Hydrological, Hydrogeological & Flood Risk Assessment Periodic

Hydrological, Hydrogeological & Flood Risk Assessment Periodic Review Scrooby Quarry South. On behalf of Rotherham Sand and Gravel Ltd Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Quality Management

Prepared by: Jonathan Morley

Reviewed by: Dr Paul Hardwick

Authorised by: Jonathan Standen

Date: March 2014

Revision: 0

Project Number:

Document Reference:

Document File Path:

COPYRIGHT © RPS The material presented in this report is confidential. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Rotherham Sand and Gravel Ltd and shall not be distributed or made available to any other company or person without the knowledge and written consent of Rotherham Sand and Gravel Ltd or RPS.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South i rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Amendment Record

Revision No. Date Reason for Change Authors Initials

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South ii rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 2 Baseline Survey ...... 2 2.1 Location ...... 2 2.2 Operational concept ...... 2 2.3 Surface water and drainage ...... 2 2.4 Flood risk ...... 3 Policy framework...... 3

Sequential Test ...... 4

Exception Test ...... 4

Fluvial and tidal flooding...... 4

Surface water flooding ...... 5

Reservoir failure ...... 5

Effects of flooding on the site...... 5

Effects of the development on flooding elsewhere ...... 6

2.5 Geology...... 6 2.6 Hydrogeology ...... 6 Groundwater source protection...... 7

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ)...... 8

Groundwater levels ...... 9

Groundwater abstractions...... 9

Groundwater discharges...... 9

Regional water resource status ...... 9

Water bodies ...... 9

3 Qualitative Hydrogeological Risk Assessment ...... 11 Introduction ...... 11

Hydrogeological Conceptual model ...... 11

Hazard 12

Pathways...... 12

Receptors...... 12

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South iii rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Qualitative Hydrogeological Risk Assessment ...... 12

4 Conclusions...... 15 5 References...... 16

Tables

Table 1 Groundwater data ...... 9 Table 2 Water bodies within 2 km of Mineral extraction...... 10

Figures

Figure 1 Environment Agency Flood Map March 2014...... 5 Figure 2 Groundwater vulnerability map ...... 7 Figure 3 Groundwater source protection zones...... 8 Figure 4 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones...... 8

Drawings

Drawing 1 Site location and borehole plan Drawing 2 Environment Agency Flood Zone Map Drawing 3 Bassetlaw SFRA Map 2 Drawing 4 Isle of Axholme & North Nottinghamshire Water Level Management Board Map

Appendices

Appendix 1 Correspondence

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South iv rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 This report has been prepared on behalf of Rotherham sand and Gravel Limited (the applicant) by RPS Planning and Development (RPS) to support an application for the determination of conditions to which a mineral site is to be subject. Scrooby South quarry is permitted to be worked for sand and gravel and sandstone in accordance with planning permission 1/42/98/7 granted by Nottinghamshire County Council on 30th June 1999.

1.1.2 The site is located to the east of the A638, c.4 km south of Bawtry Town centre (Drawing 1).

1.1.3 This report presents:

. A description of the site setting; . An assessment of the hydrology and hydrogeology of the quarry and its immediate area; . A Flood Risk Assessment; and . Methods to safeguard ground and surface water.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 1 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

2 Baseline Survey

2.1 Location

2.1.1 The site is located c.1.4 km south of Scrooby Village centre, c.3.7 km south of Bawtry and c.30 km east of Sheffield. The National Grid Reference of the site is SE465489, 389511 and the site location is shown on Drawing 1.

2.1.2 Immediately west of the site is the A638, and neighbouring the site to the east is the East Coast Main Line railway beyond which are agricultural fields. Fields also neighbour the site to the north and south. Apart from minerals quarrying, agriculture predominates in the surrounding area together with planted woodlands.

2.1.3 The development area is located to the north of a farm track, and occupies approximately 9 ha and is currently used for agricultural purposes. Topographical data shows that the site slopes eastward with levels in the west ranging from approximately 13.00 to 11.60 metres Above Ordnance Datum (mAOD) and in the east from approximately 6.8 to 6.5 mAOD.

2.2 Operational concept

2.2.1 The operational area will be worked for minerals in phases which will advance from south to north.

2.2.2 The excavated minerals won from the site will be transported to, processed and sold from Scrooby Top Quarry.

2.2.3 A mobile water pump will be used to dewater the working area. This will discharged into the water feature closest to the development to the north.

2.2.4 Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping shows that there are five water bodies immediately to the east of the application area, with a further two c.300 m to the north and one c.200 m to the west. All are associated with previous mineral workings.

2.3 Surface water and drainage

2.3.1 EA and Bassetlaw Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment mapping 1 shows that the development area is located in Flood Zone 1. The land slopes from west to east. The site and the surrounding area are extensively drained via a series of field drains feeding into a series of ponds and lagoons.

