Leicestershire & Leicester Waste Development Framework: Site

Leicestershire & Leicester Waste Development Framework: Site Allocations DPD (Preferred Options)

Sustainability Appraisal (SA) / Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Sustainability Appraisal Report (Appendices) June 2006

Prepared for Leicester City & Leicestershire County Councils by:

Atkins Ltd Axis 6 th Floor West 10 Holliday St Birmingham B1 1TF

Tel: Nicki Schiessel 0121 483 5986 Email: [email protected]

This document is copyright and should not be copied in whole or in part by any means other than with the approval of Atkins Consultants Limited. Any unauthorised user of the document shall be responsible for all liabilities arising out of such use.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Contents

Section Page Appendix A: List of Consultees and Interested Stakeholders 1 Appendix B: Summary of the Consultation Responses on the Scoping Report 15 Appendix C: Baseline Tables 21 Appendix D: Assessment of Proposed Policies and Sites 37

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

APPENDIX A: LIST OF CONSULTEES AND INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS

SPECIFIC CONSULTATION BODIES

GENERAL:

East Midlands Regional Assembly Highways Agency, Melton Mowbray Programme Planning & Development, Birmingham Countryside Agency, East Midlands Region, East Midlands Development Agency Nottingham Nottingham

Environment Agency, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Peterborough / Anglian Region, Leicester Northern Area / Tewkesbury / Trentside Offices, Nottingham Coventry Airport, Coventry English Heritage , East Midlands Region East Midlands Airport Northampton Divisional Standards Manager (Environment), English Nature, Castle Donington Grantham Ministry of Defence, Network Rail, Defence Estate Organisation, Temple Meads, Sutton Coldfield Bristol British Waterways, East Midlands Office, Nottinghamshire

LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES AND COUNTY COUNCILS:

Blaby District Council, Melton Borough Council, Chief Planning Officer, Chief Planning Officer, Narborough Melton Mowbray

Charnwood Borough Council, North West Leicestershire District Head of Planning Services, Council, Loughborough Chief Planning Officer, Coalville Harborough District Council, Development Control Manager, Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, Market Harborough Assistant Director (Planning), Wigston Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, District Planning Officer, Cambridgeshire County Council, Hinckley Environment and Transport Department,

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Cambridge East Staffordshire Borough Council, Derby City Council, Head of Planning and Engineering Development and Cultural Services Services, Department, Burton on Trent Derby Erewash Borough Council, Director of Technical Services, Derbyshire County Council, Long Eaton Director of Environmental Services, Matlock Kettering Borough Council, Director of Development Services, Lincolnshire County Council, Kettering Head of Planning and Conservation, Lincoln Lichfield District Council, Director of Planning, Northamptonshire County Council, Lichfield Head of Sustainable Development, Northampton Newark and Sherwood District Council, Director of Development, Nottingham City Council, Newark, Nottingham Director of Development, Nottingham North Warwickshire Borough Council, Borough Planning Officer, Nottinghamshire County Council, Atherstone Director of Environment, Nottingham Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, Peterborough City Council, Director of Planning and Development, Head of Planning Services, Nuneaton Peterborough Rugby Borough Council, Staffordshire County Council, Head of Planning Services, Director of Development Services, Rugby Stafford Rushcliffe Borough Council, Warwickshire County Council, Director of Development, Warwick West Bridgford, Nottingham

Corby District Council, South Derbyshire District Council, Director of Development Services, Planning Dept., Corby, Northants Swadlincote, Derbyshire

Daventry District Council, South Kesteven District Council, Director of Development Services, District Planning Officer, Daventry, Northants Grantham, Lincs. East Northamptonshire District Council, Chief Planning Officer, Thrapston

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

PARISH COUNCILS:

Clerk to Aston Flamville Parish Council, Clerk to Barkby Thorpe Parish Council,

Clerk to Blaby Parish Council, Clerk to Barkby Parish Council,

Clerk to Braunstone Parish Council, Clerk to Barrow upon Soar Parish Council, Clerk to Countesthorpe Parish Council, Chairman of Beeby Parish Council, Clerk to Cosby Parish Council, Clerk to Birstall Parish Council, Clerk to Croft Parish Council, Clerk to Cossington Parish Council, Clerk to Elmesthorpe Parish Council, Clerk to East Goscote Parish Council, Clerk to Enderby Parish Council, Clerk to Hathern Parish Council, Clerk to Glen Parva Parish Council, Clerk to Hoton Parish Council, Clerk to Glenfield Parish Council, Clerk to Mountsorrel Parish Council, Clerk to Huncote Parish Council, Clerk to Newtown Linford Parish Council, Clerk to Kilby Parish Council, Clerk to Twyford and Thorpe Parish Clerk to Kirby Muxloe Parish Council, Council,

Clerk to Leicester Forest East Parish Clerk to Queniborough Parish Council, Council, Clerk to Quorndon Parish Council, Clerk to Leicester Forest West Parish Council, Chairman of Ratcliffe on the Wreake Parish Council, Chairman of Lubbesthorpe Parish Council, Clerk to Rearsby Parish Council,

Clerk to Narborough and Littlethorpe Clerk to Rothley Parish Council, Parish Council, Clerk to Seagrave Parish Council, Chairman of Potters Marston Parish Council Clerk to Sileby Parish Council,

Clerk to Sapcote Parish Council, Clerk to Shepshed Parish Council,

Clerk to Sharnford Parish Council, Clerk to South Croxton Parish Council, Chairman of Swithland Parish Council, Clerk to Stoney Stanton Parish Council, Clerk to Syston Parish Council, Clerk to Thurlaston Parish Council, Clerk to Thrussington & Cropston Parish Clerk to Whetstone Parish Council, Council,

Chairman of Wigston Parva Parish Clerk to Thurmaston Parish Council, Council, Chairman of Ulverscroft Parish Council,

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Clerk to East Langton Parish Council, Clerk to Walton on the Wolds Parish Council, Chairman of East Norton Parish Council,

Chairman of Wanlip Parish Council, Clerk to Fleckney Parish Council,

Clerk to Woodhouse Parish Council, Clerk to Foxton Parish Council,

Clerk to Wymeswold Parish Council, Chair of Frisby Parish Council,

Chairman to Allexton Parish Meeting Chairman of Frolesworth Parish Council,

Clerk to Arnesby Parish Council, Clerk of Gaulby Parish Council,

Clerk to Ashby Magna Parish Council, Clerk to Gilmorton Parish Council

Chairman of Ashby Parva Parish Chairman of Glooston Parish Council, Council, Chairman of Goadby Parish Council, Clerk to Billesdon Parish Council, Clerk to Great Bowden Parish Council, Chairman of Bittesby Parish Council, Clerk to Great Easton Parish Council, Clerk to Bitteswell Parish Council, Clerk to Great Glen Parish Council, Chairman of Blaston Parish Council, Chairman of Gumley Parish Council Chairman of Bringhurst, Drayton & Nevill Holt Parish Meeting, Clerk to Hallaton Parish Council

Clerk to Broughton Astley Parish Horninghold Parish Council Council, Clerk to Bruntingthorpe Parish Council, Clerk to Houghton on the Hill Parish Council Clerk to Burton Overy Parish Council, Clerk to Hungarton Parish Council Chairman of Carlton Curlieu Parish Council, Clerk to Husbands Bosworth Parish Council Chairman of Catthorpe Parish Council, Clerk to Illston on the Hill Parish Council Clerk to Claybrooke Magna Parish Council, Chairman of Keyham Parish Council

Clerk to Claybrooke Parva Parish Clerk to Kibworth Beauchamp Parish Council, Council

