Councils Scoping Opinion in response to Scoping Report submitted by Peter Brett Associates (PBA) on behalf of IDI Gazeley for the erection of a building of up to 100,000 sq m floorspace for B8 (storage and distribution) use, including ancillary B1 (office) floorspace at Land at Mere Lane, Bittesby

1 Introduction:

1.1 PBA have suggested that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required as part of the forthcoming application for the erection of a building of up to 100,000 sq m floorspace for B8 (storage and distribution) use, including ancillary B1 (office) floorspace in an area to the north west of Magna Park. They have therefore submitted a report and asked for a scoping opinion from the planning authority as to the required contents of an EIA. The Council as local planning authority is required to provide a scoping opinion in accordance with Part 4 section 10 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Outlined below is the Councils ‘Scoping Opinion’ incorporating representations and the opinions of officers.

2 Site: 2.1 The indicative site comprises approximately 60 ha of land to the north and west of Mere Lane and the east of the A5, adjacent to Magna Park, . The nearest local settlement is Willey which is 0.85 km away and separated from the site by the A5. To the north are the villages of and Claybrooke Parva which are located 1.7 km and 2.4 km from the site respectively. The town of Lutterworth is located 1.7 km to the east, beyond which is located Junction 20 of the M1. The existing Magna Park comprises a site of over 200 ha that provides approximately 761,700 sq m of B8 floorspace with ancillary B1 space for 25 separate occupiers together with some 3,500 sq m of B1 floorspace in a free-standing office HQ.

2.2 The application site comprises three large open arable fields, two smaller enclosed fields, some mature hedgerow boundaries and mixed native tree belts. The site gently slopes away from Mere Lane towards the Upper Soar Valley from circa 125 m AOD in the north east to circa 110 m in the west.

2.3 The site is crossed by a farm track and permissive access bridleways created under a Higher Level Stewardship scheme administered by Natural , with the current agreement set to run until 31st October 2017. Two cottages, known as Bittesby cottages, are located on this farm track to the west of the site.

2.4 Further north, parts of three further arable fields are included within the site area, up to the ridge line which is marked by a bridleway. To the north west, the red line boundary of the site also includes a 20 m wide strip of arable land proposed for offsite tree planting. The strip lies alongside an existing hedgerow

- 1 - and continues across an arable field to meet the existing ridgeline hedgerow that forms the Ullesthorpe Parish boundary.

2.5 At the north eastern end of the site is the Mere Lane Fisheries Lake which attenuates water draining from Magna Park and feeds a watercourse that runs along a small tributary valley of the River Soar to the northern and western flanks of the site.

2.6 To the south east of Mere Lane, the site includes an area of rough grassland and two belts of trees located adjacent to the Magna Park water treatment and attenuation pools and another water course draining from these pools flows along the south western end of the site. To the south and east of the site, also on the opposite side of Mere Lane are the warehouses of the existing Magna Park development.

3 The Proposal:

3.1 The proposed development is for the erection of a single building of up to 90,000 sq m for B8 (storage and distribution) use, including ancillary B1 (office) floorspace, together with associated fuelling and vehicle washing facilities, the creation of a new junction and new access from Mere Lane and the existing Magna Park, associated roads, parking for HGVs and cars, servicing areas, and landscaping (including tree planting as part of the proposed landscape strategy. The expected height of the building will be up to 23m.

4 Consultations:

4.1 Natural England: The scoping request is for a proposal that does not appear, from the information provided, to affect any nationally designated geological or ecological sites (Ramsar, SPA, SAC, SSSI, NNR) or landscapes (National Parks, AONBs, Heritage Coasts, National Trails), or have significant impacts on the protection of soils (particularly of sites over 20ha of best or most versatile land), nor is the development for a mineral or waste site of over 5ha.

4.2 At present therefore it is not a priority for Natural England to advise on the detail of this EIA. We would, however, like to draw your attention to some key points of advice, presented in annex to this letter, and we would expect the final Environmental Statement (ES) to include all necessary information as outlined in Schedule 4 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. If you believe that the development does affect one of the features listed in paragraph 3 above, please contact Natural England at [email protected], and we may be able to provide further information.

4.3 Highway Agency: The Highways Agency (“the Agency”) is a statutory consultee on planning applications under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended). The Agency therefore welcomes pre- application discussion, including the opportunity to provide advice on the scope of any Environmental Statement pursuant to the procedures set out in the Town

- 2 - and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, which also identify the Agency as a statutory party.

4.4 You have invited the Agency to provide comments on the scope of an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion for the erection of a building of up to 90,000m² floorspace for B8 (storage and distribution) use, including ancillary B1 (office) floorspace, at land off, Mere Lane, Bittesby.

4.5 I have set out below both the general and specific areas of concerns that the Agency would wish to see considered as part of an Environmental Statement. The comments relate specifically to matters arising from the Agency’s responsibilities to manage and maintain the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England.

4.6 Comments relating to the local road network should be sought from the appropriate local highway authority.

4.7 General aspects to be addressed in all cases:  An assessment of transport related impacts of the proposal should be carried out and reported as described in the Department for Transport ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA)’. It is noted that this guidance has been archived, however still provides a good practice guide in preparing a Transport Assessment. In addition, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) also provide guidance on preparing Transport Assessments  Environmental impact arising from any disruption during construction, traffic volume, composition or routing change and transport infrastructure modification should be fully assessed and reported.  Adverse change to noise and to air quality should be particularly considered, including in relation to compliance with the European air quality limit values and/or in local authority designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).

4.8 Location specific considerations:  A Transport Assessment will be necessary to support the proposals in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and also ‘DfT Circular 02/2013’.  PBA have submitted a scoping report and also ‘Baseline Paper 4 – Access and Transport’ dated Dec 2014 prepared by URS. The impact from the proposed development is anticipated at various junctions along the A5 and also at the M1 J20. Detailed analysis of the various SRN junctions should be submitted in a Transport Assessment.  It is advised that the Agency had pre-application discussions with the developer consultants and it is encouraged that these discussions continue until the impact from the development is assessed and agreed with the Highways Agency prior to submission of a planning application.

4.9 These comments are only advisory, as the responsibility for determining the final scope of the Environmental Statement would rest with the Local Planning Authority. The Agency comments imply no pre-determined view as to the acceptability of the proposed development in traffic, environmental or highway terms. Should the applicant wish to discuss the merits of the proposal in terms - 3 - of the likely impact on the SRN please contact me on 0121 687 2583 or [email protected].

4.10 Environment Agency: According to Agency maps, the area of the proposed development closest to the ‘Medieval Village of Bittesby’ appears to be in very close proximity of Flood Zone 3. New proposal for development within land lying in Flood Zone 3 would be subject to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Sequential Test.

