Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Works Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental Statement

June 2017

The Danvm Drainage Commissioners Epsom House Chase Park Redhouse Interchange Doncaster South Yorkshire DN6 7FE

JBA Project Manager Laura Thomas Epsom House Chase Park Redhouse Interchange Doncaster DN6 7FE Revision History Revision Ref / Date Issued Amendments Issued to Draft Environmental The Danvm Drainage Statement / May 2017 Commissioners The Coal Authority Final Environmental Environment Agency Statement / June 2017 Natural England Made available to the General Public and other stakeholders via the Shire Group website (https://www.shiregroup- idbs.gov.uk/ ) Contract This report describes work commissioned by Danvm Drainage Commissioners, on behalf of The Coal Authority, by an email dated 19th September 2016. Laura Thomas, Rob Dalziel, Jenny Pullen, Helen Archer, Alex Jones, Brendon McFadden, Catherine Porter and Chris Toop of JBA Consulting carried out this work.

Prepared by ...... Robert Dalziel BSc MSc Assistant Ecologist

Prepared by ...... Laura Thomas BA MRes PGCert CEcol MCIEEM Chartered Senior Ecologist

Prepared by ...... Alexander Jones BSc MSc CGeol Senior Analyst

Reviewed by ...... Rachael Brady BSc MSc PGCert MCIEEM Chartered Senior Ecologist Purpose This document has been prepared as a Draft Report for Danvm Drainage Commissioners. JBA Consulting accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the Client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. JBA Consulting has no liability regarding the use of this report except to Danvm Drainage Commissioners.

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remedial Drainage Work ES v DRAFT i

Copyright © Jeremy Benn Associates Limited 2017 Carbon Footprint A printed copy of the main text in this document will result in a carbon footprint of 775g if 100% post- consumer recycled paper is used and 987g if primary-source paper is used. These figures assume the report is printed in black and white on A4 paper and in duplex. JBA is aiming to reduce its per capita carbon emissions.

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remedial Drainage Work ES v DRAFT ii

Appendices A eDNA Analysis Report

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 I

DNA Analysis Report - Commercial in Confidence

Customer: JBA Consulng Address: South Barn Broughton Hall Skipton North yorks BD23 3AE

Contact: Nathan Pickles Email: Tel:

Report date: 11-May-2017

Order Number: GCN17-0473

Samples: Pond Water

Analysis requested: Detecon of Great Crested Newt eDNA from pond water.

Thank you for submitting your samples for analysis with the Fera eDNA testing service. The details of the analysis are as follows: Method: The method detects pond occupancy from great crested newts (GCN) using traces of DNA shed into the pond environment (eDNA). The detection of GCN eDNA is carried out using real time PCR to amplify part of the cytochrome 1 gene found in mitochondrial DNA. The method followed is detailed in Biggs J., et al, (2014). Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Appendix 5. Technical advice note for field and laboratory sampling of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental DNA. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford.

The limits of this method are as follows: 1) the results are based on analyses of the samples supplied by the client and as received by the laboratory, 2) any variation between the characteristics of this sample and a batch will depend on the sampling procedure used. 3) the method is qualitative and therefore the levels given in the score are for information only, they do not constitute the quantification of GCN DNA against a calibration curve, 4) a ‘not detected’ result does not exclude presence at levels below the limit of detection.

The results are defined as follows: Positive: DNA from the species was detected. eDNA Score: Number of positive replicates from a series of twelve. Negative: DNA from the species was not detected; in the case of negative samples the DNA extract is further tested for PCR inhibitors and degradation of the sample. Inconclusive: Controls indicate degradation or inhibition of the sample, therefore the lack of detection of GCN DNA is not conclusive evidence for determining the absence of the species in the sample provided.

page 1 of 2

This test report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of Fera. Fera hereby excludes all liability for any claim, loss, demands or damages of any kind whatsoever (whether such claims, loss, demands or damages were foreseeable, known or otherwise) arising out of or in connection with the preparation of any technical or scientific report , including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage; loss of actual or anticipated profits (including loss of profits on contracts); loss of revenue; loss of business; loss of opportunity; loss of anticipated savings; loss of goodwill; loss of reputation; loss of damage to or corruption of data; loss of use of money or otherwise, and whether or not advised of the possibility of such claim, loss demand or damages and whether arising in tort (including negligence), contract or otherwise. This statement does not affect your statutory rights. Nothing in this disclaimer excludes or limits Fera liability for: (a) death or personal injury caused by Fera’s negligence (or that of its employees, agents or directors); or (b) the tort of deceit; [or (c) any breach of the obligations implied by Sale of Goods Act 1979 or Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (including those relating to the title, fitness for purpose and satisfactory quality of goods);] or (d) any liability which may not be limited or excluded by law (e) fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation. The parties agree that any matters are governed by English law and irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. DNA Analysis Report - Commercial in Confidence

CustomerReference Fera Reference GCN Detecon GCN Score Inhibion Degradaon Pond 12 B S17-005609 Negave 0 No No Pond 12 C S17-005610 Negave 0 No No Pond 12 A S17-005611 Negave 0 No No GREAT HECK FLASH 4 S17-005612 Inconclusive 0 No YES

The results indicate that eDNA for great crested newts was not detected in any of the samples submitted.

However, with sample S17-005612 we detected degradation of the internal control. Therefore, due to the risk of any eDNA also being degraded resulting in a false negative, we have issued an inconclusive result. We did note a substantial amount of sediment in this sample which may have contributed to this result.

Analysis was conducted in the presence of the following controls: 1) Extraction blank, 2) appropriate positive and negative PCR controls for each of the TaqMan assays (GCN, Inhibition, and Degradation). All controls performed as expected.

This test procedure was developed using research funded by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and was performed under the conditions of licensing arrangements with Applied Biosystems and patent rights owned by F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.

Issuing officer: Steven Bryce Tel: 01904 462 324 Email: [email protected]

page 2 of 2

This test report may not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of Fera. Fera hereby excludes all liability for any claim, loss, demands or damages of any kind whatsoever (whether such claims, loss, demands or damages were foreseeable, known or otherwise) arising out of or in connection with the preparation of any technical or scientific report , including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage; loss of actual or anticipated profits (including loss of profits on contracts); loss of revenue; loss of business; loss of opportunity; loss of anticipated savings; loss of goodwill; loss of reputation; loss of damage to or corruption of data; loss of use of money or otherwise, and whether or not advised of the possibility of such claim, loss demand or damages and whether arising in tort (including negligence), contract or otherwise. This statement does not affect your statutory rights. Nothing in this disclaimer excludes or limits Fera liability for: (a) death or personal injury caused by Fera’s negligence (or that of its employees, agents or directors); or (b) the tort of deceit; [or (c) any breach of the obligations implied by Sale of Goods Act 1979 or Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (including those relating to the title, fitness for purpose and satisfactory quality of goods);] or (d) any liability which may not be limited or excluded by law (e) fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation. The parties agree that any matters are governed by English law and irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.

B Hydrogeological Risk Assessment

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 II

Great Heck

Hydrogeological Risk Assessment

Draft Report April 2017

Coal Authority 200 Lichfield Lane Mansfield Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG

JBA Project Manager Laura Thomas JBA Consulting Epsom House Chase Park Redhouse Interchange Doncaster DN6 7FE Revision History Revision Ref / Date Issued Amendments Issued to

Contract This report describes work commissioned by Rob Pilmore, on behalf of the Coal Authority, by a email dated 13th April 2017. Alex Jones and Brendon McFadden of JBA Consulting carried out this work.

Prepared by ...... Alex Jones BSc MSc CGeol Chartered Senior Analyst

Brendon McFadden BSc MSc Assistant Analyst

Reviewed by ...... Michael McDonald BSC MSc PhD CGeol Principal Hydrogeologist

Purpose This document has been prepared as a Draft Report for the Coal Authority. JBA Consulting accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than by the Client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. JBA Consulting has no liability regarding the use of this report except to the Coal Authority.

Copyright © Jeremy Benn Associates Limited 2017

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx i

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Aims of the Assessment ...... 1 1.3 Data sources ...... 4 2 Site Description ...... 5 2.1 Introduction ...... 5 2.2 Topography ...... 5 2.3 Geology ...... 6 2.4 Surface water hydrology and drainage ...... 7 2.5 Hydrogeology ...... 8 2.6 Licenced Water Abstractions ...... 8 2.7 Existing sources of Pollution ...... 8 3 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model ...... 10 4 Impact Analysis ...... 11 4.2 Pumping Station ...... 14 4.3 Construction and Operational Pollution Control Measures ...... 14 5 Conclusions of Impact Assessment ...... 15 Appendices ...... I A Long Sections ...... I B Site Investigation ...... II C SI Superimposed Long Sections ...... III References...... IV

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Proposed Scheme ...... 1 Figure 1-2: Proposed Scheme and SPZs ...... 2 Figure 2-1: LIDAR Topography...... 5 Figure 2-2: Superficial Geology ...... 7 Figure 3-1: Schematic Hydrogeological Conceptual Model ...... 10 Figure 4-1: Superficial Geology, Reprofiling Depths and SI Locations ...... 11 Figure 4-2: Conceptual Model Show the Drain Zones ...... 13 Figure 4-3: Drain Zones ...... 13

List of Tables Table 6-1: Data Sources for Desk Study of Hydrology, Geology and Soils ...... 4 Table 2-1: Superficial Units...... 6 Table 2-2 Hydrogeology of the Bedrock and Superficial Deposits ...... 8 Table 2-3: Sources Review...... 8 Table 4-1: Drain Zones ...... 11

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx

1 Introduction

1.1 Background This report assesses the potential impacts of the proposed drainage remediation scheme on the hydrogeological environment. It describes the baseline situation, assesses the potential impacts using a source-pathway-receptor methodology, and then considers options for impact mitigation.

