Our Reference:

&

East Midlands Gateway Strategic Rail Freight Interchange

Local Impact Report

November 2014

Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR050002

Our Reference:

Contents

Section One Introduction

Section Two The Local Impact Report – Terms of Reference

Section Three Proposed Development

Section Four Site Area and Constraints

Section Five History of the Site

Section Six Planning Policy

Section Seven Local Area Characteristics Designations and Landscape Character

Section Eight Consideration of Local Impacts

Section Nine Consideration of Mitigation Impacts

Section Ten Compliance with Local Level Policies

Our Reference:

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This Local Impact Report (LIR) is prepared on behalf of Leicestershire County Council and North West Leicestershire District Council (‘Local Authorities’) in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 (the Act) as amended by the Localism Act 2011. The document also takes into account the advice set out in The Planning Inspectorate’s (PINS) Advice Note One: Local Impact Reports (Version 2 April 2012). ENTER DATE OF AGREED LIR AT CABINET.

1.2 The LIR is the Local Authorities response to an application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Limited for a Development Consent Order (DCO) authorising the construction, operation and maintenance of a rail freight interchange and warehousing and highway works (‘East Midlands Gateway’) at land in the vicinity of Junction 24 of the M1 Motorway.

1.3 It is identified that the development would consist of the following: -

1) An intermodal freight terminal accommodating up to 16 trains per day and trains of up to 775m long and including container storage and heavy goods vehicle parking;

2) Up to 557,414 square metres of rail served warehousing and ancillary service buildings;

3) A new rail line connecting the terminal to the Castle Donington branch freight only line;

4) New road infrastructure and works to the existing road infrastructure;5) Demolition of existing structures and structural earthworks to create

development plots and landscape zones;6) Strategic landscaping and open space, including alterations to public rights

of way and the creation of new publicly accessible open areas;7) Bus interchange;

1.4 The East Midlands Gateway is considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) because the project involves the construction of a rail freight interchange and highway related development, thereby falling within the definitions set out in Sections 14(1) (h) and (l) as well as 22(2) and 26 of the Act. In this circumstance it has been determined that there are three NSIPs involved which include the rail freight interchange itself (NSIP1), the construction of a trunk road to be controlled by the Secretary of State (NSIP2) and alterations to a trunk road controlled by the Secretary of State (NSIP3).

1.5 Due to the development being considered an NSIP the application for development has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (acting for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government). Elements of the development which are not encompassed within any of the NSIPs will be characterised in the order applied for as ‘Associated Development’ and although there are three individual NSIPS they are considered as a single project for the purpose of the DCO.

Our Reference:

1.6 The application for a DCO was made by Roxhill (Kegworth) Limited on the 29 th August 2014, and accepted for examination by the Secretary of State on the 19 th September 2014.

Our Reference:

2.0 The Local Impact Report - Terms of Reference

2.1 Section 104 of the Act requires the Secretary of State to have regard to LIRs in deciding applications. Section 60 (3) of the Act defines an LIR as “a report in writing giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority’s area (or any part of that area).” Advice Note One goes on to give guidance on the content of the LIR but stresses that the content is a matter for the local authorities and should cover any topics considered relevant to the impact of the proposed development on their area.

2.2 The Advice Note advises that the LIR is to be used as the means by which the local authorities can use its local knowledge and evidence on local issues in order to present a robust assessment to the Examining Authority. As such, it should draw on local knowledge and experience. The document should also contain statements of positive, negative and neutral impacts but does not need to set out a balancing exercise on such impacts as this will be the responsibility of the Examining Authority.

2.3 That said the Examining Authority will want to know the local authorities views on the “relative importance of different social, environmental or economic issues” and the impact of the scheme on them. Similarly the local authorities views on the DCO articles, requirements and obligations will be important to the Examining Authority.

2.4 In addition reference can be made to National Policy Statements (NPSs) where they are relevant but the local authorities are advised not to undertake assessment of proposals against NPS as this is the role of the Examining Authority.

2.5 For the purposes of this LIR the following matters will be considered using local knowledge and evidence and will assess the following issues: -

1) Consideration of local impacts:a) Socio-Economic Impactsb) Landscape and Visual Effectsc) Ecology and Nature Conservationd) Noise, Vibration and Lightinge) Air Qualityf) Flood Riskg) Transportation and Sustainable Transporth) Land Contamination and Implications to Mineral Resourcesi) Heritage and Archaeology

2) Consideration of Mitigation Measures:a) Socio-Economic Impactsb) Landscape and Visual Effectsc) Ecology and Nature Conservationd) Noise, Vibration and Lightinge) Air Qualityf) Flood Risk

Our Reference:

g) Transporth) Land Contamination and Agricultural Land Qualityi) Heritage and Archaeology

2.6 The LIR will set out fully and robustly local knowledge and evidence on local impacts of the development and it is hoped that this document will assist the Examining Authority in its assessment in its assessment of the proposal and in making its recommendation to the Secretary of State.

Our Reference:

3.0 Proposed Development

Intermodal Freight Terminal, Container Storage and Parking

3.1 The freight terminal would be designed to accommodate up to 16 trains per day, and to accommodate trains of up to 775 metres long (the standard length of UK freight trains). It would enable the transfer of freight from road to rail, and vice versa, and in addition to serving the operators located on the East Midlands Gateway site itself, would also serve a wider market, enabling the transfer, and storage as required, of containers at the East Midlands Gateway freight terminal site. In these circumstances areas for container storage and HGV parking are provided at, and adjacent to, the rail terminal.

Up to 557,414 Square Metres of Rail Served Warehousing and Ancillary Service Building

3.2 The East Midlands Gateway application is for a maximum of 557,414 square metres (6 million square feet) of predominately warehouse space. A small amount of space for ancillary service buildings relating to the freight terminal and storage areas is also proposed.

3.3 The final and detailed configuration of this space would not be determined until later in the process but the expectation is that the space would be provided in buildings of various sizes.

3.4 A Parameters Plan (Document Number 2.10) submitted in support of the application identifies that Zone A (Development Area) would contain buildings totalling 555,476 square metres which would range in height from 17.5 metres in Zone A5 to 26.5 metres within Zones A1 and A2. A minimum of six and maximum of 17 units would be provided within this zone.

3.5 Zone B (Container Storage, Parking Area and Associated Welfare Facilities) would contain buildings totalling 938 square metres with heights of 10.0 metres and containers stored to a maximum height of 10.0 metres.

3.6 Zone C (Rail Interchange) would contain buildings totalling 1000 square metres with heights of 10.0 metres along with containers stored to a maximum height of 10.0 metres and Gantry Cranes to a maximum height of 20.0 metres.

3.7 Within the bus interchange a building to a height of 6.5 metres would be proposed totalling 150 square metres.

A New Rail Line Connecting the Terminal to the Castle Donington Branch Freight Only Rail Line

3.8 This forms part of a network of routes that are being cleared under the Strategic Freight Network Programme by Network Rail. This will include a new railway line running north

Our Reference:

out of the site adjacent to the M1 and A50, before connecting to the existing freight rail way to the north east of Lockington.

3.9 West and east facing connections to the existing rail network will be provided, giving direct access to the ports at Southampton, Felixstowe, London Gateway plus other smaller UK container ports, the Channel Tunnel and many of the key UK regional distribution cluster locations. The rail terminal will include four unloading sidings and an engine release siding. All reception sidings, the unloading sidings and the engine release siding will be capable of handling 775 metre long trains which is the accepted UK standard for intermodal trains.

3.10 At the beginning, based on equivalent UK terminal operations, East Midlands Gateway is expected to handle one to two trains a day rising over time to a maximum of 16 trains per day.

New Road Infrastructure and Works to the Existing Road Infrastructure

3.11 The East Midlands Gateway proposal includes a number of road infrastructure elements, including both new roads, and improvements to existing roads the changes to the strategic road network are as follows: -

1) New free-flowing southbound slip road over the M1 to replace the Junction 24A roundabout – this slip road will join directly to the M1 southbound and also provide a link to the Junction 24 roundabout which will be improved. This will remove all A50 to M1 southbound traffic from Junction 24;

2) The construction of a Kegworth bypass, connecting the A6 south of Kegworth to the A453 south of J24 of the M1;

3) Improvements to the M1 southbound between the new A50 slip-road and the Junction with the Junction 24 slip-road;

4) Provision of a ‘short’ link road at Junction 24 carrying northbound traffic from the site, and from the A453 to the A50 without needing to pass through Junction 24;

5) Widening and signalisation of the A453 ‘arm’ into Junction 24 from the east (Nottingham);

6) Construction of a new site access onto the A453 south of Junction 24, meeting the needs of both the East Midlands Gateway and the Airport;

7) The current A50 southbound ‘arm’ into Junction 24 would be retained as a two-way road to provide local access (as identified in more detail below);

3.12 In addition to the above works the following works would also be proposed to the ‘local’ highway network: -

1) The closure of the Church Lane access to Lockington from the A50, and the provision of a new access to the village via Main Street;

2) A new access to the Hilton Hotel from the altered and reconfigured A50;

Our Reference:

3) A new bridge over the M1 would replace the existing Ashby Road overbridge which is substandard for vehicular use, but will be retained for pedestrian and cycle use;

4) The provision of bus interchange facilities at the site access roundabout, and bus priority through to Ashby Road in Kegworth;

Structural Earthworks to create Development Plots and Landscape Zones

3.13 The topography of the East Midlands Gateway site includes some changes in land levels which will require earthworks to create development plateaus or plots within the development zones. The rail terminal will be sunk into a newly created plateau which will have operational benefits with regards to levels, but also advantageous in reducing visual and other impacts.

3.14 Built development within the identified zones will ultimately involve the construction of very large buildings and as such significant earthworks are proposed to create the plateaus not only for the buildings themselves but also to help create the significant bunding and screening to limit the visual impact of the proposed development from viewpoints and receptors outside the site. It is proposed that the bunds will effectively surround the northern, western, and – to a lesser extent – southern boundaries of the East Midlands Gateway site. These bunds will be planted with substantial vegetation which will form an important part of the wider landscape strategy.

Strategic Landscaping and Open Space

3.15 A Landscape and Environmental Strategy for the proposed development has been prepared and this responds to the issues of existing sensitivity and interest, landscape character and context, visual impact and amenity, ecology and biodiversity, and to the relevant planning and environmental policy context.

3.16 It is identified that the strategy prepared would ensure the establishment of a strong and cohesive framework of landscape and environmental areas. These would form one of the main elements of the overall development and would be fully integrated with the built development and infrastructure zones.

3.17 Photomontages have also been supplied taken from twelve locations which were agreed with Leicestershire County Council. These twelve locations are as follows: -

1) View southeast from Main Street, Lockington;2) View south from Lockington Road;3) View south from Church Lane, Hemington;4) View southeast from Hemington Hill;5) View Moira Dale Recreation Ground, Castle Donington;6) View from Ashby Road, Kegworth;7) View from Windmill Way, Kegworth;

Our Reference:

8) View from London Road, Kegworth;9) View from East Midlands Parkway Station;10) View from Long Lane (near bridge over the A453);11) View from J24 (top of M1 northbound exit slip);12) Viewpoint from Rycroft Road, Hemington (A50, Junction 1);

3.18 It is stated that the development shown within the photomontages is illustrative only, however, they do depict the maximum height of the proposed buildings and are based upon the finished plot and floor levels and as such can be considered the ‘worst case’ scenario in terms of the proposed visibility of the built development. The photomontages depict the scheme upon completion of all the earthworks, buildings and landscape proposals and after 10 years once the proposed landscaping has become established.

Construction Process and Phasing Construction Management

3.19 A Construction Management Framework Plan (CMFP) has been prepared and this identifies the proposed programme of the construction works and the key activities that will be undertaken. This document also outlines the broad approach to be taken to the preparation of more detailed Construction Management Plans (CMP) in respect of waste management and minimisation.

Management and Maintenance

3.20 Throughout the development period, there will be substantial on-site control and day-to-day management of the environment. It is essential to control the quality of new works and to ensure that there is no disturbance to already completed buildings and planting.

3.21 On the completion of the development, there will remain a shared interest among the occupiers for continued control of the quality of the environment and for its maintenance. The most effective form of such on-going control will be a Management Company (MC), which will maintain liaison with the appropriate Statutory Authorities and other organisations responsible for activities and services on site, and also be responsible for co-ordinating management and maintenance of un-adopted areas of a communal nature.

3.22 It is the applicant’s aims to ensure that the quality of the environment created in the early years being maintained in perpetuity to the benefit of all occupants, as well as the locality.

