Lubbesthorpe New - Blaby District Council

New 

Lubbesthorpe 

New Community 

Further Information Document 

Regulation 22 

February 2012

Hallam Land Management, Barratt David Wilson, Davidson Developments 

Lubbesthorpe, Blaby 

FURTHER INFORMATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 

(Regulation 22 Submission) 

February 2012

Lubbesthorpe ES - Further Information Document 

fpcr 

FPCR Environment and Design Ltd 

Registered Office: Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derby DE74 2RH 

Company No. 07128076. [T] 01509 672772 [F] 01509 674565 [E] mail@fpcr.co.uk [W] www.fpcr.co.uk 

This report is the property of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd and is issued on the condition it is not 

reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person, either wholly or in part without the written 

consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. Ordnance Survey material is used with permission of 

The Controller of HMSO, Crown copyright 100018896. 

Rev Issue Status Prepared / Date Approved/Date 

- Draft EAF December 2011 CPR February 2012 

J:\3682\ES Regulation 22 Submission\Contents.doc 1


CONTENTS 

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY A – REPLACEMENT DOCUMENT 

Supplementary and Replacement ES Chapters 

1.0 INTRODUCTION - SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

2.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

5.0 SOCIO ECONOMIC ISSUES - SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

6.0 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL RESOURCES - SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

fpcr 

7.0 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING ARBORICULTURE) - SUPPLEMENTARY 

CHAPTER 

8.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY - SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

9.0 AGRICULTURAL LAND QUALITY - SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

10.0 WATER, HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE - SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

12.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION/ACOUSTICS - REPLACEMENT CHAPTER 

13.0 AIR QUALITY - REPLACEMENT CHAPTER 

14.0 WASTE - SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

15.0 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT - REPLACEMENT CHAPTER 

16.0 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES - REPLACEMENT CHAPTER 

17.0 GEODIVERSITY - NEW CHAPTER 

18.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS - SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

The following Appendices correspond with the relevant Chapter numbers. 

APPENDIX 1: INTRODUCTION 

1A Blaby District Council Regulation 22 Request; 23 rd November 2011, 30 th and 31 st January 2012 

1B Blaby District Council Non-Regulation 22 Request 30 January 2012 

APPENDIX 2: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 

2A Figures:- 

2.3A Illustrative Master Plan 

2.4A Parameters Plan A: Application Boundary 

2.5A Parameters Plan B: Land Use 

2.6.1A Parameters Plan C: Access 

2.6.1.1 Beggar’s Lane Site Access WSP 1693/P/08, 09 

2.6.1.2 Proposed Improvements at A47/Beggar’s Lane Junction WSP 1693/P/05 



fpcr 

2.6.1.3 Proposed Bridge across M1 Cross Section and Link to Meridian Way WSP 1693/P/01 

2.6.1.4 Proposed Bridge across M69 Cross Section WSP 1693/P/02 

2.6.1.5 Leicester Lane Site Access WSP 1693/P/06, 07 

2.6.1.6 Proposed Bus Priority Link, Baines Lane/Proposed Bridge across M1 at Baines Lane 

WSP 1693/P/04, 15 

2.7A Parameters Plan D: Green Infrastructure 

2.8A Parameters Plan E: Residential Density 

2.9A Parameters Plan F: Building Heights 

2.10.1A Parameters Plan G1: Phase 1 



2B Description of Development, Land Use Schedule and Building Dimensions Schedule (Revision A) 

APPENDIX 6: LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

6A Visual Effects Table (Revision A) 

6B Visual Representations and Illustrative Cross Sections: M1/M69 Bridges 

APPENDIX 7: ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING ARBORICULTURE) 

7A Figures:- 

7.2A Phase 1 Habitat Survey 

7B Watervole Report (Revision A) 

7C Bat Report (Revision A) 

7D Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes and Species Lists 

APPENDIX 8: CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY 

8A Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (January 2010) 

8B Archaeological Landscape Report for New Lubbesthorpe 

8C Historic Buildings Assessment 

8D Trial Trench Evaluation Report 

8E Relocation of Balancing Ponds and Indicative Cross Sections 

8F Visual Representations 01 (Scheduled Monument/SES) and 02 (Scheduled Monument/R17, 

accompanying Cross Sections and Location Plan 

8G Photomontages 01-04 and accompanying Cross Section (Enderby Hall/SES) 



APPENDIX 9: AGRICULTURAL LAND QUALITY 

9A Figures:- 

9.2A Agricultural Users and Usable Agricultural Area 

APPENDIX 10: WATER, HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE 

10A Flood Risk Assessment: Addendum 

10B Sustainable Urban Drainage System examples and indicative details 

APPENDIX 12: NOISE AND VIBRATION/ACOUSTICS 

12A Figures:- 

12.1A Noise Monitoring and Assessment Locations 

12.2A Daytime Noise Contour Plot 

12.3A Night-time Noise Contour Plot 

12B Description of Noise and Vibration Units 

12C Noise and Vibration Survey Procedures and Results 

12D Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment 

12E Road Traffic Noise Assessment 

APPENDIX 13: AIR QUALITY 

13A Figures:- 

13.1A Air Quality Management Areas 

13.2A Air Quality Monitoring Locations 

13.3A Sensitive Receptors 

13B Air Quality Modelling Details 

APPENDIX 15: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT 

15A Figures:- 

15.1A Link Identification Plan 

15.2A Junctions Assessed 

15.3.1A Accident Plot Hinckley Road A47 

15.3.2A Accident Plot Leicester Lane/Meridian Way 

15.3.3A Accident Plot Beggars Lane 

15.4A Existing Public Rights of Way 

15.5A Existing Cycle Route Plan 

fpcr 



APPENDIX 16: INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES 

16A Utility Site investigation Report (Premier Energy) – document bound separately 

APPENDIX 17: GEODIVERSITY 

17A Figures:- 

17.1 Location Plan 

17.2 Site Plan 

17.3 Geology Plan (BGS Extract) 

17B BGS Mapping 

17C BGS Borehole Logs 

17D SSSI Citation and Map 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 

fpcr 

The following documents which are referred to in the Further Information Document are separate 

reports and accompany the Regulation 22 submission:- 

1: Design and Access Statement A – SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENT (David Lock Associates) 

2: Green Infrastructure Biodiversity Management Plan A - REPLACEMENT REPORT (fpcr) 

3. Retail Assessment A – REPLACEMENT REPORT (Jones Lang LaSalle) 

4: Stage 2 Minerals Assessment (David L Walker Ltd) 

5: Transport Assessment A – SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENT (WSP) 

6: Framework Travel Plan A - REPLACEMENT DOCUMENT (WSP) 

7: Umbrella Residential Travel Plan A – REPLACEMENT DOCUMENT (WSP) 



1.0 INTRODUCTION: SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

1.1 BACKGROUND 

1 - 1 

fpcr 

1.1.1 An Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] was undertaken in relation to a planning 

application for a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) upon land at Lubbesthorpe, Blaby on 

behalf of Hallam land Management, Barratt David Wilson and Davidson Developments (the 

applicant). The application and Project is more commonly referred to as New Lubbesthorpe. 

1.1.2 An Environmental Statement (ES) was prepared in accordance with the Town & Country 

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 1999 (the EIA 

Regulations have since been replaced by the 2011 Regulations), and was submitted to Blaby 

District Council (BDC) on the 11 February 2011. 

1.1.3 Since the submission of the application, the applicant and the applicant’s consultants have 

been involved in extensive dialogue with Blaby District Council, Leicestershire County Council 

and other statutory consultees, such as the Highways Agency, English Heritage, Natural 

England and the Environment Agency, in order to address a number of issues that have been 

raised on the application. 

1.1.4 On the 23 rd November 2011, Blaby District Council requested the provision of further 

information pursuant to Regulation 22 of the 2011 Regulations in relation to the submitted 

Environmental Statement. Letters are attached at Appendix 1A. 

1.1.5 Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment (DCLG 1999) states that:- 

“Local planning authorities should satisfy themselves in every case that submitted statements 

contain the information specified in Part II of Schedule 4 to the Regulations and the relevant 

information set out in Part I of that Schedule that the developer can reasonably be required to 

compile...”[Para 109] 

“Where the required information has not been provided, the authority must use its powers 

under regulation 19 (22 under the 2011 Regulations) to require the applicant to provide further 

information concerning the relevant matters set out in Schedule 4...”[Para 110] 

“Authorities should only use their powers under regulation 19 (22 under the 2011 Regulations) 

when they consider that further information is necessary to complete the ES and thus enable 

them to give proper consideration to the likely effects of the proposed development...” 

1.2 FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE ES 

1.2.1 Further Information on the ES is submitted pursuant to Regulation 22 of the 2011 Regulations. 

1.2.2 This document includes a number of supplementary ES chapters which respond to the issues 

that have been set out by Blaby District Council in their Regulation 22 Request and provide 

additional information. The supplementary chapters should be read in conjunction with the 

submitted Environmental Statement. The ES is amended to the extent indicated in this Further 

Information Document and other than that is stated within the Further Information Document, 

all the methodology, baseline studies and impact assessment work within the ES remains 

valid.


1 - 2 

fpcr 

1.2.3 The following ES supplementary chapters have been produced for the Further Information 

Document:- 

· Chapter 3: Planning Policy (prepared by David Lock Associates) 

· Chapter 5: Socio Economic Issues (prepared by David Lock Associates) 

· Chapter 6: Landscape Character and Visual Resources (prepared by fpcr) 

· Chapter 7: Ecological Resources (including Arboriculture) (prepared by fpcr) 

· Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology (prepared by ULAS) 

· Chapter 9: Agricultural Land Quality (prepared by Land Use Associates) 

· Chapter 10: Water, Hydrology and Drainage (prepared by Waterman TDL) 

· Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration/Acoustics – REPLACEMENT CHAPTER (prepared by 

Waterman EED) 

· Chapter 13: Air Quality – REPLACEMENT CHAPTER (prepared by Waterman EED) 

· Chapter 14: Waste (prepared by fpcr) 

· Chapter 15: Traffic and Transport – REPLACEMENT CHAPTER (prepared by 

Waterman Boreham) 

· Chapter 16: Infrastructure and Services – REPLACEMENT CHAPTER (prepared by 

Rodgers Leask) 

· Chapter 17: Geodiversity – NEW CHAPTER (prepared by David Walker Ltd) 

· Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects (prepared by fpcr) – SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

1.2.4 Alterations are made to the Project and the planning application. The proposed changes are:- 

· Adjustment of the red line application boundary east of the M1 to allow for landscaping 

associated with new access; 

· Relocation of the District Centre; 

· Relocation of Local Centre 1 and Primary School 1; 

· Addition of a new gateway employment site within the SUE; 

· Adjustment of residential areas R13 and R19 to allow a continuous 12m corridor to either 

side of Lubbesthorpe Brook; 

· Reduction in height of proposed buildings at site E1 to 12m above existing ground level; 

· Retention of Enderby Park in agricultural uses; and 

· Alterations to the phasing of development. 

1.2.5 These changes are reflected on the revised set of Parameter Plans contained within this 

Further Information Document, Appendix 2A. The revised plans supersede the previous set 

contained within Volume 2, Appendix 2A of the ES. 

1.2.6 Certain matters not pertaining to Regulation 22 have also been requested by Blaby District 

Council. These are addressed either within this Further Information Document or through the 

revised or supplementary supporting documents as appropriate.


1 - 3 

fpcr 

1.2.7 In light of the recent National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published March 2012, 

relevant updated national planning policy in respect of each environmental topic is outlined at 

Chapter 3: Planning Policy. This replaces previous reference to the now superseded Planning 

Policy Guidance (PPGs), Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and Minerals Planning Guidance 

(MPGs) as referenced in individual chapters of this Further Information Document.


2.0 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (THE PROJECT): REPLACEMENT CHAPTER 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

2 - 1 

fpcr 

2.1.1 This Chapter of the Environmental Statement describes the Project. Some details (such as 

construction particulars, anticipated residues and emissions, and the use of natural resources) 

are addressed in the ‘Project Design’ sections of topic-specific chapters. 

2.1.2 The Project comprises a planned new community on land to the west of the existing urban 

area of Leicester in Blaby District, defined by the M1 motorway to the east, the community of 

Leicester Forest East to the north, Beggar’s Lane to the west and Leicester Lane to the south. 

The application boundary is identified at Appendix 2A, Figure 2.4A. The Project consists of up 

to 4,250 new homes, a mixed-use district centre and two mixed use local centres with retail, 

commercial employment, leisure, health, community and residential uses, non-residential 

institutions (including secondary school, primary schools and nurseries), a Strategic 

Employment Site of 21 hectares, open spaces and woodlands, new access points and 

associated facilities and infrastructure (comprising utilities including gas, electricity, water, 

sewerage and telecommunications, and network and diversion to existing utilities where 

necessary). Detailed proposals are also made for two new road bridges over the M1 

motorway and M69 motorway, and two road access points from Beggar’s Lane and new 

accesses from Meridian Way, Chapel Green/Baines Lane and Leicester Lane. The link to the 

north of Leicester Forest East motorway services (connecting with Glebe Farm Way and 

Baines Lane) is initially during phase one for all traffic and will then be used for public 

transport only after the M1 motorway bridge is opened. 

2.1.3 The proposed land uses and building dimensions are detailed at Appendix 2B and should be 

considered in conjunction with Appendix 2A, Figure 2.5A. The Parameters Plans, included at 

Appendix 2A, include three Phasing Plans; Figures 2.10.1A - 2.10.3A. 

2.1.4 The assessment considers a larger quantum of development than described in the Project in 

that it considers the impacts of up to 4,500 new homes rather than up to 4,250 new homes 

applied for in the application. This is to take account of potential residential development on 

land to the north of the site which is outside the application boundary but is included within the 

Council’s definition of the Sustainable Urban Extension. In assessing the larger number, the 

assessment is robust in considering the cumulative impacts of the Project and the additional 

land, were this also to come forward for residential development. 

Vision 

2.1.5 The Design and Access Statement as supplemented byDesign and Access Statement A 

describes the vision for Lubbesthorpe at Part 3, Section 7 as follows:- 

“The vision is of a sustainable, integrated and coherent extension to the city and an attractive, 

successful and well-served new community in Blaby.”


Design Principles 

2 - 2 

fpcr 

2.1.6 The Project is based on a set of design principles drawn from national and local urban design 

policies and from good practice. The principles also reflect the results of the Stakeholder 

Workshop in January 2010 and the subsequent stakeholder engagement and public 

consultations. These principles comprise (inter alia) to:- 

· Develop and integrated sustainable urban extension properly connected to its surrounding 

communities; 

· Respond to the influences of the site to design the development so it is set-well into its 

landscape; 

· Create a green setting with parks, woodlands and significant improvements to the bio- 

diversity of the site; 

· Develop in a compact way, enabling easy access to a full range of local facilities including 

shops and schools; 

· Promote sustainable means of travel within and between the development, including 

walking, cycling and public transport, with strong connections to neighbouring communities 

and employment areas; and 

· Create an attractive development which reflects local building traditions and precedents (in 

terms of materials and styles for instance), and also interprets these to create homes and 

places to work that meet contemporary needs and demands. 

Layout 

2.1.7 The design of New Lubbesthorpe is set within a framework formed from the following 

components:- 

· Land Use; 

· Urban Design; 

· Landscape and Open Space (Green Infrastructure); and 

· Access. 

2.2 THE LAND USE FRAMEWORK 

2.2.1 The land use framework sets the location and scale of the land uses. The land uses are 

shown on Parameters Plan B: Land Use, Appendix 2A, Figure 2.5A and at Appendix 2B. The 

proposed land uses are:- 

Housing 

2.2.2 The housing areas are defined by a combination of routes, open spaces and natural features 

such as woodlands, the Deserted Medieval Village of Lubbesthorpe Scheduled Monument 

and its setting, the setting of the Medieval Rabbit Warren Scheduled Monument (which lies 

outside of the site area), watercourses and their flood areas, and hedgerows. The housing 

areas are further defined by the proposed street structure, and by parameters for the built 

form, including height and density.


2 - 3 

fpcr 

2.2.3 Up to 4,250 dwellings are proposed, consisting of detached, semi-detached and terraced 

houses, as well as townhouses, flats over garages, apartments, bungalows and sheltered and 

assisted /care housing. 

2.2.4 Up to 30% of the new homes on the site are proposed in the form of affordable housing 

including both social rented housing and intermediate tenures of housing. 

2.2.5 Housing is proposed to be located within both the residential and mixed-use areas shown on 

Parameters Plan B: Land Use, Appendix 2A, Figure 2.5A, and specified at Appendix 2B; and 

to be accommodated within the density ranges set out on Parameters Plan E: Residential 

Density, Appendix 2A: Figure 2.8A. 

2.2.6 Residential development is proposed to be comprised of buildings of between 5m – 20m in 

depth, 5m – 100m in length of building frontage and 3m – 12m in height to the ridge level (but 

excluding any point features such as towers, turrets, chimneys etc). Residential uses within 

the district and local centres would be subject to different scale parameters as set out below. 

District Centre 

2.2.7 The district centre is proposed as a mixed-use development to be accessible to the whole new 

community and, importantly, to be accessible and convenient to residents from the existing 

communities of Thorpe Astley and Leicester Forest East and adjacent employment areas. The 

district centre would contain a variety of retail, office, community, leisure, health and 

residential uses, as well as a waste bring site. The proposed secondary school would be 

located alongside to the south and publicly accessible facilities at the school would help 

reinforce the strength of the centre. 

2.2.8 The district centre is proposed to accommodate up to 10,260 sq m of non-residential 

floorspace, consisting of an envisaged mix of up to 4,230 sq m (net) of retail (Class A1) 

floorspace, up to 2,000 sq m of business (Class B1) floorspace, up to 500 sq m (net) of A2 

(Financial & Professional Services), up to 730 sq m of A3-5 (Food & Drink), up to 1,500 sq m 

of D2 (Assembly and Leisure) community centre and up to 1,200 sq m of D1 (Non-Residential 

Institutions) health centre to be operated by an appropriate NHS body, and associated car 

parking. Up to 100 sq m of floorspace is also assumed for a waste management facility (a 

waste bring site). The district centre would also accommodate new homes, predominantly in 

the form of apartments and town houses. The content of the district centre is specified at 

Appendix 2B. 

2.2.9 The district centre is proposed to employ built form within the following parameters:- 

· Building depth: 5m – 50m; 

· Building frontage length: 6m – 100m; 

· Building height: 6m – 15m. 

2.2.10 The waste management facility is assumed to have the following dimensions:- 



· Building height: 3m – 5m.


Local Centres 

2 - 4 

fpcr 

2.2.11 Two local centres are proposed collectively to accommodate up to 2,640 sq m of floorspace, 

each consisting of up to 310 sq m (net) of retail (Class A1) floorspace, with the remaining 

floorspace accommodating uses in classes A3-5 (Food & Drink), D1 (Non-Residential 

Institutions) and D2 (Assembly & Leisure), again as specified at Appendix 2B. Small 

workspaces (B1) are also proposed in each centre. Each local centre would also 

accommodate up to 40 residential units. The local centres are located in the north-west of the 

plan area and at New House Farm, and potential may exist to re-use some of the existing 

farm buildings as part of the local centre development. 

2.2.12 The local centres are assumed to have the following dimensions:- 




Gateway Employment 

2.2.13 A gateway employment area is proposed close to the district centre and at the entrance to the 

site from the east over the M1 motorway. The site would provide for local employment uses 

within the B1 use class and include small offices, research and development and light industry 

uses compatible with a residential location. Development of some 4,600 sq. m is envisaged in 

a perimeter block form to match the proposed urban form of the surrounding development. 

2.2.14 The gateway employment area is assumed to have the following building dimensions:- 

· Building depth: 5m-50m; 

· Building frontage: 6m- 100m; 


Parkland 

2.2.15 The proposals include 17.3 hectares as formal open space (excluding children’s play areas 

and kick-about areas) and around 194 hectares of other open space, in accordance with 

National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) and local standards of provision. The parkland 

structure is described in detail below at 2.3.3. 

Employment 

2.2.16 Employment land provision is made in two forms: firstly, as small scale office or light industry 

accommodation within the district and local centres and in the gateway employment area, and 

secondly in a Strategic Employment Site (SES) to the south of the M69 motorway and north of 

Leicester Lane. The SES is designed to accommodate a range of business and employment 

uses accessible to the residential development area and is proposed to be accessed from 

Leicester Lane to provide easy access to J21 of the M1, with restrictions on heavy good 

vehicles travelling through the residential development area of the SUE.


2 - 5 

fpcr 

2.2.17 The Strategic Employment site is 21 hectares (net) of land for Class B1 (business), Class B2 

(general industry) and Class B8 (Storage and distribution) uses which could accommodate up 

to 84,000 sq m of floorspace (refer to Appendix 2B). A further 2,500 sq m of Class B1 

floorspace is proposed within the district centre and local centres and 4,600 sq. m within the 

gateway employment site. 

2.2.18 The employment within the SES is assumed to have the following dimensions:- 




2.2.19 The dimensions for employment within district and local centres, and the gateway employment 

site have already been set out above. 

Secondary School 

2.2.20 Land to accommodate a secondary school and two primary schools – each with on-site 

playing fields – is proposed, together with financial contributions towards their provision. The 

proposed secondary school site is 10 hectares and is located adjacent to the district centre. 

2.2.21 The secondary school buildings are assumed to have the following dimensions:- 



· Building height: 4.5m – 15m. 

Primary Schools 

2.2.22 Primary School 1 is 2.5 hectares and Primary School 2 is 2.0 hectares and both include space 

to accommodate pre-school provision if required. Primary schools are located adjacent to the 

local centres. 

2.2.23 The primary school buildings are assumed to have the following dimensions:- 



· Building height: 4.5m – 12m. 

Retention of Existing Buildings 

2.2.24 Existing farm buildings which are capable of being reused at Old Warren Farm, and New 

House Farm would be retained and reused. The farm buildings at New House Farm would 

become the nucleus of the proposed local centre at that location. The existing farm buildings 

at Warren Farm are also intended to be incorporated into the employment development south 

of the M69. While this application seeks to reserve the mix of uses for these areas, the 

potential for re-use of the buildings would be explored in separate subsequent detailed 

applications, which would include detailed surveys of those buildings (including their historic 

and architectural value) and detailed assessments of their suitability for retention.


2 - 6 

fpcr 

2.2.25 The principal existing farm buildings at Hopyard Farm and Abbey Farm are to be retained. 

The future re-use of these buildings is not prescribed within this application, but could include 

uses concerned with the interpretation of the Deserted Medieval Village of Lubbesthorpe 

Scheduled Monument (SM). Any such re-use would be subject of separate subsequent 

detailed applications. The farm buildings will remain in farming uses until such time as the 

relevant farm unit is no longer viable or practical to continue farming. 

2.3 THE LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE FRAMEWORK (GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE) 

2.3.1 The landscape and open space framework consists of a network of open spaces. The extent 

of the open spaces is shown on Parameters Plan D: Green Infrastructure, Appendix 2A, 

Figure 2.7A. 

2.3.2 Within this framework, the proposals aim to deliver elements of the Green Infrastructure 

Strategy for the 6Cs Growth Point, as well as protecting the setting of the Deserted Medieval 

Village of Lubbesthorpe Scheduled Monument (SM). The framework provides a means of 

delivering multi-functional green space and environmental mitigation in a co-ordinated and 

efficient manner and in line with planning policy. 

Parkland Structure 

2.3.3 The proposed parkland structure comprises:- 

· Old Warren Park, between the existing Leicester Forest East housing and the proposed 

housing, local centre and school which would accommodate recreation areas and a 

Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP); 

· Central Park; referred to as ‘The Commons’ extending through the development from 

Beggar’s Lane in the west to the M1 along the line of the Lubbesthorpe Bridle Road and 

including the Lubbesthorpe SM; 

· Brook Park; following the line of the brook in the south of the site, designed to promote 

biodiversity and accommodate flood detention areas; and 

· Enderby Park; conservation and restoration of the parkland but it will remain in private 

use. 

2.3.4 The landscape and open space structure has been formulated to respond to and enhance the 

identified features of the landscape, historic and wildlife value across the site. In particular:- 

· The landscape significance of the gently undulating landform and the system of shallow 

valleys; 

· The setting of the Deserted Medieval Village of Lubbesthorpe Scheduled Monument; 

· The setting of Enderby Hall and the conservation of Enderby Park; 

· The existence of known and potential archaeological resources across the site; and 

· The presence of habitats of nature conservation value and protected species on the site, 

including bats, badgers, amphibians, birds and possibly otters. These would be protected 

and enhanced, in conjunction with the enhancement of the site’s biodiversity, as set out 

below.


2.3.5 The landscape and open space proposals are presented under three themes:- 

· Creative Conservation; 

· Recreation and Play; and 

· Productive Landscapes. 

Creative Conservation 

2 - 7 

fpcr 

2.3.6 The proposals aim to conserve and extend the wildlife value of the site, as outlined below and 

as detailed in ES Volume 1, Chapters 6: Landscape and Visual Resources and 7: Ecological 

Resources. 

Habitats 

2.3.7 The Project includes the creation or enhancement of habitats described within the Green 

Infrastructure Biodiversity Management Plan, namely:- 

· Rivers and streams; 

· Open standing water; 

· Species rich hedgerows; 

· Lowland neutral grassland; 

· Wet and marshy grassland; 

· Lowland mixed woodland; and 

· Wet woodland. 

2.3.8 Several new areas of habitat creation are proposed:- 

· Conservation of the brooks and ditches; 

· All boundary buffer strips would be at least 10 metres wide, and in many instances more, 

to ensure their value to flora and fauna; 

· In total some 85% of the existing hedgerow framework would be retained, including the 

majority of grade 1 and 2 hedgerows (refer to ES Volume 1, Appendix 7D). Existing 

hedgerows would be incorporated into the design and reinforced as necessary to improve 

their structure and diversity. New hedgerows are proposed along the lines of new roads 

with species-rich grassland verges. Ditches and verges would be incorporated alongside 

hedgerows to create integrated habitats; 

· Water bodies are proposed to be located within areas of existing habitat, with grassland, 

scrub and trees to contribute to habitat creation. All other water bodies are proposed to be 

retained and to undergo habitat enhancement; 

· The brook valley within the south of the site would be retained and enhanced as a wet and 

marshy habitat and would accommodate detention ponds as part of the proposed 

sustainable drainage system;


2 - 8 

fpcr 

· Grassland is proposed to be created around the new water-body margins, with other areas 

of species rich neutral grassland managed for visual and habitat diversity. Grassland would 

be created along dry ditch edges to create wildlife strips; 

· Existing woodlands, hedgerows and plantations are proposed to be strengthened with new 

broad-leaved woodland planting. Existing woodlands would be enhanced to improve 

structure with woodland edge planting as buffers; and 

· Formal Open Space would also provide physical linkages between habitats including via 

retained and new hedgerows within the formal parkland areas. 

Species 

2.3.9 The following measures are proposed to protect and enhance the habitats of protected 

species:- 

· Bats: trees identified as potentially suitable for bat roosts would be retained and bat boxes 

provided on buildings; 

· Badgers: all identified badger setts would be protected and clear access from the setts to 

open spaces provided; 

· Amphibians: all existing ponds would be retained and hydrological conditions maintained; 

and 

· Birds: all major trees and woodlands are retained as are a large proportion of hedgerows 

with considerable new planting. 

2.3.10 Detailed management plans for the habitats would be prepared, and drawn up in consultation 

with Natural England, Leicestershire County Council, Blaby District Council and local wildlife 

groups, specifying design and form, species mixes and future management and monitoring 

prescriptions. The Green Infrastructure Biodiversity Management Plan A, accompanying this 

Further Information Document, provides a strategy within which individual plans would be 

prepared. 

Recreation and Play 

2.3.11 The proposals make provision for formal recreation grounds and children’s play space. The 

provision of open spaces follows the council’s own typology of spaces and includes; parks, 

gardens and recreation grounds; outdoor sports, informal open spaces; natural green space; 

allotments; and play areas. 

2.3.12 Four Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAPs) are proposed, as shown on 

Parameters Plan D: Green Infrastructure, Appendix 2A, Figure 2.7A. The locations of Local 

Equipped Areas for Play (LEAPs) and Local Areas for Play (LAPs) would be specified at the 

detailed planning stage. 

The Productive Landscape 

2.3.13 The Project includes for provision of allotments alongside the housing areas. The potential 

exists for future development of a community farm, perhaps within the farm building


2 - 9 

fpcr 

complexes at Abbey or Hopyard Farms when these become available during later phases of 

the Project. 

2.4 THE URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK 

2.4.1 The urban framework sets the requirements for the urban design of the Project and identifies 

the strategic design considerations relevant to the development as a whole. This includes the 

strategic views, key buildings and frontages, entrances, parkland edges, main streets and 

squares, and the sub-character areas, which are developed further in the submitted Design 

and Access Statement and supplement accompanying this Further Information Document. 

2.5 THE ACCESS FRAMEWORK 

2.5.1 The access framework aims to achieve a balance between use of the car and other transport 

modes; and prioritises alternatives to the car for local movements, ensuring that the local 

movement network is safe, pleasant to use and attractive. The proposals have been 

formulated in consultation with the County Council as highway authority and the Highways 

Agency, which is responsible for the M1 and M69. Parameters Plan C: Access, Appendix 2A, 

Figure 2.6.1A shows the proposed network of routes. 

2.5.2 The proposed movement network comprises a street network, cycle, footpath and bridleway 

routes, and public transport proposals. This is supported by sustainable transport initiatives 

proposed in the submitted Travel Plans for the development; these have been revised and are 

included as supporting documents to this Further Information Document. Junction 

improvements would be required to connect the proposals to the existing network; and off-site 

junction improvements to be carried out by the highway authority would also be required to 

provide for the additional movements generated by the proposals. 

2.5.3 Detailed proposals are made for a new all mode bridge crossing of the M1 Motorway for 

vehicular traffic linking to Meridian Way, a new bridge crossing of the M69 Motorway for 

vehicular traffic linking the SES and Leicester Lane and development to the north of the M69, 

two new vehicular access points from Beggar’s Lane and improvements to Chapel Green, 

Baines Lane and the Baines Lane/A47 junction to provide for bus, pedestrian and cycle only 

access. Further details of these connections are provided on the access proposals plans at 

ES Volume 1, Appendix 2A, Figures 2.6.2–2.6.7 and Appendix 2A of this Further Information 

Document, Figures 2.62A–2.64A. 

Street Network 

2.5.4 The street network comprises:- 

· Primary streets; providing lateral access east-west across the site, linking into the existing 

road structure. These routes would complete a ‘ladder’ framework of primary streets where 

there are potential connections; 

· Secondary streets; providing access into the individual development areas; and 

· Tertiary streets; providing local access within the sub-development areas and include 

home-zone type streets.


2 - 10 

fpcr 

2.5.5 The primary, secondary and tertiary streets would accommodate motorised vehicles, cyclists 

and pedestrians and would be designed to respond to the appropriate priority within each 

area, with increasing levels of pedestrian priority down the hierarchy. 

2.5.6 The street network includes the following connections with the existing highway network:- 

· New bus, pedestrian and cycle only (after the first phase) access into Chapel Green, 

improvements to Baines Lane and the Baines Lane/A47 junction; 

· Bus, pedestrian and cycle only access onto Watergate Lane, controlled by a bus gate; 

· Vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access from Meridian Way via a new bridge over the M1 

motorway; 

· Two new vehicular access points from Beggar’s Lane and improvements to the Beggar’s 

Lane/A47 junction; and 

· Vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access to the employment area from Leicester Lane, 

connecting to the residential development via a new M69 all-modes bridge. 

2.5.7 These proposed points of connection, together with proposed pedestrian connections with the 

highway, footpath and bridleway networks are shown on Parameters Plan C: Access, 

Appendix 2A, Figure 2.6.1A. 

2.5.8 All roads throughout the development would be designed in accordance with the 

Government’s Design Guide Manual for Streets (2007) and Manual for Streets 2 (2010). 

Parking provision would be in accordance with PPG13 (March 2001), PPS3 (November 2006), 

and relevant local policy and standards. Lighting along routes and throughout the Project 

would be designed to minimise light pollution, while promoting safety and security, in 

accordance with the Institute of Lighting Engineers’ Guidance Notes for the Reduction of 

Obtrusive Light (2005) with provision of low energy lighting systems. 

Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding 

2.5.9 The proposals integrate with and extend the network of footpaths, cycle routes and bridleways 

in the area, as shown on the Parameters Plan B: Land Use, Appendix 2A, Figure 2.5A. The 

following routes proposed across the site are part of the wider network of routes:- 

· Lubbesthorpe Bridle Way is retained as a footpath, cycle route and equestrian route for the 

majority of its length. It would also provide access to Abbey and Hopyard Farms and the 

Bungalow and Abbey Cottages; 

· Footpath connections to Leicester Forest East; 

· Connections to Enderby, retaining the existing farm accommodation bridge until 

improvements to the M1/M69 motorways by the Highways Agency necessitate its removal; 

and 

· Retention of existing footpaths and bridleways which cross the site and provision of new 

footpath connections, as shown on the Parameters Plan B: Land Use, Appendix 2A, Figure 

2.5A. 

2.5.10 Cycle routes are combined with footpaths on the principal routes, and segregated cycle routes 

are provided on routes through the parkland system.


2 - 11 

fpcr 

2.5.11 Equestrian routes are retained and new routes provided within the parkland system and these 

and the parkland footpath system will be developed through detailed design of the parkland 

areas. 

Public Transport 

2.5.12 The public transport proposals comprise:- 

· Provision of financial contributions towards scheduled bus services (to be operated by third 

parties) linking the development via the district centre to Leicester City Centre and the 

railway station; and within the site, the provision of infrastructure to promote movement by 

public transport, including the dedication of road space, and the provision of financial 

contributions towards the installation of priority signalling and the implementation of high 

quality waiting facilities, including real-time information (to be delivered by third parties); 

· Provision of dedicated routes for public transport to link the development with the A47 via 

Chapel Green and Baines Lane; and 

· The potential for further bus links via Leicester Lane, Watergate Lane and Meridian Way. 

Additional Sustainable Travel Initiatives 

2.5.13 In addition, the access framework incorporates further sustainable transport initiatives, 

including:- 

· Preparation of Travel Plans, to co-ordinate sustainable transport initiatives. Certain 

aspects of the Travel Plans would be delivered by third parties, as set out in the submitted 

Travel Plans and supplements supporting this Further Information Document. 

Junction Improvements 

2.5.14 Improvements are proposed to the following junctions:- 

· Meridian Way/Meridian Way East/Foxon Way; 

· Beggar’s Lane and A47; 

· Baines Lane and A47; 

· A47 Hinckley Road/Desford Road/Leicester Lane (MOVA signal improvements); and 

· Narborough Road/Leicester Lane/Police HQ (MOVA signal improvements) 

2.5.15 Provision would also be made for financial contributions towards improvements to existing 

junctions to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development. 

2.6 SCALE AND APPEARANCE 

Scale 

2.6.1 The scale of the buildings would be determined by the spatial characteristics of the street 

network, density and height parameters and the definition of urban block types and building 

typologies. These provide a series of parameters within which the proposals will be advanced.


2 - 12 

fpcr 

The parameters are described in the Design and Access Statement (Part Six), supplemented 

by Design and Access Statement A accompanying this Further Information Document. 

Street Design 

2.6.2 The street design proposes a series of streets for movement by pedestrians, cyclists and 

vehicles, and sets the spatial characteristics of street width and building heights on each side. 

Variations are identified for parkland edges. The network comprises strategic streets serving 

the development as a whole, together with local routes within each development area. 

Urban Blocks 

2.6.3 The development would be set within the street network and formed into perimeter blocks. 

The Design and Access Statement describes the various forms the urban blocks might take 

depending on the type of housing provided. 

2.6.4 The blocks also set parameters for the massing of development, the amount of active 

frontage, parking arrangements, garden spaces and building type mix. 

2.6.5 The highest density blocks are located generally along the principal streets and within the 

district centre, with core blocks also at the local centres. Density reduces towards the 

countryside edges of the development, at the parkland edges and where existing development 

on the urban-edge is of low density. In those locations, the character of development is 

proposed to be more informal. 

2.6.6 The building heights are also highest in the district centre and in the SES with the maximum 

building height at 15m above ground level, excluding any point features. Elsewhere the 

building height is not proposed to exceed 12m. The heights are shown on Parameters Plan F: 

Building Heights, Appendix 2A, Figure 2.9A. 

2.6.7 The proposals encourage a consistency of built form typologies throughout the development, 

reflecting local urban character, morphology and building traditions, while allowing for 

contemporary interpretations where appropriate. 

Building Typologies 

2.6.8 A range of building types are proposed for residential and non-residential buildings. The scale 

of each building type is identified, and the location and mix of building types as specified in the 

Parameters Plans and Building Dimensions Schedule and in the Design and Access 

Statement and the supplement (Design and Access Statement A) accompanying this Further 

Information Document. 

Appearance 

2.6.9 The appearance of the development is reserved for future approval, subject to being in 

accordance with the general principles set out in the Design and Access Statement and 

supplement (Design and Access Statement A). That document identifies a range of 

components that will inform the future appearance of the built development and landscape 

design. The general principle is that buildings and public spaces should be “of their place and 

of their time”. Principles are identified for architectural design, materials and texture, colour


2 - 13 

fpcr 

palette, decoration, lighting, hard and soft landscape, street furniture and public art. These 

form the basis for developing specific character area parameters within subsequent Design 

Codes for each sub-development area. 

Character Areas 

2.6.10 The development is divided into a series of character areas which illustrate how the 

framework elements come together with the street, density, height, block and building 

typologies, to achieve a distinctive design character. 


2.6.11 The district centre would be the mixed-use heart of the development and would be located 

near to the proposed M1 crossing which is the principal gateway into the site. 

2.6.12 The district centre would comprise a supermarket, small shop units, site for a health centre 

and community facilities, workspaces and housing. Building heights would generally be 3 

storeys with local landmarks at 4 and 5 storeys. The district centre also includes the 

secondary school and a waste management facility. 

2.6.13 The Project would include mixed-use buildings fronting onto the street. These would be 

designed to offer flexibility and allow for change of use over time. 

Gateway Employment Site 

2.6.14 The gateway employment site would be of a scale and character to be compatible with the 

adjacent residential areas and secondary school. Units would be outward facing and provide 

pedestrian access from the street, with parking provided in rear courtyard areas. The 

prominence of the site and buildings at the entrance to the development requires high quality 

development and could be emphasised with higher and more distinctive buildings signifying 

the gateway 

Strategic Employment Site 

2.6.15 The SES would combine a wide range of building types and businesses; and would be 

developed to create a new high quality employment park that is well connected to the strategic 

road network. 

2.6.16 The development would maintain existing woodland groups and includes for major new 

woodland planting along the M1 and M69 motorways, with development set back from 

Enderby Park. 

Residential Character Areas 

2.6.17 The residential development areas form several character areas depending on their location 

and density of development. These reflect the broad transect through the development 

between the higher density and more formal urban structure at the district centre and eastern 

part of the development area, through to the more informal and lower density urban form 

towards the western and countryside edge of the development. The Design and Access


2 - 14 

fpcr 

Statement and supplement (Design and Access Statement A) provides for responses to site 

influences such as landform, land use intensity, relationship to parks and street types. 

2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

2.7.1 The Project adopts a range of performance measures as described in the Sustainability 

Statement. 

2.7.2 An Environmental Management System (EMS) is proposed to be prepared at each stage of 

the development. 

Utilities 

2.7.3 Within the development, a common utilities strategy would be applied locating main utilities 

alongside and within the main street network. The proposed utility provision for the site is set 

out below. 

Water Supply 

2.7.4 The site is crossed by a strategic water main. Severn Trent Water has confirmed that an 

adequate supply of water to the proposed work can be provided. 

Foul Water Drainage 

2.7.5 Foul water treatment for the development is proposed to be undertaken at Wanlip Sewage 

Treatment Works. The proposed development is envisaged to outfall via new sewers 

connecting the site with the strategic main to the east of the M1 motorway, making use of the 

new M1 bridge or via the existing culvert to the south of Leicester Forest East motorway 

service area. Improvements would be required at the Sewage Treatment Works in later 

phases of the development. 

Electricity 

2.7.6 Electricity supply is proposed from the existing network. Off-site reinforcements would be 

made to the existing network to support the development as required. A new electricity 

network and secondary substations will be provided around the site. 

Gas 

2.7.7 Sufficient capacity exists to supply the proposed development. Connections would be made 

into the existing network and new on site gas governors would be provided to supply a local 

gas network. 

Telecommunications 

2.7.8 Telephone connections can be made via the adjacent network facilities. It is likely that a 

number of cable operators would wish to provide communication services to the development. 

It is intended that the whole development would be served by broadband technology.


2.8 IMPLEMENTATION 

2 - 15 

fpcr 

2.8.1 Implementation proposals cover the proposed phasing, the approach to construction, and the 

approach to the future management and maintenance of the public assets to be developed as 

part of the Project. 

Phasing 

2.8.2 The development would be progressed as a series of phases. The broad phasing is 

determined by access infrastructure availability. Three phases of development are proposed, 

as shown on Parameters Plan G, Appendix 2A, Figures 2.10.1A–2.10.3A:- 

· Phase 1: The first phase comprises some 300 units, provision of the first local centre and 

primary school, with access from the north and from Beggar’s Lane as well as a start on 

employment development off Leicester Lane at the SES; 

· Phase 2: Phase two comprises development of around 2,000 homes, the district centre, 

second local centre and primary school and is served via the addition of the M1 motorway 

crossing to Meridian Way and a second southern access onto Beggar’s Lane; 

· Phase 3: Phase three entails completion of the development with construction of the M69 

bridge link. 

2.8.3 All advance planting would be undertaken during Phase 1, when the parkland structure 

described at paragraph 2.3.3 would also be created, although formal planting and public 

access would follow as respective development phases are completed. A housing trajectory is 

provided at Appendix 2B, which shows the estimated rate of housing provision over the 

anticipated period of implementation of the Project. 

Construction Phase 

2.8.4 A Construction Code of Practice (CCoP) is proposed to be prepared to manage the 

construction and site operations which would be agreed with the relevant authorities. This 

would incorporate good practice working methods and techniques. The following would be 

included within the scope of the CCoP:- 

· Method statements would be drawn up in consultation with the Environment Agency (EA) 

prior to construction of each phase, to ensure works are undertaken to protect the 

watercourses. Water and run-off during construction would be to the foul drainage system, 

subject to approvals and in accordance with the EA’s Pollution Prevention Guideline for 

Works in, Near or Liable to Affect Watercourses, PPG6 Working at Construction and 

Demolition Sites, PPG21 Pollution Incident Response Planning and current best practice 

measures for the management of construction activities; 

· Working activities would be limited within the 1 in 100-year floodplain unless for the 

purposes of essential infrastructure or amenity/ecological enhancements. No storage of 

materials would be allowed outside an agreed working corridor. Measures would also 

control any temporary watercourse diversions, storage of materials and any de-watering 

from the site; 

· Adoption of a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP), to control and limit waste arising 

through the construction phases, with careful management of materials and use of


2 - 16 

fpcr 

standard sizing and prefabricated units, as well as specification of materials from 

sustainable or environmentally certified sources and avoidance of their over-specification; 

· Adoption of a sustainable earthworks strategy to minimise the impact on agriculture, soil 

and land resources. The retention of stripped topsoil for re-use and the minimisation of soil 

compaction would reduce adverse effects upon soil resources and function; 

· Sustainable remediation treatment and/or containment strategies would be designed and 

undertaken where pollutants are likely to be encountered, of which there is a low 

probability; 

· Construction noise reduction strategies would be deployed, as detailed in Replacement 

Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration/Acoustics included in this Further Information Document; 

· An air quality strategy would be implemented, providing for dust control techniques during 

construction, including wheel-washing and damping down haul roads. 

Management and Maintenance 

2.8.5 It is envisaged that the open space resources created by the development would be managed 

and maintained by an independent management trust/company. The management 

trust/company would manage the Green Infrastructure for the benefit of residents and wildlife. 

Partnership working arrangements might be entered into with relevant environmental 

stakeholders who have an interest in the Green Infrastructure, including the Wildlife Trust, the 

Woodland Trust and other bodies.


3.0 PLANNING POLICY: SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 


3 - 1 

fpcr 

3.1.1 This supplementary Chapter provides a response to the additional information that has been 

requested by Blaby District Council by referring to the following:- 

· Additional Saved Policies of the Blaby District Local Plan which are of relevance to this 

application; 

· Policy 11: Developer Contributions of the Council’s Core Strategy Submission Version (July 

2009) (now superseded by the January 2012 version); 

· The Council’s Housing Requirements for Blaby District; 

· Reference to Policy M5 of the Blaby District Local Plan which has been deleted. 

3.1.2 In supplying this further information, the opportunity has also been taken to provide an update 

to the National Planning Policy section of ES Chapter 3: Planning Policy 

3.2 NATIONAL LEVEL 

Addendum to Further Information Document in light of the publication of the National 

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012 

3.2.1 The Coalition Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 

March 2012 which became operational on publication. The NPPF provides replacement 

national planning policy and in the process leads to the abolition of all Planning Policy 

Statements (PPSs) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and Minerals Planning Guidance 

(MPGs) as well as a series of letters and ministerial statements that have been material to 

planning decisions and policy making. The NPPF becomes a material consideration in 

determination of all applications and the framework against which local plans and 

neighbourhood plans are to be prepared. Technical guidance on flood risk and minerals was 

published alongside the NPPF. 

3.2.2 The Environmental Statement for the New Lubbesthorpe application has been prepared 

against the evolving national planning policy context and began against the now replaced 

policy frameworks, having taken into account first the draft and now the final version of the 

NPPF. 

3.2.3 The basis of the assessment used in the Environmental Statement and this Further 

Information Document has not changed and the same criteria and standards for the 

assessment of effects has been used. However, the context against which this application is 

determined must now reflect the NPPF. 

3.2.4 Importantly, the NPPF identifies a theme, described as a ‘golden thread’, which runs through 

the framework of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Sustainable 

development is considered by the Government to effectively be the sum of the NPPF, 

therefore development in accordance with the NPPF, and in the absence of alternative locally 

derived and approved frameworks (and subject to EU law), should be permitted. This is stated 

in the foreward from Rt Hon Greg Clark MP Minister for Planning in the following way:-


3 - 2 

fpcr 

“Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of 

sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework 

sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” 

3.2.5 In the following section we consider the NPPF in relation to the individual chapters of the 

Environmental Statement and identify the relevant NPPF sections and paragraphs 

accordingly. 

Chapter 3.0: Planning Policy 

3.2.6 The following Planning Policy Statements and Guidance is superseded:- 

· Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (31 January 2005) 

· Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to Planning Policy 

Statement 1 (17 December 2007) 

3.2.7 The relevant paragraphs of the NPPF are:- 

The Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development 

14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of 

sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both 

plan-making and decision-taking. 

For decision-taking this means (text in italics has been added):- 

· approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and 

· where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting 

permission unless:- 

– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the 

benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or 

– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. 

Core Planning Principles 

17. Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use 

planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. These 12 

principles are that planning should:- 

· Be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct 

local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. Plans 

should be kept up-to-date, and be based on joint working and co-operation to address 

larger than local issues. They should provide a practical framework within which decisions 

on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency; 

· Not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance 

and improve the places in which people live their lives; 

· Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, 

business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country 

needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, 

business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider


3 - 3 

fpcr 

opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices 

and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is 

suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and 

business communities; 

· Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing 

and future occupants of land and buildings; 

· Take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of 

our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic 

character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; 

· Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of 

flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including 

conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for 

example, by the development of renewable energy); 

· Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. 

Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, 

where consistent with other policies in this Framework; 

· Encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed 

(brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value; 

· Promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in 

urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such 

as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production); 

· Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be 

enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations; 

· Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, 

walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be 

made sustainable; and 

· Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural 

wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to 

meet local needs. 

Decision Taking 

187. Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision- 

takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where 

possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure 

developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. 

Determining Applications 

196. The planning system is plan-led. Planning law requires that applications for planning 

permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material 

considerations indicate otherwise. This Framework is a material consideration in planning 

decisions. 

197. In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should 

apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 

214. For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full


3 - 4 

fpcr 

weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with 

this Framework. 

215. In other cases and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant 

policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the 

closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may 

be given). 

216. From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in 

emerging plans according to:- 

· The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the 

greater the weight that may be given); 

· The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant 

the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and 

· The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in 

this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the 

Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). 

218. Where it would be appropriate and assist the process of preparing or amending Local 

Plans, regional strategy policies can be reflected in Local Plans by undertaking a partial 

review focusing on the specific issues involved. Local planning authorities may also continue 

to draw on evidence that informed the preparation of regional strategies to support Local Plan 

policies, supplemented as needed by up-to-date, robust local evidence. 

Chapter 5.0: Socio Economic Issues 

3.2.8 The following Planning Policy Statements and guidance is superseded:- 

· Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (9 June 2011) 

· Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (29 December 

2009) 

· Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (24 July 

2002) 


Delivering Sustainable Development 

1. Building a strong, competitive economy. 

19. The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can 

to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as 

an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the 

need to support economic growth through the planning system. 

21. Investment in business should not be over-burdened by the combined requirements of 

planning policy expectations. Planning policies should recognise and seek to address 

potential barriers to investment, including a poor environment or any lack of infrastructure, 

services or housing. In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should (inter alia):- 

· set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to match the strategy


and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period. 

2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 

3 - 5 

fpcr 

26. When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town 

centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities 

should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set 

floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq 

m).This should include assessment of:- 

· The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private 

investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and 

· The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer 

choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the 

application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five 

years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is 

made. 

27. Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant 

adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused. 

6. Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes 

47. To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:- 

· Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed 

needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent 

with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical 

to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; 

· Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five 

years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% 

(moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the 

market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, 

local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in 

the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to 

ensure choice and competition in the market for land; 

· Identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 

and, where possible, for years 11-15; 

· For market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through 

a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for 

the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of 

housing land to meet their housing target; and 

· Set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances. 

49. Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of 

sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be 

considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of 

deliverable housing sites.


3 - 6 

fpcr 

50. To deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership 

and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should:- 

· Plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends 

and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families 

with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to 

build their own homes); 

· Identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, 

reflecting local demand; and 

· Where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this 

need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value 

can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing 

housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and 

balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of 

changing market conditions over time. 

52. The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger 

scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that 

follow the principles of Garden Cities. 

8. Promoting healthy communities 

69. The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and 

creating healthy, inclusive communities. Local planning authorities should create a shared 

vision with communities of the residential environment and facilities they wish to see. To 

support this, local planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of the community in 

the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions, and should facilitate 

neighbourhood planning. Planning policies and decisions, in turn, should aim to achieve 

places which promote:- 

· Opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise 

come into contact with each other, including through mixed-use developments, strong 

neighbourhood centres and active street frontages which bring together those who work, 

live and play in the vicinity; 

· Safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not 

undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and 

· Safe and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and 

high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas. 

70.To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, 

planning policies and decisions should:- 

· Plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as 

local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of 

worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and 

residential environments; 

· Guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this 

would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs;


3 - 7 

fpcr 

· Ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in 

a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community; and 

· Ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and 

community facilities and services. 

73. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make 

an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies 

should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports 

and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify 

specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and 

recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be 

used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required. 

75. Planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way and access. Local 

authorities should seek opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by 

adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails. 

Chapter 6.0: Landscape Character and Visual Resources 



· Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (3 August 2004) 


7. Requiring Good Design 

56. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good 

design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and 

should contribute positively to making places better for people. 

57. It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for 

all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area 

development schemes. 

58. Local and neighbourhood plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that 

set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area. Such policies should be 

based on stated objectives for the future of the area and an understanding and evaluation of 

its defining characteristics. Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that 

developments:- 

· Will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but 

over the lifetime of the development; 

· Establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and 

comfortable places to live, work and visit; 

· Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an 

appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of 

developments) and support local facilities and transport networks; 

· Respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and


materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; 

3 - 8 

fpcr 

· Create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, 

do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and 

· Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. 

60. Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or 

particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through 

unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, 

however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. 

61. Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important 

factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. 

Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people 

and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic 

environment. 

63. In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative 

designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area. 

64. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the 

opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it 

functions. 

65. Local planning authorities should not refuse planning permission for buildings or 

infrastructure which promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about 

incompatibility with an existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good 

design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause 

material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, 

social and environmental benefits). 

66. Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals 

to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can 

demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more 

favourably. 

11. Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment 

125. By encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of 

light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature 

conservation. 

Chapter 7.0: Ecological Resources and Chapter 17.0: Geodiversity 

3.2.12 The following Planning Policy Statements and guidance is superseded: 

· Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (16 August 2005)



11. Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment 

3 - 9 

fpcr 

109. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment 

by:- 

· Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; 

· Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; 

· Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, 

contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, 

including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current 

and future pressures; 

· Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at 

unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, 

water or noise pollution or land instability; and 

· Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, 

where appropriate. 

113. Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for 

any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas will 

be judged. Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and 

locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives 

appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological 

networks. 

114. Local planning authorities should:- 

· Set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans, planning positively for the creation, 

protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green 

infrastructure. 

118. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to 

conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:- 

· If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an 

alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, 

compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; 

· Proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to 

have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in 

combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an 

adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should 

only be made  where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both 

the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special 

scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special 

Scientific Interest; 

· Development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity 

should be permitted;


3 - 10 

fpcr 

· Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be 

encouraged; 

· Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or 

deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or 

veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the 

development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; and 

· The following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites:- 

– potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation 

– listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and 

– sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on 

European sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of 

Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites. 

125. By encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of 

light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature 

conservation. 

Chapter 8.0: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 


· Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (23 March 2010) 


12. Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment 

128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to 

describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by 

their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more 

than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a 

minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the 

heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on 

which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with 

archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an 

appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. 

129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any 

heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the 

setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary 

expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a 

proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s 

conservation and any aspect of the proposal. 

131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:- 

· The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting 

them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;


3 - 11 

fpcr 

· the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable 

communities including their economic vitality; and 

· The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and 

distinctiveness. 

132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a 

designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more 

important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost 

through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As 

heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing 

justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be 

exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest 

significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* 

listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, 

should be wholly exceptional. 

133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of 

significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, 

unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve 

substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:- 

· The nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and 

· No viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through 

appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and 

· Conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is 

demonstrably not possible; and 

· The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. 

134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance 

of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the 

proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. 

135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should 

be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect 

directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required 

having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 

136. Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset 

without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss 

has occurred. 

137. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within 

Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to 

enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the 

setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should 

be treated favourably. 

140.Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling 

development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure


3 - 12 

fpcr 

the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those 

policies. 

141.Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic 

environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly 

accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the 

significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to 

their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) 

publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor 

in deciding whether such loss should be permitted. 

Chapter 9.0: Agricultural Land Quality 



· Planning Policy statement 7: Sustainable Development I Rural Areas (3 August 2004) 


112. Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of 

the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural 

land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of 

poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. 

Chapter 10.0: Water, Hydrology and Drainage 


· Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (29 March 2010) 

· Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide (December 

2009) 


99. Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors 

such as flood risk, coastal change, water supply and changes to biodiversity and landscape. 

New development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts 

arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are 

vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable 

adaptation measures, including through the planning  of green infrastructure. 

100. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing 

development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it 

safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Local Plans should be supported by Strategic 

Flood Risk Assessment and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources, taking 

account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevant flood risk management 

bodies, such as lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards. Local Plans should 

apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid where 

possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the 

impacts of climate change, by:-


· Applying the Sequential Test; 

· If necessary, applying the Exception Test; 

3 - 13 

fpcr 

· Safeguarding land from development that is required for current and future flood 

management; 

· Using opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of 

flooding; and 

· Where climate change is expected to increase flood risk so that some existing 

development may not be sustainable in the long-term unless material considerations 

indicate otherwise. Technical guidance on flood risk published alongside this Framework 

sets out how this policy should be implemented. 

101. The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest 

probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are 

reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower 

probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will provide the basis for applying 

this test. A sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk from any form of 

flooding. 

102. If, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible, consistent with wider 

sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in zones with a lower probability of 

flooding, the Exception Test can be applied if appropriate. For the Exception Test to be 

passed:- 

It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the 

community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where 

one has been prepared; and 

A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe 

for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk 

elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.  Both elements of the test 

will have to be passed for development to be allocated or permitted. 

103. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood 

risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of 

flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential 

Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:- 

· Within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk 

unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and 

· Development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and 

escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including 

by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems. 

Chapter 12.0: Noise and Vibration/Acoustics and Chapter 13.0: Air Quality 


· Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (3 November 2004) 

· Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise (3 October 1994)



3 - 14 

fpcr 

120. To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and 

decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects 

(including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general 

amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects 

from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land 

stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or 

landowner. 

123. Planning policies and decisions should aim to:- 

· Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a 

result of new development; 

· Mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life 

arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; 

· Recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting 

to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put 

on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and 

· Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by 

noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason. 

124. Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values 

or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality 

Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local 

areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality 

Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan. 

Chapter 15.0: Traffic and Transport 


· Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (3 January 2011) 


4. Promoting Sustainable Transport 

30. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas 

emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should 

therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the 

use of sustainable modes of transport. 

32. All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by 

a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of 

whether:- 

· The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the 

nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; 

· Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and


3 - 15 

fpcr 

· Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the 

significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused 

on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. 

34. Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are 

located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes 

can be maximised. However this needs to take account of policies set out elsewhere in this 

Framework, particularly in rural areas. 

35. Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes 

for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and 

designed where practical to:- 

· Accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies; 

· Give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high  quality public 

transport facilities; 

· Create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or 

pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones; 

· Incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and 

· Consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport. 

36. A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan. All developments which generate 

significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan. 

37. Planning policies should aim for a balance of land uses within their area so that people can 

be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and 

other activities. 

38. For larger scale residential developments in particular, planning policies should promote a 

mix of uses in order to provide opportunities to undertake day-to-day activities including work 

on site. Where practical, particularly within large-scale developments, key facilities such as 

primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties. 

3.3 BLABY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION 

VERSION (JULY 2009) 

3.3.1 Policy 11 provides for developer contributions to be made to support the infrastructure 

requirements to serve new developments on and off-site and financial contributions towards 

maintenance. The policy also recognises that the council will consider a wide range of other 

sources of funding to support major projects including growth point Funding and Community 

Infrastructure Funds (although these two programmes no longer exist the authority recognises 

that growth proposals may give rise to major infrastructure projects which are of wider 

significance and where other funding streams can be directed). This policy is now superseded 

by the recently published submission version of the Core Strategy (January 2012).


3 - 16 

fpcr 

3.4 BLABY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION 

VERSION (JANUARY 2012) 

3.4.1 The Council published a replacement Core Strategy submission version for consultation in 

January 2012. This replaces the previous, July 2009, version that has been withdrawn owing 

to procedural concerns. The new strategy is based on the Council’s own locally derived 

housing requirements but is also considered by the Council to be in general conformity with 

the Regional Spatial Strategy, which remains part of the statutory development plan until its 

proposed abolishment under the Localism Act. 

Strategic Objectives 

3.4.2 The Plan proposes 12 Strategic Objectives, most of which are relevant to the New 

Lubbesthorpe proposal:- 

i) To provide the appropriate quantity and mix of housing to meet the needs of the 

District’s current and future populations; 

ii) To optimise the provision of affordable housing to meet local needs; 

iii) To deliver the infrastructure, services and facilities required to meet the needs of 

the population of the District of Blaby, including those arising from growth, and to 

make services accessible to all; 

iv) To maximise sport and recreation opportunities; 

v) To improve the design quality of all new developments in the District including the 

need to design out crime; 

vi) To protect the important areas of the District’s natural environment (species and 

habitats), landscape and geology and to improve bio-diversity, wildlife habitats and 

corridors through the design of new developments and the management of existing 

areas by working with partners; 

vii) To preserve and enhance the cultural heritage of the District, recognising its 

contribution to local distinctiveness and to seek design solutions which preserve 

and enhance heritage assets where they are impacted by development; 

viii) To minimise energy use and use of valuable resources and to encourage renewable 

energy production in suitable locations; 

ix) To minimise the risk of flooding (and other hazards) to property, infrastructure and 

people; 

x) To provide the appropriate quantity, quality and mix of employment opportunities 

to meet the needs of the District’s current and future populations, and to meet 

strategic employment, education and training needs; 

xi) To deliver the transport needs of the District and to encourage and develop the use 

of more sustainable forms of transport (Including walking, cycling and public 

transport); 

xii) To maintain, and where appropriate improve, the position of retail centres within 

the retail hierarchy. To make sure that the existing centres, primarily Blaby Town


3 - 17 

fpcr 

Centre, have opportunities to grow in order to enhance their vitality and viability 

and to prevent expansion of out of town centres (Including the Motorways Retail 

Area) where this would result in an unacceptable impact on existing centres. 

Housing Delivery 

3.4.3 The Council’s strategy for housing is described in section 6.0 and states:- 

“The strategy for delivering housing will be to focus the majority of development (5,520 

dwellings) within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area in the northern part of the District. 

The majority of housing and employment (some 4,250 dwellings and 21 hectares of 

employment area) will be delivered in one large Strategic Growth Area (including a 

‘Sustainable Urban Extension’ (SUE) and Strategic Employment Site (SES)).” (paragraph 6.6) 

3.4.4 The New Lubbesthorpe proposal responds to this strategy and provides up to 4,250 dwellings 

and the 21 hectares of employment land as a Strategic Employment Site. 

3.4.5 The justification for this strategy is outlined in the Plan as follows:- 

“The SUE will incorporate a mix of uses to provide the services, facilities and infrastructure 

needed to support the new population (and potentially help to support existing communities). 

The justifications for seeking this pattern of growth are set out more clearly in policies 1, 3 and 

4, but in summary this approach seeks to: maximise ‘self containment’ by offering necessary 

services and facilities within the new development; and requires development in locations that 

can access existing employment and other services and facilities more easily (in terms of 

proximity to key services and access to a choice of transport modes). The settlements 

adjoining the urban area generally have a more comprehensive and frequent public transport 

offer and a greater likelihood that residents will use it. In addition, the majority of employment 

opportunities are located within the City of Leicester and around junction 21 adjoining the 

PUA.” (paragraph 6.7) 

3.4.6 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals include a comprehensive range of facilities to serve the new 

community and the proposals seek to optimise the use of public transport to serve the 

development, through the proposed Travel Plan. 

Employment and the Economy 

3.4.7 The strategy for employment growth is outlined at paragraph 6.11:- 

“The northern and central areas will be the focus for employment growth. The provision of new 

employment land will be focused around the Principal Urban Area. These are the areas of 

greatest growth and have the greatest potential source of employees. A Strategic Employment 

Site (of some 30 hectares) has been granted planning permission around junction 21a of the 

M1. Other large scale employment sites are required to meet identified need. In order to be 

attractive to the market (and deliverable) they must have strong connections with the strategic 

road network. A Strategic Employment Site (SES) is proposed as part of the Strategic Growth 

Area at Lubbesthorpe.” (paragraph 6.11) 

3.4.8 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals include for the second Strategic Employment Site (21 

hectares).


Transport 

3.4.9 The approach to transport supports the spatial strategy and states:- 

3 - 18 

fpcr 

“The strategic approach will be to seek to reduce travel. Where this is not possible 

opportunities to maximise more sustainable modes of transport will be sought. This approach 

helps to reduce the emission of CO2 and other pollutants and reduce negative impacts on air 

quality. New development should deliver the range of services and facilities that will minimise 

the need to travel. New development will be focussed in areas that have access to services 

and facilities and are well served by a range of transport alternatives (including public 

transport, walking and cycling) and are not wholly reliant on private cars.” (paragraph 6.13) 

3.4.10 The location of the SUE close to the urban area optimises the potential for sustainable 

transport solutions including walking, cycling and public transport. The development itself, by 

providing a full range of attractive facilities such as retailing and schools within the site also 

minimises the need to travel outside the development. 

Retailing 

3.4.11 The strategy for retail provision within the SUE is described in paragraph 6.16 as follows:- 

“New retail facilities will be encouraged as an integral part of a sustainable new community at 

Lubbesthorpe. A District Centre and two Local Centres are required in order to serve distinct 

communities. The District Centre should include provision of a ‘Supermarket’ (less than 2,500 

sq m (net)) as opposed to a superstore (more than 2,500 sq m (net)) and other retail facilities 

(including convenience, comparison, professional office and food related units). In order to 

deliver a satisfactory design solution that meets retail needs, a ‘high street format’ will be 

encouraged.” (paragraph 6.16) 

3.4.12 The proposals for New Lubbesthorpe include a detailed Retail Impact Assessment which 

assesses the impact of the proposed District Centre and Local Centres. While the scale of 

retail provision is marginally higher than the strategy identifies, the assessment shows that 

this is readily accommodated without significant impacts on nearby stores and better serves 

the proposed new community. 

Provision of Infrastructure 

3.4.13 The strategy for new infrastructure provision focuses on the requirement for the SUE:- 

“There will be a particularly strong focus on delivering new infrastructure associated with the 

SUE. Growth of this scale will require new schools, community facilities, healthcare facilities, 

play and open spaces, water supply and disposal, waste and transport infrastructure, as well 

as placing increased pressure on existing emergency services.” (paragraph 6.18) 

Green Infrastructure 

3.4.14 The green infrastructure strategy in relation to the SUE is described as follows:- 

“The strategy is to improve the provision and access to a network (of all types) of Green 

Space around the District. The SUE will give an opportunity to link existing urban areas to 

open Countryside through Green links (with the potential to create new Green Wedges).” 

(paragraph 6.19)


3 - 19 

fpcr 

3.4.15 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals create extensive new green infrastructure resources 

including major new parklands and a green wedge separation between Leicester Forest East 

and the new development, with routes through from the existing urban area to the countryside. 

Climate Change 

3.4.16 The climate change strategy states:- 

“The key method of achieving reduced contributions to global warning is by ensuring that new 

developments are located in the most sustainable locations and that the design and layout of 

new schemes and buildings seek to optimise energy efficiency without undermining viability.” 

(paragraph 6.21) 

3.4.17 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals identify the wide range of approaches and methods to 

reduce the carbon emissions from the development and provide renewable energy provision 

consistent with the Government’s objectives and extant Regional Spatial Strategy targets. 

Detailed strategies would be drawn up to serve each phase of the development. 

Spatial Policies 

3.4.18 There are 23 overall spatial policies contained within the CSS. Each policy is considered in 

relation to the Project below. 

Development and Design Strategy 

Policy 1: Strategy for Locating New Development 

3.4.19 The strategy for locating development is described in Policy 1 as follows:- 

“Most new development in the District of Blaby, including housing and employment, will take 

place within and adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA) of Leicester. The PUA comprises 

the ‘built-up’ areas of Glenfield, Kirby Muxloe, Leicester Forest East, Braunstone Town and 

Glen Parva. Some 8,395 houses will be developed in the District between 2006 and 2029, of 

which, at least 5,520 houses will be provided within and adjoining the PUA.” 

3.4.20 The proposals for New Lubbesthorpe are consistent with the Council’s strategy of urban 

concentration, helping deliver the bulk of the district’s new housing requirements alongside the 

PUA in a sustainable form. 

Policy 2: Design of New Development 

3.4.21 The approach to the design of new development is described in Policy 2 as follows:- 

“In order to secure a high quality environment, all new development should respect distinctive 

local character and should contribute to creating places of a high architectural and urban 

design quality, contributing to a better quality of life for the local community.” 

3.4.22 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals are accompanied by a Design and Access Statement that 

describes the objectives for the development and illustrates how the proposals will respond to 

local character while at the same time creating sustainable and attractive new homes and 

places to work, shop, go to school and play.


Policy 3: Sustainable Urban Extension 

3.4.23 Policy 3 deals specifically with the proposed Sustainable Urban Extension. It states:- 

3 - 20 

fpcr 

“The SUE should be a high quality, sustainable, mixed use development that is well connected 

and has a functional relationship with the wider area, but allows adequate opportunities to 

locally access services and facilities. It should contain:- 

Housing 

· In order to meet the housing needs of the District and create a mixed and balanced 

community, the SUE should provide a range of housing (including a mix of affordable 

housing tenures). Some 4,250 new homes should be delivered in total, 1,350 (30%) of 

which should be affordable (80% Social / Affordable rent and 20% intermediate houses); 

· Whilst densities will vary across the SUE, a notional minimum net density of 30 houses per 

hectare should be achieved. 

Employment 

· A Strategic Employment Site (see Policy 4 below); 

· Other B class and non-B class employment opportunities (as defined  in the District and 

Local Centres) within the development; 

· Opportunities for ‘live-work’ accommodation.   

Education 

· 2 primary schools (circa 4.5 hectares in total) capable of accommodating some 1,050 

pupils; 

· A secondary school (circa 10 hectares) capable of accommodating some 850 pupils, 

District and Local Centres. 

District and Local Centres 

· A District Centre, where appropriate uses will include:-  

- A supermarket (up to 2,500 sq m (gross) 2,000 sq m (net); 

- Other retail provision class A1 – A5; 

- Office Floorspace (Use Class B1(a)) up to 2,000 sq m; 

- Small workspaces (use class B1); 

- Health care facilities;  

- Community / Faith facilities; 

- Assembly and leisure uses;  

- Residential uses;  

- Appropriate car parking provision for the above uses. 

· Two local centres, where appropriate uses will include:-  

- Retail provision class A1 – A5(combined retail floorspace)1,250 sq m (gross);  

- Health care facilities;


- Community / Faith facilities; 

- Residential uses; 

- Small workspaces (use class B1). 

3 - 21 

fpcr 

· Other small scale retail facilities to meet localised needs in parts of the development that 

are not within 400 metres walking distance of a Local or District centre. 

Green infrastructure 

· Green Infrastructure to be provided in accordance with an agreed Green Infrastructure 

Framework, including:- 

- Public open space provision (to exceed the minimum standards set out in Policy 15); 

- Strategic Green Infrastructure – including a linked network of routes and green spaces 

extending to the wider Countryside; 

- New Green Wedges adjacent to the existing settlements of Leicester Forest East and 

Enderby; 

- Provision of new trees and woodlands within the development and proposed new 

Green Wedges. 

Transport and Movement 

· Wide ranging transport solutions that maximise sustainable travel should be provided in 

accordance with an agreed transportation strategy (including travel plan). 

· New and improved transport infrastructure will be required including:- 

- Two new bridges, one each over the M1 and M69 motorways; 

- Mitigation measures on the existing transport network where adverse impacts are 

identified; 

- A 20 minute frequency bus service from the site into Leicester City Centre; 

- A new bus service to link proposed residential development with local employment 

sites and retail facilities (Motorways Retail Area); 

- Bus services which penetrate the site and provide bus stops which are less than 400 

metres walk from new residents; 

- New walking and cycling links to key retail, leisure, employment and education 

services and existing facilities including those around junction 21 of the M1, local 

villages (mainly Enderby, Braunstone Town and Leicester Forest East and Leicester 

City Centre; 

- Transport improvements should seek to achieve a modal shift away from private car 

use; 

- Provision of travel packs for new residents, as part of a wider travel plan.” 

General Infrastructure 

3.4.24 The policy states that a masterplan should be prepared and agreed in advance of a planning 

application, and prepared in consultation with key stakeholders, and that subsequent


3 - 22 

fpcr 

development will be in accordance with the masterplan. The policy states that detailed 

proposals should respect the integrity of important historic and environmental features and 

that the development will need to include measures that satisfactorily deal with noise and air 

quality impacts. It also states that development should be designed sensitively in relation to 

flood prone areas and provide a sustainable urban drainage system where benefits can be 

demonstrated. 

3.4.25 The policy states that the Council will seek provision of renewable energy provision to an 

agreed specification. 

3.4.26 In terms of delivering the SUE the policy states that the delivery of the SUE’s services, 

facilities, infrastructure, land and buildings will primarily be provided by the developer, in 

partnership with appropriate service providers (through direct delivery by the developer, 

financial contributions and other funding streams) and the timing of infrastructure provision will 

be determined through a phasing plan to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. 

3.4.27 The proposals in the New Lubbesthorpe application are consistent with the requirements of 

the policy. They meet the various requirements for housing, employment, education and retail 

provision and district and local centre facilities. Provision of green infrastructure meets the 

requirements and the transport proposals are consistent with the specific requirements of the 

policy. In addition the masterplan was prepared and has evolved in consultation with 

stakeholders. Mitigation is provided to deal with noise and air quality issues to a satisfactory 

level (refer to Chapters 12: Noise and Vibration and 13: Air Quality), and the proposals are 

accompanied by an Energy Strategy and Sustainability Strategy that identify a framework for 

delivering detailed proposals. The phasing plans identify the three broad phases for delivery of 

the development and further more detailed phases for implementation will be agreed. 

Policy 4: Strategic Employment Site 

3.4.28 The Strategic Employment Site policy states:- 

“Land east of the Warrens (south of the M69) at Enderby (as shown by an asterisk on the key 

diagram) is the preferred location for a Strategic Employment Site (SES) in conjunction with 

the proposed Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) at Lubbesthorpe. 

The SES will provide some 21 hectares (net) of employment land. The type of employment 

land provided will include B1, B2 and B8 uses. The quantity / split of these uses will be based 

on market demand, the needs of investors, the requirements for local businesses and inward 

investors.” 

3.4.29 The policy states that a range of types of employment uses should be provided with no B1(a) 

office use exceeding 10% of the site, and only in exceptional circumstances should any single 

office ‘floorplate’ exceed 1,000 square metres (net) or be capable of being amalgamated to 

exceed that. 

3.4.30 The policy states that the SES should be accessible to nearby communities and that a new 

bridge across the M69 will be required in order to encourage movements between the SES 

and the proposed SUE north of the M69. 

3.4.31 The policy again requires a masterplan to be prepared which sets out in more detail the 

structure and development of the SES and SUE and that no development will commence until


Design Codes are prepared and agreed. 

3 - 23 

fpcr 

3.4.32 The policy identifies the potential to link the SES into the Warrens Industrial Estate with a link 

road if benefits can be demonstrated. The policy also seeks to ensure that the proposals have 

a minimal impact on local features including Lubbesthorpe Scheduled Ancient Monument, 

Enderby Hall, Enderby Conservation Area and Enderby Park. 

3.4.33 The proposals provide a strategic employment site of 21 hectares at a strategic location 

accessible to Junction 21 of the M1 and M69 motorways. A range of employment uses are 

envisaged and the office component does not exceed 10% of the site or proposed floorspace. 

The site will be accessible to surrounding communities and connected via a new junction with 

Leicester Lane and via a new bridge over the M69; the existing farm accommodation bridge 

will remain as a pedestrian and cycle route and bridleway. A masterplan has been developed 

for the site which shows how the site can accommodate a range of uses and how the layout, 

scale and massing of development can minimise the impacts on sensitive surrounding 

features, and views from these locations have been tested in detail (refer to Chapter 8: 

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology). 

Policy 5: Housing Distribution 

3.4.34 Policy 5 describes the housing distribution and identifies that the bulk of new housing provided 

in the period 2006-2029 will be within and adjacent to the Principal Urban Area totaling 5520 

dwellings (including 4,250 within a new SUE). 

3.4.35 The New Lubbesthorpe proposal is consistent with this policy. 

Policy 6: Employment 

3.4.36 Relevant to the SES and SUE, this policy states that the Council will (inter alia):- 

· Support the provision of a 21 hectare (net) Strategic Employment Site (SES) at Enderby 

adjoining the development of a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) at Lubbesthorpe; 

· Support the provision of some 2,000sq m high quality B1 office uses and / or research and 

development premises associated with the development of a District Centre at the 

Lubbesthorpe SUE; 

· Allow the provision of live-work units on residential proposals where capable of being 

implemented without adverse effects on amenity; 

· Promote local labour agreements with developers to enable local people to secure 

employment and skills development. 

3.4.37 The New Lubbesthorpe SES proposals provide 21 hectares net of employment land for new 

development and are well related to the SUE to the north, and the proposals identify sites 

suitable for a range of employment uses. Some 2,000 sq m of new employment space is 

provided for within the District Centre. A gateway employment site of some 4,600 sq m is also 

provided, alongside opportunities for small-scale employment uses within the local centres as 

well as live-work opportunities, which will be identified at the detailed stage. Local 

labour/recruitment can be delivered through section 106 obligations.


Policy 7: Affordable Housing 

3 - 24 

fpcr 

3.4.38 The policy identifies that all development sites containing 15 or more dwellings within Blaby 

District will be required to contribute towards meeting affordable housing needs. It identifies 

the following affordable housing targets:- 

a) A minimum of 30% of the total number of dwellings within the proposed SUE as Affordable 

Housing. On all other developments of 15 or more dwellings a minimum of 25% of the total 

number of dwellings will be affordable. Where it can be demonstrated that these minimum 

requirements would make the development of a site unviable, a reduced percentage of 

affordable units and/or a revised tenure split will be negotiated; 

c) To ensure mixed and sustainable communities, residential development should integrate 

affordable and market housing through the dispersal of affordable housing units within 

residential development (pepper-potting) and use a consistent standard of design quality. The 

tenure split and mix of house types for all affordable housing will remain flexible and will be 

assessed on a site-by-site basis, taking into account the latest evidence on affordable housing 

needs, through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other evidence of local need. 

3.4.39 The strategic objective of the New Lubbesthorpe proposals are to achieve 30% affordable 

housing provision with a mix of affordable tenures over the life of the development. It is 

important that this is considered in the context of the overall viability of the development and 

flexibility over the life of the development, to respond to the viability issues within each major 

phase. 

3.4.40 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals aim to distribute the affordable housing provision 

throughout the development and ensure the designs are high quality and meet the 

requirements of the affordable housing providers to ensure their long-term sustainability. 

Policy 8: Mix of Housing 

3.4.41 Policy 8 identifies housing mix requirements and states that:- 

“Residential proposals should provide an appropriate mix of housing type (house, flat, 

bungalow etc.); tenure (owner-occupied, rented, intermediate) and size (bedroom numbers) to 

meet the needs of existing and future households in the District, taking into account the latest 

Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other evidence of local need.” 

3.4.42 The explanation of the policy also identifies a projected optimum shape of future housing 

stock for the district which is below with the proposed New Lubbesthorpe housing provision 

alongside:- 

· Medium and larger units 66% (66%); 

· Multi person provision, flats, student housing etc. 4% (15%); 

· Smaller and medium sized units 29% (19%). 

3.4.43 The proposed housing mix is consistent with this optimum mix, which is for the district as a 

whole and therefore achieved not solely through the SUE proposal. The higher proportion of 

multi-person provision reflects the proportion of flats and sheltered and care accommodation 

proposed. The CSS does recognise that relating the size of housing to the demographic 

profile is complex and also depends on market affordability of various households, who may


3 - 25 

fpcr 

chose to buy a property larger than the one ‘assigned’ through a simple demographic 

conversion, which is recognised by the SHMA. 

Policy 9: Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers 

3.4.44 Policy 9 provides for accommodation for gypsies and travellers and there are no specific 

requirements for provision within the SUE. 

Infrastructure and Developer Contributions 

Policy 10: Transport Infrastructure 

3.4.45 The specific transport measures associated with the SUE are described in the Policy as 

follows:- 

Sustainable Urban Extension 

“………transport improvements will be required in order to provide maximum opportunities for 

walking, cycling and public transport and to ensure the effective functioning of the proposed 

SUE west of Leicester. 

In order to encourage walking and cycling, new services and facilities should be provided at 

the heart of good walking and cycling networks that enable access not just for new residents 

but for existing residents in surrounding areas where appropriate. 

New high quality public transport services (with a minimum frequency of 20 minutes) will be 

required to provide links to Leicester City Centre and to nearby areas of employment, retail 

(including those around junction 21 of the M1), leisure, health, community and education. 

Improvements to the A47 corridor will be required based on the findings of robust transport 

modelling. 

Proposals should be mindful of the Leicester City Council Public Transport ‘Termini and 

Routing Strategy’. Where it is demonstrated that proposals are likely to have an impact on the 

effective operation of public transport in Leicester City centre financial contributions for 

mitigation measures will be sought. 

A new bridge will be required across the M1 to connect the proposed SUE with Meridian Way 

and Lubbesthorpe Way (A563). 

A new bridge will be required across the M69 to the proposed Strategic Employment Site at 

Enderby to connect to Leicester Lane. 

Opportunities to create an Enderby by-pass by linking Warren Park Way to Leicester Lane 

should be explored. 

A ‘public transport’ walking and cycling link from the development site to the A47 (along 

Baines Lane). 

Pedestrian and cycle links will be maintained and improved in order to allow journeys between 

the proposed SUE and key centres / services and facilities including:- 

· Employment (Grove Park, Meridian Business Park, the Warrens Industrial Estate, Next plc. 

and Carlton Park);


· Leisure (including at Enderby and Meridian leisure); 

· Retail (the Motorway’s Retail Area and Enderby and  Leicester City Centre) and; 

· Education.” 

3 - 26 

fpcr 

3.4.46 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals are supported by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. 

The TA has been prepared in conjunction with the Highway Authority and Highways Agency 

using the County’s up to date LLITM model. This has determined an access strategy to and 

within the site and identified infrastructure improvements and the mitigation necessary. The 

measures include bridges to the M1 and M69. Public transport measures include a frequent 

bus service to Leicester city centre and to major attractions locally such as the Fosse Park 

retail areas and major employment sites. A comprehensive network of pedestrian and cycle 

links will connect with the employment sites and adjacent communities. The assessments also 

explore the potential benefits of the ‘Enderby by-pass’. The proposals include for a 

comprehensive network of footpaths and cycleways. 

Policy 11: Infrastructure, Services and Facilities to Support Growth 

3.4.47 The policy requires as follows:- 

“New developments must be supported by the required physical, social and environmental 

infrastructure at the appropriate time. The Council will work in partnership with infrastructure 

providers, grant funders and other delivery agencies to ensure that development provides the 

necessary infrastructure, services and facilities to meet the needs of the community and 

mitigates any adverse impacts of development.” 

3.4.48 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals have been generated through consultation with key 

providers of physical, social and environmental infrastructure and the proposals reflect the 

stated requirements of those stakeholders. 

Policy 12: Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions 

3.4.49 Policy 12 identifies the requirements for obligations and contributions and states:- 

“Where requirements for infrastructure, services and facilities arising from growth are identified 

through robust research and evidence, it is expected that developers will contribute toward 

their provision (and in some cases maintenance). 

Planning obligations and developer contributions will be sought and guided by the Council’s 

latest Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions SPD and other evidence of need. 

Contributions should be made by providing the infrastructure (on or off-site) or by making 

financial contributions towards its provision and / or maintenance. Contributions will be phased 

or pooled to ensure the timely delivery of the necessary infrastructure, services and facilities.” 

The scope for obligations and developer contributions is subject to negotiations on the section 

106 agreement associated with the permission, should it be granted. The scope of the 

required infrastructure, services and facilities is identified in the application. 

Policy 13: Retailing and Other Town Centre Uses 

3.4.50 The relevant sections of Policy 13 deal with the proposed SUE:-


Retail developments within the proposed SUE   

3 - 27 

fpcr 

“New retail facilities of an appropriate scale and type to meet the needs of new and existing 

residents will be encouraged; and will be required to be consistent in terms of location and 

design with an agreed masterplan.” 

3.4.51 The supporting text also states:- 


“The Blaby District retail study indicated that there was potential to provide additional retail 

floorspace for convenience goods (in the region of 2,000 to 3,000m2 net) within new 

developments to the west of Leicester. Development of new large scale retail facilities 

(superstores) will not be encouraged as part of the Masterplan. A new District Centre based 

around the new street network would provide opportunities to serve the new local community 

and attract some passing trade in order to assist the viability of new shops.” (paragraph 

7.13.18) 

3.4.52 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals provide a District Centre with retail provision and two local 

centres each providing convenience retail uses. The proposals are supported by a detailed 

Retail Impact Assessment which identifies that the scale of the proposed new retail provision 

will not impact unduly on the viability of the existing retail provision. 

Policy 14: Green Infrastructure (GI) 

3.4.53 The relevant section of Policy 14 states:- 

Sustainable Urban Extension   

“The growth proposed as part of a Sustainable Urban Extension west of Leicester provides an 

opportunity to plan for a green infrastructure network, serving the needs of new and existing 

communities by providing green links (for people and wildlife) from the urban area to the wider 

countryside.” 

3.4.54 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals provide an extensive network of new green infrastructure 

including new parklands and a green wedge between Leicester Forest East and the proposed 

new housing development. 

Policy 15: Open Space, Sport and Recreation 

3.4.55 Policy 15 outlines the standards that new developments are to achieve. These standards 

have been used to plan the provision of open space within the development and are 

considered further in Chapter 2: Development Proposals. The plan achieves the overall 

quantity of open space required for each type. The accessibility of some open spaces is less 

than prescribed by the policy which is largely because of the configuration of the development 

and the need to ensure a large separation of development from the Scheduled Monument. 

Policy 16: Green Wedges 

3.4.56 The policy states that:- 

“Green Wedges are important strategic areas. They will be designated in order to:-


· Prevent the merging of settlements; 

· Guide development form; 

· Provide a green lung into the urban areas; and 

· Provide a recreation resource. 

3 - 28 

fpcr 

In addition, opportunities to create new Green Wedges will be explored particularly in areas 

around the proposed Sustainable Urban Extension to the west of Leicester.” 

3.4.57 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals provide a green wedge between the existing settlement of 

Leicester Forest East and the new housing development within the SUE, which forms an 

extensive new parkland area and serves to protect the distinctive settlement identity of LFE. 

Policy 17: Areas of Separation 

3.4.58 Policy 17 identifies areas of separation but these are not relevant in the context of the 

proposed SUE and SES. 

Policy 18: Countryside 

3.4.59 Policy 18 provides the policy for protection of the countryside areas within the district and 

identifies (inter alia) that:- 

“The need to retain Countryside will be balanced against the need to provide new 

development (including housing) in the most sustainable locations. The detailed boundaries of 

Countryside will be determined through the Allocations, Designations and Development 

Management DPD.” 

3.4.60 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals are consistent with the identification of the location for the 

SUE and SES in the CSS, and seek to minimise their wider impact on the countryside. 

Proposals for Enderby Park will help restore and maintain this area in agricultural uses. 

Policy 19: Bio-diversity and Geo-diversity 



“Opportunities to improve biodiversity will be explored as part of the SUE west of Leicester. 

Potential to improve the bio-diversity of Green corridors (particularly those adjacent to the 

Lubbesthorpe Brook and other water courses) and linkages to the open countryside to the 

west should be explored. The existing hedgerows and fox coverts on the site will provide 

further opportunities to provide green linkages. Several ponds and water features exist that 

need to be retained.” 

3.4.62 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals have been developed with regard to the existing and 

potential bio-diversity and geo-diversity interest of the site. The Green Infrastructure Bio- 

diversity Management Plan A (GIBMP) is a supporting document to this Further Information 

Document. A geo-diversity assessment has been undertaken to assess the potential effects of 

development on the geological SSSI in the south alongside the SES (refer to Chapter 17: 

Geodiversity).


Policy 20: Cultural Environment 



3 - 29 

fpcr 

“The SUE west of Leicester lies in close proximity to two SAMs. The masterplanning and 

subsequent development of the SUE must respect the archaeological significance of the 

SAMs and their setting. There are opportunities to provide access and interpretation of the 

SAM.” 

3.4.64 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals have taken close account of the Scheduled Monument 

within the site and the Scheduled Monument next to the site. The form of the masterplan has 

reflected the requirements of the key consultees on the set back of development and further 

measures aim to mitigate views of the development from the Scheduled Monument within the 

site (refer to Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology). 

Climate Change and Flooding 

Policy 21: Climate Change 

3.4.65 The policy states:- 

“Development which mitigates and adapts to Climate Change will be supported. The Council 

will contribute to achieving national targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by:- 

a) Focussing new development in the most sustainable locations, in accordance with Policy 

1 and Policy 5. 

b) Seeking site layout and sustainable design principles which reduce energy demand and 

increase efficiency. This includes:- 

(i) Providing for safe and attractive walking and cycling opportunities, including secure 

cycle parking and, where appropriate, showers and changing facilities; 

(ii) Utilising landform, building orientation, massing and landscaping to reduce the likely 

energy consumption; 

(iii)Supporting the Government’s zero carbon buildings policy and encouraging residential 

development to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. This will be increased 

progressively over the plan period, where feasible, to support the Government’s longer 

term aspirations for sustainable design; 

(iv)Encouraging the use of sustainable materials and construction methods. 

c) Encouraging the use of renewable, low carbon and decentralised energy at the 

commercial, community and domestic scale. Renewable and low carbon energy 

generation will be supported within the District where the proposal:- 

(i) Ensures that the siting and scale of development avoids significant harm to a 

designated heritage asset or its setting; 

(ii) Ensures that the impact of the development on local landscape character and historic 

landscape character is minimised;


3 - 30 

fpcr 

(iii) Ensures that the proposal does not result in significant detriment to residential amenity 

for new or existing residents; 

(iv)Includes measures to mitigate any adverse impacts on the built and natural 

environment resulting from the construction, operation and decommissioning of any 

development; 

(v) Does not create an overbearing cumulative noise or visual impact, when considered in 

conjunction with similar developments and permitted proposals in the area. 

The Council will ensure that all development minimises vulnerability and provides resilience to 

climate change and flooding by:- 

a) Supporting innovations which have a positive impact upon climate change adaptation on 

all development where feasible. (This could include, but is not limited to; appropriate 

shading and planting; green roofs; SuDS; rain water harvesting and storage and; grey 

water recycling). Opportunities for people, biodiversity, flood storage and carbon 

management provided by multi-functional green spaces and green infrastructure 

networks will also be encouraged; 

b) Managing flood risk in accordance with Policy 22. 

3.4.66 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals have been developed to ensure they optimise the 

opportunities for sustainable development. The application is supported by an Energy 

Strategy and a Sustainability Strategy that both set a framework for the development of 

detailed proposals at the design stage. The Design Coding process will respond to the 

specific attributes of each phase and the site to achieve reductions in carbon emissions. The 

proposals have been the subject of a Flood Risk Assessment which demonstrates there will 

be no impacts on areas that flood and that water will be managed to existing green field run- 

off rates through SuDS. 

Policy 22: Flood Risk Management 

3.4.67 Policy 22 specifies requirements to minimise flood risk by:- 

a) Directing development to locations at the lowest risk of flooding within the District, giving 

priority to land in flood zone 1. Where development is proposed in flood risk areas, 

mitigation measures must be in place to reduce the effects of flood water; 

b) Using Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to ensure that flood risk is not increased 

on-site or elsewhere and to protect the quality of the receiving water course. Where 

possible, the Council will encourage development to reduce the overall flood risk through 

the design and layout of schemes which enhance natural forms of drainage. (This could 

include, but is not limited to; floodplain creation; surface water storage and; removing 

culverts and barriers to flow); 

c) Managing surface water run-off to minimise the net increase in the amount of surface 

water discharged into the public sewer system; 

d) Closely consulting the Environment Agency in the management of flood risk to ensure 

that any risk of flooding is appropriately mitigated and the natural environment is 

protected in all new development.


3 - 31 

fpcr 

3.4.68 No development is proposed at New Lubbesthorpe within areas liable to flood. The proposed 

SuDS system would manage the surface water outfall from the site to existing greenfield run- 

off rates. Provision of storage ponds and soakaways and other permeable methods are 

proposed to reduce run-off even further. The proposals have modelled existing watercourses 

where information on them was limited and the drainage strategy has been prepared in close 

consultation with the Environment Agency. 

Policy 23: Waste 

3.4.69 Policy 23 outlines the requirements for waste minimisation, stating that the Council will:- 

· “Encourage a hierarchy of waste management in the following priority order; waste 

prevention, re-use, recycle/compost, recovery, and disposal as a last resort; 

· Ensure that their design and services are flexible enough to allow new technological 

developments to be accommodated; 

· Ensure that waste collection is considered in their design to maximise recycling 

opportunities; 

· Secure waste management facilities that are close to new areas of development 

(particularly in relation to the SUE); 

· Ensure that new sensitive receptors (particularly residential) are not located near to or do 

not place additional burdens on existing licenced waste management facilities; 

· Promote the use of Site Waste Management Plans; and 

· Educate residents in waste-related matters and encourage engagement with waste 

prevention and reuse initiatives.” 

3.4.70 The New Lubbesthorpe proposals are accompanied by a waste strategy (refer to Chapter 14: 

Waste) that seeks to minimise the generation of waste and to ensure that waste management 

facilities are put in place at the dwelling and neighbourhood level to ensure waste is recycled. 

The strategy works within the current local authority waste management and collection 

arrangements. 

3.5 BLABY DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN (ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 1999) 

3.5.1 In addition to the policies covered in ES Chapter 3: Planning Policy, the following ‘saved’ 

policies continue to be relevant to the proposals. 

3.5.2 Policy T2 provides for the provision of bus and car laybys to serve major development; Policy 

T15 provides a protected line for high or abnormal loads as shown in the proposals map along 

the A47 Hinckley Road corridor. 

3.5.3 Policy C5 provides for the change of use of buildings in the countryside and green wedges 

against certain criteria including whether the buildings can change use without significant 

alteration, the building is structurally sound, the building is of appropriate design to the use 

and its setting, the development would not have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the 

building or the landscape, and would not result in an unsatisfactory relationship with nearby 

uses. For residential development further criteria are identified which are that the building is of 

a sufficiently traditional style to merit retention, ancillary domestic elements do not detract from


3 - 32 

fpcr 

the original non-residential function and that the design is sympathetic to the character and 

fabric of the original building. 

3.5.4 Policy L1 provides for planning permission for sports and recreation development and ancillary 

development such as car parking where this would not have a detrimental effect on the 

amenity of the area, or be out of keeping with the appearance and character of the area and 

the policy states that where the development is likely to give rise to noise conditions may be 

attached to regulate the use and location 

3.5.5 Policy CE6 states that permission will not be given for development that is detrimental to the 

setting of a listed building. Policy CE9 states that planning permission will not be given for 

development which would have a detrimental effect of the vistas, street scenes or the form 

and character of open spaces which contribute to the character or townscape quality of a 

conservation area or its setting. Policy CE12 states that planning permission will not be 

granted for development which would generate traffic levels, parking, noise or environmental 

problems which would be detrimental to a conservation area, and existing uses which give rise 

to these problems will not normally be allowed to expand. 

3.6 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 

Housing Requirements for the District of Blaby 

3.6.1 The Council approved its housing requirements for the period 2006-2029 on 6 September 

2011. The Council approved the setting of 365 houses per annum with 66% (241) provided 

within or adjoining the Principal Urban Area (PUA), and the remaining 34% (124) elsewhere in 

the rest of the district. This compares with a rate of 340 dwellings per annum identified for the 

period 2011-2016 agreed at the Council meeting of 16 th September 2010 (the ‘interim’ housing 

requirement), and the figure of 380 per annum provided for in the period to 2001-2026 in the 

RSS (paragraph 3.43 of the ES). 

3.6.2 These housing figures are now incorporated into the Submission Version of the Core Strategy 

2012.


5.0 SOCIO ECONOMIC ISSUES: SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 


5 - 1 

fpcr 

5.1.1 This supplementary Chapter addresses the further information requested in the Blaby District 

Council, Regulation 22 request and also updates the chapter to reflect revisions made to the 

demographic forecasts and changes made to the development proposals, which are outlined 

in Chapter 2: Development Proposals of this Further Information Document. 

The Regulation 22 Requests includes further information on:- 

· The housing mix and information on provision of elderly persons and special needs 

accommodation; and 

· The future demographics of the development, including the impacts of employment and 

phasing on the demographic profile. 

Housing Mix 

5.1.2 The proposed housing mix used for the purposes of the demographic forecasts is shown at 

Table 5a below. This derives from an assessment of the likely market housing within the 

development and a view of the role of the development at this location in providing a high 

proportion of family housing, which is consistent with the existing housing in this location and 

reflects the pattern of demand identified in the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market 

Assessment. The affordable housing provision reflects the need identified by the District 

Council. The overall housing mix by size of property is considered to be compatible with the 

‘optimum’ housing mix identified in the submission version of the Core Strategy January 2012 

Policy 8. 

5.1.3 The proposed mix provides a range of types and sizes to reflect the broad market that the 

scheme will appeal to. The mix is also useful in allowing for a prediction of the total population 

of the development and its age structure over time to allow for the planning of social and 

community infrastructure such as schools, community facilities and open spaces. 

5.1.4 The population forecasts for the district (2026) show that some 31% of the population will be 

aged 60+ when compared with 20% in the 2001 census. This age group is therefore a growing 

proportion of the housing requirement while the aging population is also remaining healthier 

longer so there is a need for flexibility in provision over the life of the development to respond 

to needs as they arise. The Flats and Bungalows category would include provision for the 

elderly and special needs housing requirements, such as extra-care homes. The application is 

not specific at this stage on the proportion of these homes within the total and the proportions 

are to be agreed through the section 106 agreement or conditions.


Table 5a: Proposed Illustrative Housing Mix 

Type Private Social/affordable 

Studio and 1 Bed Flats 59 152 

Flats over Garages 44 

2 bed flats 119 204 

3 bed flats 

Bungalows 55 

2 Bed Houses 479 320 

3 Bed Houses 996 457 

4 Bed Houses 1,100 75 

5 Bed Houses and above 178 12 

Total 2975 1275 

Demographic Profile and Sensitivities 

5 - 2 

fpcr 

5.1.5 The projected population forecast is shown in Table 5b below. This is derived from the ONS 

population projections and the Chelmer model and has been prepared by EFM Limited. 

Alternative housing mixes have also been tested to explore the likely upper and lower 

population ranges. The projected figures below represent the highest anticipated population. 

This shows a total population of some 10,068 in 2026 falling back to 9,560 in 2031. 

Table 5b: Population Forecast 

PEAK DEVIATION 

(1) 

2016 2021 2026 2031 

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 4250 100% 600 2600 4250 4250 

TOTAL PERSONS 10141 98% 1482 6322 10068 9560 

0-4 years 594 98% 134 587 918 731 

5-9 years 637 95% 114 493 833 833 

10-14 years 661 96% 88 391 698 798 

15-19 years 557 98% 74 337 561 657 

20-24 years 475 104% 201 721 795 433 

25-29 years 608 89% 179 728 983 516 

30-34 years 771 90% 183 775 1168 908 

35-39 years 814 94% 150 673 1162 1152 

40-44 years 759 94% 98 464 886 1083 

45-49 years 646 95% 60 286 577 811


50-54 years 772 97% 45 193 366 524 

55-59 years 617 97% 34 150 248 319 

60-64 years 546 100% 25 119 208 219 

65-69 years 498 102% 29 105 172 184 

70-74 years 437 108% 17 94 150 160 

75+ years 751 117% 52 207 343 231 

Note: This is the deviation from population based purely on replicating the Blaby 2001 mix. 

5 - 3 

fpcr 

5.1.6 The demographic forecasts research has looked for any particular population dynamics that 

might arise as a consequence of the proximity of the city. In-migration and the effect of the 

demographics of the surrounding area at District level are built into the Chelmer Model that 

underpins the forecasts. Based on specific ONS data on inward migration at District level 

identifying migrant origins (previous district) for the years June 2002, June 2006 and June 

2010, approximately 40% of population moves into Blaby District were from the Leicester 

urban area. The figures on a range of 38.5% to 40% appear robust over time and more 

importantly market conditions. Thus it can be reasonably taken that this dynamic is 

incorporated into the Chelmer Model and flows naturally through into the forecasts for the 

development. It is unlikely that inward migrations, from other districts further afield would be of 

such a marked character to affect the forecasts. 

5.2 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS 

Employment Impacts on Demographic Forecasts 

5.2.1 The impact of the employment development on the demographic mix is insignificant. The 

employment provision is mostly strategic and aims to meet demand from the Leicester and 

Leicestershire market and not just the development itself. New residents of the development 

will work within the new employment areas, on existing employment areas close-by (Meridian 

Park, Grove Park etc.) and within the city centre, and on other sites. The new employment 

provision will include a range of employment types and cater for a range of skills and 

occupational types. There are also further employment sites to be developed at both Meridian 

Park and Grove Park, which will provide further local opportunities, and the recently permitted 

Strategic Employment Site at Glenfield Park provides yet further employment opportunities 

related to the Sustainable Urban Extension. We do not see therefore a shortage of 

employment opportunities locally nor a need to more closely relate the housing proposed mix 

to the anticipated occupational structure of the employment development or vice versa. 

Phasing Impacts on Demographic Forecasts 

5.2.2 The proposed phasing is related to the availability of infrastructure and shows an initial phase 

of 300 units, then development up to 2,000 units and a final completion phase to 4,250 units. 

Further more detailed phasing plans will need to be prepared which sub-divide the second 

and third phases. The first phase will include a primary school, local centre and open space 

areas within it and therefore adequately provide for early residents. The intention is that each 

phase would provide broad proportional mix consistent with the overall mix for the


5 - 4 

fpcr 

development and therefore avoid any deviations from the general balanced build-up of 

population. At this stage detail relating to each and every phase has not been determined but 

will be determined through detailed phasing and design coding at the implementation stage. 

Changes Related to Revised Land Use Proposals and Demographic Forecasts 

Changes 

5.2.3 The introduction of the gateway employment site and changes to the demographic forecasts 

have required revisions to be made to the following assessments. 

Scale of Employment 

5.2.4 The development of the site involves the provision of some 88,600 sq m of employment space 

to significantly increase the opportunities for new job creation within the district and this will 

inevitably increase the amount of people employed within the local area. 

Table 5c: Job creation – Strategic Employment Site 

Type Floor space sq. m Ratio sq. m/Job Total Jobs 

Distribution B8 56,700 65 872 

General Employment 

B1 (Light 

Industry)/B2/B8 

Business and Light 

Industry B1 (a,b,c) 

19,700 42 469 

7,600 28 271 

Total Employment 84,000 1,612 

5.2.5 The standards for job creation are generated from various guidance sources and recent 

evidence. Densities for office employment are based on a general category rather than a 

business park category. Actual employment levels will depend upon the detailed activity of 

the companies. 