2.3.2 The site is located within the wider catchment of the River Trent and lies between two tributary watercourses; the River Ryton passing at its closest 1.3 km to the west of the site, and the River Idle passing at its closest within 1.3 km to the northeast. The closest watercourse to the site is Ramskill Brook, a tributary of the River Idle, located c. 700 m to the east of the site.

1 JBA, July 2009. Bassetlaw District Council North Nottingham, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Volume Four, Maps.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 2 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

2.3.3 The Idle and Ryton merge c. 2.7 km north of the site above Bawtry Bridge, and the Idle flows in a general easterly direction before discharging into the Tidal Trent at West Stockwith. The Trent flows into the Humber estuary at Alkborough in North Lincolnshire.

2.3.4 The River Idle is not tidally affected above West Stockwith due to a tidal sluice gate operated by the Environment Agency. Hence any flooding at the proposed quarry extension would be fluvial.

2.3.5 The low lying land is extensively drained, with water flowing in to either the Ryton or Idle. The Stage 2 development site neighbours the jurisdictional boundary of the Isle of Axholme and North Nottingham Water Level Management Board which manages the water levels for all surface water within the northeast region of Nottinghamshire, Drawing 3 shows the water board’s management area. The purpose of the Drainage Boards is to protect people and property against river and surface water flooding through water level management within low lying areas.

2.4 Flood risk

Policy framework

2.4.1 National planning policy as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework or NPPF (DCLG, 2012a) in respect of flood risk (‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’) sets out a hierarchical approach whereby avoidance of vulnerable development in high risk zones must take priority. Where avoidance is not possible, mitigation of the risks through a variety of techniques should be used. This approach should be underpinned by flood risk assessment at all levels of planning and for all major developments is critical to inform the decision making process.

2.4.2 The site lies within the jurisdiction of Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) and Bassetlaw District Council (BDC). Both NCC and BDC have developed a strategic framework to address flood risk and the three key documents relevant to development in the authority boundary are:

. Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), Minerals and Waste, Final Living Document, April 2011; . Bassetlaw District Council North Nottingham, SFRA Volume One, Non-technical Summary, July 2009; and . Bassetlaw District Council North Nottingham, SFRA Volume Two, Guidance, July 2009.

2.4.3 The purpose of the Volume 1 SFRA is to identify and analyse current and future broad scale flooding issues for proposed development allocation sites/areas in the NCC area and provide support for further assessment and sequential testing of proposed development allocations. It forms a key component of the County Council’s Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), as required for the production of their Local Development Framework (LDF). In turn the SEA will be used to inform each council’s Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and selection of specific development allocation sites/areas. The SFRA should be reviewed at an approximately 4 year cycle.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 3 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

2.4.4 Flood risk is a material consideration in planning, and the Bassetlaw Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Planning Document January 2011 reflects the increasing nature of flood risk within the district and the importance of a balanced and sustainable approach to ensuring necessary safe re-generation, growth and economic investment across the area.

Sequential Test

2.4.5 The Bassetlaw SFRA considers the working of minerals with restoration to a water feature to be water-compatible development, based on the Table 2 of the NPPF (2012). Furthermore as the site is located in Flood Zone 1 it is already in an area at low flood risk.

Exception Test

2.4.6 NPPF (2012) Table 3 indicates that an Exception Test is not required for water-compatible development.

Fluvial and tidal flooding

2.4.7 The site lies in the catchment of the River Trent and in an area of land designated as Flood Zone 1 by the EA and by the Bassetlaw SFRA. The location is in an area that is defined as “land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding (<0.1%)” . The flood mapping extract in Figure 1 obtained from the EA website in March 2014 confirms the site to be at low risk of flooding.

2.4.8 The EA mapping does not take into account the presence of flood defences or the effects of climate change. However the Bassetlaw SFRA does so and also indicates that the proposed extension site is located within Flood Zone 1 (Bassetlaw SFRA, Defended Flood Outlines View 2 of 6). The flood map is also included in Appendix 1.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 4 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Figure 1 Environment Agency Flood Map March 2014

Surface water flooding

2.4.9 Neither the EA nor Bassetlaw Council have any records of surface water flooding in the near vicinity of the site.

2.4.10 The Nottingham Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 2 (PFRA) mapping also notes that the area around the site has not been subject to surface water flood events.

Reservoir failure

2.4.11 According to the EA website in March 2014 the site is not at risk in the event of reservoir failure.

Effects of flooding on the site

2.4.12 As water compatible development, it is accepted that the site may flood during extreme events. Moreover there is no existing or proposed flood susceptible infrastructure at the site. Other than the temporary suspension of operations during flood events the risk of flooding to the site is considered to be low to negligible.

2 JBA, June 2011. Nottinghamshire Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment – Preliminary Assessment Report and identification of any Flood Risk Areas. Final.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 5 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Effects of the development on flooding elsewhere

2.4.13 The mineral working will be initially excavated under dry conditions until the water table is met at approximately 5.2 mAOD. Thereafter the extraction area within each phase will be dewatered with the groundwater being pumped to the existing adjoining lake to the north, where the water will recharge the water table.