Our Reference:

4.0 Site Area and Constraints

4.1 The area which is the subject of the DCO lies wholly within the administrative area of the identified Local Authorities with the extent of the works involving the provision of the Kegworth Bypass abutting the boundary with Rushcliffe Borough Council. It is identified in the submission that the East Midlands Gateway would cover an area of 336 hectares.

4.2 At present the land on which the rail freight interchange (NSIP 1) itself would be constructed consists of medium-large sized fields bounded, predominately, by mature hedgerows. The settlement of Castle Donington is located to the west of this site with residential properties and the Castle Donington High School and Community College being located on its eastern periphery.

4.3 To the north of the site lies the settlement’s of Hemington and Lockington, which again contain residential properties on their southern periphery, with the settlement of Kegworth being located to the east of the site which contains both residential and commercial properties on its western edge albeit that these premises are separated from the site of NSIP 1 by the presence of the M1 Motorway.

4.4 To the south of the site lies East Midlands Airport with the runway associated with this airport being the closest form of development to the application site.

4.5 In respect of improvements to the Castle Donington branch freight only line, which also form part of NSIP 1, these would be carried out on agricultural land to the north of Hemington and north and east of Lockington. Residential properties on Rycroft Road, separated from the existing Castle Donington branch line by agricultural fields, would be the closest forms of development to these proposals along with the Hilton National Hotel at Junction 24 of the M1 Motorway.

4.6 With regards to NSIP’s 2 and 3 the majority of the highway works would be carried out on the existing M1 Motorway and parts of the A50 which are located to the north and east of Lockington and north-west and west of Kegworth. The areas to the north and east of Lockington, as well as the north-west of Kegworth, consist predominately of open agricultural fields with no significant built forms although it is noted that Lockington Quarry lies to the north-east of Junction 24a of the M1 Motorway.

4.7 Development associated with the Kegworth Bypass would be conducted on land to the south of Kegworth which again consists of medium-large sized agricultural fields with the southern periphery of Kegworth being characterised by residential properties.

4.8 Paragraph 3.10 of the Planning Statement of Common Ground (Planning SoCG), as well as Figure 3 (Constraints Plan) within the Design and Access Statement, identify that the site of the rail freight interchange occupies land that rises from approximately 30 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) within the Trent Valley floor to the north of Lockington, up to approximately 90 metres AOD at the boundary with East Midlands Airport to the

Our Reference:

south, with the Airport sitting relatively high on a plateau. South of Lockington and Hemington are two small and subsidiary valleys (Lockington Brook and Hemington Brook) that generally fall in a south to north direction and towards both of these small settlements. This creates a rolling and varied character to the mid valley slopes approaching the airport plateau, and these landform variations offer a degree of enclosure to parts of the mid and higher slopes within the main site area.

4.9 In terms of the constraints on the land associated with NSIP 1 it is noted that it would be necessary to demolish Fields Farm, Ashby Road, Kegworth (and its associated buildings) with Hemington Clay Pigeon Shoot at Hemington Hill, Hemington also being incorporated into the development.

4.10 With regards to other constraints on the site of NSIP 1 these would be as follows: -

1) Castle Donington Grassy Shrub (a Candidate Local Wildlife Site (CLWS)), along the southern boundary of the rail freight interchange site;

2) Hemington Grassland (CLWS), located to the north of the site of Hemington Clay Pigeon Shoot;

3) Castle Donington Pasture, Woodland and Stream (CLWS), to the west of The Dumps Woodland;

4) The Dumps Grassland (CLWS), to the south-east of The Dumps Woodland;5) The Dumps Woodland (CLWS);6) Railway Grassland Strip (CLWS), located to the north of the railway through

Hemington;7) A badger sett at The Dumps Woodland;8) A badger sett at Castle Donington/A50, located to the south-west of

Junction 24a of the M1 Motorway;9) Tree Preservation Order T211 – King Street, Plantation, woodland

comprising mainly Lime, Oak, Ash and Pine;10) Tree Preservation Order T209 – The Dumps Woodland, woodland

comprising mainly Sycamore, Ash, Pine, Larch, Redwood, Holly, Hawthorn and Birch;

11) Flood Zone 3, to the north of Hemington and Lockington;12) Public Footpath L45, through site of rail freight interchange;13) Public Footpath L57, through site of rail freight interchange;14) Public Footpath L58, to the east of Lockington;15) Public Footpath L83, in close proximity to existing Castle Donington branch

line;16) Public Bridleway L103, through site of rail freight interchange;17) The route of HS2 is proposed to tunnel under the site, which would be an

extension of the tunnel under East Midlands Airport, with the route emerging from this tunnel between The Dumps and King Street Plantation;

18) The site would also be within a public safety zone and safeguarded area associated with East Midlands Airport;

Our Reference:

4.11 As part of the proposals for NSIP’s 2 and 3 it would be necessary to demolish Molehill Farm, Ashby Road, Kegworth.

4.12 In terms of the other constraints associated on the land within NSIP’s 2 and 3 these would be as follows: -

1) Lockington Quarry Extension Hedgerow and Ditch (CLWS), to the east of Junction 24a;

2) M1/A50 Junction and Ponds and Grassland (CLWS), within the loop-road of Junction 24a;

3) M1/A50 Junction Pond (CLWS), between the M1 Motorway and north-bound junction of Junction 24a;

4) A badger sett at Lockington Quarry Extension March Covert, to the north-west of Kegworth;

5) Tree Preservation Order T260 – Lockington Park, Lockington W1, W3 and G2, woodland comprising Broadleaf Woodland including Oak, Beech, Sycamore and Cherry (W1), Broadleaf Woodland, including Oak, Holly, Willow, Hawthorn, Sycamore, Beech and Horse Chestnut (W3) and a Group of 29 Mature Oaks (G2);

6) Flood Zone 3, to the north of Kegworth and around Junction 24a of the M1 Motorway;

7) Public Footpath L54, to the south-east of Kegworth;8) Public Footpath L64, to the south of Kegworth;9) Public Footpath L73, to the east of Junction 24a;10) Public Footpath L74, to the north-west of Junction 24a;11) A site of archaeological interest (No. 37 Clear Hollow Way, Two Mesolithic

Found and Roman Pottery), to the south-east of Welwyn Cottage, New Brickyard Lane, Kegworth;

12) The site would also lie within a public safety zone and safeguarded area associated with East Midlands Airport;

4.13 Other constraints around the site which would need to be assessed would predominately involve the implications a development of this scale would have on the setting of heritage assets located within the neighbouring settlements which would consist of the following: -

1) Church of St Nicholas, Church Street, Lockington – Grade I Listed;2) Hall Farmhouse, Church Street, Lockington – Grade II Listed;3) Dale Acre Farmhouse, Main Street, Lockington – Grade II Listed;4) Lockington Hall, Main Street, Lockington – Grade II Listed5) The Old Vicarage, Church Street, Hemington – Grade II Listed;6) Hemington House Farmhouse, Church Lane, Hemington – Grade II Listed;7) Ruins of Old Parish Church, Church Lane, Hemington – Grade II Listed;8) Hemington House, Main Street, Hemington – Grade II Listed;9) No. 1 Main Street, Hemington – Grade II Listed;

Our Reference:

10) Mile Post 400M South-East of Junction with Netherfield Lane/A6 – Grade II Listed;

11) The Cedars, No. 29 London Road, Kegworth – Grade II Listed;12) Friends Cottage, No. 40 London Road, Kegworth – Grade II Listed;13) Medieval Settlement Remains East of The Wymeshead – Ancient Monument

No. 26;14) Roman Villa and Enclosures North of Radcliffe – Ancient Monument No. 15;15) Site Revealed by Aerial Photograph North East of Dunster Barn – Ancient

Monument No. 14;16) Lockington Conservation Area;17) Hemington Conservation Area;18) Castle Donington Conservation Area;

4.14 In summary the areas of land which would be the subject of the DCO are primarily characterised by open agricultural fields it is located in an area which is affected by a number of urbanising elements and features. This was noted in North West Leicestershire’s ‘Settlement Fringe Assessment’ report for Castle Donington which refers to the urbanising effect of the M1 Motorway, A50, East Midlands Airport and Radcliffe on Soar power station in the vicinity of the Castle Donington area, all of which adversely affect the landscape character and reduce the sense of remoteness and tranquillity (Paragraph 3.8 of the Planning SoCG).

Our Reference:

5.0 History of the Site

5.1 Paragraph 4.2 of the Planning SoCG identifies that there is no relevant planning history on the site save for where highway works, including a Kegworth bypass are concerned. Paragraph 4.3 of the Planning SoCG also states that options for highway improvements on and in the immediate vicinity of the site, including options for a bypass for Kegworth have been considered in the past but have not been progressed.

5.2 In terms of planning applications which have been submitted and considered by the District Council in respect of the identified site these would be as follows: -

1) 94/0089/P – Erection of a conference centre and industrial and distribution development (outline) – Withdrawn 29th March 1995;

2) 94/0684/P – Rail freight storage and distribution facility – Appeal against Non-Determination Lodged 2nd November 1994; Appeal Withdrawn 1st

February 1995;3) 95/0679/P – Storage and distribution depot (80 hectares), residential

development (80 hectares), exhibition and conference centre, road works and rail link (outline) – Refused 13th December 1995;

4) 95/0680/P – Regional storage and distribution centre together with associated road works and rail link – Refused 13th December 1995;

5) 97/0491/P – Regional storage and distribution centre (outline) – Withdrawn;6) 99/0743/P – Development of up to 200,000 square metres of storage and

distribution use buildings, rail access from new connection, rail freight terminal and associated highway works (outline – means of access) – Appeal against Non-Determination Lodged;

5.3 In addition there are mineral planning permissions issued by Leicestershire County Council which cover land within the DCO area to the east of the M1. The main mineral planning permissions are as follows: -

1) 1997/0036/07 – Sand and gravel extraction – Permitted 23rd December 1998;

2) 2000/0088/07 – Relocation of processing plant – Permitted 21st June 2000;3) 2007/1361/07 – Extension to Lockington quarry – Permitted 24 th September

2008;

5.4 Paragraph 4.3 of the Planning SoCG concludes that none of the District Council historic applications and permissions have any current planning status.

5.5 In the circumstances that the majority of the land has remained largely undeveloped, with no developments of significance being brought forward, the land has historically been used for agricultural purposes.

Our Reference:

5.6 However, land to the east of the M1 which is subject to planning permissions for mineral extraction currently forms part of the operational Lockington Quarry sand and gravel extraction site. Mineral extraction within the DCO area is completed but the quarry processing plant which lies just outside the DCO area is currently permitted to continue operations until the end of December 2025 and access to the processing plant will need to be maintained throughout this period and potentially beyond in the event of further extensions to the quarry being granted permission.

5.7 With regards to the developments within close proximity to the application site it is noted that the Illustrative Masterplan (Drawing No. 3252-L-03 Revision G) identifies the indicative layout of a residential scheme assessed under application reference 12/00323/OUTM (Land Adjoining 90 Ashby Road, Kegworth – Residential Development of up to 110 Dwellings including Means of Access, Associated Earthworks, Open Space Provision, Community Facilities, Other Associated Infrastructure (Outline – all matters other than part access reserved)) this application was approved on the 18th April 2013.

5.8 Other applications are yet to be determined but of particular relevance would be 14/00541/OUTM an outline application for a development of up to 150 dwellings with open space, landscaping, access and other infrastructure work (outline – all matters reserved apart from part access) on a site adjacent to the Computer Centre and Junction 24, Packington Hill, Kegworth, this site is directly to the north of that approved under application reference 12/00323/OUTM. Application reference 14/00847/FULM for a change of use of agriculture land to mixed use of agriculture and solar farm at a site east of Whatton Road is also of relevance.

Our Reference:

6.0 Relevant Planning Policy

6.1 Section 104 (2) of the Act sets out the matters to be taken into account in regard to applications for a DCO for NSIPs as the NPS for the development to which the application relates, any local impact report, any matters prescribed in relation to development of the description to which the application relates and any other matters considered important and relevant.

Plan for Growth – March 2011

6.2 In March of 2011, shortly after the Coalition Government took office, it published ‘The Plan for Growth’ which sets out a range of facts and analysis regarding the state of the Nation’s economy. This document set out a vision for how the UK should move towards a positive picture of economic growth, and make the transition from recession to future, sustainable growth.