5.2.6 In addition to the Strategic Employment Site jobs will be created within the main residential-led 

development in space provided within the district and local centres and the gateway 

employment site, and through provision of retail and other uses. These jobs are estimated in 

Table 5d below. 

Table 5d: Job Creation – Other Development 


Ratio sq. m/Job Jobs 

Retail 20 273 

Health centre estimate 20 

Community uses/trust estimate 10


Other commercial 20 25 

Workspaces 40 25 

Nursery/Creche estimate 5 

Gateway Employment 


Local Centres 

Retail 20 62 

Community estimate 5 


Schools 

Primary estimate 60 

Secondary estimate 150 

Total 812 

5 - 5 

fpcr 

5.2.7 Based on retail development 5,460 sq m district centre, local centres 1,240 sq m workspace 

district centre 1,000 sq m, local centres 500 sq. m and gateway employment of 4,600 sq m. 

Indirect Jobs 

5.2.8 An estimate of the indirect jobs resulting from the proposals can be made by applying a range 

of composite multipliers of 1.1 at the neighbourhood level to 1.5 at the regional level. For a 

multiplier effect of 1.1, the total net jobs created at the local level would be 1,650. For a 

multiplier effect of 1.5, the total net jobs created at the regional level would be 2,250. This 

assumes a leakage rate of 10% and displacement of approximately 25%. 

Table 5e: Estimate of Indirect Job Creation 

Local Regional 

Total Gross Direct Jobs 2,424 2,424 

Leakage (10%) -242 -242 

Gross local direct Jobs: 2,182 2,182 

Displacement (25%) -545 -545 

Net local direct jobs: 1,637 1,637 

Indirect local multiplier (1.1) 

Indirect regional multiplier 

(1.5) 

1,800 

na 

Na 

2,455 

Total Net Jobs 1,800 2,455 

5.2.9 The employment development will make a significant contribution to both the consolidation 

and growth of the local and sub-regional economy at an established and commercially


5 - 6 

fpcr 

attractive location for investment, and support the development of the sustainable growth of 

the district at New Lubbesthorpe. 

Housing and Population 

5.2.10 The development will bring up to 4,250 new dwellings to the area. The previous submission 

identified a total population for the development of around 9,690 persons. The updated 

population projection identifies a peak population of 10,068 with the population falling back in 

the period to 2031 to 9,560 persons. For the purposes of determining the requirements we 

have used the upper population figure. 

Education 

5.2.11 The child yield for the purposes of education provision is calculated using the County 

Council’s formula for uptake into state funded schools. The previous assessment identified 

some 971 primary age children and some 808 secondary school children, based on the 

housing mix between houses and apartments. 

5.2.12 The revised housing mix provides some 3,672 houses and 578 flats. The recalculated pupil 

potentials are provided in the table below. 

Table 5f: Estimated Pupil Generation 

Primary pupils 

Dwellings Pupil Ratio Pupil Potential 

Houses 3,672 0.24 881 

Flats/Apartments 323 0.043 14 

Secondary pupils 

Houses 3,672 0.20 734 

Flats 578 0.032 10 

5.2.13 The results therefore show a drop in pupil generation compared with the previous assessment. 

It must be noted that these figures are based on the revised population forecasts which are 

influenced by the housing mix. This figure may therefore vary depending on the actual mix 

developed and will need to be monitored. 

5.2.14 This does not change the overall requirement for two primary schools to be provided and for 

provision to be made for a secondary school should that be established. While the threshold 

for the secondary school is lower than before, this is still a viable school population (minimum 

level of 600) and may be further increased by developments in the local area and children 

transferring to the school from other schools that are further away. 

5.2.15 The changes to the potential school age populations do not affect the conclusions on impacts 

reached with the original submission. 

895 

744


Open Space and Sports Provision 

5 - 7 

fpcr 

5.2.16 The increase in projected peak population also affects the assessment of open space 

provision. The standards for provision are consistent with those in the Core Strategy 

Submission Version January 2012. This is shown in the table below. 

Table 5g Revised: Open Space Provision by Type 

Typology Standard Requirement Provision 

Parks, Gardens & 

Recreation Grounds 

0.8 ha per 1,000 

persons 

Outdoor Sports Space 1.0 ha per 1,000 

Children and Young 

People’s Space 

Informal Open Space 

persons 

0.3 ha per 1,000 

persons 

0.5 ha per 1,000 

persons 

Natural Green Space 1.0 ha per 1000 

persons 

Allotments 0.3 ha per 1000 

persons 

8.008ha 18.1ha 

10.4ha 17.3ha 

3.003ha 3.0ha 

within parkland and housing 

areas 

5.005ha 43.9ha public 

10.01ha 99ha 

3.003ha 3.0ha 

Total 211ha 

Note: Based on projected peak population 10,068 persons 

29.7ha private farm 

5.2.17 The marginal increase in open space requirements resulting from the increase in projected 

population is adequately met by the proposed development. 

5.2.18 The conclusions reached in the first submission therefore remain unchanged. 

Small Halls and Community Venues 

5.2.19 Again the increase in projected population requires the level of provision to be updated. The 

standards for provision of small halls and community venues are provided by the Council’s 

Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions Planning Document. This identifies a 

requirement for 1 community hall to be provided per 2,500 persons. On the basis of the 

previous project generating a resident population of 9,690 persons the scheme would 

generate a requirement for 4 community halls (3.9 unrounded). The revised projected 

population of 10,068 generates a requirement for 4 halls (4.03 unrounded). There is therefore 

no change in the level of provision. 

Provision of Large Built Facilities. 

5.2.20 On the basis of the revised estimated future peak resident population of the development at 

10,068 the anticipated facilities requirements are as follows:-


· Sports Halls – 0.7 provision; 

5 - 8 

fpcr 

· Swimming pools – 103.4 sq. m of swimming pool which still represents less than half of a 

4-lane swimming pool; 

· Synthetic Training Pitch (STP) – the Project generates a requirement for approximately 

20% of the supportable provision of an STP. 

5.2.21 Should a secondary school be established on the site this would potentially meet the need for 

some or all of the above facilities. Most secondary schools now provide for community uses 

and include provision of a STP. 

5.2.22 The increases in provision are marginal and therefore the conclusions reached in the 

Environmental Statement remain unchanged. 

Library Facilities 

5.2.23 The published standard for provision of libraries is the Museums and Library Archives (MLA) – 

‘A Standard Charge Approach' (2008). This identifies a standard of 30 sq. m per 1,000 

population. Using the likely revised projected peak population of 10,068 this gives rise to a 

requirement for 302 sq. m of library provision generated by the development. 

5.2.24 Again, the position remains as before and the Council and County Council are reviewing local 

library provision. Contributions can be made to the provision of a library within the 

development (as part of the District Centre) or to improve local provision elsewhere to fulfil the 

identified need.


6.0 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL RESOURCES: SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 


6 - 1 

fpcr 


requested by Blaby District Council and addresses the following:- 

· Relevant Saved Policies of the Blaby District Local Plan, 1999 

· Cumulative effects of the lighting (night time) effects of the Project, other committed 

(determined, but not yet completed) and recently completed developments in the Junction 

21 (M1) area, specifically at Grove Park; Meridian Business Park; Thorpe Astley; the Audi 

garage (Narborough Road South); Sainsbury’s (Grove Park Triangle); Next car park, Oak 

Spinney Park (Ratby Lane); residential schemes adjacent to Beggar’s Lane and St John’s, 

Enderby; and Glenfield Park. 

· Any implications arising in relation to landscape and visual effects from the changes 

described at Chapter 2: Development Proposals and shown on the Parameters Plans. An 

updated Visual Effects Table is included at Appendix 6A. 

· In support of the technical details for the proposed M1 and M69 bridges, submitted as part 

of this Further Information Document (refer to the Transport Assessment A), visual 

representations and illustrative cross sections of the motorway bridges are included at 

Appendix 6B. 

6.2 POLICY CONTEXT 

Blaby District Local Plan, 1999 

6.2.1 Saved Policy C2 – Other Development in the Countryside states that, “…planning 

permission will not be granted for built development, or other development which would have 

a significantly adverse effect on the appearance of the landscape…” 

6.2.2 Policy C2 does, however, recognise that some new development will be needed within the 

countryside. Providing criteria are met, small scale employment and leisure development are 

exceptions to this policy. 

6.2.3 Saved Policy C3 – Green Wedges states that, “Planning permission will be granted for 

development for agriculture, recreation, forestry, transport routes and mineral uses (including 

dwellings essential for those needs) provided that it is sited, designed and landscaped in a 

manner which does not damage the open and undeveloped character of the green wedge and 

that criteria of Policy C2 are met.” 

6.2.4 It goes on to state that, “The District Council, in co-operation with other interested parties, will 

seek to improve the character of the Green Wedges.” 

6.2.5 Other policy relating to green wedges is outlined below. 

6.2.6 Paragraph 4.2.18 of the East Midlands Regional Plan identifies the strategic planning function 

played by green wedges, noting that the Local Development Framework process will review 

existing green wedges as well as opportunities for creating new green wedges associated with 

new development.


6 - 2 

fpcr 

6.2.7 Policy 3 of the Blaby District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 

Submission Version identifies land west of the M1 at Lubbesthorpe as a mixed use SUE 

containing, “…green space provision including play and open space and strategic green 

infrastructure, including a new green wedge(s)…” 

6.2.8 Policy 15 identifies the role played by green wedges as strategic gaps between settlements. It 

recognises there is opportunity to explore the creation of new green wedges as part of the 

SUE. 

6.2.9 It is important to note that at the Inquiry into the Blaby District Local Plan the Inspector 

recommended that land north of Leicester Lane be omitted from the green wedge designation. 

However, the District Council chose not to act on the Inspector’s recommendation and 

reviewed the green wedge boundary to include the triangle of land north of Leicester Lane. 

6.2.10 Refer to Chapter 3: Planning Policy for a more detailed summary of the current local planning 

policy position in relation to landscape and Green Infrastructure. 

6.3 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND MITIGATION 

6.3.1 Enderby parkland is no longer proposed to be publicly accessible. It is proposed that the 

western field, currently used for arable crops, will revert to pasture and the former avenue of 

trees will be reinstated within the park. The tree avenue will provide some mitigation of the 

potential visual effects of the new employment development upon Enderby Hall. 

6.3.2 It is not considered that these changes will have any negative effect upon the overall Green 

Infrastructure and Biodiversity Strategy for the Project. 


Landscape Effects 

Landscape Character Area 2 - Plateau 

6.4.1 Following minor design changes the local centre (LC1) is no longer proposed on the site of 

Old Warren Farm, although the traditional red brick farm buildings will be retained and 

integrated within the new residential development. 

Landscape Character Area 3 – North-East Slopes 

6.4.2 Allotment gardens are proposed in the north of the area. The minor design changes result in 

the proposed built development comprising of housing, a secondary school, a district centre 

and a new gateway employment site at the eastern edge of the application site, close to the 

M1 crossing. The district centre is proposed to be sited to the north and west of existing 

woodland block W1; The Arrington. 

Landscape Character Area 11 – Enderby Hall and Parkland 

6.4.3 As above, Enderby parkland will not be made accessible for public use and will remain in 

agricultural use. The western field compartment will become pasture which, along with the 

reinstatement of the former tree avenue, will increase the biodiversity of the character area as


6 - 3 

fpcr 

well as its visual amenity for residents of Enderby Hall, users of bridleway W118 and future 

occupants of the SES. 

6.4.4 The changes described above do not affect the overall level of effect upon landscape 

character as identified at Chapter 6: Landscape Character and Visual Resources of the 

submitted ES. 

Visual Effects (refer to Appendix 6A) 

Public Rights of Way 

Footpath W3a: Within the North-East of the Application Site (Viewpoints 7, 8, 9, 16) 

6.4.5 The minor design changes result in the visible parts of the Project comprising of residential 

development and the district centre. 

Footpath W7: Within the North of the Application Site (Viewpoints 11, 12, 13, 37) 

6.4.6 The uppermost parts of residential development will be visible above the landscaping 

proposed along the built development edge. Oblique views of the local centre (LC1) and 

primary school (PS1) are also likely to occur (Viewpoint 37). 

6.4.7 The changes to the principal visible parts of the Project described above do not affect the 

overall level of effect upon the visual resource as identified at Chapter 6: Landscape 

Character and Visual Resources of the submitted ES. 

Cumulative Effects 

6.4.8 Cumulative night time effects involving the proposed development identified above and as 

indicated at Figure 16 within the supplementary Transport Assessment are not considered to 

be significant due to their urban location and proximity to both Leicester City and the M1. 

While some of the smaller schemes are in relatively close proximity to the Project, the 

Glenfield Park site is located some distance away to the north-east. 

6.4.9 The committed development is located at urban edges within existing well established 

industrial, residential and commercial development areas which are visually prominent after 

dark and easily assimilated within their context in terms of their associated lighting. 

Furthermore, each site is visually separated from one another by existing built development, 

some of which is large scale. The substantial landscaped earth bund proposed along the 

length of the motorway’s western edge, as part of the Project, will also provide significant 

visual and physical separation between the Project and the developments identified above, 

mitigating potential night time effects and therefore also any potential cumulative effects. 

6.5 STATEMENT OF EFFECTS 

6.5.1 The changes to the Project identified at Chapter 2: Development Proposals and shown on the 

revised Parameters Plans do not affect the conclusions reached in the Environmental 

Statement.


6 - 4 

fpcr 

6.5.2 Whilst the SES encroaches marginally into the green wedge, we do not consider the area 

affected to fulfil a strategic role. This role is satisfied by adjacent parklands and open fields 

which will remain as green wedge. Consequently the proposed green infrastructure 

associated with the Project will bring substantial benefits to the local area and far outweigh the 

limited loss of green wedge. 

6.5.3 Overall, there will be a range of beneficial effects upon the local landscape character and 

visual resource arising from the Project which affords a high quality built development set 

within a substantial framework of Green Infrastructure. The GI provides a variety of new 

wildlife habitats and ecological features throughout the development and existing habitats will 

be enhanced and reinforced as appropriate thus achieving a net gain in biodiversity in the long 

term. Conservation needs will be balanced with recreational needs of the future communities 

of Lubbesthorpe, as well as existing communities that surround the site, to create a rich, 

diverse landscape and, above all, an environment that can thrive.


7 - 1 

fpcr 

7.0 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING ARBORICULTURE): SUPPLEMENTARY 

CHAPTER 



requested by Blaby District Council and comprises the following:- 

· Results of watervole survey for Pond 11; 

· Results of emergence bat surveys for Warren Farm and Warren Cottages; 

· Detailed information on the condition of grassland TN2; 

· Clarification of which ponds are retained and which are lost to development; 

· Clarification of length of new hedgerow to be planted in compensation for loss of 

hedgerow and clarification of area the new woodland would occupy. 

7.1.2 The following further information, in support of the above, is provided at Appendix 7:- 

· Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Appendix 7A, Figure 7.2A); 

· Updated Watervole Report, including survey results for Pond 11 (Appendix 7B); 

· Updated Bat Report, including emergence survey results for Warren Farm and Warren 

Cottages (Appendix 7C); 

· Phase 1 habitat survey target notes (including TN5 and TN6) and species lists (Appendix 

7D); 

7.1.3 Revised proposals for the site now include the retention of Enderby Park in agricultural use; 

effects of this change, and other design changes have also been reassessed here. 


policy position in relation to ecology and biodiversity. 

7.2 FURTHER RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS 

Water Vole (refer to Appendix 7B) 

7.2.1 The submitted ES states that water vole are present in Pond 15 and along a short section of 

Lubbesthorpe Brook, near to this pond. There was inconclusive evidence that water vole could 

be present at P11. 

7.2.2 An updated water vole survey was therefore conducted on Pond 11 in June 2011 to ascertain 

the presence or otherwise of this species at this location. During the survey, access was 

gained to all banks and to the central island within the pond. Habitats at the pond remained 

suitable for water vole, although some degradation had occurred as a result of wildfowl. No 

evidence indicating the presence of water vole was recorded in any location, including 

potential burrows, above ground nests, feeding remains or latrines. 

7.2.3 Given the limited evidence recorded in 2008, with no other supporting evidence indicating 

water vole activity and the continued lack of evidence during surveys subsequently, it is 

considered that this species is not present at waterbody P11 and that watervole do not present


7 - 2 

fpcr 

a constraint to development at or near this pond at this time and there will be no adverse 

effects of the Project on this species at P11. As a result of this survey confirming the absence 

of water voles, this pond is not considered to be of more than local value. 

7.2.4 It is recommended that P11 is re-surveyed at the appropriate phase of development to confirm 

the absence of water vole activity at this later time. 

Bats (refer to Appendix 7C) 

7.2.5 Appendix 7C replaces Appendix 7F of the submitted ES. This includes corrections relating to 

typographical errors between text and drawings with regards to numbers of roosts and to the 

naming of farm complexes. These changes do not affect the text of the submitted ES Chapter 

7: Ecological Resources. Appendix 7C now also provides the results of the outstanding 

surveys on Warren Farm and Warren Cottages/Keepers Lodge, which were completed in 

2011. A summary of these results of these is provided below. 

Warren Farm 

7.2.6 Three nocturnal surveys were completed at Warren Farm during the active bat season in 2011 

(14 th July 2011; 21 st July 2011 and 8 th September 2011). During this time no bats were 

identified roosting within any of the buildings surveyed at Warren Farm. Small numbers of 

foraging and commuting common pipistrelle bats were recorded on all occasions in and 

around the farm complex, with brown long-eared, a myotis species and noctule bats also 

recorded, but in lesser numbers. Internal surveys undertaken in 2010 found no evidence of 

roosting bats. The main building is expected to be retained; however any loss or refurbishment 

of any buildings at Warren Farm would have a negligible effect on the local bat population. 

Habitats surrounding the farm will be also retained and all effects and mitigation remain as 

identified within the submitted ES Chapter 7: Ecological Resources. 

Warren Cottages/Keepers Lodge 

7.2.7 Internal surveys of buildings at Warren Cottages and Keepers Lodge recorded no evidence of 

bat roosts. A total of three nocturnal surveys was completed for Warren Cottages and A further 

three for Keepers Lodge over four survey occasions during the active bat season in 2011 (30 th 

June 2011; 7 th July 2011; 18 th August 2011 and 9 th September 2011). Small numbers of 

common pipistrelle were recorded foraging and commuting in and around the buildings, with a 

soprano pipistrelle, brown long eared bat and a noctule also recorded foraging and 

commuting. During these surveys one common pipistrelle bat was recorded entering building 

B6f on one occasion only (9 th September). No other roosts were recorded on any other survey 

occasion or in any other building at Warren Cottages/Keepers Lodge. 

7.2.8 The single common pipistrelle recorded roosting in B6f is consistent with an occasionally used 

non-breeding roost, used by a small number of bats. Effects of refurbishment or future loss of 

this building are considered to be low and would not affect the conservation status of the local 

bat population. A Natural England licence will be required for building loss or any 

refurbishment works affecting the building B6f. Nearby habitats will be retained and enhanced 

and effects and mitigation remain as identified within the submitted ES Chapter 7: Ecological 

Resources. 

7.2.9 As the small roost at B6f was recorded during the last survey only, it is recommended that 

stationary (anabat) data be collected for this roost during 2012/2013 to provide additional


7 - 3 

fpcr 

information for licencing purposes. In the event that no works have commenced on any of the 

buildings at either Warren Farm or Warren Cottages/Keepers Lodge by 2012/2013 further 

surveys will be required at the appropriate phase to ensure that bats have not colonised in the 

interim period. 

7.2.10 All other effects and mitigation measures remain as indicated in the submitted ES Chapter 7: 

Ecological Resources and within the replacement bat survey contained at Appendix 7C. Table 

7a below summarises all building roosts confirmed during the bat surveys in both 2010 and 

2011. 

Table 7a: Summary of all Building Roosts 

Farm Name Building 

reference 

Roost evidence Roost status 

Hopyard Farm 2e Nocturnal – entry (roost) Small occasional 

Brown Long-eared 

roost 

New House Farm 4b Nocturnal – entry (roost) Small occasional 

New House Farm 4h Visual – droppings 

Nocturnal – entry (roost) 

Old Warren Farm 5a Visual – droppings 

Anabat recordings 

Brown Long-eared 

roost 

Small occasional 

Brown Long-eared and 

common pipistrelle 

roost 

Small long term brown 

long-eared roost 

Warren Cottages/Keepers Lodge 6f Nocturnal – entry (roost) Very occasional small 

Grassland Condition at TN2 

non-breeding 

pipistrelle roost 

7.2.11 The grassland at TN2 is one of the parish level SINC sites adjacent to the Lubbesthorpe Brook 

and is described under the “semi-improved neutral grasslands” within the submitted ES 

Chapter 7: Ecological Resources. The species list is also presented at Appendix 7D of the 

submitted ES. A typographical error on the submitted Figure 7.2 Phase 1 Habitat Plan 

indicates it as being “I” (Improved grassland) rather than “SI” (Semi-improved). This has been 

corrected on the revised Figure 7.2A included at Appendix 7A. 

7.2.12 This field is designated as a Parish Level SINC, which describes it as “mown grassland”. This 

grassland has been re-assessed under 2008 Leicestershire LWS selection criteria. The 

primary criteria state that to qualify, mesotrophic (neutral) grasslands must be at least 2500m 2 

(0.25ha) or 200 linear metres, with at least 7 species occasionally occurring from List F (or 10 

species in total) of the criteria guidelines. To qualify, wet grasslands must be seasonally 

flooded and at least 2500m 2 with at least 6 species from Lists F and G of the selection criteria


7 - 4 

fpcr 

lists. Mixed grasslands must contain at least 10 species from the four combined lists. 

Secondary criteria state that the grassland must be 2500m 2 and support at least 8 species 

from the combined four lists. Table 7b below provides the species list for TN2 cross 

referenced with the LWS criterion lists. 

Table 7b: TN2 Species List Compared Against LWS Grassland Selection Criteria Lists 

Latin English List F List G List H List J 

Agrostis capillaris Common bent X X √ X 

Alopecurus pratensis Meadow foxtail X X X X 

Arrhenatherum elatius False oat-grass X X X X 

Bellis perennis Common daisy X X X X 

Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd’s purse X X X X 

Cardamine pratensis Lady’s smock X √ X X 

Cerastium fontanum Common mouse-ear X X X X 

Cirsium arvensis Creeping thistle X X X X 

Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle X X X X 

Cynosaurus cristatus Crested dog’s tail X X X X 

Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted hair-grass X X X X 

Epilobium montanum Broad leaved willowherb X X X X 

Equisetum arvensis Field horsetail X X X X 

Filipendula ulmaria Meadowsweet √ X X X 

Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog X X X X 

Juncus effusus Soft rush X √ X X 

Lolium perenne Perennial rye-grass X X X X 

Phleum bertolonii Dwarf timothy X X X X 

Phleum pratensis Timothy X X X X 

Plantago major Greater plantain X X X X 

Poa annua Annual meadow-grass X X X X 

Poa trivialis Rough meadow-grass X X X X 

Pulicaria dysenterica Fleabane X √ X X 

Ranunculus bulbosus Bulbous buttercup √ X X X 

Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup X X X X 

Rumex acetosa Common sorrel √ X X X


Latin English List F List G List H List J 

Rumex crispus Curled dock X X X X 

Sanguisorba minor ssp 

minor 

Salad burnet X X X √ 

Sanguisorba officinalis Great burnet √ X X X 

Taraxacum officinalis A dandelion X X X X 

Trifolium repens White clover X X X X 

Urtica dioica Common nettle X X X X 

Total number of species from list 4 3 1 1 

Combined species total of lists F & G 7 

Combined species total of lists F, G, H, J 9 

7 - 5 

fpcr 

7.2.13 The grassland at TN2 does not support sufficient species to meet the selection criteria for 

mesotrophic grasslands (List F), acid (List H) or calcareous (List J) grasslands, nor does it 

meet the criteria for mixed grasslands. However, as 7 species from the Lists F and G were 

recorded in total it is therefore considered likely that the field compartment at TN2 supports the 

requisite number of species for a wet grassland LWS. The field at TN2 is 1.53 ha and is of 

sufficient size to qualify it as a wet grassland LWS. Although it is not confirmed that it is 

seasonally flooded, it is probable that there is some periodic flooding of marginal areas 

adjacent to the brook. This grassland also meets the secondary criteria in that it is of sufficient 

size and supports at 9 species from all four lists. 

7.2.14 This grassland, together with the adjoining SINC compartments, will be incorporated into the 

open space proposals and managed as wet grassland, with positive benefits as indicated 

within the submitted ES Chapter 7: Ecological Resources. Where possible, allowing for 

sufficient acoustic mitigation for the M69, woodlands have been decreased to minimise 

potential encroachment into this grassland. As mitigation for any loss, further wet grassland 

meadows within Brook Park will provide similar grasslands, and will include the requisite 

species from the LWS criterion lists F and G within their species mix. There are considered to 

be overall positive effects on grasslands, including wet grasslands at a local level, possibly 

district level at least as a result of the Project, given the retention and management of the 

better quality grasslands and the provision of large areas of new grassland, including neutral 

meadows, wet grassland and tussocky grassland. 

Pond Retention and Loss 

7.2.15 Table 7c below provides clarification on ponds to be retained within the scheme and those 

which will be lost. It is confirmed that only 3 ponds will now be lost, none of which are 

assessed as being of more than site level value. The effect of their loss is considered to be 

negligible, with new ponds and wetland areas as well as enhancement of retained ponds 

across the Project area still leading to beneficial effects at a local level as a minimum.


7 - 6 

fpcr 

7.2.16 Redesign has enabled the retention of one additional pond. Pond 4, previously to be lost 

within the submitted ES, will now be retained within the secondary school grounds. This pond 

supports broadleaved pond weed, which qualifies it as a Local Wildlife Site under the 

Leicestershire LWS selection guidance. The pond also supports round leaved water-crow-foot, 

a local Red Data Book species. It is advised that the pond be appropriately managed as a 

wildlife pond and educational resource for the school, to maintain its biodiversity value in the 

future. 

Table 7c: Summary of Pond Retention and Loss 

Pond Description Value Retained 

P1 Small, steep sided pond at corner of grazed field. Highly 

eutrophic and stagnant. Surrounded by bramble. No 

emergent or marginal vegetation with exception of 

common duckweed. 

P2 Small field pond near edge of arable field, with some 

overshading. Limited emergent vegetation and ephemeral 

in nature. Stagnant and with some nutrient enrichment. 

Supported very small population of smooth newts. 

P3 Nearby P2, smaller overshaded stagnant field pond at 

base of hedgerow. Ephemeral and without vegetation. 

P4 Situated within an arable field and with no shading from 

surrounding vegetation and poorly connected to other 

habitats. Small pond with standing water and marshy 

grassland berm surrounding. Well established with around 

50% of the open water supporting vegetation including 

round-leaved water crowfoot Ranunculus omiophyllus, 

jointed rush Juncus articulatus and common reedmace 

Typha latifolia. Ephemeral with open water areas 

decreasing over summer. Supported a medium population 

of smooth newts and some pond invertebrates and water 

fowl. 

P5 Very small and located at woodland edge resulting in 

overshading, Un-vegetated, stagnant and ephemeral. 

P6 Located at hedgerow base and heavily overshaded. Un- 

vegetated, stagnant and ephemeral. 

P7 Situated at woodland edge, heavily overshaded. Un- 

vegetated, stagnant and ephemeral. 

P8 Located at hedgerow base and heavily overshaded. Un- 

vegetated, stagnant and ephemeral. Supported very small 

population of smooth newts. 

or lost 

Negligible Retained 

Site Lost 

Negligible Lost 

Local Now 

retained 


Negligible Lost 


Site Retained


Pond Description Value Retained 

P9 Very small highly ephemeral pond. Un-vegetated, 

stagnant. 

P10 Medium sized field pond within scrub area and largely 

overshaded. Poor water quality and no aquatic vegetation. 

Very small population of smooth newts. 

P11 Medium permanent field pond located on edge of arable 

field with vegetated island. Small amounts of 

emergent/marginal vegetation. Shallow banks to east, 

otherwise steep and densely vegetated by bramble scrub 

and ruderals. Small population of smooth newts. 

P12 Large artificial pond within former Enderby Park. Little 

aquatic vegetation and partially shaded from the 

surrounding vegetation located within arable field. 

Possibly supports fish. Vey small population of smooth 

newts. Water-fowl. 

P13 Medium sized field pond in grazed field at edge of 

woodland. Steep sided and no vegetation. Not over 

shaded. Medium population of smooth newts. 

P14 Medium sized pond located at woodland edge and 

partially overshaded. No vegetation. Some evidence of 

eutrophication. Steep sided. 

P15 Largest pond on site. Situated within a wooded area 

fenced-off from the surrounding field. Partially overshaded 

at margins from surrounding scrub/woodland vegetation. 

Mix of steep and shallow margins. Large fish recorded and 

waterfowl. Supports a small population of water vole. 

P16 Small field pond at edge of woodland. Overshaded. 

Limited vegetation. Ephemeral. Very small population of 

smooth newts. 

7 - 7 

or lost 

fpcr 


Site Retained 

Local Retained 

Site Retained 

Site Retained 


County Retained 

Site Retained 

P17 Small field overshaded field pond. No vegetation. Negligible Retained 

P18 Small ephemeral field pond. Dry at time of all surveys. Negligible Retained 

P19 Small ephemeral field pond. Dry at time of all surveys. Negligible Retained 

Hedgerows 

7.2.17 Following design changes since submission it is now anticipated that only around 8 

hedgerows will be totally or partially lost representing approximately 1.75km in length. These 

are a result of slight changes in the design of the employment area and also in the location of 

the secondary school and nearby district centre. None of these are Important under the


7 - 8 

fpcr 

Hedgerow Regulations 1997, although six are of nature conservation priority under the 

Hedgerow Grading and Evaluation System (Clement and Tofts 1991), scoring grade 2. It is 

estimated that approximately 75 hedgerows would be breached to allow for new roads and 

pathways; for the purposes of this assessment breaches are assumed to be around 15 metres 

wide in each case to allow for the actual road/pathway and associated construction works. 

This equates to around 1.1km. In total therefore it is anticipated that approximately 2.85 km of 

existing hedgerow could be lost. This is considered to represent a worst case scenario, as the 

detailed designed will seek to minimise required breaches and hedgerow losses. This 

represents around 9.5% of the total resource. Overall, losses would not be expected to affect 

the functioning or quality of the existing network, with sufficient alternative linkages retained in 

close proximity to those lost and mitigation as detailed within the ES for road and pathway 

crossings, including the use of hopovers. The extent of hedgerow loss is indicated in Table 7d 

below. 

Table 7d: Summary of Hedgerow Loss 

Hedgerow Total Loss Partial loss Breached Extent (approx) 

40, 41, 62a, 62b, 142, 141, 146 √ 1.5km 

145 √ 250m 

75 hedgerows (approximate) √ Est. 1.1km 

Total 2.85km 

7.2.18 New hedgerow planting within parklands and green links is anticipated at being around 8.9 

km. This will lead to an overall positive gain in the hedgerow resource on site with a net gain of 

approximately 6km. Hedgerow loss is not considered to be significant in the context of the 

overall retained resource and there will be at least minor positive beneficial effects at a local 

level as a result of new diverse hedgerow planting. 

Woodlands 

7.2.19 Woodland on site currently extends to around 10.6 ha, comprising a discrete number of 

woodland blocks. New woodland created on site will extend to approximately 400 ha, 

providing a major positive effect in the long term at a local, and possibly district level. The 

extent of new woodland is indicated in Table 7e below. 

Table 7e: New Woodland Extents by Type 

Woodland type Extent (approx) 

Broad leaved woodland 29.25 ha 

Wet woodland / carr woodland and scrub 4.4 ha 

Woodland edge 6.45 ha 

Total 40.1 ha


Enderby Park pLWS 

7 - 9 

fpcr 

7.2.20 Enderby Park pLWS will now be retained in agricultural use, although both field compartments 

will comprise pasture. These do not significantly affect the overall level of effects identified 

within the submitted ES, given the relatively small scale of changes in the context of the wider 

Project design. However, the following changes are noted. 

7.2.21 Agricultural land at Enderby Park pLWS will not be restored lowland neutral grassland. 

Lowland wood-pasture and parkland is an LBAP and UK habitat with the main interest of this 

habitat (the veteran and near veteran trees) retained. The park currently comprises an 

improved grazed pasture in the eastern part, with the western compartment comprising arable 

land, which will be converted to grazing pasture. The former park’s avenue of trees will be re- 

instated and the area will be retained without public access, as it currently is. There are 

therefore expected to be no adverse effects as a result of the Project; the inclusion of further 

grazing pasture and additional tree planting will provide some biodiversity benefits, at a 

localised site level. 

Veteran Trees 

7.2.22 It is noted that two veteran trees (T141 and T126) within Enderby Park are categorised as 

Retention Category R Remove within the submitted Veteran Tree Report (ES Volume 2, 

Appendix 7K), due to their particular impaired condition and that their retention within open 

space is recommended. These trees would still be retained within open pasture land within 

these revised proposals. 

7.2.23 Re-design of the district centre and secondary school now indicates that a number of other 

veteran/near veteran trees previously in potential conflict with detailed design (T39/c, T40/a 

and T75) are now located within wide green corridors, reducing potential conflicts at the 

detailed design stage and it is likely that they could be retained, monitored and managed 

appropriately. Detailed design will strive to retain as many of the veteran and near veteran 

trees as possible. Where they are retained, their continued monitoring and sensitive 

management will be required to help maintain this resource in the long term. 




Statement. 

7.3.34 Overall, there will be positive benefits on the biodiversity of the area as a result of the Project, 

through the retention and enhancement and management of the vast majority of the ecological 

features of interest. These habitats and features will be linked and integrated into significant 

areas of new habitat which will be created and actively managed, much of which will contribute 

to UK and local biodiversity objectives and actions.


8.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY: SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 


8 - 1 

fpcr 



· Review of recent fieldwork and research, including the East Midlands Research Strategy, 

the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Landscape Characterisation Project, the M1 

widening and Junction 21 improvements as well as results of recent excavations and 

fieldwork in relation to the late prehistoric period onwards; 

· An appraisal of the archaeological resource of the earlier prehistoric archaeological 

remains, Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic/Early Bronze Age periods, as well as the 

potential for Pleistocene deposits and their likelihood to contain Palaeolithic remains; 

· Additional non-intrusive and intrusive fieldwork based upon the results of the revised desk 

based assessment and a programme of trial trenching of known archaeological sites and 

areas impacted upon the infrastructure access roads and entry points along with mitigation 

measures as necessary; 

· Assessment of the physical and visual impact of the proposed attenuation ponds and 

earth bunding in relation to potential archaeological remains and the Scheduled 

Monument; 

· Assessment of proposed use of bridleway W18 as a pedestrian and cycle link between 

the SUE and SES; 

· Assessment of the visual impact of sites E1 and R17 upon the Scheduled Monument; 

· Assessment of the visual impact of sites E1, E2, E3, ER5 upon the setting of Enderby 

Hall and Enderby Conservation Area; 

· Deletion of reference to Policy CE2 of the Blaby District Local Plan. 

8.1.2 Following initial comments from English Heritage, a site meeting with Tim Allen (EH) and 

Richard Clark (Leicestershire County Council Principal Planning Archaeologist) and 

subsequent discussions to agree a suitable scope of works, the studies and investigations 

described below have been undertaken in support of the above and are included at Appendix 

8:- 

· An Archaeological Landscape Report for New Lubbesthorpe (Appendix 8B); 

· An Historic Building Assessment (Appendix 8C); 

· Trial Trench Evaluation Reports (Appendix 8D); 

· A plan and illustrative cross sections showing the relocation of balancing ponds 8b, 8c, 

10a, 10b and 10c (Appendix 8E); 

· Visual representations to demonstrate the visible extent of the Project from the Scheduled 

Monument to site E1 in the south and site R17 in the east (Appendix 8F); 

· Photomontages demonstrating the visible extent of sites E1, E2, E3, E4 from Enderby Hall 

and gardens (Appendix 8G).


8 - 2 

fpcr 


policy position in relation to archaeology and cultural heritage. 


Results of the Historic Landscape Assessment (refer to Appendix 8B) 

8.2.1 To supplement the information obtained from the original Desk-Based Assessment 8.1 (included 

at Appendix 8A for ease) an assessment of the landscape history of the area was 

undertaken 8.2 . 

8.2.2 This concluded that the area of New Lubbesthorpe is in many ways a typical example of a 

plough-zone lowland Midlands landscape. No in-situ Palaeolithic evidence is likely although 

isolated artefacts have recently been located. Mesolithic activity may be present along the 

stream sides. Land-use during the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC may include some gradual 

clearance with limited and isolated prehistoric activity before 1000BC but more evidence is 

likely for the Iron Age and Roman periods. From evidence located on nearby sites it is likely 

that the landscape may have been dominated by woodland and pasture in the first half of the 

1st millennium BC with more arable cultivation in the later Iron Age 8.3 . During the Roman 

period the land is likely to have been cultivated by communities living in rural settlements 

associated with the Fosse Way. Boundary systems and burials to the south-east 8.4 may 

indicate the presence of settlement between the application area and the river Soar. In 

common with much of the lowland East Midlands, early Anglo-Saxon material is rare 8.5 

although some pottery has been located in the area. By the later Saxon period the settlement 

patterns indicated in the Domesday survey may have started to be established. 

8.2.3 The medieval period sees the development of the landscape centred on the village of 

Lubbesthorpe before its abandonment in the 16th century. In common with much of the East 

Midlands, enclosure established much of the pattern of landscape that exists today with a 

mixture of arable and pasture fields, small wooded areas and farmsteads. Less typical is its 

forest-edge position. 

Results of the Historic Buildings Assessment (refer to Appendix 8C) 

8.2.4 The rapid assessment of the four Lubbesthorpe farmsteads; Abbey Farm, Hopyard Farm, New 

House Farm and Old Warren Farm, has provided further useful baseline information which will 

facilitate a better understanding of the historic landscape of Lubbesthorpe. 

8.2.5 Despite its small size, during the medieval period, Lubbesthorpe was a valuable manor, rich in 

woodland resources. Documentary sources identify Abbey Farm as the site of the former 

manor house, which was located within the heart of the medieval village. The present 

farmhouse incorporates the remains of an earlier stone building which are likely to represent 

the house that was built in 1550 by Francis Hastings, second earl of Huntingdon. Hopyard 

Farm is located less than 200m away from Abbey Farm and the Root family, who have been 

tenant farmers at both sites for many years, have always been led to believe that Hopyard was 

the earlier farmstead, serving the needs of the manorial household. The Prior map of 1777 

certainly indicates the presence of both sites at this time and the location of Hopyard Farm 

within the village boundaries would suggest that the site was occupied before the enclosure of 

c.1581.


8 - 3 

fpcr 

8.2.6 Rapid assessment of the exterior of Hopyard Farm suggests a date of c.1750 for the house 

and barn at least, but a full survey of the interior would confirm an accurate construction date 

and development sequence for the present buildings and establish whether these incorporate 

the remains of earlier structures. Similarly, a survey of Abbey Farm would establish the full 

extent of the medieval remains in relation to the late 18th /early 19th century building, which 

also appears to retain many original fixtures and fittings. 

8.2.7 New House Farm and Old Warren Farm can be classified as post-enclosure farmsteads, 

located in isolation beyond the settlement core of Lubbesthorpe. The earliest record of a farm 

at the site of New House Farm appears on the preliminary OS map of 1812, named in 1835 as 

Enderby Lodge. By 1886, the name New House Farm is recorded, possibly indicating a 

construction date for the ‘new’ farmhouse between 1835 and 1886. Assessment of the exterior 

of the building would perhaps push the date to between 1835-1850, but a survey of the 

internal fixtures and fittings would help to confirm this, in addition to establishing the floor plans 

of the apparently 18th century building. 

8.2.8 Old Warren Farm appears to have been built between 1812 and 1835 and the farmhouse 

appears to have been built towards the beginning of that timescale, with further ranges 

probably added to the rear between 1830 and 1860. The ancillary farm buildings appear to 

have been built at the same time as the additions to the farmhouse, during a period which is 

known as the ‘boom’ years of British agriculture 8.6 . These form a neat courtyard plan and are 

likely to have been constructed in accordance with the principles of ‘the model’ farm, which 

were designed to increase efficiency and minimise labour, whilst improving conditions for 

livestock in order to increase productivity and output. 

8.2.9 Abbey Farm, Hopyard Farm and New House Farm all lie within environments which include 

some well preserved ‘ridge and furrow’ from the pre-enclosure field systems. The ridge and 

furrow surrounding both Abbey Farm and Hopyard Farm will be retained within the ‘Green 

Infrastructure’ of the proposed development. 

Results of the Trial Trench Evaluation (refer to Appendix 8D) 

8.2.10 Seventy-three trial trenches targeting areas of proposed infrastructure (including bunding and 

attenuation ponds) and archaeological potential identified from geophysical survey and HER 

records were excavated during the evaluation at Lubbesthorpe 8.7 . While most of the trenches 

were negative, a dispersed spread of archaeological features was identified across the site, 

with features in the south of the proposed development area being much more concentrated 

and significant. The majority of these latter features were only recorded at considerable depths 

due to spoil stockpiling activities associated with M1 and M69 motorway construction. These 

features included a series of structural and other evidence to the north of Leicester Lane, 

Enderby confirming the results of the previous geophysical survey and indicating the presence 

of one or more Iron Age enclosures with evidence for occupation of this date. 

8.2.11 Although unstratified or residual, the presence of lithic material attests to some activity from 

earlier periods. While most are of Neolithic- Bronze Age date, of note are two cores found on 

the surface in the south-east of the area which are of likely palaeolithic date. 

8.2.12 Slightly to the north and adjacent to Warren Farm, quarrying, potentially of early Roman date, 

was identified.


8 - 4 

fpcr 

8.2.13 Just to the north of the Scheduled Monument of Lubbesthorpe deserted medieval village, 

medieval activity was identified including possible structural evidence. In this area, 

waterlogged deposits in a large channel were present, and, although modern material was 

recovered, they could potentially indicate the survival of earlier organic deposits. 

8.2.14 Elsewhere, sporadic undated features were also recorded across the evaluation area, and 

occasional unstratified finds were recovered from the ploughzone. 

8.2.15 A re-examination of the HER and landscape characterisation information indicated that there 

was no change from the information provided in the updated Desk-Based Assessment 

(Appendix 8A). 

Physical and Visual Effects of the Proposed Attenuation Ponds upon the Scheduled 

Monument (refer to Appendix 8E) 

8.2.16 An assessment of both the physical and visual impact of proposed attenuation ponds in the 

vicinity of the Scheduled Monument has been undertaken. Following on site discussion with 

EH and LCC, this resulted in the relocation of ponds 8b, 8c, 10a, 10b and 10c. A plan, 

showing the agreed locations, and cross sections, indicating the pond profile relative to the 

Scheduled Monument, are included at Appendix 8E. Overall, the physical and visual effects of 

the ponds upon the Scheduled Monument are considered to be negligible. 

Physical and Visual Effect of Bridleway W18 upon the Scheduled Monument 

8.2.17 The existing bridleway from Lubbesthorpe Bridle Road to Warren Farm, south of the M69, is 

proposed to be used as a low key footpath and cycleway. It will connect the housing area to 

the north of the M69 with the Strategic Employment Site (SES) to the south. The route is 

currently a farm track and, while in good condition, is un-surfaced. The proposals will maintain 

its existing character, however some limited remedial work and surface overlay, such as self- 

binding gravel or similar, may be necessary to improve its appearance and condition, 

particularly for cyclists. Overall the physical and visual effects upon the Scheduled Monument 

are judged to be negligible. 

Visual Effect of Sites E1 and R17 upon the Scheduled Monument (refer to Appendix 8F) 

8.2.18 The potential visual impact of sites E1 (SES) and R17 (SUE) upon the Scheduled Monument 

have been assessed. The extent of mitigation in relation to R17 was agreed during on site 

discussions with EH and LCC. Following this, a visual representation for each site has been 

produced; these are included at Appendix 8F. In both cases it is demonstrated that proposed 

built development will not be visible and consequently there will be no visual effects upon the 

Scheduled Monument as a result of E1 and R17. 

Visual Effect of Sites E1, E2, E3 and E4 upon the Setting of Enderby Hall and Enderby 

Conservation Area (refer to Appendix 8G) 

8.2.19 The potential visual impact of sites E1, E2, E3 and E4 upon the grade II listed Enderby Hall 

and, subsequently, Enderby Conservation Area have also been assessed. A series of four 

photomontages have been produced from locations agreed with Blaby District Council, LCC 

and a resident of the Hall; one from the first floor level of the Hall itself and three from the


8 - 5 

fpcr 

eastern edge of the grounds. The photomontages are included at Appendix 8G. Whilst the 

new development will be in closer proximity to the Hall, the view from it will be significantly 

improved, both in terms of the quality of new development and measures proposed to mitigate 

it. Inevitably some of the new employment buildings will be distantly visible. However, they will 

screen the unattractive Topps Tiles building and other industrial units at Grove Park, 

immediately east of the M1. Proposed mitigation comprises of a landscaped earth bund along 

the western edge of the new access road as well as reinstatement of the tree avenue through 

Enderby Park. This will help to screen parts of the built development and soften its 

appearance overall resulting in a slight beneficial visual effect in the longer term, once planting 

is established. 

Mitigation 

8.2.20 Although some additional information has been provided following the additional fieldwork 

outlined above, the mitigation strategies described in the submitted ES Chapter 8: Cultural 

Heritage and Archaeology are still robust and appropriate. 

8.2.21 All mitigation work will be considered in the light of the ‘East Midlands Research Framework’ 

and the recently completed ‘East Midlands Research Strategy’. 

8.2.22 All work will be undertaken in accordance with the Institute for Archaeologists’ (IfA) ‘Code of 

Conduct, Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluations, Excavations and 

Archaeological Watching Briefs’. Written Schemes of Investigation (WSI) will be produced in 

advance for each phase of work and sent to the Senior Planning Archaeologist for approval. 

The archaeological objectives and strategy will be continuously reviewed in the light of the 

archaeological remains uncovered. All work will be monitored by Leicestershire County 

Council’s Senior Planning Archaeologist as advisor to Blaby District Council. 




Statement. 

8.3.2. There is also no change to the statement of effects submitted in the Environmental Statement 

Chapter 8: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology following the additional fieldwork outlined above 

which are as follows: 

Positive Effects 

8.3.3 Although there can be no positive effects where there is an impact on heritage assets, the 

increase in knowledge and understanding that occurs through their recording can be offset 

against the loss of information that would occur if a site was to be destroyed unrecorded. The 

opportunity to enhance the interpretation of the Lubbesthorpe deserted medieval village SM 

will also be a positive effect. 

Negative Effects 

8.3.4 Heritage assets are a finite resource which, once altered or removed, cannot be replaced. The 

scheme will have negative effects wherever there are direct impacts on archaeological


remains or their setting. 

8 - 6 

fpcr 

8.3.5 The significance of the effects of the scheme combines the value of the resource and the 

magnitude of the impact (incorporating the mitigation strategy) for each heritage asset. The 

significance is assessed using judgements regarding value, magnitude of impact and 

significance of effect that are reasonable and balanced. A matrix is used as a check to ensure 

that these judgements are reasonable and balanced (refer to ES Volume 2, Appendix 8A, 

Tables 8d–8f). 

8.3.6 After mitigation there will be Moderate Adverse effects on the potential archaeological 

remains. 

8.3.7 After mitigation there will be a Slight Adverse effect on the settings of the Scheduled 

Monuments within, and in the vicinity of, the proposed Project area. 

8.3.8 After mitigation there will be a Slight Adverse effect on the setting of Listed buildings in the 

vicinity of the area. 

8.3.9 The removal of some hedgerows that can be defined as Ancient Hedgerows following the 

1997 Hedgerow Regulations will cause a Moderate Adverse effect on the historic landscape. 

8.3.10 The overall assessment of the significance of effects on heritage assets is that after mitigation 

there will be a Moderate Adverse effect. 

References 

8.1 Hunt, L. 2008 An Archaeological Desk-based Assessment for the Drummond Estate, 

Lubbesthorpe and Enderby, Leicestershire. ULAS Report 2008-196 (revised 12.01.2010) 

8.2 Courtney, P. and Clay, C. 2011 An Archaeological Landscape Assessment for New 

Lubbesthorpe, Lubbesthorpe and Enderby, Leicestershire. ULAS Report 2011-150 

8.3 Monckton, A., 2006 ‘Environmental Archaeology in the East Midlands’ in N. Cooper (ed.) 2006, 

The Archaeology of the East Midlands. An Archaeological Resource Assessment and 

Research Agenda. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monograph 13, 268-70 (259-286). 

8.4 Harvey. J. 2009. Archaeological Excavations on Land Between St John’s/Leicester Lane, 

Enderby, Leicestershire. ULAS Report 2009-169. 

8.5 Vince, A., 2006 ‘The Anglo-Saxon Period (c. 400-850) in N. Cooper (ed.) 2006, The 

Archaeology of the East Midlands. An Archaeological Resource Assessment and Research 

Agenda. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monograph 13, 161-184. 

8.6 Barnwell , P. and Giles, C. 1997 English Farmsteads 1750-1914. Royal Commission on the 

Historical Monuments of England. 

8.7 Jarvis, W., 2011 An Archaeological Evaluation on land at New Lubbesthorpe/Drummond 

Estate, Leicestershire ULAS Report 2011-165


9.0 AGRICULTURE AND SOIL RESOURCES: SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 


9 - 1 

fpcr 



· Additional detailed information and clarification of the farming businesses affected by the 

Project and reassessment of the resultant effects. 

9.1.2 The following further information, in support of the above, is provided at Appendix 9:- 

· Agricultural Users and Usable Agricultural Area (Appendix 9A, Figure 9.2A). 


Agricultural Use 

9.2.1 The following text replaces paragraphs 9.3.5 - 9.3.9 of Chapter 9: Agricultural Land Quality of 

the ES. 

9.2.2 Most of the application area is part of the Enderby Estate with farms and land let on 

Agricultural Holdings Act or Farm Business tenancies. This land is under a mixture of arable 

crops and grassland, and most is subject to Entry Level Environmental Stewardship schemes 

that provide funding to farmers for delivering effective environmental management. The Estate 

land is used by four tenants as shown at Appendix 9A, Figure 9.2A. 

9.2.3 Hopyard and Abbey Farms (123 ha) are occupied under a single tenancy agreement. Half of 

the holding is in arable use growing winter-sown crops, and half is grassland used for fattening 

cattle. A Scheduled Monument inside the farm curtilage cannot be disturbed by ploughing, so 

its use is limited to grazing on permanent grass. All of the remaining land is in Entry Level 

Environmental Stewardship. The tenant also farms small areas of land outside of the 

application area. 

9.2.4 New House Farm and Warren Farm are both farmed from Huncote Grange, Enderby, a 75 ha 

owner-occupied farm that lies to the west of the application area. New House Farm is 92 ha in 

extent and, as well as 76 ha inside the application area, includes a 10 ha field on the west side 

of Beggar’s Lane and a detached field of almost 6 ha to the east of the M1 beside the River 

Soar. Warren Farm (99 ha) has 56 ha within the application area and a further 43 ha to the 

south of Leicester Lane each side of the M1 motorway. A further 17 ha off Narborough Road 

South is rented from Enderby Estate. The 276 ha of owned and rented land (all in Entry Level 

Environmental Stewardship) supports winter-sown cereal crops, and over 500 beef cattle, 

some as a suckler herd, some fattened from stores and all housed in the Warren Farm 

buildings. The business also contract farms a further 400 ha in the locality. 

