Report on Blasting and Mining Heritage, Extension to Bryn ...

Report on Blasting and Mining Heritage,Extension to Bryn Quarry,

Gellia'r-gwellt Uchaf, Gelligaer.

Prepared on behalf of:

Bryn Aggregates Ltd.

By:

Blandford

Report No. BC/MB/02.19.08.

� �

Copyright.

The copyright relating to this report and the plans and documents therein contained, which have been prepared by Blandford Consulting, is owned by them exclusively, and no such report, plan or document may be reproduced, published or adapted without their written consent. Complete or partial copies may be distributed by the client to facilitate discussions and matters relating to its commission. This report has been researched, prepared and compiled in the context of the purpose stated herein and must not be used in a different context.

�� ! "�� ! "�� ! "�� ! "��

��#�$ % ��& �'( &&)& ��*#�$ % ��& �' ( &&)%��#�$ % ��& �'( &&)& ��*#�$ % ��& �' ( &&)%��#�$ % ��& �'( &&)& ��*#�$ % ��& �' ( &&)%��#�$ % ��& �'( &&)& ��*#�$ % ��& �' ( &&)% ��+��#��, ��-"��+�+��#��, ��-"��+�+��#��, ��-"��+�+��#��, ��-"��+ ��

. . .. . .. . .. . . "��-"��+"��-"��+"��-"��+"��-"��+ ��

Liability.

Blandford Consulting does not accept any liability other than arising out of the information that forms the basis of this report.

/ ��/ ��/ ��/ �� -��-��-��-��


Blandford Consulting

Report on Blasting and Mining Heritage, Extension to Bryn Quarry,

Gellia’r-gwellt Uchaf, Gelligaer.

Contents. Page:

1. Introduction 1 2. Brief Description of the Site 2 3. Geology of the Site 2 4. Current Planning Permission 4 5. Controls on Blasting at Bryn Quarry 4 6. Mitigating the Impact of Blasting 7 7. Air Overpressure 8 8. Mining History 9 9. The Risk of Subsidence Resulting from Past

Mining Operations 11 10. The Risk of Damage Resulting from Blasting at

Bryn Quarry 14 11. Discussion 18

List of Plans

Drawing No: Scale: BC/MB/02.19.08.01. General Location Plan. 1:50,000. BC/MB/02.19.08.02. Geology Plan. 1:10,560.

BC/MB/02.19.08.03. Plan of Mined Areas: Mynyddislwyn Seam. 1:5,000.

Appendices

Appendix I: Blast Vibration Review, reference no.5100/VIB1.Rev1, published

by Hunter Acoustics. Appendix II: EPC UK Presentation on Latest Blasting Techniques. Appendix III: The Coal Authority’s Mining Report 51001968162001.


/Cont…. Blandford Consulting

Report on Blasting and Mining Heritage, Extension to Bryn Quarry,

Gellia’r-gwellt Uchaf, Gelligaer.

1 Introduction

This report has been prepared on behalf of our client:

Bryn Aggregates Ltd., Gellia’r-gwellt Uchaf, Gelligaer Road,

Gelligaer, CF82 8FY

and supports a planning application to extend the quarrying operations, including the area of

extraction, at Bryn Quarry. This report discusses the geology, mining history of the locality and

the impact of blasting operations, including the risk of inducing mining settlement leading to the

potential for structural damage to properties.

The following sources of data were used in the compilation of this report:

i) Research of published geological records;

ii) Research of mining records held at The Coal Authority’s archive in Mansfield;

iii) The findings of The Coal Authority’s mining report 51001968162001;

iv) The findings of the Blast Vibration Review, reference no. 5100/VIB1Rev1

published by Hunter Acoustics and

v) the archive records of Blandford Consulting.

The findings of this report are necessarily based upon the data used in its compilation and

may be amended in the future in the light of additional material information. The report must

only be used in its entirety for its stated purpose.



Page 2

2 Brief Description of the Site

Gellia’r-gwellt Uchaf Farm is situated between the villages of Gelligaer, Nelson and

Trelewis (see Figure 1 and General Location Plan, drawing no. BC/MB/02.19.08.01),

approximately 1.5 kilometres north-east of the centre of Nelson, 0.75 km south-west of the

centre of Gelligaer and 1.6 km east of the centre of Trelewis. The farm is on south-westerly

facing slopes where average slopes are approximately 1 in 10. The quarry extracting Pennant

Sandstone is located south-west of the farm house, between it and the settlements of Gelligaer

and Penybryn.

Figure 1 Aerial View of Extraction Extension Area

Boundary of extension to extraction area is approximate.

3 Geology of the Site

The Site is situated fairly centrally on the South Wales Coalfield and is underlain at

shallow depths by strata assigned to the Grovesend Beds, the topmost sub-division of the Upper

Planning Application



Page 3

Coal Measures, themselves a sub-division of the Upper Carboniferous Period. The most recently

published geological sheet at 1:10,560 scale (ST 19 NW) shows the inferred position of the

outcrop of the Mynyddislwyn Seam to be present approximately 400m to the south-west of the

Study Area, near the former Penallta Colliery (see Geology Plan, drawing no.

BC/MB/02.19.08.02). The large Gelligaer Fault is present immediately to the south-west of Bryn

Quarry following a north-westerly trend. On the western side of the fault the Big Rider Seam is

present, but the Seam is absent beneath Bryn Quarry and the residential areas of Gelligaer,

Penybryn and Cefnllwynau. The shallow geology underlying the quarry and the residential area

is comprised of a thick sandstone, which is being recovered in the quarry.

Figure 2

Indicative Stratigraphic Column.



Page 4

The published geological sheet shows an extensive area of peat between the quarry and

the adjacent residential areas; otherwise the superficial deposits are predominantly of locally

derived soils, the result of the weathering process on the underlying sandstone. Glacial till,

Boulder Clay deposits are present across the eastern edge of Penybryn, they were proved to be

35 feet (10.7m) thick in the Penallta Colliery No 1 shaft.

4 Current Planning Permission

Bryn Quarry has the benefit of a time limited planning permission, reference no.

12/057Full, granted by Caerphilly CBC; the permission stipulates that quarrying operations for

the sandstone will end no later than 31st December 2022. The permission is subject to twenty

three conditions intended to control the quarrying operations. The overall scale of the quarrying

operations is governed by the daily limit of 400 tonnes of exported stone (condition 3), making

this a relatively small quarrying operation. The engineering properties of the sandstone are such

that it is classified as a High Specification Aggregate (HSA) suitable for road surfacing; thereby

placing the quarry within a small number capable of supplying this type of aggregate. This type

of HSA is recognised in national planning policy MTAN1 as a resource of UK importance.

5 Controls on Blasting at Bryn Quarry

Mineral planning law in the UK operates on the basis of a balanced judgement on the

need for the mineral weighed against any adverse impacts on the environment, including any

adverse effects on nearby residents, taking into account sustainability and the wellbeing of future

generations. No mineral recovery scheme can take place without it having an impact on the

environment and without its impact being felt by local residents; mineral schemes will be

noticed. Various national planning documents offer guidance as to where the balance might lie

with regard to specific matters such as noise, dust and vibration from blasting. Planning controls

relating to vibrations from blasting and the impact of vibrations on buildings are

comprehensively discussed in Hunter Acoustics’ report ‘Blast Vibration Review’ reference no

5100/VIB1Rev1, which is included at Appendix I to this report.



Page 5

Blasting operations at mineral schemes in the United Kingdom are subject to strict

controls administered through the planning system. The current quarrying operations at Bryn

Quarry involve blasting and are subject to strict controls through two conditions attached to the

extant planning permission; the same blasting operations will be required in the extension to the

quarry and the same level of strict control will apply. Blasting presently takes place three times

a fortnight on average and the same pattern will continue into the quarrying of the extension. In

the extant planning permission there are two conditions intended to safeguard amenity interests.

Condition 9 controls the nature of the blasting, requiring that ‘blasting shall be designed

so that the ground vibration measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in any one of three

orthogonal planes shall not exceed 4mm per second in 95% of all blasts carried out over any six

month period and no individual blast shall exceed a PPV of 8mm per second as measured at any

sensitive receptor’. The reason given for including this condition is to safeguard amenity

interests.

Condition 10 requires that ‘no blasting shall take place except in accordance with a

scheme specifying monitoring locations, the monitoring equipment to be used and the

presentation of results which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning

Authority before the development commences. The results of such monitoring shall be held at

the quarry and be made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority at reasonable

times with copies being supplied to the Local Planning Authority upon request’. The reason

given for including this condition is to enable the effects of the development to be effectively

monitored for the duration of the development.

The two conditions are typical of those attached to quarrying operations that involve

blasting and the same or similar conditions will be attached to any planning permission that

might be forthcoming for the extension. In order to ensure that the blasting operations at the

existing quarry do not have an adverse effect on amenity interests; Caerphilly CBC monitor the

blasts at a number of locations in Gelligaer and Penybryn; the quarry operators also monitor

blasts at Gelli’ar-gwellt Uchaf farm house. In addition, Hunter Acoustics independently

monitored two blasts at the quarry, one in December 2018 and one in January 2019.



Page 6

The blast monitoring carried out by Caerphilly CBC has recorded the measured vibration

levels as being between <0.5 and 1.21mm/s. The two blasts independently monitored by Hunter

Acoustics recorded vibration levels of 2.9mm/s on the 13th December 2018 and 1.2mm/s on the

10th January 2019. All the readings are significantly lower than the maximum limit permitted

by planning condition 9, which is intended to protect amenity interests.

The Hunter report notes that the effects of blasting on residential areas adjacent to

mineral operations are diminished as a result of and are subject to a buffer zone of 200m between

the extraction and processing areas and the residential area. The proposed extraction and

processing operations at Bryn Quarry are more than 200m distant from the residential areas of

Gelligaer, Penybryn and Cefnllwynau, thereby complying with this principle.

In the current quarrying operations the times when blasting may take place are limited by

planning condition and the current blasting at Bryn Quarry is compliant with the relevant

condition.

Planning conditions that limit the ground vibration (peak particle velocity [PPV]) at any

sensitive receptor, often taken to be the nearest residence, are used to control the perceived or

actual nuisance from blasting vibration. Cosmetic damage (such as hair-line cracks) to

residential or light commercial buildings does not occur until vibrations are in the range of 15-

20mm/s, depending upon their frequency; yet higher vibration levels are necessary in order to

induce damage to reinforced or framed structures or heavy industrial buildings. MTAN1 states

that ‘the maximum level of ground vibration at vibration sensitive locations: ground vibration as

a result of blasting operations should not exceed a peak particle velocity of 6 mm/s ppv in 95%

of all blasts measured over any 6 month period, and no individual blast should exceed a peak

particle velocity of 10 mm/s ppv;’. However, vibrations may be felt in the much lower PPV

range of 0.14mm/s (millimetres per second) to 0.3mm/s.

The above statement from MTAN1 is consistent with the findings in BS 6472-2:2008 that

the maximum satisfactory magnitude of vibration with respect to human response for up to three

blasts per day during daytime is 6-10mm/s ppv. Planning condition 9 for Bryn Quarry stipulates

that ‘the ground vibration measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in any one of three



Page 7

orthogonal planes shall not exceed 4mm per second in 95% of all blasts carried out over any six

month period and no individual blast shall exceed a PPV of 8mm per second as measured at any

sensitive receptor’. The planning condition is intended to limit the vibration from blasting at the

quarry to a satisfactory level in terms of human response; a level that is significantly lower than

the level at which cosmetic damage to domestic and light industrial buildings will occur.