6.3 The Plan for Growth is considered to be of relevance, in terms of land-use planning policy, because the Plan makes it clear that ‘growth’ means development. In the report Government explicitly recognises that taking forward the growth agenda is not without controversy – the report says: “all of it involves choices and priorities. But the alternative is to accept Britain’s economic decline and falling standards of living for our population” (page 4).

The Logistics Growth Review – November 2011

6.4 The Logistics Growth Review (LGR) produced by the Department for Transport in November 2011 identified the importance of the logistics sector, both as an employer in its own right, but also as an important enabler of growth and success to other sectors and businesses. It set out a range of actions and measures to address barriers to growth of the sector. It agreed that that this included supporting the development of a network of Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges (SRFIs), which also featured in the SRFI Policy Guidance (referred to below) which was published at the same time as the Logistics Growth Review, and also fed through to the National Policy Statement of 2013 (also referred to below).

6.5 The LGR also identified a number of potential actions for Government and others which included supporting the development of SRFIs through collaborative working and speeding up delivery in response to business demand; strategic investment in the road network, including through the ‘Pinch Point’ programme and investment in the expansion of the strategic rail freight network, including gauge clearance in the Midlands to increase capacity and connectivity to key Ports.

Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Policy Guidance – November 2011

Our Reference:

6.6 In the absence of a National Policy Statement at the time the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Policy Guidance (SRFIPG) was published by the Government in November 2011 and was intended to inform decision-making on NSIP Development Consent Order applications. However, the policy set out in the draft National Policy Statement (NPS) of December 2013 on strategic rail freight interchanges confirms the policy set out in the policy guidance published in 2011.

6.7 Of particular note is the definition of an SRFI given in the 2011 SRFI Policy Guidance from the Department for Transport which refers to a site in excess of 60ha, and a facility capable of handling over four good trains per day, with specific reference to the capability of accommodating 775 metre trains. The East Midlands Gateway freight interchange is consistent with these criteria.

6.8 The November 2011 policy guidance and the 2013 draft NPS are consistent with regard to the description of, and justification of the need for, SRFI. It is intended that the 2011 Policy Guidance will be superseded once the final NPS is published.

‘National Networks’ National Policy Statement

6.9 In December 2013 the Government published the Draft National Policy Statement (NPS) for National Networks. The draft NPS sets out the national vision and policy for the future development of nationally significant infrastructure projects on the national road and rail networks. It is explicitly intended to provide guidance for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the basis for the examination by the Examining Authority and decision by the Secretary of State.

6.10 The draft NPS is therefore a key source of policy guidance for the East Midlands Gateway as, under Section 104 of the Planning Act, the Secretary of State must decide an application for a ‘national networks’ nationally significant infrastructure project in accordance with the NPS unless it is satisfied that to do so would: -

1) Lead to the UK being in breach of its international obligations;2) Be unlawful;3) Lead to the Secretary of State being in breach of any duty imposed by or

under any legislation;4) Result in adverse impacts of the development outweighing its benefits;5) Be contrary to regulations about how the decisions are to be taken;

6.11 The NPS explains the important and significant role national road and rail networks play in terms of “supporting economic growth and productivity as well as facilitating passenger, business and leisure journeys across the country.” It summarises the need for investment in the national networks as “well-connected and high-performing networks with sufficient capacity are vital to meet the country’s long-term needs and support a prosperous economy (page 7, ‘Summary of need’).”

Our Reference:

6.12 Specifically in terms of the importance of the rail freight network for freight movements and economic developments the NPS states “rail freight transports over 100 million tonnes of goods per year. It has expanded by 65% since 1994/95. Overall forecast growth is for an increase in total tonne kilometres of 3% annual growth to 2033 and 3% to 2043, compared to growth of about 2.8% since the mid 1990s. Rail freight delivers nearly all the coal for the nation’s electricity generation and over a quarter of containerised food, clothes and white goods. Rail freight is therefore of strategic importance, is already playing an increasingly significant role in logistics and particularly as it increases its market share of container traffic, is an increasingly important driver of economic growth (para 2.29).”

6.13 The NPS makes explicit references to SRFIs and their role in facilitating the movement of freight from road to rail. This is seen as central to Government’s vision for transport which is described as: “Government’s vision for transport is for a low carbon sustainable transport system that is an engine for economic growth, but is also safer and improves the quality of life in our communities. The transfer of freight from road to rail has a part to play in a low carbon economy and can help to address climate change (para 2.48).”

6.14 Within the NPS the aim of an SRFI is described as follows: “to optimise the use of rail in the freight journey by maximising rail trunk haul and minimising some elements of the secondary distribution leg by road, through co-location of other distribution and freight activities. SRFIs are a key element in reducing the cost to users of moving freight by rail and important in facilitating the transfer of freight from road to rail (para 2.40).”

6.15 It is explicit in the NPS that Government sees a “compelling need for an expanded network of strategic rail freight interchanges (para 2.51),” and places SRFIs in the context of national economic and environmental objectives and priorities. The Government view the role of SRFIs as key to providing enhanced connectivity which should “provide improved trading links with our European neighbours and improved international connectivity and enhanced port growth (para 2.49).” At a more localised level, the draft NPS also refers to the economic impacts: “SRFIs can provide considerable benefits for the local economy: for example, because many of the on-site functions of major distribution operations are relatively labour-intensive this can create many new job opportunities and contribute to the enhancement of people’s skills and use of technology, with wider longer term benefits to the economy (para 2.47).”

6.16 The NPS is clear that alternative approaches to the development of a network of SRFIs are “not viable or desirable (para 2.50).” This includes approaches based around the existing rail freight interchanges, or pursuing a strategy based on a network of smaller rail freight interchanges, as well as seeking to deliver a road-based logistics sector.

6.17 While the NPS does not seek to identify specific sites or locations for SRFIs, it does include a number of generic criteria and characteristics of the locations where they are expected to be developed. These can be summarised as locations which:

Our Reference:

1) “Have a good connectivity both with the road and rail network, in particular the strategic rail freight network (para 2.49);”

2) “Are near the business markets they will serve – major urban centres, or groups of centres – and are linked to key supply chain routes (para 2.51);”

3) “Located alongside the major rail routes, close to major trunk roads as well as near to the conurbations that consume the goods (para 2.41);”

6.18 In the circumstances that the strategic locational requirements are fairly stringent, the NPS is clear that Government expect the number of locations suitable for development as SRFIs to be limited.

National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance

6.19 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force in March 2012 with the focus on the importance of positive planning for growth following the lead set by The Plan for Growth a year earlier. In 2014 the NPPF was further supported by the publication of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) which seeks to elaborate on, and provide further more specific guidance on policy issues within the NPPF.

6.20 Within the NPPF it is reiterated that the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and to ensuring that the “planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth.” In relation to NSIPs the NPPF emphasises the importance of NPSs for major infrastructure in the determination of NSIPs whilst also noting that other material considerations of relevance may include the NPPF:-

“This Framework does not contain specific policies for nationally significant infrastructure projects for which particular considerations apply. These are determined in accordance with the decision-making framework set out in the Planning Act 2008 and relevant national policy statements for major infrastructure, as well as any other matters that are considered both important and relevant (which may include the National Planning Policy Framework), National policy statements form part of the overall framework of national planning policy, and are a material consideration in decisions on planning applications (NPPF Para 3).”

6.21 Section 4 of the NPPF relates to the promotion of sustainable transport and Paragraph 31 states, amongst other things, that “local authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development, including large scale facilities, such as rail freight interchanges.” Paragraph 162 of the NPPF, relating to infrastructure, also identifies that: “Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to…take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas.”

Our Reference:

6.22 Essentially a key thrust of the NPPF is the need to balance the effects of development taking account of economic, social and environmental issues to achieve sustainable development. The NPPF therefore needs to be applied as a whole. Although much of the focus of the NPPF is on the approach taken by local authorities in their plan-making and decision-taking roles within the planning system the NPPF remains an important part of the context for the East Midlands Gateway Proposal despite it being subject to a different decision making process given that it is an NSIP.

6.23 In these circumstances the following sections of the NPPF are considered relevant in any assessment of the East Midlands Gateway: -

1) Section 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy;2) Section 3 – Supporting a prosperous rural economy;3) Section 4 – Promoting sustainable transport;4) Section 7 – Requiring good design;5) Section 8 – Promoting healthy communities;6) Section 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal

change;7) Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment;8) Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment;

6.24 The NPPG contains further, often more detailed guidance on a wide range of planning policy issues. This includes guidance about the importance of undertaking assessments of the need for development land. For example, the section on “Housing and economic development needs assessments” places an emphasis on plan-makers liaising closely with the business community to understand their present and potential future employment land needs (para 030 of that section). The NPPG refers to the importance of assessing the existing stock of employment land as part of the assessment of demand for and supply of land, and as part of the process for determining the likely business needs and future market requirements. Explicitly, this includes ensuring plan making and employment land assessment reflect an understanding of “the locational and premises requirements of particular types of business (para 030 of the above section).” Paragraph 032 also emphasises the importance of comparing the existing supply of land with particular sectoral or other requirements “so that ‘gaps’ in local employment land provision can be identified.”

Regional and Sub-Regional Evidence Base

6.25 It is identified that the East Midlands Gateway has its origins in the former East Midlands Regional Planning Guidance, and Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) policies regarding Strategic Distribution. While the RSS policies themselves have been revoked, some of the associated evidence base remains valid and of relevance, and continues to inform local planning policy within the East Midlands.

Our Reference:

6.26 Through the former RSS policies and evidence base regional and local partners had identified the environmental and economic opportunities and imperatives to encourage and enable rail freight and distribution in the region. The Regional Freight Strategy and the East Midlands Strategic Distribution Study (EMSDS) recognised the need for additional rail-served distribution sites in the East Midlands. The EMSDS was commissioned in 2006 and recommended that around 300 hectares of additional land at appropriate rail connected sites would need to be brought forward across the East Midlands Region.

6.27 The 2009 RSS included a specific Policy (Policy 21), informed by the East Midlands Strategic Distribution Study (2006), which required partnership working to identify and encourage the development of strategic rail connected sites. The Policy reflected the evidence of the economic and locational strengths of the region in attracting distribution and logistics sector investment, and the environmental benefits of encouraging rail freight. In response, AECOM were commissioned by a partnership of local authorities including Leicestershire County Council and the wider network of District Councils within the ‘Three Cities’ area, as well as the Highways Agency and Network Rail. The purpose of the Study was to identify and assess potential sites which would be suitable for development as strategic rail connected distribution sites. The study focused on the Three Cities Sub-Area comprising of the Housing Market Areas of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham, and sought to identify sites of at least 50 hectares which could be rail-linked and serve as Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges.

6.28 The study shows that this area was – and remains – particularly poorly served by rail freight terminals. The Study identified a key list of 36 potential sites which were involved in the initial assessment process. Following a detailed assessment of the potential sites AECOM identified a shortlist of three sites which were taken forward for further analysis. This included the East Midlands Gateway site, which at the time was referred to as ‘Castle Donington near East Midlands Airport.’

6.29 The methodology and conclusions of the AECOM ‘Strategic Distribution Site Assessment for the Three Cities Sub-Area of the East Midlands’ report (document 6.15) remain relevant, and make it clear how relatively few sites and locations are suitable and viable for strategic rail freight interchanges. It is agreed that the AECOM report represents a valid and robust assessment of potential alternative strategic rail freight interchange sites.

6.30 The Socio-Economic assessment contained within the Environmental Statement estimates that the East Midlands Gateway proposals would have positive socio-economic impacts, including the anticipated creation of around 7,000 new jobs. This would be supported by improvements in public transport connectivity as outlined in the submitted East Midlands Gateway Public Transport Strategy which will provide job opportunities for communities across the District.

Our Reference:

Local and Sub-Regional Policy

6.31 The NPPF recognises that Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) should play an important role in assessing business needs and changes in the market. LEPs were introduced by the Government to replace Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and a key part of their function is to “play a vital role in supporting local authorities’ plans for key sub-national infrastructure’ (The Plan for Growth paragraph 2.37).” The Plan for Growth also states that part of the role of LEPs might be to lead “the production of strategic plans that identify and align strategic economic priorities and guide infrastructure delivery (para 2.37).”

6.32 The East Midlands Gateway proposal is located within the Leicester and Leicestershire (LLLEP) area, but in the context of the ‘Three Cities’ sub-region is also considered to be of relevance to the Derby and Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire LEP (D2N2 LEP) LEP.

6.33 Leicestershire County Council and North West Leicestershire District Council are active members of the LLLEP, and support the LLLEP’s priorities and objectives. The LLLEP’s vision is to make Leicester and Leicestershire “the destination of choice for successful businesses.”