9.2.5 Old Warren Farm is a 60 ha mixed holding entirely within the application area. It grows grass 

for dairy cattle, maize for fodder and the remaining land is given over to cereal cropping. The 

whole farm is in an Entry Level Environmental Stewardship scheme. 

9.2.6 Lawn Farm is a 60 ha mixed holding roughly divided by Beggar’s Lane into 30 ha within the 

application area and 30 ha around the farm buildings on the west side of the lane. The farm is


9 - 2 

fpcr 

mainly given over to fattening 200 cattle, with most of the land within the application area used 

for growing feed grain. 

9.2.7 The remaining land within the application area (14 ha) forms a residual part of Grange Farm, 

Leicester Forest East, the farm buildings of which lie on Baines Lane to the east of the M1 

motorway. The land is partly farmed from Elms Farm, Kirby Muxloe and partly contract-farmed 

from Huncote Grange. 

Residual Effects 

9.2.8 The following text replaces paragraph 9.5.4 and Table 9g of Chapter 9: Agricultural Land 

Quality of the ES. 

9.2.9 There will be a loss of 300 ha of agricultural land, and this will affect all agricultural farm 

businesses, included at Table 9g below, to a greater or lesser extent. Old Warren Farm is 

entirely within the land take of the Project, and would cease to exist as stand-alone farm 

businesses. The Hopyard/Abbey Farm business would become unviable but would retain 30 

ha of agricultural grazing land around Abbey Farm. There would be some compensation for 

severance of the tenancy agreements but the effects would be moderate to major adverse, the 

actual level of effect dependent on whether the occupiers would be retiring from farming or 

wished to continue in business. Lawn Farm would lose roughly half of its area and nearly all of 

the land that currently provides feed grain for its cattle. This would involve a moderate impact 

on the farm business. 

9.2.10 The farming business of Huncote Grange would lose 80% of New House Farm and 26% of 

Warren Farm. The Warren Farm buildings will, however, be retained and 30 ha (two fields) 

within The Park will remain in agricultural use. The westernmost, currently in arable use, will 

be returned to grassland in order to facilitate the creation of an avenue of trees extending 

north-east from Enderby Hall. The retention of 30 ha of grazing adjacent to the Warren Farm 

buildings might enable the continuance of a reduced animal rearing and fattening operation 

within the farm business. 

9.2.11 The use of the remaining parts of the former Grange Farm for the project will have only a 

minor effect on the Elms Farm agricultural business and will be offset by income from sale of 

the land. 

9.2.12 The effects on the farm businesses are summarised in Table 9g below. 

Table 9g: Effect of the Project on the Farm Businesses 

Agricultural business Proportion of owned & 

rented land lost (%) 

Effect 

Hopyard & Abbey Farms 75 Moderate to major, adverse 

Old Warren Farm 100 Moderate to major, adverse 

Lawn Farm 50 Moderate, adverse 

Huncote Grange 38 Moderate, adverse 

Grange Farm, Leicester Forest East unknown Minor adverse 


9.3.1 The following text replaces paragraph 9.6.1 of Chapter 9: Agricultural Land Quality of the ES.


9 - 3 

fpcr 

9.3.2 The development of land to the north of Enderby will remove 300 ha of land from agricultural 

use and will have a moderate to major adverse effect on at least four farm businesses. 


revised Parameters Plans do not affect the overall conclusions reached in the Environmental 

Statement, as described at Chapter 9: Agriculture and Soil Resources, Table 9h.


10.0 WATER, HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE: SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 


10 - 1 

fpcr 



· Reference to the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010. 

10.1.2 In support of the proposed drainage strategy, the following further information is provided at 

Appendix 10:- 

· An addendum to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (Appendix 10A); 

· Examples of SuDS similar to those proposed as part of the Project (Appendix 10B; the 

general location of the systems are identified within the Green Infrastructure Biodiversity 

Management Plan A (supporting document)); 

· Indicative cross sections of the appearance of proposed balancing ponds 10a, 10b and 10c 

(Appendix 10B). 

10.2 PLANNING CONTEXT 

National 

Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010 

10.2.1 The Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010 i aim to protect the 

environment and extend the permitting regime introduced in 2008 to include water discharge 

consents and groundwater permits. 

10.2.2 The Environment Permitting Regulations and the Environment Agency website ii indicates that 

if runoff from roofs, roads, pathways or clean hard standing areas is discharged to surface 

water (be this a river, stream, estuary or the sea) or to groundwater (including infiltration) then 

no permit is required. 

10.2.3 It states that, in this instance the development only needs to ensure that discharge remains 

clean and uncontaminated. As part of the proposals and in line with CIRIA guidance iii , 

treatment trains would be provided in order to ensure that the quality of water discharged is 

acceptable (as set out below), and as a result the proposals comply with the regulations. 

· One treatment train: roofs only 

· Two treatment trains: residential roads, parking areas and commercial zones 

· Three treatment trains: refuse collection and industrial areas, loading bays, lorry parks and 

Local 

highways 


policy position in relation to flood risk.



10 - 2 

fpcr 


revised Parameters Plans do not affect the overall conclusions reached in the Environmental 

Statement. 

i HMSO, 2010. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 

ii http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/110593.aspx 

iii CIRIA, 2007. CIRIA C697The SUDS manual

Lubbesthorpe ES – Further Information Document 

12.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION/ACOUSTICS: REPLACEMENT CHAPTER 

12.1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 

12 - 1 

fpcr 

12.1.1 This replacement Chapter, written by Waterman Energy, Environment & Design (Waterman 

EED), assesses the environmental effect of the Project in terms of noise and vibration on off- 

site receptors and noise levels at the Project itself. In particular, it considers the potential 

effects of noise and vibration during the construction works, and on completion and operation 

of the Project. 

12.1.2 The replacement Chapter describes the methods used to assess the effects and the baseline 

conditions currently existing at the Site and its surroundings. Potential direct and indirect 

effects of the Project arising from noise and vibration are identified, together with mitigation 

measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant effects. 

12.1.3 Data relating to the noise and vibration assessment is contained within the following 

Appendices:- 

· Appendix 12B: Description of Noise and Vibration Units; 

· Appendix 12C: Noise and Vibration Survey Procedures and Results; 

· Appendix 12D: Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment; and 

· Appendix 12E: Road Traffic Noise Assessment. 

Assessment Methodology 

12.1.4 The assessment of potential noise and vibration effects resulting from or impacting upon the 

Project was based upon the following: 

· Identifying potentially sensitive existing and future noise receptors on the Site and within 

the surrounding area; 

· Establishing baseline noise conditions currently existing at the Site and nearby receptor 

locations through noise surveys and the results of the Leicester and Leicestershire 

Integrated Transport Model (LLITM); 

· Assessing the suitability of the Site for the Project in terms of the prevailing baseline noise 

conditions; 

· Assessing likely noise and vibration levels generated during the construction works 

associated with the Project; 

· Assessing potential changes in noise and vibration due to road traffic flows generated by 

the Development utilising the information on traffic distribution and modal shift from the 

results of the LLITM. 

· Establishing design aims for plant and services to be located on, or within, the proposed 

new buildings at the Site; 

· Formulating proposals for mitigation, where appropriate; and 

· Assessing the significance of any residual effects.


Establishing Baseline Conditions 

12 - 2 

fpcr 

12.1.5 A desk based study and site walkover was undertaken to identify existing and future noise 

sensitive receptors (NSRs) that could potentially be affected by noise arising from the 

construction works and the operation of the Project. 

12.1.6 Baseline noise surveys were undertaken between the 12 th April and 15 th April 2010 with 

additional surveys being completed on 10 th September 2010. Monitoring locations were 

agreed with Blaby District Council to represent both existing potentially sensitive receptors in 

the vicinity of the proposed Project and proposed potentially sensitive receptors within the 

Project. The selected monitoring locations are described in Table 12a below and illustrated 

on Figure 12.1: Noise Monitoring Locations. 

Table 12a: Noise Monitoring Locations 

Monitoring 

Location (Figure 

12.1) 

Description Observations and Predominant 

Noise Sources 

LT 1 Eastern site boundary with M1 Road traffic noise, some limited wildlife 

noise 

LT 2 Southern Site boundary with M69 Road traffic noise, some limited wildlife 

LT 3* In front of properties on Beggar’s 

Lane 

LT 4 Rear of properties on Priestman 

Road 

noise 

Road traffic noise, some limited wildlife 

noise 


noise 

ST1 Lawn Cottages Road traffic noise, some limited wildlife 

noise 

ST2 Hopyard Farm and Abbey Farm Road traffic noise, some limited wildlife 

noise 

ST3 Warren Farm Road traffic noise, some limited wildlife 

noise 

ST4 Rear of properties on Yew Close Road traffic noise, some limited wildlife 

ST5 Northern area of site approximately 

50m from site boundary with 

Leicester Forest service station 

noise 


12.1.7 Long term unattended noise monitoring was undertaken over a typical 24 hour period at 

noise 

locations LT 1 and LT 2. However, when considering LT 3 and LT 4 secure noise monitoring 

locations could not be located. As such, noise monitoring was completed in line with the 

shortened measurement procedure provided in the technical memorandum Calculation of 

Road Traffic Noise 1 . 

1 Department of Transport. Calculation of Road Traffic Noise. HMSO. 1988.


12 - 3 

fpcr 

12.1.8 Short term attended noise measurements were also undertaken on and in the vicinity of the 

proposed development in order to allow the noise climate on and in the vicinity of the site to 

be clearly defined. 

12.1.9 Further details of the noise monitoring are provided within Appendix 12C. 

Construction Noise 

12.1.10 Indicative construction noise levels were calculated on the basis of the outline construction 

information provided within Chapter 2: Development Proposals. Calculations were carried out 

in accordance with the methodology prescribed within BS 5228-1:2009 2 for each of the major 

stages of construction, accounting for the typical type of plant and activities expected within 

the identified major stages of work. 

12.1.11 Full details of the predictions and assumptions of the construction noise assessment are 

contained within Appendix 12D. 

Vibration 

12.1.12 There are two aspects of vibration effects that need consideration:- 

· The effects on people or equipment within buildings; and 

· The effects on buildings (or other structures) themselves. 

12.1.13 Likely vibration effects generated by the construction works were assessed on the basis of the 

indicative construction information provided within Chapter 2: Development Proposals. 

Predictions were carried out based on guidance provided in BS 5228-2:2009 3 and have taken 

the following factors into consideration: 

· The severity of the impact; 

· Type and number of plant/equipment; 

· Duration of the works; 

· The distance between the source and receptor; 

· The number of sensitive properties subject to the effects; and 

· The number of listed buildings and their vulnerability to damage. 

Suitability of Site for Noise Sensitive Development 

12.1.14 Planning Policy Guidance 24 (PPG24) 4 is the principal guidance adopted within England for 

assessing the effect of noise on proposed developments. In relation to residential 

development, the guidance within PPG24 is presented in terms of four Noise Exposure 

Categories (NECs), ranging from NEC A, where noise need not normally be considered in 

determining planning applications, to NEC D, where planning permission should normally be 

refused on noise grounds. 

2 British standards institute (2009); British Standard 5228: Part 1 – Code of practice for noise and vibration control 

on construction and open sites, Part 1:Noise’. 

3 British Standards Institute (2009); ‘British Standard 5228:Part 2 – Code of practice for noise and vibration 

control on construction and open sites, Part 2:Vibration’ 

4 Department of the Environment. Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Noise (PPG 24). HMSO. 1994.


12 - 4 

fpcr 

12.1.15 With regard to commercial or industrial development, PPG24 advises that whilst Local 

Planning Authorities (LPAs) must ensure that infrastructure developments do not cause 

unacceptable disturbance, the planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the 

way of developments which create significant long-term regeneration, employment and social 

benefits. 

12.1.16 The guidance provided in PPG24 is principally aimed at assessing the effect of existing 

transportation noise on areas of proposed new housing. It is, therefore applicable to the 

assessment of noise levels for areas of the proposed Project that comprise residential uses. 

The relevant NEC criteria are presented in Table 12b below. 

Table 12b: Recommended Noise Exposure Categories for New Dwellings near Existing 

Mixed Sources 

NEC LAeq,T dB 

(07:00–23:00) 

LAeq,T dB 

(23:00–07:00) 

Advice 

A 66 Planning permission should normally be refused. 

12.1.17 The potential effects on future residents have been assessed against national standards and 

guidelines, including PPG24, British Standard 8233:1999 ‘Sound Insulation and Noise 

Reduction for Buildings Code of Practice’ 5 (BS8233:1999) and World Health Organisation 

(WHO) ‘Guidelines for Community Noise' 6 in relation to noise effects. These standards set out 

guideline internal noise limits for noise sensitive spaces such as residential development. The 

criteria relevant to the proposed Project are presented in Table 12c below. 

5 British Standards Institute. British Standard 8233: Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of 

practice. 1999. 

6 World Health Organisation, 2000, Guidelines for Community Noise’


Table 12c: BS 8233:1999 Assessment Criteria 

Criterion Location Design Range 

Reasonable resting/sleeping conditions Living Room 

12 - 5 

(07:00 to 23:00) 

Reasonable resting/sleeping conditions Bedrooms 

(23:00 to 07:00 

fpcr 

Good Reasonable 

30 40 

30 35 

12.1.18 In addition, when considering external living spaces, for example gardens PPG24 

recommends that in order to minimise the potential for annoyance to residents, noise levels 

should not exceed 55dB LAeq,T as set out within the WHO guidance. 

Completed Development 

Assessment of Road Traffic Noise and Vibration (CRTN in relation to existing receptors 

surrounding the Site) 

12.1.19 Road traffic noise levels are typically measured and predicted in units of LA10, (18 hour) dB (see 

the Department of Transport’s ‘Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’ (CRTN)). The LA10 is the A- 

weighted sound level in decibels exceeded for 10% of the measurement period, which in this 

case is the 18-hour period between 06:00 and 24:00 hours. This noise index has been shown 

to correlate well with people’s subjective annoyance due to road traffic noise. The potential 

effects of changes in road traffic noise were evaluated by consideration of the estimated 

changes in LA10, (18 hour) road traffic noise levels on the local highway network as a result of the 

operation of the proposed Project. 

12.1.20 When considering road traffic generated vibration airborne vibration from traffic can be 

produced by the engines or exhausts of road vehicles with dominant frequencies in the 50- 

100Hz range. Traffic-induced vibrations from low frequency sound emitted by vehicle engines 

and exhausts can be a source of annoyance to nearby residents and can occur to some 

extent along any type of road. Such sound may result in detectable vibrations in building 

elements e.g. windows and doors. 

12.1.21 Ground borne vibration is typically found to be in the 8-20Hz range and is produced by the 

interaction between rolling wheels and the road surface. Research (cited in DMRB Volume 11, 

Section 3, Part 7) found no evidence that traffic induced vibration is a source of significant 

damage to buildings. 

12.1.22 Traffic generated vibrations mostly arise where road surfaces are uneven, e.g. on older roads 

that are damaged or require surfacing, and where they carry a significant proportion of HGVs 

(the high axle loading passing over a break in the road surface imparts vibrational energy into 

the ground). 

12.1.23 The assessment of vibration impacts was undertaken following the guidance provided within 

DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 7 . The relationship between the percentage of people 

7 Highways Agency, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 – Noise and 

Vibration’


12 - 6 

fpcr 

‘bothered’ by largely airborne vibration is similar to those ‘bothered’ by exposure to noise (as 

measured by the LA10,18-hour index) except that the percentage ‘bothered’ by vibration is lower 

at all exposure levels. For a given level of noise exposure the percentage of people ‘bothered’ 

“very much” or “quite a lot” by vibration is 10% lower than the corresponding figure for noise 

nuisance. For those dwellings at noise exposure levels below 58 dB LA10,18-hour, a zero percent 

change in those bothered by vibration is assumed. 

Assessment of Building Service Plant Noise 

12.1.24 The guidance provided in BS 4142:1997 8 was used to assess whether noise from sources of 

an industrial nature (e.g. fixed plant) in commercial premises would be likely to give rise to 

complaints by residents of nearby dwellings. 

12.1.25 The standard sets out a methodology whereby the likelihood of complaints about an industrial 

noise source can be assessed. The measured or predicted noise level from the source in 

question, the ‘specific noise’ level, immediately outside of the dwellings is compared with 

‘background noise’ level. Where the noise contains a ‘distinguishable discrete continuous 

note’ (whine, hiss, screech, hum, etc.) or if there are distinct impulses in the noise (bangs, 

clinks, clatters or thumps), or if the noise is sufficiently irregular as to attract attention, then a 

correction of +5dB is added to the specific noise level to obtain the ‘rating noise’ level. The 

likelihood of noise provoking complaints is assessed by subtracting the background noise 

level from the rating noise level. 

Assessment of Delivery Noise 

12.1.26 In the absence of guidelines for assessing the effects of noise generated by servicing 

(deliveries), the potential noise effects were assessed by calculating the increase in ambient 

noise levels from those currently experienced in the area of the proposed Project. This was 

based on a review of the potential service yard locations and layout, and published noise 

levels from the Transportation Noise Reference Book 9 . 

Significance Criteria 

Construction 

Noise 

12.1.27 To assess the potential effects of construction noise on existing NSRs, ‘The ABC Method’ 

provided in BS 5228-1:2009 was used. This method defines category threshold values which 

are determined by the time of day and existing monitored ambient noise levels. The noise 

level generated by construction activities, corrected to take into account of existing monitored 

ambient noise levels (the total noise level), is then compared with the ‘threshold value’. If the 

total noise level exceeds the ‘threshold value’, a significant effect is deemed to occur. 

8 British Standards Institute. British Standard 4142: Method for Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential 

and industrial areas. 1997. 

9 T,M Embleton ‘The Transportation Noise Reference Book, 1982


12 - 7 

fpcr 

12.1.28 To allow greater definition of the significance of the potential effects, the criteria in Table 12d 

below was adopted. Full details of the BS 5228-1:2009 significance criteria are provided in 

Appendix 12D. 

Table 12d: Construction Noise Significance Criteria 

Effect 

Significance 

Level above 

threshold value 

dB(A) 

Definition 

Negligible < 0 The effect is not of concern. 

Minor adverse 0.1 to 4.9 The effect is undesirable but of limited concern. 

Moderate adverse 5.0 to 9.9 The effect gives rise to some concern but is likely to be 

Substantial 

adverse 

Vibration 

tolerable depending on scale and duration. 

> 10 The effect gives rise to serious concern and it should be 

considered unacceptable. 

12.1.29 Determining the magnitude of significance of vibration effects is complex owing to the highly 

variable nature and duration of vibration effects arising from construction work. 

12.1.30 At this stage in the design process, insufficient detail is available of the methods and 

equipment to be used during the construction works. Consequently, the significance of 

vibration effects arising from construction work cannot be assessed quantitatively and was 

therefore determined using professional judgement based on the following factors:- 

· The severity of the impact; 

· Type and number of plant/equipment; 

· Duration of the works; 

· The distance between the source and receptor; 

· The number of sensitive properties subject to the effects; and 

· The number of listed buildings and their vulnerability to damage. 


12.1.31 The potential effects of existing noise sources on the residential properties were assessed 

against the criteria provided within PPG24 as set out in Table 12e below. 

Table 12e: Site Suitability for Residential Uses– Noise Significance Criteria 

NEC LAeq,T dB 

(07:00–23:00) 

LAeq,T dB 

(23:00–07:00) 

A


B 55–63 45–57 Minor Adverse 

C 63–72 57–66 Moderate Adverse 


12 - 8 

fpcr 

D >72 >66 Substantial Adverse 

Assessment of Road Traffic Noise and Vibration (CRTN in relation to existing receptors 

surrounding the Site) 

12.1.32 Where noise changes arising from the operation of the Site are to be considered (e.g. noise 

arising from road traffic) the significance of any effects was assessed in accordance with the 

criteria detailed in Table 12f below. 

Table 12f: Road Traffic Noise Significance Criteria 

Change in noise 

levels dB(A) 

Definition Effect Significance 

> -10 The effect provides a significant positive gain. Substantial beneficial 

-9.9 to -5.0 The effect provides some gain to the 

environment. 

-4.9 to -3.0 The effect is of minor significance but has 

some environmental benefit. 

-2.9 to +2.9 The effect is likely to be imperceptible and is 

therefore not of concern. 

3.0 to 4.9 The effect is undesirable but of limited 

concern. 

5.0 to 9.9 The effect gives rise to some concern but is 

likely to be tolerable depending on scale and 

duration. 

> 10 The effect gives rise to serious concern and it 

should be considered unacceptable. 

Moderate beneficial 

Minor beneficial 

Negligible 

Minor adverse 

Moderate adverse 

Substantial adverse 

12.1.33 The criteria provided in Table 12f are derived by considering how changes in noise levels can 

be categorised by significance based on key benchmarks that relate to human perception of 

sound. For example, a change in noise levels of 3dB is generally considered to be the 

smallest change in noise which is perceptible and a 10dB change in noise represents a 

doubling or halving of the noise level. 

12.1.34 It is considered that the descriptions provided in Table 12f are a good indication of the likely 

significance of changes in noise levels where these are to be permanent, e.g. to occur over 

extended periods. However, significance is also influenced by the nature of the effect, whether 

short term or long term, and the significance criteria noted above do not account for this.


12 - 9 

fpcr 

Therefore, it is possible that the significance may be tempered where, for example, the effect 

is known to be temporary. 

12.1.35 When considering road traffic vibration there are no nationally recognised significance criteria. 

However for the purpose of this assessment the significance criteria presented In Table 12g 

which are based upon professional experience have been adopted. 

Table 12g: Road Traffic Vibration Significance Criteria 

Change in 

people bothered 

by vibration (%) 

Definition Effect Significance 

> -30 The effect provides a significant positive gain. Substantial beneficial 

-29.9 to -20.0 The effect provides some gain to the 

environment. 

-19.9 to -10 The effect is of minor significance but has 

some environmental benefit. 

-9.9 to +10 The effect is likely to be imperceptible and is 

therefore not of concern. 

10 to 19.9 The effect is undesirable but of limited 

concern. 

20 to 29.9 The effect gives rise to some concern but is 

likely to be tolerable depending on scale and 

duration. 

> 30 The effect gives rise to serious concern and it 

Building Service Plant Noise 

should be considered unacceptable. 

Moderate beneficial 

Minor beneficial 

Negligible 

Minor adverse 


Substantial adverse 

12.1.36 When assessing the potential effects of plant noise on nearby NSRs, the criteria presented in 

Table 12h were used. These are based on the likelihood of complaints criteria as provided in 

BS 4142:1997. 

Table 12h: Plant Noise Significance Criteria 

Difference in rating and background levels 

(dB(A)) 

10 Substantial adverse


Delivery Noise 

12 - 10 

fpcr 

12.1.37 In the absence of guidelines for assessing the effects of noise generated by servicing 

(deliveries) the significance of the potential effects on existing NSRs was based on the criteria 

provided in Table 12g above. 


National 

12.2.1 Planning Policy Guidance 24 (PPG24) is the principal guidance adopted within England for 

assessing the effect of noise on proposed developments. In relation to residential 

development, the guidance within PPG24 is presented in terms of four Noise Exposure 

Categories (NECs), ranging from NEC A, where noise need not normally be considered in 

determining planning applications, to NEC D, where planning permission should normally be 

refused on noise grounds. 

12.2.2 With regard to commercial or industrial development, PPG24 advises that whilst Local 

Planning Authorities (LPAs) must ensure that infrastructure developments do not cause 

unacceptable disturbance, the planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the 

way of developments which create significant long-term regeneration, employment and social 

benefits. 

Regional 

East Midlands Regional Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy), March 2009 

12.2.3 There are no policies of relevance to this Chapter contained within the East Midlands 

Regional Plan 10 . 

Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan 1996-2016, 2005 

12.2.4 None of the saved policies of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan 11 relate 

to noise and vibration. 

Local 

Blaby District Local Plan, 1999 

12.2.5 The Blaby District Local Plan 12 contains several policies which pertain to noise. The key 

policies are summarised below: 

10 East Midlands Regional Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy), March 2009 

11 Leicestershire, Leicester, and Rutland Structure Plan 1996-2016, Adopted 2005 

12 Blaby District Council, Blaby District Local Plan


Policy E1 

12 - 11 

fpcr 

“Within the primarily employment areas identified, planning permission would be granted for 

employment development only (business, general, industrial and storage / distribution uses), 

except where the proposed development would amongst others:- 

Have an impact on properties that would be significantly detrimental to the amenities enjoyed 

by the occupiers of those properties, including considerations of vibration, emissions, hours of 

working, vehicular activity, privacy, light, noise disturbance and an overbearing effect.” 

Policy E2 

“Within the primarily residential areas, identified on the proposals map planning permission 

would be granted for residential development, and residential institutions except were the 

proposed development would:- 

· “Have an unsatisfactory relationship with other nearby uses that would be significantly 

detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of those properties, including 

consideration of privacy, light, noise, disturbance and an overbearing effect; or 

· Have an unsatisfactory relationship with other nearby uses that would result in residents of 

the proposed development being unable to enjoy a reasonable level of residential amenity, 

including considerations of vibration, emissions, hours of working, vehicular activity, 

privacy, light, noise, disturbance and an overbearing effect.” 

Policy T3 

· “Where the district council is the determining local authority for development involving a 

new access road, scheme or improvement, planning permission would only be granted if 

the proposed access, road scheme or improvement incorporates amongst others:- 

· Safeguards for living and working conditions and the environment in general including 

considerations of visibility, access, layout, privacy, light, noise, disturbance, emissions, 

congestion, overbearing effect and the character or appearance of the area.” 

Blaby District Council Draft Core Strategy (Submission Version) January 2012 

12.2.6 Policy 3, ‘Sustainable Urban Extension’, identifies land west of the M1 at Lubbesthorpe as 

allocated for a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE). The policy requires the Masterplan for 

the SUE to include appropriate mitigation measures to mitigate the noise and air quality 

impacts. Refer to Chapter 3: Planning Policy for a more detailed summary of the current local 

planning policy position in relation to noise. 

12.3 BASELINE CONDITIONS 

Existing and Future Sensitive Receptors 

12.3.1 The nearest existing noise and vibration sensitive receptors to the Site are detailed in Table 

12i below.


Table 12i: Sensitive Receptors 

Sensitive Receptor 

(Figure 12.1) 

Description Location 

SR1 Lawn Cottages Within site adjacent to western site 

SR2 Residential receptors on 

Beggar’s Lane 


Yew Close 


Priestman Road 

12 - 12 

boundary 

Approximately 10m from the northern 

site boundary 

Immediately adjacent to northern site 

boundary 

Approximately 40m north of proposed 

Meridian Way access route 

SR5 Hopyard Farm Within site boundary 

SR6 Abbey Farm Within site boundary 

SR7 Abbey Cottages Within site boundary 


Hinckley Road 

SR9 Residential receptors 

adjacent to Baines Lane 

Adjacent to proposed Baines Lane 

access route 

Approximately 70m east of proposed 

Baines Lane access route 

(approximately 190m from site 

boundary) 

fpcr 

12.3.2 Consideration has also been given to the potential noise and vibration effects upon sensitive 

receptors which have been proposed as part of the development. 

Baseline Noise Levels 

12.3.3 Baseline noise surveys were carried out between 12 th April and 15 th April 2010 with additional 

attended noise surveys being completed in September 2010. The noise measurement 

locations are illustrated on Figure 12.1: Noise Monitoring and Assessment Locations. Full 

details of the baseline noise monitoring exercise are provided within Appendix 12C. A 

summary of the long-term unattended surveys are presented in Table 12i and Table 12j 

respectively.


Table 12i: Long-term Baseline Noise Measurements 

Monitoring Location 

(Figure 12.1) 

Monitoring Period LAeq,T 

12 - 13 

( 

d 

B 

( 

A 

) 

) 

LA10,T 

LA90,T + 

( 

d 

B 

( 

A 

) 

) 

LAmax # 

LT1 Daytime (07:00-23:00) 71.3 72.9 59.7 77.0 

Night-time (23:00-07:00) 68.0 69.9 64.7 85.7 

LT2 Daytime (07:00-23:00) 64.9 68.1 44.9 90.4 

Night-time (23:00-07:00) 60.1 64.6 37.4 81.4 

LT3 Daytime (07:00-23:00) 65.3 68.3 42.6 83.1 

Night-time (23:00-07:00) 54.9 57.6 39.0 69.0 

LT4 Daytime (07:00-23:00) 58.5 61.5 54.3 78.7 

Night-time (23:00-07:00) 47.2 49.4 39.4 70.0 

Notes: # Maximum monitored noise level during survey period. 

+ Minimum monitored noise level during survey period. 

( 

d 

B 

( 

A 

) 

) 

fpcr 

12.3.4 The monitored noise levels presented in Table 12i above indicate that during the daytime 

monitored noise levels ranged between 58.5 and 71.3dB LAeq,T. The surveyor noted that the 

dominant noise source throughout the survey period at all monitoring locations was road traffic 

noise. 

12.3.5 During the night-time period monitored noise levels were typically lower ranging between 47.2 

and 68.0 dB LAeq,T. The dominant noise source throughout the night-time period was also 

noted to be road traffic, although at significantly lower flows. 

12.3.6 Short-term noise measurements (summarised in Table 12j below) were also undertaken on- 

site and at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. During the daytime period, noise levels 

ranged between 59.8 and 67.8dB LAeq,1hr. During the night-time period noise levels ranged 

from 51.5 and 69.5dB LAeq,15min. The surveyor noted that the dominant noise sources at all 

locations were road traffic. When considering location ST5 which was located immediately 

adjacent to Leicester Forest motorway service station the noise climate was also influenced 

by vehicle movements within the service station itself.


Table 12j: Short-term Baseline Noise Measurements 

Monitoring Location 

(Figure 12.1) 

Monitoring Period LAeq,T* LA10,T* LA90,T* + LAmax # 

ST1 Daytime (07:00-23:00) 67.8 69.2 55.0 78.2 

Night-time (23:00-07:00) 59.7 60.2 42.0 74.0 

ST2 Daytime (07:00-23:00) 69.2 71.2 54.6 76.5 

Night-time (23:00-07:00) 59.8 60.5 47.0 69.8 

ST3 Daytime (07:00-23:00) 61.2 63.4 49.0 81.0 

Night-time (23:00-07:00) 57.9 60.1 42.0 75.0 

ST4 Daytime (07:00-23:00) 59.8 61.2 41.0 79.0 

Night-time (23:00-07:00) 51.5 53.5 37.2 72.5 

ST5 Daytime (07:00-23:00) 70.1 72.4 56.8 80.1 

Notes: 

12.4 PROJECT DESIGN 

Construction 

Night-time (23:00-07:00) 69.5 71.0 55.4 80.0 

# Maximum monitored noise level during survey period. 

*+ Minimum monitored noise level during survey period. 

12 - 14 

fpcr 

12.4.1 Disturbance due to construction can be defined as a temporary nuisance to people in the area 

that can occur at any time between the start of demolition works and the opening of the 

Project. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) would be produced to mitigate and 

monitor environmental effects, including noise and vibration during the construction phase. In 

accordance with standard working practices, the principles of the ‘Best Practicable Means’ 

(BPM), as defined in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 13 would be used to reduce emissions 

throughout the construction period. This would incorporate the use of measures to control 

noise and vibration that do not unreasonably inhibit the work, and the use of working methods 

that result in minimum effects compatible with best working practices. 

12.4.2 Noise control measures such as the siting of fixed plant away from the Site boundary, the use 

of properly silenced plant, and screening / enclosures where appropriate, would ensure that 

the daytime construction noise limit is not exceeded at receptors adjacent to the Site. In 

practice, the degree of noise attenuation due to screening and other measures, such as 

separation distance and operational times, would likely be greater than 10dB, which would 

reduce the construction noise levels for the earthmoving, piling, concreting and road 

construction phases to below the noise limit. Further analysis of the potential noise, and also 

vibration, effects on local receptor locations would be carried out during the Project's detailed 

design once more accurate information is available relating to construction methods and plant, 

13 Control of Pollution Act 1974


12 - 15 

fpcr 

so that appropriate controls can then be agreed with BDC’s Environmental Health Department 

(EHD) and implemented in advance of the works. 

12.4.3 Appropriate conditions to minimise noise and vibration would be imposed on the Contractor as 

part of their contract requirements, and the contractor would also be required to liaise with 

BDC’s EHD to minimise adverse effects at all times. Control measures would be incorporated 

into an EMP which would be drafted in accordance with BDC’s CoCP. The content of the 

EMP would be finalised prior to the commencement of the works, through liaison with BDC, 

and would be likely to include the following measures:- 

· Selecting inherently quiet plant; 

· Using, where necessary and practicable, enclosures and screens around noisy fixed plant; 

· Limiting site work where possible to daytime hours; and 

· Adhering to relevant British Standards. 

12.4.4 Provision would also be made for specific noise and vibration criteria to be adhered to, where 

feasible, and for suitable plant and working methods to be agreed with BDC prior to 

commencement of works. On-site monitoring of noise and / or vibration would also be carried 

out if necessary. This would assist in controlling levels at specific receptors. The option would 

also exist for an application for ‘Prior Consent’ to be made to BDC under Section 61 of the 

Control of Pollution Act. Such an application would provide BDC with the necessary details 

relating to construction method statements and construction noise and / or vibration effects, 

thereby enabling BDC to check that BPM are being used and that the noise and vibration 

controls are acceptable. In authorising an application for prior consent, BDC can apply 

reasonable conditions where these are considered necessary. 

12.4.5 In addition, a Construction Logistics Plan would be developed to minimise the potential effects 

from construction traffic. Key controls would include:- 

· Necessary provision to ensure all unloading is carried out on-site rather than on the 

adjacent roads; 

· Construction vehicles to travel via designated routes. These would be agreed with BDC 

and other relevant authorities; 

· Materials deliveries to be phased and controlled on a 'just-in-time' basis, wherever 

possible, minimising travel time and traffic congestion around the Site. 

12.4.6 The controls listed above are regularly and successfully applied to large scale construction 

projects in order to minimise noise and vibration effects on local communities. The application 

of similar control measures during the construction of the Project would likewise ensure that 

the works proceed with the minimum disturbance to businesses, pedestrians and local 

residents. 


12.4.7 The Project and its design has responded to the baseline survey and assessment work and 

potential effects, in order to establish a project that seeks to minimise any adverse 

environmental effect, and to maximise environmental benefits.


12 - 16 

fpcr 

12.4.8 Following completion of the baseline noise surveys and modelling exercise it was determined 

that noise associated with the adjacent M1 and M69 were the key planning constraints 

associated with the site. 

12.4.9 In order to minimise the potential effects of these noise sources upon proposed sensitive 

receptors the following key design measures have been incorporated into the Parameters 

Plans included at Chapter 2: Development Proposals:- 

· Limited numbers of residential units located in close proximity to the M1 And M69; 

· Residential units set back a significant distance from the carriageway edge; 

· Erection of a 6m minimum acoustic barrier made of a landscaped earth bund. The barrier 

would run the length of the eastern site boundary with a minimal number of breaks. Breaks 

in the barrier would occur at the proposed Meridian Way access routes and where the M1 

is elevated; and 

· Provision of localised 1.3m acoustic barriers located along the top of the 6m bund adjacent 

to those areas of the site proposed for residential development. 

12.4.10 The above design measures would serve to minimise the potential effects of existing noise 

sources upon the proposed residential dwellings. The attenuation provided by such design 

measures has been included when determining the effects of existing noise sources upon the 

Project. 

12.4.11 However, given that areas of the development fall into the upper end of NEC B and that with 

windows open the guideline internal noise limits may be exceeded, mitigation measures may 

be required for those properties facing directly onto the M1 and M69. To ensure suitable 

internal and external noise levels are met, a combination of the following mitigation measures 

should be considered:- 

· Incorporation of high specification standard thermal double glazing coupled with 

acoustically attenuated trickle ventilators for worst effected facades; 

· Orientating buildings so that the gable ends face towards the motorways; and 

· Locating habitable rooms away from the road / commercial noise sources. For example, 

rooms less sensitive to noise, such as bathrooms, kitchens and dining rooms should face 

the adjacent motorway. These would also act as a buffer to habitable rooms. 

12.4.12 It is considered that all matters relating to the design of the Project could be dealt with during 

the detailed design phase and secured by way of a suitably worded planning condition. 


Assessment of Building Services Plant Noise 

12.4.13 Plant machinery such as generators or compressors should be positioned as far from noise 

sensitive locations as possible and ideally in naturally screened positions. All plant equipment 

should be adequately maintained to minimise noise emission. A suitably worded planning 

condition is suggested to ensure noise from fixed mechanical plant does not exceed the 

criteria. The following planning condition is recommended:-


12 - 17 

fpcr 

“With regards to fixed mechanical and refrigeration plant, each phase of the development shall 

not commence until details of the fixed plant serving the phase of the development hereby 

permitted, and any mitigation measures to achieve this condition are submitted to and 

approved in writing by Blaby District Council. The level of noise emitted from the fixed 

mechanical and refrigeration units associated with the site shall not exceed 5dB(A) below the 

minimum monitored background noise level during either the daytime (23:00 to 07:00) or 

night-time (23:00 to 07:00) seven days a week. The noise levels shall be determined by 

measurement or calculation at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurements and 

assessments shall be made according to BS 4142: 1997.” 

Service and Delivery Noise 

12.4.14 A suitably worded planning condition is suggested to ensure noise does not cause 

disturbance. The following planning condition is recommended:- 

“Before each phase of the development hereby permitted commences, a scheme shall be 

agreed with the local planning authority which specifies the provisions to be made for the 

control of noise emanating from the site during the operation of that phase”. 

12.4.15 To minimise the potential for adverse effects, the following measures should be considered at 

the detailed design stage:- 

· Where possible, service yards should be located away from NSRs making use of 

screening from the commercial buildings themselves; 

· Where service yards are in line of sight from NSRs, acoustic barriers could be erected to 

minimise noise; 

· Where practicable, loading and unloading should be carried out in fully enclosed bays; and 

· Where practicable, deliveries should be scheduled during the daytime only. 


Construction Noise 

12.5.1 The construction of the Project is anticipated to commence during 2013/14 and be completed 

by 2026. 

12.5.2 Details of the methods and plant likely to be used during the construction phase are 

necessarily indicative at this stage and would be likely to change during the Site 

redevelopment. This makes it difficult to accurately predict the noise levels for direct 

comparison with the noise criteria described previously. Therefore, a maximum worst case 

noise scenario over a 1-hour period was estimated, assuming that plant would be operating at 

the closest point to the nearest NSRs and in the absence of mitigation. In practice, noise 

levels would tend to be lower owing to greater separation distances and screening effects. 

They would also tend to reduce over a 12-hour working day owing to periods of plant 

inactivity. 

12.5.3 Calculations were undertaken using the data and procedures set out in BS 5228-1:2009 for 

the noisiest construction phases, to derive indicative noise levels at selected NSRs. The 

highest noise levels tend to be associated with plant used during piling, earthmoving,


12 - 18 

fpcr 

concreting and road pavement construction. During the fit-out, construction noise would be 

significantly lower. The calculations assume that plant would be operating at the closest point 

to the NSR, i.e. the Site boundary, and do not take into account of any existing or proposed 

screening. The calculated worst case noise levels are provided in full in Appendix 12D. 

12.5.4 The worst case predicted noise levels suggest that the threshold levels would be exceeded at 

the closest existing NSRs during earthmoving, excavation of foundations and road paving. As 

such, mitigation and noise control measures would need to be implemented with a view to 

mitigating the noise during these phases and controlling noise associated with the works 

generally. In the absence of mitigation, the assessment indicates that there would be the 

potential for temporary moderate adverse effects to arise. For the remainder of the works, 

such as, construction and fit-out at worst temporary minor adverse effects would arise. 

12.5.5 In addition to construction plant operating on the Site, there would be some movement of 

material to and from the Site by road. A construction traffic routing plan would be agreed with 

Blaby Council to minimise the temporary and intermittent adverse effects that construction 

traffic can cause. However, peak levels of noise or vibration arising from construction vehicles 

would not be any greater than can presently arise from existing heavy duty vehicle 

movements on the existing roads, and would be less than those from the main construction 

works on Site. Nevertheless, without mitigation noise from construction traffic would be likely 

to give rise to temporary, minor adverse effects on nearby NSRs. 

12.5.6 Appropriate noise control measures as discussed later in this Chapter would be used to 

reduce noise during each construction phase and minimise the subsequent disturbance to 

surrounding NSRs. 

Construction Vibration 

12.5.7 There are currently no British Standards that provide a methodology for predicting levels of 

vibration from construction activities other than BS 5228-2:2009, which relates to percussive 

or vibratory rolling and piling only. However, it is generally accepted that for the majority of 

people, vibration levels of approximately 0.14mm/s peak particle velocity (ppv) are just 

perceptible. Based on historical field measurements, Table 12k below details the distance at 

which certain activities are likely to give rise to a just perceptible level of vibration. 

Table 12k: Distances at which vibration may be just perceptible 

Construction Activity Distance from Activity when Vibration may just be 

Excavation 10 – 15 

Heavy vehicles 5 – 10 

Augered piling 15 – 20 

Rotary Bored piling 20 – 30 

Perceptible (metres) 

12.5.8 Details of piling locations, methods and plant likely to be used during the construction phase 

are necessarily indicative at this stage and would be likely to change during the Site 

redevelopment. This makes it difficult to accurately predict the vibration levels.


12 - 19 

fpcr 

12.5.9 Demolition and construction work, and in particular any piling operations, would have the 

potential to result in the nearest existing vibration sensitive receptors (Table 12k) being 

exposed to levels of vibration that have undergone little attenuation due to distance. 

Therefore, appropriate vibration controls and mitigation would be required during all works on 

the Site within 20m of any sensitive receptors. 

12.5.10 The use of Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) piling would minimise vibration exposure reducing 

the likelihood of cosmetic damage and adverse comment from occupiers of neighbouring 

buildings. However, appropriate controls to minimise vibration would still be required for all 

works within 20m of the vibration sensitive receptors. Without mitigation, potential vibration 

effects would likely be moderate adverse at all identified receptors within 20m of the Site. 


PPG 24 Assessment 

12.5.11 In addition to the monitored noise levels presented in Table 12j, noise contour plots for the site 

have been generated using the software package CADNA-A (see Figure 12.2 and Figure 

12.3). The noise model was constructed using a combination of Ordinance Survey mapping, 

elevation data and site layout drawings supplied by FPCR. 18hr AAWT road traffic flows 

supplied by WSP (as detailed in Appendix 12D) were used to calculate the 18hr LA10 noise 

levels for each link using CRTN methodology. These noise levels were then converted to 

LAeq,16hr daytime and LAeq,8hr night-time dB levels using the methodology given in the 2006 

Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) Noise Mapping guidance document 14 . The noise 

contours are presented in terms of PPG24 NEC criteria and take into account the elevation of 

the local highways, traffic flows and composition, topography of the site and existing and 

proposed screening. 

12.5.12 The results of the model have been calibrated by comparing modelled and monitored noise 

levels in order to give confidence in the accuracy of the modelling results. The model was 

calibrated by comparing the monitored noise levels at all locations detailed in Table 12i and 

12j with measurement points at the same representative location in the model. The CADNA-A 

predicted noise levels were, on average, 2.9dB(A) over the measured noise levels, ensuring a 

worst case assessment and prediction of NEC categories for the site. 

12.5.13The contour plots indicate that during both the daytime and night-time periods the majority of 

the proposed development would fall into NEC A and NEC B with some small areas 

immediately adjacent to the site boundary falling into NEC C during the night-time period. 

When a site falls into NEC C, PPG24 states: 

‘Planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is considered that permission 

should be given, for example because there are no alternative quieter sites available, 

conditions should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise.’ 

12.5.14 Although the eastern boundary of the site falls into NEC C, with reference to Figure 12.2 and 

12.3 it can be seen that there would be no residential receptors located within this zone. As 

such, existing noise levels are unlikely to affect the amenity of local residents. 

14 Transport Research Laboratory: Converting the UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to the EU noise 

indices for Road Noise Mapping. (st/05/91/AGG04442). 24 th January 2006.


12 - 20 

fpcr 

Notwithstanding the above a small number of residential facades would be exposed to noise 

levels at the upper end of NEC B. As such,mitigation measures would be required to further 

minimise the potential effects of existing noise sources upon proposed noise sensitive 

receptors. In the absence of mitigation, existing noise sources would have the potential to 

have minor adverse effects upon proposed sensitive receptors. 

Internal Noise Levels 

12.5.15 In addition to the PPG24 classification it is also necessary to consider the guideline internal 

noise limits presented within BS 8233:1999. When considering the level of noise attenuation 

provided by a building’s façade, glazing is in general considered to be the weakest 

component. PPG24 sets out generic data relating to the typical noise reduction of three 

different glazing types, namely, single, thermal double and secondary. The performance 

values for a typical noise spectrum are set out in Table 12l. 

Table 12l: Typical Acoustic Performance of Glazing Types 

Noise Source Difference between dB(A) levels outside and inside 

Single Glazing Thermal Double 

Glazing 

Secondary Glazing 

Road Traffic 28 32 34 

N.B. The thermal insulation requirements of the Building Regulations require that double glazing be 

installed as a minimum. 

12.5.16 At this time it is understood that all glazed areas of the proposed Project would utilise 

standard thermal double glazing, as required by the building regulations, providing a minimum 

attenuation to noise of 32dB Rw assuming a double glazed construction comprised of 10mm 

float pane, 12mm air gap and 4mm float pane. Calculations have been undertaken in order to 

determine the internal noise levels for the closest proposed dwellings to existing noise 

sources with windows closed. Noise levels have been calculated at the closest indicative 

boundaries of the residential areas to both the M1 and the M69 using the software package 

CADNA-A. The predicted noise levels have been used to determine whether the BS 

8233:1999 ‘good’ criteria would be met within these properties. The assessment results are 

presented as Table 12m below.


Table 12m: BS 8233:1999 Assessment 

Location Period Calculated 

Eastern 

residential site 

boundary with 

M1 (Plot R15 

and R17) 

Southern 


boundary with 

M69 (Plot R 22) 

Western 


boundary with 


external façade 

noise level 

(dB(A))* 

12 - 21 

Calculated 

internal 

noise level 

(dB(A)) + 

Internal 

target noise 

levels 

(dB(A)) 

fpcr 

Design Goal 

Met 

Daytime 57.2 26 30 � 

Night-time 52.3 19 30 � 

Daytime 50.5 29 30 � 

Night-time 45.9 24 30 � 

Daytime 59.4 28 30 � 

Night-time 51.4 20 30 � 

* Monitored noise level +3dB to allow for facade correction 

+ Calculated facade noise level minus 33dB attenuation through standard thermal double glazing 

12.5.17 The assessment results presented in Table 12m indicate that assuming standard thermal 

double glazing, with windows closed the ‘good’ standard presented within BS 8233:1999 

would be met for all of the proposed properties. 

12.5.18 However, it should be noted that when windows are partially opened the attenuation provided 

by glazing would reduce to between 10 and 15dB(A). This would result in the good standard 

being exceeded in all habitable rooms which are directly facing existing noise sources. As 

such the detailed design of the Project should ensure that an alternative means of ventilation 

is provided for all habitable rooms orientated towards existing noise sources in order to 

minimise the requirement for residents to open windows. Where appropriate, the preferred 

choice of ventilation is through the use of natural ventilation openings, such as trickle vents, 

air bricks and passive ventilation systems. Such ventilators can be used to meet the 

requirements of the Building Regulations Approved Document F for background ventilation. 

The future occupants would then have the option of keeping windows closed for most of the 

time and opening windows for rapid ventilation and summer cooling. It is likely that 

acoustically attenuated trickle ventilators will be suitable to provide air inlet into habitable 

rooms whilst maintaining suitable internal noise levels. 

External Noise Levels 

12.5.19 In addition to the above, consideration has also been given to noise levels in external living 

spaces, for example gardens. As previously noted, the WHO’s ‘Guidelines for Community 

Noise’ recommends an external noise level of 55 dB LAeq,T to prevent the onset of significant 

community annoyance. In considering the application of the 55 dB LAeq,T criterion for outdoor


12 - 22 

fpcr 

living spaces, it is important to take account of the feasibility of achieving such a level. A 

review of National Physics Laboratory Report CMAM 16 15 reported the following:- 

“Perhaps the main weakness of both WHO inspired documents is that they fail to consider the 

practicality of actually being able to achieve any of the stated guideline values......We know 

from the most recent survey of noise exposure carried out in England and Wales that around 

56% of the population are exposed to daytime noise levels exceeding 55 dB LAeq,T and that 

around 65% are exposed to night-time noise levels exceeding 45 dB LAeq,T (as measured 

outside of the house in each case). The percentage exposed above the WHO guideline values 

could not be significantly reduced without drastic action to virtually eliminate road traffic noise 

and other forms of transportation noise (including public transport) from the vicinity of the 

houses. The social and economic consequences of such an action would be likely to be much 

greater than any environmental advantages of reducing the proportion of the population 

annoyed by noise. In addition there is no evidence that anything other than a small minority of 

the population exposed to such noise levels find them to be particularly onerous in the context 

of their daily lives.” 

12.5.20 A noise contour plot has been generated to illustrate those areas of the site where the 55dB 

LAeq,T criterion would be exceeded. With reference to Table 12b it can be seen that the 55dB 

LAeq,T criterion met for the majority of the site. However, there would be some small areas 

immediately adjacent to the site boundary where the adopted criterion would be exceeded. 

12.5.21 For those small areas where the 55dB LAeq,T criterion may be exceeded it is considered that 

adequate noise levels could be obtained within gardens through careful orientation of the 

individual properties themselves and provision of adequate garden fencing. 

12.5.22 However, in the absence of such mitigation it is considered that existing noise sources would 

have the potential to have minor adverse effects upon proposed residential dwellings. 

12.5.23 However, it is considered that through careful design and use of appropriate mitigation 

measures, suitable internal noise conditions would be achieved. Potential mitigation and 

control measures are discussed in the ’Mitigation Measures’ section below. 


Assessment of Road Traffic Noise and Vibration 

12.5.24 The ‘worst case’ 18-hour annual average weekday traffic flows (AAWT) for the roads around 

the Site were used to establish noise changes as a consequence of the proposed Project. 

Traffic flow data were provided by the Project transport consultants for the ‘with’ and ‘without’ 

development scenarios for the proposed opening year (2026). The scenarios include traffic 

associated with committed developments within the wider study area, which enables the noise 

effect as a direct consequence of the proposed Project to be calculated. 

12.5.25 BNLs were calculated for each of the road links covered by the Transport Assessment (refer 

to Appendix 12E). The calculations used the 18-hour AAWT, Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) 

compositions and vehicle speed for each road link as provided by the transport consultants. 

15 National Physics Laboratory Report CMAM


12 - 23 

fpcr 

12.5.26 The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment’s (IEMA) Guidance Notes No. 1 

‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic 16 recommends assessment 

where traffic flows would increase by more than 30% (or the number of HDVs would increase 

by more than 30%), and where specifically sensitive areas experience traffic flow increases of 

10% or more. The guidance indicates that projected changes in traffic of less than 10% 

create no discernible environmental effects. 

