‘PLANNING STATEMENT’
FOXLEY FARM SOUTHAM ROAD KITES HARDWICK RUGBY CV23 8AA
REV B
FEBRUARY 2019
APT Design Services Brewsters Corner, Pendicke Street, Southam, Warwickshire CV47 1PN 01926 259216 - [email protected] - www.aptdesignservices.co.uk
Planning Statement February 2019 Rev B Foxley Farm, Southam Road, Kites Hardwick, Rugby, CV23 8AA Job No. 420
1.0 INTRODUCTION ------3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ------3 3.0 SUMMARY OF SUPPORTING INFORMATION ------4 4.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS ------4 5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION ------6 5.1 HOURS OF OPERATION ------6 5.2 METHOD OF DUST SUPPRESSION ------6 5.3 METHOD OF NOISE SUPPRESSION ------6 5.4 MANAGING THE TRAVEL OF SOIL ON ADOPTED HIGHWAYS ------6 5.5 TRANSPORT STATEMENT ------7 5.6 CONTROLS ON THE IMPORTATION OF INERT MATERIAL / TOPSOIL ------8 5.7 ENVIRONMENTAL & FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT ------8 6.0 APPENDIX ------9
Page 2
Planning Statement February 2019 Rev B Foxley Farm, Southam Road, Kites Hardwick, Rugby, CV23 8AA Job No. 420
1.0 Introduction
1.1 This planning statement is submitted in support of a full planning application for the change of use of agricultural land within Foxley Farm for the storage of inert waste soil.
1.2 This statement includes the following:
• Description of the development • Summary of supporting information • Description of the site and surroundings • Supporting information
2.0 Description of the proposed development
2.1 The proposal is for the change of use of part of the existing farm land for the storage of inert waste soil for transport off site.
2.2 The proposed gross footprint of the application site is 4835m2
2.3 It is proposed to import inert waste (Topsoil) and stockpile it within the application site. The material would be stockpiled in two separate bunds approximately 20 metres wide by 3.5 metres high.
2.4 The stored material would be transported onwards to sites within the Warwickshire area. These could be Housing sites, parks and other sites with a topsoil/growing medium requirement.
2.5 It is expected that a maximum of 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes will be stockpiled at any one time with annual throughput of 20,000 tonnes.
Page 3
Planning Statement February 2019 Rev B Foxley Farm, Southam Road, Kites Hardwick, Rugby, CV23 8AA Job No. 420
3.0 Summary of Supporting Information
3.1 An assessment into the effective hours of operation has been carried out and detailed in section 5.1.
3.2 An assessment into the effective site management practices of dust suppression has been carried out over the site and the conclusions and recommendations are detailed in section 5.2.
3.3 An assessment into effective methods of noise suppression has been carried out, the findings and recommendations are detailed in section 5.3.
3.4 An assessment into the possibility of mud traveling onto the neighbouring adopted highways has been carried out and the conclusions and remedial operations are detailed in section 5.4.
3.5 The application is accompanied by a transport assessment. The assessment identifies several areas that require management and procedures have been proposed to overcome these areas needing attention.
3.6 The application is accompanied by an ‘assessment of potential impact of runoff from Foxley Farm on the River Leam’, this assessment has been undertaken by APEM Ltd and focused on the ‘Flood Risk Assessment’ & Ecology Concerns’ raised by Warwickshire County Council.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1 The application site is located in open countryside to the North East of the settlement Kites Hardwick.
4.2 Foxley Farm is accessed through an existing access off the A426, the application site sits within Foxley Farm and will be accessed through the above access and internal tracks on site.
4.3 The application site is less than 1KM from Kites Hardwick, and 2.5KM from the centre of the settlement of Dunchurch.
Page 4
Planning Statement February 2019 Rev B Foxley Farm, Southam Road, Kites Hardwick, Rugby, CV23 8AA Job No. 420
4.4 The application site area is 4835m2
4.5 The application site is currently of agricultural use within Foxley Farm. Please see site location plan and existing block plan submitted with this application.
