If you have a look at the BGS Geology of Britain viewer:

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html 

Zoom in on your postcode and hit the borehole scan tab; you will find four borehole (actually description of shaft sections) which have been transcribed from maps in the immediate vicinity:

http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/288792/images/10564904.html  [Thick Coal at ?420']

http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/288791/images/10564903.html  [Thick Coal 30' thick at 411']

http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/288736/images/10564837.html  [Coal 2'2" at 24'2"]

http://scans.bgs.ac.uk/sobi_scans/boreholes/288789/images/10564890.html 

These seem to have been hoovered up by the Geological Survey post the Lofthouse Colliery disaster (colliery hit old workings that had been recorded but not on official abandonment plans prompting a huge exercise to record all known features recorded on maps, records etc)

The problem lies in the source; the repeated transfer of information from medium scale maps/plan results in the inevitable transcription errors (consider the width of a pen line to scale on a 1:25000 map). It appears that a lot of the shafts in the area have been located from mapping sources including the ones you referred to in the mapping report.

Thanks for all replies, off to work now, so have a good look tomorrow, thanks anyway.

By the way your map references should have two letters in front of them to identify the area. :smartass:

You sure.:smartass::smartass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_National_Grid#All-numeric_grid_references 

Thanks all, thanks Grumpytramp, looking at all that info now.

A mate had to have test drilling done for his proposed new bungalow, 5 holes drilled down to the No2 Rhondda seam with one corner hole dropping into a 5 foot void.
He had to move the bungalow footprint over about 6 feet.
No drilling mud as the rig was air blast flushing but still very messy as a great plume of rock/coal dust was blown everywhere.

A mate had to have test drilling done for his proposed new bungalow, 5 holes drilled down to the No2 Rhondda seam with one corner hole dropping into a 5 foot void.
He had to move the bungalow footprint over about 6 feet.
No drilling mud as the rig was air blast flushing but still very messy as a great plume of rock/coal dust was blown everywhere.

The usual system of drilling hardish rock doesn't involve mud. If you hit groundwater in mudstone/soft slate/shale it makes a mega mess. The best one I remember involved hitting flooded workings, the resulting geyser filled the blokes garden up with tomato soup. Knee deep.

I gather there has been similar amusement with attempting to do ground source holes in clay. I think someone's whole house got covered in 'white'.

It would be interesting to know how deep they drill under what circumstances for coal. I imagine it's a totally different ball game. I wonder if the CA are exclusively concerned with coal workings because of the extreme variance and unpredictibility of cover rocks.