Meeting documents

 

1.0. THE ISSUE

The CDSM project is one of the largest mine infill projects in England. It is proposed that the Treasury will fund this project through the medium of English Partnerships (EP) as their agents in managing the Land Stabilisation Programme.

This report informs members as to the Combe Down Stone Mines main scheme stabilisation funding process and progress and the implications for the Council of accepting an offer of funding from English Partnerships. It identifies the opportunities that this project represents for the Council and identifies and quantifies the risks to the Council should the main scheme proceed, so that it is not entering into a major project without clarity as to the risks involved (and a clear plan for managing these risks). The report also gives an update on the emergency stabilisation works undertaken to date and the main stabilisation scheme proposals, which was given planning permission in 2003.

At present, a specific Council budget of only £100,000 pa capital, and £53,000 revenue has been approved for the continuation of the scheme. This is inadequate to proceed with the scheme, and Council approval is necessary before progressing to the main scheme.

It is acknowledged by HM Inspector of Mines and the Council's engineering consultants, that the roof of the mine can be described as `structurally failed', is considered unsatisfactory, and may collapse at any time.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1. The Council Executive is asked to seek Council's approval:

2.1.1 to proceed with the CDSM project subject to acceptable terms and conditions being agreed;

2.1.2.to delegate the negotiation of and the decision as to whether to accept the terms and conditions of offer of investment from EP to the Project Sponsor (the s 151 officer) the Chief Executive, and the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Group Leaders and the Executive Member for Economic Development;

2.1.3. to note the likely costs and risks over the lifetime of the project set out at section 3 and Appendix 2 and to make provision for these in the review of the Financial Plan;

2.1.4. to note the position with regard to the Emergency Works to date and authorise the Chief Executive to agree the current terms offered by EP for funding of these.

2.2. The Council Executive is asked:

2.2.1. to consider the monitoring & maintenance options at section 5.5 and decide which option to recommend to Council;

2.2.2.to consider whether to investigate a Private Act of Parliament to enable a charge to be levied on residents benefiting from the scheme in order to pay for maintenance (likely levy for each property would be around £1 per week);

2.2.3.to authorise the project sponsor to set in train Mineral Workings Act legal proceedings or engineering amendments to exclude properties from the scheme in order to maintain the progress of the project, should refusal or withdrawal of individual consents prove likely to cause delays;

2.2.4.to confirm the Council's commitment to the development of a community engagement strategy to be adopted for the main stabilisation scheme;

2.2.5.to note the continuation of the emergency stabilisation works and existing contracts up to the commencement of the main stabilisation scheme, subject to funding;

2.2.6 to note that any temporary loss of funding from delays to EP approvals or other events will trigger demobilisation costs which are being managed within the current EP approved budget;

2.2.7.to confirm the continued use of the Entry Hill Corporation Yard as the existing location of the emergency works batching plant;

2.2.8. to note the submission of an interim funding application for the continuation of the emergency works up to January 2005;

2.2.9.to approve the Council's project team and the mine management team being available on an emergency 24 hour call-out basis;

3.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT

This is a large and complex project and there are very significant financial impacts for the Council, and more detail is set out at Appendix 2.

Ineligible costs associated with the project.

LEGAL POSITION

4.1 Counsel's Opinion has been sought on a number of issues relating to the knowledge that has been acquired as to the condition of the mines and whether such knowledge brings with it a duty to implement a stabilisation scheme. Counsel advises that no such duty arises if funds are not made available, provided that any works the Council has done or will do do not increase the instability of the mines. Counsel also advises that the position might be different if the Council had stated that it would do the works without making it clear that any proposed work is dependent on receiving the funding to achieve it. The Council has always made it clear that such was the case. If funds are made available, but only on terms that the Council finds unacceptable, it will be entitled to reject them provided that it acts reasonably in doing so.

4.2 This is discussed for the 2 options as follows:

A Undertaking the scheme - Powers, Duties & Responsibilities

The Council is not legally obliged to continue with or complete the scheme. However, no other body is empowered to do so.

If it does proceed, it or its consultants or contractors may be liable for damage suffered if any negligence on its or their part can be established.

It need not assume responsibility for the structurally supported areas. If it does not do so, it needs to consider how monitoring and any necessary maintenance will be affected.

It needs to consider how it will fund the costs which English Partnerships may not or will not cover.

It needs to consider whether the terms and conditions under which the funding will be offered are acceptable.

B Abandoning the scheme - Powers, Duties & Responsibilities

If it does not secure the funding, the Council can abandon the scheme provided that it does not leave the mines less stable as a result of any works done than they were before the works began.

If funding is made available, but only on terms which the Council finds unacceptable, it can abandon the scheme if it acts reasonably in so doing.

It will in any event need to stabilise its own land, or otherwise ensure that the condition of the land does not pose a danger to anyone on the land nor risk causing damage to the property of adjoining landowners.

It will need to arrange closure of the mines with Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines.

Emergency Works

The Council has been undertaking emergency stabilisation works in the mines following the receipt of an Improvement Notice on 03 September 2001. This notice from the Health and Safety Executive, required the Council to begin emergency stabilisation works within 7 days.

Whilst the Council has ensured that the emergency works have been dealt with efficiently and effectively, no agreement has been signed with English Partnerships for the grant aid on this, as terms and conditions suggested by them have not been acceptable. There is a small risk as a result that EP could argue that funding should not continue or that funding is withdrawn. Officers have had verbal assurances that this will not happen so long as the Council continues to deliver the agreed project works in the manner specified by, and to the standards agreed by EP, but they continue to require a signed agreement of the currently offered terms. As the works are nearing completion, and EP funding has almost all been received, it is proposed that the Chief Executive be authorised to sign the agreement for the emergency work funding, but that negotiations for Main Scheme funding should proceed with EP on the basis for terms for the main scheme being framed around a partnership agreement based on protection of the Council's interests as well as those of EP.

The emergency works are programmed to continue up to the commencement of the main stabilisation scheme, in accordance with the Council's adopted Strategy. However, the current funding approvals only take the project up to the end of October 2004. If the main scheme funding is not approved by this date, then the continuation of the Emergency works will not be possible. To prevent this, The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that should there be a delay in the decision by HM Treasury it will allow another interim funding application to be submitted. Accordingly, the Council has submitted an interim funding application for continuation of the emergency works up to the end January 2005.