4.6 The application site is enclosed on the South boundary by an established natural hedge, a post and rail fence to the East and existing farm tracks to the West & North.
4.7 The topography of the application site is generally level.
4.8 The site falls within Flood Zone One, which is identified as being an area at the least risk of flooding.
4.9 An aerial image of the site is shown below:
4.10 A site location plan is submitted with this application.
Page 5
Planning Statement February 2019 Rev B Foxley Farm, Southam Road, Kites Hardwick, Rugby, CV23 8AA Job No. 420
5.0 Supporting Information
5.1 Hours of Operation
The importation of material would only take place between 08.00 am – 16.00 pm Monday to Friday however we would not expect to be importing material all year round, five days a week. Only when material is available.
5.2 Method of Dust Suppression
Dust will be suppressed during the stockpiling of material through the application of effective site management practices as detailed below.
• Use of a towed water to dampen farm roads (when required). • There is already a 10 Mph speed restriction in place on our farm roads. • Regular sweeping of farm roads (when required). • Extra vigilance during dry and windy conditions. • Suspension of importation during high winds, wet weather and snow conditions.
5.3 Method of Noise Suppression
At all times BB Fencing Ltd will: • Use best practicable means (as defined in Section 72 of the Control Act, 1974) to reduce noise from the operations to a minimum in agreement with the local planning authorities.
• Maintain plant regularly, ensuring that any noise-reducing measures (such as silencers or enclosures) are properly fitted and used correctly.
5.4 Managing the Travel of Soil on Adopted Highways
In the very unlikely event that mud from this operation is deposited onto the A426 Southam Road then a road sweeper will be commissioned to clean the affected area.
Page 6
Planning Statement February 2019 Rev B Foxley Farm, Southam Road, Kites Hardwick, Rugby, CV23 8AA Job No. 420
5.5 Transport Statement
BB Fencing Ltd has prepared a Transport Statement which will be submitted as part of the planning application to change the use of an area of land to allow the importation of inert and storage of inert waste (Topsoil) for onward transport.
• The process is to source inert waste (Topsoil) from varied local developments, where it would be loaded into vehicles and transported to Foxley Farm located approximately 2 miles outside of Dunchurch on the A426 Southam Road.
• A single point of access already serves Foxley Farm. No upgrades or alterations would be required to the existing access. The access will cater for HGV movements travelling from North and South along A426 Southam Road.
• No formal scoping discussions have been had with the local highway authority, as we are authorised by our operator’s licence for vehicle movements in and out of Foxley Farm.
Background Conditions
• Foxley Farm, Kites Hardwick is located off the A426, Southam Road and is surrounded by other local farms.
• The A426, Southam Road is single carriageway route maintained by Warwickshire County Council. It is subject National Speed limit and locally provides a route between Dunchurch and Southam.
Importation Proposals
• Access to Foxley Farm will be provided from the A426, Southam Road.
• Inert material (Topsoil) will be sourced from local developments in the Warwickshire area.
Page 7
Planning Statement February 2019 Rev B Foxley Farm, Southam Road, Kites Hardwick, Rugby, CV23 8AA Job No. 420
• ALL HGV’s will exit Foxley Farm in a forward gear and will be able to turn left or right onto the A426, Southam Road and will follow the existing traffic routes.
• Importation will be undertaken when material is available from the surrounding areas.
Trip Distribution
• HGV’s – In total a maximum of 3 HGV trips per hour (6 two-way trips) will be generated by the importation of material (Topsoil).
• All of these will consist of HGV’s bringing in material to Foxley Farm from other sites. All these movements are expected to access Foxley Farm from the A426, Southam Road.
• OTHER VEHICLES – We anticipate that no additional extra vehicle movements will be required with respect to the importation of inert materials.
5.6 Controls on the Importation of Inert Material / Topsoil
• Where environmental controls are required, we would seek the necessary environmental permit to allow this operation.
