DOCSLIB.ORG

Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy London Borough of Hillingdon Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy, 2001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy London Borough of Hillingdon Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy, 2001 Environmental Protection Unit Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy London Borough of Hillingdon Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy, 2001 Executive Summary Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provided a new statutory regime for the identification and control of contaminated land. Local Authorities have a duty to produce a written inspection strategy for the identification of contaminated land within their area. Following the consultation on the draft inspection strategy revisions have been made to create this strategy document to be adopted by the Council as of July 2001. The presence of a contaminant on land does not always mean that the land will be identified as contaminated land within the Council’s inspection strategy. For a piece of land to be identified as ‘contaminated land’ all of the following elements have to be identified: Source: a contaminant, which is in, on, or under the land that has the potential to cause significant harm to a receptor; Receptor: a target for the contaminant, these include living organisms, controlled waters, ecosystems, and property; and Pathway: one or more routes by which a receptor can become exposed to a contaminant. The main purpose of this inspection strategy document is to outline how the Council will identify areas of the Borough where both receptors and contaminants are present and determine the likelihood of significant harm or the pollution of controlled waters being caused via a particular pathway. The Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) will be responsible for implementing the Council’s contaminated land inspection strategy and to carry out its contaminated land enforcement duties. The Council will work in partnership with external agencies and other interested parties, whenever possible, in dealing with the issue of identification and remediation of contaminated land. A corporate approach will be taken in dealing with remediation and regeneration of contaminated land to ensure that objectives on sustainability are met. The first step towards this was the consultation on the draft inspection strategy document. The land within the London Borough of Hillingdon has a great diversification of use, from agriculture to aviation. There are large residential areas, recreational areas, areas of surface and groundwater, a number of important nature sites, good quality agricultural land, ancient monuments, listed buildings, and educational and commercial areas within the Borough that are ‘receptors’ and need to be protected. The Council’s priorities in relation to contaminated land are listed below in priority order. The Council’s Priorities for dealing with Contaminated Land: 1. To protect human health 2. To protect controlled waters 3. To protect designated ecosystems 4. To prevent damage to property 5. To prevent any further contamination of land 6. To encourage voluntary remediation 7. To encourage re-use of brownfield land As part of the inspection strategy, data is being gathered on receptors and potential contamination sources from internal records and external bodies. All of the information gathered is being evaluated and stored by a computer mapping system, known as Geographical Information System (GIS). The information will be assessed to find out where i London Borough of Hillingdon Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy, 2001 contaminated land might exist in the Borough and determine the risks, using Agency and Government guidance. For detailed risk assessment work specialist environmental consultants will be used. The GIS database will eventually record all contaminated land information in the Borough. Within its statutory duties the Council must identify contaminated land that may be a special site for which the Environment Agency is the enforcing authority and provide regular information to the Agency for their national report on contaminated land. The Agency has statutory duties to provide the Council with guidance to assist the Council in it’s contaminated land duties. Therefore, a close co-operation between the Council and the Agency is proposed in this strategy document. The general steps involved in carrying out inspection strategy discussed in this document are summarised below. General Steps of the Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy: 1. To identify areas of land within the Borough that may be contaminated by reviewing historical land use, carrying out site investigations, risk assessments etc.; 2. To formally designate contaminated land and special sites (where the Environment Agency is the enforcing authority); 3. To bring about the remediation of land so that it is “suitable for use” through voluntary remediation wherever possible, and by serving remediation notices; 4. To maintain a public register containing contaminated land information; 5. To review the possibly contaminated/previously investigated areas and the inspection strategy from time to time in light of new information; and 6. To provide the Environment Agency with local land contamination information. The Council is proposing a rolling inspection programme for the identification of contaminated land over a five year period, commencing in July 2001, looking at urgent sites, Council owned land and controlled waters. The Borough has also been split into 4 areas to be systematically inspected