A sum has been retained within the current EP financial approvals to decommission the emergency works site if the interim emergency funding application and the main scheme funding application are not made available by English Partnerships.

5.2.

Funding Application Assessment Process and timescales

The funding application has been technically appraised by Mouchel Parkman as the geotechnical advisers to English Partnerships, and economically appraised by DTZ Pieda. Various additional information has been requested from the Council by both Mouchel Parkman and DTZ to aid their appraisals. This included the undertaking of a further 11 boreholes to provide additional information on the suspected mine workings included in the application. At the time of writing this report neither of the appraisals have been seen by the Council.

The outcome of these appraisals will be presented and considered by EP Committees, at 2 different levels. It will then be presented to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and thence to HM Treasury. English Partnerships has indicated that it would go to specially convened EP committee meetings in September, thence to Central Projects Review Group (CPRG) within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and then it would go into Treasury for final approval. At the time of writing this report timescales for these Committees were not known.

5.3 Main Scheme Funding Offer - Terms and Conditions

The Council has not been able to agree the terms and conditions of the emergency works interim funding offers and has written to English Partnerships stating this.

It is possible that the main scheme funding offer will be accompanied by similar terms and conditions. English Partnerships have agreed to discuss these now to avoid later critical path delays although EP have indicated some reluctance to change most of the conditions.

But in any event, the scheme cannot proceed unless less rigid terms are agreed with EP for the funding.

To reduce the risk of expenditure not being refunded, the Council proposes to manage the conditions through a control procedure which will ensure that no expenditure is made without the prior agreement of EP. There will be workload implications in this.

5.4 Insurances and Indemnity

As project leader the Council will set a framework of insurance cover, in order to protect the interests of the Council and the community. This means specifying an appropriate package of insurance cover which will be required of existing and future contractors and consultants. The Council itself holds a broad range of insurance policies which includes cover for its activities on the project.

In addition, English Partnerships has indicated that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would be prepared to provide a 'scheme of indemnity' to the project as they have done so for other Land Stabilisation schemes. The indemnity seeks to increase the level of cover (i.e. above construction industry standard levels of insurance held by a contractor) and to provide some cover for damage arising out of non- negligent incidents. Negotiations on this are at an early stage and this authority may well have to accept the terms of the indemnity scheme agreed with the other authorities funded by the LSP. The Council has been told that it will have sight of the draft indemnity only when the EP negotiation with another authority in the LSP scheme is concluded and the agreement has been laid before Parliament.

Whilst the Council's current insurance is considered adequate for the anticipated insurable risks, having the ODPM indemnity in place would substantially add to the project's overall insurance cover. It would provide an indemnity for 'non negligent liabilities' - that is damage arising from the stabilisation works yet where no party is deemed liable. The indemnity would also pay for the cost of any claims which exceed the limit of e.g. the contractor's insurance cover. The ODPM scheme also seeks to 'future proof' the insurance available for the project. Hence in the event insurers are unable to continue providing equivalent cover to either the Council or a contractor during the course of the main scheme, then the indemnity scheme would take on some additional risks.

5.5 Monitoring and Maintenance of the Completed Works

5.5.1 The need for monitoring and maintenance

The project criterion for the design life of the stabilisation measures is for a minimum of 100 years. The specification for the design calls for residual maintenance to be reduced to 'very remote consistent with BPVM'. EP have indicated that the additional cost of a robust design that eliminates the need for post-completion maintenance would not be considered BPVM and therefore would not be funded under the LSP.

Areas infilled with foamed concrete or gravel will not require maintenance but not all areas of the mines are being infilled due to the environmental bat and archaeological mitigation measures. A requirement for p

ost-completion monitoring and maintenance was included by the Local Planning Authority in planning conditions 52 and 53.

5.5.2 Funding for monitoring and maintenance

The funding application included estimated sums of £1 million for monitoring and an estimated£1 million for maintenance of any remaining but stabilised open areas underground - i.e. structurally supported bat galleries and roadways and sand infilled archaeological areas.

EP has verbally stated and indicated in writing that:

monitoring will be eligible for funding but at present they have allowed a total sum of only£250k., and

maintenance costs are ineligible for funding .

It is understood that the funding for monitoring would be paid to the Council in a lump sum at the end of the project.

5.5.3 Costs of monitoring and maintenance.

For an initial period at least the monitoring costs can be met from the EP grant.

Maintenance costs are difficult to estimate because detailed design has not yet been undertaken and so there has not been a determination of the cost of any residual risk of maintenance. It is anticipated that these costs should be relatively low in the early years, but could rise over time. A particular issue is the maintenance of the bat galleries as these have to be maintained in a state that the bats will find inhabitable and the costs of this are difficult to estimate.

In the absence of the detailed design and the determination of the cost of the residual risk of any maintenance required, there is the possibility that actual maintenance costs will exceed the value of any initial financial estimate.

The consultants initial estimated costs for maintenance are:

For galvanised steel support - £2.5million

For chromium steel - £1.06m. However the additional premium cost for the chromium steel over ordinary galvanised steel is still to be confirmed but there may be little difference between the twooptions.

5.5.4 Options for monitoring and maintenance.

There are a number of options for dealing with post-completion monitoring and maintenance and these can be seen in Appendix 4 alongside the cost and implications of each of the options for the Council. Depending on the approach taken, the maintenance costs may fall on the existing mine/landowners (including the Council in respect of the mine below Firs Field), a Trust or the Council.

A summary of these options can be seen below:

option 1a Ownership/responsibility of the structurally supported mined areas stays with the existing landowners who have to maintain the structures

option 1b Ownership/responsibility of the structurally supported mined areas stays with the existing landowners (status quo) but the council undertakes the monitoring and maintenance functions on their behalf

option 2a Ownership/responsibility of the structurally supported mined areas is transferred to a Trust which undertakes the monitoring and maintenance functions

option 2b a Trust is set up to acquire easements to undertake monitoring and maintenance functions

option 3a Ownership/responsibility of the structurally supported mined areas is transferred to the Council

option 3b the council takes responsibility for m&m through time limited easements

option 3c the council takes responsibility for m&m through perpetual easements

option 4 the design is such that post-completion maintenance is not required.