• The permit would also be operated as part on an Environmental management system. See Attached.
5.7 Environmental & Flood Risk Assessment
See appendix for:
• ‘APEM (2019). ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACT OF RUNOFF FROM FOXLEY FARM ON THE RIVER LEAM. APEM SCIENTIFIC REPORT P00003076. BB FENCING Ltd, FEBRUARY, V2 FINAL, 15PP
Page 8
Planning Statement February 2019 Rev B Foxley Farm, Southam Road, Kites Hardwick, Rugby, CV23 8AA Job No. 420
6.0 Appendix
Page 9
Assessment of potential impact of runoff from Foxley Farm on the River Leam
BB Fencing Ltd
APEM Ref: P3076
February 2019
Dr Michael Dobson, Dr Mark Barnett Client: Kieran Davidson
Address: BB Fencing Ltd, Kingfield Road Coventry West Midlands CV6 5AS
Project reference: P3076
Date of issue: 14 February 2019 ______
Project Director: Dr Michael Dobson
Project Manager: Dr Mark Barnett
Other: Joe Allaby ______
APEM Ltd Riverview A17 Embankment Business Park Heaton Mersey Stockport SK4 3GN
Tel: 0161 442 8938 Fax: 0161 432 6083
Registered in England No. 02530851
This document should be cited as:
“APEM (2019). Assessment of potential impact of runoff from Foxley Farm on the River. APEM Scientific Report P00003076. BB Fencing Ltd, , February 2019, v2 Final, 15 pp.” Revision and Amendment Register
Version Date Section(s) Page(s) Summary of Changes Approved by Number
1 19.12.18 All All First draft for client review MB
2,3,4, Revision following client review, 2 14.02.19 MB Appendix plus style and typo corrections
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. Methods ...... 2
2.1 General ...... 2
2.2 Site walkover ...... 2
2.3 Water quality monitoring ...... 2
2.4 Water Framework Directive assessment ...... 3
2.5 Assessment of flood risk ...... 3
3. Results ...... 4
3.1 Site walkover ...... 4
3.1.1 Dry weather walkover ...... 4
3.1.2 Wet weather walkover ...... 6
3.2 Water quality ...... 6
3.3 Comparison with WFD standards ...... 7
3.4 Flood risk assessment ...... 7
4. Discussion ...... 9
4.1 Key findings and caveats ...... 9
4.2 Recommendations ...... 9
Appendix 1 Walkover survey – grading method ...... 10
Appendix 2 Walkover survey photographs ...... 12
Appendix 3 Water quality surveys –raw data ...... 15
List of Figures
Figure 1 Location of dry walkover features identified and water quality sample locations ...... 5 Figure 2 Area at risk from flooding in the vicinity of Foxley Farm ...... 8
List of Tables
Table 1 Laboratory analytes and limits of detection (LOD) ...... 3 Table 2 River flood zone definitions ...... 3 Table 3 Potential runoff issues identified during the dry weather survey: River Leam, 15 November 2018 ...... 4
Table 4 Water quality sample locations ...... 6 Table 5 Comparison of water quality data with WFD standards ...... 7
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
1. Introduction
Foxley Farm at Kites Hardwick near Rugby, Warwickshire, is adjacent to the River Leam. Following a change of use from an agricultural farm operation to importation and storage of soils and subsoils, Warwickshire County Council expressed concern that the activities on the farm may be having a negative effect on water quality in the River Leam. Specifically, the storage of soils on the ground close to the river was considered by the Flood Risk and Ecology teams at Warwickshire County Council to cause a risk of runoff into the river during rainfall events, along with erosion of the stored soil during flood events.