Cold Newton Parish Council, Clerk to Kibworth Harcourt Parish Council Harborough District Council, Clerk to Cotesbach Parish Council, Norton Parish Council

Chairman of Cranoe Parish Council, Clerk to Knaptoft Parish Council

Clerk to Dunton Bassett Parish Council, Chairman of Laughton Parish Council

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Clerk to Launde Parish Council Clerk to Swinford Parish Council,

Clerk to Leire Parish Council Clerk to Theddingworth Parish Council,

Chairman of Little Stretton Parish Chairman of Thorpe Langton Parish Council Council,

Clerk to Loddington Parish Council Clerk to Thurnby Parish Council,

Chairman of Lowesby Parish Council Clerk to Tilton Parish Council,

Clerk to Lubenham Parish Council Clerk to Tur Langton Parish Council,

Clerk to Lutterworth Parish Council Clerk to Ullesthorpe Parish Council,

Chairman of Marefield Parish Council Chairman of Welham Parish Council,

Clerk to Medbourne Parish Council Chairman of West Langton Parish Council, Clerk to Misterton with Walcote Parish Council Clerk to Willoughby Waterleys Parish Council, Clerk to Nevill Holt Parish Council Clerk to Wistow Parish Council, Chairman of Mowsley Parish Council Withcote Parish Council, Clerk to North Kilworth Parish Council Clerk to Bagworth & Thornton Parish Chairman of Noseley Parish Council Council,

Chairman to Peatling Magna Parish Chairman of Shearsby Parish Council, Council Chairman of Skeffington Parish Council, Chairman of Peatling Parva Parish Council Clerk to Slawston Parish Council,

Clerk to Rolleston Parish Council Clerk to Barlestone Parish Council,

Saddington Parish Council Clerk to Burbage Parish Council,

Clerk to Scraptoft Parish Council Clerk to Cadeby Parish Council, Clerk to Shangton Parish Council Clerk to Desford Parish Council, Chairman of Shawell Parish Council Clerk to Earl Shilton Parish Council, Clerk to Smeeton Westerby Parish Council Clerk to Carlton Parish Council,

Clerk to South Kilworth Parish Council, Clerk to Groby Parish Council,

Chairman of Stockerston Parish Council Clerk to Higham on the Hill Parish Council, Clerk to Stonton Wyville Parish Council, Clerk to Market Bosworth Parish Council, Clerk to Stoughton Parish Council, Clerk to Markfield Parish Council,

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Clerk to Nailstone Parish Council, Clerk to Somerby Parish Council,

Clerk to Newbold Verdon Parish Council, Clerk to Sproxton Parish Council,

Clerk to Osbaston Parish Council, Clerk to Twyford and Thorpe Parish Council, Clerk to Peckleton Parish Council, Clerk to Stathern Parish Council, Clerk to Ratby Parish Council, Clerk to Waltham & Thorpe Arnold Clerk to Shackerstone Parish Council, Parish Council,

Clerk to Sheepy Parish Council, Clerk to Wymondham Parish Council,

Clerk to Stanton-under-Bardon Parish Clerk to Appleby Magna Parish Council, Council, Clerk to Ashby de la Zouch Town Clerk to Stoke Golding Parish Council, Council,

Clerk to Sutton Cheney Parish Council, Chairman of Bardon Parish Council,

Clerk to Twycross Parish Council, Clerk to Belton Parish Council,

Clerk to Witherley Parish Council, Clerk to Ashby Woulds Parish Council,

Clerk to Asfordby Parish Council, Clerk to Breedon on the Hill Parish

Chairman to Barkeston, Plungar and Clerk to Castle Donington Parish Redmile Parish Council, Council,

Clerk to Belvoir Parish Council, Clerk to Charley Parish Council,

Clerk to Bottesford Parish Council, Clerk to Ellistown and Battleflat Parish Council, Clerk to Buckminster Parish Council, Chairman of Chilcote Parish Council, Clerk to Croxton Kerrial Parish Council, Chairman to Coleorton Parish Council, Clerk to Eaton Parish Council, Heather Parish Council, Clerk to Freeby Parish Council, Clerk to Ibstock Parish Council, Clerk to Frisby and Kirby Parish Council, Chairman of Isley cum Langley Parish Clerk to Gaddesby Parish Council, Council,

Clerk to Garthorpe Parish Council, Clerk to Kegworth Parish Council,

Clerk to Grimston, Saxelbye & Shoby Clerk to Lockington-Hemington Parish Parish Council, Council,

Clerk to Hoby with Rotherby Parish Clerk to Long Whatton Parish Council, Council, Parish Manager of Measham Parish Council Clerk to Scalford Parish Council,

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Clerk to Normanton le Heath Parish Clerk to Thurcaston and Cropston Parish Council Council

Clerk to Oakthorpe & Donisthorpe Parish Clerk to Kimcote and Walton Parish Council Council

Clerk to Ravenstone with Snibston Chairman of Owston & Newbold Parish Parish Council Council

Clerk to Osgathorpe Parish Council, Clerk to Tugby and Keythorpe Parish Council Clerk to Packington Parish Council Chairman of Westrill and Starmore Clerk to Snarestone Parish Council Parish Council

Chairman of Staunton Harold Parish Clerk to Broughton , Old Dalby & Ab Council, Kettleby Parish Council

Chairman of Stretton en le Field Parish Clerk to Burton and Dalby Parish Council Council Clerk to Clawson, Hose and Harby Clerk to Swannington Parish Council Parish Council

Clerk to Swepstone Parish Council Clerk to Knossington and Cold Overton Parish Council Vice Chairman to Worthington Parish Council Clerk to Normanton-on-Soar Parish Council

ADJOINING PARISH COUNCILS: Normanton on Soar Parish Council Alverton and Kilvington Parish Meeting Orston Parish Council Colston Bassett Parish Council Ratcliffe on Soar Parish Meeting Costock Parish Council Rempstone Parish Council East Leake Parish Council Stanford on Soar Parish Council Gotham Parish Council Staunton Parish Meeting Granby cum Sutton Parish Council Sutton Bonington Parish Council Hickling Parish Council Thrumpton Parish Meeting Flawborough Parish Meeting Upper Broughton Parish Council Elton on the Hill Parish Meeting West Leake Parish Council Kingston on Soar Parish Council Whatton in the Vale Parish Council Kinoulton Parish Council Widmerpool Parish Council Langar cum Barnstone Parish Council Willoughby on the Wolds Parish Council

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Braunston in Rutland Parish Council Wysall and Thorpe in the Glebe Parish Council Brooke Parish Meeting

Ashley Parish Council Caldecott Parish Council

Brampton Ash Parish Council Greetham Parish Council

Braybrooke Parish Council Langham Parish Council

Clay Coton Parish Meeting Lyddington Parish Council

Clipston Parish Council Market Overton Parish Council

Cottingham Parish Council Oakham Parish Council

Dingley Parish Council Ridlington Parish Council

East Carlton Parish Council Stoke Dry Parish Council

East Farndon Parish Council Stretton Parish Council

Great Oxendon Parish Council Teigh Parish Meeting

Gretton Parish Council Thistleton Parish Meeting

Lilbourne Parish Council Uppingham Parish Council

Marston Trussell Parish Meeting Wardley Parish Meeting

Middleton Parish Council Whissendine Parish Council

Rockingham Parish Meeting Atherstone Town Council

Sibbertoft Parish Council Austrey Parish Council

Stanford on Avon Parish Meeting Bentley and Merevale Joint Parish Council Sulby Parish Meeting Burton Hastings & Stretton Baskerville Sutton Bassett Parish meeting Caldecote Parish Council Welford Parish Council Churchover Parish Council Weston-by-Welland Parish Council Clifton upon Dunsmore Wilbarston Parish Council Copston Magna Parish Council Ashwell Parish Council Grendon and Dordon Parish Council Barrow Parish Meeting Harborough Magna Parish Council Baleythorpe Parish Meeting Hartshill Parish Council Belton in Rutland Parish Council Mancetter Parish Council