Some members of the Board of the Community Association have expressed the view that the permanent underground structures will create an inequality in Combe Down and that it may not be easy to gain the consent of landowners to insert bat galleries and roadways beneath their properties. This is because landowners have ownership of these structures once complete and it will not be easy for individual owners to undertake monitoring and maintenance as entry to the mine may require a formal Health & Safety management to be in place. This could be established under the mining or civil CDM, H&S Work Etc. Act, and Factories Act requirements. Another aspect which would need to be dealt with would be the question of consent for access into the areas to be maintained if that necessitated entry on to land owned by others.

5.5.5. Legal costs for the council

For those options where the Council takes ownership or responsibility for the permanent galleries and roadways, there are very significant legal costs associated with the conveyancing or easements. Depending on the option this cost is estimated at between£5000 or £7500 per property implying an estimated total of £300,000-£450,000. There may also be costs of CPO processes or a public inquiry. These legal costs and the costs of maintaining the galleries are not eligible for EP funding.

Whichever option for maintenance of the stabilised mine openings is chosen by the council, the council will continue to have responsibility for all stabilisation below Firs Field.

5.5.6. A private Act of Parliament.

Maintenance costs could be covered by a local levy, which would require a Private Act of Parliament. If unopposed, it is anticipated that this would take at least 1 year to make and would cost in the order of£50,000 - £100,000 (which could be recovered through the levy). This would be applied to everyone who benefited from the scheme. The feasibility of this would need further examination.

5.5.7. Planning consent

In addition, it must be remembered that whilst the Council has no responsibility to maintain the galleries nor to fund that maintenance other than for its own land, a scheme of monitoring and maintenance is a provision of the planning consent, and work on the main scheme will not be allowed until such a scheme is agreed.

5.5.8. Summary

Of all the above options, it is unlikely that option 1A will pass the planning test, most of the others will, and option 1B is the simplest to achieve.

5.6. PROPERTY ISSUES

5.6.1 Ralph Allen's Yard (previously known as Gammons Yard)

Ralph Allen's yard including the house and buildings are proposed to be transferred to the Council ownership from English Partnerships - anticipated at no cost. EP have been asked to supply a transfer document - until then the details of the transfer including any financial implications will not be known. Prior to the transfer the Council are taking a Tenancy At Will so that the site can be used for the emergency works immediately.

A feasibility study will be undertaken to look at the options for the property once the project has finished. The location of a future interpretation centre, in accordance with planning condition 42, will also be looked at as part of the feasibility study.

EP have verbally stated that they will want to recover the purchase cost of the land should the property be sold although they will not be seeking betterment. As the project team are waiting to see the details of the transfer this statement has not yet been confirmed. The long-term revenue costs have not yet been identified. These costs will be included in the feasibility study for the interpretation centre.

5.7. STAFFING ISSUES - 24 Hour On-Call

In 2002, the Council's Emergency Management Unit undertook a `table top' tutorial exercise. The scenario involved a major surface mine collapse on North Road in Combe Down and involved the emergency services, mines rescue, Bath and North East Somerset Council, the Community Association and the mine management team.

One of the recommendations from this exercise was that there is `a need for immediate access to necessary specialist information, advice and guidance - namely from :

the Mines Manager,

the professional Mines Rescue organisation(s) and also

CDSM Project Team

Without access to any or all of this specialist `underground' knowledge in time of crisis - any effective emergency response will be severely handicapped, if not made impossible to achieve. (This will be a requirement until the underground stabilisation work has been successfully completed.)'

The Mines Rescue Service (based in Porth, South Wales) is currently paid a retainer for 24 hour on-call availability and this is funded by the LSP.

The project team are currently looking into a system for both the mine management team and the Council's project team to be available on 24 hour callout basis. The costs for implementing this change will be included in the next English Partnerships funding application. If however EP conclude this is ineligible funding, then the project's internal budget may have to make provision for an overall additional cost of ~£40k p.a.

6.0 RISK MANAGEMENT

6.1. Introduction

For the purposes of this report risk management has been considered as follows: -

6.2 Project Risk Management

6.2.1 Project Risk Costs

The Risk Costs included in the Cost Plan have been developed from workshops, one-on-one meetings and informal reviews, leading to the creation of a single Risk Register for the Lead Option. This risk register provides the basis of a Monte Carlo simulation risk quantification.

Two sets of risk quantification data have been generated reflecting pre and post mitigation values. The post mitigation values have been quantified and included in the funding application(£24m) i.e. the risk costs assume that the mitigations actions are completed. A copy of the risk register included in the funding application can be issued on CD at members' requests.

6.2.2 Project Risk Mitigation and Management

The Risk Register includes detailed mitigation actions relating to each of the risks. However, in general it is proposed to mitigate the risks in the following ways:

Clearly defining the project scope and then keeping to it

Identifying, mitigating and allowing for risks arising from works complexity and unforeseen circumstances - by developing and maintaining a comprehensive risk register and risk management plan and by generating and including in the funding application a robust risk allowance

Adopting a best practice approach to project delivery.

6.3 Council Risks

It is likely that EP will not provide funding for all risks or may set a capped limit, and therefore the Council needs to assess its risks and, where necessary, make contingency provision.

There are significant risks associated with involvement in this project which the Council should consider (with both commencing the main phase and abandoning the project). A workshop was held on 23 June 2004 with elected members and senior officers specifically to identify risks to the Council and mitigation/management measures that could be adopted.

Following the workshop two risk registers were developed. The first register looks at the risks to the Council should the funding not be accepted (see section 6) and the project abandoned. The second register looks at the risks to the Council should the project proceed. These registers can also be seen in Appendix 7.

A summary of the main risks to the Council from the project are set out at Appendix 5 to this report, but in summary, these are substantial, and whilst mitigating actions can and will be taken (also detailed in the Appendix) to reduce these as far as possible, provision for risk contingency should be made in the Financial Plan if this project proceeds.

7.0 OTHER OPTIONS - WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PROJECT

The Executive will appreciate that the Land Stabilisation Programme is an unrepeatable opportunity of funding the stabilisation of Combe Down. A successful scheme would overcome the worsening health and safety risks as well as ending the perceived blight on the properties affected.

The Council does have the option to withdraw from the project providing that it can demonstrate it has done all that can be considered to be reasonably practicable.

The risks associated with withdrawal from the project have been assessed and are set out at Appendix 6.