The River Leam at Foxley Farm is designated under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Under the WFD, all water bodies are expected to achieve at least Good status; however, the River Leam water body1 at this site has an overall classification of Moderate2. Reasons for not achieving Good status have been identified as high concentrations of phosphate and poor development of macrophytes and phytobenthos (plants and attached algae). Of these, the key issue of concern that could be related to Foxley Farm operations is phosphate. This is known to derive partially from sewage effluent discharge into the river, but poor agriculture and rural land management is identified as a probable further source.
In addition to phosphate, runoff from piles of soil may potentially affect other water quality elements. Organic matter running into the water can increase biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and therefore depress oxygen concentrations, and its decomposition can raise concentrations of ammonia. All three of these are also assessed under the WFD, although they are currently classed as High status in the River Leam water body. Other potential contaminants that can derive from soil are nitrogen-based nutrients (nitrate and nitrite) and suspended solids.
APEM was contracted to carry out an initial assessment of current actual impact and potential risk to the river. Following discussion with the client over requirements, this used APEM’s specialist skills in walkover surveys and runoff risk assessment. The visual observations from the walkover enabled locations for a small number of targeted spot water quality samples to be taken from the river.
It is important to emphasise that the water quality study carried out should be considered preliminary, as it is based on a small number of samples taken at one time of year. Similarly, the flood risk assessment is purely qualitative and indicative at this stage.
1 The River Leam at this point is part of water body no. GB109054044130 : “Leam-confl Rains Bk to confl R Itchen”. 2 WFD classification derived from 2016 assessment in the Environment Agency’s Catchment Data Explorer (https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/WaterBody/GB109054044130, accessed 18 December 2018). .
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 1
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
2. Methods
2.1 General Two field surveys were carried out. An initial dry weather survey took place on 15 November 2018, and a follow up wet weather survey was on 6 December 2018. In each, the field method was the same, involving a walkover survey and water quality assessment of the river.
The dry weather survey was carried out during dry conditions following a period of several days with no significant rainfall. The wet weather survey was carried out following a period that included some significant rainfall in order to sample at a time when runoff risk was high.
2.2 Site walkover An initial site walkover was undertaken in order to confirm the drainage arrangements at the site and the pathways for any runoff into the River Leam. The project involved a trained field scientist undertaking a standardised and systematic walkover survey along the river and drainage pathways on the site. Where sources of runoff, sediment and nutrients could enter the watercourse, the potential origins were traced by walking to their source where possible. At each location where a source was identified, a grade and category were assigned, based on the observed severity and source type respectively. Details of the grading process are provided in Appendix 1. The limits of the walkover survey along the river length are shown in Figure 1. This information helped to further understand the potential pressures on the River Leam associated with the practices undertaken at this location. Stakeholder engagement was also undertaken with discussions held on site regarding the storage of topsoil.
2.3 Water quality monitoring The initial dry weather walkover survey identified features that could potentially be a runoff pathway from Foxley Farm. These were therefore used to determine locations of sites for water quality assessment. In-situ water quality data was collected from each sample location using a YSI Pro Plus multi-parameter water quality meter. Parameters included temperature (°C), dissolved oxygen (% saturation), pH and conductivity (µS/cm).
Water samples were collected at all sample locations by hand in accordance with best practice sampling methodology and subsequently couriered to a UKAS-accredited analytical laboratory under chain-of-custody documentation. Samples were analysed at the lowest limits of detection (LOD) possible for the parameters listed in Table 1. These were chosen to cover the key WFD parameters of interest, along with other indicators of nutrient and suspended solids inputs.
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 2
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
Table 1 Laboratory analytes and limits of detection (LOD)
Analyte Unit LOD Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 5 day ATU mg/l 1 Total phosphorus (TP) as P mg/l 0.02 Orthophosphate (OP), reactive as P mg/l 0.02 Total nitrogen (TN) as N mg/l 0.1 Total oxidised nitrogen (TON) as N mg/l 0.2 Ammoniacal nitrogen as N mg/l 0.03 Nitrite as N mg/l 0.004 Determined by Nitrate as N mg/l calculation Total suspended solids (TSS) mg/l 3
2.4 Water Framework Directive assessment Orthophosphate, dissolved oxygen saturation and BOD are included in Water Framework Directive standards, so readings obtained were compared with these standards3. Phosphate standards are determined from the altitude and alkalinity of a river site, so alkalinity (209.75 mg/l) was derived as the mean of four readings taken by the Environment Agency at their monitoring point at Grandborough, around 3 km upstream of Foxley Farm.