The vibration level of 4mm/s is significantly lower than the 15-20mm/s necessary to

result in cosmetic damage to residential and light industrial buildings. The blast monitoring

carried out by Caerphilly CBC found that the measured vibration levels have been between <0.5

and 1.21mm/s. The two recent blasts independently monitored by Hunter Acoustics recorded

vibration levels of 2.9mm/s on the 13th December 2018 and 1.2mm/s on the 10th January 2019.

All the readings taken at Bryn Quarry are lower than the maximum limit permitted by planning

condition 9, which is itself much lower than the value at which even cosmetic damage would be

likely to occur at a residential dwelling or light industrial building. Taken together, all the

monitoring results for Bryn Quarry have recorded vibration levels that are both significantly

lower than the permitted level and are also at a much lower level than that which is likely to

induce cosmetic damage to a residential dwelling or light industrial building.

6 Mitigating the Impact of Blasting

In addition to the statutory controls, the impact of blasting operations on amenity

interests is mitigated by engaging the services of a competent contractor that operates with best

practices and strives to maintain the most up-to-date blasting techniques. The blasting

operations at Bryn Quarry are carried out under contract by EPC UK Ltd., which is a wholly

owned subsidiary of the EPC Groupe. The EPC Groupe is one of the world’s leaders in

explosives, demolition and drilling and blasting; it was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in

Paris, and has for over 120 years, enjoyed a reputation for effective solutions and technological

innovation. The EPC Groupe has a turnover equalling 348 million euros and produces in excess

of 145,000 tonnes of explosives annually; it has forty subsidiaries in twenty countries around the

world, with activities across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.



Page 8

The EPC Groupe presently manufactures and supplies a range of commercial explosives

and tailor-made services and its customer base includes many leading names in mining, cement,

aggregates, civil engineering and defence. An example of its continuing strides to minimise the

impact of blasting on amenity interests is the introduction of electronic initiation, replacing

shock-tube detonation. The company’s presentation on the subject is included at Appendix II.

7 Air Overpressure

When blasting takes place human beings detect the energy contained in a pressure wave

(air overpressure) as noise (audible) and concussion (inaudible). Air overpressure is a pressure

wave is formed in the atmosphere by the detonation of explosives, when felt by human beings it

is a common to assume that because we can sense it then it must follows that it will result in

damage to buildings. Quoting from British Standard 6472-2:2008, the Hunter report states that

“Air overpressure can excite secondary vibrations at audible frequencies in buildings and it is

often this effect that gives rise to adverse comments from the occupiers. There is no known

evidence of structural damage occurring in the United Kingdom as a result of air overpressure

levels from blasting associated with mineral extraction (my highlighting). The highest levels

normally measured in the United Kingdom are generally less than 1% of the levels known to

cause structural damage.

During the two blasts monitored by Hunter Acoustics, it was noted that the blast could be

heard, that no ground vibration was felt by the operators and whilst no air overpressure was felt

at the time of the December blast, air overpressure was felt at the time of the January blast. It is,

therefore, the case that at least some blasts at Bryn Quarry result in air overpressure being felt at

some locations in Gelligaer, Penybryn and Cefnllwynau and that some blasts are heard there.

That some residents of Gelligaer, Penybryn and Cefnllwynau may experience the effects of some

blasts may give rise to the perception described in British Standard 6472-2:2008 that being able

to detect the effects of the blast means that the blast must be causing damage. However, there is

no risk of structural damage as a result of air overpressure from the blasting at Bryn Quarry.



Page 9

8 Mining History

The area has been subject to extensive coal mining operations dating back to the

nineteenth century. There are old workings across the area in eight coal seams at depths of

between shallow and 840m; underground mining in the area ceased in 1991. Of most interest are

the shallow old workings across the area of the farm in the Big Rider and Mynyddislwyn Seams.

The Big Rider is a little under 1m thick and has been mined underground across the south-

western part of Gelli’ar-gwellt Uchaf Farm, on the western side of the Gelligaer Fault. The Big

Rider does not underlie the quarry area nor Gelligaer, Penybryn or Cefnllwynau.

The Mynyddislwyn Seam has been mined from a number of collieries in the area. A

search of mining records held by The Coal Authority found records of a number of collieries that

mined the Mynyddislwyn Seam across the area between the proposed quarry extension and the

above settlements. The plans held by The Coal Authority are not a complete record of the

mining history of the area and other workings may be present for which The Coal Authority has

no record. However, taken together the plans of the collieries identify that a large proportion of

the area between the quarry and the above settlements has been undermined in the

Mynyddislwyn Seam (see Figure 3 and Plan of Mined Areas: Mynyddislwyn Seam, drawing no.

BC/MB/02.19.08.03). A reference appearing on the mine plan for Tophill Colliery suggests that

the workings from Glanddu Colliery were more extensive than are shown on the mine plan for

the colliery.

The collieries were all drift mines, some with air shafts to improve ventilation of the

workings. The mining operations date back to a period where the most common mining

operation was pillar and stall, whereby only a proportion of the coal was worked by area with the

remainder left to support the roof measures. Within an area of working some areas of coal were

left unworked as a result of the geometry of the mining layout or as a result of difficult

geological conditions.

There is a certain amount of imprecision in the mine plans as a result a number of factors

including the nature of the material that the plan was drawn on and the scanning and

reproduction processes. There is the further difficulty of fixing the position of the mine

workings in relation to current surface features. However, the Plan of Mined Areas:


Page 10


Figure 3 Print-out of The Coal Authority’s Interactive Map

(Accessed 12th March 2019)

Key to Symbols:-

Recorded, disused mine entry, red ‘x’. Recorded shallow old workings shaded light blue. Probable shallow old workings shaded purple. Surface (opencast) workings shaded grey.

Planning Application


Page 11


Mynyddislwyn Seam can be read as showing in reasonable detail where mine workings extend

across the area.

None of the mine entries associated with the collieries discussed above were located

within the main residential areas of Gelligaer, Penybryn and Cefnllwynau and there are no

records of any disused mine entries within the above main residential areas.

9 The Risk of Subsidence Resulting from Past Mining Operations

Surface subsidence resulting from past underground mining operations generally occurs

as a consequence of one of two conditions; the proximity to a disused mine entry or the presence

of shallow old mine workings.

9.1 The Proximity to a Disused Mine Entry

The inward collapse of a disused mine shaft or the collapse of a disused mine adit where

it is close to the surface would result in surface subsidence near the mine feature. There

are no records of a disused mine entry within the area of the planning application or

within 20m of its boundary. The risk of there being an unrecorded, disused mine entry

within the application area cannot be entirely dismissed but is highly unlikely given the

extent of the workings in the Mynyddislwyn Seam and the extent of the detailed records

available for those workings.

There are several disused shafts and adits in the surrounding area, but none are located

within the main residential areas (see Plan of Mined Areas: Mynyddislwyn Seam, drawing

no. BC/MB/02.19.08.03).

9.2 The Presence of Shallow Mine Workings

When a void is created by the removal of coal the coal measures above the void will tend

to collapse downwards into the void. The process will repeat itself until the bulking



Page 12

effects of the collapsing coal measures chokes the process off; it is generally accepted

that the upward migration of voids is limited to ten times the height of the original mining

void. In other words, the process will choke itself off at the point where the strata:void

ratio is 10:1.

Figure 3 is a copy of The Coal Authority’s interactive map for the area, on it the area

where recorded shallow old workings are present is shaded light blue. Areas of

‘probable’ workings, i.e. unrecorded shallow mine workings, are shaded pink. It can be

seen that there is an area of shallow mine workings underlying the north-west corner of

the application area in the vicinity of the quarry entrance and a length of the access road

is underlain with ‘probable’ workings.

In the wider area beyond the application area shallow mine workings are present across

the eastern fringes of Penybryn and Cefn Llwynau and parts of Glyn-Gaer. The figure

should not be read as depicting the situation with precision, but as a good approximation.

The figure indicates that across the majority of the areas north and east of the quarry the

Mynyddislwyn Seam is at a depth greater than 30m, the criterion used in the preparation

of the figure. Given that the Mynyddislwyn Seam is typically approximately 2m thick in

this area and that superficial deposits are also present, a conservative reading of the

interactive map is that the light blue areas are where the strata:void ratio is less than 10:1.

The Coal Authority’s plan also shows areas of ‘probable’ mine workings, i.e. where

unrecorded old workings may be present at depths shallower than 30m. The only small

area of ‘probable’ workings affecting the main residential areas is at the north-west

corner of Gelligaer.

In reality, the limiting strata:void ratio for upward collapsing mining voids is influenced

by a number of factors of which the nature of the overlying coal measures play a

significant part. Thinly bedded mudstone will readily collapse but a massive bedded

sandstone (massive bedding is generally defined as where bedding planes are at least

600mm apart) will have considerable bridging properties and will strongly resist

collapsing. The coal measures immediately overlying the Mynyddislwyn Seam are

comprised of massively bedded sandstone. The sandstone is exposed in the former



Page 13

Tirpentwys Opencast Coal Site (OCCS) near Llanhilleth, which operated until 1963 and

where approximately 18m of sandstone overlie the Mynyddislwyn Seam (see Figure 4).

The sandstone that is the subject of the quarrying operations at Bryn Quarry is of the

same nature.

Figure 4

Blocky Sandstone Above Mynyddislwyn Seam Exposed in Former Tirpentwys Group OCCS.

Details on the manner in which mining voids in the Mynyddislwyn Seam are collapsing

has been collected in the frequent drilling and grouting operations that have taken place

across the district to stabilise old workings in the Seam during various building

operations. The findings of these drilling operations are that the sandstone overlying the

Seam does, indeed resist collapsing as a result of the bridging properties of the sandstone.

In many cases the broken strata above a mining void in the Mynyddislwyn Seam is

limited to 3m or 4m above the floor of the Seam, i.e. the collapse height approximates to

no more than the thickness of the original mining void. In the case of the Mynyddislwyn



Page 14

Seam the limiting strata:void ratio is closer to 2:1; 3:1 would be a conservative limiting

ratio for the Seam. This being the case, the risk of surface subsidence within the

application area and across most of the main residential areas of Gelligaer, Penybryn and

Cefnllwynau as a result of shallow mine workings in the Mynyddislwyn Seam is

extremely low.

10 The Risk of Damage Resulting From Blasting At Bryn Quarry

10.1 Flying Particles

Damage to third parties resulting from blasting operations may occur as a result of the

impact of flying particles or as the result of vibration. The 200m buffer zone that applies

to mineral operations in the United Kingdom is intended to militate against the likelihood

of harm from flying particles; the buffer zone has been applied to the quarry extension at

Bryn Quarry. There are a number of footpaths crossing Gellia’r-gwellt Farm; to avoid

harm to casual users of the footpaths, the footpaths are temporarily closed when blasting

is taking place. To avoid harm to others accessing the facilities on the farm all traffic is

stopped from entering the quarry during blasting. All persons working or walking in the

blast zone are removed to a safe distance until the all clear is sounded. In addition, the

blasting operations are notified in advance to Caerphilly CBC. During the 21 years that

blasting has been taking place at Bryn Quarry there has been no harm as a result of flying

particles associated with the blasting operations.

10.2 Ground Vibration

The potential impact of ground vibration on properties near quarrying operations has

been discussed in detail above. The discussion includes the past, current and any future

impacts resulting from the blasting at Bryn Quarry on the nearby residential areas of

Gelligaer, Penybryn and Cefnllwynau. During the 21 years that blasting has been taking

place at Bryn Quarry no damage resulting from ground vibrations associated with the

blasting operations have been notified to the quarry operators.



Page 15

10.3 Air Overpressure

There is no known evidence of structural damage occurring anywhere in the United

Kingdom as a result of air overpressure from blasting associated with mineral extraction.

