Preliminary Geoenvironmental Investigation

Fall 08

Land at New Road, Sharow

For Carter Jonas LLP

Report no: 2103 /1

Date: June 2015

Tel: 01937 545330 • [email protected] • www.lithos.co.uk

NEW ROAD, SHAROW SUMMARY OF GEOENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Job No. 2103 Site area/ha 2.9 hectares (7.1 acres) Client: Carter Jonas LLP NGR: SE 330 718 Site: New Road, Sharow Nearest postcode: HG4 5BS

The site is located approximately 1.5km east of Ripon city centre and is currently arable farmland.

The site lies within an area known to be at risk of gypsum dissolution related subsidence. Therefore any development across the site must consider the consequences of gypsum related hazards.

Lithos were commissioned by Carter Jonas LLP to provide a preliminary geoenvironmental appraisal of the site. It is understood that the site is to be developed with 60 residential dwellings, although a proposed layout has yet to be prepared, and it is strongly recommended that a geophysical survey is completed prior to finalising any scheme.

A summary of salient geoenvironmental issues is provided in the table below.

Issue Remarks Former uses None of significance. Anticipated Geology The site is likely to be underlain by about 10m of glacial drift, over Sherwood Sandstone bedrock extending to depths of about 25m, over the Roxby Formation, with the Brotherton Formation from about 45m. The shallowest beds of gypsum are likely to lie at depths in excess of 35m. Gypsum Gypsum is present at the base of the Roxby Formation (c. 10m thick at about 35m to 45m bgl), and in the Edlington Formation, up to 35m thick from about 70m bgl. This site lies within Development Control Area C (gypsum present and susceptible to dissolution), and would likely be considered a larger development. Consequently, it must be subject to robust investigation and foundation design. A known gypsum dissolution subsidence feature is located within 100m of the sites boundary. Hazardous gas No special precautions required. Mining & quarrying Beyond CA defined coal fields. No historical quarrying within 250m of site boundary. Flooding & drainage Flood zone 1. Soakaways are unlikely to provide suitable means of surface water disposal. In any case soakaways discouraged in Area C. Anticipated None anticipated. contamination Recommendations for Initially a day’s trial pitting and geophysical survey of site. ground investigation It is likely that Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) will be the most appropriate geophysical technique, but further advice should be sought from a geophysics specialist. If any significant anomalies (potential subsidence features) are identified by the geophysical investigation, it might be necessary to advance rotary cored boreholes, after first considering potential implications for the proposed development. If no significant anomalies are found, boreholes would not be recommended since they can actually have an adverse effect on the hydrogeology - potentially opening up pathways for groundwater movement.

This brief summary should not be assumed to represent a complete account of all the potential geoenvironmental issues that may exist at the site. As such it is strongly recommended that the report be read in its entirety.

1 COMMISSION AND BRIEF ...... 1 1.1 THE COMMISSION AND BRIEF ...... 1 1.2 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 1 1.3 REPORT FORMAT AND LIMITATIONS...... 1 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 2 2.1 GENERAL ...... 2 2.2 SITE FEATURES ...... 2 3 SITE HISTORY ...... 3 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 4 4.1 GENERAL ...... 4 4.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY...... 5 4.3 PLANNING ADVICE FOR THE RIPON AREA ...... 7 4.4 LAND CONTAMINATION - PART IIA & PLANNING ...... 8 5 GROUND INVESTIGATION DESIGN ...... 10 5.1 ANTICIPATED GROUND CONDITIONS & POTENTIAL ISSUES ...... 10 5.2 PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ...... 10 5.3 GROUND INVESTIGATION DESIGN & STRATEGY ...... 11 6 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 12 6.1 GENERAL ...... 12 6.2 GYPSUM DISSOLUTION ...... 12 6.3 MINING AND QUARRYING ...... 13 6.4 HAZARDOUS GAS ...... 13 6.5 FOUNDATIONS ...... 13 6.6 DRAINAGE AND EXTERNAL WORKS ISSUES ...... 13 6.7 CONTAMINATION ...... 14 6.8 FURTHER INVESTIGATION ...... 14

APPENDICES

Appendix A – General notes

01 Environmental setting

Appendix B – Drawings

Drawing Title 2103/1 Site location plan 2103/2 Proposed layout 2103/3 Site features 2103/4 Site photos 2103/5 Preliminary conceptual site model

Appendix C - Commission

Appendix D – Historical OS plans*

Appendix E – Search responses*

From Date Content Harrogate Borough Council 11/03/2015 Enquiry response from Building Control Groundsure 10/03/2015 EnviroInsight & GeoInsight reports

Appendix F – Ground Stability Declaration Form

* Some of this data is not included within the paper copy of this report; most is included in the PDF copy and all is included on the CD

FOREWORD (preliminary geoenvironmental investigation report)

This report has been prepared for the sole use and reliance of the Client named on page 1 and cannot be relied upon by any other parties without the express written authorisation of Lithos Consulting Limited (Lithos). Any unauthorized third party relies on this report at their own risk and the authors owe them no duty of care.

The report presents observations and factual data obtained during our site investigation, and provides an assessment of geoenvironmental issues with respect to information provided by the Client regarding the proposed development. Further advice should be sought from Lithos prior to significant revision of the development proposals.

The report should be read in its entirety, including all associated drawings and appendices. Lithos cannot be held responsible for any misinterpretations arising from the use of extracts that are taken out of context. However, it should be noted that in order to keep the number of sheets of paper in the hard copy to a minimum, some information (e.g. full copy of the Landmark/Groundsure Report) is only included within the “electronic”, PDF Report on the accompanying CD.

The findings and opinions conveyed in any Desk Study section of the report (including review of any third party reports) are based on information obtained from the sources listed, which Lithos understands are reliable. All reasonable skill, care and diligence has been applied in examining the information obtained. However, Lithos accept no responsibility for inaccuracies in the data supplied or for opinions based on any such inaccurate data.

Where the report refers to the potential presence of invasive weeds such as Japanese Knotweed, or the presence of asbestos containing materials, it should be noted that the observations are for information only and should be verified by a suitably qualified expert.

Lithos reserve the right to amend their conclusions and recommendations in the light of further information that may become available.

PRELIMINARY GEOENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF LAND AT NEW ROAD, SHAROW

1 COMMISSION AND BRIEF

1.1 The commission and brief

1.1.1 Lithos Consulting Limited (Lithos), were commissioned by Carter Jonas to carry out a preliminary investigation of land off New Road in Sharow, near Ripon.

1.1.2 Correspondence regarding Lithos’ appointment, including the brief for this investigation, is included in Appendix C. The agreed scope of works included:

 A site walkover and inspection  An assessment of the land use history  Determination of the site's environmental setting  Assessment of anticipated ground conditions, including potential contaminants  Assessment of anticipated foundation and engineering issues associated with redevelopment for a residential end-use  Recommendations for a suitable intrusive ground investigation considering potential geotechnical and chemical abnormals across the site and surrounding area

1.1.3 This Preliminary Investigation comprised an inspection of historical and geological maps and information provided by the British Geological Survey, the Groundsure Information Group, Harrogate Borough Council and the Environment Agency. In addition a site inspection has been carried out by Lithos.

1.1.4 Primary aims of this investigation were to identify salient geoenvironmental issues affecting the site to enable design and costing of an appropriate intrusive investigation, and to support the submission of a planning application.

1.1.5 This report has been prepared by a ‘competent person’, and a Ground Stability Declaration Form is included in Appendix F to this report.

1.2 The proposed development

1.2.1 It is understood that consideration is being given to redevelopment of the site with about 36 no. domestic dwellings, associated gardens, POS and adoptable roads and sewers. No site layout has been provided at this stage.

1.3 Report format and limitations

1.3.1 Standard definitions, procedures and guidance are contained within Appendix A, which includes background, generic information on assessment of the site's environmental setting.

1.3.2 General notes and limitations relevant to all Lithos preliminary investigations are described in the Foreword and should be read in conjunction with this report. The text of the report draws specific attention to any modification to these procedures and to any other special techniques employed.

1 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

2 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 General

2.1.1 The site’s location is shown on Drawing 2103/1 presented in Appendix B to this report. Site details are summarised in the table below.

Detail Remarks Location 1.5 km south east of Ripon city centre NGR SE 330 718 Area 2.9 hectares (7.1 acres) Known services No services anticipated

2.2 Site features

2.2.1 A Lithos Engineer completed a walkover survey of the site on the 13th March 2015.

2.2.2 At the time of walkover the site was empty and occupied by short grass and occasional ferns.

2.2.3 Existing salient features, at the time of the walkover are presented on Drawing No. 2103/3 in Appendix B to this report, and summarised in the Table below.

Feature Remarks Current access Gated, off Back Lane Topography Gentle slope to the south & east Approximate 29,000m2 grass area Nature of North, south & west – low maintained hedgerows boundaries East – c. 3m high poorly maintained hedgerows North & east – arable farmland with widely spaced farm buildings Surrounding South – housing, including new development under construction land uses West – Glebe Meadow (housing) with further housing beyond

2.2.4 A selection of site photographs are included on Drawing 2103/4.

2.2.5 At the time of walkover the site was noted to be firm and dry underfoot.

2.2.6 The topography of the site is relatively smooth and flat, no deep hollows were noted.

2.2.7 Entrance to the site is secured with a 7 bar metal gate which opens onto Back Lane, which in turn joins Sharow Lane.