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Monks Kirby Parish Council Hartshorne Parish Council

Newton & Biggin Parish Council Linton Parish Council

Newton Regis and Seckington Parish Melbourne Parish Council Council Netherseal Parish Council Pailton Parish Council Overseal Parish Council Polesworth Parish Council Rosliston Parish Council Wibtoft Parish Council Shardlow And Great Wilne Willey Parish Council Smisby Parish Council Withybrook Parish Council Ticknall Parish Council Wolvey Parish Council Weston upon Trent Parish Council Aston upon Trent Parish Council Woodville Parish Council Castle Gresley Parish Council Skellingthorpe Parish Council Elvaston Parish Council

UTILITIES AND OTHER BODIES East Midlands Electricity Plc, Anglian Water Services Ltd, Castle Donington Spalding, Lincolnshire Powergen, Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station, British Telecommunications, Nottingham Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Transco East Midlands LDZ, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire

Energis Communications Ltd, Central Networks Dartford Derbyshire

National Grid Company Plc, British Waterways, Hams Lane, East Midlands Office, Coleshill Nottinghamshire

Severn Trent Water Ltd, Coventry Airport, Sheldon, Coventry Birmingham East Midlands Airport Transco West Midlands LDZ, Divisional Standards Manager Wolverhampton (Environment), Castle Donington

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

GENERAL CONSULTATION BODIES

GENERAL: Loughborough Friends of the Earth, Forestry Authority Quorn, East Midlands Conservancy, Nr. Loughborough Lincolnshire National Farmers Union, British Geological Survey, Uppingham, Onshore Minerals and Energy Resources Rutland Programme, Nottingham The National Forest, Swadlincote The Coal Authority, Department of Mining, The Ramblers Association, Projects and Property, Coalville Nottinghamshire Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Health and Safety Executive, Banbury Field Operations Division, Northampton The Woodland Trust, Grantham Sport England - East Midlands, Nottingham Leicestershire Representative, c/o CABE, Ministry of Defence, London Defence Estate Organisation, Sutton Coldfield HBF Midland Region Contacts, Birmingham Department of Trade & Industry, Minerals Team, Ketton Conservation Trust, London Ketton, Stamford

DEFRA, National Playing Fields Association, Government Office for the East Coventry Midlands, Nottingham NFU East Midlands Region, Rutland & Stamford Branch, Council for the Protection of Rural Stamford England, Thurnby Collyweston Stone Slaters Trust, Estate Office, Country Land & Business Association, Peterborough Sutton Bassett, Age Concern, Market Harborough Leicester

Leicestershire Bridleways Association, CEH Directorate, Loughborough Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon Leicestershire Footpaths Association, Oadby CRE, Birmingham Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust, Oadby, Leicestershire Representative, c/o DRC Helpline, Stratford upon Avon

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Leicestershire Representative, c/o DPTAC , Jones Day, London London

Housing Corporation National Federation of Builders, Leicester: Attenborough House, Midland Region, 109/119 Charles Street, Melbourne Leicester Friends of the Earth (Leicester Branch,) Leicester Leicestershire Representative, c/o The Gypsy Council, Environ, European and UK office, Leicester Aveley,

DTZ Pieda Consulting, Birmingham

MPs AND MEPs:

Mr. S. Dorrell MP, Mr. D. Taylor MP, House of Commons, House of Commons, London London

Mr. A. Duncan MP, Mr. D. Tredinnick MP, House of Commons, House of Commons, London London

Mr. E. Garnier MP, Mr. K. Vaz MP, House of Commons, House of Commons, London London

Ms. Patricia Hewitt MP, Mr. N. Clegg MEP, House of Commons, Nottinghamshire London Mr. C. Heaton-Harris MEP, Sir. Peter Soulsby MP, Blaby Conservative Association House of Commons, London Mr. R. Helmer MEP, Blaby Conservative Association Mr. A. Robathan MP, House of Commons, London Mr. W. Newton-Dunn MEP, Lincoln Mr. A. Reed MP, House of Commons, Ms. M. Read MEP, London Regional European Centre, Notts. Mr. P. Whitehead MEP, Regional European Centre, Notts

STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS:

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Leicestershire Local Strategic Partnership Leicestershire Cultural Strategy Forum, c/o Leicestershire Council Council, C/O Community Services Dept, Leicester. Leciestershire County Council, Leicester Blaby Local Strategic Partnership, Leicester. Leicestershire Rural Partnership, Glenfield, Charnwood Local Strategic Partnership, Leicester C/o Charnwood Borough Council, Charnwood Leicester Racial Equality Council, Leicester Harborough Local Strategic Partnership, Harborough District Council, Leicestershire Constabulary, Force Harborough Headquarters, Enderby Hinckley And Bosworth Local Strategic Partnership, Chairman, Leicestershire Police Leicester Authority, Quorn, Melton Community Partnership, Leicestershire Leicestershire (Leics Cvs Community Partnership Director Of Public Health, Charnwood Representative), And Nwleics Pct, ‘Coping With Cancer’, Loughborough Leicester

Oadby And Wigston Local Strategic Board Of Social Responsibility, Partnership, Leicester Leicester Loughborough University, Leicestershire And Rutland Association Loughborough Of Parish And Local Councils, Melton Mowbray Leicestershire Chamber Of Commerce & Business Link, Leicestershire Chamber Of Commerce, Leicester Leicester Acting Chief Executive, Blaby District Leicestershire And Leicester City Council, Learning Partnership, Narborough Melton College, Melton Mowbray Chief Executive, Charnwood Borough Council, Local Learning Partnership, Loughborough Leicester Chief Executive, Leicestershire Learning And Skills Council, Harborough District Council, Leicester Market Harborough

North West Leics Lsp And Chairman, Acting Chief Executive, Charnwood And North West Leics Pct, Hinckley And Bosworth Borough Council, Ratcliffe On The Wreake Hinckley

Enable, Leciestershire County Council, Chief Executive, Leicester Melton Borough Council,

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Melton Mowbray Assistant Chief Executive (Community Chief Executive, Planning), North West Leicestershire District Leicestershire County Council, Council, Leicester Coalville Policy Assistant, Chief Executive’s Dept, Chief Executive, Leicestershire County Council, Oadby & Wigston Borough Council, Leicester Wigston Environmental Management Section, Jobcentre Plus, Community Services Department Leicester Leicestershire County Council Leicester Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Combined Fire and Rescue Service, Leicester Partnership Development Leicestershire County Council, Manager, Leicester Leicester City Council, Leicester Chief Executive, Leicestershire County Council, ‘Care And Repair (North West Leics) Leicester Ltd’, Coalville, Leicester Government Office For The East Midlands, Children And Young Persons’ Strategic Nottingham Partnership For Leicestershire (Cypspl), C/O Social Services Department, Melton Borough Councillor (Observer), Leicestershire County Council Melton Mowbray Director of Community Safety, Policy Team Leader, Chief Executive’s Leicestershire Fire And Rescue Service, Dept., Glenfield Leicestershire County Council, Leicester Leicestershire and Rutland Association of Parish and Local Councils, Leicestershire

CITY COUNCIL CONSULTEES: De Montfort University, Aylestone Village Society, Director of Estates, Aylestone Leicester

Braunstone Community Assocation, Leicester Fosse Golf Co (Leicester) Limited, Capitec (Trent), Leicester Sheffield Hamilton Trustees, Chaos Enterprises (Leicester), Loughborough, Tudor Centre, Leicester Leicestershire Asian Business Assocation, CPRE Leicestershire, Leicester Leicestershire Lafarge Aggregates,