4.12 Due to the scale of the proposed development, any application submission would need to include an NPPF complaint Flood Risk Assessment.

4.13 Aerodrome is located in the south-eastern corner of the proposed application site. There is also, according to Agency maps, an historic landfill at the site of the Aerodrome. There is therefore the risk of contaminated land within the application site. The site is underlain by Aquifer (and in relative proximity to an ‘ordinary’ watercourse), making the site sensitive from a controlled waters perspective. Therefore, it is important that the area of land in the south-eastern corner is included in any Phase I Geo-environmental Assessment desk study, (as well as the wider application site). A conceptual site model should be produced, and a preliminary risk assessment identifying potential pollutant linkages with respect to controlled waters. The desk study will advise whether any potential pollutant linkages need to be assessed further. Appropriate site investigations should be scoped based on the findings of the desk study.

4.14 The Agency understands that the foul sewage from the proposed development will be pumped back to the existing on- site sewage treatment plant. Provision will need to be provided for this extra flow. An application will need to be made to increase the flow discharging to the watercourse and there may be changes to the water quality limits.

4.15 The Lead Local Flood Authority should be consulted regarding any consenting requirements associated with the watercourse in the vicinity of the proposed application site.

4.16 English Heritage: As stated in the EIA Scoping report we met with the applicant’s agents and consultants (and the County Archaeological Officer) on 18th July 2014. There are clearly likely impacts upon the significance of designated and undesignated heritage assets both physically and through setting effects.

4.17 At this stage without studying the results of archaeological surveys (geophysical and fieldwalking and potentially the results of intrusive field evaluation) we cannot accept that the potential for development impacts upon heritage assets (designated or otherwise) can be known or quantified (contra Baseline paper 3 – Heritage and Archaeology).

4.18 Nor can we accept the assertion in para 4.2 that setting makes only a minor contribution to the significance of Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village (Scheduled Monument 17934/ NHLE1012563). This would be to pre-speak the results of a setting assessment based upon or guidance ‘Setting of Heritage

- 4 - Assets’ and further discussion on how the significance of the monument is supported by aspects of its landscape and archaeological context.

4.19 We refer you to the detailed records and advice of the County Council archaeologist and the HER and to material in the English Heritage Archives at Swindon (as we trust are explored in the applicant’s desk-based assessment). We note from our own records the proximity of the Roman Road (and burials) and previous archaeological finds including a Roman Cremation Urn found in the vicinity of Bittersby Cottages (Pastscape 340316). The HER will however offer much more extensive coverage.

4.20 We do concur however that further investigations additional to non-intrusive survey are likely to be required pre-determination to establish the significance of any ‘significant, complex or extensive remains which may be identified (para 4.2). Setting impacts upon the significance of the Grade II* Church of St Leonard, should be assessed or excluded on the basis of clear evidence. Setting assessment should include a range of issues including visibility, air quality and noise, and in respect of visual issues metric visualisation are likely to be necessary to adequately characterise impacts upon the designated heritage assets.

4.21 If Bittesby House and Cottages are likely to be affected by the proposed development we recommend that their significance is assessed as undesignated heritage assets.

4.22 Impacts upon flow rates and viability at the Grade II listed Claybrook Mill may need to be assessed and considered where works affect its catchment.

4.23 Sources for the study of Bittesby and the surrounding area additional to the Scheduled Monument record at:- http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1012563 include the following:- The Description of – William Burton 2nd Ed 1777 The history and antiquities of Claybrook - Aulay Macaulay 1791 History and Antiquities of the County of Leicestershire - Nichols Vol iv 1807

4.24 We look forwards to further consultations on EIA materials as they become available.

4.25 English Heritage (Additional Comments): Further to recent consultations on EIA Scoping for schemes adjacent to Magna Park it appeared to us timely to offer some general advice. We understand that a strategic study of capacity and needs is expected shortly looking at distribution issues across the county, and this will clearly help to frame your thinking.

4.26 With respect to the historic environment we are keen that all proposals are subject to comparable levels of assessment with full consultation with ourselves and the County Archaeologist and HER and proper assessment through existing data and new investigations to support a genuinely planned outcome.

- 5 - 4.27 Sites around Magna should be subject, prior to any determination, to assessment of impacts upon designated and undesignated heritage assets and this is likely to require a suite of complementary and comparable studies which draw on successive stages of investigation in an iterative manner. These are likely to include (but may not be confined to), Desk Based Assessment, Geophysical Survey, Field-walking, Deposit Modelling and Intrusive Archaeological Evaluation (such as trial trenching). Setting issues should be explored in studies informed by our guidance ‘Setting of Heritage Assets’.

4.28 This approach, well executed, will assist your authority to make safe evidence based determinations regarding impacts upon the historic environment both designated and undesignated. In particular it will assist you in relation to the NPPF and Statute in providing a basis of analysis on which you may apply the required great weight to the conservation of the significance of Designated Heritage Assets (in their settings) and remains of demonstrably equivalent importance to Scheduled Monuments, and in having special regard to the desirability of preserving the special historic and architectural interest of Listed Buildings and their settings and the character of Conservation Areas.

4.29 National Grid: Regarding the above application (Our Ref. EM_TW_Z2_3NWP_003501), there is a High Pressure Gas Pipeline in the vicinity and any works should be in accordance with NG requirements and safe working practices. Also, a PADHI+ assessment should be carried out to determine suitability of a building near this Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

4.30 Severn Trent Water: I confirm that Severn Trent Water Limited has no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of the following: Condition 1 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

4.31 Leicestershire County Council Highways: In accordance with Paragraph 3 of ‘Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking’ and in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ the proposed development should be supported by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. The County Highway Authority would require the multi-modal traffic impacts of the proposed development to be demonstrated and addressed through appropriate methods of assessment. The CHA’s specific policies in relation to the requirements of such an assessment are set out in the 6Cs Design Guide. Furthermore, given the nature and scale of the development the proposals should be assessed within the context of the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model.

4.32 It should be noted that the CHA is also in receipt of a further consultation on an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion (ref: 14/01729/SCP) for a proposal comprising 300,000sqm B8 (storage and distribution), B2 General

- 6 - Industrial and, B1(c) (offices) on land adjacent Glebe Farm, Coventry Road, Lutterworth. In light of this, the Transport Assessment should also undertake sensitivity testing to identify the potential cumulative impact for both proposals. In specific comment to the list provided in ‘Other relevant developments to be taken into account’ the Applicant is advised to engage with the CHA to ensure that the developments contained on the list are up to date at the time that any Planning Application is submitted, and where necessary, revised for the purposes of robust transport assessment.

4.33 Leicestershire County Council Technical Services: The Flood Map for Surface Water shows areas where surface water would be expected to flow or pond, as a result of the 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year events.