10.4 Interaction of Ground Vibration with Shallow Mine Workings

Extensive old workings are present across the area of the quarry and of Gelligaer,

Penybryn and Cefnllwynau. The shallowest seam mined across the area is the

Mynyddislwyn Seam; the workings are considered to be ‘shallow’ (within 30m of the

surface) across a relatively small area at the north-western fringes of Gelligaer. Those

areas where old workings are described as ‘shallow’ are generally taken to be where there

is a risk of the old workings collapsing to the surface and inducing subsidence that might

cause structural distress to a building or other structure. This general, cautionary

approach is subject to the details of the strata:void ratio discussed above. Where shallow

old workings are present there is, at least in theory, the risk that vibrations from blasting

at a mineral operation may increase the risk of old workings collapsing to the surface.

A conventionally constructed dwelling with a breeze block construction will have joints

between individual blocks at intervals of approximately 440mm (vertically) and 215mm

(horizontally). A 75mm thick dense concrete block weighs approximately 14kg. The

strength of a breeze block wall partly depends upon the mass of the blocks used in its

construction and partly on the strength of the cement used in the joints. In a residential

dwelling or light industrial building cosmetic damage may occur in a wall of this type of

construction at vibration levels of between 15 and 20mm/s.

The sandstone above the Mynyddislwyn Seam underlying the area is exposed in the final

cut of the former Tirpentwys Group Opencast Coal Site, where weathering helps to

highlight the bedding and jointing; it is illustrated in Figure 4. It can be seen from the

figure that the spacing of the fracture planes (the sub-vertical breaks) is at least the same

spacing as the bedding interval, at least 600mm. A single sandstone block 600mm cube

will weigh approximately 0.5tonnes (500kg). It is not easy to compare the frictional

forces between individual blocks to the strength of cement between concrete blocks in a



Page 16

wall. However, putting that to one side, a single block of sandstone will weigh at least 35

times the weight of a concrete block and would clearly require a much greater force to

move it than would be required to move a concrete block.

Vibration levels of between 15 and 20mm/s are required to vibrate the blocks in a block

wall to the point where cosmetic damage such as a hairline crack in the plaster occurs. In

a single storey building a wall might extend to a height of between 5.5m and 7m and for a

two storey house to 9m (gable end).

The thickness of the sandstone above the Mynyddislwyn Seam varies across the eastern

valleys, but it is typically at least 17m thick. The Mynyddislwyn Seam is approximately

2m thick, and the limiting ratio for the upward collapse of mining voids associated with

the Seam observed in exploratory boreholes across the region is 3:1, i.e. 6m.

Consequently, approximately 11m of the sandstone above old workings in the

Mynyddislwyn Seam are still tightly bound and have not separated along bedding or

fracture planes.

The relationship between the force required to vibrate a 9m high wall comprised of 14kg

blocks and that required to vibrate an 11m high column of sandstone comprised of 500kg

blocks may not be a simple straight line arithmetic one, but clearly a very much larger

force would be required to vibrate the sandstone column to the point where cosmetic

damage might occur. An even greater force will be required to separate individual

sandstone blocks from each other and cause them to collapse. The highest vibration level

measured at Bryn Quarry is 2.9mm/s, much lower than 15-20mm/s. The Hunter Acoustic

report found that ‘blasts at Bryn Quarry are not likely to cause any minor or major

damage to residential buildings based on monitoring undertaken to date’. This being the

case, the vibrations at Bryn Quarry are not likely to vibrate blocky sandstone and induce

it to collapse into any mining void that might be present below.

Records held by The Coal Authority reveal that since the inception of The Coal Authority

in October 1994, 555 claims have been made for subsidence damage in the Gelligaer-

Penybryn area. Of these, 379 were rejected or withdrawn and 219 were accepted; the



Page 17

accepted claims were located in the Gelligaer and Castle Hill areas, none of the claims

from Penybryn were accepted. The last subsidence claim that was accepted by The Coal

Authority was made in November 1998. The chronology of subsidence claims accepted

by The Coal Authority is set out in Table 1. Blasting at Bryn Quarry first took place in

October 1997 and has continued since (shaded green in Table 1).

Table 1

Chronology of Accepted Subsidence Claims

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 8 1995 0 1 3 3 13 12 10 4 0 1 2 2 51 1996 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 7 1 1 17 1997 0 2 1 2 1 4 1 0 26 15 27 18 97 1998 1 31 10 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 46 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1 35 15 8 15 16 11 8 27 24 33 26 219

The Coal Authority was established in October 1994 and there is a marked concentration

of claims in 1994 and the following four years. If the blasting operations were causing

the sandstone above the old workings in the Mynyddislwyn Seam to collapse into the

mining void and if the collapse resulted in surface subsidence then it is to be expected



Page 18

that claims for what would be mining subsidence, albeit contributed to by the blasting

operations, would be lodged with The Coal Authority. If the subsidence was related to

the blasting then it would not explain the number of claims made before blasting began at

Bryn Quarry. Further, it would be expected that the continuous blasting from 1997 until

the present would have resulted in claims spread across the entire period. Since

November 1998 only four subsidence claims have made, in September 2000, April 2004,

March 2007 and June 2018. The Coal Authority investigated each claim and rejected

each one, none were deemed to be related to mining subsidence.

Given the considerable force that would be required to vibrate a sandstone column to the

point where individual sandstone blocks are loosened and might collapse together with

the pattern of subsidence claims lodged with The Coal Authority it is considered that

there is no risk that the blasting at Bryn Quarry would exacerbate the upward migration

of the mining voids from past mining of the Mynyddislwyn Seam in the area beneath

Gelligaer, Penybryn and Cefnllwynau. There is no risk that the blasting will result in

subsidence at the surface associated with the upward migration of mining voids.

10.5 Interaction of Ground Vibration with Disused Mine Entry

It is generally the case that ground vibrations could, if they were of a significantly large

scale, induce subsidence around a disused mine shaft or adit, causing them to collapse.

There are no records of a mine shaft or adit within the main residential areas of Gelligaer,

Penybryn and Cefnllwynau consequently no risk that the blasting at Bryn Quarry could

cause a shaft or adit to collapse within the residential areas.

11 Discussion

The sandstone being quarried at Bryn Quarry is classified as High Specification

Aggregate that is of national importance on a UK basis. In keeping with planning policy in the

Wales, the quarrying operations at Bryn Quarry have been permitted on the basis that a

nationally important resource is being recovered whilst balancing any adverse impacts on the

environment, including any adverse effects on nearby residents, and taking into account



Page 19

sustainability and the wellbeing of future generations. The impact upon amenity interests relates

to a number of matters including the effects of vibration. The strict controls that universally

apply in the UK to quarries have been attached by Caerphilly CBC to the extant planning

permission at Bryn Quarry and similar controls will be attached to any planning permission that

is forthcoming with regard to the planned extension to the quarry. The existing planning

conditions set maximum vibration levels for the blasting that are both within the range that is

considered to be satisfactory in terms of human response to up to three blasts per day and lower

than the levels that might induce cosmetic damage to a residential dwelling or light industrial

building. The highest vibration level recorded at Bryn Quarry is lower than that stipulated by

planning condition 9, is lower than the lowest point in the range that is satisfactory in terms of

human response (a range that relates to up to three blast per day, whereas Bryn Quarry operates

with three blasts per fortnight) and is much lower than the level that might result in cosmetic

damage to a residential property or light industrial building.

The air overpressure resulting from the blasting at Bryn Quarry is sometimes evident at

the adjacent residential areas but will not cause structural damage.

An assessment of the mining history of the locality has identified that there are

underground mine workings across the area, including extensive mine workings in the

Mynyddislwyn Seam, the shallowest seam mined underground across Gelligaer, Penybryn and

Cefnllwynau. In limited areas, the old workings are ‘shallow’, i.e. within 30m of the surface.

The nature of the sandstone that overlies the Mynyddislwyn Seam results in a situation where

there is a low risk of the mine workings collapsing to the surface across most of the adjacent

residential areas. An assessment of mining subsidence claims lodged for Penybryn and Gelligaer

with The Coal Authority since its inception shows no correlation between the blasting at Bryn

Quarry and the timing of the damage leading to the claims. The vibration levels associated with

the blasting at Bryn Quarry will not interact with the mine workings to induce collapses of the

sandstone into the mine workings that would lead to surface subsidence and structural damage.

There are no recorded mine entries in the main adjacent residential areas of Gelligaer,

Penybryn and Cefnllwynau and so no risk of the blasting inducing the collapse of a disused mine

entry in the area.



Page 20

The current quarrying operations at Bryn Quarry and the proposed extension incorporate

the 200m buffer zone between operational areas and adjacent residential areas. Amongst other

matters, the buffer zone militates against the risk of damage or harm from flying particles to

adjacent residential areas. Diligent management practices at the quarry closes footpaths crossing

the farm during blasting, stops vehicles accessing the quarry and removes persons from the blast

area until the all clear is sounded.

To maintain best practice and mitigate the effects of blasting on amenity interests, the

blasting operations at Bryn Quarry are contracted out to EPC UK, a company that operates

internationally and which strives to include recent innovations in blasting techniques in its

operations.

Blasting has taken place at Bryn Quarry continuously for just over 20 years. In that

period the blasting operations have been strictly controlled by and have complied with the

planning conditions imposed by Caerphilly CBC. During the period, vibration levels from the

blasting have been lower than the imposed limits, there has been no notified incident of harm or

damage arising from flying particles resulting from the blasting, no notified incident of damage

resulting from vibration from the blasting and no notified incident of damage resulting from the

effects of blasting on mining features and there has been no structural damage from air

overpressure resulting from the blasting.

Any planning permission that might be forthcoming for the proposed extension would be

subject to the same stringent controls required by the mineral planning system applying in

Wales, with the details specified and monitored by Caerphilly CBC.

Dr Malcolm Blandford,

Chartered Geologist.

Report Date 26th April 2019.

Blandford Consulting, Consultant Geologists and Geotechnical Engineers,

The Enterprise Centre, Merthyr Industrial Park, Pentrebach, Merthyr Tydfil, CF48 4DR. Tel. No. (01443) 693353. Fax. No. (01443) 693351.



References:

British Geological Survey 1963, Geological sheet ST 19 NW. BSI 2008, British Standard 6472-2:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Welsh Assembly Government 2004, Minerals Technical Advice Note (Wales) 1: Aggregates.

Plans

The Enterprise Centre,Merthyr Industrial Park,Pentrebach,Merthyr Tydfil,South Wales,CF48 4DR.

Geologists Working With The Environment....

Blandford

C Crown Copyright Reserved

Bryn Quarry, Gellia’r-gwellt Uchaf, Gelligaer:Planning Application for Extension.

General Location Plan.

Plan Scale: 1:50,000.

Drawing No: BC/MB/02.19.08.01.

Geologists W

orkin

g With

The E

nviron

men

t....

Blandford


Site

Notes: North is at top of plan.

Key to Symbols:

Planning Application Boundary.



Geology Plan.

Plan Scale: 1:10.560.

Geologists W

orkin

g With

The E

nviron

men

t....

Blandford




Boundaries are approximate.

Key to Symbols:


Additional Extraction Area.

Disused Shaft.

Disused Adit.



Plan of Mined Areas- Mynyddislwyn Sean -


Geologists W

orkin

g With

The E

nviron

men

t....

Blandford


Suspected Old Workingsin This Area

Key to Symbols:



Disused Shaft.

Disused Adit.

Area of Underground Workings.

Key to Symbols:



Disused Shaft.

Disused Adit.

Area of Underground Workings.