12.5.27 The assessment results presented in Appendix 12D indicate that there would be a maximum 

increase in noise levels associated with the operation of the proposed Project of 2.2dB(A) 

along Beggar’s Lane. An increase in noise levels of this magnitude would be imperceptible to 

nearby noise sensitive receptors over an extended period of time and as such would give rise 

to negligible effects. When considering access along Meridian Way and Baines Lane an 

increase of 2dB(A) is predicted over the build out of the scheme whilst no change is predicted 

along Hinckley Road. Again an increase in noise levels of this magnitude would be 

imperceptible to nearby noise sensitive receptors over an extended period of time and as such 

would give rise to negligible effects. 

12.5.28 When considering road traffic vibration and assessment was completed in line with the 

guidance provided in DMRB Volume 11, Section 7, Part 3. The assessment results presented 

in Appendix 12D indicate that there would be a maximum increase in the percentage of 

people bothered by vibration of 5%. This increase would occur along the Beggar’s Lane 

access route to the site. An increase in the percentage of people bothered by vibration of this 

magnitude would give rise to negligible effects. 

Assessment of Building Service Plant Noise 

12.5.29 There would be the potential for fixed plant to be included as part of the proposed 

development within the employment areas, district and local centres and schools. 

12.5.30 Any items of fixed plant installed as part of the proposed Project would have the potential to 

generate noise. BS 4142:1997 states that a rating noise level of +5 dB above background is of 

marginal significance when assessing the likelihood of complaints. However, in order to 

ensure that there would be no effects upon nearby noise sensitive receptors, noise associated 

with fixed plant would be controlled to ensure it falls at least 10dB(A) below the lowest 

monitored LA90 on and in the vicinity of the site. 

12.5.31 At this stage, details of the nature, type and number of any such plant are unavailable. 

Nevertheless, in the absence of suitable mitigation, fixed plant and mechanical services noise 

would have the potential to have a minor adverse impact on nearby existing and proposed 

NSRs 

Assessment of Delivery and Servicing Noise 

12.5.32 The proposed commercial uses (B1/B2/B8) and local centre uses (A1–A5/D1/C3) could 

introduce noise from delivery activities within dedicated service yards. The frequency and 

times of deliveries would be dependent on the end users. It is recommended that a detailed 

assessment of noise from service yard and delivery activities is carried out at the detailed 

16 The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment’s (IEMA) Guidance Notes No. 1 ‘Guidelines for the 

Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic


12 - 24 

fpcr 

planning stage, to determine the likelihood of disturbance at the nearest NSRs. However, in 

the absence of mitigation and appropriate noise control measures, the service areas 

associated with the proposed Project would have the potential to give rise to an adverse 

impact of moderate significance upon nearby NSRs. 


12.5.33 There are number of cumulative schemes located in the proximity of the proposed 

development these include:- 

· Meridian Way; 

· Audi Garage, Narborough Road; 

· Grove Park; 

· Sainsburys, Grove Park Triangle; 

· Next car park; and 

· Oak Spinney Park, Ratby Lane. 

· Topps Tiles, Grove Park 

· Thorpe Astley Development 

· Taylor Wimpey Development, west of Beggar’s Lane 

· St Johns, Enderby 

· Glenfield Park 

12.5.34 There would be the potential for some cumulative effects to arise should the above 

developments be constructed concurrently with the proposed development. The potential 

cumulative effects during the construction and operational phases are discussed in the 

following paragraphs. 

Construction 

12.5.35 Given the distance of the closest proposed cumulative schemes to the development there 

would be no cumulative effects associated with the construction phase of the Project. 

12.5.36 However, in a ‘worst-case’ scenario whereby the other cumulative schemes were constructed 

at the same time as the proposed Project using the same construction traffic routes, there 

could be temporary, short-term localised noise effects of minor adverse significance 

associated with road traffic. However, construction traffic routes would be agreed with 

Leicestershire County Council and thus traffic could be controlled and re-routed to ensure 

cumulative effects are minimised. 


12.5.37 Providing the design criteria and mitigation measures recommended are met for the Project, 

the combined noise effects with those cumulative schemes located closest to the Site would 

be negligible. In addition, it is assumed that stringent design aims for building plant and 

services would be agreed and implemented for all of the cumulative schemes.


12 - 25 

fpcr 

12.5.38 With regards to traffic noise, the noise assessment was based on the traffic data used in the 

TA. The traffic data within the TA include traffic likely to be generated by the ‘cumulative 

schemes’. The likely cumulative noise effects determined for the Project would therefore be as 

stated, which is negligible. 


Construction 

12.5.39 With the mitigation and design measures previously discussed in place, the construction 

phase of the Project would have, at worst, temporary minor adverse effects upon nearby noise 

sensitive receptors. 


12.5.40 With the mitigation and design measures previously discussed in place, existing noise sources 

would have negligible effects upon future residents of the Project. 


Assessment of Road Traffic Noise 

12.5.41 Road traffic generated as a result of the operation of the proposed development would give 

rise to residual effects of negligible significance. 

Assessment of Building Services Plant Noise 

12.5.42 Plant machinery such as generators or compressors should be positioned as far from noise 

sensitive locations as possible and ideally in naturally screened positions. All plant equipment 

should be adequately maintained to minimise noise emission. 

12.5.43 A suitably worded planning condition is suggested to ensure noise from fixed mechanical plant 

does not exceed the criteria. The following planning condition is recommended:- 

“With regards to fixed mechanical and refrigeration plant, each phase of the development shall 

not commence until details of the fixed plant serving each phase of the development hereby 

permitted, and any mitigation measures to achieve this condition are submitted to and 

approved in writing by Blaby District Council. The level of noise emitted from the fixed 

mechanical and refrigeration units associated with the site shall not exceed 5dB(A) below the 

minimum monitored background noise level during either the daytime (23:00 to 07:00) or 

night-time (23:00 to 07:00) seven days a week. The noise levels shall be determined by 

measurement or calculation at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurements and 

assessments shall be made according to BS 4142: 1997.” 

12.5.44 A detailed assessment would be carried out at the detailed design stage to ensure the 

recommended planning condition is met. Therefore, residual effects from building service 

plant noise would be negligible.


Service and Delivery Noise 

12 - 26 

fpcr 

12.5.45 A suitably worded planning condition is suggested to ensure noise does not cause 

disturbance. The following planning condition is recommended:- 

“Before each phase of the development hereby permitted commences, a scheme shall be 

agreed with the local planning authority which specifies the provisions to be made for the 

control of noise emanating from the site during the operation of that phase”. 

12.5.46 To minimise the potential for adverse effects, the following measures should be considered at 

the detailed design stage:- 

· Where possible, service yards should be located away from NSRs making use of 

screening from the commercial buildings themselves; 

· Where service yards are in line of sight from NSRs, acoustic barriers could be erected to 

minimise noise; 

· Where practicable, loading and unloading should be carried out in fully enclosed bays; and 

· Where practicable, deliveries should be scheduled during the daytime only. 

12.5.47 Given the adoption of the above mitigation measures secured by an appropriately worded 

planning condition, residual effects from service and delivery noise would be negligible. 


12.6.1 An assessment of the potential noise effects of the Project has been undertaken. The 

assessment included a monitoring survey at the Site to measure the existing noise levels and 

an assessment of the suitability of noise conditions for new residents. The assessment also 

considered any potential increase in noise resulting from the Project on local existing and 

future sensitive receptors. 

12.6.2 The most sensitive existing receptors to noise near the Site are residential properties within 

and immediately adjacent to the site boundaries. Within the completed Project, occupants of 

the new residential units would also be sensitive to noise. 

12.6.3 Noise levels on the site are dominated by road traffic noise from the adjacent M1 and M69. 

12.6.4 Demolition and construction activities would inevitably give rise to some noise effects to the 

receptors closest to the Site. However, steps would be taken to minimise noise, which would 

be implemented through planning conditions and would form part of the Code of Construction 

Practice. This would include careful selection of modern and quiet plant and machinery, 

agreed working hours, traffic management measures and monitoring of demolition and 

construction noise levels. 

12.6.5 The majority of the Site is suitable for noise sensitive development such as residential 

properties and the schools. However, noise levels at the site boundaries closest to the M1 

and M69 are slightly higher. However, if appropriate design considerations are given to noise 

at the detailed design stage, future residents would be unlikely to be affected by existing noise 

sources. Appropriate design would also ensure that residential uses within the Project would 

not be adversely affected by noise from service yards and delivery activities and building 

service plant noise.


13.0 AIR QUALITY: REPLACEMENT CHAPTER 


13 - 1 

fpcr 

13.1.1 This Chapter assesses the likely significant effects of the Project on local air quality, 

particularly in relation to existing sensitive receptors surrounding the Site (e.g. residential, 

education and health facilities) and its future occupants. It assesses the likely effects from 

dust and road traffic exhaust emissions generated during the construction phase, together 

with road traffic exhaust emissions resulting from the Project, once completed and 

operational. 

13.1.2 The policy context and methods used to assess the effects are described, together with the 

‘baseline’ conditions that would be likely to exist in the area in the absence of the proposed 

Project. The potential effects of the Project are discussed, together with mitigation measures 

that have been developed to prevent, reduce or offset these effects. Finally, the likely residual 

effects that would arise with the mitigation measures in place are described. 

13.1.3 The Chapter was written by Waterman Energy Environment and Design. Appendix 13B 

provides the modelling detail, and traffic data, used to support the assessment. 

Methodology 

13.1.4 This air quality assessment was undertaken using a variety of information and procedures as 

follows:- 

· Consultation with Blaby District Council (BDC) to agree the methodology to be used within 

the assessment; 

· Review of BDC air quality review and assessment documents in order to identify baseline 

conditions in the area and identify monitoring data to be used to verify the air quality model; 

· Review of the local area to identify potentially sensitive receptor locations, both existing 

and proposed, that could be affected by changes in air quality that result from the proposed 

Project; 

· Traffic flow data provided by the Project Transportation Consultants, WSP Property and 

Development (WSP), in relation to the Transport Assessment for the Project (see Chapter 

15: Traffic and Transport); 

· Application of atmospheric dispersion modelling using the ADMS-Roads model 1 to predict 

the effect of the completed Project on the future local air quality, as agreed with the EHO at 

BDC. The NO2 from NOx Calculator (Version 2.1, January 2010) available from the Air 

Quality Archive website 2 has been applied to derive the road-related NO2 emissions from 

NOx outputs; 

· Comparison of the predicted levels with the UK air quality objectives and the 

Environmental Protection UK 3 significance criteria; 

1 Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd, ADMS-Roads, 2008, Version 2.3. 

2 AEA, NOX to NO2 Calculator, http://laqm1.defra.gov.uk/review/tools/monitoring/calculator.php Version 2.1, 

22nd January 2010 

3 Environmental Protection UK, 2010, ‘Development Control: Planning for Air Quality’.


13 - 2 

fpcr 

· Consideration of likely construction plant, activities and environmental management 

controls likely to be employed during the demolition and construction phase of the works; 

· Review of heating plant and ventilation systems within the completed Project; and 

· Identification of mitigation measures, where appropriate. 

Construction 

13.1.5 Construction-derived dust emission effects cannot be easily quantified. Therefore, a more 

qualitative approach was employed to predict potential effects from these works. The 

emphasis of this approach lies in the minimisation of potential effects at source through 

appropriate environmental management controls relating to, at least, ‘good practice’ site 

management practices. The approach included:- 

· Consideration of the assumed construction activities and their potential to generate 

emissions; and 

· Identification of good working practices and suitable mitigation measures in order to 

minimise the potential for dust emissions and nuisance risk. 

13.1.6 During the construction phase the potential for dust effects would be mitigated at source, 

through appropriate site management and control practices. Premises and occupants within 

100m of a construction site are generally considered to be most likely to suffer dust nuisance. 

13.1.7 Examples of dust-sensitive receptors are listed in Table 13a below (taken from Minerals Policy 

Statement 2 4 ). 

Table 13a: Dust Sensitive Receptors 

High Sensitivity Medium Sensitivity Low Sensitivity 

Hospitals and Clinics Schools Farms 

Retirement Homes Residential Areas Light and Heavy 

Industry 

Hi-Tech Industries Food Retailers Outdoor Storage 

Food Processing Offices 

13.1.8 The proximity of sensitive receptors and their orientation in relation to the prevailing wind, in 

addition to the scale and duration of demolition and construction activities, would have a 

bearing on potential nuisance effects. 

Operation 

13.1.9 The effect on local air quality in relation to the completed development was assessed using 

the advanced atmospheric dispersion model, ADMS-Roads, as agreed with the EHO at BDC. 

4 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and mitigating the 

environmental effects of mineral extraction in England - Annex 1: Dust, 2005.


13 - 3 

fpcr 

This included the effect of traffic generated by the proposed development on the road 

network. Appendix 13B presents the details of the ADMS-Roads modelling. 

13.1.10 Traffic data for the local road network were provided by WSP (refer to Appendix 13B for 

further details). The baseline year of 2010 was assessed and the 'without development' and 

'with development' scenarios for the year 2026, to represent the anticipated year of completion 

of the development. The traffic data was used within the ADMS-Roads model to assess the 

potential for significant effects from additional traffic movements generated by the 

development on future local air quality. 

13.1.11 The ADMS-Roads dispersion model predicts how emissions from roads combine with local 

background pollution levels, taking account of meteorological conditions, to affect local air 

quality. The ADMS-Roads model has been run for the completion year, 2026, and therefore 

used 2026 background data and 2026 vehicle emission rates as inputs. For the verification 

assessment (refer to later in this report), in 2010, 2010 background data and 2010 vehicle 

emission rates have been used, which would be higher than the 2026 data. The model output 

allows pollution levels to be quantified at a number of specific receptor locations which 

facilitates the assessment of impacts at potentially sensitive receptor locations. 

Model Uncertainty 

13.1.12 Recent analyses of historical monitoring data by Defra have identified a disparity between 

measured NOx and NO2 concentrations and the projected decline associated with emission 

forecasts which form the basis of air quality modelling as described above 5 . The precise 

reason for the disparity is not fully understood but is thought to be related to the on-road 

performance of certain vehicles compared to calculations based on Euro standards which 

inform emission forecasts. 

13.1.13 There is no formal guidance in relation to this issue, and Defra are currently investigating it. 

Therefore, this air quality assessment has been based on current guidance, i.e., with reduced 

emission rates and background concentration to the completion year of 2026. However, in 

addition, a sensitivity analysis has been undertaken on the basis of no future reductions (i.e. 

considering the potential effect of the development against the current baseline, 2010, 

conditions). 

Pollutant Background Concentrations 

13.1.14 The ADMS-Roads model requires the use of background pollutant concentration data to which 

the model adds contributions from nearby roads. Full details in relation to the background 

data used within the air quality assessment are included in Appendix 13B. 

Model Verification 

13.1.15 Model verification is the process of comparing monitored and modelled pollutant 

concentrations in order to give confidence in the accuracy of the modelling results. The model 

was verified by comparing the modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations for 2010 (the latest 

year for which BDC air quality monitoring data is available) with monitored annual mean NO2 

concentrations from the BDC automatic monitor at Sandhill Drive and a number of diffusion 

5 http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/faqs/faqs.html


13 - 4 

fpcr 

tubes within the vicinity of the Site, as agreed with the EHO at BDC. The adjustment of the 

model outputs was then undertaken. The verification and adjustment process is described in 

detail in Appendix 13B. 

Significance Criteria 

Construction 

13.1.16 The assessment of construction effects was based on:- 

· A review of likely construction activities; and 

· A review of the sensitive uses in the area immediately surrounding the Site in relation to 

their distance and orientation. 

13.1.17 The significance of effect was concluded through professional judgement based on the 

following: 

· The baseline air quality conditions in the area surrounding the Site; 

· The mitigation measures that would be proposed; and 

· The knowledge of how such mitigation measures are routinely and successfully applied to 

construction projects throughout the UK. 

13.1.18 In addition to the above, the classification system provided in Table 13b below was adopted, 

again based on professional judgement, for the assessment of potential adverse air quality 

effects arising from dust generated by construction activities associated with the proposed 

Project. 

Table 13b: Construction Significance Criteria 

Effect Significance Definition 

Major adverse 


Minor adverse 

Negligible 

Receptor is less than 10m from a major active construction or 

demolition site. 

Receptor is between 10m and 100m of a major active 

construction or demolition site or less than 10m from a minor 

active construction or demolition site. 

Receptor is between 100m and 200m from a major active 

construction or demolition site or up to 100m from a minor active 

construction site or demolition site. 

Receptor is over 100m from any minor construction or 

demolition site or over 200m from any major construction or 

demolition site.


Operation 

13 - 5 

fpcr 

13.1.19 The significance of any changes in local air quality that are predicted, based on background 

pollutant concentrations and predicted traffic flows, can be established through the 

consideration of the following factors: 

· Geographical extent (local, district or regional); 

· Duration (temporary or long term); 

· Reversibility (reversible or permanent); 

· Magnitude of pollutant concentration changes; 

· Exceedance of standards (e.g. Air Quality Objectives); and 

· Changes in pollutant exposure. 

13.1.20 The Environmental Protection UK Guidance ‘Development Control: Planning for Air Quality 

(2010) provides an approach to defining magnitude of changes and describing the air quality 

effects at specific receptors recommended by the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM). 

13.1.21 Table 13c below presents the magnitude of change descriptors, based on the change in 

concentration predicted to be brought about by a scheme as a percentage of the assessment 

level (i.e. the UK Objective, Limit Value of Environmental Assessment Level). Tables 13d and 

13e present the effect significance descriptors that take account of the magnitude of changes 

(both positive and negative) given in Table 13c, and the concentration in relation to the air 

quality objective. The term ‘slight’ has been replaced with the term ‘minor’. 

Table 13c: Magnitude of Change Descriptor in Relation to Changes in Concentrations 

of NO2 and PM10 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Annual Mean NO2/PM10 

Days PM10 > 50µg/m 3 

Large Increase/decrease > 10% (>4µg/m 3 ) Increase/decrease >4 days 

Medium 

Small 

Increase/decrease 5 - 10% (2 - 

4µg/m 3 ) 

Increase/decrease 1 - 5% (0.4 - 

2µg/m 3 ) 

Increase/decrease 2 - 4 days 

Increase/decrease 1 - 2 days 

Imperceptible Increase/decrease < 1% (


Table 13d: Effect Significance Criteria for Annual Mean NO2 and PM10 

Concentration 

in Relation to Standard 

Decrease with Development 

Above objective without 

development (>40µg/m 3 ) 

Just below without 

development (36 - 40µg/m 3 ) 

Below objective without 


Well below objective without 

scheme (40µg/m 3 ) 

Just below with 


Below objective with 


Well below objective with 

scheme (


Table 13e: Effect significance criteria for PM10 daily mean 

Concentration 

in Relation to Standard 

Decrease with Development 

Above objective without 

development (>35days) 

Just below without 

development (32 - 35 days) 

Below objective without 


Well below objective without 

scheme (35days) 

Just below with 


Below objective with 


Well below objective with 

scheme (


13 - 8 

fpcr 

A new air quality directive came into force in June 2008 8 . This has been transposed into 

national legislation through the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 9 and came into force 

on 11 th June 2010. 

The UK Air Quality Strategy 

13.3.2 In a parallel process, the Environment Act 1995 10 required the preparation of a national air 

quality strategy setting health–based air quality objectives for specified pollutants and outlining 

measures to be taken by Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in relation to meeting these (the 

Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) system). 

13.2.3 The UK Air Quality Strategy, adopted in 1997 11 , was subsequently reviewed and revised in 

2000 as the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 12 . An 

amendment to the Strategy was published in 2003 13 . In 2007 a new Air Quality Strategy for 

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was published, introducing a national level 

policy framework for exposure reduction for fine particulates 14 . 

13.2.4 The standards and objectives relevant to local air quality management have been prescribed 

through the Air Quality (England) Regulations (2000) 15 and the Air Quality (England) 

(Amendment) Regulations 2002 16 . The most significant pollutants associated with road traffic 

emissions (and LPA review and assessment of air quality, see below), in relation to human 

health, are nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulates, the assessment therefore focuses on 

these two pollutants. The limit values and objectives of air pollutants relevant to this 

assessment are summarised in Table 13f. LPAs are obliged to assess against, and work 

towards, these air quality objectives. 

Table 13f: National Air Quality Strategy Objectives for the Purposes of Local Air Quality 

Management 

Pollutant 

Nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) 

Concentration Measured as 

200μg/m 3 

Standard Objective 

1 hour mean not to be exceeded more 

than 18 times per year 

Date 

31/12/2005 

40μg/m 3 Annual mean 31/12/2005 

8 EC, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on Ambient Air 

Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe 

9 HMSO, 2010, ‘The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 1001)’. 

10 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), The Environment Act 1995 

11 HMSO, London. Department of the Environment (DoE), 1997, ‘The UK National Air Quality Strategy’. 

HMSO 

12 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 'UK Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, 

Wales and Northern Ireland’. HMSO, London, 2000. 

13 Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly 

Government and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, 2003, ‘The Air Quality Strategy for 

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: (Addendum)’. DEFRA, London. 

14 Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2007. The Air Quality Strategy for 

England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland 

15 HSMO, The Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 (Statutory Instrument 928 No.), 2000. 

16 HMSO, ‘The Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (Amended Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 

3034)’. HMSO, London, 2002.


Pollutant 

Particles 

(PM10) 

Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5) 

Concentration Measured as 

Target of 15% 

reduction in 

concentrations 

at urban 

background 

locations 

Variable target 

of up to 20% 

reduction in 


at urban 

background 

locations* 

13 - 9 

fpcr 

Standard Objective 

24–hour mean not to be exceeded more 

31/12/2004 

than 35 times per year 

Annual mean 31/12/2004 

Annual mean 

Annual mean 

Date 

Between 2010 

and 2020 

Between 2010 

and 2020 

25 µg/m 3 Annual mean 01/01/2020 

13.2.5 There are currently no statutory UK standards in relation to deposited dust and its propensity 

to cause nuisance. A deposition rate of 200mg/m 2 /day (averaged over a month) is sometimes 

used as a threshold value for potentially significant nuisance effects 17 . 

Local Authority Responsibility 

13.2.6 Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 provides a system of Local Air Quality Management 

(LAQM) under which LPAs are required to review and assess the existing and future quality of 

the air within their administrative boundaries by way of a staged process. In the event that 

this process suggests that any of the Air Quality Strategy Objectives will not be met by the 

target dates, the LPA must consider the declaration of an Air Quality Management Area 

(AQMA) and the subsequent preparation of an Air Quality Action Plan to improve the air 

quality in that area in pursuit of the Objectives. Details in relation to AQMAs declared by BDC 

are provided in the Baseline Conditions section below, and details in relation to the BDC Air 

Quality Action Plan are provided in the Local section below. 

Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, 2004 

13.2.7 Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS 23) 18 states that “LPAs must be satisfied that planning 

permission can be granted on land use grounds taking full account of environmental effects 

[so as to] ensure that in the case of potentially polluting developments: 

17 Bate, K. J. and Coppin, N. J. (1991) ’Dust impacts from mineral workings’, Mine and Quarry, 20 (3), 1991, 

pp31 – 35. 

18 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, 2004


13 - 10 

fpcr 

· The relevant pollution control authority is satisfied that potential releases can be 

adequately regulated under the pollution control framework; and 

· The effects of existing sources of pollution in and around the site are not such that the 

cumulative effects of pollution when the proposed development is added would make that 

development unacceptable.” 

13.2.8 Further emphasis is given to the importance of air quality objectives and AQMAs in the 

Appendices to PPS23 which states that “the impact of a development on air quality is likely to 

be particularly important:- 

· Where the development is proposed inside, or adjacent to an AQMA; 

· Where the development could in itself result in the designation of an AQMA; and 

· Where to grant planning permission would conflict with, or render unworkable, elements of 

a LA’s air quality action plan”. 

13.2.9 In addition, PPS23 states that “it is not the case that all planning applications for 

developments inside or adjacent to AQMAs should be refused if the developments would 

result in a deterioration of local air quality. Such an approach could sterilise development, 

particularly where authorities have designated their entire areas as AQMAs”. 

Regional 

East Midlands Regional Plan, March 2009 

13.2.10 Policy 1 ‘Regional Core Objective’ of the East Midlands Regional Plan (Regional Spatial 

Strategy) 19 states that, “to secure the delivery of sustainable development within the East 

Midlands, all strategies, plans and programmes having a spatial impact should meet the 

following core objectives …. 

d) to improve health and mental, physical and spiritual well being of the Region’s residents 

through improvements in:- 

· Air quality… 

k) to minimise the adverse environmental impacts of new development and promote optimum 

social and economic benefits through the promotion of sustainable design and construction 

techniques.” 

13.2.11 Policy 36 ‘Regional Priorities for Air Quality’ states that “Local Development Frameworks and 

the strategies of relevant bodies should:- 

· Contribute to reducing air pollution in the region; 

· Consider the potential effect of new development and increased traffic levels on air 

quality…” 

19 Government Office for the East Midlands, East Midlands Regional Plan, March 2009


Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan 1996 to 2016, published 2005 

13 - 11 

fpcr 

13.2.12 None of the saved policies of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan 20 relate 

to air quality. 

Local 

Blaby District Local Plan, 1999 (saved policies) 

13.2.13 Policy T3 of the saved policies of the BDC Local Plan 21 states that “Where the district council 

is the determining authority for development involving a new access, road scheme or 

improvement, planning permission will only be granted if the proposed access, road scheme 

or improvement incorporates:.. (ii) safeguards for living and working conditions and the 

environment in general including considerations of visibility, access, layout, privacy, light, 

noise, disturbance, emissions, congestion, overbearing effect and the character or 

appearance of the area”. 

Blaby District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document Submission Version, 

January 2012 

13.2.14 The BDC Core Strategy 22 will set out the spatial plan for the District up to 2029. 

13.2.15 Policy 3 ‘Sustainable Urban Extension’ of the BDC Core Strategy states that the Masterplan 

for the Sustainable Urban Extension at the Site “will need to include appropriate measures to 

mitigate the noise and air quality impacts of traffic using the M1 and M69 motorways”. Policy 

10 ‘Transport Infrastructure’ of the BDC Core Strategy states that “The Council will require 

Travel Plans to be submitted for new developments in accordance with the requirements of 

the 6C’s Guide. Car share facilities, car clubs, and use of low emission motor vehicles in order 

to reduce congestion and pollution will be encouraged.” 


policy position in relation to air quality. 

Blaby District Council Air Quality Action Plan, 2004 

13.2.17 An Air Quality Action Plan 23 was prepared by BDC detailing options for improving air quality 

under the following groups, specific to the different locations where problems are or may be 

experienced in Blaby:- 

1. “Controlling exposure to NOX emissions from traffic on the M1 

2. Controlling exposure to NOX emissions from traffic in the vicinity of the Narborough Road 

South AQMA 

a. Improving traffic flows 

b. Reducing traffic volumes through diversion to other modes or routes, reducing demand for 

transport, etc. 

20 Leicestershire, Leicester, and Rutland Structure Plan 1996-2016, Adopted 2005 

21 Blaby District Council Adopted Local Plan 1999 

22 Blaby District Council, Core Strategy Development Plan Document Submission Version, January 2012 

23 Blaby District Council Air Quality Action Plan May 2004


c. Use of cleaner vehicles 

d. Driver training 

e. etc. 

3. General measures to control emissions; 

a. Planning conditions 

b. Public information campaigns 

c. Environmental management 

d. etc. 

4. Control of PM10 emissions from the various activities carried out at Croft Quarry.” 


Blaby District Council Review and Assessment of Air Quality 

13 - 12 

fpcr 

13.3.1 The major source of emissions in BDC is road traffic and as a result of their first round of 

review and assessment of air quality, BDC declared three AQMAs in 1999 for annual mean 

24 

NO2 as follows:- 

· AQMA1: A5460 Narborough Road South; 

· AQMA2: The M1 corridor in Enderby and Narborough; and 

· AQMA3: The M1 corridor between Thorpe Astley and Kirby Muxloe. 

13.3.2 Consequent to the designations of the AQMAs, an Air Quality Action Plan was prepared by 

BDC detailing options for improving air quality as outlined above. 

13.3.3 A further review and assessment of air quality (i.e. stage 4 review and assessment) in relation 

to these AQMAs, and a further detailed assessment of air quality within a wider area, was 

undertaken by BDC 21 . The outcome of these assessments recommended alterations to the 

existing AQMA 3 boundary and the designation of further AQMAs in relation to NO2 as 

follows:- 

· AQMA 4 - St Johns, Enderby and Enderby Road, Whetstone; and 

· AQMA 5 - Branting Hill. 

13.3.4 The nearest AQMAs to the Site are shown in Figure 13.1. 

Local Air Quality Monitoring 

13.3.5 BDC measures air quality in the Borough using three automatic monitors and 29 NO2 diffusion 

tubes. The nearest automatic continuous monitor is located at Sandhill Drive. Table 13g 

presents the latest monitoring data available for the automatic monitoring located at Sandhill 

Drive. 

24 Blaby District Council Air Quality Detailed Assessment Final Copy July 2005


13 - 13 

fpcr 

Table 13g: Annual Mean NO2 and PM10 Concentrations at the Blaby automatic 

monitoring locations (µg/m3) 

Site I.D. and Grid Reference Pollutant 2008 2009 2010 Objective 

Sandhill Drive (454482, 298573) 

NO2 35.5 34.3 37.7 40 

PM10 19.1 16.7 16.7 40 

13.3.6 BDC monitors NO2 concentrations using diffusion tubes at 29 locations throughout the 

Borough. The diffusion tube monitoring results at locations close to the Site, which are all 

classed as kerbside locations by BDC, are shown in Table 13h, and in Figure 13.2. 

Table 13h: Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations at Kerbside Diffusion Tube Sites (µg/m 3 ) 

Site I.D. and Grid Reference 2007 2008 2009 2010 NO2 Objective 

Hinckley Road, M1 Bridge 

(453593,303384)* 

Priestman Road, Thorpe 

Astley (454300,302229) 

St Andrews Church, Hinckley 

Road (453137,303321)* 

64 Packer Avenue 

(453488,303637)* 

47 45 48 -** 40 

32 35 31 32 40 

29 31 30 32 40 

42 43 44 42 40 

NOX Box A (454482,298573)* 33 33 31 33 40 

NOX Box B (454482,298573)* 33 34 32 32 40 

NOX Box C (454482,298573)* 32 34 33 33 40 

K Edward Avenue 

(454521,298151)* 

Cumberwell Drive 

(454507,298338)* 

St Johns, Enderby 

(454968,298825)* 

45 50 49 51 40 

40 40 38 37 40 

34 36 34 37 40 

Notes: *Sites an AQMA 

**Site experienced poor data capture (67%) and has therefore not been included; 

Source: 2010 Air Quality Progress Report 

13.3.7 The monitoring results in Table 13g indicate that there have been no exceedences of the 

annual mean objectives for either NO2 or PM10 at the automatic monitor located at Sandhill 

Drive. The results in Table 13h indicate that there are exceedences of the annual mean NO2


13 - 14 

fpcr 

objective at two of the diffusion tube monitoring sites in 2010, which is consistent with the 

AQMA designations. 

Background Pollutant Concentrations 

13.3.8 The ADMS-Roads methodology requires the use of background pollutant concentration data 

to which the model adds contributions from nearby roads. Background concentrations of NOX, 

NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are available from Defra for the UK as 1 x 1km grid squares for 

assessment years between 2006 and 2020. 

13.3.9 The Site and assessment study area covers a number of 1 x 1km grid squares and therefore 

all of the pollutant background concentrations used within this assessment are presented in 

Appendix 13B. 


13.4.1 The Project and its design has responded to constraints analysis work undertaken in relation 

to a number of technical topics, in order to establish a project that seeks to minimise any 

adverse environmental impact, and to maximise environmental benefits. This included 

analysis work in relation to air quality, and also noise. 

13.4.2 The adjacent M1 and M69 Motorways were identified as the key source of air pollutants 

affecting the Site. In addition, it was determined that noise associated with the M1 and M69 is 

a key constraint associated with the Site. 

13.4.3 In order to minimise the potential impacts of these noise sources upon proposed sensitive 

receptors, a number of key design measures were incorporated into the parameter plans as 

outlined in Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration. Given that air quality at the Site would be 

affected by the same key sources, the design measures incorporated directly in relation to 

noise would also affect air quality particularly, limiting the numbers of residential units located 

in proximity to the M1 and M69. 


Construction 

13.5.1 At this stage, a detailed construction programme has not been developed. However, the 

construction plan is a three phased approach with the first phase developing the most 

northern and southern portions of the Site and the second and third phases concentrating on 

upper and lower middle areas. The number of dwellings per phase is set out in the phasing 

section of the Design and Access Statement. Associated infrastructure would be triggered at 

set stages of the development. 

13.5.2 Given it is estimated that the Project would not be complete and operational until 2026, 

together with the size of the Site, it is considered that it would constitute a major construction 

site in accordance with Table 13b. The works have the potential to affect local air quality 

conditions, as follows:- 

· Dust generated from construction activities;


13 - 15 

fpcr 

· Emissions from construction plant e.g. piling rigs, compressors, excavators, concrete 

mixers and generators; and 

· Emissions from vehicles (e.g. lorries, cars and vans) associated with the demolition of the 

existing building, construction of the Project, import of building materials and removal of 

waste materials, accessing and leaving the Site on the local road network. 

13.5.3 The National Air Quality Objectives seek to address the health implications of fine particulate 

matter (e.g. PM10), which comes largely from combustion sources such as motor vehicle 

engines. The majority of particles released from ground excavation works, demolition and 

construction tend to be larger and generally settle out close to the works where they may 

cause annoyance due to their soiling capability. However, there are no formal standards or 

criteria for adverse effects caused by deposited particulate matter. 

13.5.4 Dust from construction activities within the urban environment generally does not arise at 

distances beyond approximately 200m from the works (in the absence of mitigation), and the 

majority of any deposition that might give rise to significant soiling tends to occur within 50 to 

100m 25 . In addition, in built up areas, neighbouring buildings would limit the movement of dust 

by acting as a screen. 

13.5.5 A number of residential properties exist, and would be retained, within the Site. Abbey 

Cottages and the Bungalow (ER2), Abbey Farm (ER3), and Hopyard Farm (ER4) are not 

located in proximity to any proposed major construction works, being surrounded by open 

space and Scheduled Monument land uses within the Project. Therefore, there would be 

negligible effects from Site construction activities at these properties. However, Lawn 

Cottages (ER1) is located adjacent to proposed residential uses R7. Therefore, it is likely that 

without mitigation, there would be the potential for temporary major adverse effects from Site 

construction activities in relation to R7 at the ER1 properties, particularly during dry and windy 

conditions. 

13.5.6 Residential properties are located along much of the northern boundary of the Site. The 

properties along/off Forest House Lane, Guinevere Way and Lancelot Close are located 

between 100m and 200m of areas of the proposed Project where major construction works 

are likely (i.e. construction of residential uses and a school). Therefore, it is likely that without 

mitigation, there would be the potential for temporary moderate adverse effects from Site 

construction activities at these properties, particularly during dry and windy conditions. 

13.5.7 Specific management controls would be implemented to reduce the potential for dust effects 

on these properties (see mitigation section below). 

13.5.8 Plant operating on the Site and construction vehicles entering and leaving the Site would have 

the potential to contribute to local levels of air pollution, particularly NO2 and PM10. 

13.5.9 Although data relating to anticipated construction vehicle movements are not available at this 

stage, it is anticipated that the effect of construction traffic on local air quality is likely to be at 

worst minor adverse on roads closest to/accessing the Site but negligible on the wider main 

road network and in context of local background concentrations and existing vehicles 

emissions. 

25 Arup Environmental/Ove Arup and Partners, 1995, ‘The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral 

Workings’ (HMSO, 1995).


13 - 16 

fpcr 

13.5.10 Any emissions from plant operating on the Site would be small in comparison to the emissions 

from the road traffic movements on the roads adjacent to the Site, and therefore would be 

negligible. In addition, the proposed mitigation measures (described below) would further 

reduce any effect. 

Operation 

Plant 

13.5.11 Potential operational air quality effects can result from emissions from space heating and 

other building plant that is provided. Most modern space heating is achieved either through 

burning gas, which results in only low gaseous or particulate emissions or by using electricity, 

which gives rise to indirect emissions, at the power generation facility only. 

13.5.12 The Project would include the use of modern plant and facilities which would have improved 

efficiencies and low emissions as a result of tightened legislation. The detailed specification 

and installation of this plant would be in line with requirements of current Building Regulations, 

and would be designed to comply with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution, HMIP 

Technical Guidance Note (Dispersion) D1 (often referred to as a D1 Calculation) 26 . This 

document and calculation complements the Third Edition of the 1956 Clean Air Act 

Memorandum on Chimney Heights 27 and is intended to ensure that flue systems comply with 

the Clean Air Act 1993 28 and Environmental Protection Act 1990 29 . Consequently, no 

unacceptable effects on air quality at local existing and proposed receptors would occur as a 

result of this plant. Therefore, the operation of the Project’s proposed plant would have a 

negligible effect on local air quality. 

Traffic 

13.5.13 The approach adopted by the Air Quality Strategy is to focus on areas at locations close to 

ground level where members of the public (in a non–workplace area) are likely to be exposed 

to pollutants over the averaging time of the objective in question (i.e. over 1–hour, 24–hour or 

annual periods) as appropriate. Objective exceedances principally relate to annual mean NO2 

and PM10, and daily mean PM10, so that potentially sensitive locations relate mainly to 

residential properties and other sensitive locations (such as schools) where the public may be 

exposed for protracted periods. 

13.5.14 Table 13i presents existing potentially sensitive receptors (residential properties) that were 

selected for their proximity to the road network that may be affected by the proposed Project 

(Receptor 1 to 11) and two locations representing cumulative schemes that are not yet built 

but have consent for residential uses (Receptors 12 and 13). In addition, locations within the 

Site, closest to the M1, were selected to represent ‘worst case’ future potential sensitive 

(residential) locations within the Project itself (Receptors 14 to 18). It should be noted that no 

sensitive (residential or school) land uses are proposed within the Project within 200m of the 

26 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution (HIMP), ‘Guidelines on Discharge Stack Heights of Polluting 

Emissions’. Technical Guidance Note (Dispersion) D1,1993. 

27 HMSO, Third Edition of the 1956 Clean Air Act Memorandum on Chimney Heights, 1981. 

28 HMSO, Clean Air Act, 1993. 

29 HMSO. Environmental Protection Act,1990.


13 - 17 

fpcr 

M69, hence similar consideration in relation to the M69 is not required. The location of these 

receptors is presented in Figure 13.3. 

Table 13i: Selected Receptor Locations 

Receptor 

Number 

Address of Receptor Grid Reference 

1 77 Hinckley Road* 453493, 303383 

2 12 Beggar’s Lane 452322, 302626 

3 259 Hinckley Road 452206, 302725 

4 Willows Farm 452933, 300252 

5 20 Mill Hill 453432, 299731 

6 25 Priestman Road 454369, 302156 

7 55 Owen Close 454768, 302143 

8 119 Westover Road 455073, 302677 

9 89 St Johns 455277, 299420 

10 98 Leicester Road* 454517, 298142 

11 11 St Johns* 454970, 298813 

12 

Taylor Wimpey Development, 


452231, 302695 

13 Nelson, St Johns, Enderby 454975, 298936 

14 Proposed Development R17 454222, 301658 





Note: * Receptors located within an AQMA 

13.5.15 The results of the ADMS Roads assessment are presented in Table 13j. For accuracy, the 

changes arising from the Project were calculated using the exact output from the ADMS-Road 

model (i.e. numbers to at least 10 decimal places) rather than the rounded numbers 

presented, which is the reason for any discrepancies in Table 13j between the results and the 

stated changes.


Table 13j: Results of the ADMS-Roads Modelling at Sensitive Receptors 

Receptor 1: 77 Hinckley Road 

NO2 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 

13 - 18 

PM10 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 

PM10 - Number 

of Days 

>50µg/m 3 

fpcr 

PM2.5 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 

2010 Existing 44.80 21.49 5 12.45 

2026 Without Development 19.65 16.46 0 10.36 

2026 With Development 19.61 16.45 0 10.35 

2026 Change -0.04 -0.01 0 - 

Receptor 2: 12 Beggar’s Lane 

2010 Existing 17.76 17.22 1 10.82 



2026 Change 0.47 0.12 0 0.07 

Receptor 3: 259 Hinckley Road 

2010 Existing 19.48 17.34 1 10.90 



2026 Change 0.19 0.05 0 0.03 

Receptor 4: Willows Farm 

2010 Existing 18.39 17.46 1 10.77 



2026 Change 0.50 0.13 0 0.07 

Receptor 5: 20 Mill Hill 

2010 Existing 21.78 17.59 1 11.35 

2026 Without Development 11.01 16.17 0 9.95


NO2 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 

13 - 19 

PM10 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 

PM10 - Number 

of Days 

>50µg/m 3 

fpcr 

PM2.5 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 


2026 Change - - 0 - 

Receptor 6: 25 Priestman Road 

2010 Existing 26.91 19.85 3 12.94 



2026 Change 0.39 0.10 0 0.05 

Receptor 7: 55 Owen Close 

2010 Existing 26.99 19.98 3 12.99 



2026 Change 0.81 0.19 0 0.11 

Receptor 8: 119 Westover Road 

2010 Existing 28.06 18.35 2 12.12 



2026 Change 0.20 0.05 0 0.03 

Receptor 9: 89 St Johns 

2010 Existing 26.01 18.14 2 11.94 



2026 Change -0.01 - -0 - 

Receptor 10: 98 Leicester Road 

2010 Existing 47.00 20.99 5 14.12


NO2 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 

13 - 20 

PM10 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 

PM10 - Number 

of Days 

>50µg/m 3 

fpcr 

PM2.5 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 



2026 Change 0.04 0.02 0 0.01 

Receptor 11: 11 St Johns 

2010 Existing 28.90 19.82 3 13.12 



2026 Change 0.01 - 0 - 

Receptor 12: Taylor Wimpey Development, Beggar’s Lane 



2026 Change 0.88 0.24 - 0.13 

Receptor 13: Nelson, St Johns, Enderby 



2026 Change - - - - 

Proposed Receptor 14: R17 







2026 With Development 9.58 16.57 1 9.79



NO2 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 

13 - 21 

PM10 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 

PM10 - Number 

of Days 

>50µg/m 3 

fpcr 

PM2.5 

Annual Mean 

(µg/m 3 ) 


Note: 

Receptors 12 and 13 do not currently exist and therefore concentrations for 2010 have not been predicted. 

Receptors 14 to 18 would exist only as part of the Project and therefore concentrations at these are only 

predicted for the 2026’With Development’ scenario, 

13.5.16 The results in Table 13j indicate that in 2010 the annual mean NO2 objective is exceeded at 

two of the existing locations (Receptor 1: 77 Hinckley Road and Receptor 10: 98 Leicester 

Road) which is consistent with the monitoring concentrations measured by BDC where these 

receptors are located. There are no predicted exceedences of the annual mean objective for 

PM10 or PM2.5 or daily mean PM10 at any of the existing receptor locations. 

13.5.17 The results of the modelling indicate that annual mean NO2 and PM10 concentrations predicted 

for 2026 ‘without’ and ‘with’ the proposed development in place are below the objective level of 

40µg/m 3 in both scenarios. There are also no predicted exceedences of the annual mean 

objective for PM2.5 or the daily mean objective for PM10 in either the ‘without’ or ‘with’ the 

proposed development scenarios. 

13.5.18 As discussed in Appendix 13B, the hourly mean objective for NO2 is unlikely to be exceeded at 

a roadside location where the annual-mean NO2 concentration is less than 60µg/m 3 . As 

shown in Table 13j, the predicted concentrations in 2010 and in 2026 are less than 60µg/m 3 at 

all the existing locations and as such it is unlikely that the hourly objective is exceeded. 

Therefore, hourly mean NO2 is not considered further. 

13.5.19 The Project is predicted to result in increases in pollutants concentrations at nine of the 

existing modelled receptors and decreases at two of the existing modelled receptors. The 

following changes, in relation to the magnitude of change descriptors outlined in Table 13c, 

were predicted: 

· An ‘imperceptible’ change in annual mean NO2 at nine receptor locations (Receptors 1, 3, 

5-6, 8-11 and 13); 

· A ‘Small’ change in annual mean NO2 at four receptor locations (Receptors 2, 4, 7 and 12); 

· An ‘Imperceptible’ change in annual mean PM10 at all thirteen receptors; and 

· An ‘Imperceptible’ change in daily mean PM10 at all thirteen receptors. 

13.5.20 Table 13k summarises the significance of the effects on NO2 and PM10 in accordance with the 

significance criteria identified in Table 13d and Table 13e.


13 - 22 

fpcr 

Table 13k: Magnitude of Change Descriptor in Relation to Changes in Concentrations of 

NO2 and PM10 

Receptor Location 

NO2 Annual 

Mean 

PM10 

Annual Mean 

Days PM10 

1 77 Hinckley Road Negligible Negligible Negligible 

2 12 Beggar’s Lane Negligible Negligible Negligible 

3 259 Hinckley Road Negligible Negligible Negligible 

4 Willows Farm Negligible Negligible Negligible 

5 20 Mill Hill Negligible Negligible Negligible 

6 25 Priestman Road Negligible Negligible Negligible 

7 55 Owen Close Negligible Negligible Negligible 

8 119 Westover Road Negligible Negligible Negligible 

9 89 St Johns Negligible Negligible Negligible 

10 98 Leicester Road Negligible Negligible Negligible 

11 11 St Johns Negligible Negligible Negligible 

12 

13 

Taylor Wimpey 

Development, Beggar’s 

Lane 

Nelson, St Johns, 

Enderby 

Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Negligible Negligible Negligible 

13.5.21 As shown in Table 13k, the Project is predicted to have a negligible effect at all receptor 

locations in relation to annual mean NO2 concentrations and a negligible effect on daily and 

annual mean PM10 at all existing receptors modelled. 

13.5.22 There are no significance criteria in relation to annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. However, 

given that the predicted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations are well below the objective at all 

receptors with the development in place, and there is (at worst) only a slight increase in 

annual mean PM2.5 of 0.13µg/m 3 at Receptor 12 as a result of the development, it is 

considered that the proposed development would result in negligible effects on annual mean 

PM2.5. 

13.5.23 In relation to the proposed Project itself (Receptors 14 - 18) concentrations are predicted to be 

well below the relevant NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 objectives. It is therefore considered that 

introducing residential uses to the Site would be of negligible significance.


NO2 Sensitivity Analysis 

13 - 23 

fpcr 

13.5.24 The results of the sensitivity analysis on the basis of no future reduction in emission rates and 

background concentrations (i.e. considering the potential effect of the development against 

the current baseline 2010 conditions) are presented in Table 13l and the significance of these 

effects are presented in Table 13m. 

Table 13l: Results of the ADMS-Roads Modelling at Sensitive Receptors, Assuming No 

Improvement in NOx and NO2 

Site 

ID 

Receptor Name 

2010 

Existing 

2026 without 

development 

2026 with 

development 

2026 

change 

1 77 Hinckley Road 44.80 51.25 50.13 -1.12 

2 12 Beggar’s Lane 17.76 19.60 21.03 1.43 

3 259 Hinckley Road 19.48 22.34 22.50 0.16 

4 Willows Farm 18.39 20.33 21.91 1.58 

5 20 Mill Hill 21.78 24.38 23.37 -1.01 

6 25 Priestman Road 26.91 29.10 30.72 1.62 

7 55 Owen Close 26.99 29.21 32.49 3.28 

8 119 Westover Road 28.06 30.66 31.24 0.58 

9 89 St Johns 26.01 27.30 28.20 0.90 

10 98 Leicester Road 47.00 53.47 54.28 0.81 

11 11 St Johns 28.90 30.92 32.28 1.36 

12 



- 29.11 32.48 3.37 

13 Nelson, St Johns, Enderby - 37.31 37.31 - 

14 R17 - - 34.61 - 

15 R15 - - 28.42 - 

16 R14 - - 20.01 - 

17 R12 - - 19.02 - 

18 R1 - - 18.47 -


13 - 24 

fpcr 

Table 13m: Magnitude of Change and Significance of Effects for Annual Mean NO2 

Concentrations with the Development in 2026, Assuming No Improvement in NOx and 

NO2 

Site ID Receptor Location 

Magnitude of Change 

(see Table 13c) 

Significance (see 

Table 13d) 

1 77 Hinckley Road Small Minor Beneficial 

2 12 Beggar’s Lane Small Negligible 

3 259 Hinckley Road Imperceptible Negligible 

4 Willows Farm Small Negligible 

5 20 Mill Hill Small Negligible 

6 25 Priestman Road Small Negligible 

7 55 Owen Close Medium Minor Adverse 

8 119 Westover Road Small Negligible 

9 89 St Johns Small Negligible 

10 98 Leicester Road Small Minor Adverse 

11 11 St Johns Small Negligible 

12 



Medium Minor Adverse 

13 Nelson, St Johns, Enderby Imperceptible Negligible 

13.5.25 The overall predicted concentrations in Table 13l are higher than those presented for 2026 

due to higher background concentrations and vehicle emissions rates in 2010 than 2026. The 

higher emission rates also lead to higher changes in pollutants concentrations at some 

receptors. The Project is predicted to result in increases in pollutants concentrations at nine of 

the existing modelled receptors and decreases at two of the existing modelled receptors. 

13.5.26 In accordance with the magnitude of change descriptors (as outline in Table 13c) and the 

significance of impacts (Table 13d), assuming no improvements to NOx and NO2, the 

assessment predicted a medium change in annual mean NO2 at two receptor locations 

(Receptors 7 and 12), a small change at nine receptor locations and an imperceptible change 

at the two remaining receptor locations as shown in Table 13m. Therefore taking into account 

uncertainty in future NOx and NO2 reductions, the proposed development is predicted to result 

in a minor adverse to minor beneficial effect on air quality. 

13.5.27 In relation to the proposed Project itself (Receptors 14 - 18), assuming no improvements to 

NOx and NO2, concentrations are predicted to be well below the annual mean NO2 objective. It 

is therefore considered that introducing residential uses to the Site would be of negligible 

significance.


13 - 25 

fpcr 

13.5.28 The exceedences of the annual mean objective for NO2 within the sensitivity analysis occur in 

the both with and without development scenarios and not as a result of the proposed 

development. In addition, the guidance published by Defra is that there may be reductions in 

NOx and NO2 concentrations post 2015 when the Euro 6 emission standards begin to take 

effect. It is therefore considered that concentrations are likely to be lower than those 

presented in the sensitivity analysis. 


Construction 

13.5.29 A number of sites have been identified as requiring consideration as part of the cumulative 

assessment. These include the two SUEs at Barwell and Earl Shilton as well as the 

developments at Meridian Way; Narborough Road; Grove Park; Grove Park Triangle; Oak 

Spinney Park, Ratby Lane, the Next car park, Taylor Wimpey (west of Beggar’s Lane), St 

John’s, Enderby residential development at Thorpe Astley and Glenfield Park which are 

identified at Figure 16 of the supplementary Transport Assessment. 

13.5.30 The main impacts on air quality during the demolition and construction of developments are in 

relation to dust. Due to the typical dispersal and deposition rates of dust over distances, it is 

considered that the potential for dust to create a cumulative effect is only likely to be an issue 

for the closest developments, i.e. those within 50 to 100m of the Project, if they were to be 

constructed at the same time. The proposed SUEs at Barwell and Earl Shilton, and the other 

identified developments, except Taylor Wimpey (west of Beggar’s Lane), are located further 

than 100m from the Site and therefore there would be no cumulative effects. Whilst the Taylor 

Wimpey scheme is located within 100m of the Site boundary, it is located over 100m from 

areas of the proposed Project where major construction works are likely, and therefore, there 

would be no cumulative effects. 

13.5.31 It is expected that demolition and construction traffic routes for each of the cumulative 

schemes would be agreed with the LPA and thus traffic could be re-routed to minimise or 

avoid potential impacts if the schemes were to be constructed at the same time. On that 

basis, the impact of generated traffic on local air quality would be at worst minor adverse. 

However, these impacts would be temporary in nature. 

Completed Project 

13.5.32 The air quality assessment is inextricably linked to the Transport Assessment (TA) and the 

predicted changes in traffic flows. It is considered that the traffic data used to establish the 

impacts of the completed and operational Project on air quality accounted for cumulative 

schemes, through the growth applied to the base network, as outlined in the TA. 

13.5.33 Therefore, the traffic data used within the air quality assessment for the future year of 2026 

includes traffic related to other cumulative schemes in the surrounding area and therefore 

comprises a cumulative impact assessment in this regard. For these reasons, the cumulative 

effects on local air quality of the Project and the cumulative schemes are those predicted in 

this Chapter.


Mitigation 

Construction 

13 - 26 

fpcr 

13.5.34 A range of environmental management controls (mitigation measures) would be developed 

with reference to the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance ‘Controlling Particles, 

Vapour and Noise Pollution from Construction Sites’ 30 . Particular attention would be paid to 

operations which must unavoidably take place in proximity to where the closest residential 

properties are located (i.e. close to the northern Site boundary, and adjacent to Lawn 

Cottages). Such measures would include:- 

· Routine dust monitoring at sensitive residential locations, especially around the northern 

boundary of the Site, with the results and effectiveness of controls reviewed at regular 

meetings; 

· Damping down surfaces during dry weather; 

· Providing appropriate hoarding and / or fencing to reduce dust dispersion and restrict 

public access; 

· Sheeting buildings, chutes, skips and vehicles removing wastes with the potential for dust 

generation; 

· Appropriate handling and storage of materials; 

· Minimising the amount of, and length of time, materials are stockpiled on the Site and 

covering all stockpiles wherever possible; 

· Restricting drop heights onto lorries and other equipment; 

· Fitting all equipment with dust control measures such as water sprays wherever possible; 

· Using a wheel wash, limiting speeds on the Site to 5mph (8kph), avoiding of unnecessary 

idling of engines and routing of Site vehicles as far from sensitive properties as possible; 

· Using gas powered generators rather than diesel if possible (these are also quieter) and 

ensuring that all plant and vehicles are well maintained so that exhaust emissions do not 

breach statutory emission limits; 

· Switching off all plant when not in use; 

· Prohibiting fires on the Site; and 

· Ensuring that a road sweeper is available to clean mud and other debris from hardstanding 

roads and footpaths. 

13.5.35 Such measures are routinely and successfully applied to construction projects throughout the 

UK and are capable of significantly reducing the potential for adverse nuisance dust effects 

associated with the various stages of construction work. 

13.5.36 With the implementation of a range of appropriate site management practices to control dust 

emissions, the likely residual effects associated with construction activities would be negligible 

30 Building Research Establishment (BRE), 2003, ‘Controlling particles, vapour and noise from pollution from 

construction sites’.


13 - 27 

fpcr 

to, at worst (particularly during dry and windy conditions) moderate adverse (at residential 

properties closest/adjacent to the Site boundary). 

13.5.37 Any emissions from plant operating on the Site would be small in comparison to the emissions 

from the road traffic movements on the roads adjacent to the Site such that the residual 

effects would therefore be negligible. 


13.5.38 As outlined in Chapter 15: Traffic and Transport in order to maintain and further improve 

accessibility to the Site a Travel Pack would be issued to all new residents to encourage the 

use of more sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling and using public 

transport, reduce unnecessary travel especially over short distances and encourage the use 

of sustainable travel by improving the facilities that are available and providing up to date 

information. 

13.5.39 As part of the proposed employment use, a Travel Plan would be prepared which would 

include the information provided within the Travel Pack but also include monitoring and targets 

in which to reduce single car occupancy. 

13.5.40 These measures would reduce travel by car and thus reduce further the predicted impact of 

the Project on air quality. 


Demolition and Construction 

13.5.41 The effects of plant operating on the construction site would be negligible in the context of 

local background concentrations or existing adjacent road traffic emissions. 

13.5.42 The effects of construction vehicles entering and leaving the Site would be negligible (on the 

wider main road network) to minor adverse (on roads closest to/accessing the Site) in context 

of local background concentrations and existing vehicles emissions. 

13.5.43 Following the employment of appropriate environmental management controls as described 

above, it is envisaged that the effects of the demolition and construction works upon local air 

quality would be significantly reduced. As such, the worst-case (anticipated during dry and 

windy conditions only) residual effects resulting from demolition and construction related dust 

would be:- 

· Temporary, short to medium term and of moderate adverse significance at Lawn Cottages 

(ER1); and 

· Temporary, short to medium term and of minor adverse significance at properties along/off 

Forest House Lane, Guinevere Way and Lancelot Close. 


13.5.44 The residual effect of operational phase heating plant systems on local air quality, with the 

imposition of suitable conditions to control effects, is considered to be negligible.


13 - 28 

fpcr 

13.5.45 Taking into account the uncertainty in future NOx and NO2 concentrations, the development is 

not predicted to cause any new exceedances of the air quality objectives or lead to an 

extension of any of the existing AQMAs. The operational traffic associated with the proposed 

development is predicted to result in, at worst, a minor adverse to, at best, a minor beneficial 

residual effect on local air quality. 

13.5.46 The effect of introducing new sensitive receptors within the Site is considered to be of 

negligible significance. 


13.6.1 An assessment of the effect of the Project on local air quality arising from the construction and 

operational phases was undertaken. The construction effects of the Project would be related 

to dust and exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and plant. The effects of the 

completed Project could include emissions from traffic associated with the Project, and 

operational heating plant. A summary of the potential effects, mitigation measures and 

resulting residual effects are presented in Table 13n.


Table 13n: Summary of Potential Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects 

Issue 

Potential Effect / 

Significance 

Demolition and Construction 

Dust emissions 

from demolition and 

construction 

activities 

Emissions from on- 

site plant 

Emissions from 

construction 

vehicles 


Operational plant 

emissions 

Emissions from 

traffic associated 

with the completed 

Project 

Introduction of new 

residential uses to 

the site 

Moderate to 

major adverse 

13 - 29 

Mitigation Measures 

Routine environmental 

management control 

measures to prevent and 

control dust 

fpcr 

Residual Effect / 

Significance 

Minor to 

moderate 

adverse 

Negligible None required Negligible 

Minor adverse to 

Negligible 

Negligible 


minor beneficial 

in terms of NO2 


and 

Negligible in 

terms of PM10 


Routine environmental 

management control 

measures 

Use of routine controls on 

plant and ventilation 

systems 

Travel Pack and Travel Plan 

Minor adverse 

to Negligible 

Negligible 


minor beneficial 

in terms of NO2 


and 

Negligible in 

terms of PM10 


Negligible None. Negligible


14.0 WASTE: SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 


14 - 1 

fpcr 



· Deletion of references to a community composting facility. 

· Consideration of issues raised by the Environmental Sustainability Working Group 

(December 2011). 


policy position in relation to waste. 


14.2.1 It is no longer intended for a RecycleBank scheme and community composting facility to be 

implemented as part of the Project’s waste strategy. It is therefore assumed that municipal 

waste will be dealt with in the same way as the rest of the district, this is briefly described at 

14.3.4 below. There remains potential at Abbey Farm to compost green waste arising from the 

Project’s maintained Green Infrastructure only. 

14.2.2 Paragraphs 14.4.5 and 14.4.8 of Chapter 14: Waste of the ES containing references to a 

community composting facility at Abbey Farm have been deleted. 



revised Parameter Plans do not affect the conclusions reached in the Environmental 

Statement. 

14.3.2 Paragraph 14.6.3 of ES Chapter 14: Waste, which makes reference to a composting area 

dedicated for use by the community, has been deleted. 

14.3.3 The total waste arisings forecasted to be generated by the Project remains as stated at 

Chapter 14: Waste of the submitted ES. These figures are based upon up-to-date waste 

arisings data contained within Leicestershire County Council’s Waste Needs Assessment 

2008. 

14.3.4 Based on the assumption that municipal waste will be collected by Blaby District Council 

utilising their current rota; weekly collection of black bins (residual refuse), fortnightly collection 

of green bins (paper/card) and green boxes (plastic/cans/foil/mixed glass) and that the use of 

brown bins remains optional (currently residents within the district are given the option to rent 

a brown bin if they require one), it is likely that there will be a slight increase in residual 

municipal waste overall than the level assessed at ES Chapter 14: Waste, assuming that not 

all residents are willing to rent a brown bin for their garden waste. This would result in an 

increased adverse effect, potentially low/medium, upon the municipal waste disposal capacity 

for the county in the long term. Whilst the RecycleBank scheme incentivises recycling under a 

single stream system, the decrease in residual waste when compared with BDC’s current 

multi stream system is considered to be slight overall.


14 - 2 

fpcr 

14.3.5 Blaby District Council is currently reviewing its domestic recycling collections and is 

researching measures to encourage recycling across the district. Garden waste from within 

the district is currently transferred to two local farms which have capacity to accommodate 

green waste generated by the Project. If brown bins are provided to each household rather 

than optional, the potential residual waste is likely to reduce overall. Similarly, if a single 

stream recycling system is operational, making recycling easier, residual waste arisings could 

decrease further still. 

14.3.6 Effects upon construction, commercial and industrial waste remain as stated within the 

submitted ES Chapter 14: Waste. 

14.3.7 Although the RecycleBank scheme and community composting facility have been removed 

from the waste strategy for Lubbesthorpe, Blaby District Council is supportive of introducing 

proven alternative recycling methods. Options to reduce the waste effect of the Project further, 

such as underground bring banks and the provision of compost bins/food waste digesters 

(appropriate to ground conditions) within private gardens, will be investigated at the detailed 

design stage. Proposals will accord with the Council’s Waste Strategy which is currently under 

review. Furthermore, a Waste Management Strategy detailing how waste will be managed 

during the operational phase of the Project will be prepared in conjunction with both Blaby 

District Council and Leicestershire County Council. This will strive to minimise the generation 

of waste yet maximise its recyclability and subsequently the overall environmental 

sustainability of the Project.


15.0 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT: REPLACEMENT CHAPTER 


fpcr 

15.1.1 This replacement Chapter has been prepared by WSP Ltd. The application site is located 

approximately 6km to the West of Leicester City Centre, south of Leicester Forest East. The 

land was identified in Blaby District Council’s emerging Local Development Framework as a 

Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) together with the Strategic Employment Site (SES). 

15.1.2 This Chapter considers the environmental effects of road traffic and transportation generated 

by the Lubbesthorpe development on the relevant study area described in section 15.3 below. 

15.1.3 The data provided within this Chapter is not reliant on data provided within other chapters of 

the ES, although the data within this Chapter is used by other assessments such as air quality 

and noise. 

15.1.4 In particular, it considers the likely environmental effects on the highway network in terms of 

severance, pedestrian amenity (including cyclists), fear and intimidation, driver and pedestrian 

delay, accidents and safety. It addresses the construction and operational phases of the 

development, for each of the potential parameters, and assesses the impact on identified 

sensitive receptors. 

15.1.5 An outline of transport related polices and guidance is also provided, together with the 

methodology used in this assessment. The assessment sets out the existing baseline 

conditions on the transport network surrounding the application site, the future baseline, 

(where different), and then considers the likely impact of the development on the transport 

network. 

15.1.6 Where appropriate, potential mitigation measures have been identified to alleviate the effects 

of the development related traffic. 

15.1.7 Details of capacity assessments and trip generations/distributions together with the mitigation 

measures have not been included within this Chapter but are included within the 

Supplementary Transport Assessment which forms part of this Further information Document. 

Although the Supplementary Transport Assessment is not bound as part of this document, it 

constitutes environmental information relevant to the determination of the application that 

accompanies the ES. The Supplementary Transport Assessment and this Chapter have been 

prepared by WSP Ltd. and should be read in conjunction with the Transport Assessment 

(2011) submitted with the ES. The TA (2011) contains background data referred to in this 

Chapter. 

15.1.8 The Supplementary Transport Assessment has been prepared following the assessment of 

the scheme within the Leicestershire and Leicester Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) and 

provides supplementary assessment data to that included in the Transport Assessment. This 

model became available for use in the summer of 2011 and has assessed a baseline case of 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 1


fpcr 

2008 and then future years between 2011 and 2031. The comparative assessment of the 

baseline and development proposals has been undertaken for 2026 and 2031 as it is 

considered the completed development would not occur until this date. 

Methodology 

15.1.9 This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with guidance given in the following 

documents:- 

a) Institute of Environmental Assessment (now IEMA) Environmental Assessment of Road 

Traffic (1993) (IEMA Guidance); and 

b) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Environmental Assessment. 

15.1.10 The significance of potential traffic and transport effects is determined in accordance with the 

above guidelines. The effect of significance is derived from measures of the magnitude (or 

scale) of the change and the sensitivity (or importance) of the receptors affected. Categories 

of sensitivity and magnitude are defined to determine the significance of the effect. 

15.1.11The IEMA Guidance lists a number of environmental impacts, of which the following are 

assessed in this Chapter:- 

a) Severance; 

b) Driver delay; 

c) Pedestrian delay; 

d) Pedestrian amenity; 

e) Fear and intimidation; and 

f) Accidents and safety. 

1) The IEMA Guidance states that, “severance is the perceived division that can occur within 

a community when it becomes separated by a major traffic artery.” Further, “Changes in 

traffic of 30%, 60% and 90% are regarded as producing ‘slight’, ‘moderate’ and 

‘substantial’ changes in severance respectively”. However, the Guidelines acknowledge 

that the measurement and prediction of severance is extremely difficult (Para 4.28 of 

IEMA); 

2) Driver delay – this can be established at key junctions using conventional modelling 

techniques identifying the average delay in seconds. However, the advice identifies that 

such delays, ”…are only likely to be significant when the traffic on the network surrounding 

the development is already at, or close to, capacity of the system”; 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 2


fpcr 

3) Pedestrian delay – “Changes in the volume, composition or speed of traffic may affect the 

ability of people to cross roads.” The Guidance suggests that assessors, ”...use their 

judgement to determine whether pedestrian delay is a significant impact”. As part of this 

assessment the Department of Transports Local Transport Note 1/95 “The Assessment of 

Pedestrian Crossings” has been used which reviews the average time it takes for a person 

to cross the road. 

4) Pedestrian amenity – broadly defined as the relative pleasantness of journey, it is affected 

by traffic flow, traffic composition and pavement width/separation from traffic. The 

Guidance suggests a tentative threshold for judging the significance of change in 

pedestrian amenity of where traffic flow (or its lorry component) is halved or doubled; 

5) Fear and intimidation – the impact of this is dependent upon the volume of traffic, its HGV 

composition, its proximity to people or the lack of protection caused by such factors as 

narrow pavement widths. The Guidance states that there are no commonly agreed 

thresholds for estimating this from known traffic and physical conditions, but it does 

nevertheless suggest some thresholds which could be used, based on previous research. 

The thresholds are noted in Table 15a. 

Table 15a: Fear and Intimidation Thresholds 

Degree of Hazard Average Traffic Flow 

over 18hr day – 

vehicles / hour 2-way 

Total 18 hour HGV 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 3 

Flow 

Extreme + 1,800 + 3,000 + 20 

Average Vehicle 

Speed over 18 hour 

day - mph 

Great 1,200 – 1,800 2,000 – 3,000 15 - 20 

Moderate 600 – 1,200 1,000 – 2,000 10 - 15 

6) Accidents and safety – the Guidance states that “Professional judgement will be needed to 

assess the implications of local circumstances, or factors, which may evaluate or lessen 

the risk of accidents, e.g. junction conflicts”; 

15.1.12 The IEMA Guidance makes it clear that a, “…critical feature of Environmental Assessment is 

determining whether a given impact is significant.” Further, “for many effects there are no 

simple rules or formulae which define thresholds of significance and there is, therefore, a need 

for interpretation and judgement on the part of the assessor backed up by data or quantified 

information whenever possible. Such judgements will include the assessment of the numbers 

of people experiencing a change in environmental impact …. “. 

15.1.13 Categories of receptor sensitivity have been defined from the principles set out in the IEMA 

Guidance, including the following:- 

1) The need to identify particular groups or locations which may be sensitive to changes in 

traffic conditions; 

2) The list of affected groups and special interest set out in the guidance;


fpcr 

3) The identification of links or locations where it is felt that specific environmental problems 

may occur; and 

4) Such locations, “... would include accident cluster sites, conservation areas, hospitals, and 

links with high pedestrian flows.” 

15.1.14 These have been used to outline in broad terms the sensitivity of receptors to traffic for the 

categories of impact assessed in this section, although in detail, each receptor assessed 

would have a different sensitivity for each specific impact. 

15.1.15 In the context of severance, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation, pedestrian and driver 

delay, accidents and safety, the following are identified as high, medium and low sensitivity: 

15.1.16 High Sensitivity receptors include:- 

1) Schools, colleges and other educational institutions; 

2) Retirement/car homes for the elderly or infirm; 

3) Roads used by pedestrians with no footways; and 

4) Collision cluster sites. 

15.1.17 Medium sensitivity receptors include:- 

1) Hospitals, surgeries and clinics; 

2) Parks and recreation areas; 

3) Shopping areas; and 

4) Roads used by pedestrians with narrow footways. 

15.1.18 Low sensitivity receptors include:- 

1) Open space; 

2) Tourist/visitor attractions; 

3) Historical buildings; and 

4) Churches. 

15.1.19 In addition, although not specifically identified within the IEMA Guidance as being sensitive for 

these categories of impact, it has been assumed that individual residential properties and 

employment areas without special characteristics have low sensitivity to the specific 

environmental impacts assessed in this section. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 4


fpcr 

15.1.20 The magnitude of effect depends upon the effect being assessed and this has been based on 

the guidance relating to severance which suggests that 30%, 60% and 90% changes in traffic 

levels should be considered as ‘Slight’, ‘Moderate’ and ‘Substantial’ impacts respectively. 

15.1.21 Generic significance criteria is applied throughout this Environmental Statement with the 

degree of significance in accordance with the DMRB guidelines HA 205/08 ‘Assessment and 

Magnitude of Environmental Effects’ assessing the impact of the development based on 

Severe, Major, Moderate, Minor and Not Significant. These are used, together with the 

assessment of magnitude of effect and receptor sensitivity, to determine the significance of 

effects. 

15.1.22 DMRB Volume 11 provides further guidance on determining severance (Part 8, Chapter 6). It 

states that new severance should be described in terms of “Slight”, “Moderate” or “Severe” 

and that these categories ”..should be coupled with an estimate of the numbers of people 

affected, reference to relief from existing severance”, it acknowledges that there is a traffic 

flow threshold below which changes in severance are not considered significant (existing 

AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) flow below 800 vehicles). 

15.1.23 Table 15b below is provided in DMRB Volume 11 ‘Determining Significance of Environmental 

Effects’ (HA 205/08) The significance of the effect is formulated as a function of the receptor 

or resource environmental value (or sensitivity) and the magnitude of the project value 

(change). The category descriptions for Sensitivity of Receptor are based upon the level of 

importance and rarity of that receptor. The magnitude of impact is dependent upon the level of 

quality and magnitude in relation to the change as a result of the Project. 

Table 15b: Significance of Effect Categories 

Magnitude 

of Impact 

(Degree of 

Change) 

Sensitivity of Receptor 

Very High High Medium Low Negligible 

Major Severe Severe or 

Moderate Major or 

Moderate 

Minor Moderate 

or Minor 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 5 

Major 

Major or 

Moderate 

Moderate or 

Major 

Negligible Minor Minor Not 

No change Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Major or 

Moderate 

Moderate 

or Minor 

Minor 

Moderate Minor Not 

Minor Not 

Significant 

or Minor 

Not 

Significant 

Significant 

or Minor 

Nor 

Significant 

or Minor 

Not 

Significant 

Significant 

or Minor 

Not 

Significant 

or Minor 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

15.1.24 It should be noted that on some roads a change in traffic flow of greater than 90% with a high 

sensitive receptor would result in a ‘Severe Significance of Effect’. However, the existing base 

line traffic flows could be very minor and an increase of only a few vehicles would produce a


fpcr 

large change in magnitude whereas in real terms the increase in traffic is still considered to be 

insignificant. Such an assessment requires appropriate judgements to be made. 

15.1.25 The Magnitude of Impact is quantified in terms of transportation as follows:- 

Severe – This level of impact would see a significant change in vehicle movements especially 

HGVs and the level of pedestrian provisions would be very limited, i.e., no footway provision 

or crossing facilities available. The impact to drivers would also be affected through increased 

delay and increased delay for pedestrians crossing the road. The location of the impact would 

also affect local communities and sensitive environments such as schools, churches etc. 

Major – A Major impact would see fewer vehicle movements and delay compared with the 

severe impact, although the percentage increase in HGV movements is still high. There would 

also be an impact on pedestrians as there would be limited footway provision and crossing 

facilities available. The impact on sensitive environments would be less. 

Minor – A Minor impact would see fewer movements of HGV and traffic flows would be lower 

in terms of percentage increase. There would also be suitable pedestrian facilities provided 

which includes wide footways and crossing facilities. 

Negligible – A Negligible impact would be when the overall impact of vehicle movements and 

HGV movements is very low and would not be perceptible to other local road users. There 

would be very minimal delay to drivers and pedestrians, and suitable pedestrian provision 

would be available in terms of wide footways possible segregated from the road and 

controlled crossing facilities. 


Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) (Jan 2011) 

15.2.1 The key objectives of PPG13 are to integrate planning and transport at national, strategic and 

local level. The objectives seek to promote more sustainable transport choices and reduce 

the need to travel especially by car. 

15.2.2 When PPG13 was published in March 2001, the then Planning Minister, Nick Raynsford said:- 

“PPG13 is about getting the right development in the right place and ensuring people have a 

choice in transport.” 

15.2.3 This Statement remains valid today and is wholly pertinent in the context of the selection of a 

site or sites within the East Midlands. The location of the development proposal to the West 

of Leicester does provide the right development in the right place, not only ensuring that 

people have a choice in transport, but also easy access to established local facilities. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 6


fpcr 

15.2.4 PPG13 identifies at paragraph 6 that when preparing development plans Local Authorities 

should:- 

“…accommodate housing principally within existing urban areas planning for increased 

intensity of development for both housing and other issues at locations which are highly 

accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.” 

15.2.5 Paragraph 14 states:- 

“Local Planning Authorities in assessing the suitability of sites for housing development 

should, amongst other things, consider their location and accessibility to jobs, shops and 

services by modes other than the car and the potential for improving such accessibility.” 

Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (PPS3) 

15.2.6 When considering PPS3, Paragraph 10 considers, “Planning for housing policy objectives”. 

This states:- 

“These housing policy objectives provide the context for planning for housing through 

development plans and planning discussions. The specific outcomes that the planning 

system should deliver are:- 

Housing developments in suitable locations which offer a good range of community facilities 

and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure.” 

15.2.7 In the context of achieving high quality housing, paragraph 18 states:- 

“To facilitate efficient delivery of high quality development, Local Planning Authorities should 

draw on relevant guidance and standards and promote the use of appropriate tools and 

techniques such as design coding alongside urban design guidelines, detailed masterplans, 

village design statements, site briefs and community participation techniques.” 

15.2.8 This quote references Manual for Streets as relevant guidance and standards. Whilst the 

quote refers to the original Manual for Streets, Manual for Streets 2 has recently been 

published which provides a comparison guide to the original document. In terms of walkable 

neighbourhoods, Manual for Streets (MfS) states at paragraph 4.4.1:- 

“Walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 

minutes’ (up to about 800m) walking distance of residential areas which residents may access 

comfortably on foot. However, this is not an upper limit and PPG13 states that walking offers 

the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly those under 2km. MfS encourages 

a reduction in the need to travel by car through the creation of mixed use neighbourhoods with 

interconnected street patterns, where daily needs are within walking distance of most 

residents.” 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 7


fpcr 

15.2.9 This reference to walking distances is an important consideration in the context of the 

development of the site, as too often authorities are fixed on a distance of 400m to bus stops 

and 800m to Town Centre. However, it must be recognised in the context of new 

developments that whilst these may be goals to set for walking distances to appropriate 

facilities, they are not the maximum distances people are prepared to walk. In practice it is 

more about the quality of the walking environment and facilities at the trip end than just the 

distance travelled. 

15.2.10 The Scott Wilson report refers to paragraph 2.3.3 of the DfT document, “Building Sustainable 

Transport into New Development”. This identifies that the internal layout of developments can 

be important in minimising car trips by:- 

“Using traditional compact town layouts. Walking neighbourhoods are typically characterised 

as having a range of facilities within 10mins walking distance (around 800m). However, the 

propensity to walk or cycle is not only influenced by distance but also the quality of the 

experience; people may be willing to walk or cycle further where their surroundings are more 

attractive, safe and stimulating”. 

15.2.11 Accordingly, it is considered that the 800m is not an upper ceiling on walk distances within a 

well designed neighbourhood. 

15.2.12 The Institute of Highways and Transportation: Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot 

(2000) highlights the significance of one mile in terms of walking journeys in urban areas 

(paragraph 3.3):- 

“Approximately 80% of walk journeys and walk stages in urban areas are less than one mile. 

The average length of a walk journey is one kilometre (0.6 miles). This differs little by age or 

sex and has remained constant since 1975/76. However, this varies according to location. 

Average walking distances are longest in Inner London. The main factors that influence both 

walking distances and walking time in a city or town centre appear to be the size of the city or 

town itself, the shape and the quality of the pedestrianised area, the type of shops and 

number of activities carried out.” 

15.2.13 At paragraph 36, PPS3 addresses the issue of providing housing in suitable locations:- 

“In support of its objective of creating mixed and sustainable communities, the Government’s 

policy is to ensure that housing is developed in suitable locations which offer a range of 

community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. This 

should be achieved by making effective use of land and existing infrastructure...” 

Accessibility Planning 

15.2.14 Accessibility Planning Guidance was published on 31 st January 2006 by the Department of 

Transport, and is an initiative which forms part of the policy commitment to improving social 

inclusion. It also links directly to the aims of PPS3 in seeking to ensure new housing has good 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 8


fpcr 

access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. It is, however, primarily focussed on delivering 

good accessibility to shops and services for all sections of society. The recently published 

Accessibility Planning Guidance makes clear the key objectives:- 

“Improving social inclusion lies at the heart of Government policies. The Government wants to 

improve access to opportunities, and enable individuals and communities to realise their 

potential. Achieving these aims means making sure everyone can get to work, schools, 

healthcare, food shops and other key services.” (Paragraph 1 – Summary.) 

15.2.15 Paragraph 2 of the Summary provides further details about what accessibility planning aims to 

achieve: 

“This guidance sets out how the accessibility problems faced by people from disadvantaged 

groups and areas can be identified and addressed through local transport plans (LTPs) and 

local authorities’ other functions, and through working with local partners. It builds on the 

Social Exclusion Unit report Making Connections, which demonstrated the importance of 

transport and accessibility to social inclusion, and sets out a cross-Government strategy for 

improving access to the services with the greatest impact on life opportunities – jobs, health 

care, learning and food shops.” 

Regional Transport Strategy 

15.2.16 For the purposes of this Chapter, the aspirations of the Regional Transport Strategy are 

identified as it is considered relevant to this development proposal until such time that an 

alternative local strategy is put in place. 

15.2.17 The Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) focuses on encouraging the developing of sustainable 

travel patterns through:- 

1. Reducing the need to travel, especially by car, and managing traffic growth and 

congestion; 

2. Significantly improving opportunities for walking and cycling; 

3. Improving the reliability, capacity, quality, accessibility and coverage of the public transport 

network; 

4. Making better use of existing transport networks through better management, and 

5. Only developing additional highway capacity when all other measures have been 

considered. 

15.2.18 When considering the Regional Transport Strategy, paragraph 4.2.27 and 4.2.28 states:- 

“4.2.27. The housing strategy for the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA is one which focusses 

on the existing Leicester Urban Area, initially by capitalising on its substantial urban capacity. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 9


fpcr 

However, this will be insufficient to meet all the proposed provision to 2026, and later in the 

plan period, this will need to be met by planned sustainable urban extensions”. 

“4.2.28. In considering the areas of search for these urban extensions, regard has been had to 

an assessment of constraints and opportunities around Leicester. The best opportunities to 

meet the bulk of the additional provision for the PUA lie west of Leicester in Blaby and north of 

Leicester in Charnwood”. 

15.2.19 Leicestershire County Council adopted their Local Transport Plan (LTP3) in the 1 April 2011. 

The key policy objectives are identified below:- 

“We will work through the planning system to seek to minimise the potential transportation 

impacts of population growth on the efficient and reliable operation of our transport system. 

Our approach to doing this will include:- 

a) Seeking to ensure that district council proposals for new development set out in their 

Development Plan documents, and proposals put forward by others, are underpinned by 

credible and robust transportation evidence. 

b) Maximising the use of our existing transport system by seeking to deliver new development 

in areas that are already able to be well served by walking, cycling and public transport. 

c) Inputting into the masterplanning of the new development, especially the Sustainable 

Urban Extensions around the edges of Leicester and the county towns, to ensure that they 

are designed from the outset to provide high quality, safe facilities to encourage walking 

and cycling and 9as appropriate) public transport access/use. 

Note that through the planning system, we will seek to resist proposals that do not achieve 

these things. 

d) Monitoring the effectiveness of measures that are implemented to support new 

development, in particular the Sustainable Urban Extensions, and use the information 

generated to inform decisions about our future approach. 

e) Helping to secure and co-ordinate the funding and provision of the significant 

transportation infrastructure (likely to include some new road building), required to provide 

access to and support the Sustainable Urban Extensions around the edges of Leicester 

and the county towns. 

In seeking to minimise the impacts of development proposals put forward by others, it is 

important that we seek to reduce the potential levels of travel generated by population growth, 

not only in the interests of maintaining a transport system that is capable of effectively meeting 

the economic needs of the sub-region, but also in seeking to reduce the cost of new transport 

infrastructure that is required to support the growth agenda. We recognise, however, that this 

may still entail new road building schemes, for example the proposed route around Melton 

Mowbray, which would open up land for housing development. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 10


DELIVERING OUR LTP3 APPROACH 

fpcr 

The sections that follow provide more details of what we will be doing to deliver the key 

elements of our long-term strategy to encourage more active and sustainable travel. Whilst 

we recognise the vital importance of our efforts to reduce CO2 output from our transport 

system and support healthier lifestyles, we cannot concentrate on all aspects of our approach 

at once and afford them all the same priority within our available resources. Our first 

Implementation Plan identifies the things that we will be doing in the first three years of LTP3 

to deliver our long-term strategy and explains how we will monitor and review progress to 

ensure that our approach remains relevant and robust. Chapter 11 of this strategy provides 

the context for our first Implementation Plan, and thus the context in which we have made 

decisions regarding which aspects of our approach to encouraging more active and 

sustainable travel we take forward in the first three years of LTP3. 

We will work through the planning system to seek to reduce the need to travel. 

We will do this by:- 

a) Seeking to promote and support land-use planning policies that are developed by others 

that aim to reduce the need for existing residents to travel outside their local area. For 

example, the provision of supported office accommodation that would enable someone to 

work more locally on occasions rather than travel to work outside their local area. 

b) Maximising the use of our existing transport system by seeking to deliver new 

developments in areas that are already able to be well served by walking, cycling and 

public transport. 

c) Seeking to ensure that new development proposals put forward by others are either 

supported by an appropriate range of facilities that reduce the need to travel off-site or, 

when necessary to travel off-site, travel distances are minimised and genuine, safe, high 

quality choices are available (or can be provided) for people to walk, cycle and use public 

transport to access facilities and service nearby. 

d) Inputting into the masterplanning of new developments to ensure that they are designed 

from the outset to provide high quality, safe facilities to encourage walking, cycling and 

public transport access and use. We will focus particularly on the Sustainable Urban 

Extensions that are planned for the edges of Leicester and some of our county towns. 

e) Seeking to ensure that new development proposals put forward by others are supported, 

as appropriate, by travel plans. Such travel plans should seek to reduce travel by car and 

be backed up by a target-driven monitoring and reporting programme that will allow the 

effectiveness of the travel plan in changing travel behaviour to be assessed. It is suggested 

that such travel plans should also contain the requirement for penalty charges to be 

introduced where targets are not met. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 11


fpcr 

f) Using wider planning policies to promote and help enable travel by walking, cycling and 

public transport. Ensuring land use and transport planning are properly integrated 

throughout the planning process is vital to reducing the need to travel and to encouraging 

travel by public transport, bike or on foot. This is particularly important given the level of 

growth planned for Leicester and Leicestershire. 

It should be noted the through the planning system, we will, as appropriate, seek to resist 

proposals that would likely result in adverse impacts on our efforts to encourage modal shift 

away from the private motor car.” 

LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL LTP3 

15.2.20 Leicester City Counci’s LTP3 includes the transport objectives which are the focus to the City 

Council’s transport strategies. These are:- 

· Reduce congestion and improve journey times; 

· Improve connectivity and access; 

· Improve safety, security and health; 

· Improve air quality and reduce noise; 

· Reduce carbon emissions; 

· Manage to better maintain transport assets; and 

· Improve quality of life. 

15.2.21 The development proposal will provide opportunities to use modes other than the private car 

or by providing a regular and frequent bus service between the site and the city centre, as well 

as providing links with the surrounding employment areas. In addition, cycle routes will be 

provided within the site, linking with the existing cycle route infrastructure. 

15.2.22 It is clear that by providing the right location and appropriate infrastructure, the objective of the 

RTS can be achieved and that the land West of Leicester in Blaby is such a location. In this 

regard, studies have been undertaken by Leicestershire County Council to support the RTS 

with a technical report produced in April 2007. Whilst work identified specific issues which 

would need to be addressed the overall conclusion states: 

“Given the above, there is no material cause to revise the conclusions reached in the previous 

work that a sustainable urban extension to the north of Leicester and one to the west could be 

accommodated in transport terms.” 

15.2.23 The aims and objectives of the City and County’s LTP’s are key to the selection of the PUA 

site. The Supplementary Transport Assessment seeks to ensure that the development 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 12


fpcr 

addresses these issues in the context of the impact on the transport network, and also in the 

context of improving the current conditions. 

15.2.24 The City and County’s LTP’s includes measures to enhance bus and cycle travel. Currently, 

park and ride bus facilities exist on the A47, the Quicksilver Shuttle, together with the Enderby 

and Birstall Park and Ride sites. The Enderby site makes use of the A47 bus priority corridor 

into the city routing buses along the Ring Road up to the A47. There are a number of existing 

cycle routes to the west of Leicester with measures proposed to extend these further. 

15.2.25 Clearly, it is particularly important given the growth in employment together with the retail 

areas at Fosse Park and around junction 21, to improve transport links within this area for non 

car modes and also ensure good links exist between this area and the City Centre. 

Blaby Local Development Framework 

15.2.26 As has been identified as part of the LDF process, an assessment of the transport implications 

of the various potential sustainable urban extensions was undertaken by Scott Wilson on 

behalf of Blaby District Council. This report was published in July 2009 and reference to this 

is made within the Transport Assessment. 


policy position in relation to traffic and transport. 

Leicestershire Design Guide 

15.2.28 The design of the site and internal road layout will be in accordance with the 6C’s Design 

Guide. This provides guidance on matters of highway and transportation infrastructure. The 

revised edition published in November 2011 aims to include the principles contained in 

Manual for Streets (MfS). 

Manual for Streets 

15.2.29 Manual for Streets published in 2007 gives guidance on the design of residential streets. This 

recognises that most highways in built up areas can be considered as streets and that streets 

with direct access can accommodate volumes of traffic in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day, 

and far in excess of that likely on the main routes within the proposed development site. 

Manual for Streets 2 

15.2.30 Manual for Streets 2 was published in September 2010 and applies the principles developed 

in Manual for Streets more widely. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 13



Study Area 

fpcr 

15.3.1 The IEMA Guidance described under the Methodology section identifies that traffic flow 

increases of 30% represent a reasonable threshold for inclusion of highway links within the 

assessment process, although a lower threshold may be appropriate where there are higher 

HGV flows. It also suggests that other specifically sensitive areas should be included where 

traffic flows have increased by 10% or more. Such sensitive areas may include accident 

cluster sites or links with high pedestrian flows. 

15.3.2 For the purpose of this assessment, the consideration of the effects of the development are 

undertaken on the following links and junctions, and the effects of the changes in traffic 

composition and volume are assessed in relation to the significance criteria. The extent of 

network to be assessed has been agreed with the Local Highway Authorities and includes the 

following links and junctions: 

Link Ref :- 

1) Beggar’s Lane just south of the junction with the A47; 

2) The A47 to the west of the Beggar’s Lane junction; 

3) The A47 to the east of the Beggar’s Lane junction; 

4) Desford Road to the south of the A47 junction; 

5) Beggar’s Lane on approach to the Mill Hill / Desford Road junction; 

6) Mill Hill to the south of the Beggar’s Lane junction (As this route crosses the M69); 

7) The A47 to the west of the Braunstone Lane junction; 

8) The A47 to the east of the Braunstone Lane junction; 

9) The A563 Lubbesthorpe Way north of the Meridian Way junction; 

10) The A563 Lubbesthorpe Way south of th Meridian Way junction; 

11) Meridian Way to the west of the junction with Lubbesthorpe Way; 

12) The extended Meridian Way crossing the M1 (the main site access just before the 

entry into the site); 

13) Leicester Lane to the east of the new site access; 

14) Leicester Lane to the west of the new site access; 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 14


15) The new site access link from Leicester Lane; and 

16) The A5460 link to the east of the M1 / M69 junction at Junction 21. 

Junctions:- 

1) A47 / Desford Road; 

2) A47 / Beggar’s Lane; 

3) A47/Kirby Lane; 

4) A47 Baines Lane; 

5) A47 / Braunstone Lane / Ratby Lane; 

6) Meridian Way / A563 / Withers Way; 

7) Meridian Way/ A563 / Retail Park; 

8) Meridian Way / Foxon Way; 

9) B4114 / Leicester Lane; 

10) Leicester Lane / Proposed Site Access; 

11) Leicester Lane / Blaby Road (B582); 

12) Beggar’s Lane / Desford Road; 

13) A47/A563; 

14) B582/B4114 Foxhunter Roundabout; and 

15) Meridian South/A563. 

fpcr 

15.3.3 A plan identifying the above links and junctions is referenced in accordance with Figures 

15.1A and 15.2A. 

15.3.4 Baseline conditions comprise both the existing situation and the future baseline at the opening 

year. 

15.3.5 For assessment purposes the following timescale applies:- 

· Base year 2011 

· Future year 2026 / 2031 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 15


Existing Highway Network 

15.3.6 The links and junctions surrounding the site are described in more detail below:- 

Strategic Highway Network 

M1 

fpcr 

15.3.7 The M1 forms the eastern boundary of the site and runs to the west of Leicester. The M1 is a 

north to south arterial route stretching 193 miles from London to Leeds at the north of 

England. The M1 provides links to major centres including Luton, Leicester, Derby, 

Nottingham and Sheffield. It also provides access to southwest Leicester via Junction 21 and 

northwest of Leicester via Junction 21A. 

15.3.8 To the southwest of the site the M1 connects to the M69 and A5460 via Junction 21, a large 

roundabout. The strategic network suffers congestion with queuing at peak time on the 

motorway as a consequence of traffic exiting at Junction 21 and also traffic moving between 

the M1 and M69. The primary congestion at Junction 21 relates to traffic in the AM peak 

exiting the M1 to access Leicester, and in the PM peak traffic exiting Leicester to access the 

M1. 

M1 Proposed Improvements – Now on Hold 

15.3.9 In relation to the strategic network, measures were proposed for the M1 between Junction 21 

and 30, including widening over parts of this section. Specifically to the north of Junction 21 

consideration is being given to the introduction of active traffic management (ATM) which 

would operate at peak times and improve the flow and the operational performance of the 

motorway at these times. However, to achieve such ATM measures it would be necessary to 

achieve a full hard shoulder over this section of the M1. This is currently restricted by the 

Leicester Forest East Motorway Services and also the farm accommodation bridge serving 

the land to the west of the motorway services. These works are currently on hold to be 

reconsidered post 2015. 

M69 

15.3.10 The M69 runs between Leicester and Coventry and between the M1 and M6 on the northeast 

to southwest alignment. The eastern end of the M69 terminates at its junction with the M1, 

access onto the M1 north is via a free flow slip road. Access to the M1 south and A5460 is 

taken via the M1 Junction 21 roundabout. The M69 is south of the Sustainable Urban 

Extension and north of the Strategic Employment Site. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 16


M69 Improvements 

fpcr 

15.3.11 In addition to the ATM scheme proposed on the M1, consideration has been given to the 

provision of free flowing slip roads between the M69 and M1. To achieve such slip roads, the 

Leicester Forest Services would be closed and would need relocating to maintain core MSA 

facilities on this part of the strategic road network. 

15.3.12 The timing of the delivery of the M1 upgrading including the ATM and also the M1/ M69 roads 

has been considered post 2015. 

Local Highway Network 


15.3.13 Beggar’s Lane forms the western boundary of the site and runs between the A47 Hinckley 

Road to the north and the B582 Desford Road to the south. Beggar’s Lane is single 

carriageway and predominantly rural in character although in part is fronted by residential 

development associated with Leicester Forest East to the north and Enderby to the south. 

15.3.14 The northern end of Beggar’s Lane forms a signalised junction with the A47 Hinckley Road. 

The Beggar’s Lane arm of the junction has a 30mph speed limit, provided with street lighting 

and subject to a 7.5 tonne weight limit. No footways are provided in the immediate vicinity of 

the signalised junction on Beggar’s Lane. A wide footway is provided on the eastern side of 

Beggar’s Lane to the south of the junction with Mallards Close and is associated with the 

residential properties that front the southbound carriageway. This footway continues in a 

southerly direction on the eastern side of Beggar’s Lane until a point 100 metres to the south 

of the junction with Forest House Lane. 

15.3.15 Beggar’s Lane takes on a rural character to the south of the Leicester Forest East Residential 

area and reverts to national speed limit with no street lighting or footpath provision. Beggar’s 

Lane forms a priority junction with Lubbesthorpe Bridle Road which is a single carriageway 

road with passing places and runs on a south-east to north-west alignment linking with the 

A5460 to the east. 

15.3.16 Further to the south, Beggar’s Lane is bound by agricultural fields until it reaches the northern 

boundary of Enderby and forms a signalised cross road with Desford Road. The Beggar’s 

Lane northern arm of the junction is provided with a left turn lane and combined ahead and 

right turn lane. No pedestrian crossing facilities are provided at this junction. The western arm 

of the junction serves a business area including the Next Headquarters site and is provided 

with footways on both sides with street lighting and is subject to a 30 mph speed limit. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 17


A47 Hinckley Road to the West of Beggar’s Lane 

fpcr 

15.3.17 The A47 runs between Great Yarmouth, Norwich, Kings Lynn, Peterborough, Leicester and 

Hinckley to west of Leicester. 

15.3.18 Travelling in the westbound direction from the signalised junction with Beggar’s Lane, the A47 

is subject to a 30mph speed limit with street lighting and a footway on the northern side. In 

addition, an on-road cycleway is provided on the eastbound carriageway. The A47 reverts to 

national speed limit at the western edge of Leicester Forest East and the northern footway 

provision also stops at the residential boundary. Approximately a mile west of the junction with 

Beggar’s Lane the A47 forms a staggered signalised junction with the B582 Desford Road and 

Leicester Lane. The Leicester Lane arm of the junction is subject to a 40mph speed limit and 

is provided with a combined ahead and right turn and left turn lane. There are no pedestrian 

crossing facilities provided at the junction. 

A47 Hinckley Road to the east of Beggar’s Lane 

15.3.19 The A47 Hinckley Road to the east of Beggar’s Lane runs on a west to east alignment through 

the middle of Leicester City Centre. It also provides links to the A563 Leicester Ring Road. 

15.3.20 To the east of Beggar’s Lane, the A47 Hinckley Road is subject to a 40mph speed limit with 

residential development and associated footways on both sides of the carriageway. The A47 

is also provided with central hatching and regular traffic islands that accommodate 

uncontrolled pedestrian crossing facilities. Cycle lanes are provided on both sides of the 

carriageway for approximately 50 metres to the east of the junction with Beggar’s Lane and 

start again to the east between Warren Lane and Ellis Drive where they then terminate. 

15.3.21 The A47 Hinckley Road forms a signalised Y junction arrangement with Kirby Lane to the west 

of the M1 which links to Kirby Muxloe. An uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is located on the 

Kirby Lane arm of the junction and on the A47 Hinckley Road western arm. The eastern A47 

arm of the junction is not provided with any pedestrian facilities. A stand alone signalised 

pedestrian crossing is provided to the east of the junction adjacent to a convenience food 

store. 

15.3.22 The A47 crosses the M1 via a bridge and cycle lanes are located on both sides of the 

carriageway. Approximately 500 metres to the east of the M1, the A47 forms a signalised 

cross road with Braunstone Lane and B5380 Ratby Lane. Ratby Lane provides access to the 

M1 via Junction 21A. In addition Ratby Lane accesses the A46 which runs to the north of 

Leicester. Braunstone Lane, the southern arm is provided with a staggered signalised 

pedestrian crossing. The eastern Hinckley Road arm of the junction is also provided with a 

controlled signalised pedestrian crossing, no other crossing facilities are provided at this 

junction. 

15.3.23 Ratby Lane also provides access to the Meynells Gorse Park and Ride Site approximately 

200 metres north of the A47 junction. Approximately 1 mile to the east of the M1, the A47 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 18


fpcr 

forms a signalised roundabout junction with the A563 new Parks Way (Leicester Ring Road). 

Bus lanes are provided on the A47 to the west of the signalised roundabout and continue on a 

sporadic basis into the City Centre. 

A563 Lubbesthorpe Way 

15.3.24 The A563 is effectively Leicester’s Outer Ring Road and as such is primarily for the movement 

of traffic and links with a number of other roads, including M1 / M69, A47, A5460, A426, 

A5199, A6 and A6030. As such, no footway or pedestrian facilities are provided to the south of 

the signalised junction with the A47. To the south of the A47 the A563 is single carriageway 

south of Braunstone Lane Bridge. The A563 provides on and off slips to access Meridian Way 

and associated retail employment and residential areas. 

Meridian Way 

15.3.25 Meridian Way runs to the west of the A563 and provides access to Thorpe Astley and the 

Meridian Business Park. 

15.3.26 Meridian Way forms roundabout junctions either side of the A563 which connect to the on and 

off slip roads. The eastern most roundabout provides access to the Meridian Leisure Park via 

the eastern arm and the southbound carriageway of the A563. The roundabout located to the 

west of the A563 provides access to the northbound carriageway of the A563 via the northern 

Withers Way arm. A bridge links the two roundabouts and crosses the A563. Footways are 

provided on both sides of the bridge and around both roundabouts. Uncontrolled pedestrian 

facilities are provided on all arms of the two roundabouts. 

15.3.27 To the west of the A563, Meridian Way is a dual carriageway until the roundabout junction 

with Foxon Way and Meridian Way East where it reverts to single carriageway. Combined 

cycleway footways are provided on both sides of Meridian Way for the dual carriageway 

section. 

A5460 

15.3.28 The A5460 runs between Junction 21 of the M1/ M69 to the A47 west of Leicester. Four lanes 

are provided in both directions between the M1 and the junction with the A563 Lubbesthorpe 

Way. To the east of the junction with the A563 the A5460 reduces to three lanes in both 

directions and forms a large signalised junction with Fosse Park Avenue and the B4114. The 

A5460 then continues in a north-easterly direction linking to the A47 to the west of Leicester 

City Centre. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 19


B582 Desford Road 

fpcr 

15.3.29 The B582 Desford Road runs between the A47 to the north and the M69 to the south on a 

north-west to south-east alignment. The majority of Desford Road is subject to national speed 

limit and rural in character with no street lights. Desford Road is subject to a 40 mph speed 

limit at the southern end at the beginning of residential development located on the northern 

side of the carriageway. 

15.3.30 The B582 forms a signalised junction with Beggar’s Lane at its southern end. A footway is 

provided on the eastern side of Desford Road, beginning approximately 100 metres to the 

north of the Beggar’s Lane junction. To the south of the junction footways are provided on 

both sides. 

B582 Mill Hill 

15.3.31 The B582 runs between the bridge over the M69 and the junction to the south with Leicester 

Lane and is subject to a 30mph speed limit with development on both sides of the road. 

15.3.32 Mill Hill forms a signalised cross road junction with Leicester Lane/High Street and Blaby 

Road. The Mill Hill arm of the junction provides a single lane approach and accommodates a 

signalised pedestrian crossing. The Leicester Lane arm of the junction provides a single lane 

approach to the junction and does not provide any pedestrian crossing facilities. Blaby Road 

arm of the junction accommodates a combined ahead and left turn lane and a right turn lane. 

The High Street arm of the junction is one way in a west bound direction and provides an 

uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. 

15.3.33 The junction of the B582 and B4114 is known locally as the Foxhunter junction and is a 

partially signalised roundabout junction with the B582 north leg remaining unsignalised, 

together with a remote pedestrian crossing facility. Again this is a congested junction in the 

peak hours. 

Leicester Lane 

15.3.34 Leicester Lane runs between the signalised cross roads of High Street and Blaby Road to the 

west and the B4114 Narborough Road to east. A footway is provided on the northern side with 

street lights and is derestricted. As Leicester Lane passes under the M1, it reverts to a 50 mph 

speed limit and to the east forms a signalised junction with Smith Way. Staggered signalised 

crossings are provided on the Smith Way arm and on the eastern Leicester Lane arm. 

B4114 

15.3.35 To the north of the Foxhunter Roundabout the B4114 links to the Fosse Park junctions and 

the A563. However, prior to the A563 junction, is the signalised junction of Narborough 

Road/St John’s, with Leicester Lane. Currently this junction restricts traffic from Leicester 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 20


fpcr 

Lane turning right to the B4114 and necessitates all movements to turn left to the Fosse Park 

junction. This junction also provides access to the police headquarters. 

Traffic Flows 

15.3.36 To establish the existing traffic movements in the vicinity of the site, traffic surveys have been 

undertaken at the following junctions:- 

July 2008 

· Beggar’s Lane / A47 Hinckley Road – priority junction; 

· Leicester Lane / Blaby Road / High Street / Mill Hill – signalised crossroads; 

· Braunstone Lane / Hinckley Road / Ratby Lane – signalised crossroads; 

· Meridian Way / Lubbesthorpe Way / Leisure Park – roundabouts; 

· Meridian Way / Foxton Way / Meridian East – roundabout junction; and 

· Leicester Lane / Marlborough Road B4114 / Police Headquarters – signalised junction. 