4.34 Historic flooding The proposed site is situated within the catchment for a tributary to the River Soar, and flows into the River Soar near Sharnford. There are no flooding incidents reported within this catchment. However, there are a number of flooding incidents reported within the larger River Soar network downstream of this location; as such the LLFA would not be supportive of any increase to the flows from this tributary.

4.35 If however there have been 0 reported incidents, we would advise that this does not mean there has never been historic flooding in this location or that the area is automatically free from a risk of flooding.

4.36 It should be noted that any development has the potential to cause or aggravate flooding and it is essential that all forms of flooding are taken into consideration within any flood risk assessment or planning application. Where there is insufficient information regarding any aspect of risk, the responsibility to investigate will lie with the applicant.

4.37 Regulation of Activities on Watercourses If you propose to do any work on, or near to, an ordinary watercourse, ditch or stream you may need our consent to do so, further information on the types of work/structure which require consent together with the application form can be found on our website - http://www.leics.gov.uk/watercourse.htm

4.38 The council opposes the culverting of watercourses; however we recognise there are situations where culverting may be desirable. In these cases open span bridges should be considered first as alternatives to culverts. Any applicants will be required to prove why a culvert is the only practicable option, and provide information to show that it will not have a detrimental effect on flood risk, water quality or wildlife.

4.39 The Environment Agency The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key part of reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth. The Environment Agency (EA) continue to play a key role working alongside other flood management bodies in preventing inappropriate development in flood risk areas and reducing the causes and impacts of flooding, as a statutory consultee in the planning process.

- 7 - 4.40 For works upon or near to watercourses, under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of a watercourse, designated a 'main river'.

4.41 Further information can be found on the environment agencies Website – http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/

4.42 Ground Water Flooding Section 3.2.4 of baseline paper 8 – Hydrology indicates that the site is underlain by Oadby member Diamicton over Mercia Mudstone.

4.43 However on the data available to the LLFA the site is predominantly underlain by a bedrock formation of Blue Lias Formation (Secondary A), the outlying routes towards Bittesby are underlain by a bedrock formation of Penarth Group (Secondary Undifferentiated) and a very small section at the western tip of the site is underlain by Mercia Mudstone (Secondary B).

4.44 The site is also underlain by Superficial Deposits predominantly in the form of Oadby Member Diamicton, with areas of Wolston Sand and Gravel (Secondary A) and Alluvium Clay, silt Sand and Gravel (Secondary A). A small area at the western tip is underlain by Dunsmore Gravel.

4.45 The Baseline Paper Ground Conditions part 1 document appears to concur with the information available to the LLFA; This can be found in section 2.2 of the Ground Conditions report.

4.46 The Hydrology report should be amended to concur with the information within the Ground Conditions report.

4.47 The information available to the LLFA can be viewed in a high level format on the EA’s Website http://maps.environment- agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=357683&y=355134&scale=1&layerGro ups=default&ep=map&textonly=off&lang=_e&topic=groundwater

4.48 Further information can be obtained from the British Geology Survey (BGS) www.bgs.ac.uk.

4.49 Fluvial Flood Risk As stated within the Hydrology paper the site is situated within Flood Zone 1 as indicated on the of the EA’s Flood Maps. However it should be noted that the ordinary watercourses flowing through the site is unlikely to have been modelled. The updated Flood Map for Surface Water (uFMfSW) shows surface water flooding along the watercourses indicating that fluvial flooding may also occur at this location. The LLFA would therefore recommend that further assessment of the flows through the watercourse is undertaken to inform the FRA and detailed design stages.

4.50 Pluvial Flood Risk

- 8 - As stated above the uFMfSW indicates flooding from surface water along the watercourses and in localised areas of across the site indicated areas of lower lying land. This information should be considered when developing the site and should be considered alongside any fluvial processes.

4.51 SuDs Approval Body In light of the recent DEFRA/DCLG consultation on delivering Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) which can be found at https://consult.defra.gov.uk/water/delivering-sustainable-drainage-systems

4.52 Leicestershire County Council will potentially not be responsible for the future adoption and maintenance of SuDS features and at this point in time, we will not be commenting on any new SuDS applications.

4.53 Site Specific Comments The nature of the site as stated in the hydrology report is likely to give risk to increases in peak runoff from the site due to the increase in impermeable surfaces a suitable surface water drainage system will need to be implemented to conform to NPPF. As the site is likely to contain industrial/commercial and storage development consideration should be given to water quality leaving the site and compliance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

4.54 Closing Statement The LLFA in principle has no objection to the proposed development providing the development is undertaken in line with NPPF and WFD compliant. The LLFA would be keen that no increase in flood risk or reduction in water quality is ensured through the appropriate use of SuDS techniques.

4.55 It is acknowledged that the site lies within Flood Zone 1, but that knowledge about the flood risk on the ordinary watercourses is unknown and should be investigated prior to development of the site.

4.56 Leicestershire County Council Ecology Department: We note that this application requests a scoping opinion for the site, our comments therefore relate to this and not to the specifics of the application.

4.57 We note that an ecological survey (Delta-Simons, December 2014) has been submitted with the application. This report contains an assessment of the site, but identified a number of specific surveys that are still to be completed. We would request that these are completed along with any necessary mitigation plans, prior to the submission of any planning application.

4.58 It should be noted that the great crested newt section of the report refers to a previous survey by Ecosilus (November 2010). We have not seen a copy of this report and it should be forwarded to us, should it be used in support of this application. Additionally, we have no existing records of GCN from Magna Park and it would be useful to see the report to add the records to our database. If a significant population has been recorded in Magna Park, foraging routes from the existing mitigation should be considered as part of this application.

4.59 I have attached a copy of our Scoping Opinion (See Appendix A), should this be of use to the applicant or ecologist.

- 9 -

4.60 Leicestershire County Council Archaeology Department: We recommend that the advice of English Heritage is considered in relation to the potential setting impacts to heritage assets in the vicinity. In addition to designated assets such as Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings, the settings of non-designated heritage assets, such as historic farmsteads, should be considered and the impacts to their significance assessed, both in terms of visual impacts and the change in land use from agricultural to industrial.

4.61 The proposed development site lies close to the Scheduled Deserted Medieval Village at Bittesby and the course of the Roman Watling Street. Artefacts of palaeolithic, later prehistoric, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, medieval and post- medieval date have been recorded in the vicinity and the site of a probable Roman villa lies to the immediate north-west.

4.62 The submitted documents make reference to an archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, fieldwalking survey and geophysical survey having been completed on the proposed development site. However, these reports have not yet been submitted and so we cannot currently comment on the results of these initial evaluation phases in relation to the potential archaeological impact of the proposed development.

4.63 Given the scale of the proposed development, and lack of previous archaeological investigation within the site, it is considered likely that archaeological remains will be impacted by the scheme but the nature and significance of these remains is not currently understood. There is a possibility that highly significant archaeological remains of national importance, worthy of preservation in situ, are present and that these would be impacted by the proposed development.