2.4.14 Any subsequent outflows from the pond will be controlled via an existing Consent to Discharge. The consent presently covers the discharge of sand and gravel dewatering effluent at NGR SK64740 90100 into “an un-named tributary of the River Idle”. The consented discharge rate is 5,232 cubic metres per day.

2.4.15 The working of minerals within Stage 2 will result in a net lowering of the ground on the site. This will result in a net increase in flood plain storage capacity during operation and following completion of mineral working due to the volume of extracted mineral removed above the water table.

2.4.16 The EA has indicated that provided that no groundwater will enter the adjacent watercourse and that if deemed necessary payment to the Drainage Board would be made, it is unlikely they would have any further comment (Appendix 1).

2.5 Geology

2.5.1 The regional geology is shown on British Geological Survey 1:63,360 Sheet 101 ‘East Retford’ (BGS, 1967) and its accompanying memoir (IGS, 1973).

2.5.2 The site is underlain by localised superficial deposits comprising sandy boulder clay and glacial sands and gravels underlain in turn by Nottingham Castle Sandstone (formerly Bunter Pebble Beds) bedrock geology of Permo-Triassic age, which forms the upper member of the Sherwood Sandstone Group. The Ranskill borehole some 400 m south of the site drilled in 1954 for the NCB encountered some 10 m of glacial sands and gravels underlain by some 100 m of sandstone (IGS, 1973) underlain in turn by some 160 m of Permo-Triassic marls and limestones over coal measures strata.

2.5.3 The BGS map shows no faults in the bedrock in the vicinity of the site.

2.6 Hydrogeology

2.6.1 The hydrogeological setting of the Sherwood Sandstone- Pleistocene drift system is a complex lithologically variable aquifer system in which groundwater resources have been heavily exploited for use by industry and for public supply. Both the Sherwood Sandstone and overlying drift contain a sequence of more permeable sand or sand and gravel horizons which are interspersed with horizons of silt or clay. In the Sherwood Sandstone vertical flow is inhibited by the presence of clay or mudstone horizons (BGS, 1997) superficial deposits contain perched groundwater within the sands and gravels confined by the upper and lower clays. The adjacent water supply borehole to the west is likely to be abstracting from the sandstone aquifer.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 6 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

2.6.2 The superficial deposits are classified as a Secondary Aquifer under the EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD), having a wide range of permeability and storage capacities. bearing drift deposits on the EA groundwater vulnerability mapping, Figure 2 (November 2012). The EA records note that the underlying soils are classified as H2 with a high leaching potential, in which non-absorbed diffuse source pollutants and liquid discharges have the potential to move rapidly to underlying strata or to shallow groundwater.

2.6.3 The Sherwood Sandstone bedrock aquifer is a principal aquifer as defined by the WFD.

Figure 2 Groundwater vulnerability map

Groundwater source protection

2.6.4 The site lies in the total protection zone of a public water supply located around 3.6 km to the east of the site at Pesto Hill as shown on the EA website extract in Figure 3 (EA, 2012).

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 7 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Figure 3 Groundwater source protection zones.

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ)

2.6.5 The site lies in an area proposed for designation as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone under the Nitrates Directive from 2013 for surface water and groundwater as indicated by EA map March 2014 extract in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 8 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Groundwater levels

2.6.6 The EA has provided groundwater level records dating from 1969 for two wells; Serlby Park c. 1.5 km west of the site and Danes Hill c. 3 km to the south east. A summary of the well information is provided in the table below:

Table 1 Groundwater data .

Standard Mean Level Median Level Well NGR Deviation Quality Flag (1969 to 2011) (1969 to 2011) (1969 to 2011)

Serlby Park 463330,389870 5.47 5.45 0.26 G

Danes Hill 467360, 386470 3.75 3.77 0.26 G

Groundwater abstractions

2.6.7 Information obtained from the EA (Appendix 1) indicates that there are no active abstraction licences within 300 m of the proposed development site.

Groundwater discharges

2.6.8 The EA (Appendix 1) has confirmed that there are no active discharge consents within the specified area.

Regional water resource status

2.6.9 The EA CAMS document for the Idle and Torne CAMS (EA, 2007) has been reviewed to establish the water resource availability status for the site.

2.6.10 The site lies within the River Idle Water Resource Management Unit 4 (WRMU). The resource availability status of this WMRU is over-abstracted with a target status from 2010 of ‘over- licensed’.

Water bodies

2.6.11 There are several water bodies within 2 km of the site, all of which are artificial following restoration by flooding of former mineral workings. Immediately east of the site are five lakes operated as a sport fishery Lodge Farm Fisheries and there are a number of smaller water bodies around the site. All the water bodies are listed in Table 3.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 9 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Table 2 Water bodies within 2 km of Mineral extraction.