Glanddu Colliery

Tophill Colliery

Church Colliery

Cefn Llwyna

Unspecified


Plan of Mined Areas- Mynyddislwyn Sean -


Unspecified

Gelligaer LevelLlancaiach No 1

Bryn Pit

Berllan Pit

Suspected Old Workingsin This Area



Locations are for identification only do not scale from this plan.

Appendix I

Copy of Blast Vibration Review, 5100/VIB1.Rev1,

Hunter Acoustics



Blandford

Hunter Acoustics is the trading name of Hunter Acoustics Ltd Registered Office: Henstaff Court Business Centre, Llantrisant Road, Cardiff CF72 8NG Registered Number: 4587925

Bryn Quarry Gelliargwellt Farm

Gelligaer Caerphilly CF82 8FY

Blast Vibration Review 5100/VIB1_Rev1

7th February 2019

For: Bryn Aggregates

Gelliargwellt Farm Gelligaer

Caerphilly CF82 8FY

Email: [email protected]

Henstaff Court Business Centre Llantrisant Road, Pontyclun

Cardiff CF72 8NG

Tel: 02920 89020

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Project: Blast Vibration at Bryn Quarry Hunter Acoustics

DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 2 07/02/2019

Contents

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Planning Guidance and Standards .................................................................... 4

2.1 MTAN1 ............................................................................................................... 4

2.2 British Standard 6472-2:2008 ............................................................................. 7

2.3 British Standard 5228-2:2009 ............................................................................. 8

2.4 British Standard 7385-2:1993 ........................................................................... 10

2.5 Planning Condition ........................................................................................... 10

3.0 Hunter Acoustics Blast Vibration Monitoring................................................. 11

3.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Equipment Used ............................................................................................... 11

3.3 Weather Conditions .......................................................................................... 11

3.4 Results ............................................................................................................. 12

4.0 EPC UK and Caerphilly CBC Blast Vibration Monitoring .............................. 12

5.0 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 14

5.1 Planning Limits ................................................................................................. 14

5.2 Damage to Buildings ........................................................................................ 14

5.3 Air Overpressure .............................................................................................. 14

Appendix A - Acoustic Terminology .......................................................................... 17

Appendix B – Diagrams, Graphs and Tables ............................................................ 18


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 3 07/02/2019

1.0 Introduction We understand that concerns have been raised by local residents surrounding the Bryn Quarry site with regards to vibration affecting their properties during blasting. Blasts at the quarry generally occur once or twice per calendar month and are always during daytime hours. The blast team at the quarry (EPC UK) monitor vibration at the Bryn Farm House and Caerphilly CBC have also undertaken monitoring outside residents’ properties. In addition to this monitoring, Hunter Acoustics has undertaken independent monitoring of 2no blasts at the nearest dwellings on Gelliargwellt Street in Penybryn. This report has been commissioned to review results of all monitoring undertaken by EPC UK, Caerphilly CBC and ourselves against current guidance and standards and to assess the risk of damage to property. Appendix A explains acoustic terminology used in this report.


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 4 07/02/2019

2.0 Planning Guidance and Standards 2.1 MTAN1

Minerals Technical Advice Note (Wales) 1: Aggregates

The Welsh Government’s Minerals Planning Policy (Wales) – Minerals Technical Advice Note (Wales) 1: Aggregates (MTAN1) contains the following guidance in relation to quarry blasting;

“71. The objective of the buffer zone is to protect land uses that are most sensitive to the impact of mineral operations by establishing a separation distance between potentially conflicting land uses. Research44 has indicated that people living close to mineral workings consider dust to be the main impact of mineral extraction and any processing operations, followed by traffic, and noise and vibration from blasting. After careful consideration, including consultation with a number of interested and informed parties, the Welsh Assembly Government takes the view that the following minimum distances should be adopted unless there are clear and justifiable reasons for reducing the distance. An example may be that, because of other means of control, there is very limited impact from the mineral extraction site.

Mineral Extraction Type Minimum Distance

Sand and gravel (and others 100 metres where no blasting is permitted)

Hard rock quarries 200 metres

The buffer zone should be defined from the outer edge of the area where extraction and processing operations will take place, including site haul roads, rather than the site boundary, as there may be land within site boundaries where mineral activities are limited or no operations are proposed so that the impact of the proximity of such land is negligible. Where mobile plant is likely to be used it will usually be necessary to control by planning conditions the location of the operational area where plant may operate in order to maintain the buffer zone and thus protect amenity.”

“78. Production blasting can result in impacts that extend well beyond the extraction site. This is likely to cause concern to neighbours and results from:

• ground vibration –these are stress waves generated within the ground by the detonation of explosive charges. Sometimes these are reported by individuals but usually the levels of vibration generated by mineral workings are well below those required to cause structural damage to properties;

• air overpressure –a pressure wave is formed in the atmosphere by the detonation of explosives, this consists of energy manifested as audible (noise) and inaudible (concussion);

• noise – audible noise is atmospheric pressure variations at frequencies greater than 20Hz (hertz);

• dust; and,

• fly-rock – the projection of material from the blast site to any area beyond the designated danger zone.”


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 5 07/02/2019

“79. Ground vibration: It is often difficult to reconcile the needs of efficient and economic mineral extraction with the comfort and amenity of neighbours, particularly where quarries are located close to buildings that are sensitive to vibration such as residential properties. Research50 has shown that the vibration levels at which complaints are made varies significantly and that long established sites with a good relationship with neighbouring communities are far less likely to attract complaints from local residents.

Mineral planning authorities and site operators have accepted the need for more definitive advice to ensure a more consistent approach to controlling ground vibration and responding to complaints from neighbours. This is therefore set out below.”

“80. Ground vibration is recorded in terms of particle velocity with the maximum or peak

value measured in 3 orthogonal directions at any one location – so-called longitudinal, vertical and transverse. The measurement of peak particle velocity (ppv) is the accepted standard for recording vibration levels together with frequency content. The typical range of ground vibration frequency for surface mineral workings is 5 to 40 Hz with values predominantly from 20 to 30 Hz for hard rock quarries. Although sensitivity to vibration varies between individuals, a person will generally become aware of blast induced vibration at around 1.5 mms-1 ppv (in some circumstances at levels as low as 0.5 mms-1 ppv). Public concern often relates to the potential for vibration to cause damage to property. British Standards51 specify guide values to preclude damage to various building types from blast induced ground vibration. Cosmetic damage, or hairline cracks in plaster or mortar joints, should not occur at vibration levels lower than 20 mms-1 ppv at a frequency of 15Hz and lower than 50 mms-1 ppv at 40Hz and above. Vibration levels from production blasting measured at residential properties rarely, if ever, approach the levels necessary to cause even cosmetic damage but can have an impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. It is important that proposals for new or extended aggregates extraction should include an assessment of the impact of ground vibration in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive and the operator.”

“81. Air overpressure: Because air overpressure is transmitted through the

atmosphere, meteorological conditions such as wind speed and direction, cloud cover and humidity will all affect the intensity of the impact. In view of this unpredictability, planning conditions to control air overpressure are unlikely to be enforceable. This is not a reason for doing nothing and careful blast design should be able to resolve excessive levels of air overpressure. Such details are controlled by quarry regulations52 which impose requirements relating to health and safety at quarries.”

“83. Planning conditions relating to the control of blasting should only: relate to those

aspects of environmental management that are under the control of the operator; should be directly relevant to environmental issues; and, should not be in conflict with existing health and safety legislation. Consequently, planning conditions should provide for the:

• acceptable days for blasting operations: unless there are exceptional circumstances such as a safety emergency, blasting should take place at regular times within the working week, that is, Mondays to Fridays. Blasting on Saturday mornings should be a matter for negotiation between the operator and the MPA taking into account the views of any nearby residents. No blasting should take


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 6 07/02/2019

place at any other time, that is, Saturday afternoons, Sundays, Bank or National holidays;

• acceptable times of blasting operations: blasting should only take place between the hours of 10.00am and 16.00pm, except when there is an emergency in the interests of safety;

• maximum level of ground vibration at vibration sensitive locations: ground vibration as a result of blasting operations should not exceed a peak particle velocity of 6 mms-1 ppv in 95% of all blasts measured over any 6 month period, and no individual blast should exceed a peak particle velocity of 10 mms-1 ppv;

• approval of a scheme by which air overpressure is managed and mitigated through careful design of blasting operations;

• approval of a scheme of vibration monitoring so that compliance within set limits can be adequately demonstrated by the operator at any time.”

“84. Vibration from blasting may have an adverse impact on structures of historic importance that may be of fragile construction, such as listed buildings or ancient monuments. It may be necessary for developers to provide specialist advice to demonstrate adequate protection for such structures prior to development proposals involving blasting operations being approved.”

50The Environmental Effects of Production Blasting from Surface Mineral Workings, DETR, (Vibrock Ltd), 1998 51BS 7385: Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings Part 2: 1993 Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration. British Standards Institute

52The Quarries Regulations 1999 SI No.1999/2024


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 7 07/02/2019

2.2 British Standard 6472-2:2008

Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings Part 2: Blast-induced vibration Table 1 of BS 6472-2:2008 gives the following maximum satisfactory magnitudes of vibration with respect to human response for up to three blasts events per day;

Air overpressure is also discussed in this standard. Section 5.1 states; “Whenever blasting is carried out energy is transmitted from the blast site in the form of airborne pressure waves. These pressure waves comprise energy over a wide range of frequencies, some of which are at frequencies higher than 20 Hz and are, therefore, perceived as sound. The majority of the airborne energy is carried at frequencies below 20 Hz and hence is inaudible to the human ear, but can be sensed as concussion or pressure. It is the combination of the sound and concussion that is known as air overpressure.”


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 8 07/02/2019

“Air overpressure can excite secondary vibrations at audible frequencies in buildings and it is often this effect that gives rise to adverse comments from the occupiers. There is no known evidence of structural damage occurring in the United Kingdom as a result of air overpressure levels from blasting associated with mineral extraction. The highest levels normally measured in the United Kingdom are generally less than 1% of the levels known to cause structural damage [10]. The propagation velocity of air overpressure is at the speed of sound in air, i.e. about 340 m·s-1 and therefore it travels significantly slower than its associated ground-borne vibration. This results in the air overpressure always arriving after the ground vibration onset and by several seconds if large distances are involved. Nevertheless, it is not readily possible for an observer to differentiate between these two sources and their respective effects and so any air overpressure significantly adds to the overall subjective blast experience.” Section 5.2 discusses the difficulty of measuring air overpressure “If measurements include frequencies of less than 2 Hz they can be greatly distorted by even the slightest pressure changes, which can be caused by the gentlest of wind or people walking past the microphone”. Section 5.3 states how “Accurate prediction of air overpressure is almost impossible due to the variable effects of the prevailing weather conditions and the large distances often involved.” Section 6.1 goes on to say, “Vibration associated with blasting has the potential to pose different problems from other sources of vibration, particularly since the vibration event is often accompanied by air overpressure. Many of the complaints about vibration from blasting might be due, either in part or entirely, to this air overpressure exciting the elements of the building, rather than groundborne vibration. Subjective separation of ground vibration and the effects of air overpressure is difficult.

NOTE Experience shows that the fear of property damage has a more significant effect on human response than the effect of the vibration on the person directly, although discussion of this matter is beyond the scope of this British Standard.

In residential situations comments about vibration are often made when the magnitudes are only slightly in excess of the perception levels. In the case of blasting, adverse comments might be made even below perception thresholds due to the influence of the air overpressure.”


Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites Part 2: Vibration

Line 2 in Table B.2 and Figure B.1 from BS5228-2 2009 shows Threshold Transient Vibration Guidance Values for Cosmetic Damage of residential buildings.