1.1.1 Proposed scheme The proposed scheme is designed to mitigate against drainage issues arising from subsidence caused by deep coal mining. It consists of the following: • A new pumping station, • Reprofiling existing drains to improve the flow of water to the pumping station, • Cutting of new drains to connect existing drains to the new pumping station. Figure 1-1: Proposed Scheme

1.2 Aims of the Assessment It was identified by JBA that the proposed scheme lies with a designated groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) for public water supply boreholes. JBA submitted an enquiry to the Environment Agency (EA) regarding the implications for working in an SPZ for the proposed scheme. Below is taken from the initial response (emailed dated 29th March from Jennifer A Lear of the EA)

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 1

Thank you for the enquiry regarding the proposed works. The site setting indicates that it’s located on a principal aquifer, within a SPZ and in close proximity of a public drinking water supply. At present only limited information has been provided on the scale of the proposals. However given the site setting it’s probable that precautions may be required to prevent any deterioration of controlled waters. The relevant guidance should be followed to produce an understanding of the hydrogeological setting and this should be developed into a conceptual site model. This would allow a site specific risk assessment to be produced which would then help to identify any required mitigation measures or precautions. The risks associated with the different phases of the project will need to be considered for instance the construction and the operational phase. It may be necessary to consider the risk from both pollution at surface getting into groundwater and (probably more so) the risk of physical disturbance to the aquifer. Consideration should be given to the potential to generate sediment fines which may be released into the aquifer. This assessment provides an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed scheme on the underlying aquifer and public water supply boreholes. It should be noted that the hydrology, geology and soils Environmental Statement (ES) chapter accompanying the scheme provides an assessment of impacts upon a wider range of environmental receptors. Figure 1-2 shows the location of the proposed scheme in relation to the source protection zone. It indicates that recharge to the aquifer in the vicinity of the proposed scheme would mitigate towards the boreholes as the scheme is located within the catchment area of the boreholes. However, the nature of the scheme means that it is unlikely to affect groundwater flow paths within the bedrock aquifer which supports the borehole due to the relatively shallow nature of the proposed works to the drains. This means that the main focus of this assessment relates to how recharge pathways and aquifer vulnerability may be affected by the scheme. Figure 1-2: Proposed Scheme and SPZs

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 2

1.2.1 Groundwater Protection Policies The proposed scheme site is located over a sandstone aquifer and is located over a groundwater Source Protection Zone 3. A small section of the catchment lies within Zone 2. The Environment Agency defines Source Protection Zones (SPZs) around groundwater sources, such as wells, boreholes and springs, that are used for public drinking water supply. Within these zones, potentially polluting activities are strictly controlled. Three zones are defined around each source (Environment Agency 2013; Environment Agency website): • Zone 1: Inner protection zone: The area from which pollution could reach the source within 50 days (minimum 50 m radius). • Zone 2: Outer protection zone: The area from which pollution could reach the source within 400 days. This zone now has a minimum radius of 250m or 500m around the source, depending upon the size of the abstraction. • Zone 3: Total catchment: The total area from which groundwater flows to the well, borehole or spring. Moving from Zone 3 (outermost) to Zone 1 (innermost), the degree of restriction and control placed on potentially polluting activities increases. The proposed works are located in Source Protection Zone 3 for the Yorkshire Water Services potable water supply abstraction. The maximum allowable abstraction under this licence is 284m³/hr, 6,820m³/d and 2,489,000m³/year. The Environment Agency sets out its policies on SPZs and groundwater resources in the document 'The Environment Agency's approach to groundwater protection' (Environment Agency, 2017), which is an update of 'Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3)' (Environment Agency, 2013). Within the context of the existing development proposals the following EA Position Statements are considered relevant: • A3 - Risk-based approach o "The Environment Agency encourages everyone whose activities may impact upon groundwater to consider the groundwater protection hierarchy in their strategic plans when proposing new development or activities. The aim is to avoid potentially polluting activities being located in the most sensitive locations for groundwater. A sensitive location with respect to groundwater would depend on the hazard from the proposed activity and importance of the receptor." • B3 - Default source protection zones for private water supplies o "All groundwater abstractions intended for human consumption or food production purposes have a default SPZ1 with a minimum radius of 50 metres. In some cases, depending on the volumes abstracted, a default SPZ2 with a minimum radius of 250 metres applies." • N7 - Hydrogeological risk assessment o "Developers proposing schemes that present a hazard to groundwater resources, quality or abstractions must provide an acceptable hydrogeological risk assessment (HRA) to the Environment Agency and the planning authority. Any activities that can adversely affect groundwater must be considered, including physical disturbance of the aquifer. If the HRA identifies unacceptable risks then the developer must provide appropriate mitigation. If this is not done or is not possible the Environment Agency will recommend that the planning permission is conditioned, or it will object to the proposal." • N8 - Physical disturbance of aquifers in SPZ1 o "Within SPZ1, the Environment Agency will normally object in principle to any planning application for a development that may physically disturb an aquifer." • N9 - Obstruction of flow o "The Environment Agency will only agree to proposals that could obstruct groundwater flow where mitigation measures can be agreed. There must be not be an unacceptable change in groundwater levels or flow due to the proposal." • N11 - Protection of resources and the environment from changes to aquifer conditions o "For any proposal that would physically disturb aquifers, lower groundwater levels, or impede or intercept groundwater flow, the Environment Agency will seek to

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 3

achieve equivalent protection for water resources and the related groundwater- dependent environment as if the effect were caused by a licensable abstraction."

1.3 Data sources The data sources used in the desk study were obtained from the following sources.

Table 1-1: Data Sources for Desk Study of Hydrology, Geology and Soils Topic Sources Topography Digital Ordnance Survey mapping at 1:10,000 and 1:50,000 scales LIDAR topography Geology 1:50,000 geological map (IGS, 1971); Gaunt, G. D., 1994. Geology of the country around Goole, Doncaster and the Isle of Axholme, Memoir of the British Geological Survey, Sheets 79 and 88 Site investigation report (LSCo Geo Consulting Limited, 2011) Hydrology and Published aquifer properties data (Allen et al ., 1997) hydrogeology Drain cross sections (Went Internal Drainage Board (IDB) 2011 Environment Agency website Water Environment Agency (information on licensed abstractions) abstractions Selby District Council (information on private water supplies) East Riding of Yorkshire Council

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 4

2 Site Description

2.1 Introduction As stated in the previous chapter, the main hydrogeological receptor that is the focus of this assessment is a series of public water supply boreholes to the east of the site. The proposed works lie in the Source Protection Zone of these boreholes and the same bedrock aquifer. While this baseline chapter provides information on the nature of the pathways between the proposed works and the boreholes, it is primarily concerned with providing baseline information to aid in understand how pathways into the bedrock aquifer could be changed.

2.2 Topography The area lies on the edge of the Humberhead Levels in a relatively flat plain, underlain by superficial deposits, now occupied by the Aire and Calder Navigation Canal. The village of Whitley lies on a ridge which is formed by outcropping bedrock that forms the western boundary of the study area. An isolated bedrock outcrop hill lies in the centre of the study area surrounded by the plain. For the purposes of this study, this hill is referred to as Lee Lane Hill.

Figure 2-1: LIDAR Topography

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 5

2.3 Geology

2.3.1 Bedrock The bedrock underlying the site comprises strata forming the Triassic Sherwood Sandstone Group (the Bunter Sandstone Group), which is dominated by red/brown (locally greenish grey) fine to medium-grained (less commonly coarse-grained or pebbly) sandstone (IGS, 1971; Gaunt, 1994). Red/brown and greenish grey mudstone and siltstone occur as thin layers and lenses, and also locally as rolled fragments within the sandstone (Gaunt, 1994). Strata within the Sherwood Sandstone dip eastwards or east-north-eastwards at an angle of c. 2 to 3 degrees to the horizontal (IGS, 1971). There are no major faults within, or in close proximity to, the study area (IGS, 1971). At depth, beneath the Sherwood Sandstone, are strata of Permian and Carboniferous age (IGS, 1971; Gaunt, 1994). The Carboniferous strata include the Coal Measures that were historically worked for coal in the Great Heck area. As stated in Section 2.2, the bedrock outcrops to form the ridge on which Whitney lies in the west of the study area and also Lee Lane Hill. Bedrock outcrop also forms the north-western edge of the plain locally on a line from High Eggborough to Great Heck.

2.3.2 Superficial Geology The superficial geology in the study area is dominated by deposition in and surrounding Lake Humber, a periglacial lake which formed in the Devensian period (Gaunt 1994). These units are described in the table below. Table 2-1: Superficial Units

Unit Description Evidence Upper Sands Fine-grained sand forming low ridges and mounds JBA SI identified at BHB 1.1m - 25-Foot (shown as an isolated area of 25 foot drift sands of silty Sand, overlying Silty Drift and gravels on map). Clay in the area mapped by the Probably formed by levees of streams immediately BGS. formed after Lake Humber disappeared. Silts and Across the plain. This forms the majority of the Borehole logs identify it Clays - 25- Lake Humber Deposits. Laminated silt and clay, between 0 and 12m + thick Foot Drift locally sandy in the upper part. across the study area. Sand and Within the silts and clays there are lens of sands Example shown in BHE. Gravel Lens - and gravels over varying thicknesses. 25-Foot Drift Marginal Formed on the edge of Lake Humber by the BHD and BHC. Sands and reworking of deposits. As a result, they can lie Gravels - 25 slightly higher than the rest of the plain (Gaunt, Foot Drift 1994). Found in the west of the study area and at the base of Lee Lane Hill. Consists of sands (fine to rarely medium) and locally silty and clayey (Gaunt, 1994). Lower Sands Lowest level of Lake Humber deposits. Borehole records show sand - 25 Foot beneath the silt and clay of the Drift Typically fine-grained (referred to in Gaunt (1994) 25-foot –drift but this could be but not present in IGS (1971). the Lacustrine Beach Deposits as the two are difficult to distinguish. Lacustrine Deposited in an early phase of Lake Humber No boreholes in the study area. Beach where water levels were higher. Known from BGS mapping. Deposits These lie on top of the western and eastern ridges and Lee Lane Hill. Sands and Gravels. 1:50,000 geological map (IGS, 1971); Gaunt, G. D., 1994. Geology of the country around Goole, Doncaster and the Isle of Axholme, Memoir of the British Geological Survey, Sheets 79 and 88

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 6

Site investigation report (LSCo Geo Consulting Limited, 2011)

The study area has these main superficial geology features (see Figure 2-2): • The 25 foot drift occupies the plain o It is known to be 12m+ thick towards the centre and wedges out at the edge of the plain and consists of mainly silts and clays with sand lenses. • The marginal sands of the 25 foot drift occupy the edge of the plan and were formed on the edge of Lake Humber. • At the base of the 25 foot drift regionally is a layer of sand. However, these have not been provide in the study area. • A small ridge of sands lies onto top of the 25 drift silts and clays in the centre of the study area. • On top of the hills locally are Lacustrine beach deposits consisting of sands and gravels. These likely were formed by an early form of Lake Humber which had higher water levels. Figure 2-2: Superficial Geology

2.4 Surface water hydrology and drainage The area has been historically drained for agricultural use, and Danvum Drainage Commissioners Drainage Board are responsible for managing the drainage network. The study area lies within a catchment which drains and discharges to the New Fleet Drain South (a Canal and River Trust Watercourse) and New Fleet Drain North, along the southern and northern edges of the Aire and Calder Navigation Canal. These eventually drain into the River Don. The general direction of flow through the main drains (south of the canal) is east until water enters this New Fleet Drain South

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 7

(at approximately NGR 456800 421750, 457700 421100 and 459700 420270. The three main IDB drains which flow into the New Fleet Drain South are: • Balne Common Drain, • Court Drain, • Drain No. 71.