4.64 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, referencing sources from both Leicestershire and , should include:  a site visit to assess the presence of any above-ground archaeological remains such as earthworks of Ridge and Furrow cultivation.  Map regression should include historic OS mapping and any available earlier mapping such as tithe maps, enclosure maps, estate maps, etc.  Reference should be made to the Historic Landscape Characterisation project in relation to the potential impacts to the historic landscape character.  Given the presence of watercourses and alluvial deposits within the site, consideration should be given to the potential presence of palaeoenvironmental remains.  In addition to considering the effects of dewatering activities on waterlogged archaeological remains, both within and in the vicinity of the proposed development site, the potential effects of any changes in water chemistry should also be investigated as well as potential impacts on upstanding heritage assets such as the possibility of subsidence of historic buildings, earthworks and monuments.  The Desk-Based Assessment should aim to inform the need for and scope of subsequent phases of archaeological field evaluation, which should also form part of the EIA.

- 10 - 4.65 It is likely that a subsequent phase of archaeological trial trenching will be necessary, to confirm the nature and significance of any archaeological remains identified by the initial phases of evaluation. We would be happy to look at the results of the initial Desk-Based Assessment and non-intrusive surveys when they are available to advise on the scope of this subsequent trenching and ensure that it provides the information necessary to ascertain the archaeological impacts of the proposed scheme.

4.66 Harborough District Council Environmental Health (Contaminated Land): The Phase 1 desk study submitted would be sufficient information at the planning application stage with the intrusive works recommended by the report being required by pre-commencement condition.

4.67 Rugby Borough Council: Within the Scoping Opinion letter from pba, the agents, it details the various baseline assessments to be undertaken that will, along with any others identified through the consultation process, form the basis of the Environmental Statement (ES) to accompany the application.

4.68 In respect of the details provided relating to the baseline surveys stated I am generally happy with their inclusion in the ES, however, I would request that the surveys relating to Landscape Character & Visual Impact chapter include both visual photographic montages from locations agreed with yourselves AND an assessment against the provisions of the Landscape Assessment For The Borough Of Rugby. The basis for this is the sites location on the edge of and within the Harborough District Council administrative area but beside Rugby Borough Councils area administrative edge from where views of the proposal will be taken in green belt and countryside location. As such there is a potential impact that needs to be addressed.

4.69 Monks Kirby PC: Monks Kirby Parish Cllrs acknowledge that the Parish Council is not a formal consultee but are very grateful to be informed and would wish to be kept up to date with developments.

4.70 The Cllrs concern is that these proposals will certainly increase traffic on the A5 and surrounding roads in both Warwickshire and Leicestershire. There has been considerable development along the A5 in recent years and whilst each application may be considered manageable in terms of traffic flow the overall picture is very different. Monks Kirby residents have seen a marked increase in traffic using the Coalpit Lane C206 most of which travels at speed as the C206 is flat and almost straight. There is also the attendent wear and tear on the highway surface and being only a "C" classified road it is not very high on the list of highway repairs as would be an "A" or "B" road. I shall be grateful if you will please make a note of these comments.

4.71 Others: The Landscape Partnership (On behalf of HDC): JB flagged up the need for reference to the Landscape Character Assessment 2010 as an additional contextual document.

4.72 Visual matters

- 11 - Detailed Application The following points are to be read in conjunction with the attached updated Magna Park II :Plot 1 Representative Viewpoint Plan:  The following additional views were identified for use in assessing daytime effects: View 1b an additional view from the Leicestershire Round further south, consider view 10b from the road south west of , View 14b from the public footpath to the east of Willey and the disused railway, view 16f from the edge of the A5/Bridleway gate south of Mere Lane. An extra view 4b was also requested from the public footpath to the east of White House Farm north of the application site. There was also a request to check that views 12b and 12c were checked to make sure they included views of the location of the new junction off Mere Lane. Also discussed and to be considered, was the use of one view from Views 9ai and 9aii (9a) from the bridleway looking south east, instead of two views, as they appeared to be doubling up;  Identified view for relocation: View 3 on Woodway Lane to be moved east to a location in front of Woodway Lodge;  The following views were identified for use in assessing night time effects: Views 16b and representing views from the A5, Emmanuel Cottages and the community of Willey to the west, view 3 from Woodway Lane, representative of communities to the north west, view 4 representative of the views from Claybrooke Parva to the north and view 8 as representative of views from the Communities of Ullesthorpe and along Lutterworth Road.  The following viewpoints were identified for VVM locations (fully rendered in this case): View 6a from the southern edge of Ullesthorpe, View 8 from the south eastern edge of Ullesthorpe, View 16b from the A5 alongside Emmanuel Cottages and View 7 from alongside the Bittesby Village Scheduled Monument. It was confirmed that a VVM was not required from View 4 infront of Claybrooke Parva Church for the detailed application;

4.73 Outline application The following points are to be read in conjunction with the attached updated Magna Park II :Outline Application Representative Viewpoint Plan:  The following additional/extra representative views were identified for use in assessing daytime effects: View 1b an additional view from the Leicestershire Round further south, View 2b just south of the scout centre on the road between Frolesworth and Ullesthorpe, an extra view 5aiii from the open access land alongside the Ullesthorpe scheduled monument at the top of the field alongside the corner of Manor Farm, Consider view 10b from the Ullesthorpe Road south west of Ashby Parva, View 14b from the public footpath to the east of Willey and the disused railway, view 16f from the edge of the A5/Bridleway gate south of Mere Lane. An additional view 14d to add to 14c to pick up views from residents in Willey and an extra view 4e from the public footpath to the east of White House Farm north of the application site. There was also a suggestion for an additional view which could be used in the Cultural Heritage chapter (not necessary in the LVIA), from the front door of St Peter’s Parish Church Claybrooke Parva. View 13 was also confirmed as representative of views from Coal Pit Lane and footpaths to the west of Willey Fields Farm and one other view to the west, presented for

- 12 - consideration near Wood Farm was agreed as not being required. There was also a request to expand view 12c to a 180 degree view.  The following views were identified for use in assessing night time effects: Views 16b, 16e and 14c and 14d representing views from A5, Emmanuel Cottages and the community of Willey to the west, view 3 from Woodway Lane representative of communities to the north west, view 4a representative of the views from Claybrooke Parva to the north and view 8 as representative of views from the Communities of Ullesthorpe and along Lutterworth Road;  The following viewpoints were identified for VVM locations (wireline/block model in this case): View 6a (as one wide panorama) from the southern edge of Ullesthorpe, View 8 from the south eastern edge of Ullesthorpe, View 16b from the A5 alongside Emmanuel Cottages, View 7 from alongside the Bittesby Village Scheduled Monument, View 4 from the south of Claybrooke Parva church; View 3 from Woodway Lane, View 13 from West of Willey and View 5aii from the Ullesthorpe Scheduled Monument

