ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & REHABILITATION
Ladywood priority dashboard
Evidence-led screening. Mining-derived solutions. Community resilience.
Sites screened
12
Ladywood study area
High priority
05
R ≥ 70 / 100
Area in sample
40.2 ha
Illustrative site areas
Weighting scenario
Base
L 40% · F 40% · G 20%
R = 0.40L + 0.40F + 0.20G
Environmental risk map
Ladywood · indicative extents
Priority ranking
Rehabilitation queue
SELECTED / BLR/LW-01
Port Loop · main driver: Surface-water flood risk
Site analysis · rank #2
Port Loop
BLR/LW-01 · 17.2 ha · 52.4842, -1.9284
Priority R
80.0
High priority
Illustrative scores · source values and site boundaries awaiting verification
High · Former industrial, part-cleared, phased development
Very high · Surface water — high (canal loop, low-lying)
GeoSure class C · Shrink-swell clay
Calculation
R = 0.400×75 + 0.400×100 + 0.200×50 = 30.0 + 40.0 + 10.0 = 80.0
Main risk driver: Surface-water flood risk (largest weighted contribution).
Large canal-enclosed former industrial peninsula. Extensive impermeable made ground with limited existing drainage attenuation.
Screening recommendation
Option A — Sustainable drainage (SuDS)
Source-control drainage: permeable surfacing, swales, rain gardens and attenuation basins managing runoff close to where it falls (Defra national SuDS standards).
Benchmark site from the Ladywood brief — used to check that the model flags known cases.
Intervention comparison
Options for Port Loop
Illustrative team ratings (1–5), not measured outcomes. Highlighted option is the screening recommendation — it is not a design decision.
Option A — Sustainable drainage (SuDS)
Source-control drainage: permeable surfacing, swales, rain gardens and attenuation basins managing runoff close to where it falls (Defra national SuDS standards).
- Indicative cost
- Low–medium
- Best for:
- Flood-driven sites with permeable or improvable ground
Option B — Land rehabilitation
Ground treatment and re-profiling: capping or selective removal of made ground, regrading, soil improvement and vegetation establishment to stabilise the surface.
- Indicative cost
- Medium–high
- Best for:
- Land-condition-driven sites and poor or unstable ground
Option C — Retrofit / baseline
Retain and improve existing structures and surfaces; monitor condition. Baseline against which the other options are judged, and the low-carbon default for occupied buildings.
- Indicative cost
- Low
- Best for:
- Occupied or structurally sound sites with lower measured risk
Evidence register
Sources, assumptions & limitations
Model assumptions
- Five team-defined bands map to 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100. This harmonisation introduces judgement; it is not a common classification published by all sources.
- Base weights: L 0.40 / F 0.40 / G 0.20. Coarse ground-condition evidence receives lower weight. Four scenarios test this assumption.
- Team thresholds: high ≥ 70; medium ≥ 45 and < 70; monitor < 45. Scores are a comparative index, not a flood probability.
- Decimal scores show arithmetic, not measurement precision. Alphabetical ordering resolves equal scores and must not imply meaningful separation.
Limits that affect decisions
- All site scores, footprint rectangles and flood polygons are illustrative. Ground grid cells are synthetic; none is an authoritative source extract.
- Land status is not a contamination measurement. GeoSure screens natural hazards, not site-specific stability or every possible ground constraint.
- Recommendations are candidates only. Confirm permeability, groundwater, contamination, utilities and stability before design or construction.
- Intervention ratings and cost bands are team judgements, not quotations, predicted benefits or a validated decision matrix.
Proposed source register
Proposed land-status source · register year cited by the team: 2025
Access date: not recorded · import: not verified
Proposed flood screening source · Level 2 report: April 2012
Access date: not recorded · import: not verified
Proposed natural ground-stability source · product resolution and licence must be checked
Access date: not recorded · import: not verified
Intervention guidance · Defra, 2025
Access date: not recorded · import: not verified
Sources are cited in the uploaded reports. Links are provided for traceability; their availability, licences and underlying values have not been verified here.