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 9 07/02/2019

“Minor damage is possible at vibration magnitudes which are greater than twice those given in Table B.2, and major damage to a building structure can occur at values greater than four times the tabulated values. Definitions of the damage categories are presented in BS 7385-1:1990, 9.9.” It should be noted that the proposed limits (for cosmetic damage) are above the threshold of perception; i.e. vibration levels below this could be felt by occupiers and may still cause annoyance. The standard advises: “...the threshold of perception being typically in the PPV range of 0.14mm/s to 0.3mm/s…”

“..Vibration nuisance is frequently associated with the assumption that, if vibrations can be felt, then damage is inevitable: however, considerably greater levels of vibration are required to cause damage to buildings and structures. Important buildings that are difficult to repair might require special consideration on a case by case basis. A building of historical value should not (unless it is structurally unsound), be assumed to be more sensitive.”


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 10 07/02/2019


Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2: Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration Much of the damage related information quoted in BS 5228-2:2009 referenced in section 2.3 above is taken from BS 7385-2:1993. Table B.2 and Figure B.1 quoted in BS 5228-2:2009 are taken directly from Table 1 and Figure 1 of BS 7385-2:1993.

2.5 Planning Condition

Condition 9 of the planning consent for the quarry (12/0570/FULL dated 23/07/2012 granted by Caerphilly CBC) states; “09. Blasting shall be designed so that the ground vibration measured as peak

particle velocity (PPV) in any one of three orthogonal planes shall not exceed 4mm per second in 95% of all blasts carried out over any six month period and no individual blast shall exceed a PPV of 8mm per second as measured at any sensitive receptor.

REASON: To safeguard amenity interests.” The above planning condition limits are therefore tighter than those outlined in paragraph 83 of MTAN1 and those in table 1 of BS 6472-2:2008.


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 11 07/02/2019

3.0 Hunter Acoustics Blast Vibration Monitoring

3.1 Procedure

Vibration from two blasts was monitored at Position A - 13th December 2018 and 10th January 2019. Peak particle velocity (PPV) was logged in all three axis (radial, tangential & vertical) at 10ms (13/12/2018) and 20ms (10/01/2019) intervals over the blast period.

5100/SP1 – Site Plan Showing Blast Vibration Monitoring Location

Site plan 5100/SP1 shows the quarry site and monitoring position used; Position A Located on kerb in front of number 13/14 Gelliargwellt

Road, Penybryn

3.2 Equipment Used

The following equipment was used: 5100/T2 – Equipment List

3.3 Weather Conditions

Approximate weather data for each of the blasts monitored can be seen on graphs 5100/WH1 and 5100/WH2 given in Appendix B of this report. Conditions were dry during each of the blasts with an easterly wind during the blast on 13/12/2018 and a northerly wind during the blast on 10/01/2019.

Make Description Model Serial Number Last Calibrated Certificate No. Calibration Due

SvantekType 1 - Sound &

Vibration Data LoggerSVAN 948 6962 25-Aug-17 TCRT17/1537 25-Aug-19

DytranTri-axial

Accelerometer3233A 158 25-Aug-17 TCRT17/1537 25-Aug-19

Dytran Cable 6483A09 - 25-Aug-17 TCRT17/1537 25-Aug-19


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 12 07/02/2019

3.4 Results

Time history graphs 5100/TH1 and 5100/TH2 in Appendix B show peak particle velocity (PPV) traces measured during monitoring of the blasts on 13/12/2018 and 10/01/2019 respectively. Results are summarised in the table below; 5100/T3 – Results of Hunter Acoustics Blast Monitoring at Position A

Blast Date Maximum Tangential

PPV (mm/s)

Maximum Radial PPV

(mm/s)

Maximum Vertical

PPV (mm/s)

Peak True Resultant

Particle Velocity (mm/s)

Permitted PPV Limit

13/12/2018

1.8

2.6

0.9

2.9

1.2

4mm/s for 95% of blasts in 6 month

period & no individual blast

over 8mm/s

10/01/2019 1.0 0.6 0.6

Results fall below both the 4mm/s 95% limit and the 8mm/s individual blast limit. The following observations were made during our monitoring; 13/12/2018 No vibration felt under foot. No air overpressure felt. Audible explosion in

distance. 10/01/2019 No vibration felt under foot. Air overpressure felt with explosion louder than

previous monitoring. RMS velocity spectra are included in graph 5100/G1 and 5100/G2 in Appendix B for the highest PPV measured at each blast. The dominant third octave frequency band for the blast on 13/12/2018 was 31.5Hz and the blast on 10/01/2019 was 20Hz. Note: Data only available down to 20Hz for blast measured on 13/12/2018 due to meter limitations when logging at 10ms intervals.

4.0 EPC UK and Caerphilly CBC Blast Vibration Monitoring

Hunter Acoustics have reviewed available blast vibration measurement results from both the blast team (EPC UK) and Caerphilly CBC for monitoring undertaken in 2018. These are detailed in table 5100/T4 below. The highest blast ppv measured at the Bryn Farm House by the blast team (EPC UK) in 2018 was 1.22mm/s and the highest measured by Caerphilly CBC was 1.21mm/s. All of 2018 monitoring results fall well below both the 4mm/s limit for 95% of blasts in a 6 month period and the 8mm/s limit for any individual blast outlined in the planning condition.


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 13 07/02/2019

5100/T4 – Results of EPC UK and Caerphilly CBC Blast Monitoring

Date Location Measured By

ppv (mm/sec)

Radial Vertical Transverse

26/01/2018 Bryn Farm House EPC UK 0.667 0.508 0.699

N/A Caerphilly

CBC Did not measure on this occasion

23/02/2018

Bryn Farm House EPC UK 0.73 0.381 0.762

Brynheulog Street, Penybryn

Caerphilly CBC

1.17

06/04/2018

Bryn Farm House EPC UK Did not trigger

N/A Caerphilly



R/o Claerwen, Penybryn

Caerphilly CBC

0.82

06/05/2018 N/A EPC UK Did not measure on this occasion

R/o Claerwen, Penybryn

Caerphilly CBC

1.01

18/05/2018


N/A Caerphilly


13/07/2018



Caerphilly CBC

<1.0



Caerphilly CBC

1.21

08/08/2018 Bryn Farm House EPC UK Did not measure on this occasion

Gelliargwellt St, Penybryn

Caerphilly CBC

<1.0


R/o Aneurin Bevan Ave

Caerphilly CBC

<0.5

28/09/2018


Legions Way, Gelligaer

Caerphilly CBC

0.93

25/10/2018

Bryn Farm House EPC UK 1.22

Cefn Llynau Street, Penybryn

Caerphilly CBC

1.05

02/11/2018 Bryn Farm House EPC UK Did not trigger

Gelliargwellt St, Penybryn

Caerphilly CBC

<1.0


Unknown Caerphilly

CBC <0.5


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 14 07/02/2019

5.0 Discussion 5.1 Planning Limits

Groundborne vibration levels measured by the blast team (EPC UK) and Caerphilly CBC throughout all of 2018 and the two blasts monitored by Hunter Acoustics (13/12/2018 and 10/01/2019) are all shown to fall well below the limits outlined in the planning condition. It should be noted that limits in the planning condition are tighter than those outlined in paragraph 83 of MTAN1 and those in table 1 of BS 6472-2:2008.

5.2 Damage to Buildings

All PPV results of measured blasts fall well below the 4mm/s limit for 95% of blasts in a 6 month period and the 8mm/s limit for any individual blast. The dominant frequency measured during Hunter Acoustics monitoring was in the 20Hz and 31.5Hz third octave bands. With the lowest PPV magnitudes likely to cause cosmetic damage according to BS 5228-2 Table B.2 (mirrored in MTAN1) being 15mm/s at 4Hz rising to 20mm/s at 15Hz and then 50mm/s at 40Hz, blasts at Bryn Quarry are not likely to cause any minor or major damage to residential buildings based on monitoring undertaken to date. “Minor damage is possible at vibration magnitudes which are greater than twice those given in Table B.2, and major damage to a building structure can occur at values greater than four times the tabulated values.”

5.3 Air Overpressure

Section 6.1 of BS 6472-2:2008 states, “Vibration associated with blasting has the potential to pose different problems from other sources of vibration, particularly since the vibration event is often accompanied by air overpressure. Many of the complaints about vibration from blasting might be due, either in part or entirely, to this air overpressure exciting the elements of the building, rather than groundborne vibration. Subjective separation of ground vibration and the effects of air overpressure is difficult.

NOTE Experience shows that the fear of property damage has a more significant effect on human response than the effect of the vibration on the person directly, although discussion of this matter is beyond the scope of this British Standard.

In residential situations comments about vibration are often made when the magnitudes are only slightly in excess of the perception levels. In the case of blasting, adverse comments might be made even below perception thresholds due to the influence of the air overpressure.” Having witnessed the effects of air overpressure during vibration monitoring undertaken on 10/01/2019, it is highly likely that this is the cause of adverse comments by local residents given the very low levels of vibration measured. Practical measures to reduce vibration and air overpressure from blasting are included in BS 5228-2:2009 under section 8.6.9;


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 15 07/02/2019

“8.6.9.1 General Most complaints of vibration relate to blasting. Blasting should only be used where there is no viable alternative. Groundborne vibration can lead to concern being expressed by residents around opencast sites, usually over the likelihood of damage to property. Good public relations have been shown to reassure the public of the fact that normal production blasting has not been found to damage property, and that even the most cosmetic of plaster cracking is extremely unlikely. In addition, contacting owners of sensitive properties to advise of imminent blasting can further help promote harmony with the public. It is good practice to publicize times when blasting will occur and to avoid blasting at other times whenever possible. Air overpressure from blasting comprises transient airborne pressure waves which can be heard and felt. Air overpressure can be influenced by meteorological conditions over which operators have no control. Although air overpressure can be affected by the total quantity of explosives deployed in a blast, there is a balance to be struck between a smaller number of large blasts and a larger number of small blasts. Public relations have an important role to play in determining the optimum balance between size and frequency of blasting. 8.6.9.2 Vibration and air overpressure reduction Practical measures, including good blast design, that have been found to reduce air overpressure and/or vibration are: a) taking particular care with the development of faces and with trial blasts at a quarry

or opencast coal pit, as anomalous vibration levels might be produced when there is no free face to relieve the energy produced;

b) ensuring appropriate burden to avoid over or under confinement of the charge; c) accurate setting out and drilling; d) appropriate charging; e) appropriate stemming with appropriate material such as sized gravel or stone

chippings; f) using delay detonation to ensure smaller maximum instantaneous charges (MICs); g) using decked charges and in-hole delays; h) blast monitoring to enable adjustment of subsequent charges; i) designing each blast to maximize its efficiency and reduce the transmission of

vibration; j) avoiding the use of exposed detonating cord on the surface in order to minimize

air overpressure – if detonating cord is to be used in those cases where down-the-hole initiation techniques are not possible, it should be covered with a reasonable thickness of selected overburden.

NOTE 1 Care needs to be taken to avoid damage to cave systems and underground passageways.”


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 16 07/02/2019

The blast team (EPC-UK) have advised that they continue to follow the best industry practice and always conform to the mines and quarries regulations 1999. We understand they continually strive to drive improvements in the industry using new technologies in order to keep ground vibration to a minimum.

Prepared by:

Meirion Townsend BSc(Hons) MIOA

Hunter Acoustics Checked by:

Paul McGrath BSc(Hons) MIOA

Hunter Acoustics


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 17 07/02/2019

Appendix A - Acoustic Terminology

Human response to noise depends on a number of factors including; loudness, frequency content, and variations in level with time. Various frequency weightings and statistical indices have been developed in order to objectively quantify 'annoyance'. The following terms have been used in this report:

Air overpressure: A pressure wave in the atmosphere produced by a detonation of explosives. Air overpressure consists of both audible (noise) and inaudible (concussion) energy. It is measured in pascals and usually reported in dB(lin).

ppv: The peak particle velocity (ppv) measured in mm/s.