The results should be considered to be indicative only, as WFD classification requires taking multiple samples over a three year period.
2.5 Assessment of flood risk A high level flood risk assessment was carried out, based on the Environment Agency’s flood zone maps and supplemented by visual assessments made during the site visits and other relevant available data.
The flood zone maps identify three types of land, depending upon their susceptibility to flooding, and also highlight any flood defences and areas that benefit from these defences. Flood zone types are as defined in Table 2.
Table 2 River flood zone definitions4
Type Definition Zone 1 Less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding Zone 2 Between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding Zone 3 Greater than 1 in 100 annual probability of flooding.
3 Derived from: Defra (2015) The Water Framework Directive (Standards and Classification) Directions (England and Wales) 2015. London, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
4 Source: www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change#flood-zone-and-flood-risk- tables
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 3
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
3. Results
3.1 Site walkover 3.1.1 Dry weather walkover The dry weather walkover survey identified five potential diffuse pollution sources in the survey area (Table 3; Figure 1: photographs in Appendix 2). The highest risk sources of pollution were as a result of the potential runoff of sediment from stored topsoil where there was connectivity to the watercourse. Three of these source types were recorded during the walkover survey, at JA1 and JA4. Arable overland runoff was another potential sediment source, at JA5; the arable field was bare at the time of the survey and on a steep gradient adjacent to the watercourse. A drainage ditch (JA2) that appeared to have been recently dredged was also recorded as a potential pollution source. JA3 and JA4 were in a pasture field that is assumed to be grazed, although no livestock were present.
Of the five potential sources, three were considered Grade 1, the category of most concern.
The potential pollution sources recorded did not appear to be visually having an impact on water quality of the River Leam at the time of the walkover survey. However, it must be noted that this walkover survey was undertaken in dry weather conditions with minimal, if any discharge in associated ditches and no overland flow. During rainfall events, the most likely inputs to the River Leam locally, based on findings from the walkover survey, would be fine sediments and nutrient inputs.
Table 3 Potential runoff issues identified during the dry weather survey: River Leam, 15 November 2018
Grade Category Site NGR Type* Comments (1-3)* (A-E)* SP Large spoil heaps 250 m from the JA1 47593 1 E SH watercourse. Potential pathway via 68819 drainage ditches. Dry drainage ditch alongside spoil SP heaps, with potential as wet weather JA2 47588 3 C DD pathway to carry sediment to 68795 watercourse. SP Spoil heaps in field adjacent to river; JA3 47634 3 E SH no obvious pathway to watercourse. 68512 SP Large spoil heaps located directly JA4 47678 1 E SH alongside watercourse - significant 68323 potential for runoff during wet weather. SP Bare arable field on steep gradient JA5 47606 1 A OR with potential for overland runoff 68560 during wet weather. *See Appendix 1 for definitions.
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 4
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
Figure 1 Location of dry walkover features identified and water quality sample locations
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 5
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
3.1.2 Wet weather walkover During the wet weather event the spoil heap at JA1 was still present and water was flowing in ditch JA2. An established vehicle track alongside the spoil heap was a potential conduit for water into this ditch. However, flow in the ditch ceased about 75% of the distance along the ditch, so that there was no overland flow into the river.
The spoil mounds at JA3 and JA4 had been removed. This demonstrates extensive activity in the survey area.
Comparing the water quality monitoring sites, site 1 appeared less turbid than site 2. At site 2 there was no difference in appearance between the upstream and downstream locations.