The previous stabilisation scheme, under Bath City Council, was the subject of bitter divisions in the community. In 2001, the Combe Down Stone Mines Community Association (CDSMCA) was formed with funding from the Council and this body meets four times a month, (the project team attend 3 of these meetings per month), and has a public meeting once a month. The Board of the CA have repeatedly expressed their support for the project.

In 2001 the Council established an Information Centre in the centre of Combe Down village. This is opened three sessions a week.

A community engagement strategy is being developed for the main scheme. This document aims to clearly set out how the Council expects key project stakeholder groups to interact with the community. For any communication issue a user should be able to see how they should be communicating, why they should be communicating in that way and then be able to see how to apply these principles to specific cases. The strategy will incorporate the views and needs of user groups as much as possible to produce a practical working document valued by all.

1.0 The Mines

Quarrying of Bath stone started at Combe Down (South of Bath) in Roman times. However, the Romans only quarried for limited distances and probably concentrated on the natural outcrops of good building stone. After the collapse of the Roman Empire little quarrying took place until the arrival of Ralph Allen at Bath in the early 18^th century. The requirement for large quantities of Bath stone for the extensive Georgian developments of eighteenth century Bath led to large scale open quarrying and shallow mining from the Great Oolite limestone.

The mines continued to be worked after Ralph Allen died in 1764 but no records of the workings were made prior to the 1872 Mining Act. The construction of the Box railway tunnel in the 1830s revealed a new source of oolitic limestone and this accelerated the decline of underground mine workings in Combe Down.

The major underground workings ceased in the 1860s, but a few small workings continued until the early 1900s. Mining stopped in Combe Down during the early 1900s due to the gradual depletion of the resource over time.

Investigations in the early 1990s raised serious concern by the local authorities, central and regional government in relation to the stability of the abandoned mines and the apparent deterioration. Underground surveys were undertaken of the Firs and Byfield mines covering an area of some 13 hectares with a limited survey of an extended area of 18 hectares. Further limited mining in the halo of the Firs and Byfield mines is suspected over a total of 20 hectares. There is also limited information available on the mines at Shaft Road and Entry Hill.

The mine workings are shallow (mostly between 4m and 6m below ground level) with few internal barriers, extracted height is variable (to ~9m), open void height is variable (averaging ~2.5m), and overall there is a high ~80% rock extraction ratio. The mines have a recorded and observed history of roof collapse and crown hole development towards the surface. Stabilisation of the Combe Down mines was proposed as the potential for collapse of the mine workings is considered to be a danger to the public and to property.

1.1 Availability of Funding

A stabilisation project was proposed in the mid 1990's. This project was controversial and the scheme did not progress for amongst other reasons the lack of available funding.

In September 1999 the detailed application was submitted by Bath & North East Somerset Council and following detailed negotiations it was approved by EP in January 2000.

A Derelict Land Clearance Area Order was laid before Parliament in 2002 and this entitles the Council to reclaim funding of up to 100% for eligible items (previously the area had been eligible for up to 50%).

1.2 Proposed Main Scheme Works

Planning permission was granted for the main scheme in June 2003 with 55 planning conditions attached. Of these, the most significant for the council is that relating to maintenance of the mine bat galleries, as a scheme must be put in place prior to commencement of the works.

PLANNING CONDITION 52 Monitoring and Maintenance

The monitoring and maintenance of the stabilisation works shall be in accordance with section 7, Monitoring and Maintenance of the Addendum to the Environmental Statement dated April 2003, excluding paragraph 7.1.10 and those area stabilised by steel galleries and roadways.

PLANNING CONDITION 53

No development shall commence until a scheme for the ongoing maintenance of the steel roadways and steel galleries for their 100 year design life has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in its entirety.

It is proposed that stabilisation of the mines will primarily be carried out using underground delivery of infill material into 80% - 90% of the known mine void. The infill proposals are based on a number of generic methods that can be used throughout the mine as physical conditions and environmental mitigation strategy determine.

The predominant infill material is foam concrete, other infill materials include marine sand and natural stone aggregate. Stabilisation techniques include the environmental mitigation provision of stabilised galleries using structural steel support mechanisms (as a provision for mine access and ecological sensitivity) or the use of sympathetic `loose/diggable' infill such as sand (for archaeological preservation). Other small-scale support and reinforcement techniques may include shotcrete (sprayed concrete) and cribs (from temporary timber, preformed concrete blocks, and concrete/foam concrete filled bags).

Although most of the extents of the stabilisation works are known (i.e. Firs & Byfield mines, Entry Hill/Springfield Quarry), there is a 93potential94 area of mining around the known mine extent for which additional stabilisation work is anticipated. This potential mined area is therefore an area of possible stabilisation works that may be defined as part of an early investigation programme from safe roadways and /or surface ground investigations during an early stage of the main scheme works.

1.3 Environmental mitigation

A key aspect of the Project is the environmental sensitivity of the area. A summary of the key environmental constraints are summarised below.

The workings falls within the southern suburbs of Bath with over 1,000 inhabitants living above the known area of mine workings. The area comprises a variety of land uses including residential housing, public open space, highways, retail, schools, business premises and public buildings.

Combe Down and its immediate surroundings are part of the rich heritage of Bath. Bath and the surrounding areas have a number of international, national and local heritage designations including UNESCO's World Heritage Site designation and Conservation Area status.

The area is also of great value for nature conservation. The surrounding countryside is characterised with a variety of high quality semi-natural habitats, many of which are designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), and the mines are of particular significance for a variety of bats. They form part of the Combe Down and Bathampton Down Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and part of the Bath and Bradford on Avon candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC).

Finally, the hydrology of Combe Down and its environs have importance because water which infiltrates the rocks covering the hill emerges on the valley sides as springs, some of which are harnessed for drinking water, most notably by Wessex Water at Tucking Mill on the southern side of the plateau (and are part of a Water Source Protection Zone). These slopes are also subject to active landslide instability.

In consultation with English Heritage to allow for possible future re-opening and viewing, a sympathetic sand infill has been proposed for the prime archaeological areas identified in the planning application. The practicality of installing sand infill to satisfy English Heritage, stability issues and constructability underground is unknown and this may prove not to be feasible. Further mitigation has been proposed with the provision of some 3D scanning and the production of a flythrough video.