Peak true resultant particle velocity: The true resultant particle velocity is obtained by vectorily

summing the three orthogonal components coincident with time. The peak true resultant particle velocity is the maximum value of the true vector sum obtained during a given time interval.


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 18 07/02/2019

Appendix B – Diagrams, Graphs and Tables 5100/WH1 – Approximate Weather History for Hunter Acoustics Monitoring Period (1329-1334hrs 13/12/2018)

* Taken from www.wunderground.com - weather station IGELLIGA4 located at Tredomen, Ystrad Mynach [N 51 ° 38 ' 29 '', W 3 ° 14 ' 35 '']

http://www.wunderground.com/


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 19 07/02/2019

5100/WH2 – Approximate Weather History for Hunter Acoustics Monitoring Period (1358-1406hrs 10/01/2019)

* Taken from www.wunderground.com - weather station IGELLIGA4 located at Tredomen, Ystrad Mynach [N 51 ° 38 ' 29 '', W 3 ° 14 ' 35 '']

http://www.wunderground.com/


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 20 07/02/2019

5100/TH1 – Peak Particle Velocity Measured Outside 13/14 Gelliargwellt Road (Position A) during Quarry Blast on 13/12/2018

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

13

/12

/20

18

13

:29

:30

.01

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:2

9:3

4.9

80

13

/12

/20

18

13

:29

:39

.95

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:2

9:4

4.9

20

13

/12

/20

18

13

:29

:49

.89

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:2

9:5

4.8

60

13

/12

/20

18

13

:29

:59

.83

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

0:0

4.8

00

13

/12

/20

18

13

:30

:09

.77

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

0:1

4.7

40

13

/12

/20

18

13

:30

:19

.71

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

0:2

4.6

80

13

/12

/20

18

13

:30

:29

.65

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

0:3

4.6

20

13

/12

/20

18

13

:30

:39

.59

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

0:4

4.5

60

13

/12

/20

18

13

:30

:49

.53

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

0:5

4.5

00

13

/12

/20

18

13

:30

:59

.47

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

1:0

4.4

40

13

/12

/20

18

13

:31

:09

.41

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

1:1

4.3

80

13

/12

/20

18

13

:31

:19

.35

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

1:2

4.3

20

13

/12

/20

18

13

:31

:29

.29

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

1:3

4.2

60

13

/12

/20

18

13

:31

:39

.23

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

1:4

4.2

00

13

/12

/20

18

13

:31

:49

.17

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

1:5

4.1

40

13

/12

/20

18

13

:31

:59

.11

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

2:0

4.0

80

13

/12

/20

18

13

:32

:09

.05

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

2:1

4.0

20

13

/12

/20

18

13

:32

:18

.99

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

2:2

3.9

60

13

/12

/20

18

13

:32

:28

.93

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

2:3

3.9

00

13

/12

/20

18

13

:32

:38

.87

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

2:4

3.8

40

13

/12

/20

18

13

:32

:48

.81

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

2:5

3.7

80

13

/12

/20

18

13

:32

:58

.75

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

3:0

3.7

20

13

/12

/20

18

13

:33

:08

.69

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

3:1

3.6

60

13

/12

/20

18

13

:33

:18

.63

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

3:2

3.6

00

13

/12

/20

18

13

:33

:28

.57

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

3:3

3.5

40

13

/12

/20

18

13

:33

:38

.51

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

3:4

3.4

80

13

/12

/20

18

13

:33

:48

.45

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

3:5

3.4

20

13

/12

/20

18

13

:33

:58

.39

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

4:0

3.3

60

13

/12

/20

18

13

:34

:08

.33

01

3/1

2/2

01

8 1

3:3

4:1

3.3

00

13

/12

/20

18

13

:34

:18

.27

0

Pea

k P

arti

cle

Vel

oci

ty (

mm

/s)

Date | Time (hh:mm:ss:ms)

Tangential Radial Vertical


DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 21 07/02/2019

5100/TH2 – Peak Particle Velocity Measured Outside 13/14 Gelliargwellt Road (Position A) during Quarry Blast on 10/01/2019

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

10

/01

/20

19

14

:04

:50

.00

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

4:5

1.8

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:04

:53

.60

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

4:5

5.4

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:04

:57

.20

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

4:5

9.0

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:00

.80

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:0

2.6

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:04

.40

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:0

6.2

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:08

.00

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:0

9.8

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:11

.60

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:1

3.4

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:15

.20

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:1

7.0

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:18

.80

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:2

0.6

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:22

.40

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:2

4.2

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:26

.00

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:2

7.8

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:29

.60

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:3

1.4

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:33

.20

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:3

5.0

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:36

.80

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:3

8.6

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:40

.40

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:4

2.2

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:44

.00

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:4

5.8

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:47

.60

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:4

9.4

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:51

.20

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:5

3.0

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:54

.80

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

5:5

6.6

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:05

:58

.40

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

6:0

0.2

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:06

:02

.00

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

6:0

3.8

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:06

:05

.60

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

6:0

7.4

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:06

:09

.20

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

6:1

1.0

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:06

:12

.80

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

6:1

4.6

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:06

:16

.40

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

6:1

8.2

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:06

:20

.00

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

6:2

1.8

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:06

:23

.60

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

6:2

5.4

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:06

:27

.20

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

6:2

9.0

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:06

:30

.80

01

0/0

1/2

01

9 1

4:0

6:3

2.6

00

10

/01

/20

19

14

:06

:34

.40

0

Pea

k P

arti

cle

Vel

oci

ty (

mm

/s)

Date | Time (hh:mm:ss:ms)



DH: 5100_VIB1_Rev1 Page 22 07/02/2019

5100/G1 – RMS Velocity Spectra Measured for Highest PPV during Quarry Blast on 13/12/2018 (13:31:45.790 – Radial PPV of 2.6mm/s)

5100/G2 – RMS Velocity Spectra Measured for Highest PPV during Quarry Blast on 10/01/2019 (14:05:39.840 – Tangential PPV of 1.0mm/s)

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

20.0 Hz 25.0 Hz 31.5 Hz 40.0 Hz 50.0 Hz 63.0 Hz 80.0 Hz 100 Hz 125 Hz

RM

S V

elo

city

(m

m/s

)

Frequency


0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

4.00 Hz 5.00 Hz 6.30 Hz 8.00 Hz 10.0 Hz 12.5 Hz 16.0 Hz 20.0 Hz 25.0 Hz 31.5 Hz 40.0 Hz 50.0 Hz 63.0 Hz 80.0 Hz 100 Hz 125 Hz

RM

S V

elo

city

(m

m/s

)

Frequency


Appendix II

Copy of EPC UK Presentation on Latest Blasting Techniques



Blandford

EPC-UK

Latest Blasting Techniques

EPC-UK Electronic Initiation 2

Benefits of Electronic

Initiation

�Electronic initiation is now widely used to fire quarry blasts and is superior to Shock-Tube detonators in many ways:

�Safety• Fully testable initiation circuit

• Multiple levels of automatic checking prior to firing

• Remote firing capability

�Blast Optimisation• Programming flexibility allowing for optimised timing and firing of complex deck

arrangements

• Detonator accuracy (Electonics accurate to the millisecond. Shock tube +/-

8ms)

• Improvements in vibration and fragmentation

• Improved face conditions

• Looser rock piles


Electronic Detonator

Construction


Electronic v Shock-Tube

Detonators

�A reminder about the differences between the detonator types

009009009009010010010010008008008008007007007007006006006006005005005005004004004004003003003003002002002002001001001001

Shock Tube

Electronic 011010001010011010011010


Digishot Overview

�Introduced to UK 2013/14

�Superseded the HotShot system

�Manufacturer; Detnet (Dyno/AEL JV)

�Leading global supplier of electronic detonators

�Used on 5 continents

�Modern 2 wire detonator system

�Fully programmable with millisecond accuracy

�Remote firing

�Full Integration with blast design software


Vibration Monitoring

• Fixed and movable monitoring stations

• Real time results with fixed monitors

• Results analysis to change electronic delay timings

• Reduces vibration and optimises fragmentation

• Ensure PPV limits are not exceeded


Expertir

• In-house Blast design software

• Used to ensure maximum blast optimization

• Data can be uploaded to drill rigs and multiblend trucks for accurate results

• Will give Electronic delay timings to minimize vibration and maximise fragmentation

• Colour coded to show light and heavy burdens


Multiblend Trucks

• 3 axle, 4 axle and 4x4 trucks available

• PLC controlled with ability to upload delivery parameters from Expertir

• Variable density – strength of product changed to suit conditions

• Load sensing – reduces air emmisions


Smart Rigs

• Data uploaded from Expertirwith accurate GPS information

• Angles and Azimuth programmed in and drill rig operates itself

• Auto corrects to ensure hole depth and angles as per design

• Data can be viewed remotely to ensure all parameters are being met constantly


Surveying

• Up to date Laser equipment on tripods and drones being used for surveys

• GPS staff used for accurate location of holes

• All data uploaded to Expertirfor accurate blast design

• Drone ensures high level of detail captured in survey.

Appendix III

Copy of Coal Authority Report

51001968162001.



Blandford

GELLIGAER AND PENYBRYNGELLIGAER AND PENYBRYNGELLIGAER AND PENYBRYNCAERPHILLY COUNTY BOROUGHCF82 8EH

14 November 2018Date enquiry received: 14 November 2018Issue date: 14 November 2018

Date of enquiry:

Our reference: 51001968162001Your reference: BC/MB/11.18.02

CON29MNon-ResidentialMining Report

CON29M Non-Residential Mining Report

Client name


Enquiry address

GELLIGAER AND PENYBRYN, GELLIGAER ANDPENYBRYN, GELLIGAER AND PENYBRYN,CAERPHILLY COUNTY BOROUGH, CF82 8EH

Approximate position of property

This report is based on, and limited to, the records held by the CoalAuthority, at the time we answer the search.

How to contact us

/company/the-coal-authority

/coalauthority

0345 762 6848 (UK)+44 (0)1623 637 000 (International)

200 Lichfield LaneMansfieldNottinghamshireNG18 4RG

www.groundstability.com

/thecoalauthority

Ordnance Survey Licence number: 100020315

Reproduced by permission ofOrdnance Survey on behalf ofHMSO. © Crown copyright anddatabase right 2018. All rightsreserved.

© The Coal AuthorityCON29M Non-Residential Mining Report, reference 51001968162001

Page 2 of 72

Summary

Has the search report highlighted evidence or potential of

1 Past underground coal mining Yes

2 Present underground coal mining No

3 Future underground coal mining Yes

4 Mine entries Yes

5 Coal mining geology No

6 Past opencast coal mining No

7 Present opencast coal mining No

8 Future opencast coal mining No

9 Coal mining subsidence Yes

10 Mine gas No

11 Hazards related to coal mining No

12 Withdrawal of support Yes

13 Working facilities order No

14 Payments to owners of former copyhold land No

Further recommended reports

Coal mining subsidence claims history

For detailed findings, please go to page 4.


Page 3 of 72

Detailed findings

1. Past underground coal miningThe property is in a surface area that could be affected by underground mining in 8 seams of coalat shallow to 840m depth, and last worked in 1991.

2. Present underground coal miningThe property is not within a surface area that could be affected by present underground mining.

3. Future underground coal miningThe property is not in an area where the Coal Authority has received an application for, and iscurrently considering whether to grant a licence to remove or work coal by underground methods.