over a four year period, starting in January 2002. The time estimates will be reviewed dependent upon the amount of contaminated land found in the Borough. The inspection programme will be implemented in a rational, ordered and efficient manner. Transparency in the implementation of the strategy will be achieved by publishing the strategy document, keeping a public register and providing information on request subject to the Environmental Information Regulations (1992). The Council has a duty to use the Part IIA legislation to secure the remediation of contaminated land. The Government’s intention is that any remediation required under Part IIA ensures that the land is ‘suitable for use’. Therefore the Council must ensure that the circumstances of any land are such that, in its current use (as defined in the guidance) it is no longer contaminated land, and the effects of any significant harm or pollution of controlled waters are remedied. It is always open to the person responsible for the contamination (appropriate person) to carry out remediation on a broader basis for redevelopment. Hillingdon has historically had a number of contaminative land uses including a diverse range of industries, mineral extraction and waste disposal by landfilling. A number of sites have been successfully remediated and redeveloped in the Borough in the last 25 years. It is the aim of the strategy to continue in a similar manner by encouraging the voluntary remediation, redevelopment and regeneration of contaminated sites to make the Borough environment “clean, healthy, stimulating and sustainable” for the people of Hillingdon. ii London Borough of Hillingdon Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy, 2001 Acknowledgements Thank you to all the people both within the Council and externally, who provided advice, information and consultation responses to help the Environmental Protection Unit write this strategy. Thanks are due to Alistair Norton and Nicky Ingrey of the North-east Thames Branch of the Environment Agency, and Richard Wood and the other members of the West London Contaminated Land Group for their support during the drafting of the strategy. Special thanks to Library Services, Planning Services and Corporate IT/Map Research for providing information and technical support during the drafting of the strategy. In particular, Carolynne Cotton, Gwyn Jones, Jayn Newman, Mike Gill, Mike Kraus, Andrew Scate and Fung Yee Cheung. iii London Borough of Hillingdon Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy, 2001 Table of Contents Executive Summary i Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv List of Figures vi List of Boxes vi List of Maps vi Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act (1990) 1 1.2 The London Borough of Hillingdon 2 1.3 Implementation of the Legislation 3 1.4 Land use Planning Policies 3 1.5 Development of the Strategy 3 1.6 Involvement of Community Groups, Businesses and Others 3 1.7 Strategic Approach to Inspection 4 Chapter 2: Characteristics of the London Borough of Hillingdon 6 2.1 About the Borough 6 2.2 Current Land use Characteristics 7 2.3 Industrial History 7 2.4 Nature Conservation Areas 8 2.5 Protected Property 9 2.6 Groundwater and Surface Water Protection 10 2.7 General Geological and Hydrogeological Characteristics 10 2.8 Areas of Naturally Metal Enriched Soils 11 2.9 Details of Local Authority Ownership of Land 11 2.10 Known information on Contamination and Remedial action already taken 12 2.11 Redevelopment History and Controls 13 Chapter 3: Aims, Objectives & Priorities of the Inspection Strategy 15 3.1 Aims of the Strategy 15 3.2 Objectives 15 3.3 Milestones 17 3.4 Review of work already done 18 3.5 Inspection Programme 18 3.6 Dealing with Urgent Sites 20 3.6.1 Council Owned Land 20 3.6.2 Threat to Controlled Waters 20 3.7 Priority Order of Inspection 20 3.8 General Priority Actions of the Council 21 Chapter 4: Information Collection, Evaluation and Management 22 4.1 Information Collection 22 4.1.1 Information of Potential Receptors 22 4.1.2 Information on Sources of Potential Contamination 22 4.1.3 Gaps in Information 22 4.2 Information and Complaints 25 4.2.1 Anonymously supplied Information 25 iv London Borough of Hillingdon Contaminated Land Inspection
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Colne River Valley
    1. Colne River Valley Key plan Description The Colne River Valley Natural Landscape Area follows the Colne Within the northern Colne Valley, the settlement pattern is relatively River north to south on the western fringe of Greater London, from sparse, although there is a corridor of villages along the Grand Union Stocker’s Lake near Batchworth in the north to Heathrow Airport in Canal. To the south the valley is more densely developed than the the south. Between Batchworth and Uxbridge the valley floor consists north, with industrial towns such as Uxbridge, Yiewsley and West of a series of lakes and reservoirs, edged by ridges and plateaux within Drayton and London’s largest airport, Heathrow. The historic cores the neighbouring Ruislip Plateau (NLA 2) and the Hayes Gravels (NLA which remain within the settlements of Harefield, Uxbridge, West 10). As the River Colne meanders south and the Grand Union Canal Drayton and Harmondsworth suggest how settlement patterns have heads east, the topography gradually levels; historically the River evolved within this area. Despite the intense residential and industrial Colne would have meandered wider here, resulting in an extensive development around Uxbridge, the linear open space corridors area of deep silt soil across an exceptionally wide floodplain. The that follow the River Colne, Grand Union Canal and the lakes that Colne River Valley has been and continues to be important both as a they support are dominant landscape features. The waterways and 1. Colne River Valley River Colne 1. source of water and for trade navigation. lakes are typically bordered by marginal wetland vegetation and wooded areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Action Plan