2.2.8 A small number of waste materials were stored on site at the time of walkover comprising two concrete animal feeding/watering troughs, waste timber (which appeared to be former fencing material), and a tractor tyre. This material is all located close to the site’s entrance.

2.2.9 A large tree stump is located on the site’s northern boundary.

Surrounding buildings

2.2.10 During the walkover nearby building exteriors were visually inspected.

2.2.11 No signs of structural distress were noted on buildings immediately south, east or north east of the site.

2 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

Nearby subsidence feature

2.2.12 Nearby subsidence features are shown on Drawing 2103/1 in Appendix B to this report.

2.2.13 A known subsidence feature, located approximately 100m east of the site (identified in DoE technical report and Section 4.2 below), was visited during the walkover.

2.2.14 The feature is approximately 40m in diameter and surrounding land falls gently down into the subsidence hollow. This type of feature is seen elsewhere in ‘Terrain Unit 7’ on the scarp slope of the Sherwood Sandstone between Sharow and Hutton Conyers. At the time of walkover the feature was flooded with at least 2 ponds. Vegetation within the feature comprised mature trees, and marsh grasses.

2.2.15 A photograph of the above feature looking east from within the site’s boundary is included in Drawing 2103/1 in Appendix B to this report.

3 SITE HISTORY

3.1 In order to investigate the development history and previous land uses at the site and immediate surrounding land, site centred extracts from Ordnance Survey (OS) plans dating back to 1853 have been examined. These plans are presented in Appendix D to this report.

3.2 The table below provides a summary of the salient points relating to the history of the site with respect to the proposed end use. It is not the intention of this report to describe in detail all the changes that have occurred on or adjacent to the site. Significant former uses/operations are highlighted in bold text for ease of reference.

Date Site Surrounding land Southern boundary defined by Back Lane. Northern boundary defined by Dishforth Road. 1853 Site comprises single open field. Parsonage 50m south west. Sharow Lodge 20m south. Site divided into 3 sections by two Subsidence feature? 450m west with further subsidence 1890 hedgerows/fences with widely spaced features approximately 900m west. trees. Small building developed in south 1892 No significant changes. eastern corner of site. 1908 Trees no longer shown across site. Reservoir and windpump 300m east. Sharow Hall Farm developed immediately south east of 1909 No significant changes. site. Site divided into two sections by single 1929 Housing developed 100m south of site. hedgerow/fence. 1930 No significant changes. 1938 No significant changes. 1951 Small building no longer shown. 3 No. houses developed immediately south of site. 1967 Site now comprises a single field. Tank attacked to Sharow Hall Garm 40m east of site. Pond (likely subsidence feature) shown 100m east of site. Development of housing immediately west along Glebe 1977 Meadow and Orchard Close.

1994 No significant changes. Ponds and marsh 120m east (likely subsidence feature). 2002 No significant changes. 2014

3 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.1 General

4.1.1 Notes describing how the site’s environmental setting has been assessed are included in Appendix A to this report. The responses received from the Harrogate Borough Council, the BGS and Groundsure are presented in Appendix E.

Issue Data reviewed Geology 1:50,000 BGS map (Sheet 52) Drift – Glacial Till (likely firm to stiff gravelly clay). 1:10,000 BGS map (SheetSE37SW) Solid – Sherwood Sandstone Group. DoE Technical Report Strata Dip – Gentle to north east. BGS Logs Faults – None beneath or close to site. Gypsum – The site lies within a development Area C as recorded by the DoE technical report. Gypsum bearing strata lie at depth beneath the site, and historical dissolution hollows lie 100m to the east and 400m west. See also Sections 2.2, 4.2 & 4.3. Mining Coal Authority This site is located beyond the CA’s defined coalfields. Quarrying Groundsure Report No known quarrying within 250m of the sites boundary. Historical OS plans See also Section 4.1.2 below. Landfill Groundsure Report No known landfills within 500m. Radon BRE Report BR211 No protective measures required. Hydrogeology Groundsure Report Source Protection Zone? None across site. Aquifers: Secondary B (Drift); Principal (Solid). Groundwater abstractions? 120m south west – General farming and domestic use. Extraction from Brotherton Formation. Commenced 1996. Pollution incidents? None of significance to site. Hydrology Groundsure Report Nearest watercourse(s) – Primary river – Rider Ure 750m west. Runs south. Pollution incidents? None of significance to site. Abstractions? None within 750m of site’s boundary. Discharge consents? None of significance to site). Flood risk Environment Agency The site lies in Flood Zone 1, where the risk of flooding from rivers or the sea is classified as low. The site area is greater than 1 hectare Flood Zone 1, therefore a Flood Risk Assessment, focused on the management of surface water run-off, will be required. Development that increases the amount of impermeable surfaces can result in an increase in surface water run-off, which in turn can result in increased flood risk both on site and elsewhere within the catchment.

4 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

4.1.2 The Groundsure report notes that surface ground workings are recorded as having taken place 130m north and east of the site. The northernmost working is considered to be small scale regrading of ground. The easternmost working is considered most likely to actually be a gypsum related subsidence hollow described in section 4.2. It is likely that the workings record refers to inert materials which are frequently used to fill expanding subsidence features.

4.2 Geology and hydrogeology

4.2.1 Gypsum (hydrated calcium sulphate) is an evaporate mineral, formed by precipitation from warm, shallow, saline marine waters. As it becomes buried beneath successive layers of accumulating sediment, compaction and loss of water result in transition to a dehydrated form of calcium sulphate called anhydrite.

4.2.2 Gypsum dissolves rapidly in flowing water that is not already saturated with calcium sulphate. Anhydrite is also soluble, but tends to revert back to gypsum rather than dissolving.

4.2.3 The generalised geological sequence of rocks in this area of North Yorkshire is:-

 Sherwood Sandstone (Triassic); youngest bedrock in this sequence.  Roxby Formation (Upper Permian Marl). Contains significant beds (up to 10m thick) of gypsum/anhydrite at its base. Typically 19m to 26m thick.  Brotherton Formation (Upper Magnesian Limestone). Typically 8m to 15m thick.  Edlington Formation (Middle Permian Marl). Contains significant beds (up to 35m thick) of gypsum/anhydrite. Typically 15m to 50m in thickness.  Cadeby Formation (Lower Magnesian Limestone); oldest bedrock in this sequence. There is no gypsum\anhydrite below the top of this stratum.

4.2.4 The above strata all dip gently to the east at roughly 2°.

4.2.5 The area which is potentially susceptible to gypsum dissolution is broadly constrained by two factors:

 The limits of outcrop of gypsum bearing strata (in the west), and  The limit beyond which the easterly dipping gypsum beds give way to unaltered anhydrite deposits at depths typically in excess of 100m (in the east).

4.2.6 Between these limits gypsum may, or may not, be at risk of dissolution depending on groundwater flow and chemistry (principally the degree of gypsum saturation).

4.2.7 Dissolution in the Ripon area is strongly influenced by the presence of a deep (up to around 50m), gravel-filled, buried valley below the current course of the River Ure. The buried valley has enabled direct hydraulic connection between groundwater in the gravels and that in gypsum beds at the base of the Edlington Formation.

4.2.8 On the western side of the Ure valley, groundwater under artesian pressure within the Cadeby Formation is able to move up through fractures, joints and cavities within the gypsum, and breccia pipes within the overlying marls. Groundwater in the Cadeby Formation is not already saturated with gypsum (cf groundwater in the Edlington & Roxby Formations), and is therefore capable of causing gypsum dissolution.

4.2.9 Within a limited zone (less than about 2km and most significantly with a few hundred metres) on the eastern side of the Ure valley, groundwater within the Brotherton Formation is also drawn toward the buried valley, and in doing so is able to flow up through gypsum at the base of the overlying Roxby Formation.

5 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

4.2.10 Geological and geomorphological evidence suggest that subsidence activity has been most prevalent above and along the sides of the buried valley.

4.2.11 Geological faults can also provide a pathway for upward groundwater flow.

4.2.12 It is thought that caves underlie much of Ripon, and some of the surrounding area, and follow joints in the rock. Where joints intersect, larger chambers can develop and further dissolution of the gypsum can result in these chambers becoming unstable.

4.2.13 In thinly bedded or broken (I.e. faulted or previously foundered) strata, void migration will take place by gradual caving of successive thin layers of rock, whereas In more thickly bedded and more competent strata, it may Involve the sudden failure of a cylindrical plug of material, following a long period of apparent stability.

4.2.14 The increase in volume associated with brecciation may eventually choke a cavity completely before it reaches the surface, thus preventing any further upward migration of the void. However, in theory large voids might migrate up through around 100m of overlying bedrock; in reality probably rather less.

4.2.15 Smaller cavities become choked more easily, and it is probable therefore that much of the gypsum dissolution taking place beneath Ripon will never result in subsidence of the overlying ground. This is increasingly likely in the east as the gypsum beds dip deeper.