The property is not in an area where a licence has been granted to remove or otherwise work coalusing underground methods.

The property is not in an area likely to be affected from any planned future underground coalmining.

However, reserves of coal exist in the local area which could be worked at some time in the future.

No notices have been given, under section 46 of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, stating thatthe land is at risk of subsidence.

4. Mine entriesThere are no known coal mine entries within, or within 20 metres of, the boundary of the property.

There may however be mine entries/additional mine entries in the local area which the CoalAuthority has no knowledge of.

5. Coal mining geologyThe Coal Authority is not aware of any damage due to geological faults or other lines of weaknessthat have been affected by coal mining.


Page 4 of 72

6. Past opencast coal miningThe property is not within the boundary of an opencast site from which coal has been removed byopencast methods.

7. Present opencast coal miningThe property does not lie within 200 metres of the boundary of an opencast site from which coal isbeing removed by opencast methods.

8. Future opencast coal miningThere are no licence requests outstanding to remove coal by opencast methods within 800 metresof the boundary.

The property is not within 800 metres of the boundary of an opencast site for which a licence toremove coal by opencast methods has been granted.


Page 5 of 72

9. Coal mining subsidenceA damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 2000 for 17HEOL CATTWG, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EZ. However, the claim wasrejected.

There is no current Stop Notice delaying the start of remedial works or repairs to the property.

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1998 for 8LEGIONS WAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,517.11.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 35HEOL EDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. However, the claimwas rejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 32HEOL EDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settledby repairs to the value of £425.60.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 105CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 18HEOL PENALLTA, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FA. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 12HEOL PENALLTA, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FA. However, the claim wasrejected.


Page 6 of 72






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 21CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,174.97.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 61GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 32GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £454.02.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 33GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £322.77.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 7 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £253.44.




Page 7 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 14HEOL EDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settledby repairs to the value of £1,045.14.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 59GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £244.16.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 5 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £478.50.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 9 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. However, the claim wasrejected.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 11HEOL EDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. However, the claim


Page 8 of 72

was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 19CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £1,371.02.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 48GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. However, the claim wasrejected.








A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 15CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £760.99.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 44GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. However, the claim waswithdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 35GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. However, the claim wasrejected.



Page 9 of 72



A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 99CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £901.85.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 10HEOL EDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settledby repairs to the value of £1,094.79.








A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 4 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £612.01.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 6 HEOLPENALLTA, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FA. However, the claim was rejected.





Page 10 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1997 for 11CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £554.23.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1995 for 16LEGIONS WAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £2,962.55.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1995 for 21HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1995 for THELINDENS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EF. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1995 for 17HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in September 1995 for DAN-Y-PENTRE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EF. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 2003 for 8 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 31GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 91ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. However, the claim wasrejected.



Page 11 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 81ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. However, the claimwas rejected.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 19 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £238.75.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 45GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £366.57.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 2PENYWROLD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £112.11.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 84ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 94ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. The claim wassettled by repairs to the value of £1,313.99.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 107ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £534.07.


Page 12 of 72






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 106CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. However, the claim was withdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 7PENYWRLOD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 13 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £774.23.








A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 16 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £1,074.17.


Page 13 of 72






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 5PENYWRLOD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £914.62.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 97ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £907.86.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1997 for 92ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. The claim wassettled by repairs to the value of £243.59.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 31 HEOLCATTWG, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EZ. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 2 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £599.66.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 103CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EY. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £153.05.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for STORAGEBARNS DAN Y PENTRE FARM, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN. However, the claim wasrejected.


Page 14 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 12LEGIONS WAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8DX. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £1,679.66.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for HOREBBAPTIST CHAPEL 10 LEGIONS WAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. However,the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 107CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £955.21.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 3 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8DT. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £629.79.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 97CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 93CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. The claim was settled by acompensation payment totalling £368.15.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 85ANEURIN BEVAN AVEUNE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EF. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 55CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. However, the claim wasrejected.


Page 15 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 29CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 8CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 6 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EH. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1996 for 3HADRIANS CLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8DU. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1995 for 8 DAN-Y-GAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1995 for CASTLECOTTAGES 5 CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DZ. However, the claimwas withdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1995 for 1BRYNHEULOG STREET, PENYBRYN, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 7GB. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1995 for SOUTHVIEW HOUSES 2, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EE. However, the claim waswithdrawn.


Page 16 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1995 for HOREBCHAPEL COTTAGES (2) CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EB. However,the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1995 for 9 HEOLCATTWG, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EZ. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1995 for HOREBCHAPEL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EB. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1995 for HARP INNST. CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FE. The claim was settledby repairs to the value of £3,636.56.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in October 1994 for 7 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £2,203.68.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1999 for CHAPELCOTTAGES 3 CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EB. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1998 for 109CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 1HAMAN PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EG. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £917.95.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 53GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. However, the claim wasrejected.


Page 17 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 8 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £812.31.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 6 DAN-Y-GAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 17 GAERPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EQ. However, the claim was rejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 9PENYWRLOD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 41CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. However, the claim was rejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 84CLAERWEN GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. However, the claim was rejected.



Page 18 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 46GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £172.84.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 32 GAERPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EQ. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £488.76.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 11PENYWRLOD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 66CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EX. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 55 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. The claim was settled byrepair.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 14HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 63CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EX. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 16CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 105ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF81 8ET. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £272.19.



Page 19 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 11HAMAN PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EG. However, the claim waswithdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 8HAMAN PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EG. However, the claim wasrejected.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 5HAMAN PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EG. However, the claim waswithdrawn.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 95ANEURIN BEVAN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF8 8ET. However, the claim was rejected.





Page 20 of 72





A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 30CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 53CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 78 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FE. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 52CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EX. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £790.62.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 1 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £642.81.



Page 21 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 37CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EX. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 98CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £748.40.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 93CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. However, the claim was rejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 9 DAN-Y-GAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £644.38.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 90ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. The claim wassettled by repairs to the value of £749.93.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 7 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £1,165.80.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 22 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £468.25.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 67GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £783.78.



Page 22 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 108CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. However, the claim was rejected.








A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 9 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 10 HEOLPENALLTA, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FA. However, the claim was rejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 1 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £1,102.39.





Page 23 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 87ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 79ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. The claim wassettled by repairs to the value of £595.60.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 2 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim was rejected.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 21 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £801.86.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 15 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1997 for 8 GAERPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EQ. However, the claim was rejected.



Page 24 of 72



A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1996 for 109CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, SOUTH WALES, CF8 8EY. However, the claimwas withdrawn.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1996 for 83ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, SOUTH WALES, CF8 8ET.However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1995 for 15JULIANS CLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,468.43.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1995 for 19JULIANS CLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £2,206.18.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1995 for 18JULIANS CLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £713.73.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1994 for 6LEGIONS WAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £2,682.58.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in November 1994 for PENTREHOUSE CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settledby repairs to the value of £1,105.30.



Page 25 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1998 for 25 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1998 for 13PENYWERLOD ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £135.73.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1997 for 1 GREENHILLPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £961.89.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1997 for 36BRYNHEULOG STREET, PENYBRYN, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 7GD. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1997 for 42 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1996 for 3 CLAERWEN,GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1996 for 2 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1996 for 58 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1996 for YPRES HOUSECHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,032.84.



Page 26 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 6 HADRIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £479.39.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 15 HADRIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £5,129.88.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for CHURCHHOUSES 3 CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DY. The claim was settledby repairs to the value of £821.59.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 46 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for SOUTH VIEWHOUSES 2, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EE. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 10 ROMANRIDGE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DW. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £2,231.57.



Page 27 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 1 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 9 HADRIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 21GELLIARGWELLT ROAD, PENYBRYN, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 7FY. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 6 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £1,088.09.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 11 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £2,231.29.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 15 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £1,842.11.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 13PENYWRLOD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. However, the claim wasrejected.







Page 28 of 72



A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in May 1995 for 12 HADRIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 2007 for 17 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 88CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 52 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. However, the claim waswithdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 30 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. However, the claim wasrejected.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 46 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £588.26.



Page 29 of 72



A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 107ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 31GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 10 DAN-Y-GAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EP. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 60 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EJ. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 15 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FD. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 24 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. However, the claim was rejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 3 DAN YGAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 7 DAN YGAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. However, the claim was rejected.


Page 30 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for BARNS &GARAGE DAN Y PENTRE FARM, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EF. However, theclaim was rejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 39 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 29GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,187.76.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 72CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EX. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £869.05.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 44 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EJ. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 10 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ER. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 1 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FD. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,160.05.


Page 31 of 72




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for DAN-Y-PENTRE FARMHOUSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EF. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 42 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EF. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 25 HAMANPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EG. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £249.86.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 93 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 48 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 41 HEOLCATTWGS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EZ. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 71 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £723.28.


Page 32 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 11 DAN-Y-GAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 3PENYWRLOD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. However, the claim wasrejected.








A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 76CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £172.23.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 39GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £383.35.




Page 33 of 72






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 73 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,210.87.








A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 53 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 82CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. However, the claim was rejected.




Page 34 of 72






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 58CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EX. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 21 CHURCHROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for GREENHILLPRIMARY SCHOOL, PENYWRLOD, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 2 HAMANPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EG. However, the claim was rejected.







Page 35 of 72





A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 67 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. However, the claim waswithdrawn.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1998 for 65GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. However, the claim waswithdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1997 for 20 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8DT. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £101.84.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1996 for 48 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1996 for 17 HEOLCATTWG, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EZ. However, the claim was rejected.



Page 36 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1996 for 3 HADRIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1996 for 8 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £337.48.








A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1996 for 4 CASTLECOTTAGES CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DZ. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1996 for 3 GAERPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EQ. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1995 for 22 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £294.47.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1995 for 14 CYLLASTREET, PENYBRYN, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 7GE. However, the claim was rejected.



Page 37 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1995 for 12 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £2,394.54.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in March 1995 for 15 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £3,638.33.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 2018 for 6 LEGION'SWAY, GELLIGAER, CAERPHILLY COUNTY BOROUGH CF82 8DX. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1997 for 14 ROMANRIDGE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF8 8DW. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £866.33.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1997 for 13 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £2,397.08.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1997 for 18BRYNHEULOG STREET, PENYBRYN, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 7GD. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1997 for 10 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF8 8DX. The claim was settled by repairs to the valueof £2,456.14.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1997 for 96 CLAERWEN,GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EY. The claim was settled by repairs to the value of£1,094.81.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1996 for 55 TROSNANTCRESCENT, PENYBRYN, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 7FW. However, the claim was rejected.



Page 38 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 3PENYWRLOD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 13 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £1,091.26.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 42 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 9 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled by acompensation payment totalling £209.46.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 17 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled by acompensation payment totalling £582.98.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 11 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £108.67.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 42 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 8PENYWRLOD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £2,906.05.


Page 39 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 39 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for HOREBCHAPEL CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for HOREBCHAPEL COTTAGES CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 2 HADRIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £1,734.14.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for ASHGROVEHOUSE CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settledby repairs to the value of £1,870.75.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 27 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ER. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for 7 DAN-Y-GAERROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £433.68.


Page 40 of 72




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for ST CATTWGSCHURCH CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8FW. The claim was settledby repairs to the value of £1,730.66.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for ST CATTWGSCHURCH HALL CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £3,795.96.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in June 1995 for CHAPELCOTTAGES 3 CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EB. The claim wassettled by repairs to the value of £2,750.14.








A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1998 for 42 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1997 for 100 CLAERWEN,GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. The claim was settled by repairs to the valueof £445.75.