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Melton Mowbray Leicester Chamber Of Commerce, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester Director of Estates, Leicester Leicester City plc, Leicester The Woodland Trust, Grantham Leicester City West Primary Care Trust, Leicester Voluntary Action Leicester, Leicester Leicester Civic Society, Leicester

Leicester College, Leicester

Leicester Friends Of The Earth, Leicester

Leicester Regeneration Company, Leicester

Leicestershire County Cricket Club, Leicester

Leicestershire Footpath Association, Nottingham

Leicestershire Golf Club, Leicester

Leicestershire T2000, Leicester

Biffa Leicester Ltd, Leicester

Leicestershire Business Voice, Leicester

Open Spaces Society, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon

Powergen Uk, C/o Dtz Pieda Consultants SecondSite Property, Basingstoke

Leicester Rugby Football Club, Leicester

The University Of Leicester, Director of Estates, Leicester

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

INDUSTRY: Land & Mineral Resource Consultants Viridor Waste Management, Ltd, Taunton, Somerset Yate, South Gloucestershire Lafarge Aggregates, Leicestershire British Aggregates Association, Derbys. GRS (roadstone) Limited, Wolvey, Dickerson Group, Hinckley Cambridge

Castle Cement, British Gypsum Limited, London Loughborough Tapton Estates Limited, Onyx UK limited, Sheffield Wolverhampton Hanson Brick, R.M.C Aggregates (Eastern Counties) Bedford Ltd, Peterborough Ibstock Brick Leicester Ltd, London R.E.W. West, Leicestershire Charnwood Forest Brick Ltd, Shepshed, Aggregate Industries UK Ltd, Leicestershire Estates Manager, Leicestershire Red Bank Manufacturing Co Ltd, Measham, Derbys' Quarry Products Association, London Confederation of UK Coal Producers, Wakefield Ennstone Breedon Ltd, Breedon-on-the-Hill British Ceramic Confederation, Stoke on Trent Acresford Sand & Gravel Ltd, Leicester Ensor Holdings plc, Manchester Midland Quarry Products, Buxton Coal Contractors Limited, Rushyford, Co. Durham Tarmac Central Ltd, Buxton Merriman Ltd., Thurmaston, Leicester Bullimores Sand and Gravel, Grantham Simon Heaton, West Bridgford, Hepworth Concrete, Nottingham Ellistown The Barton Willmore Planning SITA, Meridan, Partnership (Northern), Coventry Leeds

UK Coal Mining Ltd, Smith Stuart Reynolds Consultants, Doncaster Sywell, Northampton

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

George Wimpey (South Midlands) Ltd., Central Milton Keynes, Cosby Spinneys Farm, Bucks. Cosby Mineral Surveying Services, Glenfield, Johnson Metals, Leicester Loughborough Pebble Hall Farm, Wrightways Ltd., Theddingworth Coalvillle Soars Lodge Farm, Mr. E. Taylor, Countesthorpe Lynden Lea, Hinckley Planning Licensing and Estates Manager, Midland Skip Hire, Waste Recycling Grup PLC, Bottesford, Raynesway Nottingham Glebe Farm, Leicester Paper Processes, Nuneaton Coalville Planning Manager, East Midlands Metals, Biffa Waste Services Ltd., Loughborough Sutton Coldfield

R.J. Stanley Plant Hire, Steven’s Scrap,Hungarton, Castle Donington Leicester

Cossington Stables, Environmental Services Association, Cossington London

Sherwood Skip Serbices, Greetham

De-Pack, Wymeswold, Burton on the Wolds

J. Smith & Sons, Granite Close, Enderby

Glenfield Waste, Glen Parva

Westmoreland Hualage, Enderby, Leicester

Planters, Osbaston

Neil Harby, Granite Way, Loughborough

LSPS, South Wigston, Leicester

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF THE CONSULTATION RESPONSES ON THE SCOPING REPORT

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report

Table A: Summary of Consultation Responses on the Scoping Report No Consultee Comments on additional Further Comments How Comments Have Been Dealt With information sources 1 English Nature SEA and Biodiversity: Guidance for Overall EN is pleased and supportive of the emphasis put Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. SSSI Practitioners, RSPB on biodiversity in the report. % of SSSI in favourable data to be included in Appendix C of WDF. conditions not included in Appendix A in the document. Local Geodiversity Action Plan for Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. "To Leicester & Rutland: Contact British conserve geodiversity" has been added as an objective to Geological survey Keith Ambrose, the WDF SA Framework as objective 19. Kinsley Dunham Centre, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG Tel 0115 936 3100, Fax 0115 936 3200 2 English European Landscape Convention Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. Heritage could be added EH recommends to designate heritage quarries LCC advises that heritage materials quarries are present in Rutland but that the resource is not generally available in Leicestershire Table 6-1. After care and after use of the waste disposal Noted as an issue. This is reflected in the issues and sites could be added. options of the WDF preparation. Effects of proposals will be assessed against the SA framework National documents: 'The Historic Table 7-1. Objective 5: Early assessment of Documents included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. Environment - a Force for our Future archaeological potential is essential for new or expanding (DCMS 2001)…' sites. Planning for the supply of natural building and roofing stone in England and Wales ' by the Symonds group, ODPM March 2004. Regional Documents: Regional Table 4-2 in the document should refer to 'protecting and Documents included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. Environment Strategy and 'Viewpoints enhancing the historic environment.' Comment to be taken into consideration in development of on the historic Environment of the WDF policies. East Midlands'. Landscape change and the erosion of landscape quality Comment to be taken into consideration in development of and traditional character and the issue on aftercare and WDF policies. after use.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report

No Consultee Comments on additional Further Comments How Comments Have Been Dealt With information sources Existing and future baseline Table 7-1. Objective 6: Considering air pollution causing Documents included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. conditions: For general information on damage to the bldg, the objective should be amended to Comments to be taken into consideration in development the state of historic environment- incorporate that. of WDF policies. www.heritagecounts.org.uk. (includes a regional version which is updated Some previously developed land could be of natural or annually) historic interest. 'Turning the Plough' for identified key areas of ridge and furrow field systems. Opportunities for enhancement should be considered as Include reference to opportunities for enhancement in the well as the mitigation of adverse impacts. WDF. 'Other Comments' noted.

The appraisal should consider indirect impacts such as potential impact on the setting of historic sites. Non- designated features of local historic interest and value should be considered. A gazetteer of sites is available on New technologies, regulations, or enforcement measures Include reference to ridge and furrow field systems in www.northamptonshire.gov.uk could be introduced to give greater protection to the WDF document. Additional information source noted. historic environs.