6.34 In March 2014 the LLLEP published its final Strategic Economic Plan (SEP). The SEP refers to the general strengths of the area overall in terms of accessibility and connectivity, and acknowledges the area’s strengths in terms of logistics activity.

6.35 The SEP is structured around three core and interconnected elements: People, Business, and Place. The ‘Place’ component of the SEP includes the identification of a number of “transformational priorities of national significance” which includes the East Midlands Gateway Strategic Rail Freight Interchange as part of a wider ‘East Midlands Enterprise Gateway’ (EMEG) initiative.

6.36 This initiative is one of several Growth Areas within the SEP, with identified economic outcomes associated with employment creation, enhanced skills and training and supply chain development. The SEP emphasises the importance of the logistics sector to the economy in general, and refers to the EMEG area as “a transport and logistics sweet spot (page 41).” In relation to the East Midlands Gateway specifically, the SEP says that “Public sector partners are committed to working closely to speed up the processes associated with this and to enable its delivery (page 42).” The SEP also identifies the importance of working cross-boundary with the D2N2 LEP given the location of the identified Growth Area.

6.37 The D2N2 LEP also published a SEP in March 2014 and although the East Midlands Gateway proposal is not within the D2N2 LEPs area, the strategy does include ‘Transport & Logistics’ as a priority sector with the SEP recognising the importance of cross-boundary infrastructure and opportunities. The D2N2 SEP states: “Key current and future

Our Reference:

assets which benefit the D2N2 economy include East Midlands Airport and the proposed strategic rail freight hub to the north (page 31).”

North West Leicestershire District Council

6.38 The first District wide local plan was adopted in 2002. Alterations were made to the plan in 2004 and 2005, and a number of the policies were saved by the Secretary of State in 2006. The Plan was prepared prior to the work undertaken as part of the Regional Strategy and had an end date of 2011. Nevertheless there are saved policies which although now dated remain relevant at the local level and to which due regard should be given to in an assessment of the application. It is considered that the following policies would be of relevance: -

Policy S3 (Countryside) – Sets out the circumstances in which development will be permitted outside Limits to Development;Policy E3 (Residential Amenities) –Seeks to prevent development which would be significantly detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby dwellings;Policy E4 (Design) – Seeks to achieve good design in new development and requires new development to respect the character of its surroundings;Policy E7 (Landscaping) – Seeks to provide appropriate landscaping in association with the new development including, where appropriate, retention of existing features such as trees or hedgerows;Policy E8 (Crime Prevention) – Requires that, where appropriate, development incorporates crime prevention measures;Policy E9 (Mobility) – Seeks to provide for access to new developments by all persons with restricted mobility, including those with impaired vision;Policy E30 (Floodplains) – Seeks to prevent development which would increase the risk of flooding and remove the extra discharge capacity from the floodplain of the River Trent;Policy T2 (Road Improvements) – Seeks to prevent development which would prejudice the implementation of certain road schemes which, at the time, included the now constructed A50 Derby Southern Bypass. Paragraph 6.14, however, does state “the Department of Transport has published for consultation proposals for M1 Widening and improvements to Junctions 23A and 24 on the M1 Motorway but has yet to establish a firm option;”Policy T3 (Highways Standards) – Requires development to make adequate provision for vehicular access, circulation and servicing arrangements;Policy T8 (Parking) – Requires that parking provision in new developments be kept to the necessary minimum, having regard to a number of criteria;Policy T10 (Public Transport) – Requires development to make provision for effective public transport operation;Policy T13 (Cycle Parking) – Requires adequate provision for cycle parking;

Our Reference:

Policy T19 (East Midlands Airport – Public Safety Zones) – Sets out the criteria for determining applications for development within Public Safety Zones in the vicinity of East Midlands Airport;Policy T20 (East Midlands Airport – Airport Safeguarding) – Seeks to prevent development that would adversely affect the operational integrity or safety of East Midlands Airport;

6.39 In April 2013 North West Leicestershire District Council (NWLDC) consulted on an amended submission draft ‘Local Plan – Core Strategy,’ and this was subsequently submitted for examination. The Local Plan set out the Planning Framework for the area to 2031. The key objectives which underpin the vision set by the emerging strategy include: “SO1 Improve economic prosperity and employment opportunities;”

6.40 The submitted plan was later withdrawn following concerns and questions raised by the Inspector in September 2013 with regard to housing issues and the associated evidence base, and the extent of cross-boundary cooperation on housing delivery issues.

6.41 The withdrawn plan included Policy CS6 (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange) which was specific to the provision of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange in the District. The plan’s supporting text referred to the evidence base provided by the 2010 AECOM report and to the specific site requirements of such uses which meant that there were “very few locations which are suitable.” The Core Strategy recognised that “A SRFI in the area north of East Midlands Airport, west of the M1 would be uniquely placed in the centre of the Three Cities area, the East Midlands and the country making it both suitable and attractive for distribution uses.”

6.42 Following the withdrawal of the Core Strategy NWLDC’s Cabinet met, in December 2013, to consider a paper prepared to provide reassurance about the Council’s continued in principle support of the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange proposal, and to ensure there was clarity about the Council’s position during the period while the Core Strategy is delayed. The conclusion to that Cabinet report was:

“Clearly Cabinet will want to reserve its formal position on the Roxhill proposals until all of the details of the scheme are known. However, given the substantial potential for job creation and the likely local, regional and national benefit of such a proposal, it is recommended to Cabinet that ‘in principle’ support for the Roxhill scheme should be offered at this stage and the applicants encouraged to submit their application to PINS at the earliest opportunity to allow the detailed examination of the scheme to take place.”

6.43 The recommendation that the Council reassert its ‘in principle’ support for the East Midlands Gateway proposals was approved.

Leicestershire County Council

Our Reference:

6.44 The Leicestershire Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (LMCS&DCP) and Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (LLWCS&DCP) Development Plan Documents (DPDs) were adopted in 2009 and form part of the Development Plan covering the East Midlands Gateway application area. A number of policies in these plans are relevant to the East Midlands Gateway development.

6.45 In respect of minerals there are policies in the LMCS&DCP which seek to ensure valuable mineral resources are protected from unnecessary sterilisation by development and in certain circumstances require the extraction of the mineral in advance of surface development (Policies MDC 8 and MDC 9). These policies reflect and accord with national planning policy on minerals and in particular Paragraph 143 of the NPPF.

6.46 With regards to waste the LLWCS&DCP sets out policies and proposals for waste management development. East Midlands Gateway is not a waste management development as such and consequently none of the LLWCS&DCP policies are directly relevant to the East Midlands Gateway development.

6.47 However, there are national waste planning policies currently contained in the National Planning Policy for Waste which are relevant and these are contained in Paragraph 8 of that document. A Site Waste Management Framework prepared in support of the DCO deals with waste issues associated with the East Midlands Gateway proposals.

6.48 Leicestershire County Council’s third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) was published in April 2011 and provides the policy context for the management and future development of the Local Authorities road network. It contains six strategic goals: -

1) To support the economy and population growth;2) To encourage active and sustainable travel;3) To improve the connectivity and accessibility of our transport system;4) To improve road safety;5) To manage the condition and resilience of our transport system;6) To manage the impact of our transport system on quality of life.

Our Reference:

7.0 Local Area Characteristics Designations and Landscape Character

7.1 The submitted Environmental Statement (ES), within Chapter 5, sets out the detailed description of the development area and its surroundings by reference to National, Regional and more Local Landscape Character Assessments and provides a comprehensive assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal on the surrounding area.

7.2 At a National Level the Natural England National Character Areas (NCAs) identify that the application site lies on the very edge of the ‘Melbourne Parklands’ (NCA 70) and alongside the ‘Trent Valley Washlands’ (NCA 69).

7.3 The East Midland Regional Landscape Character Assessment (EMRLCA) of 2010 identifies that the site lies predominately within the ‘Wooded Village Farmlands’ landscape type but also encompasses land within the ‘Floodplain Valley’ landscape type which lies to the north.

7.4 Within the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Woodland Strategy (LLRWS) of 2001, and subsequent update of 2006, concludes that the site is located on the boundary of the ‘Trent Valley’ as well as the ‘Langley Lowlands’ landscape character areas (LCA’s). The majority of the site is within the ‘Langley Lowlands’ LCA.

7.5 The North West Leicestershire Settlement Fringe Assessment (NWLSFA) of 2010 undertook an assessment of the landscape value around the principal settlements which included Castle Donington and Kegworth. Although these assessments do not include the vast majority of the site the assessments of relevance would include the ‘Castle Donington Urban Fringe 2,’ ‘Kegworth Urban Fringe 3 & 4’ and ‘Kegworth Urban Fringe 5’ Areas.

7.6 It is concluded, in the majority of these assessments, that the landscape is characterised by rural agricultural fields although the physical built forms of settlements, the airport and power station as well as the major road networks impact on this rural character with the associated noise and activity reducing the tranquillity of the area.

Our Reference:

8.0 Consideration of Local Impacts

8.1 The submitted Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documentation sets out a wide ranging assessment of the development proposal, its impacts and proposed mitigation measures. The Local Authorities accept that the chapters of the ES address the range of issues that are of a local concern to the Local Authorities. The following section sets out the Local Authorities view of the local impacts of the development.

8.2 Consideration of mitigation measures which could address the negative impacts identified in the relevant sections will be outlined in a later section of the LIR.

(a) Socio-Economic Impacts

Positive Socio-Economic Impacts

8.3 It is anticipated that the proposed East Midlands Gateway will significantly benefit the economy of Leicester and Leicestershire as well as the wider region including Derby and Nottingham and the southern parts of both Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

8.4 The development would also greatly enhance the ‘logistics offer’ in the East Midlands, providing a key opportunity for new logistics space and the numerous jobs this will create.

8.5 It is estimated that the end occupiers of the completed East Midlands Gateway development will directly support 6,881 new full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs (as outlined in Paragraph 4.9.5 on Page 29 of Chapter 4 (Socio-Economic Aspects) of the East Midlands Gateway Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Environmental Statement), with a further 45 staff required in the rail terminal, to support three shifts operating over a 24 hour period (Paragraph 4.9.4 on Page 29 of Chapter 3 (Socio-Economic Aspects) of the East Midlands Gateway Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Environmental Statement).

8.6 These estimated 6,881 new FTE jobs will include personnel within sales, customer services, information technology (IT), engineering support, management and administration, road transport drivers, mobile machine drivers, warehouse operatives and elementary storage occupations.

8.7 It is also estimated that there will be 340 FTE jobs created during the estimated five years of construction (Paragraph 4.8.4 on Page 27 of Chapter 4 (Socio-Economic Aspects) of the East Midlands Gateway Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Environmental Statement). The construction phase will necessitate input from a range of professional and associated skills, ranging from managerial roles to manual labour, designers and engineers, to construction workers and machine operatives.

8.8 Local sub-contractors involved in the construction phase of the scheme are estimated to be XXX (NEED TO DETERMINE A FIGURE FROM ROXHILL) which is considered to be a

Our Reference:

significant number (DEPENDENT ON THE FIGURE PROVIDED) and would provide a very positive impact to the local and wider economy. It is also considered that there would be economic benefits from non-local contractors staying in the area, this is estimated to amount to XXX jobs (NEED TO ESTIMATE NUMBER OF HOTEL JOBS, RESTAURANT JOBS ETC WHICH MAY BE CREATED).

8.9 In addition to the proposed East Midlands Gateway providing direct income from employees at the proposed development, there will be wider beneficial economic effects as a result of increased expenditure on locally sourced materials, utilisation of local support services and facilities and increased spending in the area.

8.10 The scale of the proposed development will also provide training and apprenticeship opportunities and these are estimated to amount to XXX. Local training providers such as Stephenson College and Loughborough College are considered to be well placed to meet the needs of this development in terms of skills supply. The FE (ABBREVIATION OF WHAT?) Colleges in Leicester and Leicestershire work collaboratively to meet the needs of new development and the FE Principals and Vice Principals hold regular meetings.

8.11 It is also considered that the proposed development should provide significant opportunities to help those furthest from the labour market to access jobs and training. This is because the logistics sector can offer entry level jobs and subsequent opportunities for career progression. It will be important to support those furthest from the labour market in terms of their employability skills and also making sure that the site can be accessed by public transport.