2.5 Hydrogeology Table 2-2 summarises the hydrogeology of the bedrock and superficial deposits (NB, not all of the mapped upper stratigraphic units are present throughout the site). The Sherwood Sandstone is a bedrock aquifer, and the sand deposits are superficial (drift) aquifers. The silt and clay layers of the 25-Foot Drift form an aquitard and classified by the EA as non- productive strata. The Sherwood Sandstone is classed as a Principle Aquifer by the EA. The sand and gravel deposits beneath the silt and clay of the 25-Foot Drift rest directly on the Sherwood Sandstone, and are therefore likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the sandstone aquifer. However, the EA classified these deposits separately as a ‘Secondary A’ aquifer unit.

Table 2-2 Hydrogeology of the Bedrock and Superficial Deposits Age Stratigraphic Unit Hydrogeology Quaternary Devensian 25-Foot Drift Upper Aquifer Sand And marginal sands Silt and Aquitard clay

Lower Aquifer sand Devensian Lacustrine Beach Deposits Aquifer or Ipswichian Triassic Sherwood Sandstone Group Aquifer

2.6 Licenced Water Abstractions An array of public water supply boreholes lie the north east of the proposed works. The nearest are a group of three pubic boreholes (under licence number 2/27/18/077) which lie in the town of Great Heck, 1.2km to the east of the proposed pumping station and 700m from the nearest proposed works (a land drain). The SPZ for these boreholes are shown in Figure 1-2. The boreholes abstract water from the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer. There are 23 other licenced boreholes abstracting from the Sherwood Sandstone within 5km of the study area. (see the ES).

2.7 Existing sources of Pollution This section summarises the nature of potentially polluting activities in the study area. A number of data sources have been reviewed (see Table 2-3). They indicate that the study area has been historically dominated by agricultural use and no potential point sources of industrial pollution (current or historic) have been identified. This means that current potential sources of pollution are likely to be limited to those associated with agricultural activities. Table 2-3: Sources Review

Source Description Landfills No licensed or historic landfills are recorded on the EA WIYBY

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 8

Source Description website IPPC registered Pollution None occur in the catchment (EA WIYBY website) Pollution incidents Two significant pollution indicates are recorded at Whitley Lock (outside the study area) in 2005 (unknown pollutant) and 2016 (oil and fuel). Historic Maps Historic maps dating back to 1853 (available at www.old- maps.co.uk) have been reviewed. This indicates that the study area in and around the proposed works have been in continual agricultural use and no potential historic sources of contamination were identified.

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 9

3 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model A schematic conceptual model is presented in Figure 3-1 and shows the roles of the different stratigraphic units described above in the movement of groundwater and the current interaction of the drains with groundwater in the Sherwood Sandstone. It has the following elements: • The area is underlain by the Sherwood Sandstone which is defined as a Principal Aquifer by the EA. o Groundwater movement in the Sherwood Sandstone beneath the study area is towards an array of boreholes north and northwest of the site. • The silts and clays of the 25 foot drift are up to 12m+ locally and act as an aquitard. o This limits the interaction of surface water features in the plain with the underlying aquifer. o In this area recharge to the Sherwood Sandstone is limited by the drift. • The Upper Sands may locally form a perched aquifer. • The marginal sands are in direct contact with the Sherwood Sandstone locally act together as an aquifer unit. o Drains in this area may lose or receive water to the surrounding aquifer depending on the relative height of the water in the drains to the watertable. o Figure 3-1: Schematic Hydrogeological Conceptual Model

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 10

4 Impact Analysis

4.1.1 Drain Cutting and Reprofiling The conceptual model in Section 3 shows schematically how the current drain interact with the groundwater regime. There are two main types of existing drains: • Drains on the plain underlain by thick superficial deposits limiting interaction with the Sherwood sandstone, • Drains cut into the margin sands or which lie directly on bedrock that are more likely to directly interact with groundwater in the Sherwood Sandstone. The reprofiling work has the potential to modify this relationship. In order to quantify this the following information was utilised: • Design Long Sections (see Appendix A) • Site Investigation Data (see Appendix 0) • Manually superimposed borehole logs on long sections (See Appendix 0) Figure 4-1: Superficial Geology, Reprofiling Depths and SI Locations

Note - yellow number = depth of cut (m), Red letters = BH Location numbers.

Figure 4-1 shows the depth of reprofiling/ new drain sections through the study area and the site investigation locations. This has been used to divide the drains in five zones. These are shown on a modified conceptual model shown in Figure 4-2 and spatially in Figure 4-3. Table 4-1: Drain Zones

Zone Description

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 11

1 Area of drains directly on bedrock or in marginal sands which need no or limited reprofiling. 2 Area of drains which already cut into the marginal sands but will be reprofiled deeper into the marginal sands and in locations into the upper weathered margin of the Sherwood Sandstone. 3 Transition zone from the marginal sands to the thicker silt and clay 25 foot drift. 4 Drains in the thick 25 foot drift. Though the drains will be cut deepest here. They still will be contained within the drift which will limit interaction with the Sherwood Sandstone. 5 Like Zone 4 but the drain cut through the upper sands and may affect the locally small perched water body.

The drains in Zone 1 and 2 currently have good connection to the underlying bedrock aquifer. Only limited reprofiling will occur in Zone 1. Sections of drains in Zone 2 will be cut down into the top of the bedrock but this will have limited effect on the connectivity to the aquifer, as the marginal sands are in continuity with the bedrock aquifer. Deepening the drains may reduce the loss of water from the drains to the surrounding aquifer. This is because if they are deeper, water levels in the drain would be more likely to be lower than watertable in the surrounding aquifer than currently. Reprofiling work in Zone 3, where the drains transition from the marginal sands to deeper drift on plain, will extend the length of drain that is in contact with the marginal sands and the bedrock aquifer. Cross Zone 4 and 5, the profiling and new drain cutting will not increase the connectivity to the underlying bedrock aquifer. Overall, the reprofiling work will have limited impact in altering the existing degree of connectivity between the drains and the underlying bedrock aquifer. The length of reach with good connectivity to the bedrock aquifer will increase through the transitional Zone 3.

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 12

Figure 4-2: Conceptual Model Show the Drain Zones

Figure 4-3: Drain Zones

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 13

4.2 Pumping Station The pumping station will need to be constructed on piled foundations to a depth of circa 10m and may intersect the upper surface of the bedrock aquifer. The pumping station lies with SPZ3 and therefore the piling in this area would come under position statement N8 (see Section 1.2.1). However, the extent of the planned development is relatively small and therefore piling will have a relatively limited footprint and therefore should not significantly affect flow paths with the aquifer.

4.3 Construction and Operational Pollution Control Measures Pollution Control Measures that will be adopted during the construction and operational phase are detailed with the existing Environmental Statement. Appropriate best practise will be adopted with regards to pollution and sediment control.

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 14

5 Conclusions of Impact Assessment As a result of the assessment conducted above the following conclusions can be drawn: • The area where the works are planned is dominated by agriculture and potential sources of contamination are likely to be limited to those generated by agricultural activity. • Drain reprofiling and cutting will cause overall negligible change in the degree of connectivity between the drains and the underlying bedrock aquifer in the study area. o Deepening the drains may limit the period over which the drains lose water to the bedrock aquifer and thus reduce this as a potential pathway for contaminant entering the aquifer. • Piling associated with the construction of the pumping station will occur in SPZ3 and will have limited effect on deeper groundwater flow paths within the bedrock aquifer. • Best practise mitigation measures are detailed within the ES for the planned development will limit the potential for pollution incidents to occur during the construction phase. The site lies within an SPZ 3 for public water supply boreholes which draw water from the bedrock aquifer beneath the site. The assessment has considered how the proposed works could impact the aquifer through creation of potential new pollution linkages and physically modify the nature of the recharge to the aquifer. In summary, • Mitigation measures outlined in the ES chapter will limit the potential for the construction phase to create potential pollution sources; • The reprofiling work and cutting of new drains will not significantly change the connectivity between the drains with the underlying aquifer and therefore will not lead to creation or modification of potential pollution linkages; and, • Piling works at the pumping station should not cause significant changes to the groundwater flow pathways in the wider aquifer. Overall, it can be concluded that the proposed scheme will have a negligible impact upon the bedrock aquifer and public water supply boreholes.