3.2 Water quality
The spoil heaps and their potential runoff channels at JA4 and JA1 were used to determine the location of water quality sampling locations. Four locations were chosen (Table 4). Site 1 US was upstream of any potential impact from the identified farm activities and immediately upstream of JA4. Site 1 DS was downstream of JA4. Site 2US was downstream of JA3 but upstream of the channel draining JA1, while 2DS was downstream of this channel, with 2DS being at the downstream end of the identified farm impact.
Table 4 Water quality sample locations
Approx distance to Site Location NGR next sample location (m) 1 US Upstream SP 47668 68269 50 1 DS Downstream SP 47665 68316 320 2 US Upstream SP 47569 68568 30 2 DS Downstream SP 47538 68575 -
The full water quality dataset is provided in Appendix 2.
During the dry weather survey, there was little evidence of any impacts, apart from suspended solids concentration which increased slightly at Site 2 between 2US and 2DS. However, as the concentration was similar between Sites 1 and 2, this is unlikely to be attributable to runoff at Site 2.
During the wet weather survey, there was a large overall difference in comparison with the dry weather survey, with elevate concentrations of nutrients and suspended solids. However, again there little difference between upstream and downstream locations at each of the sites indicating sources upstream of Foxley Farm. Concentration of total phosphorus increased at each DS suite compared with its equivalent US site, but the biologically orthophosphate did not show this pattern. The only exception was suspended solids, whose concentrations were lower in the downstream Site 2 than in Site 1; however, even the upstream readings were relatively low for a wet weather event, and declined between 1US and 1DS. This within reach variability among readings would suggest that this was an artefact of sampling
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 6
APEM Scientific Report P00003076 localised pulses of suspended solids from upstream sources rather than any continuous impact of the Foxley Farm site.
3.3 Comparison with WFD standards Comparison of WFD water quality elements with the appropriate standards for a river of this type(Category 7) is given in Table 5. These show that, apart from some variation in oxygen saturation, the readings taken at the different locations and on the two dates are consistent in relativity to the WFD standard boundaries and also match the Environment Agency classification for this river.
Table 5 Comparison of water quality data with WFD standards Colour coding of the reading obtained follows the official colours for each WFD class, as defined in the lower part of the table.
Oxygen Soluble Ammoniacal Sample percent BOD reactive Survey nitrogen as N location saturation phosphorus
mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l 1US 64.4 <1.00 <0.03 0.14 Dry 1DS 71.3 <1.00 <0.03 0.147 weather survey 2US 70.2 1.01 <0.03 0.145 2DS 63.5 <1.00 <0.03 0.148 1US 73.4 1.15 <0.03 0.173 Wet 1DS 99.6 2.21 0.04 0.162 weather survey 2US 82.8 1.23 <0.03 0.180 2DS 97.4 1.29 <0.03 0.178
High >= 70 <= 4 <= 0.3 <= 0.039 WFD Good 60-70 4-5 0.3-0.6 0.039-0.074 class 5-6.5 boun- Moderate 54-60 0.6-1.1 0.074-0.183 daries Poor 45-54 6.5-9 1.1-2.5 0.183-1.026 Bad < 45 >9 >2.5 >1.026
3.4 Flood risk assessment The area along the river in the vicinity of Foxley Farm has a relatively narrow floodable area, but the area along the right (eastern bank) is classed as flood zone 3 as far as the first field boundary (marked in blue on Figure 1), therefore encompassing JA3, JA4 and the outflow from JA5 identified during the dry weather walkover survey (Figure 1, Figure 2).
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 7
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
Figure 2 Area at risk from flooding in the vicinity of Foxley Farm See Table 2 for definition of flood zones. Map derived from Environment Agency flood map for planning, accessed 19 December 2018. Mapping data from Ordnance Survey is © Crown copyright Map contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 8
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
4. Discussion
4.1 Key findings and caveats The walkover survey, complemented by the dry weather sampling and subsequent wet weather sampling, provided evidence regarding the pathways of potential pollution in the vicinity of Foxley Farm. In additional to potential impact from an arable field, several spoil heaps were identified. The potential pathways to the river were as a result of drainage ditches and direct overland runoff (potentially intensified due to agricultural vehicle wheel ruts and gullies formed in arable fields), whilst a track also provided a potentially important pathway between the source of pollution and the watercourse.