4.2.16 The size, shape and mode of formation of individual subsidence hollows depend, in part, on the nature and thickness of the material which directly underlies the surface.

4.2.17 On outcrops of thinly-bedded marl or in areas underlain by significant thicknesses of drift, subsidence is most likely to take the form of broad, conical or more Irregular-shaped hollows formed by progressive deepening of an initial sag in the ground surface.

4.2.18 Where gypsum is overlain by more competent Brotherton Formation or Sherwood Sandstone (such as beneath this site), the potential exists for more sudden failure. The roof rock initially fails in a piecemeal way, partially filling the void with broken rock. The cavity then works its way upwards leaving a breccia pipe below. Eventually, the cavity nears the surface and the covering 'bridge' of material collapses. Alternatively, where bedrock is overlain by more significant thicknesses of unconsolidated drift soils, the roof of the cavity opens slightly allowing soils to funnel in, rather like sand in an egg-timer.

4.2.19 Caves in the gypsum are continually expanding and collapsing. A collapse occurs about once every 10 years in the built up area of Ripon and up to once a year in the wider gypsum affected area1. It is well established that although the location and pattern of collapses cannot be predicted, high quality site investigation and appropriate foundation design can mitigate much of the risk.

4.2.20 Subsidence arising from gypsum dissolution is an irregular and unpredictable process. The foundation recommendations presented in Section 6.4 will the minimise damage that could occur in the unlikely event that dissolution results in surface subsidence. However, no shallow foundation solution can entirely prevent damage if such subsidence were to occur.

1Harrogate District Local Plan 2001: Appendix 11: Gypsum in Ripon

6 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

4.3 Planning advice for the Ripon area

4.3.1 The problems of gypsum dissolution and its effects on both existing and proposed buildings in the Ripon area have been well documented in a DoE Technical Report2. Research contained in the DoE Technical Report resulted in the Ripon neighbourhood being subdivided into three development control areas:

 Area A – no known gypsum present.  Area B – some gypsum present at depth.  Area C – gypsum present and susceptible to dissolution.

4.3.2 Whilst the overall probability of a subsidence event occurring in Ripon at any particular point is relatively low, the localised consequences of a major collapse could be very serious. Consequently, in accordance with advice provided in the DoE Report, the local authority (Harrogate Borough Council) take account of the potential for gypsum dissolution in both Forward Planning and Development Control.

4.3.3 Responsibility to investigate the condition or circumstances of any particular site, to determine whether or not land is suitable for development, rests primarily with the developer and/or landowner (not the local authority). Applicants should procure a Ground Stability Report, which should be prepared by a Competent Person (a Chartered Geologist with at least 15 years’ experience).

4.3.4 The Ground Stability Report should include details of the site’s history, together with the results of a site inspection and a geotechnical desk study, followed in certain circumstances by a more detailed ground Investigation.

4.3.5 The need for, and scope of, a Ground Stability Report is dictated by location of the proposed development, and the nature and scale of the development itself. Requirements described in the DoE Report are only mandatory for larger developments, and often will not apply to minor developments.

4.3.6 This site lies within Development Control Area C, and would likely be considered a larger development.

4.3.7 Within Area C, gypsum and/or anhydrite are likely to be present within the reach of groundwater moving more rapidly towards the River Ure buried valley. Consequently, there is a greater likelihood of gypsum dissolution and associated subsidence activity. This area encompasses virtually all areas of known subsidence activity, as well as some intervening areas which appear to have remained undisturbed for many hundreds, or even thousands of years.

4.3.8 Within Development Control Area C, the DoE Report suggests that ground investigation should identify both existing voids and gypsum/anhydrite deposits. The DoE Report goes to state that in view of this, it would be inappropriate to rely solely on openhole drilling or surface geophysical surveys. These techniques cannot reliably identify gypsum or anhydrite deposits and must be replaced or used in conjunction with more sophisticated methods, such as rotary core drilling and/or downhole geophysical logging.

2 Assessment of Subsidence Arising from Gypsum Dissolution: Technical Report for the Department of the Environment, Symonds Travers Morgan 1996.

7 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

Gypsum – Beneath the Surrounding Area

4.3.9 Examination of published BGS borehole records, and Lithos data from an intrusive investigation approximately 50m south of the site, allows an estimation of anticipated strata depths beneath this site, as summarised in the table below:

Distance Geological Depth to base and Source and Comments formation thickness direction Drift (Glacial Till) 10m (10m) Generally described as ‘Stony Clay’. Sherwood 19m (9m) - Sandstone BGS 150m Borehole Roxby Formation 40m (21m) Referred to as ‘Upper Marl’. south Ref. west Described as ‘hard broken SE37SW41 42.5m (2.5m) Brotherton limestone’.* Formation Described as ‘honeycomb >45.5m (>3m) limestone’ Drift (Glacial Till) 10.9m (10.9m) Firm gravelly clay. Moderately strong massive Sherwood 24.2m (13.3m) sandstone with occasional mudstone Lithos Sandstone 50m beds. ground south Laminated mudstone with Gypsum investigation Roxby Formation 42.5m (18.3m) 39.7m to 43.5m. Brotherton Void noted from 45.0m to 46.9m in >60.0m (>17.5m) Formation adjacent probehole. Drift (Glacial Till) 4.3m (4.3m) Strong highly fractured limestone. Sherwood 11.0m (5.7m) Described as ‘soft sandy clay’. Sandstone BGS Borehole 750m Roxby Formation 23.9m (12.9m) Described as ‘Sandstone’. Ref. west ?Brotherton Described as ‘mudstone and SE37SW495 36.0m (12.1m) Formation limestone bands’.* ?Edlington >42.0m (>6.0m) Named Magnesian Limestone Formation * It should be noted that The DoE report states that ‘gypsum [at the base of the Roxby] may be interbedded with thin layers of dolomite…often resulting in gypsum being mis-identified as limestone’

4.3.10 A request for information was submitted to the local planning authority enquiring if any known Gypsum related hazards were known within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. Harrogate Borough Council (Building Control) has advised that there have been no significant gypsum-related events in the vicinity of the proposed site within the last 20 years. Harrogate Borough Councils response is included in Appendix E to this report.

4.4 Land contamination - Part IIA & planning

4.4.1 Local Authorities have responsibilities with respect to land contamination in the context both of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and Planning.

4.4.2 The contaminated land regime in Part IIA was introduced specifically to address the historical legacy of land contamination. It applies where there is unacceptable risk, assessed on the basis of the current use and the relevant circumstances of the land. It is not directed to assessing risks in relation to a future use of the land that would require a specific grant of planning permission. This is primarily a task for the planning system, which aims to control development and land use in the future.

8 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

Planning

4.4.3 As of 27th March 2012, Planning Policy Statement (PPS23) was replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF includes the following with respect to contamination and site investigation:

4.4.4 ‘Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

4.4.5 Planning policies and decisions should ensure that:

 the site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses, and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation;  after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and  adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented’.

4.4.6 Annex 2 of the NPPF states that ‘all investigations of land potentially affected by contamination should be carried out in accordance with established procedures (such as BS10175 - 2011, Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites)’.

This Site

4.4.7 Given the presence of a principal aquifer (Cadeby Limestone Formation) below the site, but beneath an anticipated cover of cohesive drift deposits (c. 10m thick), and the distance (750m) to the nearest watercourse, the environmental setting of the site is considered to be of moderate to low sensitivity.

4.4.8 The current and historical use of the site is considered highly unlikely to have given rise to any significant ground and groundwater contamination.

4.4.9 Therefore it is considered that the site should be suitable for the proposed use, subject to the comments made in Section 7.

9 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

5 GROUND INVESTIGATION DESIGN

5.1 Anticipated ground conditions & potential issues

5.1.1 Based on the data reviewed in Section 4 (Environmental Setting), anticipated ground conditions are expected to comprise:

Anticipated condition Remarks Made ground None anticipated Natural soils Glacial till (likely firm/stiff clays) to about 10m Sherwood Sandstone to about 25m, over the Roxby Formation, with the Brotherton Bedrock Formation from about 45m. About 10m thick at the base of the Roxby Formation (c. 35m to 45m bgl), and in the Gypsum Edlington Formation, up to 35m thick from about 70m bgl. Mineworkings None anticipated Groundwater At depth within both the Sherwood Sandstone and Brotherton Formation

5.1.2 Based on the data above and that in Sections 2 (Site Description) and 3 (History), potential ground-related issues associated with this site are likely to include:

Type of issue Specific issue Remarks Potential on-site 1. None contamination sources Potential off-site 1. None contamination sources Potential geotechnical 1. Gypsum dissolution See Sections 4.2 & 4.3 hazards Other potential 1. None constraints

5.2 Preliminary conceptual site model

5.2.1 Historical plans show that the site has been occupied by arable farmland which is not considered likely to have caused significant ground contamination. Nonetheless, activities such as the discharge of chemicals to ground, unregulated burial, and burning of waste have all occurred on farmland.