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx 15

Appendices A Long Sections

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx I

General Notes

1. All dimensions shown are in millimetres unless otherwise stated and levels in metres to Ordnance Datum.

NEW BERM ON RB Revised bed level NEW BERM ON RB (Following Steve Vine's proposed levels 24.02.16)

Sherwood Sandstone (Interpolated between CS) NEW 500mmØ CULVERT EXISTING 500mmØ CULVERT NEW 1200mmØ CULVERT EXISTING 600mmØ CULVERT NEW DRAIN ENTERS RIGHT BANK @ 2.20m (See revised proposal on dwg 002) NEW 1000mmØ CULVERT EXISTING 600mmØ CULVERT NEW 900mmØ CULVERT EXISTING 600mmØ CULVERT EXISTING 600mmØ CULVERT NEW 900mmØ CULVERT NEW DRAIN ENTERS ON LB @ 3.55m NEW 800mmØ CULVERT EXISTING 700mmØ CULVERT FILL NEW DRAIN ENTERS ON LB AT 2.97m NEW 700mmØ CULVERT EXISTING 400mmØ CULVERT NEW FLEET DRAIN SOUTH LOCATION OF NEW PUMPING STATION NEW OUTFALL ENTERS RB EXISTING FOOTBRIDGE TO BE REMOVED

TREES RB EXISTING 600mmØ CULVERT (to be removed) TREES LB (150m)

Gradient 1 in 3580

Gradient 1 in 950 Gradient 1 in 350

0.00m AOD

LEFT BANK 5.500 5.510 5.560 6.010 5.544 5.660 5.560 5.570 5.140 5.263 5.380 5.400 5.630 5.530 5.740 5.640 5.680 5.520

RIGHT BANK 5.690 5.730 5.760 5.860 5.797 6.220 5.940 5.741 5.810 5.503 5.240 5.500 5.550 5.380 5.630 5.710 5.590 5.500

WATER LEVEL 3.800 3.950 4.300 4.370 4.290 4.320 4.050 3.860 3.760 3.780 4.340 4.370 4.350 4.350 4.360 4.340

SILT LEVEL 3.840 4.040 4.370 4.290 4.050 3.770 3.570 3.410 3.900 3.850 4.100 4.260 4.360 3.890

EXISTING BED LEVEL 3.590 3.840 4.040 4.340 3.933 3.980 4.030 3.690 3.540 3.370 3.880 3.850 4.090 4.260 4.360 3.880

INVERT LEVEL 3720 3.710 3.850 3.830 4.070 4.130 3.800 3.780 3.710 3.640 3.100 3.310 3.780 3.770 3.970 3.850

DESIGN INVERT LEVEL 3.790 3.800 3.780 2.750 2.800 2.810 2.810 2.870 2.870 1.900 1.930 2.190 2.190

DESIGN BED LEVEL 2.970 3.840 3.870 3.870 3.850 3.830 4.010 2.840 2.850 2.850 2.870 2.890 2.900 2.910 2.910 2.920 2.960 2.960 2.960 2.970 2.970 1.580 1.700 1.950 2.000 2.030 2.100 2.220 2.290 2.290 2.470 1.500

CHAINAGE 1128.00 1239.00 1300.00 1332.00 1372.00 1426.00 1432.00 1504.00 600.000 614.000 627.000 700.000 754.000 800.000 844.000 849.000 889.000 895.000 900.000 980.000 1000.00 1030.00 1065.00 1074.00 100.000 200.000 300.000 313.000 319.000 325.000 354.000 367.000 400.000 422.000 434.000 500.000 0.000 20.000

LONGITUDINAL SECTION CS 18 CS 19 CS 20 CS 21 CS 22 CS 23 CS 24 CS 25 Scale 1:2500 Horiz - 1:100 Vert

BH G (RB) BH D (RB) BH C (LB)

Rev. Modifications Date Drawn Designed Checked Approved

Epsom House Sandstone at 3.8m bgl at point E (to south) Sandstone at -0.86m (6.1m bgl) Chase Park Sandstone at 2.76m (2.5m bgl LB) Redhouse Interchange Sandstone at -3.23m (3.0m bgl RB) DONCASTER DN6 7FE United Kingdom www.jbaconsulting.com t +44 (0)1302 337798 f +44 (0)845 8627772 e [email protected] Offices at Coleshill, Doncaster, Edinburgh, Exeter, Haywards Heath, Limerick, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newport, Saltaire, Skipton, Tadcaster, Thirsk, Wallingford and Warrington for

Danvm Drainage Commissioners Great Heck Subsidence Remedial Project

Longitudinal Section 18 - 25

This document is the property of Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor disclosed to a third party, without the permission of Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. Scale: Drawn: A. Taylor 01.11.16 Designed: A.Thomas As Shown @ A1 Checked: Approved: Digital File Name: 2016s4872-001 Great Heck Longitudinal Section Design

Drawing Number: Rev.: Sheet No.: Status:

2016s4872-001 1 of 1 Draft General Notes

1. All dimensions shown are in millimetres unless otherwise stated and levels in metres to Ordnance Datum. BALNE COMMON DRAIN NEW CLAY WEIR IN EXISTING DRAIN 1.95m SUGGESTED BY STEVE VINE 24.02.16 (ORIGINALLY 2.98m) DRAIN FILLED IN OR CULVERTED GROUND LEVEL ON ROUTE OF PROPOSED DRAIN DRAIN RE-OPENS TO NATURAL CHANNEL - EXISTING PIPE TO BE REMOVED NEW 1050mmØ TWINWALL PLASTIC PIPE BACKFILL TO GROUND LEVEL COURT DRAIN

NEW CUT

1 IN 3000 WITH 1m WIDTH

0.00m AOD

LEFT BANK 5.026 5.020 3.860 4.297 4.520 3.930 4.100 4.720 5.060 5.200 4.350 4.175 3.965

RIGHT BANK 5.270 5.270 3.860 4.277 4.520 4.040 4.100 4.720 5.060 5.280 4.350 4.175 3.997

WATER LEVEL 3.780 3.760 3.780 3.600 3.640

SILT LEVEL 3.390 3.140

EXISTING BED LEVEL 4.390 4.370 3.210 3.210 3.350 3.204 4.820 2.869 2.866

DESIGN INVERT LEVEL 2.150 2.230 2.220 2.190 2.190

WEIR CREST LEVEL 4.000 4.000

DESIGN BED LEVEL 2.200 2.410 2.370 2.340 2.310 2.280 2.270 2.240 2.240 2.869 2.440

CHAINAGE 825.000 830.000 200.000 300.000 350.000 400.000 500.000 515.000 570.000 600.000 690.000 700.000 0.000 5.000 100.000

LONGITUDINAL SECTION Scale 1:2500 Horiz - 1:100 Vert CS 30 CS 31 CS 32 CS 33

F:\AutoCAD\CAD Management\JBA templates 2008\UK 2008\Tadcaster 2008\photo7.JPG

BH F BH E

Rev. Modifications Date Drawn Designed Checked Approved

Epsom House Chase Park Redhouse Interchange DONCASTER DN6 7FE United Kingdom www.jbaconsulting.com +44 (0)1302 337798 +44 (0)845 8627772 [email protected]

Offices at Coleshill, Doncaster, Edinburgh, Exeter, Haywards Heath, Limerick, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newport, Saltaire, Skipton, Tadcaster, Thirsk, Wallingford and Warrington for

Danvm Drainage Commissioners Great Heck Subsidence Remedial Project

Longitudinal Section 30-33

This document is the property of Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor disclosed to a third party, without the permission of Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. Scale: Drawn: A. Taylor 07.11.16 Designed: As Shown @ A1 Checked: Approved: Digital File Name: 2016s4872-002 Great Heck Longitudinal Section Design

Drawing Number: Rev.: Sheet No.: Status:

2016s4872-002 1 of 1 General Notes

1. All dimensions shown are in millimetres unless otherwise stated and levels in metres to Ordnance Datum. DRAIN ENTERS COURT NEW 700mmØ ACCESS CULVERT TO WOODLAND TRACK TREE TO BE REMOVED GROUND LEVEL ON PROPOSED ROUTE NEW 700mmØ ACCESS CULVERT EXISTING DRAIN LB EXISTING DRAIN

TREES RB NEW CUT EXISTING DRAIN NEW CUT NEW CUT

BERM ON RB

Gradient 1 in 4000

0.00m AOD

LEFT BANK 5.240 5.350 5.600 5.670 5.590 5.190 5.200 5.340 5.370 5.360 5.650

RIGHT BANK 5.250 5.460 5.600 5.670 5.500 5.190 5.200 5.340 5.330 5.420 5.650

WATER LEVEL 4.830 4.930 4.950

SILT LEVEL 4.240 4.550 3.960

EXISTING BED LEVEL 4.130 4.490 3.720 4.160 4.190 3.960

DESIGN INVERT LEVEL 2.920 2.920 3.000 3.030 3.030

DESIGN BED LEVEL 2.970 2.970 2.980 3.010 3.030 3.050 3.080 3.080 3.100 3.130 3.150 3.180 3.200

CHAINAGE 0.000 8.000 100.000 160.000 200.000 260.000 300.000 310.000 400.000 520.000 530.000 541.000 550.000 600.000 650.000 685.000 700.000 720.000 800.000 900.000 1000.000

LONGITUDINAL SECTION CS 34 CS 35 CS 36 CS 37 CS 38 Scale 1:2500 Horiz - 1:100 Vert CS 36A

BH B BH A

Rev. Modifications Date Drawn Designed Checked Approved

Epsom House Chase Park Redhouse Interchange DONCASTER DN6 7FE United Kingdom www.jbaconsulting.com +44 (0)1302 337798 +44 (0)845 8627772 [email protected]

Offices at Coleshill, Doncaster, Edinburgh, Exeter, Haywards Heath, Limerick, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newport, Saltaire, Skipton, Tadcaster, Thirsk, Wallingford and Warrington for

Danvm Drainage Commissioners Great Heck Subsidence Remedial Project

Longitudinal Section 34-38

This document is the property of Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor disclosed to a third party, without the permission of Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. Scale: Drawn: A. Taylor 07.11.16 Designed: As Shown @ A1 Checked: Approved: Digital File Name: 2016s4872-003 Great Heck Longitudinal Section Design

Drawing Number: Rev.: Sheet No.: Status:

2016s4872-003

B Site Investigation

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx II

FACTUAL REPORT ON THE GROUND INVESTIGATION

for the proposed

Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Works

JBA ref: 2011s5225-1

for

JBA Consulting, Denison House, Hexthorpe Road, Doncaster DN4 0BF

Project Number: 57 015 Status of Report: FINAL Date of Issue: January 11th, 2012 Distribution: A.Thomas, JBA (2 + .pdf copy) File (1) 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 2 of 15

Report for

JBA Consulting, Denison House, Ground investigation for the subsidence Hexthorpe Road, Doncaster remediation works at Great Heck DN4 0BF Main Contributor(s) FINAL

......

Approved by

...... Tim Langdale-Smith BSc MSc CGeol January 8th, 2011 Principal Consultant

Produced In accordance with an environmentally responsible approach, this document is printed on paper that originates from a sustainable forest. This document should be recycled when it is no LSCo Geo-Consulting Limited, longer needed. Wrangham House, Market Place, WRAGBY LN8 5QS

Tel: 01673 858766

[email protected]

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 3 of 15

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objectives 1.2 Scope of report 1.3 Limitations 1.4 Sources of information

2. SITE PERSPECTIVE 2.1 Location 2.2 Description 2.3 Geology and hydrogeology

3. FIELDWORK 3.1 Strategy 3.2 Work undertaken 3.3 Description of findings

4. LABORATORY TESTING 4.1 Strategy 4.2 Work undertaken 4.3 Description of results

5. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 5.1 Engineering interpretation 5.2 Excavations and batter design 5.3 Foundations 5.4 Buried concrete

6. APPENDICES Appendix i/ - Borehole Logs

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 4 of 15

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives

Land subsidence has disrupted the levels of the field drainage system at Great Heck.