Ridge and Furrow field systems are threatened yet characteristic landscape features of Leicestershire. Other data sources: Extensive Urban Figure 5-4, the key should refer to 'Scheduled Update Figure 5.4 in WDF. Distinguish woodland types. Surveys, Conservation Area Monuments' and 'Registered Historic Parks and Gardens'. Additional data source s noted. Appraisals , Buildings at Risk The registered Battlefield at Bosworth should be shown. Leicestershire's heritage service team The number of listed buildings in each grade for each Comments noted. Number of listed buildings grades for should be consulted about baseline district should be shown in a table and reference to this each district to be listed in a table within the WDF data for historic environments, should be made in the key of the map. document. Update Figure 5.4. Heritage Services to be designated sites, relevant issues, included in the next round of consultation. appraisal of significant effects, mitigation and enhancement, and monitoring. Changes to policy should seek to reduce future damage, Comments noted and to be considered in the formulation provide appropriate mitigation, and to remediate existing of policies and proposals. damage to archaeological sites through waste operations. The sustainability framework will need to set out the Include a monitoring network. monitoring network.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report

No Consultee Comments on additional Further Comments How Comments Have Been Dealt With information sources 3 Environment Publication referred - 'Policy and The source for identifying 'reducing flood risk' as a key Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. Agency Practice for the Protection of Flood issue should be PPG25, and not PPG23. Amend PPG reference. Include a flood risk objective and Plains' indicator in the WDF document. EA to be included in EA is eager to discuss the issues and get engaged in development of flood risk policies. considering core policies and options. SEA framework does not consider flood risk Objective 20 added to consider flood risk in WDF. Impact on flooding by the disposal of waste in flood plains, Noted. associated bunding and finished ground levels should be considered. 4 Biffa Waste Proposed time period covered by the WDF in the Comments noted. Services paragraphs 2.2 and 3.5(2) is 10 years from 2006 to 2016, which is found to be too short. PPS 10 advises that regional waste strategies should cover 15-20 years. Now most municipal contracts are issued for 25 years. The plan should look ahead until 2021 and give further broad considerations to 2031.

Biffa finds the report to be quite comprehensive in its approach. 5 Lafarge- UK The issues relating to site viability and site safeguarding Acknowledge site viability and site safe -guarding in WDF aggregates are of relevance to the Waste management facilities and document. should be considered in preparing the appraisals. 6 Nottingham Table 4-1 can include: ODPM circular Airport Safeguarding office is quite pleased to be Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. East Midlands 1/2003- Aerodrome Safeguarding and consulted. They are concerned about the safe operation of Ensure that ASO are included in next round of Airport ICAO Annex 14 Vol 1- provision of aircraft and urges to take due regard of the potential for consultation. Bird Strike Hazard Reduction bird strike.

7 Harborough 1. Core strategy Scoping Report, In the Plans and Programmes, the Local Plan should be Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. Council March 2005 and 2. Core strategy referred to as Harborough District Local Plan. Amend title of Harborough District Local Plan. Issues and Options Report, May 2005 Initial SA report is no longer required. The SA/SEA work Action upon consultation responses to be displayed on undertaken between the Scoping Report and the LCC website. Preferred Options must be made available to the public for information e.g. on the county website. The report should refer to the MDF Scoping Report as a Noted. relevant plan. The co-ordination of both reports would be advantageous.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report

No Consultee Comments on additional Further Comments How Comments Have Been Dealt With information sources Any plans to test the compatibility of the objectives of the No, not required. two plans? 8 Warwickshire The framework is found to be very clear with appropriate Noted. Council objectives, indicators and targets. Table 9-1 lists some methodologies, but does not explain The Sustainability Appraisal reports indicate the exact which methodologies may be more appropriate for certain methodology utilised in the assessments. types of policy. If they apply to every single policy, is there a resource implication? 9 Highways In Table 6-1 it is noted that 'minerals are transported by Amend Table 3.6 in WDF document. Agency road…' This should be expanded to include reference to congestion.

Traffic issues are not sufficiently assessed until Stage C. This may be too late. In Table 7-1 objective no.16 should refer in particular to Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. reduce the transportation of minerals by road and thereby Amend Table 3.6 in WDF document. vehicle omissions. The Agency supports this key objective.

In Table 4.1, Regional Freight Strategy should be included. In Figure 5-5, A6 through Leicester and Loughborough is Amend Fig ure 5.5 in WDF document. identified as a trunk road which is no longer the case. 10 Woodhouse No comments on this occasion. Council wishes to Noted. Parish Council continue to receive reports of this type. 11 National Regional document- 'Think Farming Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. Farmer's Union and Food' the action plan for the east midlands region, published by the East Midlands Rural Affairs Forum. One of the issues discussed in it is 'Managing Rural waste'. 12 Medbourne We have access but could not download. Send a print Print copy to be sent. Parish Council copy. 13 The The State of Countryside Report Tables 4-1, 4-2, 6-1 and 7-1 should include reference to Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. Tables Countryside (East Midlands) 2004 the relevant character areas from Countryside Agency's 3.2, 3.4 and 3.6 to be updated in WDF document. Agency- www.countryside.gov.uk/publications/i Character Assessment Vol 4. Landscape ndex. Access Table 9-1 and appendix E- we welcome and agree with.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report

No Consultee Comments on additional Further Comments How Comments Have Been Dealt With information sources Recreation Countryside Character Volume 4: Table E- further information could be obtained from RCC's Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. East Midlands LCA. www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Landsc ape/cc. Topic Papers to view on the Additional information source noted. countryside Character Network www ccnetwork.org.uk. National database for all landscape Additional information source noted. character assessment can be found at www.ccnetwork.org.uk/index Data from Countryside Quality Counts Document/website reference to be included in WDF (CQC) project www.countryside- document. quality-counts.org.uk Nationally designated Landscape Include a map of local landscape character areas. Area www.countryside.gov.uk Maps of all open countryside and Additional information source noted. registered common land in England www.countryside.gov.uk Web based GIS data Additional information source noted. www.magic.gov.uk 14 Woodland The regional forestry framework- The importance of the ancient woodland is missing from Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. Refer Trust Space 4 Tree the draft. The distribution of ancient woodland should be to ancient woodlands and climate change in the WDF (www.space4trees.org.uk) included on either Figure 5-2 or 5-3. policies. ODPM document 'The Planning Data on accessibility to woodlands in Leicestershire using Document included in Table 3.1 in WDF document. Response to Climate Change …..' the woodlands trust woodland access standard is Consider whether climate change should be included in available in map and numeric form, which the trust is WDF policies. happy and eager to supply. 15 British Fig 5.5 Principal transport routes does not show Include navigation routes for boats in Figure 5.5. Waterways navigations, which are the principal transport routes for boats. Appendix A table B notes modal split for waste movement. Noted. Note that dredgings from waterways may be spread on neighbouring fields or moved by barge.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