Potential Positive Socio-Economic Impacts

8.12 There is an opportunity to increase the economic activity rate and employment rates in the LLLEP area. The current economic activity rate for the LLLEP area is 77.7% which is slightly below the East Midlands rate of 78.2% but in line with the national rate of 77.5% (ONS APS July 2013 to June 2014 time series, via nomis). The employment rate for the LLLEP area is 71.8% which is slightly below the regional figure of 73% and the national level (72.1%).

8.13 The ten most deprived Leicestershire Super Output Area’s (LOSA’s) include LOSA’s from Greenhill, Coalville and parts of Loughborough (Indices of Deprivation 2010, Headline Results for Leicestershire, April 2011). The proposed development provides the opportunity for residents living in these areas to secure jobs at the East Midlands Gateway, either during its construction or for end occupiers at the East Midlands Gateway.

8.14 It is also considered that there would be an opportunity to increase the overall number of people in education, skills and training (including apprenticeships for young people) linked to logistics and related businesses. The long term nature of the proposed development would also provide significant potential for tailored skilled training in local

Our Reference:

colleges. Working with Job Centre Plus and local colleges, sector based work academies could support those that are currently unemployed or inactive into employment.

8.15 There would also be an opportunity for the proposed development to examine and provide a whole site solution to transport to work, including car sharing, ‘wheels to work’ and work buses as examples.

8.16 Kegworth Parish Council has indicated that although the provision of the bypass would result in the loss of ‘passing trade’ it may be possible to redevelop the settlement centre and ensure it becomes more user friendly which would encourage greater visitor numbers than those achieved by ‘passing trade.’ The Community Fund outlined within the draft DCO Obligations could assist in meeting this aim of the Parish Council.

Neutral and Negative Socio-Economic Impacts

8.17 It is considered that there are no neutral socio-economic impacts which are required to be reported.

8.18 Chapter 4 (Socio-Economic Aspects) of the submitted ES does not appear to provide any assessment of the economic impacts on the services within the neighbouring settlements. As an example it is considered that the completion of the development and the provision of the Kegworth bypass would have a direct impact on the local economy within Kegworth due to the removal of a large volume of traffic which would ordinarily ‘pass through’ the shopping centre and as a result would lead to ‘passing trade.’ As a result the future ‘health’ of this shopping centre could be adversely impacted on. A similar impact may also occur in Castle Donington although it is noted that the ‘core shopping area’ of this settlement is not situated on the main thoroughfare (Bondgate and High Street) in or out of the settlement.

8.19 The development of the DCO site will result in the loss of 91.2 hectares of Grade 2 and 133.7 hectares of Sub-Grade 3a agricultural land which would be considered best and most versatile land. It is identified in the ES (Paragraph 14.6.5 on Page 18 of Chapter 14 (Arboricultural Land Quality)) that there would be no mitigation for the loss of this land with Table 14.8 (Page 19 of Chapter 14 (Arboricultural Land Quality) outlining that there would be a major adverse effect on agricultural land resource. In these circumstances due consideration should be given to the loss of this land on the rural economy.

8.20 In the absence of any information to address this impact it is considered that it would be a negative impact which should be addressed accordingly with some of the proposed mitigation measures being provided in a later section of this LIR.

(b) Landscape and Visual Impacts

Positive Landscape and Visual Impacts

Our Reference:

8.21 It is considered that the development would result in a positive impact on existing planting by virtue of the conservation and management of approximately 4.1 kilometres of hedgerows and 12.95 hectares of existing woodland.

8.22 On post completion of the development approximately 27.40 hectares of woodland and trees would be planted along with 20.5 kilometres of new hedgerow planting. All planting would be of a locally occurring species and would include the introduction of young tree specimens into new and existing hedgerows.

8.23 The imposition of a requirement into the DCO and DCO Obligations for a comprehensive 20 year management plan covering all new planting and conserved landscaped areas and woodlands will also provide long term landscape benefits.

Potential Positive Landscape and Visual Impacts

8.24 With regards to the existing planting it is considered that this has the potential to become an accessible green space with a good Public Right of Way (PROW) access given the improvements which would be made to the PROW network as a result of the East Midlands Gateway.

8.25 As new planting would be provided, which would be appropriately managed, the initial visual effects of the completed development will be reduced over time as the planting matures. The submitted photomontages (Pages 121 – 132 of Chapter 5 (Landscape and Visual Effects) of the East Midlands Gateway Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Environmental Statement) provide a good interpretation of how the visual impact would decrease over time.

8.26 In order to effectively ‘screen’ the development it would be necessary for bunding to be provided around the development which would be landscaped accordingly. It is considered that the bunding has been designed with variations in slope profiles and height to reflect the character of the existing landform and would enable it to ‘blend in’ with the existing landscape.

8.27 The further maturity of the landscaping over time could also have a potentially positive impact on a landscape which is already subjected to strong urban influences by providing benefits of additional planting and screening to surrounding areas.

Negative Landscape and Visual Impacts

8.28 It is inevitable that a development of this scale will have a significant impact on the local landscape with the Local Authorities acknowledging that Chapter 5 (Landscape and Visual Effects) of the ES sets out a wide ranging assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the development on the surrounding area.

Our Reference:

8.29 The nearest settlements to the DCO area which would be directly impacted by the development proposals would be Castle Donington, Hemington, Lockington and Kegworth. These settlements would experience a substantial change in their immediate views by virtue of the scale and nature of the proposed development.

8.30 Significant changes would occur during the construction phase, primarily for those properties located on the edge of the aforementioned settlements, given the construction of urban development forms on what is a rural site and the likelihood that there would be no substantial screening of these development forms during this time. Given the potential timeframe for construction, particularly as the development would be phased, the lack of natural screening would result in adverse impacts to the landscape.

8.31 Throughout the post completion period of the development, this negative visual impact would continue until such time as the landscaping provided matured and became established which eventually will assist in screening the majority of the built forms.

8.32 Although screening would be provided, it is considered that given the size of the proposed buildings they would never be fully concealed by the proposed landscaping when viewed from certain neighbouring settlements and as such, there would be a permanent visual impact on the rural nature of the DCO site.

8.33 As a result of the development there would also be a loss of agricultural land of which 91.2 hectares (of the total site area (281.9 hectares)) would be Grade 2 agricultural land. Although the implications to this agricultural land could be mitigated during the construction phase, given the phasing of the development, the ES makes it clear that upon completion the impacts on the agricultural land would be irreversible (Paragraph 14.6.5 on Page 18 of Chapter 14 (Agricultural Land Quality)). This impact would be greatest on the soils located to the south-east of Lockington. Given the amount of greenfield land which would be lost to the development there would be significant implications to the current rural environment to the immediate south of Lockington and Hemington as well as east of Castle Donington with the DCO site currently acting as a barrier between these settlements and East Midlands Airport.

8.34 The development of agricultural land would also lead to the substantial loss of hedgerows which currently define the field boundaries which in turn have consequences on the currently natural landscape of the application site. With the health of retained woodland trees and hedgerows also potentially being impacted on during the construction phase.

8.35 Given the operations undertaken from the site would be on a 24 hour basis there would be a need for lighting to be provided which would increase the amount of ‘unnatural’ light emitted towards neighbouring settlements. The implications of these additional lighting sources on the landscape would need to be appropriately assessed given the predominately undeveloped nature of the DCO site and proximity to residential properties.

Our Reference:

(c) Ecology and Nature Conservation

Neutral Ecology and Nature Conservation Impacts

8.36 The East Midlands Gateway will result in the loss of plantation woodland, hedgerow, ponds and semi-improved grassland and whilst this loss would be significant at District-level, due to the large areas in consideration, these habitats are not of particular significance or species diverse and are replaceable habitats. The loss of these habitats could be compensated for by the proposals outlined in the Masterplan and landscape strategy.

8.37 It is also considered that the development has the potential to disturb badgers, interfere with bat foraging patterns and routes, and destroy two minor bat roosts along with impacts on birds and amphibians and groups not surveyed for, notably invertebrates. It is difficult to be sure if these impacts will remain the same, as species can change in population and distribution across a site in the course of a phased development. However, none of these impacts are currently significant beyond a local level, and all can be mitigated for.

8.38 The provision of replacement habitat could also improve habitat for some species, however, this would need to be balanced against other impacts such as severance of habitat, disturbance and disruption, pollution, hydrology changes, lighting, noise and public use. It is considered that the impacts of these factors would be neutral when taking into account the proposed mitigation.

Negative Ecology and Nature Conservation Impacts

8.39 ‘Common ground’ has been agreed in respect of the mitigation and compensation for loss and disturbance to the majority of habitats, and to protected and other species.

8.40 It is considered that the most serious impact is the loss of an area of species-rich grassland within the ‘Castle Donington, Pasture, Woodland and Stream’ CLWS. This CLWS is located on the very edge of the development site, in the north-west corner, and will be impacted by the re-grading and earthworks needed to create a development plateau. This grassland is notable for some mounds in the centre, possible old tipped material, supporting a small area of calcareous grassland of high species-richness. The area is also mainly species-rich neutral grassland marked by ‘ridge and furrow,’ indicating old undisturbed grassland. Calcareous grassland is a rare in Leicestershire, usually confined to limestone along the Lincolnshire/Rutland border and to the Breedon Hill inlier in North West Leicestershire. It is considered that its presence here, away from naturally occurring base rich soils, is unusual and it is therefore an important habitat. Translocation of this habitat is proposed (Ecology Solutions: Supplementary Briefing note on Ecology and revised Illustrative Masterplan, 3252-L-03, received November 14th 2014). This will reduce the impact of the development, but it is likely there will be loss of quality of the habitat as a result of translocations, and it will still remain a negative impact, of a minor nature.

Our Reference:

8.41 The development will also result in the loss of 16 veteran trees, which meet the Local Wildlife Site criteria, and it is considered that veteran trees are irreplaceable habitats whose loss cannot be mitigated or compensated for by the creation of replacement habitat. The County Council Ecologist is currently in discussions with the developers Ecologist in order to agree a formula which would create an agreed alternative habitat to compensate for the loss of these irreplaceable habitats but to date no agreement has been achieved on this matter.

(d) Noise, Vibration and Lighting

Potential Positive Noise, Vibration and Lighting Impacts

8.42 The Local Authorities have signed up to a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) in relation to noise and vibration which has concluded, overall, that noise and vibration would not be a significantly detrimental factor.

8.43 These conclusions were reached following assessments which were undertaken in 2013 at various monitoring locations around the development site which were first agreed with the Local Authorities and are identified in the noise and vibration assessment undertaken.

8.44 Within Chapter 9 (Noise and Vibration) of the ES it identifies that, overall, there would be a negligible effect upon the noise climate by virtue of the development proposals and in certain areas, i.e. the centre of Kegworth, there would be a positive impact by virtue of the removal of a substantial volume of traffic travelling through the settlement following the creation of the bypass.

8.45 The conclusions relating to the negligible impacts are based on the fact that the areas around the DCO site are already subjected to relatively high noise levels by virtue of the existing transport infrastructure and industrial activity in close proximity to the site (East Midlands Airport, M1, A50, A453, East Midlands Distribution Centre, East Midlands Parkway). In these circumstances the provision of the development, overall, would result in a minimal cumulative effect upon the existing noise climate.

Negative Noise, Vibration and Lighting Impacts

8.46 Although, cumulatively, there would not be a substantial noise impact on the neighbouring settlements certain areas of these settlements would be subjected to higher noise levels.

8.47 The operational noise levels of the development, through the day and night, are expected to be below the 50 decibels considered acceptable by the World Health Organisations, as set out in British Standard 8233, apart from within the areas to the west of Kegworth where the levels would be 0.9 decibels above this recommended level. This area of

Our Reference:

Kegworth would also be impacted on by the predicted changes in the ambient noise levels, particularly at night. Within Paragraph 3.6.34 on Page 37 of Chapter 9 (Noise & Vibration) of the ES it attributes this increase in noise levels to the provision of a crane in the rail freight terminal.

8.48 It is also identified that movements along the railway line would result in a change in the ambient noise levels, at night, to areas to the north of Lockington. As a result of the improvements to the road network areas to the South of Kegworth and North of Lockington would also see between a 1.1 and 2.5 decibel increase in noise levels generated by traffic.

8.49 It is considered that it would be important to assess the levels of noise which would be registered in these areas in order to ensure that the amenities of all residential properties impacted on by the development are adequately protected from excessive increases in noise levels.

8.50 As identified in Paragraph 8.35 of this document given that the operations undertaken from the site would be on a 24 hour basis there would be a need for lighting to be provided which would increase the amount of ‘unnatural’ light emitted towards neighbouring settlements, given their proximity to the site, as well as the fact that the land is undeveloped. It is considered that it would be important to address how the lighting sources used at the site would not result in detriment to the environment.

