@flashbac, the initial mining reports that conveyancors are required to get, are very much a screening tool. The database they are based on is well populated, and will eliminate the “no problem” areas and trigger a more in-depth investigation in potentially more problematic areas.
The depth, thickness and age of mining all matters, and this can vary significantly in a small geographical area. The type of extraction technique matters too. Longwall mining (where large areas of coal are removed at once, and the roof might be supported with sacrificial props) subsides more quickly and more evenly than pillar and stall working (where smaller areas are removed, and alternated with areas where the coal is left in), is more stable and subsides more slowly but more locally and more exaggeratedly. Often, it needs local knowledge, local records etc to know which method was used, where and when. Often records have been lost, hence the need for site specific surveys. Also, when you are looking to see if the ground has moved, it could well have moved since the previous survey.
Then there’s non-coal mining!
But in answer to your original Q @flashbac, those initial reports are a great filter. Pre-internet (I’m that old) used to have to look up or request everything separately, landfill, flooding, coal mining, groundwater, uxo, other minerals, radon…