5.2.2 Potential pollutants associated with farming activity might include any of the following:

Agricultural activity Potential contaminant Sewage farming, slurry spreading. Methane, metals, nitrates, oxygen depletion Orchards Metals, pesticides Carcase burial Anthrax & other biohazards Crop & animal protection Pesticides & herbicides Soil conditioners Metals, sulphates, PAH Waste burning PAH, dioxins, metals Naturally occurring contaminants Arsenic, metals Sheepfolds Arsenic

10 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

5.3 Ground investigation design & strategy

5.3.1 The preliminary conceptual site model has been used as a basis for design of an appropriate ground investigation, the scope of which is summarised below.

Exploratory Purpose holes To determine the general nature of soils underlying the site, including the:  nature, distribution and thickness of shallow soils, including any made ground 14 trial pits  suitability of the ground for founding structures and highways  To identify any near surface anomalies which my provide evidence of sub surface dissolution features. Suitable A geophysical investigation carried out by a suitable qualified specialist to identify potential geophysical hollows and/or deeper voids associated with gypsum bearing strata beneath the site. investigation

5.3.2 It is likely that Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) will be the most appropriate geophysical technique, but further advice should be sought from a geophysics specialist. Variations in electrical resistivity typically correlate with variations in lithology, water saturation etc and can be used to map stratigraphic units, geological structure, sinkholes, fractures and groundwater.

5.3.3 It should be possible to detect significant cavities within the uppermost 30m or so; i.e. well into the Roxby Formation. Ideally the survey should extend across land about 40m beyond the development boundaries; this should be possible to north and east.

5.3.4 If any significant anomalies (potential subsidence features) are identified by the geophysical investigation, it might be necessary to advance rotary cored boreholes, after first considering potential implications for the proposed development. It might be that the anomalies are considered to represent cavities that pose too great a risk and render further investigation meaningless and development itself unviable. Consideration would certainly need to be given as to how to avoid subsidence issues, and who would take on ownership/responsibility for any sub-area(s) deemed unwise to develop.

5.3.5 If no significant anomalies are found, boreholes would not be recommended since they can actually have an adverse effect on the hydrogeology - potentially opening up pathways for groundwater movement.

5.3.6 Proposed exploratory hole locations should be selected to provide a representative view of the strata beneath the site.

5.3.7 Representative soil samples of natural and any man-made ground should be taken during the works. The number of soil samples taken should be reflective of the geological complexity actually encountered, but in general about 3 samples should be taken from most exploratory holes.

5.3.8 The investigation should be undertaken in general accordance with:

 BS5930:1999 “Code of practice for site investigation”  “Technical Aspects of Site Investigation” – EA R&D Technical Report P5-065/TR (2000)

5.3.9 The in-situ shear strengths of any cohesive soils encountered should be determined by use of a hand-held shear vane.

11 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

5.3.10 If the natural ground is predominantly glacial clay, soakaway tests are considered unlikely to yield satisfactory results, but testing would remove any ambiguity with respect to Yorkshire Water queries. However, if extensive deposits of sand & gravel are encountered, soakaways may work. The need for soakaway testing should be reviewed after trial pitting. It should be noted that the DoE report advises that soakaway drainage may trigger or at least aggravate localised dissolution of gypsum and is therefore discouraged.

5.3.11 Routine geotechnical soils analysis (moisture content, Atterberg limits, pH, water soluble sulphate) should be scheduled on about 12 samples.

5.3.12 The site is essentially Greenfield, and therefore testing of potentially contaminated samples should only be required if made ground is encountered in the exploratory holes. However, analysis of topsoil (for pH, metals, TOC, speciated PAH) should be undertaken in order to confirm its suitability for re-use.

5.3.13 On completion of the fieldwork and laboratory testing a comprehensive bound, factual and interpretative report should be issued. This should contain detailed engineering records, laboratory test results, copies of all relevant correspondence and drawings of the site. The report should also include qualitative risk assessment with respect to both controlled waters and human health.

6 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

6.1.1 The site is located approximately 1.5km east of Ripon city centre and currently comprises 2.9 hectares of arable farmland.

6.1.2 It is understood that Cater Jonas are considering submission of a planning application for residential development of the site. A proposed layout has yet to be prepared, and it is strongly recommended that a geophysical survey is completed prior to finalising any scheme.

6.2 Gypsum dissolution

6.2.1 The subject site is likely to be underlain by about 10m of glacial drift, over Sherwood Sandstone bedrock extending to depths of about 25m. The shallowest beds of gypsum are likely to lie at depths in excess of 35m.

6.2.2 There is a known subsidence feature, located approximately 100m east of the site, which is approximately 40m in diameter.

6.2.3 Problems of gypsum dissolution and its effects on both existing and proposed buildings in the Ripon area have been well documented in a DoE Technical Report which describes three development control areas (A, B & C) in the Ripon neighbourhood.

6.2.4 Whilst the probability of a subsidence event occurring is relatively low, the localised consequences of a major collapse could be very serious. Consequently, in accordance with advice provided in the DoE Report, Harrogate Borough Council take account of the potential for gypsum dissolution when considering planning applications for new development.

6.2.5 Responsibility for site investigation to determine whether or not land is suitable for development rests with the developer and/or landowner (not the local authority). Applicants need to procure a Ground Stability Report prepared by a Competent Person.

12 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

6.2.6 The need for, and scope of, a Ground Stability Report is dictated by location of the proposed development, and the nature and scale of the development itself. Requirements described in the DoE Report are only mandatory for larger developments, and often will not apply to minor developments.

6.2.7 This site lies within Development Control Area C (gypsum present and susceptible to dissolution), and would likely be considered a larger development. Consequently, it must be subject to robust investigation and foundation design.

6.2.8 Initially a geophysical investigation should be carried out to identify potential hollows and/or deeper voids. Any anomalies identified by the geophysical investigation should be investigated further by means of rotary cored and openhole boreholes.

6.3 Mining and quarrying

6.3.1 This site is underlain at depth by Sherwood Sandstone bedrock, and lies beyond the Coal Authority’s defined coalfields.

6.3.2 No known quarrying has occurred within 250m of the sites boundary.

6.4 Hazardous gas

6.4.1 Information from historical OS plans, the Environment Agency and Local Authority indicates that there are no known former landfill sites at or within 250m of the site.

6.4.2 The site is neither underlain by shallow mineworkings nor located in an area considered susceptible to mines gas emissions.

6.4.3 BRE Report BR211 (2007 Edition) indicates that radon protection measures are not required for new dwellings at the site.

6.4.4 As such, no special precautions against hazardous gas are required on this site.

6.5 Foundations

6.5.1 At present, no geotechnical ground investigation data is available and consequently it is only possible to estimate the ground conditions. Before firm foundation recommendations can be given, it will be necessary to undertake an appropriate ground investigation. However, tentative recommendations are provided below.

6.5.2 Anticipated shallow ground is likely to comprise firm to stiff clay. It is tentatively assumed that these deposits will provide a safe bearing capacity of about 150KPa.

6.5.3 Harrogate Borough Council (Building Control) has advised that immediately to the south of this site there are eight dwellings currently being constructed. The design of foundation used consisted of vibro-stone piles, with the ring beam cages and raft slab constructed from A393 steel.

6.6 Drainage and external works issues

6.6.1 Given the relatively level nature of the site, there should be no requirement for retaining walls, underbuild, tanking etc.

6.6.2 It is recommended that the developer contact Yorkshire Water Services with respect to capacity in existing foul and surface water sewers in the vicinity of the development area.

13 Preliminary Geoenvironmental investigation New Road, Sharow

Report No 2103/1

6.6.3 Given anticipated ground conditions, soakaways are considered unlikely to provide a viable solution for the disposal of surface water. Furthermore, the DoE Technical Report advises that gypsum subsidence may be initiated or aggravated by soakaways artificially discharging water into gypsum bearing strata.

6.7 Contamination

6.7.1 The site is essentially greenfield and no significant contamination is anticipated.

6.8 Further investigation

6.8.1 An appropriate ground investigation strategy is presented in Section 5.3.

6.8.2 Whilst the site is considered suitable for its current and proposed use, the proposed change in use will require intrusive investigation. This would include:

 Machine-excavated trial pits to determine near surface ground conditions  Geotechnical soils analysis to enable foundation recommendations  Chemical testing on topsoil’s to assess s suitability for re use.  Geophysical survey.

6.8.3 It is likely that Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) will be the most appropriate geophysical technique, but further advice should be sought from a geophysics specialist.

6.8.4 If any significant anomalies (potential subsidence features) are identified by the geophysical investigation, it might be necessary to advance rotary cored boreholes, after first considering potential implications for the proposed development.

6.8.5 If no significant anomalies are found, boreholes would not be recommended since they can actually have an adverse effect on the hydrogeology - potentially opening up pathways for groundwater movement.

14 APPENDIX A General notes 01 - Environmental setting

Generic notes – geoenvironmental Investigations

General

Third party information obtained from the British Geological Survey (BGS), the Coal Authority, the Local Authority etc is presented in the “Search Responses” Appendix of this Geoenvironmental Report.