It is proposed to deepen the existing drains, cut new drains and install a new pumping station.

A programme of cable-percussion boreholes was set out, comprising of: - 5 No. boreholes to aid with batter slope stability for the existing and new drains; and - 1 No. borehole to assist with the new pumping station foundation design.

1.2 Scope of Report

This report gives the borehole logs together with in situ test results from the investigation and an interpretation of the ground conditions with respect to slope stability and foundation design.

This report is limited to the data provided and obtained and responsibility cannot be accepted for conditions not revealed by the investigation. Any diagram or opinion of the possible configuration of the strata around the bores or extension of the findings to greater depths is conjectural and given for guidance only.

1.3 Limitations

LSCo Geo Consulting has prepared this report solely for the use of the client and/or his agent, and LSCo Geo Consulting accepts no responsibility or liability: - for use of this report by any party other than the person for whom it was commissioned; or - for the consequences of the report being used for any other purpose other than that for which it was commissioned.

The conclusions and recommendations in this report represent our professional opinion, derived from currently accepted industry practices, exercising all reasonable skill and care to be expected of a professional engineering and environmental consultancy of similar size and experience. The assessments and judgments given in this report are directed by both the finite quantity of data on which they are based and the proposed works to which they are addressed, taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client or agent, whether in writing or verbal instructions.

Data acquisition during site investigations is subject to the limitations of the investigation methods and access constraints. Exploratory holes investigate a small portion of the ground in relation to the scale of the site and thus can only be considered to provide an indication of site conditions. Any addition to this knowledge base will make it necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report.

The findings and conditions described are relevant to the dates of the site work and should not be relied upon at substantially later dates. Site conditions will change over time due to natural variations and human activities. Ground water, surface water and soil-gas conditions should be expected to change with diurnal, seasonal and meteorological variations.

1.4 Sources of information

The following sources of information have been used when compiling this report: - BGS 1:50 000 sheet 79 - Goole; - BS5930:1999 – Code of practice for site investigations; - BS EN1997-2:2007 – Geotechnical Design: Ground Investigation and Testing; and - Tomlinson, M.J., 1995: Foundation Design and Construction 5th edition.

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 5 of 15

2. SITE PERSPECTIVE

2.1 Location

Great Heck is one of a line of villages roughly following the southeasterly route of the A645 that runs along the high ground of the right bank of the River Aire flood plain.

The subject site is located within the low land to the west of Great Heck, extending as far as the village of Whitley which is 3 km to the west, and part of the northwest of Balne Moor.

The subject site is bounded by the north-south aligned A19 on its west side and the northwest-southeast aligned Aire and Calder Canal on the east side.

The site tapers to the northwest, to 300 m wide north of Whitley, to 1.2 km wide some 2 km to the southeast where the moor is crossed by the Balne Moor road and a former railway line embankment.

Access to most of the area is from Blackthorne Close, at the south end of Whitley, and then east along a metalled farm track (Ley Lane) and then field tracks and headlands. Access to the north part of the site is through a farmyard just south of Whitley Farm and then east along the farm track (Bull Lane).

The subject site is centred on OS Coords: SE 4575 4210. The 1936 elevation was approximately 7.0 m AOD.

2.2 Description

The region is one of open field farmland set upon a former flood plain of the River Aire. The Knottingley-Goole section of the Aire and Calder Canal now runs across the low-lying plan at a higher level.

The fields are separated by drainage ditches that are typically 1 m or so deep and cut with steep banks, of 400 or more. No bank failure was observed.

The area to the south of the copse (Watkins Plantation), in the centre of the site, is a local high.

About 500 m to the southeast of southern limit of the site there can be discerned an area prone to flooding. At the time of this investigation a flood retention trench was being excavated to create additional storage to prevent the flood waters covering the nearby road.

The trench was cut with 350 batters to 1.2 m depth. It is understood that the depth of the cut was controlled by a water-bearing silty Sand that ran when exposed, undermining the bank.

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 6 of 15

Boreholes B-G can be reached from off Ley Lane. Borehole A has to be approached from Bull Lane.

View to northwest of retention ditch – note change of strata just above water level

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 7 of 15

2.3 Geology and hydrogeology

The 1:50 000 BGS map (Sheet 79 - Goole) shows the geology to comprise the bedrock Permian Sherwood Sandstone (a.k.a. Bunter Sandstone) overlain by silt and clay the former Lake Humber (the 25’ drift of the Vale of York deposits) and with localized Sand and Gravel and Alluvium deposits.

2.3.1 Sherwood Sandstone Group (SSG) 290 – 250 Mya

The Sherwood Sandstone Group, including the formerly-named Bunter Pebble Beds, comprise up to 300 m of false bedded, sometimes massive or level bedded, red sandstone, locally pebbly, that dips gently (20-30) to the east. The colour reflects the amount of iron-staining and is mostly red or pink although brown, yellow or grey sandstone also occurs, commonly mottled.

The sand is chiefly medium to coarse grained, though fine bands to occur, and it varies from poorly to well sorted. The grains are sub-angular, rarely angular, to rounded and consist mainly of quartz with a substantial proportion of feldspar. Minor constituents are rock particles, clay minerals and iron oxides and hydroxides. Mica is common on some bedding planes. Pebbles or galls and irregular fragmentary inclusions of red or green mudstone are common, occurring as bands or scattered throughout, sometimes occurring as lenses and discontinuous partings.

The Sandstone thickens from 180m in the south to over 300m in the north around Gainsborough, where it is almost pebble free. The beds are believed to have been deposited under continental or semi-continental conditions by northerly or northeasterly flowing waters.

2.3.2 Lake Humber (0.022 – 0.018 Mya)

During the last Ice Age (Devensian: 120 –18 kya) the ice sheet extended from the west to the eastern margins of the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Wolds. The Yorkshire Wolds and North York Moors remained largely ice-free but during the Dimlington Stadial (25 – 13 kya) a tongue extended southwards along the east coast and then back through the Humber Gap into the Ancholme Valley.

The ice blocked the natural eastward drainage path causing the water to pond back into the low-lying area to the west to form Lake Humber. Similar ponding occurred in the Ancholme valley. The ice sheet along the north of the lake became unstable and surged south across the lake into the Humberhead Levels and lower Trent valley.

Two levels of rest can be discerned for Lake Humber. The first, or higher level, reached a maximum of 35m AOD (the 100ft drift). This lake was present from 22-18 kya, possibly less.

At some stage the lake ice block was breached and the lake drained, possibly to 4m BOD before re-establishing the second level, at 8m AOD formed by 17.7 kya. This low-level lake filled with blue-grey and red-brown laminated clay (the 25ft drift), with Sand and Gravel along the margins, and was completely silted up by 11 kya.

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 8 of 15

3. FIELDWORK

3.1 Strategy

The purpose of the investigation comprises of two parts: - a shallow investigation for the cut drains; and - a deep investigation for the pumping station foundations.

The programme of boreholes was set out by JBA Consulting.

3.2 Work Undertaken

Drilling was undertaken by Site Investigation Services who are BDA-accredited drillers.

The logs were written to BS5930.

Representative samples of all strata encountered, as small Disturbed samples, were taken.

3.2.1 Shallow bores

Boreholes A-F were made to approximately 5.5 m bgl.

The bores were positioned as specified, generally no more than 3 m from the existing drain.

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was made at 1 m intervals.

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 9 of 15

View to south

View to north

View to west

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 10 of 15

View to southeast

View to east

View to west

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 11 of 15

3.2.2 Deep bore

Borehole G was positioned as specified at 5 m from the existing land drain.

View to east

It was terminated at 12.5 m bgl. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was made at 1 m intervals until the SPT would extend no further (i.e. reached refusal).

3.3 Description of findings

The left and right bank elevations were provided by JBA for the borehole positions, allowing an estimate for the borehole casing collar elevation (in m AOD).

Bore Left Right Collar hole Bank Bank A 5.34 5.34 5.3 B 5.67 5.67 5.7 C 5.73 6.06 5.7 D 5.66 6.23 6.2 E 5.78 5.86 5.8 F 5.48 5.50 6.0 G 5.38 5.25 5.3

It should be noted that the drilling method and the type of ground encountered makes the reliable identification of + the depth of change of strata difficult to measure with accuracy greater than /- 0.1 m.

3.3.1 Shallow bores

The strata encountered in the shallow bores comprised mostly of unconsolidated Alluvium, made up from beds of soft grey and grey/brown silty Clay, over 5 m thick, overlain in part by loose orange/brown Sand, 0.5 – 2.0 m thick.

The Sand is water-bearing, albeit as a slow seep.

The lateral variation of the strata allows some understanding of the geographical distribution:

- BH C and BH D encountered the bedrock red Sandstone at 2.5 m and 3.0 m bgl respectively, overlain by the loose Sand which appears to have developed its maximum thickness at this locality.

- the loose Sand is less well developed in BH B northwards and BH E southwards, and is not present in BHA or BH F. It is present in BH G, at the east side of the site.

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 12 of 15

The SPT profiles for each bore shows a decrease in N-count from the initial measurement at 1 m bgl, indicating that desiccation is taking place, reducing the ground moisture content and increasing the ground strength. The bedrock can be discerned in boreholes C and D.

Borehole N-counts A B C D E F G 1.0 9 17 12 12 11 13 4 2.0 5 6 22 11 7 9 1 3.0 6 7 100 33 7 9 7 4.0 6 5 100 100 9 8 7 5.0 9 6 100 100 19 9 12

3.3.2 Deep bore

The weathered bedrock red Sandstone was encountered in BH G at 9.5 m bgl, with what is taken to be unweathered Sandstone giving SPT refusal at 10.5 m, 11.5 m and 12.5 m bgl.

The strata to 5 m bgl was similar to that encountered in the other boreholes of this investigation, comprising of alternating beds of soft silty Clay and sandy Silt, 1 m – 2 m thick.

There is a coarse Sand, water-bearing, from 5 m – 9.5 m bgl, overlying the bedrock, with a thin 0.4 m bed of soft Clay on the bedrock surface acting as a marker horizon.

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 13 of 15

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

4.1 Strategy

The purpose of this investigation comprises of two parts: - a shallow investigation for the cut drains; and - a deep investigation for the pumping station foundations.