4.74 Points raised on the LVIA figures submitted for the scoping opinion and application illustrative material:  Request for plans to show open access land around the Ullesthorpe Manor Scheduled Monument and current permissive routes with a label regarding timing of the end of the access rights;  Consider refining view arrows and associated labelling to make them a bit clearer;  Use winter views throughout as a priority, with summer views added where helpful to illustrate seasonal change or added in the appendix;  VVM’s will be presented as opening year of opening winter and year 10 winter;  Requested section line positions for the detailed application included: between Bittesby Scheduled Monument View 7 and the existing Magna Park, also from the western edge of Ullesthorpe to the application site from Views 6a and View 8;  Requested section line positions for the outline application included: Between Claybrooke Parva church across toward and including the application site, from the western edge of Ullesthorpe to the application site from View 6a/6b along the tributary valley and from View 8 in a south westerly direction, from Willey Fields farm across the A5 and the application site and from an additional viewpoint 4e offsite to the east of White House Farm, From the Ullesthorpe Scheduled Monument View 5aii to the A5 over Lodge Farm;  Other illustrative visualisations identified as being useful included the near view along the new access road/Mere Lane toward the DHL building;  Include insets on photo location plan to show clustered views more clearly;  Add extent of built form under extent of application site on photographs to clarify this.

4.75 Methodology Points

- 13 -  Clarification requested for confirmation of whether we will be using Landscape Institute guidance for photographs and VVM’s or that recently published by Scottish National Heritage – We will be using Landscape Institute Guidance;  Check the use of the word ‘and’ in the Significance in EIA terms criteria;  Check the use of proximity as a factor in visual sensitivity criteria, should this be a factor in magnitude of effect instead?;  Set out assumptions regarding anticipated tree growth/heights based on growth rates achieved on site already;  Refine/add to visual constraints listed in scoping report;  Consider if transplanting of any existing trees or hedgerow stock is viable.

4.76 Potential Cumulative Impacts  The scope of cumulative landscape and visual impacts was discussed. However, it was agreed that JB would discuss this matter further with HDC in order to clarify their view on proportionate scope and coverage for this part of the LVIA chapter before advising further on this.

5 Additional consultation responses following submission of Addendum in relation to alterations of A5:

5.1 Leicestershire County Council Technical Services: The amendment to the plans does not impact on the comment previously submitted by the LLFA, as such we have no further comment.

5.2 Leicestershire County Council Ecology: We have no additional comments on the updated information.

5.3 Leicestershire County Council Highways: The County Highway Authority has no further comments as this section of road is under control of Highways England. We will expect to finalise the design as per the usual procedures through the planning process where there are interactions with the County Highway network.

5.4 Natural England Natural England has previously commented on this proposal and made comments to the authority in our letter dated 16 January 2015 (ref no. 140893).

5.5 The advice provided in our previous response applies equally to this amendment. Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again.

6 Councils Assessment:

6.1 At this stage various issues have been addressed by PBA in its submission and other issues have been addressed through representations following consultations. It is considered that PBA’s scoping is broadly acceptable subject to additional points that have arisen out of the consultation process. These are:

- 14 - 6.2 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage There are no heritage assets within the site for the detailed application, however, there is a Scheduled Monument in the form of Bittesby Deserted Village and a non-designated heritage asset in the form of Bittesby House within the larger site for the outline application. As such, the impact upon the setting of these assets must be considered as part of both applications. Furthermore, if the Outline application proposes the loss of Bittesby House, a full assessment of its significance will have to be carried out in order to enable the full impact of its loss to be established. Furthermore, the site is identified as being an area of archaeological potential. It is important that a full survey of the sites is carried out prior to an application being submitted and any mitigation measures put in place prior to a formal application being submitted. It will also be important to ensure that the location, scale and massing of the proposed buildings will not adversely affect any of the areas of archaeological interest. It is also suggested that watching briefs are adopted throughout development in case any further sites of archaeological or cultural significance are found. These issues have been addressed within the report and should be covered as part of the EIA process

6.3 Landscape and Visual Amenity Further to the points raised above within the Archaeology section it is important that the effects of landscape character are considered as part of any assessment. This is particularly significant when one considers the visual implications this scheme could have and the potential affect that these large buildings could have within the Landscape. Consequently the EIA should address the issues of this scheme in terms of the visual impact upon the surrounding landscape. As part of this process it should incorporate a cumulative impact assessment looking at the combined impact of the detailed application as well as the forthcoming Outline proposal (as far as is reasonably possible at the time of submission) to the south of the existing Magna Park.

6.4 Highways Impact: The proposed development should be supported by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan which should be carried out and reported as described in the Department for Transport ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA)’. It is noted that this guidance has been archived, however still provides a good practice guide in preparing a Transport Assessment. In addition, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) also provide guidance on preparing Transport Assessments. The County Highway Authority would require the multi-modal traffic impacts of the proposed development to be demonstrated and addressed through appropriate methods of assessment.

6.5 It should be noted that the CHA is also in receipt of a further consultation on an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion (ref: 14/01729/SCP) for a proposal comprising 300,000sqm B8 (storage and distribution), B2 General Industrial and, B1(c) (offices) on land adjacent Glebe Farm, Coventry Road, Lutterworth. In light of this, the Transport Assessment should also undertake sensitivity testing to identify the potential cumulative impact for both proposals. In specific comment to the list provided in ‘Other relevant developments to be taken into account’ the Applicant is advised to engage with the CHA to ensure that the developments contained on the list are up to date at

- 15 - the time that any Planning Application is submitted, and where necessary, revised for the purposes of robust transport assessment.

6.6 An assessment of transport related impacts of the proposal Environmental impact arising from any disruption during construction, traffic volume, composition or routing change and transport infrastructure modification should be fully assessed and reported. Adverse change to noise and to air quality should be particularly considered, including in relation to compliance with the European air quality limit values and/or in local authority designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).

6.7 PBA have submitted a scoping report and also ‘Baseline Paper 4 – Access and Transport’ dated Dec 2014 prepared by URS. The impact from the proposed development is anticipated at various junctions along the A5 and also at the M1 J20. Detailed analysis of the various SRN junctions should be submitted in a Transport Assessment.

6.8 Nature Conservation PBA have carried out an assessment of the site, but identified a number of specific surveys that are still to be completed. It is requested that these are completed along with any necessary mitigation plans, prior to the submission of any planning application. It is considered that this would be a satisfactory approach to take through the EIA process.