    Biodiversity Action Plan 2015-2018 Public March 2015 Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3 About Us .......................................................................................................... 3 What is biodiversity? ........................................................................................... 3 Drivers for the Biodiversity Action Plan ................................................................... 3 Focus on Special Sites of Scientific Interest (SSSIs) .................................................... 4 Objectives ......................................................................................................... 6 Biodiversity Achievements and Measures to Date .................................................. 7 Environmental Management System (EMS) ............................................................. 7 Partnership ....................................................................................................... 7 Operational Response at Designated Sites............................................................... 7 Waste and Recycling Sites.................................................................................... 8 Procurement ..................................................................................................... 9 Estate Management ............................................................................................ 9 New Builds and Major Refurbishments ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Natural Environment in London: Securing Our Future
    State of the natural environment in London: securing our future www.naturalengland.org.uk Contents Foreword 1 1 London’s natural environment 2 2 Natural London, Wild London 4 3 Natural London, Active London 12 4 Natural London, Future London 19 Annexes 25 © M a t h e w M a s s i n i Water vole Foreword The natural environment faces a number of This report on the state of the natural unique challenges in London that demand a environment in London shows there is much long term and sustainable response. work to do. It highlights Natural England’s position on some of the most crucial issues Perhaps the greatest challenge we face is to concerning the natural environment in ensure the benefits of the natural environment London. It describes how we will work with a are recognised and raised up the agenda at a range of people and organisations to deliver time when the global economy is centre our vision for Natural London, helping to stage. The natural environment underpins our ensure London is a world leader in improving health, wellbeing and prosperity. the environment. © We need to find ways of conserving and E l l e enhancing our green spaces and natural n S o assets in light of the knowledge that London f t l e is set to continue to grow for the foreseeable y future. We must take opportunities to connect more Londoners with their natural environment to encourage awareness of the benefits it can bring to health and quality of life. We need to quickly focus on how we are Alison Barnes going to adapt to the 50 years, at least, of Regional Director climate change that is now unavoidable.
    [Show full text]
  • COLNE VALLEY – LANDSCAPE on the EDGE Landscape Conservation Action Plan - March 2018
    COLNE VALLEY – LANDSCAPE ON THE EDGE Landscape Conservation Action Plan - March 2018 Chair of Landscape Partnership Lead Partner Colne Valley Park Community Interest Company Friends of the Colne Valley Park Spelthorne Natural History Society Front cover photo of Stockers Lake – Greg Townsend provide an essential project management tool for effective and efficient delivery. The partnership involved in preparing this LCAP considers it to be a compelling, innovative and realistic bid, with a range of projects which will connect people, biodiversity and access. ‘Colne Valley – Landscape on the Edge’ meets all the objectives of the Heritage Lottery Landscape The Landscape Partnership programme, run by the Heritage Lottery Partnership programme, with each of the projects proposed under the Fund, seeks to ‘conserve areas of distinctive landscape character’ and Scheme meeting at least one objective. promote a ‘holistic and balanced approach to the management of landscape heritage at a landscape scale’. Landscape Conservation Action Covering parts of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Greater London, Plans (LCAPs) required as part of this programme, provide the foundation Hertfordshire and Surrey, ‘Colne Valley – Landscape on the Edge’ will for planned work to benefit heritage, people and communities and are harness and stimulate organisations and communities across the area to needed in order to secure the Heritage Lottery Fund grant towards the support and sustain delivery. Residents and visitors will gain positive proposed work. perceptions about the area, will learn more about the landscape and feel more confident about exploring it. They will be supported to assist in Our LCAP, ‘Colne Valley – Landscape on the Edge’, comprises a suite of ‘shaping their place’, and feel more motivated to venture out and enjoy exciting projects (the Scheme), and seeks to: set these in the landscape the area, and to participate in efforts to improve and maintain it.