4.1.1 Cut drains

The boreholes have revealed Alluvium to below the proposed drain bases. For bank stability the Alluvium would need to be subject to a tri-axial test, consolidated and drained. However, field observation and the SPT have already allowed an estimate of the undrained shear strength. Furthermore, the Alluvium is silty making it sensitive to reworking so that any U100 samples taken for testing would already be disturbed and, therefore, unreliable.

Therefore the triaxial test has not been used.

4.1.2 Pumping station foundations

It is already known that shallow foundations would not be suitable for the proposed Pumping Station and that a piled foundation would need to extend into the bedrock. The SPT has shown the surface of the bedrock and given an indication of the bearing capacity.

No tests are deemed necessary to add to the knowledge of the ground with respect to pile foundation design.

4.2 Tests Undertaken

None made.

4.3 Description of Results

None available.

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 14 of 15

5. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

5.1 Engineering interpretation

The strength of the ground at this site has been described by field observation. The terms used relate to the shear strength and are shown in the table below:

Undrained Uniaxial shear compressive Term strength strength (kN/m2) (MN/m2) soft 20-40 firm 40 -75 firm to stiff 75 -100 stiff 100 -150 weak 1.25 - 5 moderately weak 5 - 12.5 moderately strong 12.5 - 50

The field descriptions are supported by the in situ SPT undertaken in the boreholes. From Stroud's curves the undrained shear strength (Cu) of the clay can be estimated by multiplying the N-count by a factor of 5.

5.2 Excavations and batter design

Drain depth are anticipated to be 1.9 m at BH A and 3.6 m at BH G. Extrapolating simple between BHA and BHG allows an estimate of the drain depth at each borehole position. The extrapolation assumes a straightline fit between the bores.

The table below describes the soil at each borehole location with respect to the drain cut.

Drain Drain Bore base base Soil to cut Soil at Groundwater Comments hole m m through drain base seeps m bgl bgl AOD soft silty soft silty Excavation will be A 1.9 3.4 4.9 Clay Clay stable loose Sand soft silty B 2.3 3.4 dry Sand will run when wet to 1.3 m bgl Clay Bedrock C 2.4 3.3 loose Sand dry Sand will run when wet Sandstone soft Clay on D 2.6 3.6 loose Sand Bedrock 3.0 Sand will run when wet Sandstone soft Clay soft Seep at 2 m bgl will E 2.9 2.9 and loose laminated 2.0 disturb bank Sand Clay soft silty soft silty Excavation will be F 3.2 2.8 3.6 Clay Clay stable soft Clay soft silty Seep at 2.7 m bgl will G 3.6 1.7 and loose 2.7 Clay disturb bank Sand

It can be seen in the existing drains cut into the silty Clay that batters of 400 to 1.2 m bgl remain stable. This is due to desiccation of the upper 1 m or so of the soil, reducing the moisture content and consequently increasing the ground strength from soft to firm. This can also be observed in the N-count profiles for boreholes BH A, B, E and F where N-count decreases after the SPT at 1.0 m bgl.

The principal cause of instability in the drain banks will be the exposure of wet sandy strata that will run into the drain. If overlain by the silty Clay the running sand will cause the overlying drain bank to slump.

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists 57 015 – Great Heck Area Subsidence Remediation Page 15 of 15

Boreholes C and D showed that the Court Drain has been cut into a loose Sand, to approximately 1.8 m below field level. The proposed deepening will encounter the same stratum of loose Sand so there should be no need to change the existing drain design and batter angles.

View to west of Court Drain cut next to BH C into silty Sand below 0.5 m of Topsoil

5.3 Foundations

Borehole G was made at the position of the proposed new Pumping Station.

The bore encountered unconsolidated sediments to 9.2 m bgl, overlying the bedrock red Sandstone.

From ground level to 6 m bgl the unconsolidated sediments comprised of alternating 1-2 m thick beds of soft Clay, sandy Silt or silty Sand, with the SPT N = 1-12.

From 6 m to 9 m bgl there is a dense coarse grey/brown silty Sand, with N = 21-38. This bed is water-bearing.

The bedrock red Sandstone will be encountered at 9.2 m bgl. At 9.5 m bgl N = 27 whereas subsequent SPT, at 10.5, 11.5 and 12.2 m bgl N = refusal (i.e. 100 blows after 0.3 m advance). The difference in N-count will be due to the state of weathering of the upper 1 m or so of the bedrock.

5.4 Buried concrete

The ground to 9.5 m bgl will have a neutral pH and low sulphate content due to the local natural drainage systems and absence of peat beds and other organic beds.

Conditions DS-1 to DS-2 will prevail.

<< END >>

LSCo Geo Consulting Limited Engineering and Environmental Geologists Project No. 57 015 Date Bored: Nov 29, 2011 BOREHOLE: BH A Project Name: JBA - Great Heck Drilling Method: Cable Percussion Bore by Site Investigation Services Site: Great Heck Bore Diameter (mm): 150 Elevation (m AOD): 5.3 Location: N end, nr Bull Lane Logged By:TSLS OS Coords SE 56700 21530

SOIL DESCRIPTION Comments

20 40 60 Depth (m) Elevation (mAOD) Symbols Instrumentation/Water N-value SPT Casing Shoe (m bgl) Sample Number Sample Type

Soft to firm grey/brown silty CLAY 5

1 1.3 4 Soft grey/brown mottled silty CLAY 9 1 C

2 3 2.2 5 2 C Soft grey//brown silty CLAY 3 2 3.2 6 3 C

4 4.2 1 lense of red/brown fine Sand below 3.7 m 6 4 C bgl 5 5 Seep at 4.9 m bgl 0 9 5 C End of Borehole 6 -1

7 -2

8 -3

9 -4

10 -5

11 -6

12 -7

13 -8

14 -9

15 LSCo GeoConsulting Ltd Engineering and Environmental Geologists Tel: 01673 858766 Project No. 57 015 Date Bored: Nov 26, 2011 BOREHOLE: BH B Project Name: JBA - Great Heck Drilling Method: Cable Percussion Bore by Site Investigation Services Site: Great Heck Bore Diameter (mm): 150 Elevation (m AOD): 5.7 Location: NE corner of Watkins woods Logged By:TSLS OS Coords SE 57010 21135

SOIL DESCRIPTION Comments

20 40 60 Depth (m) Elevation (mAOD) Symbols Instrumentation/Water N-value SPT Casing Shoe (m bgl) Sample Number Sample Type

Soft dark brown very silty clayey TOPSOIL Loose orange/grey/brown very silty SAND 5 1 Borehole dry 1.2 Soft to firm grey/brown silty CLAY 17 1 C 4 2 2.2 6 2 C 3 3 3.2 7 3 C 2 with lense of red/brown silty Sand from 3.5 m bgl 4 4 5 4 C 1 5 5 6 5 C 0 6 End of Borehole

-1 7

-2 8

-3 9

-4 10

-5 11

-6 12

-7 13

-8 14

-9 15 LSCo GeoConsulting Ltd Engineering and Environmental Geologists Tel: 01673 858766 Project No. 57 015 Date Bored: Nov 28, 2011 BOREHOLE: BH C Project Name: JBA - Great Heck Drilling Method: Cable Percussion Bore by Site Investigation Services Site: Great Heck Bore Diameter (mm): 150 Elevation (m AOD): 5.7 Location: SE corner of Watkins woods Logged By:TSLS OS Coords SE 57020 21000

SOIL DESCRIPTION Comments

20 40 60 Depth (m) Elevation (mAOD) Symbols Instrumentation/Water N-value SPT Casing Shoe (m bgl) Sample Number Sample Type

Soft dark brown very silty clayey TOPSOIL

5 Loose orange/grey/brown very silty SAND 1 Borehole dry 1.2 12 1 C 4 2 2.2 Soft to firm silty sandy CLAY 22 2 C 3 Coarse red/brown SAND 3 3.2 refusal after 0.3 m advance 100 3 C 2 4 4 refusal after 0.2 m advance 100 4 1 5 refusal after 0.2 m advance 100 5 5 End of Borehole 0 6

-1 7

-2 8

-3 9

-4 10

-5 11

-6 12

-7 13

-8 14

-9 15 LSCo GeoConsulting Ltd Engineering and Environmental Geologists Tel: 01673 858766 Project No. 57 015 Date Bored: Nov 28/9, 2011 BOREHOLE: BH D Project Name: JBA - Great Heck Drilling Method: Cable Percussion Bore by Site Investigation Services Site: Great Heck Bore Diameter (mm): 150 Elevation (m AOD): 6.2 Location: E of C, along Court Drain Logged By:TSLS OS Coords SE 57173 20910

SOIL DESCRIPTION Comments

20 40 60 Depth (m) Elevation (mAOD) Symbols Instrumentation/Water N-value SPT Casing Shoe (m bgl) Sample Number Sample Type

Soft to firm very sandy silty CLAY

Loose orange/grey/brown mottled very silty 1 SAND 1.2 5 Loose orange/grey mottled SAND 12 1 C

2 4 Red/brown coarse SAND 2.2 Soft grey/brown silty CLAY 11 2 C

3 Slight seep at 3 m bgl 3 Red/brown coarse SAND 3.2 33 3 C

4 4.2 2 Refusal after 0.3 m advance 100 4 C

5 4.2 1 100 5 Refusal after 0.1 m advance End of Borehole

6 0

7 -1

8 -2

9 -3

10 -4

11 -5

12 -6

13 -7

14 -8

15 LSCo GeoConsulting Ltd Engineering and Environmental Geologists Tel: 01673 858766 Project No. 57 015 Date Bored: Nov 25, 2011 BOREHOLE: BH E Project Name: JBA - Great Heck Drilling Method: Cable Percussion Bore by Site Investigation Services Site: Great Heck Bore Diameter (mm): 150 Elevation (m AOD): 5.8 Location: W end of Court Drain Logged By:TSLS OS Coords SE 57690 20790

SOIL DESCRIPTION Comments

20 40 60 Depth (m) Elevation (mAOD) Symbols Instrumentation/Water N-value SPT Casing Shoe (m bgl) Sample Number Sample Type

Soft to firm brown silty CLAY

Fine/med/coarse light brown silty SAND 5 1 Soft to firm orange/grey/brown mottled very sandy silty CLAY 1.2 Coarse grey SAND 11 1 C 4 2 Soft grey/brown silty CLAY, thinly laminated Seep at 2.0 m bgl with silt on partings 2.2 7 2 C 3 3 3.2 7 3 C 2 4 Coarse grey/brown SAND 4 9 4 C 1 5 5 19 5 C 0 6 End of Borehole

