: www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/ Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012 3 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 4 What is a Building at Risk? 6 What is a listed building? 6 What does a listed building grade indicate? 7 Why produce a Register? 7 What buildings are included in the Register? 8 When is a building taken off the Register? 9 What are the reasons for historic buildings being at risk? 9 How can the District Council ensure that buildings are being restored? 9 What help is available for owners of buildings at risk? 10 2. THE REGISTER 11 Key to the entries 12 Register entries 14 3. STRUCTURES REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER 77 4. REDUCING THE RISKS 89 5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 91 Useful contacts 92 Grants 93 Publications and guidance 93 Heritage at risk on the web 94 Contact us 95 Summary table of listed buildings at risk 95 4 Listed Buildings at Risk in Bassetlaw 2012 1.
  • The State and the Country House in Nottinghamshire, 1937-1967

    The State and the Country House in Nottinghamshire, 1937-1967

    THE STATE AND THE COUNTRY HOUSE IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, 1937-1967 Matthew Kempson, BSc. MA. Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2006 Abstract This thesis considers the state preservation and use of Nottinghamshire country houses during the mid-twentieth century, from the initiation of mass requisition in 1937 until 1967 when concerns for architectural preservation moved away from the country house. This thesis reviews literature on the landed estate in the twentieth century and the emergence of preservationist claims on the country house. Three substantive sections follow. The first discusses the declining representation of landowners within local governance in Nottinghamshire and the constitution of the County Council, and considers how estate space was incorporated within broadened concerns for the preservation of the historic environment and additionally provided the focus for the implementation of a variety of modern state and non-state functions. The second section considers how changing policy and aesthetic judgements impacted upon the preservation of country houses. Through discussion of Rufford Abbey, Winkburn Hall and Ossington Hall I consider the complexities of preservationist claims and how these conflicted with the responsibilities of the state and the demands of private landowners. The third section considers how estate space became valued by local authorities in the implementation of a variety of new modern educational uses, including the teacher training college at Eaton Hall and a school campus development at Bramcote Hills. The thesis concludes by considering the status of the country house in Nottinghamshire since 1967, and contemporary demands on the spaces considered historically in this study.