APPENDIX C: BASELINE TABLES

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Table A: Baseline Data, Indicators, Targets and Trends for Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) No. & area of designated sites 91 SSSIs in LCC & Rutland No valid comparators No trends identified at present Lack of public knowledge & Leicestershire, Leicester & (& non-statutory local (4500ha) awareness of wildlife sites Rutland BAP designations) 0.4ha of Local Nature which may restrict access. Leicester Environment report Reserve per 1000 population. ENABLE 34 SINCs and one SSSI in Leicester No national parks. See maps in main report Quality of designated sites 66.67% of SSSI sites in Public Service Agreement Leicestershire better than Species-rich grasslands are Leicester environment report Leicestershire meet PSA (PSA) target to have 95% of England as a whole. Leicestershire’s most English Nature targets. Full condition survey the SSSI area in favourable or Overall there has been a threatened habitat. Regional Quality of Life data exists recovering condition by 2010. decline in the quality and indicators Full re-survey due in 2005. England: 65.36% of sites quantity of SINCS in Leicester Environmental meeting PSA targets Leicester. Statement 2002-3 unfavourable recovering Leicestershire: 43.84% England : 19.83% unfavourable no change. Leicestershire 22.86%. England 21.66% unfavourable declining Leicestershire 10.24%, England 12.89% Population of species and Datasets for Leicestershire To meet 100% of the A number of the last Objectives in BAP are not Leicestershire, Leicester & areas of priority habitat currently in unclassified form, objectives set out in the remaining old grassland sites quantified. Rutland BAP, English Nature, pending computerisation. Leicestershire, Leicester & have been safeguarded either Lack of baseline. ENVIron 19 Habitat Action Plans, 14 Rutland by purchase or by designation Estimates of change not http://www.environ.org.uk/issu Species Action Plans. BAP as nature reserves, the readily available. es/natureLeicestershire/index. BAP for National Forest and creation of sand martin banks 'Unimproved' grassland, php?cid=121 for Charnwood. has led to 107 new breeding which once made up 90% of pairs in the county, and for the agricultural landscape in the first time in many decades the two counties, now Lowland wet grassland in the otter has once again been considered 'extremely rare' by Soar valley declined from recorded as breeding in the county wildlife experts 3200ha in 1940 to 150ha in catchment of the river Soar 1998. after decades of absence. Loss/fragmentation of habitat through modern agricultural practices leading to species decline.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) Area of woodland cover 3.8% of Leicestershire & The county is one of the least Total non-deciduous area of The county is one of the least ENABLE 2004 Rutland is woodland cover wooded areas of England woodland has increased in wooded areas of England (1% of this is ancient semi- recent years. natural woodland). 256km 2 of National Forest is within LCC. Amount of new woodland Woodland cover in National National Forest area target of National Forest area is ENABLE 2004 planted Forest area has doubled 1/3 woodland cover. achieving and exceeding www. nationalforest.org since 1991- 5 million new annual targets. trees, and 575ha of derelict mineral workings & coalfield land planted.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Table B: Baseline Data, Indicators, Targets and Trends for Air General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) Assessment against UK NO2 exceedances in 2004 To achieve national air Progress towards targets in Probability that many Local Air Quality National air quality targets by district: quality objectives for most areas districts will not meet target Management LC: Leicester 1N – 1 nitrogen dioxide within Air quality monitoring over for Nitrogen Dioxide - Strategies/Action Plans Leicester 2N - 1 Districts by end 2005 the past few years has Annual mean not exceeding www.airquality.co.uk data B: 0 (defined in the Air Quality indicated that pollution 40ug/m3 in certain areas. Stage 4 Review for: C: Loughborough 1N - 1 Regulations (2000)) levels have remained Harborough DC, Blaby DC, H: Harborough 1N – 1 generally static or increased Possibility that short term Leicester CC, NW Leics DC Harborough 5N - 1 modestly. standards for fine particle ENABLE H&B: 0 (PM10)1 concentrations M: 0 may be exceeded around NWL: Coalville 10N - 1 Croft Quarry in Blaby DC. O&W: 0

No. of Air Quality 15 AQMAs To achieve national air Leicester: no change from All AQMAs due to traffic. Local Air Quality Management Areas Leicester: 1 quality objectives for NO2 2000 Limited potential to reduce Management (AQMA) Blaby: 3 defined in the Air Quality Blaby: 2004 review shows road traffic in AQMAs. Strategies/Action Plans Charnwood: 3 Regulations (2000) by 2005 worsening. Possible www.airquality.co.uk data Harborough: 1 extension of AQMAs Stage 4 Review for: Hinckley & Bosworth: 0 Charnwood: no change. Harborough DC, Blaby DC, Melton: 1 Harborough: Worsening. Leicester CC, NW Leics DC NW Leics: 2 AQMA to be extended Oadby & Wigston: 4 Hinckley & Bosworth: reduced from 2 following review in 2004 Melton: No data at present NW Leics: reduced from 6 following review 2003 Oadby & Wigston: no data at present Modal Split for waste 100% road No target identified No trend identified at Limited infrastructure Atkins internal review. transport present potential for non-road transport of waste

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) Traffic Volumes Traffic on m1 J19-22 in No target identified Further growth anticipated Anticipated traffic growth on Leicestershire 41,800- motorways? 67500ADT northbound, 45000-68700ADT southbound. Jan-Sep2004. HGVs form 18.5-27.4% northbound, 19.5-25.6% southbound

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Table C: Baseline Data, Indicators, Targets and Trends for Climatic Factors General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) CO2 Emissions No data identified to date Target to reduce national Not yet identified (By sector) carbon dioxide emissions by 30% by 2011, from a 1996 baseline figure. Energy consumption per No data identified to date No comparators identified E Mids Draft Sustainable Increase in energy use ENABLE 2004 sector Energy Strategy 2003 predicts that E Midlands total energy consumption (domestic, commercial industrial & transport) will increase by 15% by 2020. Renewable Energy In 2003, for LCC: Gov’t target to supply 10% At present, Leicestershire Lack of renewable energy ENABLE 2004 Wind power – none of UK electricity from unlikely to meet targets sources developed within East Midlands Draft Biomass - none renewable sources by 2010. the county. Sustainable energy strategy Landfill gas – 10.7MW To be met for 2010 for LCC: Growing timber economy – 2003 Anaerobic Digestion - Wind power – 22MW potential for wood heating. Atkins review. 1.34MW Biomass - 11.2MW Photovoltaics - <0.2MW Landfill gas – 18MW Total renewable energy Anaerobic Digestion – <12.24MW 3.2MW Photovoltaics – 0.4MW Bradgate Landfill has Total renewable energy approx 3MW capacity, 58MWMW Narborough 2MW and Cotesbach 3 MW.

Landfill gas power generators also exist at Lount, Mountsorrell & Enderby

Conservation of Energy No data identified to date National home-energy Lack of data and monitoring conservation target is 30% for energy efficiency outside increase in domestic energy Council’s own operations. efficiency by 2010

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Table D: Baseline Data, Indicators, Targets and Trends for Water and Soil General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) Contaminated Land Charnwood : no sites No targets identified New contamination less Historical land use in District websites. identified 2003 likely than previously due to Leicestershire has resulted Blaby Contaminated Land Other LAs – no data environmental controls in the potential for further strategy identified contamination, although the ENABLE 2004 No comprehensive register identification of sites is Regeneration & Renewal of contaminated sites in dependent on the 4March 2005 p10 LCC exists development control process. Lack of data on sites Cost and lack of disposal facilities for hazardous waste may in some cases reduce attractiveness to developers of brownfield sites

% of development on Data incomplete for Districts 60% of new dwellings on Overall, targets appear to Potential housing pressure previously developed land No data for waste sites on PDL by 2008 (PPG3). be being met. for development on open (PDL) PDL RPG 60% by 2021. spaces in the future Leicestershire, Leicester & Rutland Structure Plan 50% of dwellings on PDL

% of best and most versatile 80% of land use in No targets identified at Decline in livestock farming. Agricultural land is subject agricultural land occupied Leicestershire is agriculture present to loss due to competition by development from developments especially around peripheral urban areas. Improvement/worsening of No data at present No targets identified No trends identified soil quality

Water Quality (Biological In 2003 94.2% of rivers in In the UK , it is estimated No trends identified Focus on chemical quality www.defra.gov.uk, and Chemical) Leicestershire were that about 95 % of rivers tends to ignore phosphate www.environment- classified as good or fair were of good or fair and nitrate quality. agency.gov.uk chemical quality. 87.1 % chemical quality in 2003, Some downstream pollution ENABLE 2004 were classified as good or and about 73 % of rivers in on River Soar from http://www.countryside.gov. fair biological quality. 2003 were of good discharges uk/regions/eas chemical quality. tMidlands/activities 96.1% were classified as In England : 93 % of river /evidenceAndAnalysis/rsotc/ poor phosphate quality. lengths were of good or Natural_ resources.asp 48.8% were nitrate poor or fair chemical quality in

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) bad. 2003, compared with 84 % in 1990. 62 % were of good quality in 2003, compared with 43 %t in 1990. In the UK , it is estimated that about 96 % of rivers were assessed as being of good or fair biological quality in 2003 • In England, 95 % of river lengths were of good or fair biological quality in 2003 compared with 89 % in 1990. 69 % were of good biological quality in 2003 compared with 60 % in 1990. Nitrate vulnerable zones All of Leicestershire 55% of England designated In 1996 only 2 NVZs – area ENABLE 2004 declared NVZ in 2002 NVZ in 2002 has increased