6.9 Natural England as part of their response have recognised that the site does not affect any nationally designated sites, however, they have requested that some key points of advice are drawn to the attention of the developers, and these are presented in Appendix B, and it is expected that the final Environmental Statement (ES) would include all necessary information as outlined in Schedule 4 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

6.10 Noise There are no plans to assess the traffic noise after development has completed, however the current and future noise levels of the site will need to be fully assessed in order to minimise the impact upon surrounding residents. Both construction and traffic noise should be assessed but is not expected to create any issues that cannot be resolved through appropriate mitigating measures.

6.11 Lighting: The existing use of the site is open agricultural land without any artificial lighting except from the adjacent existing Magna Park and therefore the site itself has low levels of brightness. The site is not under any landscape or ecological designations and therefore the general sensitivity of the site to lighting is considered to be low. However, there are a number of potential sensitive visual receptors in the locality which should be included within the assessment.

6.12 To establish the lighting baseline in more detail, a field survey should be undertaken to record views from sensitive receptors at night-time using photography and qualitative description.

- 16 - 6.13 It is likely that, during operation of the proposed development, there is potential for negative effects from light spill and glare to sensitive receptors within close proximity of the proposed site if not appropriately designed and controlled. There is also potential for negative effects from sky glow to sensitive receptors located further from the site if they are not appropriately designed and controlled.

6.14 Nicholas Pearson Associates in support of PBA suggest that a sensitive building and lighting design strategy will be required to reduce the negative effects from the proposals on the surrounding sensitive receptors. Such a strategy would form part of the LVIA section of the EIA.

6.15 Officers are satisfied with this approach and feel that a suitable strategy should help to mitigate concerns raised by local residents regarding the existing Magna Park development adjacent to the site. Over the years of its operation, concerns have regularly been raised to the LPA from residents of Bitteswell and Lutterworth regarding the light spill from the site. It is therefore considered to be of significant importance that the impact of light spill from the proposed development is adequately assessed, and it is therefore considered by the LPA that Light Pollution should either form a separate topic within the ES or be included as a distinct chapter within the LVIA. As part of this process it should incorporate a cumulative impact assessment looking at the combined impact of the detailed application as well as the forthcoming Outline proposal (as far as is reasonably possible at the time of submission) to the south of the existing Magna Park.

6.16 Drainage The nature of the site as stated in the hydrology report is likely to give risk to increases in peak runoff from the site due to the increase in impermeable surfaces a suitable surface water drainage system will need to be implemented to conform to NPPF. As the site is likely to contain industrial/commercial and storage development consideration should be given to water quality leaving the site and compliance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

6.17 The LLFA in principle has no objection to the proposed development providing the development is undertaken in line with NPPF and WFD compliant. The LLFA would be keen that no increase in flood risk or reduction in water quality is ensured through the appropriate use of SuDS techniques.

6.18 It is acknowledged that the site lies within Flood Zone 1, but that knowledge about the flood risk on the ordinary watercourses is unknown and should be investigated prior to development of the site. Due to the topography of the area, it is unlikely that the proposal and the proposal to the south of the existing Magna Park would have any cumulative impact on drainage

6.19 Cumulative Schemes As part of the submission, PBA included a schedule of other relevant developments to be taken into account. Officers consider that this schedule, whilst comprehensive, does omit some additional developments which should also be taken into account. These are outlined in the table at Appendix C.

7 Conclusion:

- 17 - 7.1 PBA have suggested from the outset that an EIA would be required to accompany a forthcoming planning application and have outlined the main factors and issues that will be discussed as part of the assessment. The Council is obliged as a planning authority to provide a scoping opinion in accordance with Part 4 section 10 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

7.2 In summary officers consider that the scoping and methodology proposed by PBA is appropriate subject to the additional points arising from the consultation responses in respect of the following 8 subject areas:

1) Archaeological and Cultural Heritage survey to include a detailed assessment of the impact upon the setting of all designated and non designated heritage assets within and adjacent to the site, including (but not limited to) Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village, the Roman Road, Church of St Leonard, Bittesby House and Cottages Claybrooke Mill. 2) Visual Landscape Assessment, including any affects on areas of interest and cumulative impact of the proposals 3) Traffic Impact Assessments including the proposed mitigation of impacts upon the highway network, to include sensitivity testing of the cumulative impact of proposals in the area. 4) Comprehensive surveys on the affects this scheme may have on animals and wildlife living in or travelling through the area on a regular basis. 5) Noise survey outlining the affect that this development will have on residents after completion. 6) Light survey outlining the affects this scheme may have on the surrounding residents after completion, including any affects on areas of interest and cumulative impact of the proposals. 7) Hydrology survey outlining the affects this scheme may have on the surrounding water courses as well as the potential for impact upon the operation of Claybrooke Mill after the completion of the development. 8) The effects the findings of the EIA will have on the surrounding area explained (where possible) in a quantifiable manner.

7.3 All aspects raised as part of this Screening Response will also need to be addressed as part of any subsequent submission for a larger extension to Magna Park.

- 18 -

APPENDIX A

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland

Standard Scoping Opinion – biodiversity and ecology

Leicestershire and Rutland Environmental Records Centre, March 2014

An independent consultant should be commissioned to undertake an Ecological Assessment on the likely impact of the scheme in relation to the site and its environs.

Desk Study

A data search should be requested from Leicestershire and Rutland Environmental Records Centre, to include as a minimum requirement:

 identification of all recognised statutory and non-statutory sites of nature conservation interest likely to be impacted by the proposed development  All known records for protected species, UKBAP priority species, Local BAP priority species likely to be impacted by the proposed development  All known records for any other species groups known to be particularly at risk from impact from the proposed development

If statutory sites are likely to be impacted by the development, information on the sites should also be requested from Natural England.

Surveys

The Assessment should include the following surveys. All habitat and species surveys should be conducted at the appropriate time(s) of year for the species concerned by a suitably trained and licensed individual. Methodologies, dates of survey, times of survey where appropriate, and survey personnel should be clearly stated.