NGR Direction Distance (km) Feature

465610, 389230 East 0.186 Flooded gravel pit

465740, 389390 East 0.230 Flooded gravel pit

465780, 389230 East 0.312 Flooded gravel pit

465190, 289020 West 0.487 Flooded gravel pit

465550, 389950 North 0.565 Flooded gravel pit

465530, 390180 North 0.788 Flooded gravel pit

465850, 390380 North 1.047 Flooded gravel pit

466531, 388778 East 1.136 Flooded gravel pit

466622, 389044 East 1.147 Flooded gravel pit

466512, 388447 Southeast 1.420 Flooded gravel pit

466987, 38861 Southeast 1.538 Flooded gravel pit

467000, 388960 Southeast 1.545 Flooded gravel pit

466801, 388483 Southeast 1.586 Flooded gravel pit

467170, 388540 Southeast 1.859 Flooded gravel pit

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 10 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

3 Qualitative Hydrogeological Risk Assessment

Introduction

3.1.1 Groundwater vulnerability is a term that has been in use for more than 30 years and has been interpreted in different ways. The accepted definition of groundwater vulnerability in the UK is ‘the tendency and likelihood for general contaminants to reach the water table within the uppermost aquifer after introduction at the ground surface’ (Ó Dochartaigh et al. 2005). All groundwater is to some extent vulnerable to contamination from surface or sub-surface sources (Foster 1998), and one of the objectives of vulnerability maps is to integrate geological and hydraulic characteristics of aquifers and overlying material to indicate the relative risk to groundwater from contamination.

Hydrogeological Conceptual model

3.1.2 The conceptual hydrogeological model is developed using the source (hazard) -pathway- receptor framework and in accordance with Environment Agency Report – Groundwater Protection, Policy and Practice (GP3).

3.1.3 For the Water Framework Directive screening methodology, groundwater vulnerability is defined in the context of the standard hazard-pathway-receptor model:

 Hazard: land use activities that pose a threat to groundwater, including waste disposal, urban development, farming, and mining. The new methodology considers a non-specific contaminant that is conservative in its behaviour in groundwater, and assumes that all hazards are released at ground level. It is also possible to consider less conservative and deeper releases of contaminants at a screening level using the same methodology, by applying the datasets underpinning the vulnerability map in different ways.

 Pathway : all material between the hazard and the receptor. This will comprise any superficial materials overlying the uppermost aquifer and, in certain circumstances, the unsaturated zone within the aquifer itself.

 Receptor : the aspect of groundwater that is at risk. In the WFD methodology, this is groundwater in the uppermost aquifer vertically below the hazard. Other downstream receptors, such as abstraction boreholes and groundwater-dependent surface ecosystems, can be assessed at a screening level by combining the vulnerability map with other tools such as aquifer productivity maps.

3.1.4 The characteristics of the pathway that influence groundwater vulnerability within the new methodology are those controlling the rate of vertical movement of infiltrating water and the degree of attenuation of contaminants.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 11 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Hazard

3.1.5 The method of working involves topsoil stripping and stockpiling of soils and overburden, and removal of superficial deposits comprising sands. Localised dewatering is undertaken where necessary to facilitate mineral extraction.

3.1.6 Extraction is undertaken mechanically using a 360° excavator.

3.1.7 No fuel or oils are stored on site and site vehicles maintain a spill response kit in case of spillages.

Pathways

3.1.8 Groundwater pathways include migration of spilled hazard materials through:

 Unstripped areas

 Top stripped areas

 Active working areas

 Restored areas

3.1.9 The vertical pathway length varies from 11.97 mAOD - 5.2 mAOD = 6.77 m in unstripped areas through 6.27 m for top stripped areas where c. 0.5 m of topsoil is removed to 0 m where the working is sub-water table in a dewatered excavation. Restored areas of banking and the lake beds will contain 0.15 m of topsoil.

Receptors

3.1.10 The primary receptor is the groundwater of the principal aquifer.

Qualitative Hydrogeological Risk Assessment

3.1.11 With mitigation, the excavation works do not significantly increase the risk of pollution of the principal aquifer, as the sands and gravels at present do not have a significant ability to attenuate any pollutants. Once restored there will be at least 5 m of water above the underlying bedrock with a protective 0.15 m soil layer on the lake beds.

Minimising the Hazard

3.1.12 The means of mitigating the potential for impacts are to ensure that all potential sources of contamination are identified and that measures are in place to reduce the risk of pollution occurring. Measures on site at present and going forward conform to measures described generically within the series of Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) produced by the Environment Agency, specifically:

 PPG1 General guide to the prevention of water pollution

 PPG2 Above ground storage tanks

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 12 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

 PPG11 Preventing pollution on industrial sites

 PPG 26 Storage and handling of drums

3.1.13 It is not proposed to locate fuel or oil storage facilities at site. However vehicles will carry oils spillage kits to deal with any emergency.