Groundwater vulnerability EA data received but not yet No targets identified No trends identified Groundwater quality ENABLE 2004 mapped generally good in Leicestershire and aquifers of low vulnerability to pollution No of properties at risk of 15700 properties in Flood Flood Zones show where Improved flood alleviation Development Pressures on EA Data 2004 flooding Zone 3 (>1% chance of flood waters would go if no system near Melton floodplain increase risk of ENABLE 2004 river flooding pa) defences (PPG25) Mowbray completed 2002/3. downstream floods and ENABLE Draft Climate Narborough landfill is in a damage to property. Change Strategy flood risk zone Potential increase in flood risk due to future climate change if adaptation measures not implemented Flood Zones See attached mapping. No targets identified No trends identified, though The River Soar valley in ENABLE 2004 improved flood control particular has suffered systems have minimised significant flooding since effects. late 18 th C Pollution incidents 67 waste-management No targets identified No trends identified EA data investigated by Environment related incidents recorded Agency by EA in 2003

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) Fly tipping incidents by 3220 incidents dealt with by No targets identified No trends identified Charnwood had twice the EA data council local authorities Mar-Oct total number of recorded 2004. Total incidents per incidences of fly-tipping head of population were: than any other Districts Blaby 0.002 during this period. This may Charnwood 0.012 be due to a short term Harborough 0.002 anomaly in data collection, Hinckley & Bosworth 0.003 a specific clean-up ‘drive’ or Leics City 0.001 an underlying problem Melton 0.004 which needs further NW Leics 0.004 investigation. Oadby & Wigston 0.001 Leicester City after Charnwood, had the second highest rate of fly-tipping per square km

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Table E: Baseline Data, Indicators, Targets and Trends for Cultural Heritage / Landscape General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) No. of Listed 212 Scheduled Ancient Nationally 3.6% of Grade 1 Many features of cultural ENABLE, 2004 Buildings/scheduled ancient Monuments (SAMs) and Grade II* listed entries heritage significance are not monument/historic 244 historic townscapes or at risk in England and registered and may parks/historic landscapes villages Wales therefore be overlooked. and proportion at risk 16 parks & gardens on Leicester has a high level of English Register of Historic community and voluntary Parks & Gardens support for cultural heritage 1 battlefield on English Heritage Battlefields Register 4337 buildings listed for special architectural or historic interest, Risk unknown. See map in main report % of development on PDL 60% of new dwellings on Continuation of 100% of Potential housing pressure Leicester City figures PDL by 2008 (PPG3: development on PDL in for development on open Housing, 2000) Leicester City is predicted to spaces in the future continue

Landscape character areas 43% Leicestershire is tilled No comparators or targets Continued pressure from Lack of detailed mapping ENABLE 2004 agricultural land identified. residential, industrial, power and characterisation to Leicestershire, Leicester & 35% managed grassland generation, mineral underpin planning Rutland Landscape & No AONBs or National County Historic Landscape workings and transportation decisions. Woodland Strategy Parks characterisation will around margins of urban No historic landscape 18 Character areas commence in summer areas and major river classifications mean that 2005. valleys of Trent & Soar. significance can be Development pressure overlooked associated with East Lobby continuing for Midlands Airport Charnwood Forest to be designated an AONB Changes in countryside Countryside Agency Gradual erosion of Lack of local-level detail ENABLE 2004 character and countryside character profiles indicate a traditional character mapping and http://www.countryside.gov. quality large number of East characterisation to underpin uk/regions/ Midlands character areas planning decisions – local http://www.countryside- show some or marked character area descriptions quality- changes inconsistent with are not much more detailed counts.org.uk/cap/eastmids/ character than regional ones. index_em.htm

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Table F: Baseline Data, Indicators, Targets and Trends for Population and Human Health General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) Noise Levels 22% of Leicestershire No comparators or targets Leicestershire Quality of Life residents surveyed 2002-3 identified indicators for 2002-3 concerned about noise in their area Life expectancy Data to be collected from 2000-2002 Females in www.statistics.gov.uk census profiles England – 80.64 2000-2002 Males in England – 75.98

Proportion of people with self Data to be collected from assessed good health Census profiles

Employment Activity The economic activity rate However, this disguises LSEP (working age population) for considerable differences, with Leicester Shire in 2003 Leicester City recording a very (80.6%) was higher than the low activity rate (70.7 per regional (80%) and national cent). Overall, unemployment (79.5%) averages. in Leicester Shire is very low at 2.8% (just 1.5 per cent in the County). However, this masks significant variations; in the City a rate of 5.6 % was recorded in October 2003. Within specific communities there are pockets of very high unemployment such as in Wycliffe Ward and North Braunstone Ward in the City and Greenhill Ward, North West Leicestershire.

Unemployment Rate At September 2004: East Midlands 1.9% Continued decline in traditional Relatively low skills base http://www.lerp.co.uk/downloa Leicester Shire: 2.3% UK 2.3% manufacturing forecast. restricts employment growth ds/september%202004.pdf Leicestershire County 1.2% Increase in knowledge Source: Office for National Leicester City 4.6% industries & service sector Statistics (NOMIS)

Employment in Waste industry Leicester Shire: 982 No targets or comparators NOMIS Data retrieved 16 Feb employees (0.3% of all identified 2005 employees) in employment

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) category 900: Sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation & similar activities. Deprivation Leicester City is 29 th most No trends identified According to the Government deprived of 149 local Indices of Multiple Deprivation, authorities. Leicester County 13 of the City’s 28 wards rank is 136 th most deprived. within the most deprived 10% nationally - 47.1% of the population of Leicester City live in wards which rank within the most deprived 10% of the wards in the country. None of the wards in Leicester County rank within the most deprived 10%. Within the County, Harborough District ranks within the least deprived 10% of districts nationally, with Blaby, Melton and Oadby & Wigston ranking within the least 20%. Leicester County is in the 10% least deprived of counties and unitary authorities nationally.

Street cleanliness LCC: In 2001/02 the Cleaning To improve the cleanliness of Improving. Met target. Leicester Environmental Index for the city centre was Leicester city centre Statement. 2002-3 69%, and in 2002/03 it had (Cleansing Index – PSA reached 75% measure – in the city centre to LC: No data be 75% or above by 2005)

Statistics on complaints about Data to be collected from No comparators identified No trends identified waste sites District Environmental Health (noise/odour/dust/vermin etc) officers Population density and rural Population density per square The proportion of the East http://www.countryside.gov.uk/ population km for districts is : Midland’s population living in EvidenceAndAnalysis/state_of Leicester UA 3834 rural districts rose from _the_countryside_reports/regi Leicestershire 339 38.47% in 1981 to 40.62% in onalSOCRdownloads.asp Blaby 694 2001. This is the third highest GOEM Charnwood 550 proportion for any English Harborough 129 region. Nationally, only Hinckley and Bosworth 337 28.52% of the population l ives

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) Melton 99 in rural areas. NW Leicestershire 306 Oadby and Wigston 2324