8.51 The provision of the lighting for a development of this scale may also result in issues to aviation safety given the proximity of the site to East Midlands Airport and as such the views of the airport, as well as the Civil Aviation Authority, will be important in satisfactorily concluding that the lighting sources would not be detrimental to aviation.

(e) Air Quality

Potential Positive Air Quality Impacts

8.52 It is noted that the Local Authorities have agreed an SoCG in respect of Air Quality which has confirmed, within Paragraph 5 of that document, that the provision of a bypass for Kegworth would result in an improvement of air quality within Kegworth which could lead to the revocation of the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

8.53 The proposed demolition of Mole Hill House to construct the Kegworth bypass would also result in the removal of the only receptor of the M1 AQMA and as a result this AQMA could also be revoked.

Negative Air Quality Impacts

8.54 Although an SoCG has been agreed the Local Authorities would wish to identify that Paragraph 10.5.30 on Page 32 of Chapter 10 (Air Quality) of the ES states that “a clear

Our Reference:

benefit of the scheme in 2020 would be that it would be allow all three of the AQMAs in the study area to be rescinded, one through the demolition of Molehill Farm Cottage, the only relevant receptor inside the M1 AQMA, and the other through the significant reductions in concentrations throughout the villages of Castle Donington and Kegworth.” It is considered that this statement is incorrect.

8.55 The reasoning for this statement being incorrect is that it is based on an assumption, within the traffic modelling, that a relief road will be constructed as part of planning application reference 09/01226/OUTM at land north and south of Park Lane, Castle Donington (Residential development of up to 895 dwellings with associated highway works, including a new western relief road linking Back Lane with Hill Top, 6.07ha of employment uses (B1: 7,613 sqm; B2/B8: 24,546 sqm), new primary school (1.1ha); a public house (use class A4: 0.2ha), public open space, play areas and strategic landscaping (outline – all matters reserved other than access in respect of the proposed relief road and proposed junctions serving the remainder of the development)). It is noted that planning permission has not yet been granted for this development due to a Section 106 currently being negotiated. Should the application be approved there would be a need for a further application to be submitted and determined before such time as any relief road would be constructed.

8.56 The agreed Air Quality SoCG also outlines, in Section 5, that “the scheme may contribute to improved air quality in Castle Donington if contributions towards the enforcement of vehicle weight limits are made by the developer.” It is noted that although a weight restriction exists through the centre of Castle Donington (Bondgate and High Street) this is not currently well enforced and as such it may be unreliable to rely on air quality results along this route being accurate to the traffic modelling figures for 2020 particularly if the restriction is not enforced. It is also noted that the draft Development Consent Obligation submitted for consideration does not include a contribution towards the enforcement of the weight restriction along this route.

(f) Flood Risk

Context of Flood Risk Impacts

8.57 The County Council in fulfilment of its duties under the Flood and Water Act 2010 has a completed draft version of the Leicestershire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. The strategy sets out the roles and responsibilities of local authorities, partners and communities in the management of flood risk in Leicestershire. In the context of the development in the County Council has identified a number of settlements within Leicestershire that are at a higher risk of surface water and river flooding. This list includes the following settlements: -

1) Castle Donington;2) Hemington;3) Lockington;

Our Reference:

4) Kegworth;5) Hathern;6) Long Whatton;7) Diseworth;

Negative Flood Risk Impacts

8.58 The majority of the site is located within Flood Zone 1, however some infrastructure located within Flood Zone 3 will be raised to protect its future operation. Whilst the site itself is at relatively low risk of flooding, the main concern is the increased areas of impermeable surfaces leading to an increase in surface water run-off. This increase in surface water if unmanaged could cause or aggravate existing localised flooding impacts within adjoining communities.

(g) Transportation/Sustainable Transport Impacts

Context of Transportation/Sustainable Transport Impacts

8.59 In general terms, a positive impact of any rail freight interchange is to achieve a shift in the movement of goods and materials from road (HGVs) to rail. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development does give rise to local impacts in traffic (highway) terms.

8.60 The Strategic Road Network (M1, A42, A50 and A453) already experiences significant congestion in the peak hours, especially in and around M1 Junctions 24 and 24a (and the routes leading into them). In addition to routine congestion, accidents and other incidents (especially on the M1 between junctions 23a to 24a) often cause additional disruption, impacting on access to East Midlands Airport and giving rise to adverse impacts on the County Road network.

8.61 The Highways Agency’s current improvements to the A453 and to M1 J24 (as part of the ‘Pinch Point Programme’) will assist in addressing some (if not all) existing traffic issues in the area, but are not adequate on their own to provide for the predicted traffic impacts of the proposed development.

8.62 In respect of the County Road network, the most significant existing issue in this area is the impacts of traffic (including HGVs) on the A6 through Kegworth, which leads to congestion and delays on routes within the village. There are also issues relating to ‘rat-running’ in order to avoid M1 Junction 24 via local roads linking from the A453(N) through Kegworth (via the High Street/Ashby Road route) to A453(S) as well as through Castle Donington (via High Street and Bondgate).

8.63 In general terms, the existing public transport services in the area are relatively good, being predominately based around the operational needs of East Midlands Airport, hence there are services that operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week. However, the existing

Our Reference:

services would not be sufficient to meet the needs of potential future employees of the proposed development, particular as the site becomes more fully occupied.

8.64 In terms of access to the development for rail passengers. East Midlands Parkway Railway Station (on the Midland Main Line) is around 2.5 kilometres to the north-east of the proposed development. There are presently two trains per hour to Nottingham and other locations. Employee (and visitor) travel by rail is, in the overall context of the development proposals and their transportation impacts, unlikely to play a significant role in terms of sustainable travel. In these circumstances this issue is not considered further in the LIR.

8.65 There are existing footway and cycleway links along the A6 between Kegworth and M1 Junction 24 and also between Kegworth and Loughborough. There are footways, but no dedicated cycleways, through the village.

8.66 Walking and cycling facilities are presently poor at M1 Junction 24, although some enhancements are being made as part of the current Pinch Point scheme. There is connectivity between Kegworth and the proposed development via Ashby Road and Public Right of Way (PRoW) L54A, which in turn link to National Cycle Route 15 and on to East Midlands Airport. There are also a number of PRoW across the site, which provide links to/between Castle Donington and Lockington and Hemington.

8.67 Whilst improvements to sustainable transport infrastructure are important, to seek to maximise its usage and further encourage means of travel to the development other than by car, it is important that travel plans are in place. It is important that any travel plans have realistic, but challenging targets in respect of future modal splits of travel, e.g. percentage of employees travelling to the development by bus.

8.68 A development of this scale will also involve considerable construction activity, including the generation of HGV movements. In some cases construction of the highway works will involve working on or adjacent to live carriageways. Construction works will also affect Public Rights of Way (PRoW). Without adequate safeguards in place, the construction of the development would have an adverse impact on the safe and satisfactory operation of the highway and PRoW networks.

8.69 A Transport Working Group (TWG) was formed to consider the implications of the development proposals and potential mitigation measures. The TWG consists of five Local Highway Authorities (Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Derby City, Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City), the Highways Agency (and their consultants AECOM) and Roxhill (and their consultants Systra, Lawrence Walker Ltd, Geoff Bounds Consulting and Integrated Transport Planning)). The Local Highway Authorities have entered into a SoCG in respect of transport. In respect of the SoCG entered into by the Local Highway Authority for Leicestershire, it is agreed that the methodology adopted to assess the traffic (highway) impacts represents a fair and reasonable assessment of the development (Paragraph 3.4 of the Transport SoCG (Doc 7.2B)), that the development can be accessed in a sustainable

Our Reference:

manner (Paragraph 3.5 of Transport SoCG), the general nature and principle of the highway works has been agreed (Paragraph 3.6 of Transport SoCG) and that there are no in principle highway grounds for objection to the proposed development, subject to satisfactory securing of the highway improvements and sustainable travel measures (Paragraph 3.7 of the Transport SoCG).

8.70 For the avoidance of doubt this LIR does not deal with the views of other TWG highway authority members, nor does it address matters outside of Leicestershire. It is acknowledged, however, that neighbouring authorities would experience the impacts of the development.

Positive Transportation/Sustainable Transport Impacts

8.71 With regards to the predicted impacts of development traffic on the Strategic Road Network (excluding construction traffic) it is considered that without mitigation there would be greater congestion and delays (particularly at M1 Junctions 24 and 24a, and routes leading into them). In these circumstances a positive impact of the proposed highway mitigation works would be the satisfactory mitigation of these traffic impacts resulting in the relatively free movement of vehicles on the Strategic Road Network.

8.72 In terms of the anticipated impacts of the development on the County Road Network it is considered that without mitigation there would be greater congestion and delays on the A6 through Kegworth, an increase in rat-running on local roads and an increase in traffic on the A6 through Hathern. As a result of the mitigation anticipated by the development the Kegworth Bypass should deliver a significant reduction in traffic passing through the settlement, a weight restriction in Kegworth would help to significantly reduce HGV levels in the village and additional works to the A453(N) entry at M1 Junction 24 will reduce A453(N) to Kegworth to A453(S) rat-running.

8.73 Without adequate mitigation the existing bus services would not be satisfactory alone to provide for the needs of potential future employees, particularly as the development becomes more fully occupied. In principle the public transport (PT) strategy provides improved opportunities for potential employees to access the site. This, however, is subject to the support of a key bus operator and related discussions about the proposed level of funding for the PT strategy.

8.74 In principle, the public transport interchange at the site entrance and the on-site shuttle bus should enable those accessing the development by public transport to do so safely and conveniently. Although this is subject to the agreement of a satisfactory specification for the interchange.

8.75 The connectivity and accessibility to the site by walking and cycling would be enhanced by the retention of the existing Ashby Road Bridge as a walking and cycling link which will help to enhance access to the development for people travelling on foot and bike.

Our Reference:

Potential Positive Transportation/Sustainable Transport Impacts

8.76 The mitigation measures proposed in respect of the Strategic Road Network might lead to a reduction in road accidents by virtue of the improvements in the free movement of vehicles on the network.

8.77 As outlined in Paragraph 8.52 of this report the provision of the Kegworth Bypass should help improve the air quality within the settlement, by virtue of the removal of a significant volume of traffic using the A6, and as such the AQMA could be revoked.

8.78 In terms of the impacts of highway works on local road access provision (including for those travelling on foot and by bike) it is considered that without mitigation the various access arrangements to these roads would not be compatible with the proposed highway works. As such the alterations to the west end route of Ashby Road and High Street, Kegworth, which would result in them being restricted to bus/walk/cycle links only, should maximise the use of the Kegworth Bypass and promote effective sustainable transport access to the proposed development. Although this is subject to the agreement of a satisfactory method of enforcement.

8.79 Kegworth Parish Council is also of the view that to reduce the impacts of ‘rat-running’ through the village via Ashby Road the only option is to allow the closure of Ashby Road to private cars and commercial vehicles, although it would be important for the bus service to be retained given its importance to residents of the settlement who do not have access to private cars.

8.80 In respect of the connectivity and accessibility to the site by walking and cycling it is considered that the incorporation of a traffic signal control on the A453(N) may aid walking and cycling movements at M1 Junction 24.

8.81 A significant reduction of traffic on the A6 through Kegworth, combined with the proposed weight restriction, and the significant reduction in traffic using the A50 southbound carriageway may provide an environment in which more people are encouraged to walk and cycle.

8.82 The general terms of the draft framework Travel Plan also contains the right sort of initiatives in order to promote sustainable travel, but further work is required in respect of the targets and the Local Authorities continue to have discussions on this matter.

Neutral Transportation/Sustainable Transport Impacts

8.83 It is considered that a neutral impact of the implications of the highway works on local road access provision in respect of Lockington would be that whilst in some cases additional travel distances (car, foot, bike) will be incurred the number of people affected is likely to be small. Existing access arrangements already incorporate turning restrictions

Our Reference:

and as such the highway changes will result in significantly less conflict between strategic traffic movements and local road access.

8.84 There is a Prohibition of Driving Order in place on sections of Warren Lane to the north of the proposed highway works, however, given its relative remoteness the Order is difficult to enforce on a regular basis and it is known that this Order is abused. Although it is likely that traffic arriving from the north and south will have to travel further, as will traffic travelling to the west, these extended distances may help to discourage illegal rat-running along Warren Lane.