Geology, mining & quarrying In order to establish the geological setting of a site, Lithos refer to BGS maps for the area, and the relevant geological memoir. Further information is sourced from the Local Authority and by reference to current and historical OS plans. A coal mining report is obtained from the Coal Authority (CA). In July 2011, the CA formalised their requirements in relation to planning applications and introduced some new terminology. The CA, using its extensive records has prepared plans for all coalfield Local Planning Authorities, which effectively refines the defined coalfield areas into areas of higher risk (known as the Coal Mining Development Referral Area) and lower risk (known as the Standing Advice Area). The Coal Mining Development Referral Areas contain a range of specific mining legacy risks to the surface, including mine entries; shallow coal workings; workable coal seam outcrops; mine gas; geological features; and previous surface mining sites. The Standing Advice Area is the remainder of the defined coalfield. In this area no known defined risks have been recorded; although there may still be unrecorded issues. Landfills Lithos obtain data from the Landmark Information Group, the Environment Agency and the Local Authority with respect to known areas of landfilling within 250m of the proposed development site. Reference is also made to historical OS plans, which are inspected for evidence of backfilled quarries, railway cuttings, colliery spoil tips etc. Radon Radon is a colourless, odourless gas, which is radioactive. It is formed in strata that contain uranium and radium (most notably granite), and can move though fissures eventually discharging to atmosphere, or the spaces under and within buildings. Where radon occurs in high concentrations, it can pose a risk to health. In order to assess potential risks associated with radon gas, Lithos refer to BRE Report BR211, 2007: “Radon: guidance on protective measures for new buildings”, and to information from the BGS / HPA (Health Protection Agency) radon potential dataset provided by the Landmark Information Group. The level of protection needed is site-specific and is determined by reference to the maps contained in Annex A of BR211. These maps are derived from the Radon Atlas of England and Wales (2007), and indicate the highest radon potential within each 1km grid square. Each 1km grid square is classified on the basis of the percentage of existing homes within that grid square estimated to have radon concentrations above the Action Level (average annual radon concentration of 200 Bq.m-3), as follows:  Unshaded grid squares where less than 3% of homes are estimated to be above the Action Level, and no radon protection is required in new dwellings  Light grey shaded grid squares where between 3% & 10% of homes are estimated to be above the Action Level, and basic radon protection is required in new dwellings  Dark grey shaded grid squares where greater than 10% of homes are estimated to be above the Action Level, and full radon protection is required  Sites where either basic or full radon protective measures are required (i.e. Where greater than 3% of homes are estimated to be above the Action Level) are referred to as Radon Affected Areas BR211 provides a preliminary indication of the measures required for a particular site, as the Annex A maps indicate the highest geological radon potential within each 1km grid square, but in many cases the radon potential varies considerably within the grid square. The Landmark information is more site-specific and therefore may allow the adoption of a lower level of protection than that indicated in the Annex A maps. Alternatively, a BR211 Radon Report can be obtained from the BGS in order to provide more site-specific information. It should be noted that in July 2010 the Health Protection Agency (HPA) published new advice (Document RCE-15: “Limitation of Human Exposure to Radon”), in which they recommend that all new buildings, extensions, conversions & refurbished buildings in the UK include (at least) basic radon protective measures. The HPA also widened the definition of Radon Affected Areas to include areas where greater than 1% of homes are estimated to be above the Action Level.

Generic notes – Ground investigation fieldwork Page 1 of 3 01 - Environmental setting

Generic notes – geoenvironmental Investigations

Hydrogeology

Lithos obtain information from the Environment Agency (EA) and the Landmark Information Group with respect to:

 groundwater quality  recorded pollution incidents  licensed groundwater abstractions From April 2010 the EA’s Groundwater Protection Policy uses aquifer designations that are consistent with the Water Framework Directive. These designations reflect the importance of aquifers in terms of groundwater as a resource (drinking water supply), but also their role in supporting surface water flows and wetland ecosystems. The aquifer designation data is based on geological mapping provided by the British Geological Survey. The maps are split into two different type of aquifer designation:  Superficial (Drift) - permeable unconsolidated (loose) deposits. For example, sands and gravels  Bedrock -solid permeable formations e.g. sandstone, chalk and limestone The maps display the following aquifer designations: Principal Aquifers: These are layers of rock or drift deposits that have high intergranular and/or fracture permeability - meaning they usually provide a high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. In most cases, principal aquifers are aquifers previously designated as major aquifer. Secondary Aquifers: These include a wide range of rock layers or drift deposits with an equally wide range of water permeability and storage. Secondary aquifers are subdivided into two types:  Secondary A - permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers  Secondary B - predominantly lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering. These are generally the water-bearing parts of the former non-aquifers  Secondary Undifferentiated - has been assigned in cases where it has not been possible to attribute either category A or B to a rock type. In most cases, this means that the layer in question has previously been designated as both minor and non-aquifer in different locations due to the variable characteristics of the rock type Unproductive Strata: These are rock layers or drift deposits with low permeability that have negligible significance for water supply or river base flow. Note: The maps are only display the principal and secondary aquifers as coloured areas. All uncoloured areas on the bedrock designation map will be unproductive strata. However, for uncoloured areas on the superficial (drift) designation map it is not possible to distinguish between areas of unproductive strata and areas where no drift is present. To do this, it is necessary to consult the published geological survey maps. For the purposes of our Groundwater Protection Policy the following default position applies, unless there is site specific information to the contrary:  If no superficial (drift) aquifers are shown, the bedrock designation is adopted  In areas where the bedrock designation shows unproductive strata (the uncoloured areas) the superficial designation is adopted  In all other areas, the more sensitive of the two designations is used (e.g. If secondary drift overlies principal bedrock, an overall designation of principal is assumed) The EA have also designated Source Protection Zones, which are based on proximity to a groundwater source (springs, wells and abstraction boreholes). The size of a Source Protection Zone is a function of the aquifer, volume of groundwater abstracted and the effective rainfall, and may vary from tens to several thousand hectares. Hydrology Lithos obtain information from the Environment Agency and the Landmark Information Group with respect to:  surface water quality  recorded pollution incidents  licensed abstractions (groundwater & surface waters)  licensed discharge consents  site susceptibility to flooding

Generic notes – Ground investigation fieldwork Page 2 of 3 01 - Environmental setting

Generic notes – geoenvironmental Investigations

The EA have set water quality targets for all rivers. These targets are known as River Quality Objectives (RQOs). The water quality classification scheme used to set RQO planning targets is known as the River Ecosystem scheme. The scheme comprises five classes (RE1 to RE5) which reflect the chemical quality requirements of communities of plants and animals occurring in our rivers. General Quality Assessment (GQA) grades reflect actual water quality. They are based on the most recent analytical testing undertaken by the EA. There are six GQA grades (denoted A to F) defined by the concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand, total ammonia and dissolved oxygen. The susceptibility of a site to flooding is assessed by reference to a Flood Map on the Environment Agency's website. These maps provide show natural floodplains - areas potentially at risk of flooding if a river rises above its banks, or high tides and stormy seas cause flooding in coastal areas. There are two different kinds of area shown on the Flood Map: 1. Dark blue areas could be flooded by the sea by a flood that has a 0.5% (1 in 200) or greater chance of happening each year, or by a river by a flood that has a 1% (1 in 100) or greater chance of happening each year 2. Light blue areas show the additional extent of an extreme flood from rivers or the sea. These outlying areas are likely to be affected by a major flood, with up to a 0.1% (1 in 1000) chance of occurring each year These two colours show the extent of the natural floodplain if there were no flood defences or certain other manmade structures and channel improvements The maps also show all flood defences built in the last five years to protect against river floods with a 1% (1 in 100) chance of happening each year, or floods from the sea with a 0.5% (1 in 200) chance of happening each year, together with some, but not all, older defences and defences which protect against smaller floods. The Agency’s assessment of the likelihood of flooding from rivers and the sea at any location is based on the presence and effect of all flood defences, predicted flood levels, and ground levels. It should also be noted that as the floodplain shown is the 1 in 100 year (or 1 in 200 year as appropriate), areas outside this may be flooded by more extreme floods (e.g. the 1 in 1000 year flood). Also, parts of the areas shown at risk of flooding will be flooded by lesser floods (e.g. the 1 in 5 year flood). In some places due to the shape of the river valley, the smaller floods will flood a very similar extent to larger floods but to a lesser depth. If a site falls within a floodplain, it is recommended that a flood survey be undertaken by a specialist consultant who can advise on appropriate mitigating measures; ie raising slab levels, provision of storage etc. COMAH & explosive sites Lithos obtain information from the Landmark Information Group with respect to COMAH or explosive sites within 1km of the proposed development site. Lithos’s report refers to any that are present, and recommends that the Client seeks further advice from the HSE. Areas around COMAH sites (chemical plants etc) are zoned with respect to the implementation of emergency plans. The HSE are a statutory consultee to the local planning authority for all COMAH sites. The COMAH site may have to revise it's emergency action plan if development occurs. This might be quite straightforward or could entail significant expenditure. Consequently, the COMAH site may object to a proposed development (although it is the Local Authority who have final say, and they are likely to place more weight on advice from the HSE). Preliminary conceptual ground model The site’s environmental setting (and proposed end use) is used by Lithos to assess the significance of any contamination encountered during the subsequent ground investigation Assessment of contaminated land is based on an evaluation of pollutant linkages (source-pathway-receptor). Contaminants within the near surface strata represent a potential source of pollution. The environment (most notably groundwater), site workers and end users are potential targets. Potential pollutant linkages are shown on a preliminary conceptual site model, presented as a Drawing in an Appendix to this Geoenvironmental Report. The preliminary model is revised in light of data arising from the subsequent ground investigation.