15.3.37 The above traffic surveys were undertaken on behalf of Waterman Boreham by Traffic 

Surveys UK Ltd in July 2008. 

May 2010 

· Leicester Lane / Hinckley Road / Desford Road – priority junction; and 

· New Parks Way / Hinckley Road / Braunstone Way – signalised junction. 

15.3.38 The above traffic surveys were undertaken on behalf of WB by Community Systems Ltd 

(CSC). 

15.3.39 In addition to the manual turning counts, 4 automated traffic counts (ATC) including vehicle 

speeds have been undertaken on the following links:- 

· Beggar’s Lane (2008) 

· Hinckley Road (2010) 

· Leicester Lane (2010) 

· Meridian Way (2010) 

15.3.40 All manual turning counts were undertaken between the following hours:- 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 21


· Weekday 0700 – 1000 

· Weekday 1600 – 1900 

15.3.41 Resultant highway peaks are as follows:- 

· 0800 – 0900 

· 1700 – 1800 

Full details of the surveyed flow are contained within the Transport Assessment (2011). 

fpcr 

15.3.42 As a consequence of the LLITM modelling detailed link and junction flows for 2026 have been 

obtained from the model and form the basis of the further assessment in the Supplementary 

Transport Assessment. These have been compared at 2010/2011 with the original data 

collected and it is considered that there is reasonable correlation between LLITM and the 

surveyed base data. 

15.3.43 To ensure the full effect of the development is established the base year assessment for 2026 

is redefined to remove the Lubbesthorpe proposals from the model and a core model created 

for 2026 and 2031. In essence therefore the predicted growth for Blaby is therefore reduced 

to a lower level removing the 4,250 dwelling associated with Lubbesthorpe, together with retail 

and employment providing the core network which can then be compared with the effect of the 

proposed development. 

15.3.44 It must however, be recognised that this core network is only developed as a comparative and 

does not reflect the situation should the Lubbesthorpe development not proceed. In practice if 

the Lubbesthorpe site were not to be developed, other allocations would be required within 

Blaby which will increase traffic volumes on the network although not necessarily within the 

vicinity of the site. 

15.3.45 For the purpose of comparison of the base data, the 2011 base data taken from the core 

network is compared with the 2 way flows included in the TA (2011) at table 8.1 which was 

2010 base data. This comparison which is included in the Supplementary Transport 

Assessment shows the LLITM figures correlate well with the 2010 data. 

15.3.46 Despite the core network not including the Lubbesthorpe development levels within the Blaby 

growth figures, there will still be growth within the Blaby area reflecting other developments 

within Blaby together with the effect of growth outside of Blaby but effecting the Blaby road 

network. In this regard the Supplementary Transport Assessment compares the 2008 base 

network with the 2026 core network on the key routes around the site for AM and PM peaks. 

This shows the residual growth rate within the model reflecting the core network is indicating 

growth on the road network around the Lubbesthorpe site in the region of 16.5% which is in 

excess of the total expected growth for Blaby as a whole but less than the Tempro growth for 

Leicester. However, it must be recognised that this is the residual growth for the general area, 

not including Lubbesthorpe. Accordingly it would appear that the background growth within 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 22


fpcr 

Blaby is higher within the model than would be expected especially when the Lubbesthorpe 

development represents over half of the anticipated development growth for Blaby. 

15.3.47 However, by adopting this level of growth on the core network the assessment will clearly take 

account of the other commitments which have or will come forward over this period within 

Blaby such that no specific inclusion of these sites is required in the detailed assessment dealt 

with later in this report. The exception to this as agreed with LCC is the Glenfield development 

which has now been granted consent. Whilst this is considered to be included in the growth 

applied to the model over this period between 2008 and 2026, it is recognised that this 

specific distribution of traffic for that site should be considered at the Braunstone cross roads 

and on the routes around Kirby Muxloe, even though this will no doubt result in a duplication 

of some of the effect of traffic growth. 

15.3.48 The other sites which have been raised through the consultation process are identified on the 

plan attached at appendix 13 of the Supplementary Transport Assessment. As has been 

identified, given the robust level of background growth within the LLITM model, it is 

considered that the effects of these developments are taken into account. In the context of 

the Sainsbury development, the TA for that development has focused on the internal 

roundabout, and whilst undertaking a robust assessment of that internal junction recognises 

that on the broader network the majority of the traffic will already be on the network and will 

not be new traffic. Accordingly, it is considered that the growth applied to the base network is 

robust and ensures that the effect of committed development and other more recent planning 

consents are taken account of within the modelling work. 

15.3.49 Based on the revised base data the junctions that have been assessed are identified at 

Appendix 15A, Figure 15.2. 

15.3.50 Full details of the traffic flows are provided as part of the Supplementary Transport 

Assessment and include the 18hr and 24 hr data for flows from the LLITM model. 

Accident Analysis 

15.3.51 Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data has been obtained from Leicestershire County Council 

(LCC) over a five year period from July 2005 to July 2010. Data was obtained for the local 

highway network surrounding the site including Beggar’s Lane, between its junction with 

Hinckley Road and Mill Hill, Hinckley Road (A47) between the junction with Beggar’s Lane 

and where it crosses the M1, Leicester Lane between its junction with Mill Hill and St. John’s 

and Meridian Way, west of its junction with Lubbesthorpe Way (A563). The location of the 

PIC’s that have occurred are identified at Appendix 15A, Figures 15.3.1, 2 and 3. 

15.3.52 A detailed analysis of the PIC’s is provided in the Transport Assessment and a summary of 

the collisions on a link by link basis is provided below:- 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 23


A47 Hinckley Road 

fpcr 

15.3.53 During the five year period 20 accidents were recorded on Hinckley Road. 19 PIC’s resulted in 

slight and 1 serious injuries. 3 of the collisions involved pedestrians, all recorded as slight. 


15.3.54 No PIC’s were recorded between 2005 and 2006. In total, 6 collisions have been recorded 

during the past three years, four of the collisions resulted in slight, 1 serious and 1 fatal 

injuries. 


15.3.55 13 collisions were recorded on Beggar’s Lane. All 13 were classified as slight with 1 

pedestrian collision recorded 

Meridian Way 

15.3.56 In total, 3 accidents were recorded during the five year period 2 accidents were classified as 

slight and the remaining collision serious. 

Existing Public Footpaths and Cycle Routes 

15.3.57 A number of public footpaths currently run across the proposed development site and are 

described below. 

15.3.58 A public footpath runs along the northern boundary of the site on an east/west alignment. The 

footpath crosses beneath the M1 to the south of the Leicester Forest East services and 

continues in a westerly direction until it follows the southern boundary of Leicester Forest 

East. The footpath crosses Beggar’s Lane and continues in a south westerly direction until it 

joins Desford Road. The northern public right of way also provides access to Leicester Forest 

East Services and the bridge that crosses the M1 and leads to Baines Lane and the A47 

Hinckley Road. 

15.3.59 To the west of the site, a short length of public footpath runs to the south west of Beggar’s 

Lane, past Enderby Lodge Farm, and links to the northern end of Desford Road. 

15.3.60 Another public footpath also runs on an east to west alignment to the south of the northern 

footpath. The footpath begins at Meridian Way to the east of the M1 and crosses the 

motorway via a footbridge. The footpath then leads to the access road that serves Old Warren 

Farm and joins Lubbesthorpe Bridle Road. 

15.3.61 A public footpath begins to the north of the Leicester Forest East Services to the west of the 

M1, crosses Lubbesthorpe Bridle Road and continues in a southerly direction where it 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 24


fpcr 

connects to Mill Lane just to the west of the M69. Another footpath runs on a south to north 

alignment from the previous footpath from New House Farm to the southern boundary of 

Leicester Forest East linking to Forest House Lane. 

15.3.62 A bridleway runs between Lubbesthorpe Bridle Road and Leicester Lane just to the west of 

the M1 on a north to south alignment and crosses the M69 via a footbridge. A public footpath 

leads from the bridleway in a westerly direction and connects with Harold’s Lane and joins the 

B582 Mill Hill which runs through Enderby. 

15.3.63 A plan detailing the existing public rights of way surrounding the site are shown on Figure 

15.4A. 

Cycle Routes 

15.3.64 The A47 Hinckley Road runs to the north of the site on an east to west alignment. The A47 

Hinckley Road accommodates sporadic on-road cycle lanes between the junction with 

Beggar’s Lane and Leicester City Centre. A short length of on-road cycle lane is provided on 

both sides of the A47 for approximately 100 metres to the east of the junction with Beggar’s 

Lane. In addition, cycle lanes are provided on both sides of the carriageway between the 

junctions with Warren Lane and Ellis Drive. Cycle lanes then continue in an easterly direction 

from the point where the A47 crosses the M1. 

15.3.65 The bridleway that runs between Lubbesthorpe Bridle Road and Leicester Lane to the south 

of the site connects to an existing combined footway/cycleway on the northern side of 

Leicester Lane. The combined footway/cycleway runs from the M1 in an easterly direction 

until the junction with the B4114 Narborough Road South. Narborough Road provides traffic 

free cycle facilities in both a northerly and southerly direction. Narborough Road also provides 

cycle links to Fosse Park retail development. 

15.3.66 Traffic free cycle routes run alongside the A563 Lubbesthorpe Way (Leicester Ring Road) and 

provide links to the wider Leicester cycle network. Meridian Way runs to the west of the A563 

and provides access to Braunstone and associated residential and retail development. 

Combined footway/cycleway are provided on both sides of Meridian Way for the dual 

carriageway section. 

15.3.67 A plan detailing the existing cycle routes surrounding the site are shown on Figure 15.5. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 25


Baseline Road Network 

Table 15c: Baseline Road Network Traffic Flows (2010) 

ID See Fig 

15.1 

Link 

Link Speed 

1 Beggar’s Lane just south of 

the junction with the A47 

2 The A47 to the west of the 

Beggar’s Lane junction 

3 The A47 to the east of the 


4 Desford Road to the south 

of the A47 junction 

5 Beggar’s Lane on 

approach to the Mill Hill / 

Desford Road junction 

6 Mill Hill to the south of the 



Braunstone Lane junction 



9 The A563 Lubbesthorpe 

Way north of the Meridian 

Way junction 


Way south of the Meridian 

Way junction 

11 Meridian Way to the west 

of the junction with 

Lubbesthorpe Way 

12 The extended Meridian 

Way crossing the M1. 

(The main access just 

before the entry into the 

site) 

13 Leicester Lane to the east 

of the new site access 

14 Leicester Lane to the west 


15 The new site access link 

from Leicester Lane 

fpcr 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 26 

Limit 

(mph) 

30 

40 

40 

60 

40 

30 

30 

40 

50 

50 

30 

30 

50 

50 

AM / PM 

2-Way 

All 

Vehicle 

Flow 

624 

685 

1,043 

1,266 

1,442 

1,684 

1,092 

1,128 

649 

722 

1,511 

1,507 

1,896 

1,989 

1,604 

1,575 

2,605 

2,778 

2863 

2733 

934 

1120 

- 

996 

649 

1214 

1123 

18 hour 

2-Way 

All 

Vehicle 

Flow 

4,461 

24 hour 

2-Way 

All 

Vehicle 

Flow 

18 

hour 

HGV 

% 

24 

hour 

HGV 

% 

4,756 0 0 

18,210 18,574 3 5 

24,674 25,168 2 5 

11,761 11,996 2 2 

9,318 9504 0 0 

21,710 22,145 1 1 

16,386 16,976 1 1 

18,533 19,139 1 1 

32,540 33,583 10 10 

33,516 34,590 10 10 

10,410 10,890 3 3 

- - - - 

14,866 15,164 1 1 

17,784 18,139 2 2 

30 - - - - -


ID See Fig 

15.1 

Link 

Link Speed 

16 The A5460 link to the east 


Potential Effects 

of the M1 / M69 junction at 

junction 21 

fpcr 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 27 

Limit 

(mph) 

AM / PM 

2-Way 

All 

Vehicle 

Flow 

18 hour 

2-Way 

All 

Vehicle 

Flow 

24 hour 

2-Way 

All 

Vehicle 

Flow 

18 

hour 

HGV 

% 

24 

hour 

HGV 

30 - - 72,826 - 6 

15.4.1 The assessment now considers the potential effects of the development once completed and 

operational 

15.4.2 Based upon the methodology and baseline conditions described previously in sections 15.1 

and 15.3, the considered sensitivity of the assessed highway links is given in Table 15d 

below. The groups assessed under this category are based on those identified in the IEMA 

Guidance under ‘Affected parties’ and include the following:- 

1) People at home; 

2) People in work places; 

3) Sensitive groups including children, elderly and disabled; 

4) Sensitive locations, e.g. hospitals, churches, schools, historical buildings; 

5) People walking; 

6) People cycling; 

7) Open spaces, recreational sites, shopping areas; 

8) Sites of ecological / nature conservations value; and 

9) Sites of tourist / visitor attraction. 

Table 15d: Sensitivity of the Assessed Highway Links 

Link ID 

Ref 

Highway Link Sensitive to 

1 Beggar’s Lane just south 

of the junction with the A47 

Hinckley Road 

Change 

Reason 

Yes Beggar’s Lane forms the western boundary of 

the site and runs between the A47 Hinckley 

Road to the north and the B582 Desford Road to 

%


Link ID 

Ref 






4 Desford Road to the south 

of the A47 junction 

5 Beggar’s Lane on 

approach to the Mill Hll / 


6 Mill Hill to the south of the 

Beggar’s Lane junction (at 

the point it crosses the 

M69) 







Way junction 

Change 

Reason 

fpcr 

the south. Beggar’s Lane is single carriageway 

and predominantly rural in character although in 

part is fronted by residential development 

associated with Leicester Forest East on the 

east side. The western side of Beggar’s Lane is 

fronted by agricultural land in the main with new 

residential development consented on the 

northern section close to the A47 junction. On 

this basis, east to west pedestrian movements 

across Beggar’s Lane would be limited. A wide 

footway is provided on the eastern side to 

accommodate the pedestrian movements 

associated with the residential development. 

Yes Some pedestrian activity; and is within a 

residential area 

Yes The A47 is fronted by residential properties on 

both sides of the carriageway with footways 

provided on both sides and sporadic provision of 

on-road cycle lanes. The A47 is also located in 

close proximity to schools and retail facilities, 

there is likely to be some pedestrian and cycle 

activity. 

No Very low pedestrian activity. No footways 

provided or access to residential properties. 

No Very low pedestrian activity. No footways 

provided or access to residential properties. 

Yes Some pedestrian activity, and is within a 

residential area. 

Yes The A47 is fronted by residential properties on 

both sides of the carriageway with footways 

provided on both sides and sporadic provision of 

on-road cycle lanes. The A47 is also located in 

close proximity to schools and retail facilities, 

there is likely to be some pedestrian and cycle 

activity. 

Yes Very low pedestrian activity limited frontage 

development. 

No Very low pedestrian activity no footways 

provided and no frontage development. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 28


Link ID 

Ref 



Way south of the Meridian 

Way junction. 

11 Meridian Way to the west 

of the junction with 


12 The extended Meridian 

Way crossing the M1. 

(The main site access just 

before the entry into the 

site). 

13 Leicester Lane to the east 


14 Leicester Lane to the west 


15 The new site access link 

from Leicester Lane 

16 The A5460 link to the east 

of the M1 / M69 at junction 

21 


Change 

Reason 

No Very low pedestrian activity no footways 

provided and no frontage development. 

fpcr 

Yes Combined footway, cycleway on both sides of 

the carriageway and employment and residential 

development. 

Yes Proposed combined footway / cycleway to tie 

into the existing provision to the east, likely to be 

some pedestrian and cycle activity associated 

with the proposed residential development. 

Yes Limited pedestrian activity, footway provided on 

the northern side of the carriageway but limited 

frontage development. 

No Limited pedestrian activity. No frontage 

development 

No Anticipated limited pedestrian and cycle activity 

although footways would be provided as part of 

the development proposal. 

No Very low pedestrian activity. No footways or 

access to residential properties or other 

facilities. The A5460 is principally concerned 

with the movement of traffic. 

15.5.1 The assessment of effects determines both the change in magnitude of the impacts as well as 

their absolute levels. In determining the extent of the study area to be included as part of the 

ES, reference is made to the IEMA Guidance which states that, as a rule of thumb, highway 

links only need to be considered where there is a change in traffic greater than 30% (or the 

number of heavy goods vehicles would increase by more than 30%) (Rule 1), or more than 

10% where the links contain sensitive links (rule 2). The percentage impact of the 

development traffic on the local highway network is detailed in Table 15e below on a link by 

link basis. It should be noted that the predicted flows in 2026, including development traffic, 

are considered to be robust as the trip rates do not reflect the full potential benefit of the public 

transport provision, nor the full effect of retaining trips within the development associated with 

employment, shopping or schools. Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration/Acoustics and Chapter 13: 

Air Quality are based on this data. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 29


fpcr 

Table 15e: Predicted Residential Development Traffic Impact over a 24 hour day (2026) 

– (Two-Way) 

Link 

ID Ref 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Highway Link Total Vehicle Flow Two-Way 

Beggar’s Lane just south of the 

junction with the A47 

The A47 to the west of the Beggar’s 

Lane junction 

The A47 to the east of the Beggar’s 

Lane junction 

Desford Road to the south of the A47 

junction 

Beggar’s Lane on approach to Mill Hill / 


Mill Hill to the south of the Beggar’s 

Lane junction (At the point it crosses 

the M69) 

The A47 to the west of the Braunstone 

Lane junction 

The A47 to the east of the Braunstone 

Lane junction 

The A3563 Lubbesthorpe Way north of 

the Meridian Way junction 

The A583 Lubbesthorpe Way south of 

the Meridian Way junction 

Meridian Way to the west of the 

junction with Lubbesthorpe Way 

The extended Meridian Way crossing 

the M1. (The main site access just 

before the entry into the site). 

Leicester Lane to the east of the new 

site access 

Leicester Lane to the west of the new 

site access 

The new site access link from Leicester 

Lane 

The A5460 link to the east of the M1 / 

M69 junction at junction 21. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 30 

Base 

(2026) 

Development Total 

(2026) 

% 

Increase 

11,333 7,588 18,921 67% 

22,792 2,604 25,396 11% 

25,606 -511 25,095 -2% 

11,992 -225 11,767 -2% 

11,333 7,588 18,921 67% 

14,980 -329 14,651 -2% 

13,654 -1036 30,618 -3% 

29,743 -553 29,190 -2% 

38,521 3,199 41,720 8% 

38,353 -2,037 36,316 -5% 

16,072 9,275 25,347 58% 

- 17,843 17,843 - 

17,388 -3311 14,077 19% 

17,388 -3178 14,210 -18% 

- 7,540 7,540 - 

73,738 847 74,585 1% 

15.5.2 The above flows take account of traffic re-routing through the development which affects the 

distribution of the surrounding road network. 

15.5.3 From the above table it is shown that links are considered necessary to include as part of this 

assessment. These links are as follows:-


1) Sensitive Links – 10% or greater impact (Rule 2) 

· 1. Beggar’s Lane just south of the junction with A47; 

· 2. The A47 to the west of the Beggar’s Lane junction; 

· 11. Meridian Way to the west of the junction with Lubbesthorpe Way; 

· 5. Beggar’s Lane on approach to the Mill Hill junction. 

Severance 

fpcr 

15.5.4 Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes 

separated by a major traffic artery. Table 15f identifies the roads that are considered to have a 

Slight, Moderate or Substantial impact as a result of the development proposal. 

15.5.5 The significance categories used in Table 15f are based upon the MEA (Manual of 

Environmental Appraisal – DfT 1983) indicators which determine the significance of the relief 

from severance. The categories identified are ‘Slight’ being an increase of vehicle movements 

of 30%, ‘Moderate’ being an increase of 60% and ‘Substantial’ being an increase of 90% or 

more. 

Severance Effects 

15.5.6 Table 15f below provide predicted total daily profiles of the movements associated with 

development traffic which have been reviewed in line with the magnitude of effect assessing 

the level of severance using the IEMA Guidance as identified above. Details of the daily trip 

movement profile by hour for the development scenario during the average weekday are 

provided within the Transport Assessment (2011). 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 31


fpcr 

Table 15f: Predicted Severity of Development Traffic Impact over a 24 Hour Day (2026) 

(two-way) 

Link 

ID Ref 

1 

2 

5 

11 

Highway Link Total Vehicle Flow Two-Way 

Beggar’s Lane just south of 


The A47 to the west of the 


Beggar’s Lane on approach 

to Mill Hill / Desford Road 

junction 

Meridian Way to the west of 

the junction with 


Base 

(2026) 

Development Total 

(2026) 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 32 

% 

Increase 

Severity of 

Impact 

11,333 7,588 18,921 67% Moderate 

22,792 2,604 25,396 11% 

Less than 

Slight 

11,333 7,588 18,921 67% Moderate 

16,072 9,275 25,347 58% Moderate 

15.5.7 The results in the above table identify that increased traffic on Beggar’s Lane to the south of 

the junction with the A47, on Beggar’s Lane to the north of Mill Hill, and Meridian Way to the 

West of the A563 junction would result in a moderate impact in terms of severance. Although 

increases in traffic would be evident, the level of impact is based upon the percentage change 

compared to the base figures. The existing movements on both Beggar’s Lane and Meridian 

Way are relatively low. Whilst an increase in movements along these routes would result in a 

significant increase in terms of percentage change, traffic levels would remain relatively low in 

absolute terms, and well within the capacity of these routes. 

Driver Delay 

15.5.8 Driver delay can be established at key junctions using conventional modelling techniques 

identifying the average delays in seconds. However, the advice within the IEMA Guidance 

identifies that such delays “... are only likely to be significant when traffic on the network 

surrounding the development is already at, or close to, the capacity of the system”. 

15.5.9 Driver delay has been determined for the base situation and the proposed, using the 

Department of Transport’s computerised junction assessment package ARCADY for the 

roundabouts and LINSIG programme for the signalised junctions. The junctions assessed 

reflect those detailed in the Transport Assessment. The average delay in terms of minutes is 

provided in Tables 15g and 15h below.


fpcr 

Table 15g: Predicted Driver Delay (2026) to occur during the Proposed Scenario – 

Roundabout Junctions 

Junction 

Meridian Way / Meridian Way East / 

Foxon Way 

Meridian Way / Withers Way / A563 Off 

Slip 

Meridian Way / Retail Park / A563 On 

and Off Slips 

Proposed Leicester Lane . Southern 

Access 

Average Vehicle Delay per Junction (Min/Veh) 

Base (2026) Proposed (2026) 

AM PM AM PM 

0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 

0.04 0.04 0.05 0.07 

0.05 0.05 0.08 0.07 

- - 0.08 0.10 

Table 15h: Predicted Driver Delay (2026) to occur during the Proposed Scenario – 

Signalised Junctions 

Junction 

A47 Hinckley Road / New Parks Way / 

Braunstone Way 

A47 Hinckley Road / Ratby Lane / 

Braunstone Way 

A47 Hinckley Road / Beggar’s Lane 

Existing Layout 

A47 Hinckley Road / Beggar’s Lane 

Proposed Layout 

Average Vehicle Delay per Junction (Pcu/Hrs) 

Base (2026) Proposed (2026) 

AM PM AM PM 

763 999 150 280 

103 56 58 41 

28 47 - - 

- - 29 62 

A47 Hinckley Road / Desford Road 75 156 66 81 

Desford Road / Beggar’s Lane 29 26 34 28 

Narborough Road / Leicester Lane / 

Police HQ – Existing Layout 

Narborough Road / Leicester Lane / 

Police HQ – Proposed Layout 

Leicester Lane / Blaby Road / Hall Walk 

/ High Street 

17 24 - - 

- - 48 31 

70 69 175 131 

15.5.10 The above results demonstrate that the impact of the Project on the local highway network is 

minimal with only very marginal increases in delay at some junctions and significant 

improvements at others associated with improvement schemes. The significant improvements 

to the performance of the A47 Hinckley Road/New Parks Way/Braunstone Way junction are 

as a result of replacing the existing roundabout junction with signalised crossroads. The only 

junction to show a significant increase in delay is Leicester Lane/ Blaby Road/ High Street 

junction. This junction is constrained by the limited highway land available and is already 

operating using MOVA. MOVA improves the capacity of a junction by around 13%. The delay 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 33


fpcr 

identified above does not, however, take into account the full benefits of MOVA as it is not 

possible to accurately model. MOVA operates by determining the amount of green time based 

on demand which is always varying. Accordingly, it is considered that the increase in delays 

identified above at this junction would not occur to the level identified. It is however, 

considered that any improvement to this junction would only increase traffic through Enderby. 

Managing queues in this location would avoid further rat-running through Enderby. In practice, 

traffic would re-route through the development site making use of the new M1 and M69 bridge 

crossings. Further details on this are provided within the Supplementary Transport 

Assessment. 

Pedestrian Delay 

15.5.11 This section reviews the potential delay that is likely to occur as result of the development 

traffic. 

15.5.12 In order to gain an understanding of how the increase in traffic affects pedestrian movements, 

reference is made to the Department for Transport’s Local Transport Note 1/95 ‘The 

Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings’. This provides a general guide on the average time it 

takes to cross a two lane road. For all able bodied people this is between 4-6 seconds on a 

typical urban road and between 10-12 seconds for elderly or disabled people. 

15.5.13 Table 15i shows the average length of gap in traffic flow that pedestrians currently have when 

trying to cross the various links and how they are likely to be affected by the development 

proposals. The links assessed are those identified as sensitive to change (paragraph 15.5.2) 

Table 15i: Assessment of Pedestrian Delay Base Compared to Proposed Scenario 

Link 

ID Ref 

1 

2 

11 

Highway Link 

Beggar’s Lane just south of the junction with 

the A47 

The A47 to the west of the Beggar’s Lane 

junction 

Meridian Way to the west of the junction with 


Average Pedestrian Delay (08:00 – 09:00) 

Maximum 

Vehicle 

Base 2026 Proposed 2026 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 34 

Flow 

Ave. Gap 

in 

Seconds 

Maximum 

Vehicle 

Flow 

Ave. Gap in 

Seconds 

791 5 1,345 3 

1,925 2 2,271 2 

981 4 2,052 2 

5 Beggar’s Lane on approach to Mill Hill 791 5 1,292 3 

15.5.14 The assessment identifies that during the base flow the average gap in seconds for all links 

with the exception of Link 2 which is just within the 4-6 seconds acceptable for able bodied 

pedestrians. The addition of the development traffic reduces the average gap by a maximum 

of 2 seconds. This level of reduction is not considered to represent a change that would be 

perceptible to pedestrians.


fpcr 

15.5.15 All of the links are provided with pedestrian crossing facilities. In addition, improvements are 

proposed at the Beggar’s Lane / A47 Hinckley Road signalised junction which would include 

the provision of signalised pedestrian crossing facilities, and the new junction on Leicester 

Lane would include crossing facilities on all arms. The above vehicle flows are also based on 

two-way traffic movements. However on all links centre island crossing points are provided, 

allowing more time for pedestrians to cross, which increases the gap acceptance to a 

minimum of 4 seconds. 

Pedestrian Amenity 

15.5.16 This section reviews pedestrian amenity of the completed development. The term ‘pedestrian 

amenity’ is included in MEA (Manual of Environmental Appraisal – DfT 1983). It is broadly 

defined as the relative pleasantness of a journey and is considered to be affected by traffic 

flow, traffic composition and pavement width/separation from traffic. 

15.5.17 The IEMA Guidance suggests that a tentative threshold for judging the significance of 

changes in pedestrian amenity would be where traffic (omitting any Heavy Good Vehicle 

(HGV) component) is halved or doubled. 

15.5.18 The development proposal would result in traffic flows on Beggar’s Lane and Meridian Way 

increasing above 50% over a 24 hour period. This level of increase however, is not 

considered to affect the amenity for pedestrians. Although increases in traffic would be 

evident, the level of impact is based upon the percentage change compared to the base 

figures, and the base level movements on both Beggar’s Lane and Meridian Way are 

relatively low. Whilst an increase in movements along these routes would result in a relatively 

high percentage increase, in the context of the IMEA guidance this is not a significant change 

and would not affect pedestrian amenity. 

Cyclist Impact 

15.5.19 The proposed residential and employment developments would include extensive combined 

footway and cycleway networks which would link to the existing public footpath and cycleway 

networks. 

15.5.20 The principal accesses to the site would be via two new bridges across the M1 and M69 

linking to Thorpe Astley, Enderby and St.John’s via Meridian Way and Leicester Lane. These 

accesses would also provide the main pedestrian and cycle connections to the site. It is 

proposed that the bridges and link roads accommodate a combined footway/cycleway that 

would connect to extensive walking and cycling networks within the site and to the existing 

Leicester walking and cycle networks. 

15.5.21 In addition, the development proposals include for a high quality bus service linking the site 

with the City Centre. Such services would utilise the Leicester Forest Motorway Service Area 

accommodation bridge to access the A47 via a bus gate within the site and provide a new bus 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 35


fpcr 

lane up to the Braunstone Road cross roads. The Leicester Forest East Motorway Service 

Area accommodation bridge would also accommodate pedestrian and cycle facilities to link 

the development to the A47 Hinckley Road and allow cyclists to use the bus lane. 

15.5.22 The above measures will result in improved amenity for pedestrians and cyclists within the 

local area. 

Fear and Intimidation 

15.5.23 To assess the levels of fear and intimidation, the thresholds in the IEMA Guidance have been 

used. These are set out in Table 15j below. 

Table 15j: Example of Fear and Intimidation 

Hazard 

Degree of 

Average Traffic Flow 

over 18 Hour Day 

(veh/hr) 

Average Traffic Flow 18 

Hour HGV’s 

Extreme 1,800 + 3,000 + 20 + 

Great 1,200 – 1,800 2,000 – 3,000 15 - 20 

Moderate 600 – 1,200 1,000 – 2,000 10 - 15 

Average Speed over 18 

Hour Day mph 

Low 0 - 600 0 – 1,000 0 - 10 

15.5.24 By applying the above criteria to the base and predicted traffic flows within the study area 

identified, only those links have been assessed that currently have existing pedestrian 

provisions and are identified as sensitive links. The potential impacts are shown in Table 15k 

below. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 36


Table 15k: Levels of Fear and Intimidation – Proposed Development 

Link 

ID Ref 

1 

2 

11 

13 

Highway Link 

Beggar’s Lane just south of the junction with 

the A47 

Degree of Perceived 

Hazard without the 

Development 

Average 

Traffic 

Flow 18 

Hour Day 

(veh/hr) 

Total 18 

Hour HGV 

fpcr 

Degree of Perceived 

Hazard with 

Development Traffic 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 37 

Flow 

Average 

Traffic 

Flow 18 

Hour Day 

(veh/hr) 

Total 18 

Hour HGV 

Flow 

610 10 1,019 10 

Degree of Hazard based on Table 15j Moderate Low Moderate Low 

The A47 to the West of Beggar’s Lane 

junction 

1,228 663 1,368 739 

Degree of Hazard based on Table 15j Great Moderate Great Moderate 

Meridian Way to the west of the junction with 


866 437 1,366 296 

Degree of Hazard based on Table 15j Moderate Low Great Low 

Beggar’s Lane north of Mill Hill 610 10 1,019 10 

Degree of Hazard based on Table 15j Moderate Low Moderate Low 

15.5.25 In relation to the effect of average vehicular flows over 18 hours, the degree of perceived 

hazard changes on one route, namely Meridian Way, from Moderate to Great. However, the 

extent to which the flow exceeds the “Great” level is minor. Furthermore, it is not considered 

that the level of flow is so significant as to cause fear and intimidation when compared with 

other routes around the area. Turning to the effect of HGV’s, these remain the same in all 

cases. Accordingly, although there would be an increase in vehicle movements to the 

development site, the above table demonstrates that this increase would not be sufficient to 

affect the degree of fear and intimidation experienced, ensuring that the experience for 

pedestrians walking along these roads is not adversely affected. 

15.5.26 In terms of vehicle speeds, the average speeds recorded on all the above links are likely to be 

above 20mph and therefore classified as extreme. However, this needs to be reflected against 

the number of vehicle movements and type as well the local environment. 

15.5.27 The main access roads leading into the development would be subject to a 30mph speed limit 

with pedestrian and cycle routes. The ‘Streets’ and other residential roads within the 

development would be subject to a 20mph speed limit, which would be incorporated as part of


fpcr 

the internal road network design. The 20mph zones would be situated in areas of high 

pedestrian activity providing a less vulnerable environment for both pedestrians and cyclists. 

Further details of the proposed routes are provided with the Supplementary Transport 

Assessment. 

Impact Interactions 

15.5.28 Transport and Access has influenced a number of other topic areas and been informed by 

other topic areas. Those interactions are detailed in Table 5l below. 

Table 15l: Impact Interactions 

Topic Area Interaction 

Design Development and 

Consideration of Alternatives 

Ecology and Nature 

Conservation 

An understanding of the variety of ‘audiences’ that have views towards the 

application site and the traffic movements which are associated with the 

application site have been inputted into the design of the access 

arrangements to the Project. Consideration has been given to:- 

· The volume and type of vehicle movements accessing the site; 

· The directions in which these movements are to be made and the 

enforcement of such movements; 

· Pedestrian and cycle movements and accessibility to the site by 

these modes; 

· Improvements to existing pedestrian and cycle facilities linkages to 

the surrounding area. 

Transport and access has informed the production of a ‘Landscape 

Strategy’, based upon the predicted vehicle movements associated with the 

development proposal. The Strategy considers the impact on wildlife with 

regard to noise, air quality and traffic movements. 

Noise The Noise modelling has been based upon the traffic movements predicted 

as part of the transport assessment work. This has allowed a noise model to 

be produced of the local highway network and access roads identifying the 

levels of noise associated with the development proposal and location of 

dwellings in relation to the M1 and M69. The noise modelling work played an 

important role in determining the height of the bunding required within the 

site, this in turn has informed the transport assessment work in determining 

traffic movements to the Site. 

Air Quality The Air Quality modelling has also been based upon the traffic movements 

predicted as part of the transport assessment work. This has allowed an 

assessment to be made in relation to the pollution levels on roads used to 

access the site during operational phases. 

Landscape and Visual Impacts The Traffic and Access has informed the LVIA in terms of its assessment of 

the setting of the Project as the visual impact considers the traffic activity 

likely to be associated with the Project. Also the traffic movements have 

informed the LVIA in determining the impact on Conservation Areas. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 38


Qualitative Assessment of Programme Extension 

fpcr 

15.5.29 The predicted construction year of the development is 2014 with the development completed 

in 2026. Should the construction slip by a year, the assessment undertaken would change 

very little. The volumes of traffic associated with the Project would remain the same and as 

the background traffic increases slightly the potential impact of the proposed traffic flows 

associated with the Project reduces. 

15.5.30 The Supplementary Transport Assessment reviews the impact of the Project on the local 

highway network during 2026, providing a future year assessment which is in accordance with 

the Department of Transports Guidance on Transport Assessment (March 2007). This 

requires an assessment 10 years after the year in which the Project is registered. As such any 

potential extension of the opening year is accounted for as part of the future year assessment. 

Proposed Mitigation 

15.5.31 To mitigate the impact of the development, the consortium of Hallam Land Management, 

Barratt David Wilson and Davidson Developments propose the following mitigation measures 

which would be considered in the context of the assessment. 

Traffic Movement Control 

Construction Phase 

15.5.32 The development would be phased over a 12 year period with the initial construction phase 

considered via Beggar’s Lane and Baines Lane. This phase is also likely to see the 

construction of the road bridge across the M1 and the bus lane on the A47. The phases would 

then continue southwards. In order to minimise the impact of HGV movements associated 

with the construction process, construction times would be controlled together with lorry 

routing plans which would be agreed with the local authority. Parking on site would be 

restricted and construction related staff encouraged where feasible to use alternative modes 

of transport to access the site or car share. 

Physical Measures 

15.5.33 To mitigate the impact of the development proposal, Hallam Land Management, Barratt David 

Wilson and Davidson Developments propose the following mitigation measures:- 

15.5.34 Access into the residential development would be via Beggar’s Lane, Baines Lane, Leicester 

Lane and Meridian Way. Access to the employment site would be via Leicester Lane with links 

to the residential site. The proposed highway infrastructure would include:- 

· A new bridge across the M1 linking with Meridian Way; 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 39


· A new bridge across the M69 linking with Leicester Lane; 

· Re-alignment of Beggar’s Lane to provide two points of access; 

fpcr 

· Bus only link utilising the existing bridge across the M1 which currently serves the 

Motorway service areas; 

· A new roundabout on Leicester Lane, providing access to the employment and southern 

part of the residential site; 

· The existing Lubbesthorpe Bridle Road through the site would be closed to vehicular traffic 

but retained as a pedestrian/cycle and equestrian route. This route would be maintained 

however, as access to existing properties at either end of the route. 

15.5.35 The offsite highway measures currently being proposed include:- 

· Improvements to the Beggar’s Lane/ A47 junction 

· Improvements along the A47 to improve bus accessibility. 

· Improvements to Leicester Lane / Narborough Road junction 

· Improvements to the A47/Braunston Lane junction 

· Improvements to the A563/A47 junction 

· Improvements to the B582/B4114 junction 

· Improvements to the link between junction 21 and Fosse Park 

· Links with existing cycle and pedestrian routes. 

15.5.36 The key infrastructure provision is the bus link to the A47 and the proposed high quality bus 

service which would link the site with the City Centre with a 20 min frequency bus service. 

Such public transport infrastructure is intended to be in place at the early stages of the 

development. 

15.5.37 The full details of the above proposed mitigation measures are contained within the 

Supplementary Transport Assessment. 

Determining the Significance of Cumulative Effects 

15.5.38 When considered in isolation, the environmental effects of any single project upon any single 

receptor/resource may not be significant. However, when individual effects are considered in 

combination, the resulting cumulative effect may be significant. 

15.5.39 Table 15m below summarises the cumulative effect of the development proposal. 

15.5.40 This assessment has been undertaken in line with the DMRB guidelines HA 205/08 

‘Assessment and Magnitude of Environmental Effects’ assessing the significance of the 

Project’s cumulative impact based on table 2.6 of HA 205/ 08 which is the generic significance 

criteria used within this EIA. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 40


Table 15m: Significance of Cumulative Effects of the Development Proposal 

Link 

ID. 

Ref. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

No 

Highway Link 

Beggar’s Lane just south of 




The A47 to the east of the 


Desford Road to the south of 

the A47 junction 

Beggar’s Lane on approach 

to Mill Hill / Desford Road 

junction 

Mill Hill to the south of the 

Beggar’s Lane junction (At 

the point it crosses the M69) 



The A47 to the east of the 


The A3563 Lubbesthorpe 


Way junction 

The A583 Lubbesthorpe Way 

south of the Meridian Way 

junction 

Meridian Way to the west of 

the junction with 


The extended Meridian Way 

crossing the M1. (The main 

site access just before the 

entry into the site). 

Leicester Lane to the east of 

the new site access 

Leicester Lane to the west of 

the new site access 

Severance 

Environmental Effect of Change – Construction Phase 

Driver Delay 

fpcr 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 41 



Moderate Moderate* Moderate* Minor Minor Minor Minor 

Minor Moderate* Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Moderate 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Minor 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Fear & Intimidation 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Accidents & Safety 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 


Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant


Link 

ID. 

Ref. 

15 

16 

No 

Highway Link 

The new site access link from 


The A5460 link to the east of 

the M1 / M69 junction at 

junction 21. 

Severance 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Environmental Effect of Change – Construction Phase 

Driver Delay 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Note: * Reduces to Minor effect with proposed improvements 


fpcr 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 42 


Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 


Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Fear & Intimidation 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Accidents & Safety 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

15.6.1 Although there are a number of measures proposed to reduce the transport and assess the 

impact of the Project, there would still be some residual effects. 

15.6.2 The analysis undertaken within this Chapter shows that in terms of Severance, there would be 

a moderate effect upon Beggar’s Lane, to the south of the junction with the A47, and Meridian 

Way, west of the junction with Lubbesthorpe Way. 

15.6.3 Beggar’s Lane is predominantly rural in character although the northern section is fronted by 

residential development on the eastern side. The western side of Beggar’s Lane is primarily 

fronted by agricultural land and as such there are limited pedestrian movements across 

Beggar’s Lane. A footway is provided on the eastern side of Beggar’s Lane to accommodate 

the pedestrian movements associated with the residential development, which in turn leads to 

the signalised junction with A47. 

15.6.4 To accommodate the additional traffic associated with the development, traffic improvements 

are proposed at the Beggar’s Lane signalised junction with the A47 Hinckley Road. These 

improvements would assist in mitigating the increase in vehicle movements and ensure that 

the junction operates within capacity with improve pedestrian facilities as part of this. 

15.6.5 It is considered that the increase in vehicle movements would not have a detrimental effect on 

Beggar’s Lane in terms of severance. There is currently no footpath provision south of the A47 

junction along Beggar’s Lane, and there are no controlled pedestrian crossing facilities 

provided. However, as part of the proposed improvements, new pedestrian crossings facilities 

would be provided at the junction with the A47, accommodating pedestrian movements at the 

junction and as such mitigating for any increases in severance. Accordingly it is considered 

that the mitigation measures address the issue of severance at this junction and also address 

the other aspects of the assessment which experience minor effects. 


Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant


fpcr 

15.6.6 Meridian Way runs west of the A563 (Lubbesthorpe Way) providing access to Thorpe Astley 

and Meridian Business Park. Part of Meridian Way is dual carriageway allowing sufficient 

capacity to accommodate the increase in vehicle movements. All of the junctions on Meridian 

Way have been assessed and found to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 

additional traffic movements without adding significant driver delay. The percentage increase 

in vehicle movements is based on the base traffic movements, which on Meridian Way are 

relatively low. Whilst an increase in movements along this route would result in a significant 

increase in terms of percentage change, traffic levels would remain relatively low in absolute 

terms. Accordingly it is considered that the moderate impact in terms of severance on this link 

results from the base level flows being relatively low and that the resultant absolute flows still 

remain relatively low compared with other routes in the vicinity. In practice the junctions 

provide opportunities to cross this link and therefore the effect of the change in traffic levels is 

not considered to materially affect the use of this corridor in terms of the assessed effects. 

15.6.7 Table 15n below identifies the residual effects associated with the development proposals 

from the short term to long term. 

Table 15n: Residual Effects 

Impact Description of Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Effect 

Increase in traffic to and 

from the Project during 

both the short term 

construction and longer 

term occupation phase 

Some additional queuing 

at the junctions tested in 

the TA using conventional 

modelling techniques. 

The effect as a result of 

the increased traffic 

movements has been 

assessed in the 

Supplementary Transport 

Assessment and a 

package of highway 

improvements and 

accessibility measures 

are proposed to mitigate 

the effects. 

A Framework Travel Plan 

would be provided to 

reduce employees’ 

private car movements to 

the employment use. A 

Residential Travel Pack 

would be issued to all 

new residents. New 

footway and cycle ways 

are proposed to improve 

pedestrian amenity 

together with new 

crossing facilities. 

Minor increases in delay 

for vehicles improved 

accessibility by bus and 

for pedestrians and 

cyclists. The residual 

effect is considered to 

be Minor. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

15 - 43


16.0 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES: REPLACEMENT CHAPTER 


16 - 1 

fpcr 

16.1.1 Rodgers Leask Ltd has been commissioned to advise on the environmental implications of the 

service requirements for the proposed development. This Chapter of the Environmental 

Statement considers the effect of the development upon existing service infrastructure, the 

effect of the development upon services to existing properties in the area and the required 

works to facilitate service provision to the proposed development. This Chapter focuses upon 

the provision of supplies to the development while the discharge of wastewater and rainfall is 

assessed at Chapter 10: Water, Hydrology and Drainage. 

16.1.2 The proposed development comprises a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE), coupled with a 

Strategic Employment Site (SES). It is envisaged that the completed development would 

provide up to 4,250 homes and 21 hectares of employment. 

16.1.3 Premier Energy has produced a ‘Utility Investigation Report’ that examines the presence of 

existing services within the site, and identifies the capability of this plant to support the 

development proposal. The full report is contained at Appendix 16A. 

16.1.4 An ‘Energy Statement’ (included within the Supporting Documents to the ES) has been 

compiled by Wardell Armstrong (December 2011) on the use of renewable energy sources 

and describes the options available to produce and use renewable energy. These energy 

sources range from the well known solar photo voltaics and wind turbines to anaerobic 

digestion plants. Elements of the statement are incorporated within this Chapter as 

appropriate. 

Location 

16.1.5 The proposed development site comprises of two distinct land parcels to the west of Leicester, 

located immediately west of the M1 and to the north and south of the M69 as shown on the 

Illustrative Masterplan included at Appendix 2A, Figure 2.3. 

16.1.6 The northern parcel is bounded to the south by the M69 trunk road and to the west by the M1 

corridor. Farmland lies immediately west of the site and the Leicester Forest East residential 

area is located to the north. The site is within close proximity to the city of Leicester, as well as 

having good highway links with its close proximity to both the M1 and M69 corridors. 

16.1.7 The southern parcel is located immediately to the south of the M69; its eastern boundary is the 

M1 corridor. The grounds of Enderby Hall and woodland lie adjacent to the site’s western 

boundary. Leicester Lane contains the site to the south. 


16.1.8 To assess the environmental effect of services provision to a site, an assessment of two 

separate aspects of the proposal is required; the first is the effect of the development upon 

existing supplies within the area, the second is with regard to the provision of services to the 

new development to ensure that the services are both adequate and do not have a negative 

effect upon the environment. The assessment takes the form of an examination of existing 

service records, along with initial consultation with the statutory undertakers responsible for


16 - 2 

fpcr 

the supply of services, to identify whether sufficient supplies can be provided to serve the 

development. 

16.1.9 Secondly, an assessment has been undertaken of the supply requirements of the 

development to ascertain whether the supply of services has an environmental effect. For the 

purpose of this assessment, energy requirements have been determined through a review of 

the ‘Utility Site Investigation Report’, produced by Premier Energy and the ‘Energy Statement’ 

produced by Wardell Armstrong to identify opportunities for the use of sustainable energy 

within the proposed development. 


16.2.1 Due to the privatised nature of the service industry there are no national planning policies that 

cover the provision of service infrastructure. 

16.2.2 However, the provision of infrastructure is, in certain instances, subject to examination by the 

planning authority where above ground features are required, and as such these would be 

considered at a local level. 

Blaby District Local Plan, 1999 (Saved Policy review) 

16.2.3 A review of this current planning policy with regard to service infrastructure showed that there 

were no saved policies that have implications upon services. 


policy position in relation to infrastructure. 


16.3.1 The site would require infrastructure to service both the SUE and SES. This report explores 

the provision of infrastructure to supply the development as well as the environmental aspects 

of supplying the development with services. 

16.3.2 In order to understand the site in terms of services, records from all of the major service 

providers within the local area have been procured and examined to establish the location of 

existing services and ascertain how these would affect the Masterplan proposals. Written 

responses from the statutory undertakers are appended to the Premier Energy Report at 

Appendix 16A. 

Water Supply 

16.3.3 The application site is crossed by Severn Trent Water Limited’s supply network. This section 

of the report discusses the current infrastructure from the north of the site to the south of the 

site. 

16.3.4 Examining the northern parcel in the first instance, a 4” water main exists to the very north- 

east of the site. 

16.3.5 On the periphery of the residential area to the north of the site, an 8” water main traverses 

from east to west.


16 - 3 

fpcr 

16.3.6 An existing 1000mm water main crosses the site in a south-easterly direction from the site’s 

western boundary. This substantial piece of infrastructure bisects the site, potentially providing 

a good strategic water supply for the development. 

16.3.7 An existing 180mm water main skirts the western boundary with supplies of 2” feeding off this 

into the site. 

16.3.8 Towards the south-eastern corner of the site an existing 18” water main can be seen that 

crosses from the M1 corridor through the site, exiting towards the M69 corridor which it 

crosses before entering the southern parcel. 

16.3.9 The southern parcel contains the 18” water main described above which runs from the 

northern boundary in a westerly direction where it exits the site. A 2” water main can also be 

found entering this parcel in a southerly direction from the Fox Covert woodland area. 

Easements / Diversions 

16.3.10 On examining the local supply records it is evident that several services exist, crossing 

through and running adjacent to the site. It is considered that diversions would be feasible 

within the site although, where possible, infrastructure would be afforded a suitable easement, 

to be agreed with Severn Trent Water Limited. 

Electricity Supply 

16.3.11 A reliable power supply is essential for modern living and employment. Modern life is 

dependent upon electricity as the predominant source of energy. From electricity it is possible 

to provide both light and heat; it therefore represents a very important energy source. The 

development of increasingly sustainable methods of power generation and the improvement in 

efficiency of the devices using electricity make it an increasingly sustainable and versatile 

form of energy. The incorporation of a good electricity supply into the design of the 

development is intrinsic to its success. The existing electricity infrastructure within the area 

has been identified through the request of records from E.ON, who operate the electricity 

network for the local area. 

16.3.12 Within the northern part of the site, an existing high voltage cable connects the Kings Drive 

substation to the Old Warren Farm substation. An 11kV cable overhead line crosses the site 

from the Leicester Forest East to the site’s western boundary and feeds the Bridle Lane 

Lubbesthorpe substation. The cable traverses the site to the west and connects to Old House 

Farm and The Lawns substations. It continues in a south easterly direction through New 

House Farm substation to Hopyard Farm in the site’s south eastern corner. 

16.3.13 Enderby substation, a Grid Switching Station, is located at the south western corner of the 

northern parcel. This is a substantial piece of infrastructure with 400kV overhead pylon routes 

to/from the grid switching station to the north-west and south west of the site. This also 

connects to the 132kV cables that travel eastwards to the site’s boundary with the M1. From 

the substation there are also 132kV cables exiting from its northern boundary, arcing into the 

site before exiting via the western site boundary. 

16.3.14 An 11kV cable crosses the southern parcel in a north easterly direction towards the M1 / M69 

island (Junction 21) where there is a substation just beyond the site boundary. Connecting to


16 - 4 

fpcr 

the 11kV cable at its south western end is the Warren Farm substation. This substation 

connects the nearby Warren Cottages and Warren Farm with a low voltage supply. 


16.3.15 The electricity records indicate that several services exist, crossing and adjacent to the site. It 

is considered that diversions would be feasible within the site although, where possible, 

infrastructure would be afforded a suitable easement as agreed with E.ON. 

16.3.16 The Extra High Voltage network (EHV 400 – 132 kV) is a strategic supply and any diversionary 

works required to accommodate development would require long term planning if this is 

required. 

16.3.17 A review of the report by Premier Energy identifies that the HV (11kV) network is likely to 

require diverting and maintaining. It is expected that diversions would be via the road network. 

It is anticipated that to facilitate the development several diversions would be required. 

However, the exact detail of these could not be determined at the time of producing the Utility 

Investigation Report. 

Gas Supply 

16.3.18 Gas is the predominant source of energy used to provide homes with heating. It is a fossil fuel, 

sourced from deep underground voids. As a non-renewable form of energy it is less 

favourable than other renewable forms. However, the generation of electricity presently relies 

upon the use of fossil fuels at source and until the bias changes to more sustainable electricity 

generation sources, the use of natural gas would continue to represent a reasonable 

alternative. 