8.85 In terms of the impacts on the public rights of way it is considered that the changes, in general, to the local paths offer some enhancements. If a definitive route is retained through the development, this will replicate the current east – west route linking Castle Donington and Kegworth, as well as providing access to the site from both settlements. In addition cycle provision is to be provided to Kegworth with it being hoped that a similar initiative can be delivered linking the site with Castle Donington.

8.86 With regards to the implications of construction traffic on journeys and highway safety it is a normal requirement to put in place traffic management measures on a development of this scale to minimise the risk of accidents and to ensure any incidents that do occur are dealt with quickly and efficiently. The proposed Construction Management Framework Plan (CMFP) (Submission Document 6.10) provides for measures that should minimise the risk of dust and dirt generated by the construction works being deposited on the highway.

8.87 The CMFP, in combination with draft DCO Requirement 11, also provides for the agreement of any temporary changes to PRoW to be agreed with the Local Authorities and as such this should ensure that the safe usage of the PRoW is maintained throughout the construction phase.

Potential Negative Transportation/Sustainable Transport Impacts

8.88 Although the CMFP provides for construction traffic directional signing and routeing to be agreed by the highway authorities and Police, and taking into account the fact that construction traffic levels are to be relatively small in comparison to volumes of traffic already on the road network, there is still the potential that construction traffic movements may cause additional congestion on the road networks adjacent to the development which are already heavily congested.

Negative Transportation/Sustainable Transport Impacts

8.89 In terms of the County Road network the development does not propose any mitigation for traffic movements around Hathern even though the development will result in an increase in traffic through this settlement. As a result a decrease in congestion around the

Our Reference:

development site is likely to be displaced to other road networks within the Local Authorities area as well as neighbouring authorities.

8.90 It is also considered that the intersecting of Whatton Road by the Kegworth Bypass will introduce delays to traffic using this route although it is acknowledged that Whatton Road is lightly trafficked.

8.91 Kegworth Parish Council has raised the matter that the proposed Kegworth Bypass will also only be a single carriageway, laid to a gradient of 4%, and as such HGVs travelling from Loughborough towards the motorway via the bypass will be slow moving and as a result of this vehicles may be encouraged to undertake dangerous overtaking manoeuvres or travel to the strategic road network through Kegworth which will reduce the potential positive impacts of the highway improvements. The Parish Council has identified this issue as a significant concern. However, the proposals for the bypass have been considered through normal design procedures for a scheme of this scale and as a result the Local Authorities are content that a climbing lane is not required nor any changes to the proposed gradient.

8.92 Kegworth Parish Council has also commented that it is unclear what consideration has been given to the bypass being provided along a route proposed by the Department of Transport (DETR) in 1994, from Junction 23a of the M1 to the dual carriageway section of the A6 near the Otter pub, which would avoid an ‘accident black spot’ on the single carriageway between Kegworth and the Otter pub which the proposed bypass would connect onto. This is an additional issue which Kegworth Parish Council has highlighted as a significant concern. However, the Local Authorities are satisfied that the proposed bypass alignment is appropriate in the context of the development proposals.

8.93 It is currently indicated that the construction of the development (including all highway works) will take around seven years. As such whilst traffic management measures would improve the movement of construction traffic and allow the development to be constructed safely the implications of this would be that such measures would lead to lane reductions, speed restrictions and possible use of temporary traffic signals, which would result in additional delays to drivers throughout the construction phase.

(h) Land Contamination and Implications to Mineral Resource

Positive Land Contamination and Implications to Mineral Resource Impacts

8.94 A SoCG relating to Geology, Soils and Groundwater has been agreed with the Local Authorities and the investigations to date have not discovered any significant contamination within the application site as a whole.

8.95 The majority of the development site also does not contain any potential mineral resources and although some of the proposed open spaces to the north of the main development site lie within a sand and gravel mineral consultation area, with the ES

Our Reference:

indicating that a limited thickness of low quality sand and gravel is anticipated to be present in these areas, open spaces will not sterilise any potential viable mineral resource beneath them and consequently any mineral sterilisation impacts within the open space will not be significant.

8.96 Continuing operations at Lockington Quarry will also result in the removal of mineral resource to the east of the M1 prior to the trunk road improvements at Junction 24a to Junction 24 and as such this would ensure these elements of the development would not result in the sterilisation of minerals.

Potential Negative Land Contamination and Implications to Mineral Resource Impacts

8.97 Although the land contamination investigations undertaken to date have not identified any significant contamination issues across the site the areas of study are considered to be too broad to identify any localised contamination. As such the contamination impacts on individual areas of the site cannot be satisfactorily assessed at this time.

Negative Land Contamination and Implications to Mineral Resource Impacts

8.98 The proposed rail branch line in the north of the site will result in the sterilisation of sand and gravel resources in this area with the area of sterilisation being limited to the footprint of the proposed line.

(i) Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

Potential Positive Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Impacts

8.99 A draft SoCG in relation to Cultural Heritage and Archaeology is currently being finalised with the Local Authorities with it being noted that the opinions expressed within the SoCG are offered without prejudice to those provided by English Heritage who will be involved in agreeing a separate SoCG in respect of statutorily designated heritage assets (listed buildings and scheduled monuments).

8.100 An assessment of the development area has demonstrated, in addition to previously recorded remains, the presence of a significant and extensive range of previously unrecorded heritage assets, these are detailed within the draft Archaeological Assessment of Significance (CgMs November 2014). The development proposal will provide an opportunity for heritage assets to be adequately investigated and recorded. The results will be duly published and the finds appropriately archived. The investigation offers the opportunity for enhanced awareness and appreciation of the archaeological resource, through the preparation of local displays and the involvement of local communities.

Neutral Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Impacts

Our Reference:

8.101 Although the draft Archaeological Assessment of Significance (CgMs November 2014) has identified the presence of a significant number of known heritage assets and the potential for further, as yet, unrecorded archaeological remains, and the draft Cultural Heritage and Archaeology SoCG has defined an overarching programme of further assessment and mitigation, at this stage the Local Authorities have not agreed the necessary detailed scheme of investigation to address the impacts of the development upon archaeological resource with the developer’s archaeological consultants. It is considered important for this issue to be satisfactorily addressed in order for the potential positive impacts outlined in Paragraph 8.100 to be realised.

8.102 Relevant relocation of a Listed milepost within the northern areas of the site identified for new road infrastructure and improvements to existing infrastructure, as identified on the Parameters Plan Key Layout (drawing number 3899 – 038 Revision P31), will ensure the preservation of this heritage asset and protect its significance. It will, however, be important to establish the views of English Heritage on the revised siting of this heritage asset in order to ensure that its historic positioning in identifying the relevant mileage to neighbouring settlements is maintained and does not become substantially inaccurate.

8.103 Although the development would be significant in scale it is considered that there would be no direct impact on the structural integrity of listed buildings as a result of the construction or operation of the East Midlands Gateway with the closest listed buildings to the rail and highway works being the Grade II Listed Hall Farmhouse and The Old Vicarage on Church Street, Lockington.

8.104 The East Midlands Gateway lies within a landscape characterised by historic field systems (The Leicester, Leicester and Rutland Historic Landscape Characterisation Project LCC 2010) which have their origin in enclosure of the medieval open fields and subsequent phases of reorganisation culminating in the Inclosure Acts of the 18 th and 19th century. This historic form is most apparent within the townships of Lockington and Hemington. Significant features include the historic parish boundaries, existing and former routeway, surviving historic landscape features such as ridge and furrow and the evidence of historic quarrying. Earthwork features may also survive with the main woodland blocks.

8.105 The development will lead to extensive loss of historic landscape features within the site area, both as a result of the direct development impacts and the associated screening. The latter will however, provide a significant opportunity to identify remains, minimise direct and indirect impacts and, where possible, incorporate significant historic features into the landscaping proposals. It is considered important that this issue is satisfactorily addressed in order for the potential negative impacts outlined to be minimised.

Potential Negative Heritage and Archaeology Impacts

8.106 The nearest listed building to any part of the warehouse construction would be situated around 450 metres away, with it being noted that the periphery of the settlements of Castle Donington, Hemington and Lockington contain numerous listed buildings as well as

Our Reference:

the limits of these settlement’s conservation areas. The provision of bunding and substantial landscaping as a barrier between the core of the development and relevant heritage assets is important in the preservation of their setting and in these circumstances the success of the landscaping scheme will be paramount. Should the landscaping scheme fail the Local Authorities would have concerns that significant harm would be caused to the setting of these heritage assets, by virtue of the scale and proximity of the development to these assets and likelihood of views being established from the surrounding area, in particular Kegworth, which would allow the development to be seen in the same context as these heritage assets. It is, however, appreciated that in the context of the NPPF any harm caused to the significance of the heritage asset would need to be weighed against the public benefits of the development.

Our Reference:

9 Consideration of Mitigation Measures

9.1 The following section of the LIR considers in general the proposed mitigation measures in respect of the above impacts having regard to the provisions of the ES, the draft DCO, in particular the draft requirements, and the draft Section 174 Obligations.

(a) Socio-Economic Mitigation Impacts

9.2 The Local Authorities acknowledge the benefits that the development will bring to the local economy, in general, but with regards to the negative socio-economic impacts highlighted due consideration should be given to the following: -

9.3 Kegworth Parish Council has highlighted concerns that the creation of the Kegworth Bypass will result in the loss of ‘passing’ trade given that a large volume of traffic would be removed from the centre of the settlement. As a result of this the services within the settlement may be affected financially which in turn would impact on the viability of the town centre. It is considered reasonable that signage is provided on the bypass in order to identify the services and facilities within the settlement and encourage their continued use. It will be suggested to the developers that this becomes a requirement of the DCO.

9.4 Although passing trade may be lost from vehicles travelling through the settlement there is a potential mitigation of this impact in the circumstances that employees of the development may utilise local businesses within the neighbouring settlements for services such as food and drink and hotel accommodation.

9.5 The draft DCO Obligations include the provision of a ‘Community Fund’ which would result in £100,000 being directed to the relevant Parishes (Castle Donington, Kegworth and Lockington cum Hemington). Kegworth Parish Council considers that this contribution could be used to provide alternative ‘local services’ as well as enhancing the public realm around Market Place in order to ‘regenerate’ the settlement and this is considered to be a positive aspect of the development.

9.6 However, it is noted that the use of the Community Fund by the relevant Parishes is specified to particular developments and as such discussions will be held with the relevant Parishes to ascertain that the ‘identified’ developments are acceptable. Any feedback on this matter will be directed to the developers.

9.7 The construction of the development will not mitigate against the loss of Graded agricultural land and it is considered reasonable for the Examining Authority to properly assess this in the context of the relevant Paragraphs of the NPPF. Whilst the development will result in the loss of Graded agricultural land the Local Authorities are of the opinion that the likely financial contribution of the agricultural land to the local economy would be far outweighed by that generated by the East Midlands Gateway.

Our Reference:

9.8 The Local Authorities welcome the Employment Scheme initiative within the DCO Obligations and will hold discussions with the developers on this matter to ensure that it is appropriate and maximises the workforce within the locality of the site.

(b) Landscape and Visual Impacts Mitigation

9.9 The Local Authorities accept that the development will have a significant visual impact on the landscape, given its overall scale, although it appreciates that the degree of harm will need to be assessed against the context of the setting of the site in relation to other ‘urban’ forms of development which are prevalent in the area and which also impact on the landscape (e.g. East Midlands Airport, major road infrastructure and Radcliffe-on-Soar Power Station).

9.10 A substantial amount of vegetation will be maintained around the development site and at present the draft DCO requirements contain some details within No. 8 (c) which will outline measures for their protection. It is considered reasonable that this requirement becomes more precise by advising that tree protection measures which accord to British Standard 5837:2012 are provided for in order to ensure that existing trees, woodland and hedges are retained successfully. This is of particular importance given the contribution that retained vegetation will have on the initial screening of the development and the developers will be advised of this matter accordingly.

9.11 It is also apparent that from certain viewpoints the intended screening provided for within the landscaping scheme will not obscure the entirety of the built forms and as such the Local Authorities welcome the inclusion of DCO requirement No. 7 which will allow the precise design details of the buildings to be agreed. This is considered important in ensuring that the materials and colour used on the built forms breaks up the visual proportions of the development and as such soften their appearance within the landscape.