    [Show full text]
  • Jinder Ubhi Dear Sadiq Khan, I Have Consulted with Members of The
    Jinder Ubhi From: Laurie Baker Sent: 27 February 2018 19:38 To: Londonplan Cc: Peter Heath Subject: New draft London Plan Dear Sadiq Khan, I have consulted with members of the London Geodiversity Partnership (LGP) and these are the comments of the Partnership on the geodiversity aspects of the draft London Plan: Comments on Policy G9 Geodiversity In general there is an improvement on this section of the previous London Plan. Policy G9 is divided into two parts. On Development Plans, Part A, 1) and 2) are identical to the previous wording; do you see the previous reference to London’s Foundations as superfluous in the policy. For development proposals, Part B says “where relevant” but this is unnecessary. In B 2), developments should also protect SSSIs. In paragraph 8.9.2, when referring to SSSIs it should say “Interest” not “Importance” The paragraph states that “London’s geodiversity Sites are shown in Figure 8.1”. However, it says “National/Regional Geodiversity Importance” and the LGP would like SSSIs to be shown. (Peter: Does the map layer I sent you from Natural England work for you?) As they are part of the Plan, LGP would like LIGS also to appear (with correct LF numbers) on figure 8.1. On Figure 8.1, although it says the reference numbers come from SPG 2012, they bear no relation to London’s Foundations. The numbering of sites in LF should be used. In the table below, I have tried to allocate the number given in figure 8.1 to show the problem. I have tabulated the sites below, with the new sites 60‐72 marked with red numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Impact Assessment of the Mayor's
    INTEGRATED IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE MAYOR’S LONDON ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) Scoping Report COPYRIGHT Greater London Authority January 2017 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk Integrated Impact Assessment of the Mayor’s London Environment Strategy CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Purpose of this IIA Scoping Report ........................................................................................ 6 1.3 Engagement and Consultation ............................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2 THE LONDON ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY (LES) ................................................................ 10 2.1 About the strategy ................................................................................................................ 10 2.2 The context for creating a London Environment Strategy ..................................................... 10 2.3 Proposed approach to drafting the London Environment Strategy ....................................... 11 CHAPTER 3 INTEGRATED IMPACT ASSESSMENT (IIA): PURPOSE,
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Appraisal of the Proposed London Low Emission Zone
    SCOTT WILSON Planning, Environment & Landscape Environmental Appraisal of the Proposed London Low Emission Zone ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT November 2006 Environmental Appraisal of the Proposed London Low Emission Zone Environmental Report 13/11/2006 Collated and Colin Bush edited by: Environmental Specialist Reviewed by: Andy McNab Director Approved by: Andy McNab Director Scott Wilson Scott House Basing View Basingstoke RG21 4JG Tel: +44 (0) 1256 310200 Fax: +44 (0) 1256 310201 London Low Emission Zone: Environmental Appraisal Environmental Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction......................................................................... 4 2 The Proposed Scheme ....................................................... 8 3 Alternatives ....................................................................... 13 4 Policy Context and Project Need .................................... 16 5 Method of Assessment .................................................... 24 6 Traffic................................................................................. 29 7 Air Quality.......................................................................... 33 8 Noise and Vibration .......................................................... 57 9 Landscape and Visual Amenity....................................... 63 10 Ecology ........................................................................... 72 11 Cultural Heritage ............................................................ 82 12 Waste..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2011-2031 Final Draft