3.1.14 It is recommended that material construction operations are reviewed to ensure compliance with best practice to minimise the risk of pollution arising from mineral extraction and associated activities. The mineral working should adhere to an incident control procedure within its Environmental Management System which provides definitions and procedures for minor, medium and major spillages.

Effects on Groundwater Quality

3.1.15 The methods of working are such that the material excavation activities will not significantly increase the risk of pollution to the principal aquifer. The proposed removal of highly permeable superficial deposits would not increase the potential for pollution of the principal aquifer.

Effects on Groundwater Levels

3.1.16 Removal of the superficial deposits (i.e. mineral extraction) below around 5.2 m AOD will require localised dewatering to lower the water table to permit abstraction. Water will be pumped into the existing lake to the north.

3.1.17 However, the effects of local dewatering on the wider groundwater regime are considered to be negligible since dewatering of the superficial deposits is taking place rather than the Sherwood Sandstone itself. Pumped groundwater will remain within the site.

3.1.18 The operational methods of working are such that the continuation of mineral extraction does not significantly increase the risk of pollution to the principal aquifer.

3.1.19 Although low permeability silts and clays will be removed together with the sands and gravels during extraction the void space will be backfilled with the low permeability inter-burden materials. This will in effect restore the low permeability nature of the restored areas to a level similar to the existing situation. Therefore the scheme which will result in the removal of 5.90 - 8.56 m of superficial deposits would not increase the potential for pollution of the principal aquifer as their ability to attenuate pollutants in the unlikely event of their occurrence is relatively small.

3.1.20 As each section is periodically worked, groundwater levels have the chance to return to normal between successive periods of working.

Residual Effects

3.1.21 Post restoration, the wetlands area will fill with groundwater as already occurs in the ponds to the north and south of the site. The groundwater table level will be affected to some extent by evaporation losses from the surface of each pond in summer months but equally the aquifer will

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 13 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

receive greater amounts of recharge from direct rainfall onto the ponds than at present where there is an evapotranspiration loss from the ground vegetation cover.

3.1.22 As each section is periodically worked, groundwater levels have the chance to return to normal between successive periods of working.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 14 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

4 Conclusions

4.1.1 The site is water-compatible development but is not located in a river or tidal floodplain and therefore is not at risk of flooding. The permitted development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

4.1.2 The permitted development with appropriate mitigation measures does not pose a risk to groundwater quality in either the Secondary or Principal aquifers, and when operational will not affect groundwater levels.

4.1.3 On the basis of these assessments the permitted development does not pose an adverse risk to the hydrology or hydrogeology of the area.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 15 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

5 References

BGS 1997. The physical properties of major aquifers in England and Wales. Technical Report WD/97/34 British Geological survey, Keyworth 1997.

EA 2007. Idle and Torne Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy, Environment Agency March 2007.

EA 2008. Groundwater Policy Protection and Practice. Environment Agency Bristol.

EA PPG1 General guide to the prevention of water pollution

EA PPG2 Above ground storage tanks

EA PPG11 Preventing pollution on industrial sites

EA PPG26 Storage and handling of drums

EA website, November 2012. www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Foster S S D. 1998. Groundwater recharge and pollution vulnerability of British aquifers: a critical review. In Groundwater Pollution, Aquifer Recharge and Vulnerability. ROBINS N S (editor).

Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 130, 7-22.

IGS 1973. Geology of the Country around East Retford, Worksop and Gainsborough. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain Institute of Geological Sciences, HMSO 1973.

JBA, July 2009. Bassetlaw District Council North Nottingham, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Volume One, Non-technical Summary.

JBA, July 2009. Bassetlaw District Council North Nottingham, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Volume Two, Guidance.

JBA, July 2009. Bassetlaw District Council North Nottingham, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Volume Four, Maps.

JBA, January 2010. Bassetlaw District Council North Nottingham, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Volume Three, Technical Summary.

JBA, June 2011. Nottinghamshire Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment – Preliminary Assessment Report and identification of any Flood Risk Areas. Final.

National Rivers Authority 1994. Groundwater Vulnerability of Nottinghamshire, Sheet 18. 1994

Ó Dochartaigh B.É., D. F. Ball, A. M. MacDonald, A. Lilly, V. Fitzsimons, M. Del Rio and C. A. Auton 2005. Mapping groundwater vulnerability in Scotland: a new approach for the Water Framework Directive. Scottish Journal of Geology 2005, v.41; p21-30

Ordnance Survey Mapping 1: 50 000 Sheet 111: Sheffield and Doncaster

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 16 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

University of Hull 2007. Understanding water table dynamics and their influence on the buried archaeological resource in relation to mineral extraction. http://slb-geog.hull.ac.uk/waerc/ALSF2007.pdf

URS Scott Wilson, April 2011. Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Minerals and Waste, Final Living Document.