The main finding of the walkovers and sampling was that there was no apparent impact on the River Leam from the Foxley Farm site. It is likely, therefore, that the site is having no detrimental effect on the river for most of the time. However, it should be noted that the following points are pertinent to any conclusion. a) The rainfall at the time of the wet weather survey was not enough to cause the ditch at JA2 to flow into the River Leam. Heavier and more extended rainfall may lead to a different result if this ditch fills and flows along its entire length. This in turn may cause the site to have an impact on the river. b) The two spoil heaps closest to the river had been removed by the time of the wet weather survey. Had they still been in place it is possible that there would have been runoff from these into the river. c) A small set of water samples, as taken in this study, cannot be used to conclude no intermittent impacts at other times. A greater frequency of samples at different times of year and under a range of conditions, including very heavy rain, would provide a clearer picture.
The presence of spoil heaps in the lower field leads to potential for extensive erosion and leaching of nutrients should this area flood. It has been identified as being at high risk of flooding. It is not known how frequently the field floods, but such a flood when spoil is present could lead to extensive input of sediment, leading to smothering and fish kills as well as nutrient enrichment.
4.2 Recommendations On the basis of the preliminary results obtained, the following recommendations can be made.
1) Wherever possible avoid using the lower field adjacent to the river as a storage area for soil. If it is needed then ensure that soil is placed close to the boundary of the field, away from the river. 2) If soil is being stored in the lower field and a flood is forecast, containing it within straw bales will significantly reduce runoff and soil losses. 3) Machinery used to move soil can create runoff channels via wheel ruts. Therefore ensure that vehicles are not driven close to the river and that as little driving as possible is perpendicular to the river channel. 4) Maintain a well vegetated buffer strip at least 5 m wide along the river bank. Keep this clear of machinery and grazing animals. 5) If the spoil heap at JA1 is to be permanent feature then a containing structure around the base of each, along the sides facing the ditch and the downstream gradient, would restrict potential for runoff of sediment and nutrients.
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 9
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
Appendix 1 Walkover survey – grading method Potential Impacts identified during a walkover survey are graded on a scale of Grade 1 to Grade 3, Grade 1 being the most severe. A qualitative outline of the grading system is presented in Table A 1. Further to this grading, the issues identified were categorised according to Table A 2. This standardised categorisation facilitates subsequent analysis, enabling key issues to be identified and summarised for each catchment. Photographs are taken at each location, depending on the severity of the issues identified, along with comments to provide specific details of the observations made. Particular attention is paid in this process to Grade 1 impacts, for which individual accounts of each are reported where applicable. The location of each source is recorded in the field using a GPS, enabling subsequent GIS analysis of the spatial distribution of sources to be undertaken.
Table A 1 Definitions and examples of sources of Grades 1 to 3, as classified during the walkover surveys
Grade Definition Example
Fields with major erosion gullies Observed (or potential for) Fields with evidence of large-scale widespread deposition of overland flow in-stream sediment Major in-stream works 1 causing localised and Heavily poached and trampled widespread impacts more fields than 100m from the point Farm tracks with evidence of or diffuse source. overland flow Drains and ditches discharging large quantities of fine sediment Observed (or potential for) Fields with evidence of localised local deposition of in- runoff stream sediment causing 2 Localised poaching noticeable impacts within Drains and ditches discharging 100m of the point or diffuse small quantities of fine sediment source.
Minimal observed (or Minor land drains potential for) deposition of Ditches in-stream sediment with 3 Road drains and other pipes very localised deposition in Minor stocking drinking areas and the immediate vicinity of other points of livestock access the input.