    Haringey’s 2nd Local Implementation Plan (Transport Strategy) 2011-2031 Final Draft Contents Page Executive summary i-iii 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Borough Transport Objectives 3 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Local Context 3 2.3 Haringey’s Transport Challenges 11 3.0 Delivery Plan 40 3.1 Introduction 40 3.2 The LIP funding process 40 3.3 Types of intervention 41 3.4 Identification of Corridors / Neighbourhoods and Supporting Measures programme 70 3.5 Major Schemes: Wood Green Town Centre 73 3.6 Delivery of the MTS ‘high profile outputs 74 3.7 Pubic Transport 75 3.8 Risk Management 76 3.9 Prioritisation 77 4.0 Performance Monitoring Plan 79 4.1 Introduction 79 4.2 Core Targets 80 4.3 Local Targets 94 4.4 Monitoring Progress 105 APPENDICES (not included with hard copy of this document) A – LIP EQIA B – SEA Draft Environmental Report C – Policy Influences D – Map of Corridors E – Map of Neighbourhoods F – LIP funding prioritisation criteria G – Summary of LIP objectives/Programme of investment H – LIP consultation responses + Council’s response I – Multi modal transport map DRAFT LIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Haringey Council are legally required to prepare a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) containing proposals for the delivery of the Mayors Transport Strategy (MTS) in Haringey. The LIP is a borough wide transport strategy detailing the council’s transport objectives and delivery proposals for 2011-2014 which reflect the transport needs and aspirations of people in Haringey and contributes towards the implementation of key priorities within the MTS over the 20 year period 2011-2031.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Site Assessments
    PROTECTING THE GEODIVERSITY OF THE CAPITAL 1 SITE ASSESSMENTS The following types of site are Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 7 Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS) 30 Locally Important Geological Site (LIGS) 34 CONTENTS Number Name Borough Page GLA1 Abbey Wood Bexley 3 GLA 2 Stephens House (formerly known as Avenue House), Finchley Barnet 7 GLA 3 Beckenham Place Park Lewisham 9 GLA 4 Chelsfield Gravel Bromley 11 GLA 5 Chingford Hatch Waltham Forest 14 GLA 6 Croham Hurst Croydon 16 GLA 7 Crystal Palace Geological Illustrations Bromley 19 GLA 8 Dog Rocks Greenwich 22 GLA 9 Carshalton Urban Dry Valley Sutton 24 GLA 12 Finsbury Gravel Islington 26 GLA 14 Gilbert's Pit Greenwich 28 GLA 15 Hainault Forest Country Park Redbridge 32 GLA 17 Happy Valley Croydon 35 GLA 18 Harrow Weald Harrow 37 GLA 19 Hornchurch Cutting Havering 40 GLA 20 Horsenden Hill Ealing 43 GLA 22 Keston Common Bromley 46 GLA 24 Old Gravel Pit, Blackheath (Eliot Pits) Lewisham 49 GLA 25 Putney Heath Wandsworth 52 GLA 26 Riddlesdown Quarry (formerly Rose and Crown Pit) Croydon 54 GLA 29 The Gravel Pits, Northwood Hillingdon 57 GLA 30 Cray Valley Golf Course Sand Pit Bromley 59 GLA 31 North End Pit (Erith Park) Bexley 62 GLA 32 High Elms Dene Hole Bromley 65 GLA 33 Elmstead Pit Bromley 67 GLA 34 Harefield Pit Hillingdon 69 GLA 35 Wansunt Pit (in Braeburn Park) Bexley 72 GLA 36 Pinner Chalk Mines Harrow 75 GLA 37 Marks Warren Farm Quarry Complex Barking & Dagenham 78 GLA 38 Chalky Dell, Lesnes Abbey Woods Bexley 81 GLA 39 Erith Submerged Forest and Saltings
    [Show full text]
  • Unlocking the Potential of London's Canals and Rivers
    Unlocking the potential of London’s canals and rivers Our Prospectus to support good growth, prosperity and wellbeing Foreword London’s canal network developed over 200 years ago to link to As a Trust we are excited by the challenge the capital’s river navigations and provide a route for transporting goods from the Midlands and the North to markets in London and of getting our disparate communities and beyond, creating industry and supporting the city’s development partners to recognise and appreciate the and prosperity. tremendous benefits associated with their Today, our waterways continue to make an important contribution local canals and rivers.