Generic notes – Ground investigation fieldwork Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX B Drawings The Site SE 330 718

Nearby known subsidence features

IMAGE FROM SITE LOOKING TOWARDS EASTERN SUBSIDANCE FEATURE

Reproduced from OS Explorer map 1:25,000 scale by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.  Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100049696.

CLIENT JOB TITLE DRAWING TITLE DRAWN DATE GLM 11/03/2015 SITE LOCATION CHECKED DATE PLAN, WITH NEARBY NEW ROAD, REG 11/03/2015 CARTER JONAS LLP KNOWN GYPSUM SHAROW STATUS SUBSIDENCE FOR COMMENT DRAFT [email protected] FOR APPROVAL FINAL www.lithos.co.uk FEATURES SCALE SHEET DRAWING NO. REVISION Tel 01937 545330 1:25,000 A4 2103/1 GRASS & OVERGROWN DISHFORTH ROAD AREAS

NEW ROAD APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY

SINGLE HOUSE

GRASS

[email protected] www.lithos.co.uk

Tel 01937 545330

CARTER JONAS LLP

NEW ROAD, SHAROW HOUSING

SITE FEATURES

GLM 02/06/2015 FOR COMMENT FOR APPROVAL BACK DRAFT REG 02/06/2015 FINAL

LANE 1:1000 A3 2103/3 GRASS & OVERGROWN AREAS

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY LOCATION & ORIENTATION OF PHOTOGRAPH

[email protected] www.lithos.co.uk

Tel 01937 545330

CARTER JONAS LLP

NEW ROAD, SHAROW

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

GLM 02/06/2015 FOR COMMENT FOR APPROVAL

DRAFT

REG 02/06/2015 FINAL

NOT TO SCALE A3 2103/4 W V X

TOPSOIL

COHESIVE GLACIAL SAND LENS SAND LENS DEPOSITS

SHERWOOD SANDSTONE FORMATION GROUNDWATER Z (PRINCIPAL AQUIFER) ROXBY FORMATION LIKELY GYPSUM BEDS [email protected] (up to 10m thick) www.lithos.co.uk BROTHERTON Tel 01937 545330 FORMATION

EDLINGTON LIKELY GYPSUM BEDS FORMATION (up to 35m thick) CARTER JONAS LLP

CADEBY LIMESTONE FORMATION

NEW ROAD, SHAROW SOURCES PATHWAYS RECEPTORS

V END USERS (RESIDENTS)

W SITE WORKERS PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL X VEGETATION

Z GROUNDWATER GLM 02/06/2015 FOR COMMENT FOR APPROVAL

DRAFT

REG 02/06/2015 FINAL

Not to scale A3 2103/5 APPENDIX C Commision George Morton

From: Leeming, Paul Sent: 04 February 2015 17:41 To: Reg Subject: Land at New Road, Sharow

Dear Mark/Reg

Following our conversation I attach a copy of the plan submitted to the Council as part of the recent “call for sites”;

The site is in private ownership and extends to some 6.6 acres with a possible capacity of 60 units. We are effectively scoping the preliminary stages of work for the client. It would be helpful if you could provide me with a scope of works for what may be needed to support the promotion of this site and potentially pursue a planning application.

A price and timeframe would help.

Regards

Paul

Paul Leeming MRTPI Associate, Partner

For and on behalf of Carter Jonas LLP T: 01423 707804 M: 07976 381195 W: carterjonas.co.uk

m m

Carter Jonas LLP Regent House 13-15 Albert Street Harrogate HG1 1JX

m m

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

This e-mail does not constitute any part of an offer or contract, is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Although the firm operates anti-virus programmes, it does not accept respons bility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed. Carter Jonas LLP is a Limited Liability corporate body which has "Members" and not "Partners". Any representative of Carter Jonas LLP descr bed as "Partner" is a Member or an employee of Carter Jonas LLP and is not a "Partner" in a Partnership. The term Partner has been adopted, with effect from 01 May 2005, because it is an accepted way of referring to senior professionals.

Carter Jonas LLP Place of Registration: England and Wales Registration Number: OC304417 Address of Registered Office: One Chapel Place, London, W1G 0BG.

1 002/2103/REG

5th February 2014

Mr P Leeming Please reply to Parkhill Carter Jonas LLP Walton Road Regent House Wetherby 13-15 Albert Street West Yorkshire Harrogate LS22 5DZ HG1 1JX T 01937 545 330 E [email protected] Dear Paul

New Road, Sharrow

Further to your recent invitation, please find below our proposal for undertaking a geotechnical and environmental desk study appraisal of the above land. It is understood that the site consists of a single parcel of land of approximately 2.5 hectares and is currently arable farmland.

Brief examination of the relevant geological map (and knowledge of the area) suggests the site is likely to be underlain by 5m to 10m of Glacial Drift, over Sherwood Sandstone, with gypsum bearing strata at about 40m depth.

Lithos have experience gained from the investigation of several sites in Ripon, including the former Auction Mart, land at Ash Grove, and a site within 50m of your land.

Problems associated with gypsum dissolution in the Ripon area are well documented in a DoE Technical Report1. This site lies within ‘Zone C’ – an area of Ripon where gypsum is present, and is susceptible to dissolution.

Subsidence arising from gypsum dissolution is an irregular and unpredictable process, and there are very few practical means by which a building can be given complete protection. Consequently, prior to any development in Zone C, a site must be subject to robust ground investigation and foundation design constraints. Harrogate Borough Council also require submission of a ‘Ground Stability Declaration Form’ endorsed by a ‘Competent Person’ (a Chartered Geologist with at least 15 years’ experience).

The DOE Report recommends a staged approach to investigation of sites within Zone C, involving:

1. A geomorphic and desk based assessment in order to establish whether there is any evidence of post-glacial, historical or recent gypsum related subsidence at the site. This proposal allows for a desk study, but consideration should also be given to commissioning of a topographical survey. 2. An intrusive site investigation to identify any evidence of previous subsidence (hollows in- filled with peat or soft clay), along with a deeper investigation in order to establish the geological sequence and the likelihood of active dissolution features (cavities) having migrated to near surface beneath the site and therefore presenting a short to medium term risk to the stability of the site.

1 Assessment of Subsidence Arising from Gypsum Dissolution: Technical Report for the Department of the Environment, Symonds Travers Morgan 1996.

Lithos Consulting Limited - registered in England 07068066 www lithosconsulting co uk

This site is located beyond the Coal Authority’s defined coalfields, and therefore a mining report is not required.

Environmental search data and historical maps (obtained from Landmark or Groundsure), will be reviewed in order to determine whether any past land uses have had any effect on the proposed development. In addition we will visit site to undertake a walkover survey.

The report will include preliminary recommendations with respect to gypsum, foundations, contamination and hazardous gas. Our report will be in a format familiar to Harrogate BC, and therefore suitable for submission in support of an outline planning application.

It is anticipated, allowing for receipt of statutory search information that a final bound report will be available within 3 weeks of receiving your written instruction to proceed. Our lump sum fee for provision of this report is £ plus VAT.

We will need a Promap or topo survey in CAD format, to provide a base plan for technical drawings etc. If do not have one, we could obtain at cost (c. £ ) plus £ .

This work will be undertaken in accordance with our Standard Terms and Conditions, a copy of which are enclosed.

It is hoped the above is sufficient for your present needs. However, should you require any further information, please contact the undersigned.

Yours sincerely

Mark Perrin Director for and on behalf of LITHOS CONSULTING LIMITED

Lithos Consulting Limited - registered in England 07068066 George Morton

From: Leeming, Paul Sent: 11 March 2015 17:53 To: Reg Subject: RE: New Road, Sharow

My apologies. We have received instruction from the client to progress with a Gypsum Desk Study as a first part of the commission. A topographical survey will be conducted once we have appointed a suitable body. That should be within the fortnight.

Please invoice the client directly:

Charles Lucas Esq 3 The Old Palace RIPON HG4 3HF

For access please inform the land agent Peter Greenwood at 01423 322336.