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South 17 rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Drawings

JER5562 Stage 2 Scrooby South rpsgroup.com March 2014

Basic FRA/FCA Map centred on Scrooby, Ranskill - created 24 January 2012 Ref: [ER1667]

Scale 1:10,000

Legend

1%1% (1(1 inin 100100 year)year) floodplainfloodplain

0.1%0.1% (1(1 inin 10001000 year)year) floodplainfloodplain

MainMain RiverRiver

BankBank TopTop ePlanningePlanning ToolTool

AreasAreas BenefitingBenefiting fromfrom DefencesDefences

AA StrategicStrategic FloodFlood RiskRisk AssessmentAssessment maymay bebe available,available, providingproviding furtherfurther informationinformation forfor thisthisthis site.site.site. PleasePleasePlease contactcontactcontact youryouryour LocalLocalLocal PlanningPlanningPlanning AuthorityAuthority toto accessaccess thisthis informationinformation asas willwill needneed toto bebe consideredconsidered withinwithin anyany FloodFlood RiskRisk AssessmentAssessment submission.submission.

© Environment Agency copyright and / or database rights 2011. All rights reserved. © Crown Copyright and database right. All rights reserved. Environment Agency, 100024198, 2012. Contact Us: National Customer Contact Centre, PO Box 544, Rotherham, S60 1BY. Tel: 03708 506 506 (Mon-Fri 8-6). Email: [email protected] The fluvial flood outlines shown are indicative based on current information and modelling software.

Flood risk from sources other than the river are shown on separate drawings.

LEGEND

Bassetlaw Council Boundary 20/25 year defended flood outline (Flood Zone 3b) 100 year defended flood outline (Flood Zone 3a) 100 year +CC defended flood outline 1000 year defended flood outline (Flood Zone 2)

KEYPLAN

1 2 5 3 4 6

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civilproceedings. Bassetlaw District Council. Licence number 100019517.

Rev. Modifications Date Drawn Checked Approved

South Barn Broughton Hall Skipton North Yorkshire BD23 3AE

www.jbaconsulting.co.uk t +44 (0)1756 799919 f +44 (0)1756 799449 e [email protected]

for BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT (SFRA) DEFENDED FLOOD OUTLINES VIEW 2 OF 6

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.

Drawn K SHUTTLEWORTH (July 2009) 1:20,000 @ A1 Checked K SHUTTLEWORTH Approved D PETTIFER Digital File Defended Outlines View 2.mxd Name:

± Kilometers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Appendices

JER5562 Scrooby Quarry rpsgroup.com March 2014 Hydrological, Hydrogeological and Flood Risk Assessment

Appendices

Appendix 1 Correspondence

JER5562 Scrooby Quarry rpsgroup.com March 2014 Jonathan Morley Our Ref: ER/E/EC/1667 - LP RPS Group 3rd Floor Your Ref: DLE2347 34 Lisbon Street Leeds Date: 1 February 2012 West Yorkshire LS1 4LX

Dear Jonathan, Request for information – Scrooby, Ranskill - Data Enquiry, SK 65379 89778

Thank you for your letter received 21 December 2011 requesting information about the above and acknowledge your payment of £60.00 for your request.

The northern edge of the site borders on to Scrooby Quarry, Coordinate Position Sk 6554090147. This is an authorised Landfill site which is currently in the closure process. The details are:

Waste Management Licence: 43191, Licence Holders Name: Rotherham Sand & Gravel Co Ltd

This is not currently accepting waste.

To the south east of the site coordinate position, SK6517589011 is a permitted waste transfer station, EAWML 43555. The licence holders are Rotherham Sand and Gravel Co. Ltd.

The types of waste accepted are sub soils, uncontaminated top soils and construction and/or demolition waste (see table 1 attached). Maximum of 25000 tonnes per year with up to 5000 tonnes stored at any one time on hard standing. The site does not have any form of engineered drainage system and currently all surface water entering the site soaks away into the sandstone strata.

The Environment Agency is not aware of any historical landfills within 250m of the proposed site.

It should be noted that the Environment Agency only has detailed information on those sites that were licensed under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. (COPA 1974) and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990). Detailed information of any other sites which were closed prior to the implementation of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, or were exempt from the need to be licensed under COPA 1974 or EPA 1990, will be limited or absent from the Environment Agency's records.

Currently the Environment Agency is not aware of this site being classed as contaminated under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, please also consult with the Environmental Health Department at the relevant Local Authority as they may be able to provide you with further information.

You should also note, that this is not a warranty that contamination associated with previous uses of the site does not exist, and further investigation may be required. If required,

Environment Agency, Trentside Offices, Scarrington Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 5BR Customer services line: 03708 506 506 Email: [email protected] www.environment-agency.gov.uk 2 appropriate remediation should be determined and carried out following discussions with the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Department at the relevant Local Authority.

To the south east of the site coordinate position, SK6517589011 is a permitted waste transfer station, EAWML 43555. The licence holders are Rotherham Sand and Gravel Co. Ltd.