-1 7

-2 8

-3 9

-4 10

-5 11

-6 12

-7 13

-8 14

-9 15 LSCo GeoConsulting Ltd Engineering and Environmental Geologists Tel: 01673 858766 Project No. 57 015 Date Bored: Nov 24, 2011 BOREHOLE: BH F Project Name: JBA - Great Heck Drilling Method: Cable Percussion Bore by Site Investigation Services Site: Great Heck Bore Diameter (mm): 150 Elevation (m AOD): 5.5 Location: S of BH E Logged By:TSLS OS Coords SE 57730 20340

SOIL DESCRIPTION Comments

20 40 60 Depth (m) Elevation (mAOD) Symbols Instrumentation/Water N-value SPT Casing Shoe (m bgl) Sample Number Sample Type

Soft to firm brown silty CLAY

5 Soft to firm grey/brown very silty CLAY with silt lense 1 1.2 4 13 1 C 2 Softto firm brown silty CLAY 2.2 3 9 2 C 3 3.2 2 9 3 C Fine, medium and coarse red/brown silty Strike at 3.8 m, slow rise to 3.4 m 4 SAND 4 bgl Fine to medium red/brown SAND 8 4 C 1 Fine grey slightly clayey SILT 5 5 0 9 5 C End of Borehole 6

-1 7

-2 8

-3 9

-4 10

-5 11

-6 12

-7 13

-8 14

-9 15 LSCo GeoConsulting Ltd Engineering and Environmental Geologists Tel: 01673 858766 Project No. 57 015 Date Bored: Nov 23/24, 2011 BOREHOLE: BH G Project Name: JBA - Great Heck Drilling Method: Cable Percussion Bore by Site Investigation Services Site: Great Heck Bore Diameter (mm): 150 Elevation (m AOD): 5.3 Location: at proposed PS Logged By:TSLS OS Coords SE 5768 2103

SOIL DESCRIPTION Comments

20 40 60 Depth (m) Elevation (mAOD) Symbols Instrumentation/Water N-value SPT Casing Shoe (m bgl) Sample Number Sample Type

Soft to firm brown silty CLAY 5 Soft to firm grey/orange very silty sandy 1 CLAY, friable and becoming softer with 4 depth 1.2 4 1 C Soft grey very sandy slightly clayey SILT 2 3 2.2 1 2 C Grey silty SAND Seep at 2.7 m bgl 3 Soft grey silty CLAY 2 3.2 7 3 C

4 4 1 7 4 C

5 Brown slightly fine sand SILT 5 0 12 5 C

6 Seep @ 6.1 m bgl -1 Coarse gre/brown silty SAND 6.2 21 6 C

7 Sand not returning in shell -2 7.2 22 7 C

8 -3 8.2 38 8 C

9 Soft/firm red/brown very sandy CLAY 9.2 -4 Fine to coarse red/brown SAND 27 9 C

10 Refusal after 0.3 m -5 100 10 C

11 Refusal after 0.3 m -6 100 11 C

12 -7 Refusal after 0.3 m End of Borehole 100 12 C 13 -8

14 -9

15 LSCo GeoConsulting Ltd Engineering and Environmental Geologists Tel: 01673 858766

C SI Superimposed Long Sections

2016s4969 Great Heck - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment_FINAL_issued170511.docx III

Figure C1: Boreholes C and D superimposed onto longitudinal section design Figure C2: Boreholes D and G superimposed onto longitudinal section design Figure C3: Boreholes E and F superimposed onto longitudinal section design Figure C4: Boreholes A and B superimposed onto longitudinal section design Figure C5: Borehole C superimposed onto cross section design

Offices at Coleshill Doncaster Dublin Edinburgh Exeter Glasgow Haywards Heath Isle of Man Limerick Newcastle upon Tyne Newport Peterborough Saltaire Skipton Tadcaster Thirsk Wallingford Warrington

Registered Office South Barn Broughton Hall SKIPTON North Yorkshire BD23 3AE United Kingdom

t:+44(0)1756 799919 e:[email protected]

Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd Registered in England 3246693

Visit our website www.jbaconsulting.com

C Gazetteer LB - Listed Building No. MNY - North Yorkshire Monument No. (NYHER) SM - Scheduled Monument UID - National Monument Record Unique identifier

CHA Site NGR Date Description Designation References no Medieval dry moat visible as shallow Whitley Thorpe SM 30111 1 SE 5553 2050 med earthwork, possibly SM moated site associated with MNY 9837 Templar manor School and schoolmaster’s house Primary School built in 1854 designed and SE 58279 2 19th C by Wm Butterfield and LB GII LB 326476 Schoolmaster’s 22552 built by Charles Ward House, Hensall of Lincoln for the 7th Viscount Downe Vicarage built in 1854 designed by Wm The Red House, SE 58250 Butterfield and built by UID 56222 3 19th C LB GII* Hensall Vicarage 22570 Charles Ward of LB 326477 Lincoln for the 7th Visount Downe Church built in 1854 designed by Wm St Paul’s Church Butterfield and built by MNY 9832 4 SE 5828 2259 19th C LB GII* Hensall Charles Ward of LB 326475 Lincoln for the 7th Viscount Downe not Area of ancient semi- 5 Stocking Rein SE 5585 1889 MNY 9775 known natural woodland not Area of ancient semi- 6 Saulcroft Wood SE 5600 1930 MNY 9776 known natural woodland Area of ancient semi- Ancient semi- not 7 SE 5500 2060 natural woodland, no MNY 9822 natural woodland known longer extant Area of trackway, Possible Iron Age ditches and rectilinear or Roman enclosures visible as UID 1315636 8 trackway, ditches SE 5925 2240 IA-R cropmarks on aerial and enclosure photographs NMR SE MNY 9854 cropmarks 5922/31 12489/3 and CUCAP (CDN3) Cropmarks of field system and other features visible on Iron Age/Roman SE 65507 aerial photographs 9 IA-R UID 1086189 cropmarks 13352 NMR SE 5519/1-4; NMR SE5519/4(12860/36); NMR OS/901840099 Cropmarks of rectilinear enclosures UID 1315630 Iron Age/Roman and field system visible 10 SE 5941 2270 IA-R MNY 9856 cropmarks in aerial photographs NMR SE 5922/34 MNY 9857 12489/6

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 III

CHA Site NGR Date Description Designation References no Possible Iron Age or Roman trackway and Possible Iron Age fragmentary or Roman 11 SE 5966 2287 IA-R enclosures visible as UID 1360715 trackway cropmarks on aerial cropmark photograph NMR SE 5922/51 (17351/01) Area of rectilinear ditched enclosures Iron Age or forming part of field Roman rectilinear system visible as 12 SE 5759 2169 IA-R UID 1315726 ditched enclosure cropmarks on aerial cropmarks photographs NMR SE 5721/6 17001/2 and NOY (AJC 39/16) Area of ditched enclosures of possible Possible Iron Age Iron Age or Roman or Roman ditched 13 SE 5837 2253 IA-R date visible as UID 1315700 enclosure cropmarks in aerial cropmarks photographs NMR SE 5822/2 12119/104 Area of Iron Age or Roman rectilinear ditched enclosures Iron Age or forming part of field Roman rectilinear system visible as 14 SE 5527 2155 IA-R UID 1315754 ditched enclosure cropmarks on aerial cropmarks photographs NMR SE 5521/5 12124/33 and NMR SE 5521/2 12124/30 Area of Iron Age or Roman rectilinear Iron Age or ditched enclosures Roman rectilinear forming part of field UID 1315732 15 SE 5804 2140 IA-R ditched enclosure system visible as MNY 9852 cropmarks cropmarks on aerial photographs NOY (AJC 28/3) Length of ditch with interconnecting ditches Boundary not visible as cropmark on 16 ditch/field SE 5989 2047 MNY 9851 known aerial photograph boundary SN2634Anthony Crawshaw 05/07/84 Field system visible as Field system SE 62778 uncerta cropmarks on aerial 17 UID 1315622 cropmarks 13518 in photographs YAT (PVA 77:5:13/23) Two short sections of ditch visible as uncerta 18 Ditch cropmark SE 5590 1930 cropmark in aerial UID 1410784 in photographs NMR OS/90184 0099 Ditches and pits of uncertain date visible uncerta 19 Ditches and pits SE 5658 1950 as cropmarks on aerial UID 1410867 in photograph NMR MAL/60424 81208

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 IV

CHA Site NGR Date Description Designation References no Site of Knights’ Possible Knights’ Templar Preceptory 20 Templar SE 5600 2200 med MNY 17091 placed by VCH within preceptory Whitley village medieval moat partially destroyed, N, E and W UID 56043 21 Medieval moat SE 5832 1923 med sides visible as NYM 9789 earthwork Recorded in Domesday as Witelaie, owned by Knights Templars by at least med- 22 Whitley village SE 5590 2060 1248, characterised by MNY 9834 mod cropmarks of ridge and furrow cultivation surrounding village identified by NMP Possible medieval village surrounding still High Eggborough extant High med- 23 village/nucleated SE 5740 2190 Eggborough Farm and MNY 9840 19thC hamlet Highfield House, depicted on Jeffreys’ 1772 map Field boundaries visible as cropmarks on aerial photograph SE 56300 med- 24 Ditched enclosure SNY 2632, probably MNY 9859 2300 mod removed by rail link to Eggborough Powerstation Linear village with buildings mainly of med- 25 Great Heck village SE 5920 2100 19th- to 20th-century MNY 9844 mod date, some medieval legibility survives Rectilinear ditched Medieval to post- enclosures visible as medieval med- 26 SE 5813 2265 cropmarks on aerial UID 1315677 rectilinear ditched pmed photographs NMR SE enclosures 5822/2 12119/104 Rectangular moat and Medieval or post- pond to east visible as medieval moat med- 27 SE 5990 2213 cropmarks in aerial UID 1317451 and pond pmed photographs CRA cropmark (AJC 409/11) Area of ridge and furrow visible on aerial photographs RAF 28 Ridge and furrow SE 5600 2150 med CPE/UK/2072 4099- UID 1315597 4100 and RAF CPE/UK 2072 of 1947, no longer extant Ridge and furrow visible on aerial photographs RAF 541/31 4107; RAF med- 29 Ridge and furrow SE 656 131 CPE/UK/2072 4094 UID 1303304 pmed AND RAF F21 58/1573 0057, no longer extant, some visible as cropmarks