… making life better to life in the city, albeit very different from their original role. Their role is now as life-enhancing blue-green corridors offering by water. an escape from the busy city streets, for health, exercise, and community cohesion. They make a vital contribution to the From historic canals to tidal rivers, within London we have wellbeing of London society by creating places where people waterways that run through stunning open countryside want to live and work, and routes that they can use – for leisure as well as densely populated urban areas. and commerce. Across the Capital’s waterway network we have almost They connect people to places and offer a network of routes for 1.3m people living within one kilometre of our waterways. getting around the city away from the traffic or the heavily-used We have a fantastic opportunity to engage these people public transport system. They are inclusive and accessible places with the waterway network but we will only be able to do for people to discover and enjoy, for leisure and relaxation, this by developing a deep appreciation and knowledge of to connect with heritage, culture and nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Bedrock Geology 32 Quartenary Deposits 51 Fossils and Palaeontology 61
    GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPEN ENVIRONMENTS: London’s FOUNDATIONS: PROTECTING THE GEODIVERSITY OF THE CAPITAL SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE MARCH 2012 LONDON PLAN, 2011 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The work to prepare and produce London’s Foundations, published in 2009 was made possible by funding from Natural England via the Defra Aggregates Levy Sustainability fund (ALSF), The Greater London Authority (GLA), British Geological Survey (BGS) and Natural England London Region. In-kind project support was provided by London Borough of Lambeth, Natural England, Hanson UK, British Geological Survey, Harrow and Hillingdon Geological Society, South London RIGS Group and London Biodiversity Partnership. BGS prepared the draft report in 2008 on behalf of the London Geodiversity Partnership, led by the GLA. BGS is a component body of the Natural Environment Research Council. BGS Report authors: H F Barron, J Brayson, D T Aldiss, M A Woods and A M Harrison BGS Editor: D J D Lawrence The 2012 update was prepared by Jane Carlsen and Peter Heath of the Greater London Authority with the assistance of the London Geodiversity Partnership. Mapping updates provided by Julie MacDonald of Greenspace Information for Greater London. Document production by Alex Green (GLA). The Mayor would like to acknowledge the work and extend thanks to the London Geodiversity Partnership who contributed to the revision of London’s Foundations SPG and those who responded to the consultation. Maps and diagrams have been prepared by the authors, except where stated. This report includes mapping data licensed from Ordnance Survey with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright and/or database right 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Time
    PROTECTING THE GEODIVERSITY OF THE CAPITAL EVOLUTION 7 and 8). The London district lies at the junction of two deep-seated geological 4.1 This chapter sets the geological scene for terranes within the pre-Mesozoic a discussion of the geodiversity of Greater basement. A third terrane lies just to the London, summarising the geological east (Pharaoh et al, 1993). These can be evolution and development of the seen on the Bouguer gravity anomaly map landscape. of the region Figure 9). Geological time 4.5 The north and west of the district is underlain by the Midlands Microcraton, 4.2 Geological time is divided into Eons, Eras, an area where Proterozoic and Palaeozoic Periods and Epochs (Figure 6). Although rocks occur at relatively shallow depths. the Earth is almost 4600 million years Structural trends are complex. The old, events from only the last 100 million Midlands Microcraton extends west as years or so are represented in the surface far as Worcestershire and north beneath geology of London. The coloured bands Leicestershire. It formed part of the Early in Figure 6 indicate those periods of Palaeozoic continent of Avalonia. In mid- geological time represented in the district’s Silurian times, when it lay at a latitude of rocks, from the mid-Cretaceous to the about 30° south, the northern edge of present, with their age in millions of years. Avalonia was driven at a shallow angle Also indicated are events that occurred beneath Laurentia, during the Caledonian during the long periods of time for which Orogeny. Since then, the Midlands no record remains; their presence has been Microcraton has been relatively tectonically inferred from evidence in adjoining areas.
    [Show full text]