After consultation with the Environment Agency, the Local Planning Authority set a condition that limestone aggregate is placed in preference to foam concrete as infill in hydrologically sensitive areas. This is mainly located in the East Firs area of the mine and will be undertaken where conditions allow in consultation with the Environment Agency.

English Nature require retention of a proportion of the mine volume already inhabited by bats. This mitigation volume is proposed to be realised within constructed roadways and galleries underground mostly located in the Byfield mine. The support for these will be provided by steel support.

As a mitigation measure, against the disruption caused by the progress of the main scheme works, bat habitat improvements have been created by works associated with the stabilisation of the Grey Gables mine located below Shaft Road. These works include for provision of a bat incubator, under the planning condition monitoring must be carried out for 10 years.

1.4 Aims of the Project

The main aim of the Project is to stabilise the mines to remove the risk of collapse and danger to life and property in line with English Partnerships guidance for the Land Stabilisation Programme (LSP). In undertaking the project only methods and materials will be used to which the Environment Agency do not object.

Several other factors recognised as components of a successful scheme are contained in the planning conditions:

Protection of the bat species and their habitat in accordance with obligations.

Safeguarding the Combe Down heritage and environment.

Avoiding contamination of the water outflows from the Combe Down area or the creation of localised flooding at the plateau surface or increased local seepage around the slope that may lead to hill slope instability.

Seeking to mitigate the impact and disruption caused by noise, dust and traffic movements in the area.

Seeking to mitigate any damage to the existing properties in the area due to the consequences of the project works.

Seeking a design solution, which will achieve successful stabilisation for at least the next 100 years

Ensuring that, as far as is reasonably practicable, any work site(s) associated with the scheme are of a low environmental impact.

Other success factors that could be recognised by the local and wider community but which are not directly deliverable by the project include:

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the mortgage industry removal of any special conditions currently applied to properties in Combe Down so that they are treated for insurance and mortgage applications in a similar fashion to comparable areas in Bath.

The ABI and mortgage industry not classifying Combe Down as, or being perceived as 'contaminated' or 'blighted' or otherwise having long term environmental or financial liabilities attached.

Removal of any adverse effect of the presence of the mines in publicly available listings/classifications such as property survey websites by postcodes and to avoid the inclusion of Combe Down on any register of landfill or contaminated land sites.

1.5 Environmental Impact Assessment

The main Regulations relating to Environmental Assessment in the UK are the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999 (TACP)(1).

Due to the environmentally sensitivity location of the Project, and the potential scale of the stabilisation works, the Council indicated that, in view of the TACP(1) and the advice in Circular 02199 Environmental Impact Assessment (2), the undertaking of an EIA and submission of an Environmental Statement (ES) were needed before determination of a planning application for any proposed stabilisation to land stability at Combe Down (3).

During August 2002, the Council took legal advice concerning the need for an ES and concluded that one was not required. However, the project team agreed that as a matter of good practice, an ES would be submitted on a voluntary basis.

1.6 Enabling and Emergency Works

Access to the mines was prohibited by Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines (HMIM) because of their hazardous nature in November 2000.

Following the visit by HMIM in December 2000, a Schedule of Secure Enabling Works was put in place. This action allowed safe limited access of essential project personnel into the mines for the purpose of further survey and inspection.

The construction of these underground roadways enabled engineers to reassess some areas of mine that were classed as 'High Hazard Areas' from the survey undertaken in 1994. As a result of this access and subsequent intervention of HMIM, the Council commenced interim stabilisation works in advance of the main stabilisation scheme, and continues to develop emergency works prior to the main scheme as long as funding is made available by English Partnerships.

A strategy was subsequently developed which prioritised the assessment and treatment of the most easily accessible and hazardous areas in the mines. This was adopted by Strategy Committee on 27 November 2001 and has been the subject of decision making by Councillors at different stages. The emergency works, in accordance with the strategy, are funded up to October 2004.

1.7 Project Programme

Stabilisation of the mines by foam concrete and stowing with natural limestone aggregate where applicable has a projected total duration of approximately 4.5 years (from commencement of the main scheme to site reinstatement and re-use).

1.8 Programme Robustness

The current main scheme programme allows for the treatment and associated works to infill approximately 433,495 m3 of mine void. The programme and risk modelling caters for the uncertainty of the potential areas of the mines and nature of the unsurveyed areas. However, should all potential mine areas be identified as proven workings the programme may need to be extended for:

significant differences from the assumptions on ground conditions in potential areas and unsurveyed areas of the mines requiring stabilisation by methods other than underground delivery of foam concrete and stowed gravel;

delays caused by external factors;

unexpected collapse incidents and changes to the programme of works.

Appendix 2 Financial implications of the project and

2.1 The Funding Application to English Partnerships

A funding application and cost plan was submitted to EP on March 16^th 2004 for the Combe Down Stone Mines stabilisation main scheme. The cost plan contains over 100 lines of prescribed work and the overall financial sum is a spectrum of costs depending on the unknowns such as the size and extent of the mine, assumed programme, Best Practice and Value for Money (BPVM) design, risk quantification and associated Monte Carlo modelling of anticipated risk costs. The proposed main scheme work has not been tendered so a competitive tendered cost is not yet available. English Partnerships have accepted that these costs may vary.

The submitted costs for the Lead Option scheme are as follows:

Total £ 134.5m

This figure excludes for inflation and the previously approved funding of£19.2m expended on the development of the scheme and undertaking the emergency works. It is understood that EP will provide an offer letter agreeing to grant fund up to 100% of the eligible project costs (as long as the team can demonstrate BPVM).

2.2 Contingencies within the project budget

A risk allowance of £24m was included in the Funding Application. Notwithstanding the makeup of the risk allowance in the Cost Plan, it is crucial that B&NES can be reimbursed for all costs as they arise once BPVM has been demonstrated/proved by the engineering consultants for the scheme. For this reason, the Council will look for an agreement from EP that the full actual costs of the expended eligible items are refunded to the Council and that the expended costs of all contingencies, variations and overruns will be met by the funders. EP may not be willing to commit to this as the indicative terms and conditions so far provided by EP imply. A procedure to ensure that expenditure is agreed in advance will be developed.

2.3 Likely Council costs

These are made up of items which are ineligible for funding from the Land Stabilisation Programme. Some of these items were applied for but rejected as ineligible.