16.3.19 From a review of the National Grid service records it can be seen that no gas supplies exist 

within the site. However, gas services are noted to the periphery of the application site serving 

the Leicester Forest East residential area to the north. 


16.3.20 Since no gas services are present within the site, diversions or easements would not be 

required for existing equipment. However, proposed infrastructure would be designed to 

enable easements to be provided as required by National Grid. 

Telecommunications 

16.3.21 High capacity data networks are important to provide sufficient data capacity for modern living 

within any new development. In addition to cable infrastructure, wireless devices rely upon the 

mobile telephone network to deliver multimedia services and the infrastructure associated with 

these has also been noted. 

16.3.22 An examination of BT Openreach and Virgin Media records has been undertaken for the site 

to ascertain the infrastructure that is within the site boundary. Investigations found that no 

Virgin media infrastructure is present within the site area. However, services are noted within 

the Leicester Forest East residential area to the north of the site.


16 - 5 

fpcr 

16.3.23 The records of BT Openreach show services within the site boundary and these are described, 

from north to south as they are shown on the records, below. 

· An overhead cable traverses from the northern boundary of the site (rear of properties on 

Forest House Lane) to Old Warren Farm. It is understood that an O2 network mast exists at 

Old Warren Farm which may require relocation as part of the development proposals. 

· An overhead supply crosses the site from its western boundary, servicing New House Farm. 

· BT cables are laid along the alignment of Beggar’s Lane at the western periphery of the site. 

· Several BT cables exist in the vicinity of Hopyard Farm; these services connect into the 

southern parcel of the site via a vehicular bridge crossing the M69. To the west of the site 

within the southern boundary, BT cables serving the Enderby substation can be found. 

· Services from the northern parcel are noted as providing supplies to Warren Cottages and 

Warren Farm. 

· BT ducting is noted on Warren Park Way, an industrial area to the west of the site. This is 

thought to service the mobile telephone network through a local mast. 


16.3.24 Examination of the telecommunications records indicate that several services exist, crossing, 

and adjacent to, the site. It is considered that diversions would be feasible within the site, 

although, where possible, infrastructure would be afforded a suitable easement as agreed with 

BT Openreach. Enquiries from Premier Energy to BT Openreach has revealed that five 

locations on the site are anticipated to require diversion works. However further development 

of the proposals would enable this to be rationalised. 

Sewerage 

16.3.25 The public sewerage network is owned and operated by Severn Trent Water Limited (STWL), 

which provides foul and storm sewerage systems. The foul systems ultimately convey flows 

through to a sewage treatment works. Consultations with STWL regarding the drainage 

strategy for the site have indicated that foul flows from the northern parcel would be conveyed 

through a network of sewers to the Wanlip Sewage Treatment Works. No sewerage 

connection serving the southern parcel exists. However, a gravity connection passing under 

the M1 (through the Leicester Lane bridge) may be possible. If a gravity connection cannot be 

secured this element of the development will drain to a pumping station to enable flows to be 

elevated. 

16.3.26 With regard to storm water, the final proposed detailed layout and earthworks strategy would 

have some effect upon the viability of catchments. However an observation of the present 

topography shows that the Northern parcel divides into five separate natural catchments, 

draining to existing ditches / water courses. 

16.3.27 For the southern parcel there are effectively two natural catchments: approximately two thirds 

of the site area drains towards the M69 / M1 junction (north-easterly) and the reminder drains 

to the southern site boundary. Again it is envisaged that surface water would be taken from 

the developed area to these watercourses via a Sustainable Urban Drainage System that


16 - 6 

fpcr 

provides not only attenuation of flow volume but also a degree of water quality treatment, evo- 

transpiration and ex-filtration of flows directly to the ground. 



16.4.1 The provision of a large development such as this would place additional demand upon local 

services, requiring off-site upgrade works to provide sufficient capacity to adequately service 

the development and ensure that adjacent areas do not experience interruptions in services 

as a result of the additional demand. 

16.4.2 The source of energy places demand upon national infrastructure resulting in the need to 

provide additional resources to serve the development. The additional resources required 

could be fossil fuels placing additional demand upon the diminishing levels of fossil fuel 

available along with contributing to pollution. 

Mitigation 

16.4.3 To ensure that services to new and existing premises are sufficient, phasing of the 

development would be undertaken to ensure that infrastructure improvements are made in 

advance of the additional demands being placed upon them to ensure service levels are 

maintained. 

16.4.4 To reduce the effect of the development upon both the diminishment of fossil fuel and its 

consequential polluting effect, it is proposed to utilise the latest construction techniques to 

minimise demand for energy, and to provide within the site a significant level of sustainable 

technologies to provide long term solutions. Sustainable energy sources are to be 

incorporated within the development. Solar hot water would be provided for the majority of 

residential properties. Where beneficial, solar panels for domestic electricity would be 

incorporated within the development. Based upon the active sustainable measures of the 

solar water heaters and panels, Wardell Armstrong have advised that the provision of solar 

water heaters would provide 32% renewable energy on the site. A total of 80 detached 

dwellings fitted with Solar Photo Voltaics provides a further 17% renewable energy. With the 

passive measures of modern building standards that reduce energy demand, the development 

presents a low impact upon energy resources. Outside of the development footprint, new 

technologies are evolving to improve the efficiency of grid energy production and these would 

consequentially be used by the development for energy requirements beyond what would be 

produced onsite. 

Water Demand 

16.4.5 To supply the development with sufficient water, consultation has been undertaken with 

Severn Trent Water Limited. To ensure that the supply network can provide the levels 

required the development would be served from the existing 18” main that bisects the site. 

This would be connected to the development areas via branch pipelines to provide distribution 

of the services throughout the site.


16 - 7 

fpcr 

16.4.6 No detailed demand level assessments have been carried out. However, Severn Trent Water 

Limited has confirmed that supplies can be provided to the site (Appendix 16A). Since the 

supply is within the site, there is no requirement to bring in new external water infrastructure. 

16.4.7 The Masterplan retains an easement for this existing main, therefore the development would 

not require any diversionary works. 

Energy Demand 

16.4.8 Wardell Armstrong have identified the energy demand for the Project as shown in the chart 

below. These calculations take into account the levels of improved building efficiency required 

by the Building Regulations 2010 (Statutory Instruments, 2010). 

Figure 1: Energy Demand Assessment 

MWh/yr 

Source: (Energy Statement, Wardell Armstrong, 2011) 

16.4.9 From the chart above it can be seen that the residential element of the development has by far 

the greatest energy requirement, with warehousing, industry and retail having notably more 

energy requirements than the remaining sectors. 

Electricity 

35000 

30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 

0 

30350 

16.4.10 The total load for the proposed development, as reported by Premier Energy is 11.75 Mega 

Volt Amperes (MVA) 

8768 

218 

248 

287 

327 

27 

31 

123 

222 

468 

843 

170 

1252 

Development Sectors 

78 

235 

81 

166 

61 

2378 

16.4.11 To service the site E.on has confirmed that a new, two transformer, 40 MVA primary 

3478 

1008 

Heating 

Electrical 

substation would be required. This new facility would provide the power requirement for the 

proposed development and also residual capacity for the network. A cost sharing exercise 

between E.ON and the developer would be undertaken. The substation would be constructed 

adjacent to the Hinckley Road / Braunstone Way roundabout, which is some distance to the 

north-east of the site. This land is understood to be in the ownership of E.on. The exact


16 - 8 

fpcr 

routing of connecting cabling between this primary substation and the site has not yet been 

specified. However, this would require a crossing of the M1 corridor at some point to penetrate 

into the development land and would be afforded via the most suitable route. The substation 

would be connected to the Leicester grid substation and 4 HV cables would feed the site laid 

over a distance of approximately 2.2km. The lead-in time for the construction of this facility is 

16 – 18 months and this therefore needs to be in place before the development can be 

connected to the electricity supply. Connection works are also limited between the months of 

April – October so this may impact upon the lead-in time, if the timing of the Project does not 

coincide with this. From this new primary substation, an 11kV HV network would be used to 

distribute electricity via secondary substations to users. This would then be distributed and 

transformed to low voltage via a network of approximately 14 No. 500 kVA substations 

distributed around the site. 

Gas 

16.4.12 National Grid has been consulted with regard to a gas supply at the site. Due to the level of 

demand anticipated, supplies would need to be accessed from the Medium Pressure Network, 

which passes approximately 1km from the site in Hinckley Road to the north of the site. 

16.4.13 National Grid has confirmed that it is feasible to provide this service to the site and, as a 

consequence of the supply being medium pressure, onsite gas governors would be required 

to enable the pressure from this infrastructure to be reduced to a low pressure level suitable 

for development supplies. 

Sustainable Measures 

16.4.14 In addition to the above, renewable energy sources have been considered so as to contribute 

to both the demand from the site and also for export to the National Grid. 

16.4.15 Following an initial scoping assessment of all sustainable energy technologies to determine 

appropriateness for the site at Lubbesthorpe, Wardell Armstrong carried out detailed 

assessments of the following sources of renewable energy:- 

· Wind 

· Solar 

· Ground Source Heat Pumps 

· Biomass 

16.4.16 Wardell Armstrong conclude that some of the options for renewable energy were considered 

impractical for use at Lubbesthorpe. However, it was recommended that the following 

remaining methods of providing renewable energy were potentially suitable for the 

development at Lubbesthorpe:- 

· Solar Hot Water – provision of flat plate collectors upon the roofs of properties to increase 

base water temperature from that received from the supply. 

· Solar Photo Voltaics – provision of solar panels upon roofs to provide electricity generation.


16 - 9 

fpcr 

· Ground source heat pumps – installing coils and pumping equipment into the ground to 

gather heat from the surrounding ground to raise the temperature of the incoming water 

supply. 

· Combined Heat & Power and District Heating (CHP & DH). The construction of a centralised 

energy production facility that provides for all, or part of the development demand for heat 

and power. 

16.4.17 An initial phase has been assessed comprising the incorporation of Solar Thermal for water 

heating on all dwellings and the provision of Solar Photo Voltaic’s on 80 detached dwellings 

could provide 32% and 17% respectively of the total energy demand being met by renewable 

energy sources. The proposed masterplan shows a significant number of detached dwellings 

within the development, and detailed assessment would be required to ensure that the most 

appropriate locations for solar PV installations were considered overall. This would be the 

subject of further assessment as proposals evolve further. Assuming 80 detached dwellings 

could be suitably fitted with solar PV within the first phase would enable compliance with the 

2013 Carbon Compliance levels. 

Energy Efficiency and BIR 

16.4.18 It is considered that Solar Hot Water could be implemented on all properties relatively 

economically and would meet a large proportion of the carbon compliance levels that are 

required. In addition it is feasible to assume that a proportion of dwellings could be fitted with 

Solar Photo Voltaics to provide electricity with relative ease. However this would be subject to 

detailled design to assess feasibility dependent upon the final layout and building orientations. 

This approach is scalable and can be integrated within the development as it grows. 

16.4.19 It is considered by Wardell Armstrong that the above measures could be practically and 

successfully employed at Lubbesthorpe, therefore contributing to the reduction in the 

production of CO2. 

16.4.20 Furthermore, if the recommended measures are implemented, the contribution of energy 

produced would provide a significant quantity of the overall energy requirements of the 

development and could enable some export of energy to the electricity network. 

Telecommunications Demand 

16.4.21 Both BT Openreach and Virgin Media have confirmed that they have networks with suitable 

capacity within the local area that can be extended to provide services to the site. It is not 

known from the available BT Openreach records if the network within the immediate vicinity of 

the site is a conventional cable solution or a fibre optic installation, however BT has verified 

that there would be sufficient capacity to cater for the proposed development. At this stage BT 

has not detailed where service supplies would be provided from, this would be established in 

due course. 

Foul Sewerage Disposal 

16.4.22 Foul sewerage draining from the site has been discussed with Severn Trent Water Limited 

(STWL) to determine any potential problems at the outset. STWL has indicated that foul 

drainage would be taken to Wanlip Sewage Treatment Works. STWL has assessed this and


16 - 10 

fpcr 

identified that the Wanlip Sewage Treatment Works has sufficient capacity to cater for the 

proposed development. To connect to the network, an existing 300mm diameter pipeline has 

been identified, this currently serves Leicester Forest East Motorway Service Area. STWL has 

suggested that this pipeline would require hydraulic simulation modelling to determine whether 

or not it has sufficient capacity to cater for the development. Furthermore, due to the levels 

that the pipe is constructed at, the southern part of the site would not be able to drain to this 

pipeline under gravity. Since this pipeline has a potential capacity issue it would seem 

sensible to consider the construction of a modest sized pipeline under the M1 to drain the 

southern part of the site. The residual capacity in the existing 300mm could then be utilised to 

capacity for the northern part of the site. 

16.4.23 For the southern land parcel no existing foul sewers exist. However it appears that a sewerage 

connection could be made to the network east of the M1 along Leicester Lane (under the M1). 

This network conveys flows to a small pumping station which is known to have operational 

problems due to odour. STWL indicate that they believe this to be partly due to trade waste 

discharges; chemical dosing is presently used to mitigate this. 

16.4.24 In addition, odour can be produced from sewerage due to septicity; a problem manifested by 

sewerage that is not conveyed at a high enough rate and left to stand. This tends to happen in 

locations where flows are low and the rising mains from the pumping station are quite long, 

giving lengthy retention times that give rise to the production of Hydrogen Sulphide, with the 

consequential ’bad egg’ smell at the outfall from the rising main. The introduction of further 

flows to this network would increase the pumping time and thereby reduce retention times and 

consequently the production of Hydrogen Sulphide within the rising main. A hydraulic study of 

the network would be required to assess pump operation and whether or not the present 

pumping station has sufficient capacity to deal with the additional flows from the development 

locally. 

16.4.25 It appears probable that the northern part of the southern parcel may need to be pumped into 

the southern section of the site where a gravity connection could potentially continue to 

convey flows to the catchment described above. A drainage strategy would enable a more 

detailed examination of the possibilities for the site to be examined. 

Storm Water Disposal 

16.4.26 The northern parcel of land has been briefly examined to assess the topography and possible 

drainage routes and is divided into five natural catchments. 

16.4.27 The southern parcel of land is divided into two natural catchments, with approximately two 

thirds of the site draining towards the M1 / M69 junction (M1 Junction 21), and the remaining 

third draining to the southern site boundary. 

16.4.28 It would be the intention to use the existing local watercourses where practicable to receive the 

storm water from the site areas. However, it would be normal practice to ensure that flow rates 

during design events do not exceed flow volumes of what would be expected to drain from the 

existing Greenfield site to these watercourses. This would be facilitated through the 

incorporation of attenuation measures.


16 - 11 

fpcr 

16.4.29 These may be through the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, such as swales, 

green roofs, soakaways or attenuation basins that facilitate the storage of the peak runoff, 

releasing it at a much lower rate of discharge. 

16.4.30 To fully assess this it would be necessary to produce a drainage strategy which explores all 

drainage options for the site and identifies the individual catchment areas for the finished 

Masterplan. 


Operation Effects 

16.5.1 Due to the increased demand levels placed upon services, outages or shortages can 

sometimes be noted when demand levels are increased. In order to prevent this, the phasing 

of the development would be such that the infrastructure required to provide sufficient services 

is in place prior to the development aspects coming on stream. 

16.5.2 Each phase of development would be carefully discussed and planned with the statutory 

undertakers to ensure that the loadings placed by the individual phases are met with sufficient 

capacity in the network. 

16.5.3 Through this methodology the network would actually have additional residual capacity in the 

lead up to each phase of development. The environmental effect of this is therefore negligible. 

Service Provision 

16.5.4 The provision of services that rely upon the usage of fossil fuels is unsustainable at the outset. 

Therefore, as part of the proposed development process Wardell Armstrong were 

commissioned to examine the sustainable energy options available that would be effective for 

the proposed development. Section 16.3 above highlights the demand levels and the 

proposed incorporation of sustainable energy options within the development. Through 

constructing the development to recommended current energy efficient design standards as 

well as the incorporation of sustainable energy technology, the proposed development 

presents a negligible effect upon energy resources. 

Construction Effects 

Service Installation (below ground) 

16.5.5 The majority of services would be installed underground, through open cut methods of 

construction. This method of construction requires excavation by mechanical means (by hand 

where situations dictate) to provide a trench within which to lay the service. The service is 

generally laid, surrounded by a bedding material (to protect the integrity of the service) and 

backfilled with suitable material, dependent upon the potential loading exerted upon the 

trench. Water supply, gas supply and some electricity and telecommunications equipment 

would all be installed through the excavation of trenches.


16 - 12 

fpcr 

16.5.6 Excavation would, in the most part, be undertaken by mechanical means within low risk areas, 

or by hand where the location of services or where the potential for hazards inappropriate for 

excavation using a machine are likely. 

16.5.7 Ground conditions are assessed at ES Chapter 11: Land Contamination. The Chapter 

suggests that some of the site may be subject to contamination and identifies an appropriate 

mitigation strategy for each possible contamination issue. The likely residual effects following 

implementation of the recommended mitigation strategy are summarised at Table 11c of the 

Chapter. There are no significant residual effects identified within this table. 

16.5.8 The environmental effects of carrying out trench excavations are discussed below:- 

· Effects to the local ground water levels – trench working may require the water table to be 

reduced below the foundation level of the trench. 

· Dust & Debris – the excavation process would loosen small particulates which in dry 

weather can become airborne. 

· Gas release – excavation below ground level could release gas trapped within voids and 

these would be released into the local atmosphere. 

· Instability – instability in the ground through the excavation of a trench is possible. 

16.5.9 The shallow construction of water mains is unlikely to affect the local ground water levels. If 

work is required within the region affected by groundwater, pumps or dewatering equipment 

would be installed. If the ground water level is reduced sufficiently, dewatering could be 

reduced allowing the local ground water levels to be retained just below the trench foundation. 

It is likely that any effect to the local ground water levels would be transient and minimal 

therefore the effect of this aspect of the work upon the environment is considered to be 

negligible. 

16.5.10 In the longer term, trench bedding material, used to provide protection to the pipeline, can 

often be a medium for groundwater to travel. If groundwater is perceived to be problematic in 

the zone of the trench, clay tanks can be installed to prevent migration of groundwater. 

16.5.11 The management of dust and debris from excavations is required during construction. The 

main issue with regard to dust and debris is the migration of this to the external area away 

from the site. It is usual practice on most construction sites to provide wheel wash facilities on 

the egress from the site to the external road network. Within the confines of the site, dust 

would be evident due to earthworks and the movement of surplus materials. However, 

controls would be put in place within the site to ensure this is managed. To prevent the issue 

of dust and debris leaving the site, the mitigating measure of a wheel wash facility would 

ensure that the residual environmental effect is negligible. 

16.5.12 It is unlikely that gas release would present a problem on a greenfield site, however 

geotechnical information would need to be reviewed to ascertain if the risk of this is of any 

significance. If the geotechnical study highlights an issue of ground borne gases, a suitable 

monitoring or remediation regime would be implemented. The risk of this to the local 

environment would therefore be negligible. 

16.5.13 Trench instability can cause localised ground movement, as well as changes to the ground 

water regime of the local area. It would be necessary for trenches to be stabilised in a suitable 

manner. Trenches would require either lateral retention through positive pressure trench


16 - 13 

fpcr 

sheets / boxes, or the battering back of the trench sides to a suitable angle of repose for the 

materials being excavated. If works are undertaken in the manner described, the residual 

environmental effect would be negligible. 

Service Installation (above ground) 

16.5.14 There would be a need for electricity to have some elements of infrastructure elevated. The 

main impact would be any necessary excavation or displacement due to the installation of 

poles or masts. The installation process of these would be localised and have minimal effects. 

The environmental effect of this would be negligible. 

Discharge of Pollutants to Watercourses 

16.5.15 During construction works, potentially polluting liquids such as diesel and petroleum would be 

brought onto site. Additionally, if dewatering works are required, the slurry that is pumped 

contains a significant sediment concentration that can be damaging to watercourses. As part 

of the site management, any fuel sources, such as diesel bowsers, would be managed within 

suitable bunded systems to prevent spillage to watercourses. 

16.5.16 Pumped water from any excavations would be passed through settlement facilities before 

returning water to the ground, enabling the ground to provide filtration, removing suspended 

solids, prior to its re-entry to the watercourse via the ground water table. 

16.5.17 It is considered that the proposed management proposals mitigate the risk of any polluting 

substance to a negligible level. 


16.5.18 The effect of a development upon the environment can be classed as negligible but in 

combination with other development proposals or changes to the local environment, these 

effects can combine to result in more extensive effects. It is understood that Sustainable 

Urban Extensions at Earl Shilton and Barwell have been identified for consideration with this 

proposed development. 

16.5.19 It is considered that these SUEs are located a significant distance from the application site and 

any cumulative effects would be negligible. 


16.5.20 Following the assessment and mitigation measures it is envisaged that any residual effects 

would be negligible. 


16.6.1 Environmental effects of the proposed development have been examined with regard to the 

provision of services to the development, and the effect of the service provision for the 

environment can be categorised as negligible overall.


17.0 GEODIVERSITY: NEW CHAPTER 


17 - 1 

fpcr 

17.1.1 Leicestershire County Council, as the Minerals Planning Authority, or MPA, has identified 

concerns over the proposals at Lubbesthorpe in relation to geodiversity (see section 17.2 

below). In consideration of its concerns, this section has utilised literature published by the 

British Geological Survey (BGS) and the County Council themselves, as well as observations 

made on site, to characterise the site in a geodiversity context and assess the scope for 

impact associated with the proposals. 

17.1.2 It is considered at the outset that the area to the north of the wider site holds no interest in a 

geological or geodiversity context. It should be noted therefore that, for the purposes of this 

section, only the development area envisaged to the south of the M69 is referred to as the 

’Subject Area’ in this Chapter. 

17.1.3 This assessment is qualitative only as there has been no need to identify and calculate any 

mineral resources that could potentially be sterilised by the proposals. Assessment has not 

required technical input; merely a sound understanding of the geology of the area and the 

characteristics of the formations therein. 


17.1.4 This section has made use of Good Practice guidance provided by Natural England in the 

form of their research report into the production of Local Geodiversity Action Plans (reference 

R560). 

17.1.5 In short, the geology present on site has been described and characterised to identify its 

potential importance in a geodiversity context. 


17.2.1 The safeguarding and assessment of geological assets is identified in Planning Policy 

Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. The PPS was published with a 

number of objectives, which included:- 

· “to promote sustainable development by ensuring that … geological diversity sites are 

conserved and enhanced …; and 

· to conserve, enhance and restore the value of England’s wildlife and geology …” 

17.2.2 The protection of assets is mainly achieved by a national designation i.e. a Site of Special 

Scientific Interest (SSSI), or a regional designation in the form of a Regionally Important 

Geological Site (RIGS). PPS9 confirms that the latter sites should be afforded further policy 

protection, which should be articulated in regional and local planning policies. This position is 

reaffirmed in Minerals Policy Statement 1. 

17.2.3 The Regional Spatial Strategy is not considered to be relevant under the provisions of this 

section, as its scope is too wide ranging. 

17.2.4 At a more local level, Leicestershire County Council adopted Minerals Core Strategy and 

Development Control Policies document during October 2005. Policy protection for local and


17 - 2 

fpcr 

regional sites is afforded in Policy MCA4, whilst national sites are safeguarded via PPS9 as a 

statutory designation. 

17.2.5 The planning application (ref 2011/0100/01) has been subject to public consultation and 

consultation with statutory consultees, one of which is Leicestershire County Council (’the 

Council’). The Council has provided a 95 page report to the LPA addressing a range of 

issues. 

17.2.6 In addition to ongoing concerns regarding the potential mineral resource on the site, the 

County Council identified concerns over geodiversity, stating:- 

“The Environmental Statement is incomplete as it makes no reference to the Geodiversity 

interest of the Lubbesthorpe area. Although geological sites may appear robust they can be 

damaged and destroyed by inappropriate development or activities. There is a geological Site 

of Special Scientific Interest to the west of the area referred to as Parcel 2. This important 

geological site has been infilled but there are plans (by Natural England) to re-excavate the 

site in the future. It is important that any development does not impact on the planned future 

excavation of the SSSI (paragraph 128). 

The important geodiversity features at the site include rare palygorskite mineralisation at the 

boundary between Ordovician South Leicestershire Diorite and the overlying Triassic 

sediments. It is likely that the South Leicestershire Diorite extends into the area ‘Parcel 2’ 

beneath Triassic sediments. The ‘buried landscape’ is often undulating and contains ancient 

stream beds known as ‘wadis’. The wadis often contain sand horizons which often act as 

aquifers which may affect the drainage of the area. The relationship of the proposed 

development site to the prehistoric River Bytham deserves more consideration. If any 

geologically interesting sites are used or exposed then consideration should be given to 

retaining some key features of interest, and the sites possible future as a new interpreted 

RIGS (paragraph 129).” 


policy position in relation to geodiversity. 


Site Setting 

17.3.1 The wider site is located directly to the west of the M1 motorway, and either side of the M69 

motorway as indicated at Appendix 17A, Figure 17.1. The site is currently accessible via the 

Lubbesthorpe Bridle Road which originates east of the M1 and bisects the landholding to 

Beggar’s Lane at the site’s western boundary. 

17.3.2 The site is split into two distinct areas being separated by the M69 motorway; Area 1 is 

located to the north of the M69, and Area 2, the Subject Area, which is located to the south of 

the M69. 

17.3.3 The Subject Area comprises primarily of agriculture and woodland, the following residential 

properties are located within the proposed development area:- 

· Warren Farm; and 

· Warren Cottages.


17 - 3 

fpcr 

17.3.4 The field compartments are irregular in size, and are constrained by the presence of small 

woodland copses and the parkland area associated with Enderby Hall to the south and west 

as shown at Appendix 17A, Figure 17.2. The parkland comprises open grassland with 

isolated mature trees. 

17.3.5 There is a hillock/rise in the east of the Subject Area adjacent to the M1, which is of potential 

relevance in the context of the geology. 

17.3.6 Access into the Subject Area can be derived off Leicester Lane to the south and Warren End 

Lane to the north although it is noted that, as part of the Project, the Subject Area would 

ultimately be linked into Area 1 via a bridge crossing the M69 as illustrated at Appendix 2A, 

Figure 2.3A. 

17.3.7 Adjoining land uses to the subject area include established highway networks on the northern, 

eastern and southern perimeters, with the aforementioned Enderby Hall and parkland to the 

west. In addition to Enderby Hall, the north-western perimeter of the subject area is located 

next to the former Enderby Warren Quarry and Landfill Site as indicated at Appendix 17A, 

Figure 17.2. 

Regional Geology 

17.3.8 The geology for Leicester and the surrounding area is illustrated on the British Geological 

Survey (BGS) Map No. 156. The accompanying sheet description was written by J N Carney 

et al, and published in 2009. 

17.3.9 This section of the Chapter also uses the Coalville Memoir (published 1988), the Coventry 

Memoir (published in 1998) and the Mineral Resource Information (MRI) report for the county 

of Leicestershire as published by the BGS in 2002. 

17.3.10 The information published in the MRI report provides an approximate indication of the lateral 

extent of mineral resources within the county. It is of note that the subject area is located in 

close proximity to an identified igneous rock intrusion, which forms part of the larger South 

Leicestershire Diorite. 

17.3.11 The MRI report confirms the development of the geology in the area over a 340 million year 

period, and confirms the mineral resources available in each of the identified formations. 

Leicestershire has a rich history associated with the recovery of mineral resource in particular 

coal, clay and sand and gravel, as well as igneous resources including the former Enderby 

Warren Quarry which is located adjacent to the subject area. It is the latter resource that now 

forms the bulk of the county’s mineral resource output. 

17.3.12 The memoir and sheet descriptions indicated above provides a more detailed commentary on 

the geology present. 

Local Geology 

17.3.13 The geology of the immediate area around the site is better defined on the 1:10,000 sheets for 

grid SK50SW and SP59NW, a combined extract of which is reproduced at Appendix 17A, 

Figure 17.3.


Solid Geology 

17 - 4 

fpcr 

17.3.14 The surface geology of the area is mainly dominated by Triassic geology deposited circa 220 

million years ago. The other time-period of significance is the Pre-Cambrian – Ordovician 

period, some 600 to 400 million years ago. The latter is represented by a number of isolated 

outcrops in the county of igneous geology, comprising basalts, diorites and gabbro 

complexes. 

17.3.15 The closest of these complexes is the South Leicestershire Diorite exposure located north of 

Enderby and just west of the subject area as shown at Appendix 17A, Figure 17.3. These 

rocks comprise a quartz diorite. The same diorite can be traced back to the south-west of 

Enderby at Croft Quarry. The exposure at Enderby Warren Quarry has been subject to 

mineral extraction, and is now concealed by landfill deposits and subsequent built 

development, although a single exposure remains partially buried adjacent to the site and has 

been designated as a SSSI for its geological content; this is considered at section 17.5 

below). 

17.3.16 The remainder of the area in the vicinity of the subject area is covered by deposits of the 

Mercia Mudstone Group, specifically the Edwalton Formation, which generally comprises a 

reddy-brown mudstone with a sandstone basal unit and some interbedded sandstones. The 

whole formation is commonly 40m to 50m thick, with some lateral variation. Based on local 

borehole information it is understood the thickness of the formation in the vicinity of the site is 

circa 22m. 

17.3.17 The Mercia mudstone formations are understood to unconformably overlie the South 

Leicestershire diorite; this is evidenced by local deep boreholes particularly at Leicester Forest 

East Services. 

17.3.18 The Leicester memoir produced by the BGS (paragraph 17.3.8 above) provides an indication 

of the structure of the igneous rocks at Figure 12. This is reproduced at Appendix 17B and 

shows the structure contours on the tip of the igneous rock in dashed light blue lines. The 

location of the Subject Area is illustrated by the “E” notation which is Enderby. 

Drift Geology 

17.3.19 Drift geology, i.e. unconsolidated deposits generally overlies the solid deposits of the 

Edwalton Formation. These deposits comprise the following named formations:- 

· Thrussington Till 

· Oadby Till; 

· Glaciofluvial Sand and Gravel; and 

· Alluvium and Colluvium. 

17.3.20 These formations are resultant of glacial and post-glacial deposition processes and the 

development and erosion/re-working of the older Bytham River (a massive ancient former 

drainage channel located to the south-east of the site). 

17.3.21 In a lithological context, the undifferentiated glaciofluvial deposits comprise a heterogeneous 

mix of sand, gravel, silt and clay. These deposits are localised, and can be deep, and are 

generally considered to be outwash from the post-glacial erosion of the Thrussington and


17 - 5 

fpcr 

Oadby Till formations. With reference to the geological map extract included at Appendix 

17A, Figure 17.3, such deposits are present within the subject area. 

17.3.22 The Alluvium and Colluvium deposits are also low in terms of stratigraphy, and are defined on 

a narrow width along the course of the current unnamed streams on site. These are not 

present in the subject area. 

Site Specific Geology 

17.3.23 This subsection concentrates specifically on the distribution and depth of geology in the 

Subject Area, relying on the interpretation of borehole logs obtained from the BGS and data 

from site investigation exercises. Copies of the borehole logs sourced from the BGS are 

reproduced at Appendix 17C. Their distribution, relative to the subject area, is illustrated on a 

plan which is forms part of the Appendix. 

17.3.24 A summary of the logs is set out as follows:- 

Table 17a: Summary Table of Boreholes (logs and location plan included at Appendix 17C) 

Plan 

Ref 

Borehole 

Ref 

Grid 

Ref 

Depth 

Drilled 

Description 

BH1 SK50SW31 454210, 300410 5 m Red sandy clay of the Mercia 

Mudstone Group 

BH2 SK50SW45 454221, 300740 14.6 m Gravel underlain by sandy clay 

of the Mercia Mudstone 

Group. 

BH3 SK50SW42 457007, 300700 18.0 m Gravel underlain by sandy 

clay of the Mercia Mudstone 

Group. 

BH4 SK50SW43 454042, 300727 10.6 m Silty Clays and Gravels 

underlain by sandy clay of the 

Mercia Mudstone Group 

BH5 SK50SW50 454510, 300729 9.25 m Boulder Clay 

BH6 SK59NW17 454610, 290700 9.14 m Boulder Clay 

BH7 SK59NW18 454620, 299950 12.19 m Boulder clay with sand and 

gravel underlain by sandy clay 

of the Mercia Mudstone Group 

17.3.25 There is a relative scarcity of data with boreholes. Data that has been obtained mainly results 

from investigation activity around the M1 and M69 motorway corridors. However it is notable 

that, without exception, the borehole data that is present does not identify the presence of the 

diorite structure. This has also been verified by trial trench investigations undertaken across 

the Subject Area to a maximum depth of 4.5m on site.


17 - 6 

fpcr 

17.3.26 With reference to Appendix 17B, the Leicester Forest East Borehole indicates the tip of the 

igneous rock to be at 152 m below Ordnance Datum, which is actually 250 m beneath ground 

level. The distance from the borehole to the outcrop of the diorite is 3,000 m which, if the 

diorite has a consistent gradient outfall at outcrop, means that the outer edge falls at a 

gradient of circa 1:12. However this is clearly not the case, as the borehole evidence above 

shows. 

17.3.27 Trial pit investigations undertaken in the subject area have verified the presence of the 

Thrussington Till and a smaller outcrop of glacial sand and gravel than indicated on BGS 

mapping. The investigations also confirmed the presence of the Edwalton Formation, with 

deposits in the south of the area in particular located lower down in the succession as 

interbedded sandstones, indicative of the lower part of this formation, being identified. 

17.3.28 The site investigations did identify the top of the solid geology in most cases and did not 

identify the presence of clean economic sand and gravel underneath the Till deposits. 

Safeguarded Geodiversity 

17.3.29 As set out in section 17.2 above, the Subject Area is located adjacent to the former Enderby 

Warren Quarry which extracted the diorite resources from the South Leicestershire Diorite for 

use as an aggregate in roadstone production. The quarry has now been landfilled; however 

exposures of the diorite remained and have been designated as a Site of Special Scientific 

Interest (SSSI). A copy of the citation and map for this site is reproduced at Appendix 17D. 

17.3.30 The exposure has been designated due to palygorskite mineralisation, a weathered clay 

mineral with high magnesium and aluminium content, found at the unconformable junction of 

the diorite with the overlying Mercia Mudstone Formation. The extent of the SSSI is confined 

to the south-east corner of the wider quarry as indicated at Appendix 17A, Figure 17.2. The 

mineralisation was formed by the movement of mineral rich meteoric fluids through the 

overlying Triassic strata. 

17.3.31 The mineralisation is noted in the BGS memoirs to occur in joints and fractures within the 

diorite and it is therefore notable that it is not widely disseminated in the host rock and thus 

magmatic in source. 

17.3.32 In a slightly wider context, it is notable that other geologically related SSSIs at Croft Quarry 

and Huncote Quarry are designated due to a different form of mineralisation and the presence 

of Triassic wadi sediments. These Triassic wadis can form deeply incised features into the 

diorite deposits, which is particularly the case at Croft. The presence of such features at the 

Subject Area cannot be discounted at this time. 

17.3.33 The drift geology in the area does not generally have much scientific interest. The most 

interesting of the fluvial glacial features are deposits associated with the Bytham River, which 

pre-dates the Till and Glacial Sand and Gravel and are therefore commonly found buried 

under these features. Mapping work previously undertaken by the BGS inferred that the route 

of the Bytham River passes in close proximity or possibly within the south-east corner of the 

subject area. However the aforementioned trial pit investigations, which reached at least 4 m 

in depth, did not come across any deposits that could be representative of this period of time.




17 - 7 

fpcr 

17.4.1 The Project design is set out at ES Volume 1, Chapter 2: Development Proposals, 

Supplementary Chapter 2 contained within this Further Information Document and on the 

revised Parameters Plans included at Appendix 2A. The Project encompasses an area of 394 

ha. The Subject Area detailed in this subsection relates solely to areas designated for 

employment or open space land uses covering an area of 71 ha. The Masterplan has evolved 

in full knowledge of the presence of both drift and solid geology, with no known geotechnical 

constraints. 

17.4.2 The design paid due regard to the presence of the SSSI in Enderby Warren Quarry by 

providing an open space land use on all relevant perimeters of the former mineral workings. 

Further standoffs from other potential exposures are afforded by the topography of the site. 

Mitigation 

17.4.3 Aside from the appropriate standoffs from the Enderby Warren SSSI, no specific safeguarding 

measures were identified as being necessary at the Masterplan stage of this proposal. 

17.4.4 At this stage it is difficult to predict what mitigation measures would be required, as the 

detailed layout of the Strategic Employment Site (SES) has not yet been determined. 

17.4.5 Generalised mitigation measures for the protection of the SSSI and the attendant palygorskite 

mineralisation can simply be provided by the use of a 10 m stand-off from all perimeters of the 

Enderby Warren Quarry as shown at Appendix 17A, Figure 17.3. This would ensure that any 

shallower occurrences of the mineral remain undisturbed. 

17.4.6 In respect of the potential for Triassic wadis, these can only be revealed by large scale earth 

moving operations such as mineral extraction which, in any event, would need to penetrate to 

depths in excess of 20m. This is unlikely to be the case in support of these proposals, 

meaning the underlying Triassic sediments would remain undisturbed. 

17.4.7 Any disturbance of the overlying strata could open up a new pathway to the Triassic receptor; 

however, given the constrained nature of the sandstone horizons, a direct pathway is 

considered unlikely to be established. There should be no derogation of flow or groundwater 

quality and no mitigation measures are considered to be necessary in this instance. 

17.4.8 Finally, in the context of the Bytham River, BGS borehole and site investigations have 

indicated that these deposits, if present on site, are concealed beneath considerable depths of 

glacial sand, gravel and till deposits. It is highly unlikely that these would be exposed during 

any cut and fill element of the proposals and again therefore mitigation would appear 

unnecessary. 

17.4.9 Nevertheless, in the event of the following features being exposed, the BGS would be 

contacted to ascertain the potential importance of the exposure and scope for its retention 

determined:- 

(i) the South Leicestershire diorite; 

(ii) any palygorskite mineralisation; and/or


(iii) clean sand and gravel of the Bytham River deposits. 


Introduction 

17 - 8 

fpcr 

17.5.1 The consultation response from the County Council required the consideration of four 

separate elements:- 

(i) the presence of the Enderby Warren SSSI; 

(ii) the potential presence of palygorskite mineralisation beneath the subject area; 

(iii) the potential presence of Triassic wadis beneath the subject area; and 

(iv) the relationship of the subject area to the River Bytham. 

17.5.2 Each element is considered below. 

Construction and Operation 

Enderby Warren Quarry SSSI 

17.5.3 The SSSI is located on the north-western boundary of the Subject Area and relates to a 

specific part of the wider Enderby Warren quarry. 

17.5.4 With reference to the Masterplan, Appendix 2A, Figure 2.3A, it is noted that the southern limit 

of the SSSI is the only perimeter which directly abuts the wider Lubbesthorpe development 

site. This area is envisaged to be retained in its current condition and would not impact on the 

existing condition of the SSSI or any proposals to enhance its condition in the future. 

17.5.5 Access into the SSSI would remain and, owing to the development layout, there is no potential 

for the development proposals to impinge on the SSSI. It is therefore assessed that the 

impact on the SSSI during any stage of the Project would be negligible, with no net effect 

overall. 

Palygorskite Mineralisation 

17.5.6 It is notable that palygorskite mineralisation is rare in concentrated occurrence, evident in only 

three locations in Leicestershire, and can only be found in hydrothermal deposits, i.e. in close 

proximity to an igneous intrusion, potentially along fault lines within or in proximity to an 

intrusion or within weathered rock in proximity to an intrusion. 

17.5.7 At Enderby Warren Quarry the mineralisation is found in both the Triassic sediments, i.e. the 

Edwalton Formation, and Ordovician South Leicestershire diorite. Its extent, however, is 

confined and is not readily apparent across the wider deposits. The Edwalton Formation has 

a clay content of illite, chlorite and smectite, with other lesser assemblages of sepiolite and 

corrensite. It takes the presence of igneous intrusion and the metal content within, in order to 

precipitate out the palygorskite. 

17.5.8 With reference to the Masterplan and Parameters Plans at Appendix 2A, there are only three 

areas that could encounter this mineralisation, namely the employment areas designated as


17 - 9 

fpcr 

E2 - E4 respectively. Although much will depend upon the layout of specific structures within 

each of these areas, given that the area of mineralisation extends to less than 3 m from the 

contact between the two formations, the exposure in any foundation work associated with the 

Lubbesthorpe development is considered to be very remote. Deeper deposits will remain 

unexposed, meaning no change from the current situation. It is therefore assessed that the 

impact on the palygorskite mineralisation during any stage of the Project would be negligible, 

with no significant adverse effect overall. 

Triassic Wadis 

17.5.9 There is extensive evidence to suggest that the Ordovician igneous intrusions of the South 

Leicestershire Diorite were largely buried beneath aelion (wind blown) deposits and riparian 

(river based) deposits which cut into the diorite where shelter belts or fault zones weakened 

the diorite. The best evidence for this is at the nearby Croft and Mountsorrel Quarries. 

17.5.10 The features at Mountsorrel are understood to have a different origin to those at Croft due to 

the later intrusion of the diorite at Mountsorrel than at Croft. The diorite at Croft is of the same 

magmatic body as at Enderby Warren Quarry and it is therefore reasonable to assume that 

the same type conditions (topographical and climatic) prevailed during the Triassic era. 

However, the wadi type features are not widely mapped and without extensive drilling it is not 

possible to predict if they are present beneath the subject area, or indeed the wider site. 

17.5.11 The BGS mapping at Appendix 17B does have an area where the Edwalton Formation 

appears to penetrate into the plutonic structure of the Enderby Warren deposit, this being 

shown by a curved chunk being taken out of the north-east area of the quarry. The full depth 

of the Edwalton Formation is not proven in the vicinity of the site apart from at the Leicester 

Forest East borehole where it is recorded as being 22 m thick. 

17.5.12 However, it is known that significant deposits of boulder clay and mudstones in the Edwalton 

Formation underlie the Subject Area, these would confine any deep aquifer deposits within 

any potential wadi areas. This would mean that the potential for the development to affect the 

flow or quality characteristics of any deeper aquifer strata is minimal. There is a slight/minor 

scope for the sandstone within the Edwalton Formation to outcrop within the employment 

area, in particular within E2. Specific measures may therefore need to be put in place to 

safeguard the quality of any waters within this unit. 

Bytham River 

17.5.13 The Bytham River was a massive ancient river developed prior to the glacial periods in the 

Pleistocene era. The river is understood to have run through the Midlands, rising in the 

vicinity of Stratford on Avon, running up through Leicester and east into East Anglia to flow 

into the North Sea. 

17.5.14 Subsequent glacial events have led to the erosion and/or the concealment of this feature over 

time. However its presence is noted in the vicinity of Leicester, in particular along the 

alignment of the current River Soar. In addition, there are areas where it crops at the surface, 

particularly at Huncote to the west and Alyester Park to the east. 

17.5.15 Within the context of the subject area, the channel of the river may be present in the south- 

west corner of the site. The sand and gravel should be readily identifiable by low clay content


17 - 10 

fpcr 

and as having a yellowy orange appearance, this being opposite to the glacial sand and 

gravel deposits noted on site which have relatively high clay content and are browny grey in 

colour. The trial pit investigations undertaken across the subject area have confirmed that if 

the river channel is present it is concealed by the glacial sand and gravel and the Thrissington 

Till to at least a depth of 4 m. 

17.5.16 Evidence presented in the archaeological records appear to verify this position, as finds 

should be readily available from the Bytham River deposits, as is the case elsewhere, but are 

not present immediately to the south-west of Leicester. This suggests the structure is buried 

and has not been reworked by post deposition glacial events. 

17.5.17 It is therefore considered that there is no scope for the Project to uncover these sediments, if 

they are indeed present on site, and therefore a negligible effect is anticipated. 


17.5.18 This section assesses the likely significant effects of the Project when considered in the 

context of other future projects. 

17.5.19 Whilst the overall effect of the Project upon geology local to the Lubbesthorpe area would be 

negligible, cumulative effects involving proposed Sustainable Urban Extensions at both 

Barwell and Earl Shilton, within Hinckley and Bosworth Borough, may lead to cumulative 

losses or exposure of geological assets. Although the exact scope of this potential effect is 

unknown at present it is known that the SUEs at Barwell and Earl Shilton are located on an 

outcrop of the Mercia Mudstone Group specifically the Gunthorpe Formation which exhibits 

similar characteristics to the Edwalton Formation which underlies the site at Lubbesthorpe. 

Drift deposits are mainly glacial and post-date the development of the Bytham River. Whilst 

there is scope (albeit limited) for the exposure of strata overlying Triassic Wadi’s, and 

therefore potential cumulative effects upon the deep aquifer systems, there is no scope for 

cumulative effects under any of the headings discussed above. 


17.5.20 There would be no residual effects associated with the proposals. The existing concealed 

geology would remain so in perpetuity. Residual effects could occur should the drift deposits 

be removed to expose the Triassic groundwater system. However, standard mitigation 

measures, such as the use of SuDS or bypass separators, can be used to prevent any 

adverse impact. 


17.6.1 The geodiversity assessment confirms that the likelihood of the presence of the Enderby 

Warren SSSI, palygorskite mineralisation, Triassic wadis or the Bytham River within the site is 

minimal and, if present, would not be disturbed by the proposals due to their concealment at 

depth. Therefore the impact of the Project upon these features would be negligible. 

17.6.2 Nevertheless, a scheme of mitigation measures has been detailed which would result in any 

exposure of potentially important geology being reviewed by an appropriately trained geologist 

who would be present in situ as necessary. Therefore the Project affords potential for a slight


17 - 11 

fpcr 

beneficial effect in respect of geodiversity in the longer term with any new deposits revealed 

during the implementation phase potentially being preserved in situ.


18.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER 

18 - 1 

fpcr 

18.1 This supplementary Chapter concludes the overall cumulative effects of the Project resulting 

from the additional assessment and analysis work undertaken for this Regulation 22 

submission. Table 18a below replaces Table 17a contained in ES Chapter 17: Cumulative 

Effects. In addition, the Non-Technical Summary includes a short description of the effects for 

all environmental issues contained within the ES and this Further Information Document. 

Table 18a: Cumulative Effects of Individual Topics of the Project 

ES Topic Overall 

Environmental 

Effect of Project 

Planning Policy 

Socio Economics 

Landscape and Visual 

Resources 

Ecological Resources 

(including Arboriculture) 

Cultural Heritage and 

Archaeology 

Agricultural Land Quality 

Comments 

NA The Project is in accordance with National 

and Regional Planning guidance and the 

Submission Version of the Draft Core 

Strategy. 

Significant 

Beneficial 

Slight to Moderate 

Beneficial 

Significant 

Beneficial 

The Project would provide jobs, housing, 

schools and a broad range of community 

benefits for the new community and the 

wider area. 

Although the site falls within a green field 

landscape it is not exceptional or protected. 

The Project would be relatively well 

contained visually and includes a 

substantial framework of GI including 

existing woodland, many of the hedgerows 

and mature trees, new woodland planting, 

open space and recreation grounds. 

Appropriate mitigation approaches have 

been adopted. The Project’s significant GI 

of more than 50% of the Project area would 

ensure that the site’s biodiversity is 

significantly enhanced. 

Moderate Adverse Slight adverse effect on the setting of the 

Scheduled Monuments within and in the 

vicinity of the Project site and upon the 

listed buildings near to the area. Moderate 

adverse effect upon potential 

archaeological remains and upon the 

historic landscape as a result of some 

ancient hedgerow loss. 

Moderate-Major 

Adverse 

The Project would result in the loss of 300 

ha agricultural land, although this is mainly 

sub-grade 3b land with some sub-grade 3a 

and grade 2. At least four farm businesses 

would be affected.


Water, Hydrology and 

Drainage 

Noise and 

Vibration/Acoustics 

Air Quality 

Waste 

Traffic and Transport 

Infrastructure and 

Services 

Negligible- 

Moderate 

Beneficial 

Geodiversity Negligible with 

potential to 

become beneficial 

18 - 2 

fpcr 

An appropriate Sustainable Drainage 

Strategy as part of the GI is promoted which 

would attenuate surface water discharge 

from the Project. 

Negligible Appropriate measures have been 

introduced to mitigate areas of the Project 

potentially sensitive to noise and vibration, 

both from existing sources and those 

resulting from the Project itself. 

Negligible At worst there would be a minor adverseminor 

beneficial effect from passing traffic 

emissions (NO2 concentrations). Overall, 

there are no significant adverse effects on 

air quality arising from the Project. 

Slight Adverse The Project would be built to current 

standards. Target standards would be 

implemented 

mitigation. 

as well as appropriate 

Slight Adverse The Project includes highway improvements 

and accessibility measures to mitigate the 

effects of the development proposals. A 

Framework Plan would be provided to 

encourage a reduction in employee’s car 

journeys. A residential travel pack would be 

issued to all residents. There would be 

provision of public transport system, new 

footways and cycleways. 

Negligible The Project introduces appropriate 

infrastructure and services to serve the new 

development. 

The Project would incorporate the required 

stand-off distance from Enderby Warren 

SSSI and the British Geological Survey 

(BGS) would be contacted for guidance 

should any additional geological features be 

exposed during construction works. 

Cumulative Effects arising from the New Lubbesthorpe Project and other Projects 

18.2 The Scoping Report (refer to ES Volume 2, Appendix 1B) requested that Blaby District 

Council identify projects which they consider should be assessed in terms of cumulative 

effects. Proposals for Sustainable Urban Extensions at both Barwell and Earl Shilton (on the 

A47) form part of the Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy, Adopted December 2009. 

Potential cumulative effects that may arise as a result of these projects, in respect of New 

Lubbesthorpe, are considered within the ES and within the replacement/new chapters 

contained within this Further Information Document. 

18.3 The Regulation 22 (refer to Appendix 1A) requests that other committed and recently 

completed development schemes in the Junction 21 (M1) area, in addition to the proposed


18 - 3 

fpcr 

SUE’s at Barwell and Earl Shilton, should also be considered in terms of cumulative light; 

noise; air quality; and transport effects. The schemes identified by Blaby District Council for 

consideration in this respect are identified at Figure 16 of the supplementary Transport 

Assessment and listed below:- 

· Development at Grove Park; 

· Development at Meridian Business Park; 

· Development at Thorpe Astley; 

· Audi garage, Narborough Road South; 

· Sainsbury’s, Grove Park Triangle; 

· Next car park; 

· Oak Spinney Park, Ratby Lane; 

· Taylor Wimpey Development, west of Beggar’s Lane; 

· St John’s, Enderby; and 

· Glenfield Park. 

18.4 These developments are considered within the relevant chapters (6: Landscape Character and 

Visual Resources; 12: Noise and Vibration/Acoustics; 13: Air Quality; and 15: Traffic and 

Transport) of this Further Information Document. 

18.5 On the assumption that each project would seek to mitigate for any significant adverse effects 

through a well-considered design response, and given the limited available published 

information on the potential environmental effects arising from these projects, the cumulative 

effects coming forward in conjunction with New Lubbesthorpe, is not considered to have a 

significant adverse effect on the environmental resource.

Lubbesthorpe New - Blaby District Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?