 An extended Phase 1 Survey to JNCC 1993 methodology. Surveys must be carried out at an appropriate time of year for the habitat concerned; in particular, grasslands and early successional habitats must be surveyed between late Spring to early Autumn. Surveys carried out outside these times may be rejected.  Significant habitats should be recorded to a standard consistent with assessment against the Local Wildlife Site criteria for Leicestershire and Rutland Records of incidental observations of fauna.  Survey for all protected species and UK/Local BAP species possibly/likely to be impacted by the development proposal, stating the survey methodology used; to include as appropriate:  A Bat Survey in accordance with national guidelines to identify species, roosts, status of roosts (maternity, feeding, transient, etc), hibernation sites

- 19 - and feeding areas, foraging routes of bats on-site and those that may be impacted off-site  A Badger Survey in accordance with national guidelines to identify the location of any setts, status of setts (main, outlier, annexe, etc), tracks, feeding areas and territories on-site or off-site and likely to be impacted by the development proposal;  A field assessment of all water bodies on site and within 500m of the site boundary, if connected by suitable terrestrial habitat to the site, to ascertain suitability for great crested newts, in accordance with the standard Habitat Suitability Index assessment methodology  Surveys of all ponds assessed as HSI ‘Lee Brady’ score of ‘Average’ or above to be followed up with a suite of great crested newt surveys, to national guidelines.  Otter survey, if suitable habitat is present  Crayfish survey – native White-clawed Crayfish and other species - if suitable habitat is present.  A Water Vole Survey along all suitable water courses.  Survey of any other protected or UK/Local BAP species possibly/likely to be impacted by the proposed development  A Breeding Bird Survey to BTO CBC methodology  A Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading System Survey to the Clements and Tofts 2007 methodology or to Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Local Wildlife Site criteria  A Tree Survey to English Nature Veteran Tree Initiative methodology

Evaluation and Impact Assessment

The Ecological Assessment should:

 include an analysis of the importance of the recorded habitats and species in a local and national context (local context is provided by the Guidelines for the selection of Local Wildlife Sites in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ref.  set out the impact of the proposals on significant habitats, statutory and non- statutory sites, wildlife corridors, habitat connectivity and the wider ecological network, including impacts on habitats off-site – for example on nearby watercourses and adjacent habitats.  Identify the potential impacts of a development on linkages between habitats, both current and potential, such as ecological connectivity between individual woodlands within the landscape.  Identify impacts on significant populations of protected or UK/Local BAP priority species, including impacts on breeding sites, foraging areas, sheltering, refuge and hibernation sites, ‘commuting’ routes and dispersal habitats.  Identify indirect effects, such as through increased road traffic, disturbance or lighting.

Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation

The Ecological Assessment should:

- 20 -  Describe avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures introduced in the site design to reduce ecological impact, bearing in mind the recognised hierarchy of avoidance first, then mitigation, with compensation as a last resort;  Give details of proposed ecological enhancement measures including creation of habitats, restoration or translocation of existing sites and habitats, and provision of linking and stepping stone habitat to enhance habitat and species connectivity within the site and wider landscape;  Include a broad outline of post development management arrangements for biodiversity areas.

Mitigation, compensation and enhancement proposals should reflect the aspirations of Local and National Biodiversity Action Plans.

Where damage/destruction of sites and habitats of ecological significance cannot be avoided or mitigated for, a larger area of created habitat than that which is removed must be provided within site design as compensation. Generally this will be at least double the area of the lost habitat, and of demonstrably equivalent quality and significance.

References

Guidelines for the selection of Local Wildlife Sites in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (revised 2011). Leicestershire County Council http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/environment/naturalenvironment/ecology.htm

Oldham R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S., and Jeffcote, M. (2000) Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10(4), 143-155).

JNCC. 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (revised 2010 edition). JNCC, Peterborough. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2468

Great Crested Newt Mitigation guidelines, English Nature 2001 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/810429

ARG UK Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index (2010) ARG http://www.arguk.org/advice-and-guidance/view-category

The Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook. Froglife 2001 http://www.froglife.org/documents/GCN_Conservation_Handbook.pdf

LL&R BAP Working Group 1998. Biodiversity Challenge: an Action Plan for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland http://www.lrwt.org.uk/wildlife/biodiversity- action-plan

- 21 - APPENDIX B

Advice related to EIA Scoping Requirements

1. General Principles

Schedule 4 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, sets out the necessary information to assess impacts on the natural environment to be included in an ES, specifically:  A description of the development – including physical characteristics and the full land use requirements of the site during construction and operational phases.  Expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.  An assessment of alternatives and clear reasoning as to why the preferred option has been chosen.  A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.  A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment – this should cover direct effects but also any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects. Effects should relate to the existence of the development, the use of natural resources and the emissions from pollutants. This should also include a description of the forecasting methods to predict the likely effects on the environment  A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.  A non-technical summary of the information.  An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information.

It will be important for any assessment to consider the potential cumulative effects of this proposal, including all supporting infrastructure, with other similar proposals and a thorough assessment of the ‘in combination’ effects of the proposed development with any existing developments and current applications. A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting infrastructure should be included within the assessment.

2. Biodiversity and Geology 2.1. Ecological Aspects of an Environmental Statement

Natural England advises that the potential impact of the proposal upon features of nature conservation interest and opportunities for habitat creation/enhancement should be included within this assessment in accordance with appropriate guidance on such matters. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) have been developed by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) and are available on their website.

- 22 - EcIA is the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their components. EcIA may be carried out as part of the EIA process or to support other forms of environmental assessment or appraisal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out guidance in S.118 on how to take account of biodiversity interests in planning decisions and the framework that local authorities should provide to assist developers.

2.2. Internationally and Nationally Designated Sites

Natural England undertakes an initial assessment of all development consultations, by determining whether the location to which they relate falls within geographical ‘buffer’ areas within which development is likely to affect designated sites. The proposal is located outside these buffer areas and therefore appears unlikely to affect an Internationally or Nationally designated site. However, it should be recognised that the specific nature of a proposal may have the potential to lead to significant impacts arising at a greater distance than is encompassed by Natural England’s buffers for designated sites. The ES should therefore thoroughly assess the potential for the proposal to affect designated sites, including Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Ramsar sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Should the proposal result in an emission to air or discharge to the ground or surface water catchment of a designated site then the potential effects and impact of this would need to be considered in the Environmental Statement

Local Planning Authorities, as competent authorities under the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the ‘Habitats Regulations), should have regard to the Habitats Regulations Assessment process set out in Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations in their determination of a planning application. Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European/Internationally designated site be identified or be uncertain, the competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment, in addition to consideration of impacts through the EIA process.

Statutory site locations can be found at www.magic.gov.uk. Further information concerning particular statutory sites can be found on the Natural England website.

2.3. Protected Species

The ES should assess the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species. Records of protected species should be sought from appropriate local biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, groups and individuals; and consideration should be given to the wider context of the site for example in terms of habitat linkages and protected species populations in the wider area, to assist in the impact assessment.

The conservation of species protected by law is explained in Part IV and Annex A of Government Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System. The area likely to be affected by the proposal should be thoroughly surveyed by competent ecologists at appropriate times of year for relevant species and the survey results, impact

- 23 - assessments and appropriate accompanying mitigation strategies included as part of the ES.

Natural England has adopted standing advice for protected species. It provides a consistent level of basic advice which can be applied to any planning application that could affect protected species. It also includes links to guidance on survey and mitigation.

Natural England does not hold comprehensive information regarding the locations of species protected by law, but advises on the procedures and legislation relevant to such species.