There will be significant cashflow costs to the council which EP will not fund. On the basis of grant claim turnaround, interest charges could amount to£90,000 p.a. (£450,000 over 5 years). Officers will be negotiating with EP with a view to ensuring prompt and regular grant payments to reduce the potential cashflow cost.

One of the proposed funding conditions states that a retention will not be released to the Council by EP until after an external audit has been undertaken post-completion. This could incur an interest cost of£75,000 assuming it will take 6 months to get the final grant funding released by EP (and more if it takes longer).

In addition English Partnerships have indicated that they will not fund delays attributable to disputes over the consents process. The council does not have a budget for delay costs and so legal process will be used to maintain construction progress or a particular residence may be omitted from the stabilisation scheme.

With regard to monitoring and maintenance of the mine after completion of the stabilisation works (see section 5.5 in main report), EP have indicated that monitoring costs are eligible for funding. A provisional£250,000 sum for monitoring has been allowed as eligible by EP in the funding application. It is understood that this element of the funding will be paid as a lump sum at the end of the project. However, EP have stated that maintenance costs are not eligible for funding.

If the council takes on the monitoring and maintenance functions, it may be possible to sponsor a private Act of Parliament to enable the council to recharge the costs for this to residents in the area.

A listing of these items can be found below.

A) Council Costs

B) Project Costs Ineligible under the Land Stabilisation Programme

Overall funding required from the Council is likely to be within the range of £4-5m.

2.4 Emergency Works Approvals

To date the Council has submitted seven applications to English Partnerships (EP) for financial support and £17.1m has been approved against these applications. This funding covers nearly 3 years of emergency stabilisation works, and preparation of the planning application and main scheme funding application. In addition, English Partnerships have bought Gammons Yard in Combe Down and this may be transferred to the Council to use during the project at no cost to the Council.

An additional £1.2m contingency has also been approved. A BPVM justification, however, must be submitted to English Partnerships and approval must be given before this funding is committed and expended. This takes the total approval for the project to ~£19.2m.

The terms and conditions attached to the previous interim funding applications have not been accepted by the Council. After taking legal advice, two letters stating this have already been sent to EP (16 August 2002 and 16 April 2003) but there has been no response to them. The last offer letter, received in February 2004, did make small changes in the terms offered but insufficient to be acceptable to the Council. The Chief Executive sent a letter to EP in June 2004 accepting the most recent funding offering but stating that the Council cannot accept the terms and conditions offered. The response from English Partnerships was that they would not alter the terms and conditions and to invite the council once again to accept the offered terms and conditions.

A recommendation about this is set out at 2.1.4.

3.1 The Council's Legal Position - Further Details

Bath City Council took ownership of the Mines in terms of Health and Safety in 1994. The Council had to take this step if it wished to effect stabilisation of the mines. This limited form of ownership does not carry with it all the responsibilities which are incidental to land ownership in the usual sense. The Council will be the occupier of the mines, and various duties do attach to occupiers of land. (A mine is "land".) However, it is established that an occupier is not liable for the acts of his predecessors. In this context, the "predecessors" are those who carried on the mining in the past. The dangerous state of the mines is not as a result of any action on the Council's part and it has no legal responsibility for that state.

Counsel's Opinion has been sought on a number of issues relating to the knowledge that has been acquired as to the condition of the mines and whether such knowledge brings with it a duty to implement a stabilisation scheme. Counsel advises that no such duty arises if funds are not made available, provided that any works the Council has done or will do do not increase the instability of the mines. Counsel also advises that the position might be different if the Council had stated that it would do the works without making it clear that any proposed work is dependent on receiving the funding to achieve it. The Council has always made it clear that such was the case. If funds are made available, but only on terms that the Council finds unacceptable, it will be entitled to reject them provided that it acts reasonably in doing so.

3.2 Ownership of the mines, and ownership to the centre of the highway

Although there are various exceptions under the common law and statute, the basic provision is that the owner of land owns the airspace above it and everything below it to the centre of the Earth. In practice, it seems likely that the rights to mine the stone at Combe Down, or perhaps ownership of the mines themselves, will have been vested, at least in part, in persons other than the landowners. It has not been possible to establish the position, however, and it has had to be assumed that the present landowners are responsible for the parts of the mines which are in their land.

The law presumes that the owner of land adjoining a highway owns the sub-soil of the highway up to the middle point. This presumption yields to evidence to the contrary, but typically there is no such evidence to displace it.

3.3 Powers and duties of the Council

To the extent that it owns land which is affected by the stabilisation scheme, the Council has the obligation of any landowner to ensure that its neighbours do not suffer injury or loss as a result of any breach of duty of care owed to them in respect of its actions or inactions on its land. Most of the land involved in the project is not owned by the Council. To enable it to stabilise the mines as a whole, the Council is using its powers under Section 89 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which Section applies to (among other things) land which is likely to become unsafe by reason of collapse of the surface as a result of mine workings (other than relating to coal) which have ceased to be carried out.

3.4 Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines (HMIM)

HMIM derives authority and powers from the Mines & Quarries Act 1954 and particularly from the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (see enforcement sections 18 to 26 inclusive). Counsel points out that the Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations 1993 impose duties in respect of the management and working of the mines. (The stabilisation process would constitute "working the mines".) It is not the primary purpose of the Regulations to protect members of the public or occupiers of properties on the surface. Their health and safety would be relevant in relation to how the mines were worked, but not relevant to the question of whether or not the mines should be worked.

3.5 Landowners Consents

Although, as explained above, the Council does have power to carry out the stabilisation works on land which it does not own, the 1949 Act does not authorise it to do so without the landowners' consent. All reasonable steps have to be taken to secure the consents. If the consents cannot be obtained, however, Section 8 of the Mineral Workings Act 1985 (MWA) does enable the Council to proceed. Certain conditions have to be satisfied, and an owner who withholds consent has the right to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for determination.

The removal/refusal of consent under the MWA has been exercised by one landowner and this has resulted directly in ~ 4 months delay in stabilising part of the mine, taken considerable effort of the project team and consultants and resulted in additional £30k costs to-date. This figure excludes any repair costs to the property affected by the works or compensation to the landowner.

Bats and their roosts are protected by law. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to (among other things) intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection by a bat, or to intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 make it an offence to (among other things) damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat. The relevant offences under the Act and the Regulations carry fines of up to (at the moment) £5,000, and those under the Act can lead to imprisonment for up to six months instead of, or in addition to, a fine. Fines may be imposed in relation to each offence committed, so the aggregate amount may be large if many animals have been involved.