Best wishes

Paul

Paul Leeming MRTPI Associate, Partner

For and on behalf of Carter Jonas LLP T: 01423 707804 M: 07976 381195 W: carterjonas.co.uk

m m

Carter Jonas LLP Regent House 13-15 Albert Street Harrogate HG1 1JX

1 APPENDIX D Historical OS plans

Site Details:

NEW ROAD, SHAROW, HG4 5BS

Client Ref: PO9055_glm_2103 Report Ref: GS-1952968 Grid Ref: 433116, 471850

Map Name: County Series N

Map date: 1853 W E Scale: 1:10,560

S Printed at: 1:10,560

Produced by GroundSure Environmental Insight T: 08444 159000 E: [email protected] W: www.groundsure.com

Production date: 11 March 2015

To view map legend click here Legend

Site Details:

NEW ROAD, SHAROW, HG4 5BS

Client Ref: PO9055_glm_2103 Report Ref: GS-1952968 Grid Ref: 433116, 471850

Map Name: County Series N

Map date: 1909 W E Scale: 1:2,500

S Printed at: 1:2,500

Produced by GroundSure Environmental Insight T: 08444 159000 E: [email protected] W: www.groundsure.com

Production date: 11 March 2015

To view map legend click here Legend

Site Details: NEW ROAD, SHAROW, HG4 5BS

Client Ref: PO9055_glm_2103 Report Ref: GS-1952968 Grid Ref: 433116, 471850

Map Name: National Grid N Map date: 1977 W E Scale: 1:10,000

S Printed at: 1:10,000

Produced by GroundSure Environmental Insight T: 08444 159000 E: [email protected] W: www.groundsure.com

Production date: 11 March 2015

To view map legend click here Legend Site Details: NEW ROAD, SHAROW, HG4 5BS

Client Ref: PO9055_glm_2103 Report Ref: GS-1952968 Grid Ref: 433116, 471850

Map Name: National Grid N Map date: 1989-1994 W E Scale: 1:2,500

S Printed at: 1:2,500

Produced by GroundSure Environmental Insight T: 08444 159000 E: [email protected] W: www.groundsure.com

Production date: 11 March 2015

To view map legend click here Legend APPENDIX E Search responses �� !"#��#$$ �� %�� &#'��(��)(�"'*

��+�� "'�,��'"�

��+��-�� .)��!�+�� ,��

��

/�� 0.��&/��1/�&��1�2��3��

��4�,��)��

5�� +�� 6�� 7�� 8��7

9�� +�� +�� ':222�"�#'''�8�� -�� )��7

%��

,� �� )��

. �7 �� . -��9 ��

��

�� !�� " ��

��#��$�� %�&�"&''

()�� *�� (��)�� *��

0� 0 0.

� .

�� . /��+��+�� "*!;� !�'"" �� 2**"$*�2<":'� ��=� � �7:�� Overview of Findings

For further details on each dataset, please refer to each individual section in the main report as listed. Where the database has been searched a numerical result will be recorded. Where the database has not been searched '-' will be recorded.

Section 1: Environmental Permits, On-site 0-50m 51-250 251-500 Incidents and Registers

1.1 Industrial Sites Holding Environmental Permits and/or Authorisations

1.1.1 Records of historic IPC Authorisations 0 0 0 0

1.1.2 Records of Part A(1) and IPPC Authorised Activities 0 0 0 0

1.1.3 Records of Water Industry Referrals (potentially harmful 0 0 0 0 discharges to the public sewer)

1.1.4 Records of Red List Discharge Consents (potentially harmful 0 0 0 0 discharges to controlled waters)

1.1.5 Records of List 1 Dangerous Substances Inventory sites 0 0 0 0

1.1.6 Records of List 2 Dangerous Substances Inventory sites 0 0 0 0

1.1.7 Records of Part A(2) and Part B Activities and Enforcements 0 0 0 0

1.1.8 Records of Category 3 or 4 Radioactive Substances 0 0 0 0 Authorisations

1.1.9 Records of Licensed Discharge Consents 0 0 0 0

1.1.10 Records of Planning Hazardous Substance Consents and 0 0 0 0 Enforcements

1.2 Records of COMAH and NIHHS sites 0 0 0 0

1.3 Environment Agency Recorded Pollution Incidents

1.3.1 National Incidents Recording System, List 2 0 0 0 0

1.3.2 National Incidents Recording System, List 1 0 0 0 0

1.4 Sites Determined as Contaminated Land under Part 2A EPA 1990 0 0 0 0

Section 2: Landfill and Other Waste 1000- On-site 0-50m 51-250 251-500 501-1000 Sites 5000

2.1 Landfill Sites

2.1.1 Environment Agency Registered Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 Not searched

2.1.2 Environment Agency Historic Landfill Sites 0 0 0 0 0 2

2.1.3 BGS/DoE Landfill Site Survey 0 0 0 0 0 1

2.1.4 GroundSure Local Authority Landfill Sites Data 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.2 Landfill and Other Waste Sites Findings

2.2.1 Operational and Non-Operational Waste Treatment, Transfer 0 0 0 0 Not searched Not searched and Disposal Sites

2.2.2 Environment Agency Licensed Waste Sites 0 0 0 0 0 2 Section 3: Current Land Use On-site 0-50m 51-250 251-500

3.1 Current Industrial Sites Data 0 1 2 Not searched

3.2 Records of Petrol and Fuel Sites 0 0 0 0

3.3 Underground High Pressure Oil and Gas Pipelines 0 0 0 0

Section 4: Geology

4.1 Are there any records of Artificial Ground and Made Ground No present beneath the study site?

4.2 Are there any records of Superficial Ground and Drift Geology Yes present beneath the study site?

4.3 For records of Bedrock and Solid Geology beneath the study site see the detailed findings section.

Section 5: Hydrogeology and Hydrology 0-500m

5.1 Are there any records of Strata Classification in the Superficial Yes Geology within 500m of the study site?

5.2 Are there any records of Strata Classification in the Bedrock Yes Geology within 500m of the study site? 1000- On-site 0-50m 51-250 251-500 501-1000 2000 5.3 Groundwater Abstraction Licences (within 2000m of the study 0 0 2 0 8 19 site)

5.4 Surface Water Abstraction Licences (within 2000m of the study 0 0 0 0 2 6 site)

5.5 Potable Water Abstraction Licences (within 2000m of the study 0 0 0 0 0 0 site)

5.6 Source Protection Zones (within 500m of the study site) 0 0 0 0 Not searched Not searched

5.7 Source Protection Zones within Confined Aquifer 0 0 0 0 Not searched Not searched

5.8 Groundwater Vulnerability and Soil Leaching Potential (within 0 0 1 1 Not searched Not searched 500m of the study site) 1000- On-site 0-50m 51-250 251-500 501-1000 1500 5.9 Is there any Environment Agency information on river quality No No No No Yes No within 1500m of the study site?

5.10 Detailed River Network entries within 500m of the site 0 0 0 0 Not searched Not searched

5.11 Surface water features within 250m of the study site No No Yes Not searched Not searched Not searched Section 6: Flooding

6.1 Are there any Environment Agency Zone 2 floodplains within No 250m of the study site?

6.2 Are there any Environment Agency Zone 3 floodplains within No 250m of the study site?

6.3 Are there any Flood Defences within 250m of the study site? No

6.4 Are there any areas benefiting from Flood Defences within 250m No of the study site?

6.5 Are there any areas used for Flood Storage within 250m of the No study site?

6.6 What is the maximum BGS Groundwater Flooding susceptibility Limited potential within 50m of the study site?

6.7 What is the BGS confidence rating for the Groundwater Flooding Low susceptibility areas?

Section 7: Designated Environmentally 1000- On-site 0-50m 51-250 251-500 501-1000 Sensitive Sites 2000

7.1 Records of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 0 0 0 0 0 1

7.2 Records of National Nature Reserves (NNR) 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.3 Records of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.4 Records of Special Protection Areas (SPA) 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.5 Records of Ramsar sites 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.6 Records of Ancient Woodlands 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.7 Records of Local Nature Reserves (LNR) 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.8 Records of World Heritage Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.9 Records of Environmentally Sensitive Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.10 Records of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.11 Records of National Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.12 Records of Nitrate Sensitive Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.13 Records of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones 2 0 0 0 1 2

7.14 Records of Green Belt Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 Section 8: Natural Hazards

8.1 What is the maximum risk of natural ground subsidence? High

8.1.1 What is the maximum Shrink-Swell hazard rating identified on Very Low the study site?

8.1.2 What is the maximum Landslides hazard rating identified on Very Low the study site?

8.1.3 What is the maximum Soluble Rocks hazard rating identified on High the study site?

8.1.4 What is the maximum Compressible Ground hazard rating Negligible identified on the study site?

8.1.5 What is the maximum Collapsible Rocks hazard rating Very Low identified on the study site?

8.1.6 What is the maximum Running Sand hazard rating identified on Negligible the study site?

Section 9: Mining

9.1 Are there any coal mining areas within 75m of the study site? No

9.2 What is the risk of subsidence relating to shallow mining within Negligible 150m of the study site?

9.3 Are there any brine affected areas within 75m of the study site? No �0 ��1��) +��1�� $�� !�/

0� 0 0.

� .

��+�� !"#��#$$ �� &#'��(��)(�"'* "' "0 *��#�)) �� !�/

0� 0 0.

� .

��+�� !"#��#$$ �� &#'��(��)(�"'* "2 �0 �3��)��3 �� 3��)��3 ��0 �<��#�� /��#�$��) ��)��3

0� 0 0.

� .

��+�� !"#��#$$ �� &#'��(��)(�"'* �' �=0 �<��#�� $: ��)��3 �� =��$�� *�$��

0� 0 0.

� .

��+�� !"#��#$$ �� &#'��(��)(�"'* �" �$0 �3��)��3 > ��$� +��$�� ?�� +��=)� �� =��$�� *�$��

0� 0 0.

� .

��+�� !"#��#$$ �� &#'��(��)(�"'* �� 0 �3��)��3 ��$� +��$�� ?�� ,�� $��#�� <��#�� 0� 0 0.

� .

��+�� !"#��#$$ �� &#'��(��)(�"'* �* � �0 �3��)��3 > ��)�� ,��: �� @��)��3 0� � 0. � .

�� .

��+�� !"#��#$$ �� &#'��(��)(�"'* �2 '0 ��1�� $3 -)�� !�/ #�� /)�� 7#��1 �� 8

0� 0 0.

� .

��+�� !"#��#$$ �� &#'��(��)(�"'* *2 �� !"#��#$% �� &�� '#(��)��*)�"(+

��,�� "(�-��("�

��,��.�� /*��!�,�� -��

��

0�� 1/��'0��20�'��2�3��4��

��5�-��*��

6�� ,�� 7�� 8� �� 9��8

:�� ,�� ,�� (;333�"�#(((�9�� .�� *��8

&��

-� �� *��

/ �8 �� : ��

��

�� !��

��"��#�� $�%�!%&'

()�� *�� (��)�� *��

1� 1 1/

� /

�� / 0��,��,�� "+!<� !�("" �� 3++"$+�3%";(� ��=� � �8;�� ,��,��- �" .�� 6�� : �� ,��.�� 9�� !� .�� *� �� *�� 7� � ��! � .�� *� ��,�� *�� *�� 7�� ,�� ,��*� � �� *�� .�� ,�� *�� ,�� ,�� 8 6��,�� 4��" �(�(((��-�,��4�� 4��C�4�:6�:6� ��C��7�-� � �� 4��0�� A�� 40� � !��*� � �� .��<�� 4��*��*� � �� D� � �9�� 7�� 8 >�� ,�� .�� ,��8�� *��7��8�� D!D�7��8

�� " ��

"8"�0�� "8"8"�:�� 0�� 5�-�� ,�� 1� ��E

"8"8��0�� ,��*�� 1� �� 7�� F�� E

"8��,�� "8�8"�:�� ,�� 5��,�� &�� ,� �� E

"8�8��0�� ,��*��,�� &�� 7�� E

"8�8+�0�� ,�7�� ((*�� 1� �� E

"8�83�0�� ,��*�� ,�� 1� 7�� E

"8+�4�� "8+8"�>��4�� ?�>�� F�� 8

"8+8��0�� ,��*�� &�� 7�� E

"8+8+�0�� 7�� ((*�� 1� �� E

"83�� "838"�:��,��,�� 0��0�� 6��,��,�� 0�� 2�� 0�� G2�0H�� 7��,�� 0�� "I��,��,�� *��.��0�� .��E ��.��0�� .��

"838��:��,��,�� 7�� -�� 9�� 7�,��,��A�� A�� 1�� ,��.��*�� ,�� 4��""��4�� /��*� �E

�� ' !�� (!�(* �"!��( ��"!�(( �("!"(((

�8"�2�� >��*��*�� ( ( � 1�� 1�� -�,,� �

�8��2��@ �� *��*��-�,,� � ( ( ( ( (

�8+�� ( ( ( ( (

�� + -� � ��/A�� ?�1��.�� ' !�� (!�(* �"!��( ��"!�(( �("!"(((

+8"�2��-� � � ( ( ( ( (

��,�� !"#��#$% �'#(��)��*)�"(+ � �� + -� � ��/A�� ?�1��.�� ' !�� (!�(* �"!��( ��"!�(( �("!"(((

+8��-� � � ( ( ( ( (

+8+�<�� 4��*��-� � ��0�� ( ( ( ( (

+83�1� !��-� � � ( ( ( ( (

+8��1� !��-� � ��.�� ( ( ( ( (

+8$�1��.�� ( ( ( � "3

+8%�4�� /A�� ( ( ( ( (

+8;��,��*�/A�� ( ( ( ( (

+8#�6� �-� � � ( ( ( ( (

+8"(��-� � � ( ( ( ( (

�� 3 1�� ' !��

38"�� 7�� J��7

38�� J��7

38+�� 2��

383��*,��,�� 1��

38��,��,�� J��7

38$�� 1��

�� 4�� ' !�� (!�(* �"!��(

( ( " ��4��4��

�� $ /��*��4�� *�� ' !�� (!�(* �"!��(

" � � $��4�� *��

�� % ��7�� 6� �� ' !�� (!�(* �"!��( ��"!�((

( ( ( 1�� %8"�6� ��

( ( ( 1�� %8��2��7�� 6� ��>��

( ( ( 1�� %8+�2��7��

( ( ( 1�� %83�0��.��7��

��,�� !"#��#$% �� '#(��)��*)�"(+ $ �� % ��7�� 6� �� ' !�� (!�(* �"!��( ��"!�((

( ( ( ( %8��7��B��

��,�� !"#��#$% �� '#(��)��*)�"(+ % �0! ��1��"�#��) ��1�� *��)�1� �1 1� 1 1/

� /

� �� /

��,�� !"#��#$% �� '#(��)��*)�"(+ "( �0: ��#6 �� .��)�� 1 1� 1 1/

� /

� �� /

��,�� !"#��#$% �� '#(��)��*)�"(+ "� APPENDIX F Ground stability declaration form Ground Stability Declaration Form

Site Name Site Address Development Control Area New Road, Sharow HG4 5BS. C

CATEGORY QUESTION YES/NO/?/N/A Competent Has the report been prepared by a Geotechnical Specialist, as defined by A) (i) Yes Person the ICE Site Investigation Steering Group, (Anon, 1993) (see overleaf) (i) Has the site been affected by known historical ground instability problems? No

B) Site History Is the site located within or adjacent to, or does it contain any subsidence (ii) features as identified on the development Guidance Map, or on updated Yes information held by Harrogate Borough Council? (i) Has a detailed site inspection been carried out? Yes Does the land within or adjacent to the site bear any geomorphological (ii) Yes C) Site Inspection evidence of former, on-going or incipient ground instability? Does the site or neighbouring property bear any evidence of structural (iii) No damage or repairs which might be associated with ground instability? Have any previous ground investigation reports and/or borehole records from (i) No this site been consulted? If yes, is this information adequate, reasonably to confirm the presence or Geotechnical (ii) absence of gypsum* and the presence or absence of cavities or foundered D) Desk Study strata which could affect the stability of the site? (iii) If yes, have any cavities or foundered strata been identified beneath the site? Have any massive gypsum beds (greater than 1m thick) been identified in (iv) contact with underlying limestone beneath the site?* (i) Has a ground investigation been carried out in support of this application? No If yes, is the information obtained adequate, reasonably to confirm the (ii) presence or absence of gypsum* and of cavities or foundered strata which could affect the stability of the site? Ground E) Investigation (iii) If yes, have any cavities or foundered strata been identified beneath the site? (iv) If yes, have their locations and dimensions been properly identified? Have any massive gypsum beds (greater than 1m thick) been identified in (v) contact with underlying limestone beneath the site?* Is the information, available under B, C, D and (where applicable) E above (i) No adequate, reasonably to assess the stability of the site? If yes, can ground instability reasonably be foreseen within or adjacent to the Evaluation of F) (ii) site within the design life of the proposed development, allowing for any Stability deterioration of ground conditions caused by the development itself? If yes, can such instability be reduced to a reasonable level by the use of (iii) appropriate and cost effective mitigation measures? Have mitigation measures been proposed with respect to ground instability (i) No issues? If yes, are these designed to reduce the effects of any actual or potential Mitigation (ii) G) instability to a reasonable level? Measures If yes, are these likely to have any adverse effects on the stability of other, (iii) adjacent sites (for example by affecting the existing groundwater regime within the area)? H) Name, qualifications and signature of person responsible for this report Name Mark Perrin Qualifications BSc, MSc, CGeol Year of becoming a Geotechnical Specialist as defined by the ICE Site Investigation Steering Group 1996 (see overleaf)

Signature

Company represented Lithos Consulting Ltd

* note: the presence or absence of gypsum needs to be confirmed only within Development Control Area C

Ground Stability Declaration Form

Competent Persons

The preparation of ground stability reports in accordance with the requirements outlined above is a technical task, demanding expertise and experience in engineering geology, geomorphology, hydrogeology, geotechnical engineering and foundation design. For this reason the Borough Council will require such Reports to be prepared by a ‘competent person’ (or persons) with proven expertise in all of the above fields. As a minimum requirement, the ‘competent person’ must qualify as a Geotechnical Specialist, as defined by the institution of Civil Engineers’ Site Investigation Steering Group report: “Without Site Investigation, Ground is a Hazard” (Thomas Telford publications, London, 1993), and ideally, should have experience in the investigation and remediation of gypsum-related subsidence problems within the Ripon area.

More specifically, the person involved in logging any new boreholes must be capable of distinguishing the various forms of gypsum and anhydrite from limestone.

It is in your interest to ensure that the person or firm appointed carries professional indemnity insurance for the advice and opinions expressed in their reports.

Membership of the UK Register of Ground Engineering Professionals (UK RoGEP), or similar, would be accepted as confirmation that the relevant criteria have been met.