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 V

CHA Site NGR Date Description Designation References no Medieval and post- medieval ridge and furrow visible as earthworks and med- 30 Ridge and furrow SE 5650 1990 cropmarks on aerial UID 1410847 pmed photographs RAF 58/1639F22 0049 and RAF CPE/UK/2072 2100 Post-medieval clay pits visible as earthworks 31 Clay pits SE 5931 1946 pmed UID 1410797 on aerial photographs RAF 541/31 4260 Post-medieval ridge and furrow visible on aerial photograph RAF 32 Ridge and furrow SE 5970 1970 pmed CPE/UK/2072 2091, UID 1410841 further cropmarks of rig cultivation identified by NMP Post-medieval extractive pits visible 33 Quarry pits SE 5807 1988 pmed UID 1410799 on aerial photograph NMR OS/90184 0137 Post-medieval ridge and furrow visible as earthworks on aerial photograph RAF 34 Ridge and furrow SE 5840 1980 pmed CPE/UK/2072 2094 in UID 1410844 1947, no longer extant, further cropmarks of rig cultviation identified by NMP Ridge and furrow visible as earthworks Post-medieval on aerial photograph 35 SE 5490 2180 pmed UID 1403889 ridge and furrow RAF CPE/UK/2072 1262 07 May 1947, no longer extant Knottingley and Goole Knottingley and SE 2986 3303 Canal built by the Aire 36 19th C UID 1340995 Goole Canal linear and Calder Navigation in the e19th C Windmill shown of Site of windmill, pmed- Jeffreys’ map of 1772, 37 SE 5870 2180 MNY 9846 Great Heck mod site now occupied by house Stone church in mock- All Saints’ Church Gothic style with nave, 38 SE 5590 2193 19th C MNY 9836 Whitley chancel and simple bellcote Chapel of Ease built 1895 by Temple Chapel of Ease, 39 SE 5929 2101 l19th C Moore, nave and MNY 9845 Great Heck chancel with small bellcote 19th century non- Non-Conformist 40 SE 5618 2099 19th C Conformist chapel, no MNY 9839 chapel, Whitley longer extant

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 VI

CHA Site NGR Date Description Designation References no Wesleyan Low single storey Association 41 SE 5907 2099 19th C building now part of MNY 9847 Chapel, Great modern dwelling Heck Enclosure field boundaries visible on Enclosure field pmed- aerial photographs 42 SE 5960 2250 MNY 9855 boundaries mod SNY 3854 and SNY 2630 taken in 1984, no longer extant Hull and Doncaster Hull and Railway opened 1855, 43 SE 5856 2044 19th C UID 1374644 Doncaster Railway closed 1959 and 1967 then dismantled Wakefield, Wakefield, Pontefract 44 Pontefract and SE 5759 2282 19th C and Goole Railway UID 1373613 Goole Railway opened 1848 Great Northern Great Northern 45 SE 5943 2017 19th C Railway extension UID 1375238 Railway opened 1871 Railway station on Whitley Bridge Wakefield, Pontefract 46 SE 556 228 19th C UID 500548 Railway Station and Goole Railway opened 1848 Railway constructed Heck Bridge and SE 4970 1740 c.1827 from Heck Wentbridge 47 to 19th C Bridge to Gt N Road at UID 1033522 Railway and canal Wentbridge, mostly basin SE 5840 2090 destroyed by 1964 Railway station on Great Northern Balne railway 48 SE 5920 1900 19th C Railway Extension UID 501315 station opened in 1871, closed 1958 and 1964 19th-century villa of SE 56097 probable post-1840 49 Whitley Lodge 19th C UID 1469809 22043 date with outbuildings around courtyard Station House SE 58541 Former station house 50 19th C UID 1483231 Hensall Station 22825 built c.1848 Hensall Station signal Hensall Station SE 58520 box built 1875, Smith 51 19th C UID 1483233 signal box 22802 Yardley type (21 levers) Waiting shelter Waiting shelter SE 54544 52 19th C construction l 19th C to UID 1483235 Hensall Station 22801 e 20th C WWII military airfield of 3 tarmac runways and Snaith Pollington hangars, operational 53 SE 6090 2090 20th C UID 1304097 WWII air field bomber station 4 Group Royal Air Force Bomber Command Crash site of WWII aircraft Protected Wellington bomber, 54 crash site, near SE 6127 1493 20th C military DNY 16980 Serial no Z8849, Highgate remains Snaith Airfield Crash site of WWII aircraft Protected Wellington bomber, 55 crash site, near SE 624 134 20th C military NMR 1442110 Serial no X3698, Great Heck remains Snaith Airfield

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 VII

CHA Site NGR Date Description Designation References no

Crash site of Halifax Protected WWII aircraft 56 SE 6010 2090 20th C bomber, Serial no military DNY 17096 crash site W7818, Snaith Airfield remains

Crash site of Halifax Protected WWII aircraft 57 SE 6010 2090 20th C bomber, Serial no military DNY 17103 crash site DT648, Snaith Airfield remains Crash site of Halifax Protected WWII aircraft 58 SE 6010 2090 20th C bomber, Serial no military DNY 17331 crash site LW362, Snaith Airfield remains Crash site of Halifax Protected WWII aircraft 59 SE 6010 2090 20th C bomber, Serial no military DNY 17336 crash site LV865, Snaith Airfield remains

Crash site of Halifax Protected WWII aircraft 60 SE 6010 2090 20th C bomber, Serial no military DNY 17341 crash site MZ870, Snaith Airfield remains

Crash site of Spitfire Protected WWII aircraft 61 SE 6010 2090 20th C fighter, Serial no military DNY 17572 crash site SM512, Snaith Airfield remains 20th-century searchlight battery hardstanding and 62 Searchlight battery SE 5549 1990 20th C cables visible as UID 1410913 structure on aerial photograph RAF CPE/UK/2072 2102 Ditch or field boundary visible as cropmark on 63 Ditch SE 5800 2120 mod MNY 9853 aerial photograph SNY 8240 Cropmarks of field Iron Age/Roman 64 SE 5962 1895 IA-R system identified and cropmarks plotted by NMP

Late Iron Late prehistoric to early MNY36303 65 Age/early Roman SE 5880 2240 IA-R Roman multi-phase enclosure complex settlement MNY38101 Milepost on A19 south of Balne Moor 66 Milepost SE 5660 1930 19th C crossroads at Haigh MNY63415 Lane and Butchers Lane Milepost on east side of A19 at south end of 67 Milepost SE 5620 2080 19th C MNY36567 Whitley village beside Whitley Bridge Garage Milepost on east side of A19, Whitley Bridge 68 Milepost SE 5570 2230 19th C MNY36568 on grass outside Milestone Croft Constructed 1939 or WWII air raid 1940, brick and 69 SE 5820 2250 WWII MNY38195 shelter concrete-built air raid shelter Area of semi-natural not 70 Broadoak Spring SE 5250 1910 ancient woodland, no MNY9769 known longer extant

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 VIII

CHA Site NGR Date Description Designation References no Enclosure field boundaries visible on aerial photographs Enclosure field pmed - SNY5877 and 71 SE 6016 2221 MNY9880 boundaries mod SNY5878 taken in 1979, probably parliamentary enclosure cropmarks

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 IX

D Previous Archaeological Interventions in the Study Area UID - National Monument Record Unique identifier ENY = Event Number North Yorkshire HER

Event Site name NGR Intervention Date Results Contractor UID No Presence of MAP Whitley Farm, SE 5610 Desk-based archaeological Archaeological ENY 1 2003 Whitley 2170 assessment remains deemed Consultancy 1667 unlikely Ltd SE 5874 Robert Long ENY 2 Land at Hensall SMR search 2004 Various 2255 Consultancy 2318 Various Vale of York, Hensall, Aerial 1998- cropmarks National ENY 3 Whitley, Heck Various photograph 2000 plotted and Mapping 2545 parishes interpretation interpreted Programme Whitley Lodge AOC and Lodge SE 5600 Desk-based ENY 4 2006 Various Archaeology Farm, Whitley 2200 assessment 2781 Ltd Bridge Land north of SE 5877 ENY 5 Broach Lane, Geophysics 2005 Non-productive ASWYAS 2245 2952 Hensall Aerial Whitley, Heck, ENY 6 Various photograph 2005 Various ASWYAS Balne parishes 3244 interpretation Pit-type anomalies GSB 1516913 Whitley Lodge, SE 5590 7 Geophysics 2006 detected, Prospection Whitley 2220 ENY possibly modern Ltd 3795 or older Multi-phase Land north of SE 5885 Recording Romano-British ENY 8 Broach Lane, 2007 ASWYAS 2252 brief field system, 3795 Hensall pottery Proposed waste Enclosures, wood SE 5978 trackways and GeoQuest ENY 9 Geophysics 2009 processing 2050 structures Associates 5410 plant, Pollington recorded Some below- AOC 1509563 Whitley Lodge, SE 5590 Desk-based 2006; ground 10 Archaeology Whitley 2200 Assessment 2010 archaeological ENY Ltd potential 5531 Land adjacent Archaeological SE 5615 Archaeologic ENY 11 to Whitley 2011 Non-productive Research 2203 al evaluation 5807 Lodge Services Ltd Evidence for four Archaeologic SE 5880 phases of activity ENY753 12 Hensall Quarry al strip and 2010 ASWYAS 2240 of late prehistoric 8 record to Roman date Continuation of Archaeologic SE 5880 features ENY688 13 Hensall Quarry al strip, map 2013 ASWYAS 2240 excavated in 7 and record 2010 recorded

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 X

Event Site name NGR Intervention Date Results Contractor UID No Continuation of Archaeologic SE 5880 features ENY731 14 Hensall Quarry al strip, map 2014 ASWYAS 2240 excavated in 1 and record 2010 recorded Continuation of Archaeologic SE 5880 features ENY753 15 Hensall Quarry al strip, map 2015 ASWYAS 2240 excavated in 7 and record 2010 recorded

2016s4969 Great Heck Mining Subsidence Remediation Scheme Environmental Statement v2 XI

Offices at Coleshill Doncaster Dublin Edinburgh Exeter Glasgow Haywards Heath Isle of Man Limerick Newcastle upon Tyne Newport Peterborough Saltaire Skipton Tadcaster Thirsk Wallingford Warrington

Registered Office South Barn Broughton Hall SKIPTON North Yorkshire BD23 3AE United Kingdom

t:+44(0)1756 799919 e:[email protected]

Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd Registered in England 3246693

Visit our website www.jbaconsulting.com