Otherwise unlawful acts under these provisions can be licensed in certain circumstances. Licences have been obtained from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for works so far undertaken on the project. So far as is relevant to the project, the Secretary of State, after consulting English Nature, will grant a licence if he is satisfied:

that it should be granted for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, and

that there is no satisfactory alternative, and the action authorised by the licence will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Conditions can be imposed in the licences. Among other things, mitigation to reduce or compensate for the effect on the species of the works is required by the existing licence relating to the project, as is monitoring to allow assessment of the success of the mitigation. It would be open to Defra to impose a condition in relation to the main scheme which required further mitigation, perhaps several years after completion of the works, if the monitoring showed that the new accommodation had failed to maintain bat populations. Further mitigation might involve mine works, such as excavations or vent shafts, or foraging habitat improvements. The appropriate improvement needed should be revealed by the relevant monitoring data.

An allowance for this is in the cost plan. However, each and every event will have to be assessed in its own right, and an application made to EP to recover the cost. Disputes may have to be resolved with considerable cost at the Lands Tribunal.

3.8 Human Rights Act 1998.

As a public authority, the Council is bound to exercise its functions in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. It would be unlawful were it to act in a way which was incompatible with the rights set out in the Act. In connection with this scheme, the Council is carrying out works on private land and, in a few instances already, has done so under statutory provisions which enable it to proceed without the landowners' consent.

Article 8 provides that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Article 1 of The First Protocol provides for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Each of them is qualified, however. Article 8 does not prevent interference which is lawful and is 93necessary in a democratic society in the interests of85.public safety85.or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.94 Article 1 of The First Protocol does not 93in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest94.

Even where the qualifications apply, however, they will only render the interference lawful to the extent that it is 93proportionate94 and strikes a fair balance between the rights of the person in question, and those of others affected. To be proportionate, the interference will have to be the minimum necessary for the achievement of the lawful objective. In every decision the Council makes in relation to this scheme (or, of course, to any other project or its general activities) the effect of these rights has to be given due consideration.

APPENDIX 4 post completion monitoring and maintenance

4.1 Post Completion Monitoring for 100 years

A Provisional Sum of £1,000,000 was included in the funding application for post-completion monitoring. This sum was reduced to£250k by EP and is subject to further negotiation.

NB The 10 year monitoring interval mentioned is indicative, the actual required interval will be determined in the detailed design phase after definition of materials and the level of risk of residual maintenance is identified by the engineering consultants.

4.2 Post Completion Maintenance for a 100 yr design life

The whole maintenance item is classed as ineligible by English Partnerships.

4.3 Options for Future Monitoring and Maintenance

In the management and administration of safety and health at mines regulations (MASHAM) 1993, Reg. 38 allows exemption of a mine from mining legislation. The project team have approached the Mines Inspector on his opinion of applying this regulation and enabling whoever to conduct any operations in the stabilised mine such as monitoring etc as and when required under the Factories Act. This and a mine abandonment notice would not require B&NES to continue as owner of the H&S nor require the council to appoint or retain a permanent mine manager.

All options in the table below assume that LSP funding for post-completion monitoring can be used towards the cost of maintenance.

It is assumed that the monitoring funding would cover the following for each option:

Cost of setting up an appropriate Health & Safety Regime

Cost of undertaking Property Condition Surveys if required,

Cost of Tunnel lining condition surveys (Monitoring), and

Production of a scope of works for any remedial repair deemed necessary.

NB The cost of any identified remedial maintenance works identified is an additional cost to the council.

APPENDIX 5 Risks to the council from proceeding with the project

5.1 Risks of delaying the project

The risk to the Council of delaying the implementation of the project is that the costs may not be fundable by EP, therefore, B&NES would be exposed to considerable ongoing expenditure (including Contractor's standing time, project team costs, consultant costs and the emergency works preliminaries).

5.2 Risks of proceeding with the project

The main risks to the Council in proceeding can be summarised as follows: -

Un-funded Expenditure as a result of: -

o Failure of engineering team to prove BPVM to EP in engineering solutions

o Community expectations exceed BPVM, therefore pressure on team to satisfy expectations and/or consents withheld leading to delays.

o Political concessions requested by and offered to residents

o Gaps in contractors and consultants liabilities leave B&NES exposed to liability

o B&NES viewed as causing delays by EP and costs of these delays not funded.

o Planning conditions may require additional mitigation and costs for archaeology and ecology to that included in funding application

o Inadequate Financial Management leading to inability to draw funding against expenditure

o Breach of Contract by B&NES leading to withdrawal or withholding of funding

o Protracted negotiations with land owners leading to unrecoverable standing time, set up and management costs (EP refuse to fund)

o Compensation claims from Residents (not fundable)

o Call-in by Council leads to non-fundable delay costs

o Protracted EP approval process leading to decisions being made by B&NES to progress works prior to approval by funders

o Council Management changes leading to project disruption and delays which are not recoverable through funding

o Land Stabilisation Programme has finite limits, per annum and overall, beyond which EP cannot fund

o Individual homeowners currently discharge sewage into the mine, long term drainage may be affected and the Environment Agency may require further sewage/drainage works.

Collapses may occur with disruptive effect on residents, Council and project not all of which may be recoverable through funding

Size of project

o Pressure on Council resources due to volume of work (legal, financial, project management, planning, other departments)

o Large cash flows impact on Council finances

o EP retention may lead to B&NES having to borrow prior to recovering funding

o Poor performance of Contractors and Consultants leading to B&NES direct (financial claims) and indirect consequences (negative PR)

o Uncertainty regarding the draw down and spend of contingency

Uncertainty of extent of mines

o Programme uncertainty as works cannot be planned far in advance in detail

o Cost uncertainty at outset and throughout leaves B&NES unable to accurately predict out-turn cost and having to rely on proving BPVM throughout the project.