There have been no reported spillages or other incidents associated with the site or neighbouring premises.

The site is located in Flood zone 1 and the risk of fluvial flooding to the site is less than 0.1% in any one year and the site lies outside the 1 in 1000 year floodplain. Generally this means that the chance of flooding each year from rivers or the sea is 0.1% (1 in 1000) or less. Any proposal may wish to give regard for any conveyance of any overland flow from under the railway line.

The majority of the site lies within the Rivers Idle & Ryton Internal Drainage Board (IDB) (now forming part of the Isle of Axholme and North Nottinghamshire Water Level Management Board) so the IDB should be contacted with regard Development and works within their Drainage area jurisdiction.

For any development proposal, we would recommend that surface water run-off should be controlled as near to its source as possible through a sustainable drainage approach to surface water management (SUDS). This approach involves using a range of techniques including soakaways, infiltration trenches, permeable pavements, grassed swales, ponds and wetlands to reduce flood risk by attenuating the rate and quantity of surface water run-off from a site.

Under the Environment Agency’s Policy and Practice for Protection of Groundwater the site is designated as a Principal Aquifer. These are geological strata that exhibit high intergranular and/or fracture permeability. They usually provide a high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously designated as Major Aquifer.

The soil has been classified as H2. H indicates that the Soils are of High Leaching Potential, which have little ability to attenuate diffuse source pollutants and in which non-absorbed diffuse source pollutants and liquid discharges have the potential to move rapidly to underlying strata or to shallow groundwater. Subcategory H2 includes deep, permeable, coarse textured soils, which readily transmit a wide range of pollutants because of their rapid drainage and low attenuation potential.

This site is located within a Source Protection Zone III (Total Catchment). This zone covers the complete catchment area of an existing groundwater source of drinking water supplies, such as spring, well or borehole. This is the area from which the source derives its supply.

The Environment Agency is not aware of any groundwater flooding events within the area. Please note that this is not a warranty that groundwater flooding will not occur.

Groundwater level data for three Environment Agency groundwater observation borehole has been burned onto a CD which is being sent to you by post. 3

There are no active discharges in the area specified.

We don't have any sites directly relevant to the area under investigation, but we have attached data from the nearest sites, as follows, in case this can be of any use.

Surface water spot flow gaugings from secondary sites on an Excel spreadsheet. The grid references are given in the file.

Groundwater levels from the two nearest groundwater sites, Serlby Park and Danes Hill. To open these data files, first save to a hard drive or equivalent. Then open Excel and open the file from Excel. In the ‘Text Import Wizard’ choose ‘Delimited’. On the next page uncheck ‘Tab’ and check ‘Comma’. Then click ‘Finish’.

There are no abstraction licences within 300m of the given NGR SK 65379 89778.

We would be really grateful if you could spare five minutes to help us improve our service. Please click on the link below and fill in our survey – we use every piece of feedback we receive. http://bit.ly/qHgbGM

Yours sincerely

June Rolland/Louise Parker External Relations Officer

For further information please contact External Relations on 0115 846 3691/3696 Direct e-mail:- [email protected]

Basic FRA/FCA Map centred on Scrooby, Ranskill - created 24 January 2012 Ref: [ER1667]

Scale 1:10,000

Legend

1%1% (1(1 inin 100100 year)year) floodplainfloodplain

0.1%0.1% (1(1 inin 10001000 year)year) floodplainfloodplain

MainMain RiverRiver

BankBank TopTop ePlanningePlanning ToolTool

AreasAreas BenefitingBenefiting fromfrom DefencesDefences

Modelled Extents Map centred on Scrooby, Ranskill - created 24 January 2012 Ref: [ER1667]

Scale 1:10,000

Legend

11 inin 55 yearyear ModelledModelled ExtentExtent

11 inin 1010 yearyear ModelledModelled ExtentExtent

11 inin 2020 yearyear ModelledModelled ExtentExtent

11 inin 5050 yearyear ModelledModelled ExtentExtent

11 inin 7575 yearyear ModelledModelled ExtentExtent

11 inin 100100 yearyear ModelledModelled ExtentExtent

11 inin 100100 yearyear ModelledModelled ExtentExtent (including(including(including climateclimateclimate changechangechange forecast)forecast)forecast)

11 inin 200200 yearyear ModelledModelled ExtentExtent

11 inin 10001000 yearyear ModelledModelled ExtentExtent

Modelled Nodes Map centred on Scrooby, Ranskill - created 24 January 2012 Ref: [ER1667]

Scale 1:10,000

Legend 4444

( ModelledModelled NodeNode LocationLocation andand ReferenceReference

Source:Source: RiverRiver IdleIdle Model,Model, MarchMarch 20052005 JBAJBA

RiverRiver RytonRyton SFRMSFRM FloodFlood RiskRisk 5050 5050 MappingMapping FinalFinal Report,Report, JBA,JBA, MarchMarch 20082008

RYTO01_04502RYTO01_04502

5858

RYTO01_04897RYTO01_04897

RYTO01_05121RYTO01_05121

ER1667 The following information, including the modelled extents mapping, has been produced including the effect of any local defences.

20% (1 in 5 year) 20% (1 in 5 year) 10% (1 in 10 year) modelled level modelled flow modelled level Node point reference Location (mAOD) (m3/s) (mAOD) RYTO01_04502 SK 64160 90072 5.91 18.68 6.04 RYTO01_04897 SK 64265 89733 5.98 18.88 6.09 RYTO01_05121 SK 64070 89632 6.21 18.39 6.31 Source: River Ryton Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2008

10% (1 in 10 year) 5% (1 in 20 year) 5% (1 in 20 year) modelled flow modelled level modelled flow Node point reference Location (m3/s) (mAOD) (m3/s) RYTO01_04502 SK 64160 90072 21.80 6.18 24.89 RYTO01_04897 SK 64265 89733 22.11 6.22 25.39 RYTO01_05121 SK 64070 89632 21.50 6.42 24.65 Source: River Ryton Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2008

2% (1 in 50 year) 2% (1 in 50 year) 1.33% (1 in 75 year) modelled level modelled flow modelled level Node point reference Location (mAOD) (m3/s) (mAOD) RYTO01_04502 SK 64160 90072 6.39 29.05 6.47 RYTO01_04897 SK 64265 89733 6.41 29.83 6.49 RYTO01_05121 SK 64070 89632 6.60 28.91 6.67 Source: River Ryton Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2008

1.33% (1 in 75 year) 1% (1 in 100 year) 1% (1 in 100 year) modelled flow modelled level modelled flow Node point reference Location (m3/s) (mAOD) (m3/s) RYTO01_04502 SK 64160 90072 30.50 6.56 32.26 RYTO01_04897 SK 64265 89733 31.39 6.58 33.23 RYTO01_05121 SK 64070 89632 30.46 6.75 32.26 Source: River Ryton Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2008

1% + 20% flow (1 in 100 year plus 0.1% (1 in 1000 0.1% (1 in 1000 climate change) year) modelled year) modelled flow modelled level Node point reference Location level (mAOD) (m3/s) (mAOD) RYTO01_04502 SK 64160 90072 7.24 45.80 7.50 RYTO01_04897 SK 64265 89733 7.25 47.19 7.51 RYTO01_05121 SK 64070 89632 7.37 45.42 7.63 Source: River Ryton Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2008

1% + 20% flow (1 in 100 year plus climate change) modelled flow Node point reference Location (m3/s) RYTO01_04502 SK 64160 90072 56.56 RYTO01_04897 SK 64265 89733 58.29 RYTO01_05121 SK 64070 89632 57.51 Source: River Ryton Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2008

The following information, including the modelled extents mapping, has been produced including the effect of any local defences.

20% (1 in 5 year) 20% (1 in 5 year) 10% (1 in 10 year) modelled level modelled flow modelled level Node point reference Location (mAOD) (m3/s) (mAOD) 44 SK 66467 90584 4.32 15.89 4.37 50 SK 66596 90262 4.38 15.88 4.42 58 SK 66908 89972 4.46 15.97 4.49 Source: River Idle Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2005

10% (1 in 10 year) 4% (1 in 25 year) 4% (1 in 25 year) modelled flow modelled level modelled flow Node point reference Location (m3/s) (mAOD) (m3/s) 44 SK 66467 90584 16.62 4.42 18.34 50 SK 66596 90262 16.62 4.48 18.35 58 SK 66908 89972 16.87 4.57 22.01 Source: River Idle Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2005

2% (1 in 50 year) 2% (1 in 50 year) 1% (1 in 100 year) modelled level modelled flow modelled level Node point reference Location (mAOD) (m3/s) (mAOD) 44 SK 66467 90584 4.47 18.57 4.49 50 SK 66596 90262 4.53 18.85 4.55 58 SK 66908 89972 4.61 23.33 4.63 Source: River Idle Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2005

1% (1 in 100 year) 0.67% (1 in 150 0.67% (1 in 150 modelled flow year) modelled year) modelled flow Node point reference Location (m3/s) level (mAOD) (m3/s) 44 SK 66467 90584 18.56 4.50 18.87 50 SK 66596 90262 18.84 4.57 18.85 58 SK 66908 89972 24.20 4.64 24.70 Source: River Idle Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2005

0.5% (1 in 200 year) 0.5% (1 in 200 year) modelled level modelled flow Node point reference Location (mAOD) (m3/s) 44 SK 66467 90584 4.51 19.19 50 SK 66596 90262 4.58 18.85 58 SK 66908 89972 4.65 25.05 Source: River Idle Flood Risk Mapping Study, JBA, March 2005

Flood Zone The site falls in Flood Zone 1.

Defences There are no raised defences at this location.