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 10
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
Table A 2 Categories and recording codes of diffuse sources
Category Source Type Abbr. A Arable Overland runoff (cropland) OR Arable field drain FD
Arable drainage pipe ADP
Spreading ASP
B Livestock Farmyard runoff FR Poaching PO
Trampling TRP
Drainage Ditch PDD
Overgrazing/Trampling OG
Overland runoff (pasture) POR
Spreading LSP
C Conduits Road RR Track TR
Footpath FP
Pipe PI
Ditch (non-agricultural) DD
Drainage Pipe (non-agricultural) DP
D In-stream Sewage Treatment Works STW Septic Tank ST
Industrial Effluent IE
Combined Sewage Overflow CSO
Urban Runoff UR
Non- E Dredging DR agricultural Bank Erosion (Natural) BE
Construction Works CO
Spoil Heap SH Unknown UK
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 11
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
Appendix 2 Walkover survey photographs
Plate 1: JA1 Large spoil heap with access via drainage ditch to the river (Grade 1) – 15 November 2018
Plate 2: JA2 Drainage ditch alongside spoilt heap JA1 (Grade 3) – 15 November 2018
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 12
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
Plate 3: JA2 Drainage ditch running from JA1 to the river (Grade 3) – 15 November 2018
Plate 4: JA3 Spoil heaps in adjacent field, with no obvious runoff pathway (Grade 3) – 15 November 2018
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 13
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
Plate 5: JA4 Large spoil heaps directly alongside the river (Grade 1) – 15 November 2018
Plate 6: JA5 Arable field showing runoff pathway via gated access (Grade 1) – 15 November 2018
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 14
APEM Scientific Report P00003076
Appendix 3 Water quality surveys –raw data
Site 1 Site 2 Analyte Units Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream a) Dry weather survey - 15 November 2018 Temperature °C 9.1 9.1 9 9 Dissolved oxygen % sat* 64.4 71.3 70.2 63.5 Conductivity (25oC) μs/cm 879 884 883 883 pH - 7.8 7.7 8.0 7.7 BOD 5 Day ATU mg/l <1.00 <1.00 1.01 <1.00 Nitrogen : Total as N mg/l 3.07 3.13 3.10 3.10 Nitrogen : Total Oxidised as N mg/l 2.56 2.58 2.64 2.7 Nitrite as N mg/l 0.0057 0.0058 0.0051 0.0052 Nitrate as N mg/l 2.55 2.57 2.63 2.69 Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N mg/l <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 Phosphorus : Total as P mg/l 0.161 0.162 0.159 0.161 Orthophosphate, reactive as P mg/l 0.140 0.147 0.145 0.148 Phosphate : Total as P mg/l 0.160 0.158 0.156 0.159 Solids, Suspended at 105oC mg/l 4.80 4.85 <3.00 4.85
b) Wet weather survey - 6 December 2018 Temperature °C 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.5 Dissolved oxygen % sat* 73.4 99.6 82.8 97.4 Conductivity (25oC) μs/cm 940 948 948 955 pH - 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 BOD 5 Day ATU mg/l 1.15 2.21 1.23 1.29 Nitrogen : Total as N mg/l 8.73 9.01 8.86 8.93 Nitrogen : Total Oxidised as N mg/l 6.34 6.32 6.38 6.42 Nitrite as N mg/l 0.0294 0.0294 0.0301 0.0297 Nitrate as N mg/l 6.31 6.29 6.35 6.39 Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N mg/l <0.03 0.04 <0.03 <0.03 Phosphorus : Total as P mg/l 0.184 0.217 0.194 0.208 Orthophosphate, reactive as P mg/l 0.173 0.162 0.180 0.178 Phosphate : Total as P mg/l 0.181 0.207 0.188 0.199 Solids, Suspended at 105oC mg/l 33.50 18.20 4.38 9.75 *Percent saturation
February 2019 v2 - Draft Page 15