o Unable to plan in advance leads to frustration of community with project

Community Consents and other issues delaying the works

5.3 Council Risk Mitigation and Management

The mitigation actions to address the above can be summarised as follows : -

Implement Project Management and Procurement Strategy taking into account :

o The requirement to achieve BPVM throughout

o Prepare a Matrix of Contracts to avoid gaps (back to back)

o Refine and maintain Compensation Event procedure which includes liaison with funders

o Include the option to omit properties from the scheme in the consents procedure

o Refined and implemented Mineral Working Act procedure

o Performance Monitoring regime for contractors and consultants

Project Team properly resourced by Council

o Include adequate representation from Legal services

o Adequate input and communication with Corporate Finance Services

o Comprehensive Communication throughout the Council

Financial Management

o Clear role of Corporate Finance Services and interface with Project Team

o Project team resourced adequately

o Contingency Management procedure

o Continuation of Risk Management including quantification

Communication Strategy taking into account : -

o Statutory stakeholders (e.g English Nature)

o Maintain list of Frequently Asked Questions

o Media strategy

o EP (and their monitors) liaison and communication

o Community engagement strategy

o Legal services included in communication strategy (to ensure adherence to law and guidelines

o Ward Councillors briefed

o Councillors and Senior Officers informed

o Briefing of new staff

o Reporting to Project Board

o Defined routes of internal communication

Develop and refine Insurance claims procedure taking into account uninsured / underinsured properties

Design review of Environmental Galleries

Continue to maintain Emergency Plan (including strategic review)

5.4 Council Risk Quantification

5.4.1 Methodology

The Council risk register has been quantified using two types of data which are then input to a Monte Carle simulation to produce results indicating varying confidence levels expressed as percentages.

e.g. 90% confidence that £1,000,000 will not be exceeded.

The Monte Carlo simulation requires the following data to be input : -

Probability that the risk will occur (expressed as a percentage)

Triangular estimate

o Minimum cost if it occurs

o Most likely cost if it occurs

o Maximum cost if it occurs

The triangular estimate is derived from one of two types of data :-

The Monte Carlo model calculates 10,000 iterations of the project based on the distribution provided by the triangular estimate and takes into account the stated probability. From this data, statistical results can be derived as given below.

5.4.2 Results

The risks of the Council's involvement in the project have been quantified and the results are set out as graph's below : -

The above graph indicates the percentage certainty of a range of sums not being exceeded. The higher the sum, the higher the certainty that the figure will not be exceeded.

Specific results should be noted as follows: -

90% certainty of not being exceeded £2,300,000

99.9% certainty of not being exceeded £2,600,000

Graph 2. B&NES proceeding with Project (Risk Curve)

90% certainty of not being exceeded £5,100,000

99.9% certainty of not being exceeded £7,600,000

The Council's risk exposure in proceeding with the project is broken down in the table below. In producing these risk allowances, cognisance of the risk allowances within the Funding Application has been taken into account. Therefore these allowances represent additional exposure to the Council : -

It should be noted that the risk allowances represent the post mitigation risk exposure - i.e. assuming that all the risk mitigations are completed and therefore representing the residual risk to the Council.

The size of the project and its uncertainties constitute a substantial risk envelope, exacerbated if EP determine that they will not pay for cost of over-runs, variations or extras. The projected cost of the lead option (c. £110 million excluding risk costs and sunk costs) roughly equates to the Council's capital programme for three years. Even if a small portion of this is deemed not eligible for grant funding, there would be a significant impact on the Council's finances.

The risk allowances are based on the circumstances known and anticipated at the end of July 2004. The risk allowances will need to be reviewed at key project stages (e.g. following the funding award, following signing of the contract, following appointment of a contractor, etc.) as the risk exposure may decrease as issues are resolved and risk exposure overall reduced.

Based on the above analysis it is suggested that the Council makes a £5m provision to cover the risks identified and that the situation is reviewed regularly.

5.5 Project Management

A Best Practice approach to project delivery is being adopted to contribute to effective risk mitigation and to ensure that BPVM is achieved in implementing the project. In summary this comprises:

Project Team - Project management from within B&NES to ensure a continual focus on B&NES's requirements as client, multi-disciplinary engineering support from major international consultant Scott Wilson, project support from established and long involved consultant Davis Langdon and implementation by a suitably qualified and experienced contractor. The project team includes temporary Council officers, consultants, contractors and sub-consultants. The structure of this team will be reviewed at key stages in the project to ensure the necessary skills are available. A system of programme and budgetary control is established for the Emergency Works and preparation of the main scheme. The Project Leader reports to the Director of Resources. A Project Steering Group is established and also an internal Project Board.

Project Processes - robust planning and Health & Safety, quality, risk, value and cost management processes

Stakeholder Input - effective management of stakeholders including, in particular, efficient information provision to, liaison with and claims processes for the local community

Procurement - Adoption of a rigorous but transparent procurement approach which effectively aligns supplier objectives with those of B&NES and incorporates the flexibility essential to manage the significant uncertainties and risks inherent in this project. This approach has already been implemented in the procurement of Main Consultant Scott Wilson and will also be followed when procuring the Main Scheme Contractor.

Feasibility and Design - Incorporating lessons learnt from the Emergency Works and as the Main Scheme progresses in the designs for remaining works.

APPENDIX 6 Risks to the council from withdrawing from the project

Mine collapses with loss of life and property i.e. Fundamental failure to achieve purpose of project (stabilisation to protect life and property)

EP unlikely to pay for demobilisations costs

B&NES need to consider whether to stabilise Council owned land including roads

Backlash from residents disgruntled regarding perceived Council U-turn

Legal claims from Residents on grounds of 'legitimate expectations'

Residents claims successful - legal opinion advises this is unlikely provided Council acts 'reasonably'

Removal of ABI support resulting in insurance and mortgage blight

Removal of ABI support resulting in Council insurance premium increases and/or withdrawn

Wider economic consequences of continuing insurance blight and `threat' posed to community by instability of mines.

Loss of habitat and heritage associated with collapses.

EP possibly wish to recover funding already paid to Council for works to date - The Council would strongly reject any attempt by EP to return sums already paid and EP have indicated they would not exercise this right. Therefore this eventuality has not been modelled below.

The risks of withdrawing from the project have been quantified and the results are given in the graphs below: -

                             90% certainty of not being exceeded £5,200,000

If the residents claims are successful then, the cost exposure to B&NES would be the cost of doing the whole project.

i.e. 90% certainty of not being exceeded £6,000,000

APPENDIX 7 - Risk Register

EXEMPT

The following Council Risk Register looks only at the risk to the Council