9.12 It is considered important that during the construction process best landscape practices, are adhered to. Furthermore, where possible, earthworks should be undertaken in the early stages of the development in order to establish the structure planting which will help reduce the visual impact of the development. It will also be necessary for an extensive and robust landscape framework to be agreed to ensure that any new species of vegetation introduced are appropriate to the area and will potentially survive in the environment in which they would be situated. In this regard it is considered that DCO requirements 8 and 9 cover these issues subject to the replacement of any planting provided being extended to a minimum period of 10 years. Furthermore given the extent of the landscape framework which would be provided, a 20 year management plan which includes new planting and grassed areas and existing grassland, woodland, trees and hedgerows, must be agreed. The Local Authorities intend to raise this issue directly with the developers for their consideration.

Our Reference:

9.13 Although DCO requirement no. 14 allows for the details of the lighting scheme for the development to be agreed it is considered that this will not mitigate the impacts of ‘unnatural lighting’ on the landscape given that the site in question is not currently developed. The Examining Authority should appropriately assess the impacts of this issue on the landscape although it is noted that due regard is likely to be given to the lighting sources at the airport and major road infrastructure which also contribute towards light pollution in the immediate area.

(c) Ecology and Nature Conservation Mitigation

9.14 As identified in Paragraph 8.39 of this LIR a ‘Common Ground’ agreement has been reached in respect of the mitigation and compensation for protected species and other species. It is considered that requirement no. 10 within the DCO is a satisfactory measure for securing general ecological management of the site.

9.15 The development provides significant opportunities for creation of habitats, mainly plantation woodland, hedges, species rich grassland and wetland. Table 6.12 on Page 75 of Chapter 6 (Ecology and Nature Conservation) of the ES gives a figure of 112.5 hectares for the creation of ‘proposed/conserved grassland/pasture and open space.’ This figure has now been broken down further (Ecology Solutions: Supplementary briefing note on Ecology and revised Illustrative Masterplan, 3252-L-03, received November 14 th 2014), and there is a clear commitment to providing an area of compensatory semi-improved and species-rich habitat approximately four times that lost, plus an area of translocated calcareous grassland. The broad locations for this habitat creation and translocation are shown on the revised Masterplan.

9.16 Specific compensation through creation and translocation is proposed for the loss of the most significant habitat, which is of County-wide value (the neutral and calcareous grassland described in Paragraph 8.40 of the LIR). The habitat is on the very margins of the development site, but due to landscaping needed to screen the development, it is not possible to preserve it in situ (Ecology Solutions: Supplementary briefing note on Ecology and revised Illustrative Masterplan 3252-L-03, received November 14th 2014).

9.17 Although Chapter 6 (Ecology and Nature Conservation) of the ES covers general opportunities for compensatory habitat creation it is not specific on the principles of this. Broad principles of mitigation should be established at this stage in order that they can be applied to each detailed phase of design and programming and construction, and can be integrated within the landscape strategy. The general principles which the Local Authorities have recommended at this stage include: -

9.18 To ensure that there is a continuity of habitat creation throughout the phases of development, so that habitat-types that are lost as a result of a phase of development are created as part of the landscape provisions associated with that phase;

Our Reference:

9.19 To designate broad areas up-front for species-rich grassland creation, in order that they can be integrated within the soil and landscape strategy and to ensure that the areas set aside for this type of habitat are in the best places as regards soil type, aspect, drainage, public use and agricultural use to give the best chance of a successful outcome;

9.20 To commit to the creation of at least double the area of each replaceable habitat lost (woodlands, hedges, pond/wetland and semi-improved species-rich grassland);

9.21 A formula for creating an agreed alternative habitat to compensate for the loss of veteran trees, as irreplaceable habitats;

9.22 At present the issues raised within Paragraphs 9.15 to 9.17 have not been satisfactorily concluded with the developer’s ecologists and as such ‘Common Ground’ has not been reached. Should a SoCG not be achieved in respect of these mitigation proposals for habitats it is considered that this issue should be appropriately assessed by the Examining Authority and relevant mitigation proposals agreed or secured within a requirement of the DCO.

(d) Noise, Vibration and Lighting Mitigation

9.23 Although concerns are raised with regards to the noise levels in certain areas of neighbouring settlements, as identified in Paragraphs 8.46 to 8.48 of the LIR, it is acknowledged that the Local Authorities have entered into a SoCG in respect of noise which concludes that the development as a whole would not result in significant detriment to the amenities of residential properties within the neighbouring settlements.

9.24 Within the Noise SoCG the levels of noise deemed permissible, as well as the duration of working hours and noise levels during these times, have been agreed with DCO requirement nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 reflecting those agreed in the Noise SoCG which are considered satisfactory and enforceable.

9.25 It is also acknowledged that a potential benefit of the development would be the removal of large volumes of traffic through Kegworth via the A6 which would reduce the noise levels currently experienced by properties along this route.

9.26 DCO requirement no. 14 is also considered satisfactory in allowing the Local Authorities to agree the details and position of lighting on the site and will allow discussions to be undertaken with relevant bodies to ensure that any installed lighting does not impact negatively on residential amenities, highway safety or aviation safety.

(e) Air Quality Mitigation

9.27 The Air Quality SoCG has concluded that in principle the development could lead to the removal of two AQMA’s (Kegworth and M1) and as such there should not be significant implications in this respect.

Our Reference:

9.28 However, the reliance with the traffic data provided, in respect of Castle Donington, on the establishment of a relief road by a development which presently does not benefit from a planning consent and the potential enforcement of a weight restriction through the settlement does not, in the view of the Local Authorities, provide an accurate conclusion.

9.29 Although this is the case the Air Quality SoCG does identify that a contribution towards the enforcement of the weight restriction could be provided and as such this should be included within the relevant DCO Obligations. At present this contribution is not provided for and as such the Examining Authority should consider this issue accordingly with the Local Authorities also directing this matter to the developer’s.

9.30 It is also noted that the Section 106 currently being negotiated for the outline application which includes the relief road, as identified in Paragraph 8.55 of this LIR, does include a requirement for traffic calming measures to be put in place along Bondgate and High Street in order to encourage the use of the proposed bypass. The Examining Authority should also consider the possibility of including this payment in the DCO Obligations in order to ensure that the data relied on for the air quality assessment is adhered to.

(f) Flood Risk Mitigation

9.31 As outlined in Paragraph 8.58 of the LIR the main risk of flooding associated with development is to adjoining community from additional surface water run-off.

9.32 The majority of the site falls towards Lockington and Hemington via a network of ordinary watercourses that form tributaries to the ‘main river’ network. The bypass south of Kegworth falls east towards the River Trent and north towards Kegworth.

9.33 Flooding from the ‘main river’ network is managed by the Environment Agency, whilst local flood risk (from surface water, ordinary watercourses and groundwater) is managed by the County Council.

9.34 The increase in impermeable area should be managed through the use of flow control and attenuation basins to restrict flow from the development to a minimum of ‘greenfield run-off.’ Whilst greenfield run-off is the minimum requirement for the development the Local Authorities would encourage a further reduction in rate where possible to provide a level of betterment to those communities already at risk of flooding.

(g) Transportation/Sustainable Transport Mitigation

9.35 Whilst noting that Kegworth Parish Council would wish to see either a bridge or tunnel provided on Whatton Road to maintain its current route, and prevent rat-running from the bypass, it is the Local Authorities view that the layout proposed is acceptable with there being no reasonable justification for the Local Authorities to require a grade

Our Reference:

separated solution. This highway is also lightly trafficked and as such significant delays should not be experienced on Whatton Road when using the staggered cross road junction.

9.36 At present no mitigation for the vehicular movements around Hathern have been proposed and as such it is considered that this is a matter which should be assessed accordingly by the Examining Authority given that further vehicular movements may be experienced through the settlement by virtue of the improvements undertaken to the major road networks around the East Midlands Gateway site. Although it is the Local Authorities view that this matter should be assessed accordingly there would be no reasoned justification for the developer to fund a Hathern Bypass.

9.37 It is also considered that an appropriate assessment of the overall traffic implications through the construction period, which is expected to last seven years, should be undertaken by the Examining Authority given that these impacts will not be mitigated by the overall highway improvement works but would contribute to increasing the current volumes of traffic which would need to be absorbed by the current highway infrastructure. It is, however, anticipated that the majority of the movements of construction vehicles on the highways are likely to occur outside the peak times of traffic movements.

9.38 The Local Authorities are reasonably satisfied with the DCO requirements and DCO obligations although on-going discussions continue with the developer about particular aspects of the requirements and obligations (in particular the travel plan and public transport strategy within the DCO obligations).

(h) Land Contamination and Impacts to Mineral Resource Mitigation

9.39 As identified in Paragraph 8.94 of the LIR a SoCG in respect of Geology, Soils and Groundwater has been agreed.

9.40 In principle the Local Authorities consider that requirements nos. 25 and 26 address land contamination issues across the broad site. However, given that the investigations undertaken to date have not appropriately assessed potential localised contamination issues it is considered reasonable for requirement no. 25 to be amended so that localised contamination reports are undertaken prior to the development of a particular phase. The Local Authorities are to inform the developer’s directly on this issue so that the requirement can be amended.

9.41 Although a negative impact it is the Local Authorities view that the prior extraction of this resource as a form of mitigation is considered to not be economically viable or sustainable as the removed aggregate would be replaced with a similar or better imported aggregate resource to provide a suitable foundation formation for the proposed rail embankment. This is outlined in Paragraph 4.7 of the Geology, Soils and Groundwater SoCG.

Our Reference:

9.42 Whilst this impact of mineral sterilisation could not be mitigated against the Local Authorities would not object to this impact of the development given the minor area of sterilisation.

(i) Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Mitigation

9.43 In principle the Local Authorities consider that a suite of appropriately worded requirements providing for a stage programme of archaeological mitigation including further exploratory investigation, excavation, analysis, archiving, publication and dissemination, will adequately address the impact of development upon their importance and specific significance.

9.44 In order to secure the future integrity of the affected heritage assets and historic environment, it is essential that the proposals makes all necessary provision for the long-term curation and appropriate treatment of the archaeological archive generated in response to the impact of development. This should include opportunities for public, and particularly local community engagement, and display and presentation of the results.

9.45 The draft SoCG currently being finalised with the Local Authorities will agree the requirements which would need to be included within the DCO although the general principles of requirement no. 13 are considered to be satisfactory.

9.46 It is, however, considered that requirement no. 3 is amended to include archaeology as part of the agreed phasing of the development in order to ensure that areas of the site which contain currently unrecorded heritage assets are investigated thoroughly prior to the construction of the development. This is vital to further enhancing and understanding the site’s archaeological significance.

9.47 As outlined in Paragraph 9.12 the success of the overall landscaping strategy will be paramount to the screening of the development. It should make provision for the identification and recording of significant historic landscape feature, including where possible their integration into the proposals; most significantly, however, it acts as the mitigation for the impacts of the built forms, in particular the warehouses, on the setting of designated heritage assets. The sentiments of Paragraph 9.12 are therefore reiterated and the Local Authorities will continue discussions with the developers in order for this to be achieved as part of the East Midlands Gateway.

9.48 The agreed landscaping scheme will also assist in the preservation of the setting of the ‘Wymeshead Scheduled Ancient Monument’ which lies within close proximity to the eastern end of the Kegworth bypass where it joins the A6. The importance of this is noted within Paragraph 5, Point 5 of the English Heritage SoCG given that it is acknowledged that the development would result in a change in the setting of this designated heritage asset.

Our Reference:

10. Compliance with Local Level Policies

10.1 The relevant policies of the Local Plan are identified in Paragraph 6.38 of the LIR and in respect of these policies it is considered that compliance with Policies E3, E4, E7, E8, E9, E30, T2, T3, T8, T10 and T13 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan can be achieved by appropriate mitigation, via the DCO requirements and obligations, as outlined in Section 9.0 of the LIR.

10.2 Given that the development proposal would not be a form of development deemed appropriate under Policy S3 of the NWLDC Local Plan there would be conflict with this policy and as such the Examining Authority should carry out an appropriate assessment of the development proposals in the context of this Policy and balance any need for the development against the adverse impact. In considering the impacts under Policy S3 the overall scale of the proposal, the built forms in particular, should be appropriately assessed.

10.3 The Local Authorities have not been provided with any correspondence from East Midlands Airport or the Civil Aviation Authority in respect of the development and as such cannot advise on compliance with Policies T19 and T20. It is therefore considered appropriate that the Examining Authority undertake an assessment of the compliance of the development with these policies when in receipt of comments from the relevant organisations.

10.4 As outlined in Paragraph 9.39 of the LIR it is considered that the development would accord with the principles of the policies contained within the LMCS&DCP.

10.5 It is hoped that this LIR assists the Examining Authority in their consideration of the East Midlands Gateway.

Our Reference: