Detailed Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Threat Assessment Project Name Young’s Builders Merchant Client Cassidy Group Site Address Common Lane, Corley, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV7 8AQ Report Reference 2846PS00 Revision 00 Date 18th November 2015 Originator PS Find us on Twitter and Facebook st 1 Line Defence Limited Company No: 7717863 VAT No: 128 8833 79 Unit 3, Maple Park, Essex Road, Hoddesdon, Herts. EN11 0EX www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)1992 245 020 [email protected] Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Threat Assessment Young’s Builders Merchant Cassidy Group Executive Summary Site Location The site is situated in Corley, within the district of Coventry, Warwickshire, approximately 7.3km north-west of the city centre. The site is surrounded in all directions by agricultural fields and residential properties and small vegetated areas. The proposed site is an irregular shaped parcel of land. Half of the site consists of several small structures associated with the builders’ yard and large piles of building materials. The other half of the site appears to be an area of open land. The site is centred on the approximate OS grid reference: SP 2855285310 Proposed Works The proposed works include further investigations to assess the level of contamination on the site and the removal of all building materials and hard-standings. The entirety of the site will then be remediated and returned to pastoral/arable land or residential development. Geology and Bomb Penetration Depth Site specific geological data / borehole information is not available at the site at the time of writing this report so maximum bomb penetration depth cannot be calculated. UXO Risk Assessment 1st Line Defence believes that there is a Low Risk from UXO across the site. This assessment is based on the following factors: During WWII the Rural District of Meriden was subjected to a Low Density bombing campaign, with 13 items falling per 1,000 acres. While nearby Coventry was subjected to heavy bombing, the site and Corley itself seems to have escaped bombing. As a Rural District, Meriden did not have a great number of locations targeted by the Luftwaffe during WWII. The only significant targets were decoy sites intended to draw bombing away from the nearby Birmingham and Coventry. One such decoy for Birmingham existed approximately 2.6km south-west of the site. The closest target recorded on Luftwaffe reconnaissance mapping was a factory near Whitmore Park, over 4.5km to the south-east. Bomb mapping covering the outskirts of Coventry indicates that the closest bomb strikes were recorded over 2.5km to the south-east, south of Keresley. Bomb density appears to decrease significantly with distance from the city centre and appears to be negligible at the distance that Corley is present. No maps specifically covering Corley could be found – it is considered likely that the area was therefore just not bombed. No references to the Corley area could be found in the Region 9 bombing records from the National Archives or within the written records for Coventry obtained from the Coventry City Archives. Furthermore, no anecdotal evidence of bombing in the area could be found within book and internet sources. Historical mapping indicated that the site was an open, undeveloped area during WWII. However, WWII-era aerial photography shows several small structures on the site by the end of the war. They have the appearance of small, temporary sheds, which likely indicates why they were not recorded on OS mapping. Either way, their presence indicates that the site would have been subject to at least some level of regular access during the war. More access increases the likelihood that evidence of UXBs would have been noted and reported. According to the historic aerial photography, the groundcover across the remaining open areas of the site appears to be fairly open and homogenous and lightly vegetated. It does not appear overgrown or unmaintained. As with access, this type of groundcover would be more conducive to the observation of a UXB entry hole. The Post-War OS map and RAF aerial photography do not show any obvious signs of war damage to the site. It should be noted that the RAF imagery was taken 3 – 4 years after the majority of bombing in the area. No evidence could be found that the site formerly had any military occupation or usage that could have led to contamination with other items of ordnance. There has been some post-war redevelopment on the site of proposed works, although the exact nature of the groundwork is unknown. Several small structures have been built across the site, it is possible that these structures entailed deep intrusive works at their foundations which could mitigate the risk of encountering UXO at the locations of these foundations. Report Reference: 2846PS00 II © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Threat Assessment Young’s Builders Merchant Cassidy Group Recommended Risk Mitigation Measures The following risk mitigation measures are recommended to support the proposed works at the Young’s Builders Merchant site: All works Site Specific Unexploded Ordnance Awareness Briefings to all personnel conducting intrusive works In making this assessment and recommending the above risk mitigation measures, the proposed works outlined in the ‘Scope of the Proposed Works’ section were considered. Should the planned works be modified or additional intrusive engineering works be considered, 1st Line Defence should be consulted to see if a re-assessment of the risk or mitigation recommendations is necessary. Report Reference: 2846PS00 III © 1st Line Defence Limited www.1stlinedefence.co.uk Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Threat Assessment Young’s Builders Merchant Cassidy Group Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... II Contents............................................................................................................................................................... IV Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................... VI 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2. UK Regulatory Environment ........................................................................................................... 2 2.1. General ............................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2. CDM Regulations 2015 ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. The 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act ......................................................................................... 2 2.4. Additional Legislation ....................................................................................................................... 2 3. Role of Commercial UXO Contractors and The Authorities ............................................................. 3 3.1. Commercial UXO Contractors ........................................................................................................... 3 3.2. The Authorities ................................................................................................................................. 3 4. The Report ..................................................................................................................................... 4 4.1. Report Objectives.............................................................................................................................. 4 4.2. Risk Assessment Process ................................................................................................................... 4 4.3. Sources of Information ..................................................................................................................... 4 5. Reporting Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 5 5.1. General Considerations .................................................................................................................... 5 5.2. Background to Bombing Records...................................................................................................... 5 6. The Site .......................................................................................................................................... 6 6.1. Site Location ..................................................................................................................................... 6 6.2. Site Description ................................................................................................................................. 6 7. Scope of the Proposed Works ......................................................................................................... 6 7.1. General ............................................................................................................................................. 6 8. Ground Conditions ........................................................................................................................