2.4. Regionally and Locally Important Sites

The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on non-statutory sites, for example Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS), Local Nature Reserves (LNR) and Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS). Natural England does not hold comprehensive information on these sites. We therefore advise that the appropriate local biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, Local Planning Authority and local RIGS group should be contacted with respect to this matter.

2.5. Biodiversity Action Plan Habitats and Species

The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on habitats and/or species listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). These Priority Habitats and Species are listed as ‘Habitats and Species of Principal Importance’ within the England Biodiversity List, recently published under the requirements of S14 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006 places a general duty on all public authorities, including local planning authorities, to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Further information on this duty is available in the Defra publication ‘Guidance for Local Authorities on Implementing the Biodiversity Duty’.

Government Circular 06/2005 states that BAP species and habitats, ‘are capable of being a material consideration…in the making of planning decisions’. Natural England therefore advises that survey, impact assessment and mitigation proposals for Habitats and Species of Principal Importance should be included in the ES. Consideration should also be given to those species and habitats included in the relevant Local BAP.

The record centre for the relevant Local Authorities should be able to provide the relevant information on the location and type of BAP habitat for the area under consideration.

3. Landscape, Access and Recreation 3.1. Landscape and Visual Impacts

The consideration of landscape impacts should reflect the approach set out in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management, 2013, 3rd edition), the Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland (Scottish

- 24 - Natural Heritage and The Countryside Agency, 2002) and good practice. The assessment should also include the cumulative effect of the development with other relevant existing or proposed developments in the area. In this context Natural England would expect the cumulative impact assessment to include those proposals currently at Scoping stage. Due to the overlapping timescale of their progress through the planning system, cumulative impact of the proposed development with those proposals currently at Scoping stage would be likely to be a material consideration at the time of determination of the planning application.

The assessment should refer to the relevant National Character Areas which can be found on our website. Links for Landscape Character Assessment at a local level are also available on the same page.

3.2. Access and Recreation

The ES should include a thorough assessment of the development’s effects upon public rights of way and access to the countryside and its enjoyment through recreation. With this in mind and in addition to consideration of public rights of way, the landscape and visual effects on Open Access land, whether direct or indirect, should be included in the ES.

Natural England would also expect to see consideration of opportunities for improved or new public access provision on the site, to include linking existing public rights of way and/or providing new circular routes and interpretation. We also recommend reference to relevant Right of Way Improvement Plans (ROWIP) to identify public rights of way within or adjacent to the proposed site that should be maintained or enhanced.

4. Land use and soils

Impacts from the development should be considered in light of the Government's policy for the protection of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land as set out in paragraph 112 of the NPPF. We also recommend that soils should be considered under a more general heading of sustainable use of land and the valuing of the ecosystem services they provide as a natural resource in line with paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

Soil is a finite resource that fulfils many important functions and services (ecosystem services) for society; for instance as a growing medium for food, timber and other crops, as a store for carbon and water, as a reservoir of biodiversity and as a buffer against pollution. It is therefore important that the soil resources are protected and used sustainably. The Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP) 'The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature' (Defra , June 2011), emphasises the importance of natural resource protection, including the conservation and sustainable management of soils and the protection of BMV agricultural land.

Development of buildings and infrastructure prevents alternative uses for those soils that are permanently covered, and also often results in degradation of soils around the development as result of construction activities. This affects their functionality as wildlife habitat, and reduces their ability to support landscape works and green infrastructure. Sealing and compaction can also contribute to increased surface run- off, ponding of water and localised erosion, flooding and pollution.

- 25 -

Defra published a Construction Code of Practice for the sustainable use of soils on construction sites (2009). The purpose of the Code of Practice is to provide a practical guide to assist anyone involved in the construction industry to protect the soil resources with which they work.

As identified in the NPPF new sites or extensions to new sites for Peat extraction should not be granted permission by Local Planning Authorities or proposed in development plans.

General advice on the agricultural aspects of site working and reclamation can be found in the Defra Guidance for successful reclamation of mineral and waste sites.

5. Air Quality

Air quality in the UK has improved over recent decades but air pollution remains a significant issue; for example over 97% of sensitive habitat area in England is predicted to exceed the critical loads for ecosystem protection from atmospheric nitrogen deposition (England Biodiversity Strategy, Defra 2011). A priority action in the England Biodiversity Strategy is to reduce air pollution impacts on biodiversity. The planning system plays a key role in determining the location of developments which may give rise to pollution, either directly or from traffic generation, and hence planning decisions can have a significant impact on the quality of air, water and land. The assessment should take account of the risks of air pollution and how these can be managed or reduced. Further information on air pollution impacts and the sensitivity of different habitats/designated sites can be found on the Air Pollution Information System (www.apis.ac.uk). Further information on air pollution modelling and assessment can be found on the Environment Agency website.

6. Climate Change Adaptation

The England Biodiversity Strategy published by Defra establishes principles for the consideration of biodiversity and the effects of climate change. The ES should reflect these principles and identify how the development’s effects on the natural environment will be influenced by climate change, and how ecological networks will be maintained. The NPPF requires that the planning system should contribute to the enhancement of the natural environment “by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures” (NPPF Para 109), which should be demonstrated through the ES.

- 26 - APPENDIX C: Additional developments to be taken into account

App. Number Location Description Distance Decision/Date Status from Site

14/01729/SCP Land Adj Glebe Farm Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion 1.9km Pre‐Planning Coventry Road for the erection of a building of up to 300,000 sq m Lutterworth floorspace for B8 (storage and distribution), B2 General Industrial and, B1(c) (offices) with associated access roads and a lorry park 12/00851/FUL Land South Of And Adjacent To Asda Change of use of land to provide HGV and car 1.7km Approved Unimplemented George Headquarters parking; formation of hardstanding; erection of 13/11/2012 A4303 vehicle maintenance unit building, administration Magna Park building, fuel island and vehicle washing facility, Lutterworth associated landscaping (revised scheme of 11/01757/FUL) 14/01090/OUT Land North Of Business use development (Class B1a), with 5.5km Approved Awaiting completion of Lutterworth Road associated infrastructure, including means of access, subject to S106 Lutterworth open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage completion of features S106 11/00117/OUT Land North Of Residential development with associated 5.8km Approved Under construction Bill Crane Way infrastructure, public open space and provision of 23.01.2012 Lutterworth vehicular and pedestrian access (Outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval) 13/01282/REM Land North Of Erection of 147 dwellings and associated garages, 5.8km Approved Under construction Bill Crane Way hardstanding, footpaths, means of access and other 22.01.2014 Lutterworth roads, and open space (reserved matters of 11/00117/OUT) 14/00739/OUT Land East Of Outline planning permission for 84 dwellings (means 6.1km Approved Unimplemented Leicester Road of access to be considered) 03.10.2014 Lutterworth

- 27 -