Page 41 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1997 for 6 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF8 8DT. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1996 for YEW TREECOTTAGES 3 CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ED. However, the claimwas withdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 2 YEW TREECOTTAGES, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ED. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £2,205.58.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 2 DAN-Y-GAERROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. The claim was settled by repair.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 89 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £592.29.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 109 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 5 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. The claim was settled by acompensation payment totalling £523.65.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for THE VICARAGECHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £7,565.93.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 4 HADRIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £2,498.81.


Page 42 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 38 GREENHILLPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. However, the claim was withdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 4 HEOLPENALLTA, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FA. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £320.10.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 36 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £3,964.84.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 38 CLAERWEN,GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for THE KYMINRECTORY ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FX. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £8,228.61.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in July 1995 for 34 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £3,719.17.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in January 1998 for 30GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in January 1998 for 28 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF40 2NP. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £86.37.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in January 1998 for 56 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FE. However, the claim wasrejected.


Page 43 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 2000 for 7HADRIANS CLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 10 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FE. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 56 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EJ. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 8 WAUNRHYDD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8HY. However, the claim was rejected.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 5GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £653.12.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 18GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £338.20.


Page 44 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 23GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 7 GAERPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EQ. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 4 DAN-Y-GAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. However, the claim was rejected.










A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 13CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £1,167.94.




Page 45 of 72






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 15ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ER. However, the claim wasrejected.














Page 46 of 72






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 59 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. However, the claim waswithdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 10 HEOL-Y-WAUN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FB. However, the claim was rejected.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 1 DAN-Y-GAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. However, the claim was rejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 28 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FE. However, the claim waswithdrawn.


Page 47 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 78ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 14 DAN-Y-GAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £145.83.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 24CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 1CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8TW. However, the claim was rejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 49CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £664.08.





Page 48 of 72



A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 35 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FD. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 45 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. However, the claim waswithdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 67 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £625.84.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 42CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EX. However, the claim was rejected.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 41GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. The claim was settled byrepair.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 111ANUERIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. However, the claim wasrejected.




Page 49 of 72




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 60ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 113ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8TT. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £943.99.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 105CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £1,006.45.








A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 2GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £583.16.


Page 50 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 10HAMAN PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EG. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 13HAMAN PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EG. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,364.78.












A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 7GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. However, the claim was


Page 51 of 72

rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 8GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. However, the claim wasrejected.














A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 39CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. However, the claim was rejected.




Page 52 of 72








A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 30 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 46 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £871.71.










Page 53 of 72




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 23HAMAN PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EG. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £980.55.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 5 DAN-Y-GAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £858.64.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 14GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,111.42.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 73 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £617.87.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 13GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,382.95.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 82ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ET. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 47CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £1,893.45.


Page 54 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 35CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £40.69.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 5 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FD. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,030.17.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 7 STCATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FD. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,192.02.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 9 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FD. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £430.74.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 11 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FD. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,455.01.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 22 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FE. However, the claim waswithdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 27 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FD. However, the claim was


Page 55 of 72

rejected.














A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1998 for 38 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FE. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £152.80.





Page 56 of 72















A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1997 for 101CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EY. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £1,021.78.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1997 for 28GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. The claim was settled by acompensation payment totalling £1,429.41.



Page 57 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1996 for 2TROSNANT CRESCENT, PENYBRYN, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 7FU. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1996 for 26LEGIONS WAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,718.92.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in February 1995 for 110CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £479.12.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 3 WAUNRHYDD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8HY. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 11WAUNRHYDD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8HY. However, the claim was rejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 20GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 22GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,218.57.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 18 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FE. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £30.00.



Page 58 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 14 ST.CATTWGS AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FE. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 4GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 10GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £854.08.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 10 GAERPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EQ. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £1,115.14.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 53 HEOLCATTWG, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EZ. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 57CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £557.98.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 65 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £204.73.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for WAUNRHYDD MAIN CENTRE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8HY. However, the claimwas rejected.


Page 59 of 72




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 54 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £447.64.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 63 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 52 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 12WAUNRHYDD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8HY. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 16WAUN RHYDD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8HY. However, the claim wasrejected.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 61ANEURIN BEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. However, the claimwas rejected.



Page 60 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 16GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £292.65.














A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 12GREENHILL PLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EN. However, the claim wasrejected.




Page 61 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 15 DAN-Y-GAER ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EP. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,195.78.






A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 22 GAERPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EQ. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £412.12.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 69 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 45CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. However, the claim waswithdrawn.




A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 51CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 40 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. However, the claim was rejected.


Page 62 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 50 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EJ. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £366.37.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 13 HEOLCATTWG, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EZ. However, the claim was rejected.










A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 19 GAERPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EQ. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £95.65.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 25CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled by repairsto the value of £704.27.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1997 for 92CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EY. However, the claim was rejected.


Page 63 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1996 for 12 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, SOUTH WALES, CF8 8EH. The claim wassettled by repairs to the value of £1,098.89.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1995 for 13JULIANS CLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £990.50.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1995 for 2LEGIONS WAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,828.77.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1994 for 4LEGIONS WAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £2,168.19.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1994 for 18HADRIANS CLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £2,457.08.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1994 for 14JULIANS CLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £3,755.58.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1994 for 16JULIANS CLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £2,349.99.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in December 1994 for 19HADRIANS CLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £185.17.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 2005 for TY GATTWGCHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. However, the claim was


Page 64 of 72

rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1996 for 11CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1996 for GREENHILLFARM CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £2,441.79.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1996 for 60 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £72.81.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1996 for CASTLECOTTAGES 5 CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DZ. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1996 for 2 HADRIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DU. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1996 for SOUTHVIEW HOUSES 2, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EE. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1996 for 2 CHAPELCOTTAGES CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EB. The claim was settledby repairs to the value of £1,060.46.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1996 for GELLIGAERHOUSE CHURCH ROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settledby repairs to the value of £2,129.46.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1995 for 6PENYWRLOD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EU. We understand that the claimwas settled to the satisfaction of the claimant.


Page 65 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1995 for 1 GAERPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EQ. The claim was settled by acompensation payment totalling £269.05.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1995 for 23GELLIARGWELLT ROAD, PENYBRYN, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 7FY. However, the claimwas rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1995 for 5 JULIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DT. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £1,173.69.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in August 1995 for 25 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £2,078.27.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 2004 for 13 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1998 for 3 HEOLEDWARD LEWIS, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EH. The claim was settled byrepairs to the value of £1,279.35.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1998 for 64 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8ES. However, the claim wasrejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1998 for 83 ANEURINBEVAN AVENUE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8ET. However, the claim waswithdrawn.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1998 for MAESGLASSCHOOL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EF. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £134.90.


Page 66 of 72


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1998 for 3 GREENHILLPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EL. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1998 for 24 GAERPLACE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EQ. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1997 for 111CLAERWEN, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8EY. The claim was settled by repairs tothe value of £978.59.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1997 for 7 HADRIANSCLOSE, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF8 8DU. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £400.88.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1996 for 37 CHURCHROAD, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8FW. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £908.52.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1996 for 5 CLAERWEN,GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EW. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1995 for 21 TROSNANTCRESCENT, PENYBRYN, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 7FU. However, the claim was rejected.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1995 for 14 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £2,064.74.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1995 for 7 LEGIONSWAY, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DX. The claim was settled by repairs to thevalue of £1,618.59.



Page 67 of 72

A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1995 for CHAPELCOTTAGES 1 CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8EB. The claim wassettled by a compensation payment totalling £1,927.63.


A damage notice or claim for alleged subsidence damage was made in April 1995 for CASTLECOTTAGES 5 CASTLE HILL, GELLIGAER, HENGOED, MID GLAMORGAN, CF82 8DZ. However, the claimwas rejected.


The Coal Authority is not aware of any request having been made to carry out preventive worksbefore coal is worked under section 33 of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.If further subsidence damage claims information is required, please visit www.groundstability.com.

10. Mine gasThe Coal Authority has no record of a mine gas emission requiring action.

11. Hazards related to coal miningThe property has not been subject to remedial works, by or on behalf of the Coal Authority, underits Emergency Surface Hazard Call Out procedures.

The property is in an area where a notice to withdraw support was given in 1976.

The property is not in an area where a notice has been given under section 41 of the Coal IndustryAct 1994, cancelling the entitlement to withdraw support.

12. Withdrawal of support

13. Working facilities orderThe property is not in an area where an order has been made, under the provisions of the Mines(Working Facilities and Support) Acts 1923 and 1966 or any statutory modification or amendmentthereof.

The property is not in an area where a relevant notice has been published under the Coal IndustryAct 1975/Coal Industry Act 1994.

14. Payments to owners of former copyhold land


Page 68 of 72

Comments on the Coal Authorityinformation

The Coal Authority own the copyright in this report and the informationused is protected by our database right.

In view of the mining circumstances a prudent developer would seek appropriate technical advicebefore any works are undertaken.

Therefore if development proposals are being considered, technical advice relating to both theinvestigation of coal and former coal mines and their treatment should be obtained beforebeginning work on site. All proposals should apply good engineering practice developed for miningareas. No development should be undertaken that intersects, disturbs or interferes with any coal ormines of coal without the permission of the Coal Authority. Developers should be aware that theinvestigation of coal seams/former mines of coal may have the potential to generate and/ordisplace underground gases and these risks both under and adjacent to the development shouldbe fully considered in developing any proposals. The need for effective measures to prevent gasesentering into public properties either during investigation or after development also needs to beassessed and properly addressed. This is necessary due to the public safety implications of anydevelopment in these circumstances.

A site investigation was carried out in November 2009 by Quantum GB Ltd,, Ty Berwig, Heol yBwlch, Bynea, Llalelli, Carmarthenshire, SA14 9ST uponthe instruction of Waterman Group Ltd, 38Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF11 9DL, acting on behalf of Caerphilly County Borough Council.

Additional remarksInformation provided by the Coal Authority in this report is compiled in response to the LawSociety’s CON29M Coal Mining enquiries. The said enquiries are protected by copyright owned bythe Law Society of 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL. This report is prepared in accordancewith the Law Society’s Guidance Notes 2006, the User Guide 2006 and the Coal Authority’s Termsand Conditions applicable at the time the report was produced.


Page 69 of 72

DisclaimerThe Coal Authority owns the copyright in this report and the information used to produce thisreport is protected by our database rights. All rights are reserved and unauthorised use isprohibited. If we provide a report for you, this does not mean that copyright and any other rightswill pass to you. However, you can use the report for your own purposes.

Alternative formatsIf you would like this report in an alternative format, please contact our communications team.


Page 70 of 72

Enquiry boundary

The map image is too large for this page and will be sent in a separate document

How to contact us

/company/the-coal-authority

/coalauthority

0345 762 6848 (UK)+44 (0)1623 637 000 (International)

200 Lichfield LaneMansfieldNottinghamshireNG18 4RG

www.groundstability.com

/thecoalauthority


Page 71 of 72

VAT receipt

Issued by The Coal Authority200 Lichfield LaneMansfieldNottinghamshireNG18 4RG

Tax point date 14 November 2018

Reference number 51001968162001

Date of issue 14 November 2018

Cost £349.02

VAT @ 20% £69.80

Total received £418.82

VAT registration 598 5850 68

Issued to BLANDFORD CONSULTINGMERTHYR TYDFIL INDUSTRIAL PARKPENTREBACHMERTHYR TYDFILMID GLAMORGANCF48 4DR

Property search for GELLIGAER AND PENYBRYNGELLIGAER AND PENYBRYNGELLIGAER AND PENYBRYNCAERPHILLY COUNTY BOROUGHCF82 8EH


Page 72 of 72

Report on Blasting and Mining Heritage, Extension to Bryn ...

Documents

Transcript of Report on Blasting and Mining Heritage, Extension to Bryn ...