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Table G: Additional Economic and Social Baseline Data, Indicators, Targets and Trends General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) Areas of Open In Leicester, approx 30% of National Playing Fields Leicester: There was an http://www.environmentcit space/outdoor recreation land area is open space, Association (NPFA) increase of 2.1 hectares of y.org.uk/article.asp?Parent (ha of open space per 1,000 including the riverside, recommends 2.43 ha of publicly accessible ID=2&ArticleID=82 urban population) woods, green wedges, open space per 1000 green space from 875.9 country parks and local population ( 1.6ha – 1.8ha hectares in 2001/02 to 878 Oadby & Wigston Draft amenity spaces, as well as should be for outdoor hectares in SPG play & open space private open space such as sport, 0.6ha – 0.8ha 2002/03. This target (863 gardens. should be children’s ha by 2020) is currently 18% of city area classified playing space (PPG17 – being exceeded. as public open space. each borough is Leicester is well provided for Oadby & Wigston Borough recommended to produce in terms of public open has 173 hectares of Outdoor open space assessment to space, though some areas Sports Playing Space which ensure validity of NPFA of the city are deficient in equates to 3 hectares per targets) accessible local open space 1,000 population. (74% in private or educational use)

Access to rights of way and Leicester: 2002-3 878ha of Leicester Environmental Slight increase since 1997 Limited space for outdoor Leicester Environmental open space publicly accessible green Statement Target 10.1 to (2.1ha) pursuits has placed visitor Statement 2002-3 space maintain this level to 2020 pressure on areas such as ENABLE Leicestershire QoL indicator Charnwood Forest data – 71% of residents finding it easy to access publicly accessible green space (2002-3 data) Economic growth

Environmental awareness & July 2003 14 Leicestershire 20 further schools working Objective: DES 2003 – all ENABLE Strategic education/waste schools had the Eco-schools towards accreditation learners will develop skills, overview of minimisation award knowledge & value base to Leicestershire’s 2004; be active citizens in creating a more sustainable society Waste Recycling District recycling Targets for 2003/4 and Many districts did not meet LCC Data (household/industrial/comm performance for 2003/4 is: 2004/5 are: 2003/4 targets. While ercial) Blaby 21.2% Blaby – 20% / 30% significant investment has Charnwood 16.5% Charnwood – 33 / 36 been made to improve Harborough 14.9% Harborough – 10 / 18 performance, there is a risk Hinckley & Bosworth 21.7% Hinckley & Bosworth – 18 some 2005/6 targets may

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) Melton 31.5% / 27 not be met N W Leics 14.2% Melton – 33 / 40 Oadby & Wigston 21% N W Leics – 16 / 24 Leicester City 14.7% Oadby & Wigston – 33 / 36 Leicester City – 18 / 27

National recycling target in 2004/2005 at least 14% of household waste.

Achieving the statutory target of recycling or composting 10% of domestic waste in 2003/04 18% 05/06 and 30% by 09/10; (2002/2003 just over 7% of household rate recycled); Waste Transfer Streams No data identified No targets identified at (internally in Council) present

Waste disposal data With small exceptions, 100% No comparators identified Waste taken to transfer (household/industrial/comm of household, industrial and stations is largely landfilled ercial) commercial waste landfilled. rather than treated by other Tonnages for each disposal means method are: Transfer station - 453,464 tonnes but most still ends up at landfill Licensed composting - 27,136 tonnes Exempt composting - No returns Materials Recycling Facilities - 4268t (Biffa Ball Mill start) Scrap Metal Recycling - 2345t (limited returns available) Waste storage - 1129t Sewage treatment - 24,170t

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) Physical treatment i.e. screening of inerts - 55,645t (excludes exemptions) Landfill - 878,711tonnes.

Dozens of exempt facilities for which there is no info on tonnes exist but EMRWS estimates that 706,800 tonnes of Construction and Demolition Waste was processed by exempt facilities in Leics.

Hazardous waste data In 2002 Leicestershire No comparators identified Leicester now have no Atkins internal review. imported 57,819 tonnes of licensed hazardous waste hazardous waste and sites and therefore all waste exported 25,927 tonnes is now exported. (most recent data)

% value recovered from No data identified at present waste Amount of waste carried by 100% transported by road No comparators or targets No trends identified Little potential for non-road road vehicle and by rail and identified transport, though disused other modes Ivanhoe rail line exists

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report

APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED POLICIES AND SITES

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Policy 1: Waste Management Site Allocations

The sites listed in Table 3.1 and identified in more detail in the following individual site statements have been allocated to facilitate new waste management capacity. On these sites planning permission will be granted for proposals for waste management development for the potential uses identified in Table 3.1, provided that:

(i) the application has full regard to the requirements, issues and constraints set out in the individual site statements;

(ii) the release of the site does not undermine the delivery of sustainable waste management provision; and

(iii) the proposed development accords with the requirements of other relevant policies contained in the waste development framework.

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive wildlife habitats and species, Core Strategy & Development Control Policies avoiding damage to or and requires development proposals to address fragmentation of major features site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site of importance for fauna and statements (section i). The overall effect is likely flora to be positive 2 To conserve and enhance the Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive quality of the countryside and Core Strategy & Development Control Policies landscape and requires development proposals to address site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive 3 To protect places and buildings Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive of archaeological, cultural and Core Strategy & Development Control Policies historic value and requires development proposals to address site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive 4 To protect the quality of ground Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive and surface waters Core Strategy & Development Control Policies and requires development proposals to address site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

5 To avoid soil contamination and Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive safeguard soil quality and Core Strategy & Development Control Policies quantity and requires development proposals to address site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive 6 To limit emissions to air to levels Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive that will not damage natural Core Strategy & Development Control Policies systems and affect human and requires development proposals to address health site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive 7 To minimise the contribution of Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive waste development to adverse Core Strategy & Development Control Policies climate change through reduced and requires development proposals to address greenhouse gas emissions. site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive 8 To minimise public nuisance Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive from waste treatment and Core Strategy & Development Control Policies disposal. and requires development proposals to address site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive 9 To maximise the benefits to Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive human health and well-being Core Strategy & Development Control Policies and requires development proposals to address site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect 0 Not applicable This issue should have been taken into sterilisation of mineral reserves account in the site selection process as set out for CS&DC Policy 4 & 5 11 To facilitate the management, Policy reinforces the provisions of Core Strategy & ++ Not required as effect positive recovery and correct disposal of Development Control Policies 1-14) relating to wastes controlled by EC waste management provision and the waste Directives hierarchy. The overall effect is likely to be significantly positive 12 To encourage better use of Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive developed land and to prevent Core Strategy & Development Control Policies irretrievable loss of the best and and requires development proposals to address most versatile agricultural land site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

13 To minimise quantities of waste Policy reinforces the provisions of Core Strategy & ++ Not required as effect positive landfilled and to maximise re- Development Control Policies 1-14) relating to use, recovery and recycling of waste management provision and the waste waste hierarchy. The overall effect is likely to be significantly positive 14 To reduce the need to travel, in Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive particular to reduce the Core Strategy & Development Control Policies transportation of untreated and requires development proposals to address waste by road, and thereby site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site vehicle emissions, in line with statements (section i). The overall effect is likely the proximity principle to be positive 15 To increase energy efficiency Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive and the production of renewable Core Strategy & Development Control Policies energy and requires development proposals to address site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive 16 To promote stable employment No effect 0 Not applicable This issue should have been taken into and employment diversity in the account in the site selection process as Framework Area set out for CS&DC Policy 4 & 5 17 To promote sustainable No effect 0 Not applicable economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect 0 Not applicable This issue should have been taken into waste facilities appropriate in account in the site selection process as scale and type to local needs. set out for CS&DC Policy 4 & 5

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect 0 Not applicable This issue should have been taken into account in the site selection process as set out for CS&DC Policy 4 & 5 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as Policy (section iii) reinforces protection offered by + Not required as effect positive a result of waste development Core Strategy & Development Control Policies and requires development proposals to address site-specific issues as highlighted in individual site statements (section i). The overall effect is likely to be positive

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Policy 2: Non-inert Landfill Site Allocations Sites allocated for the landfilling of non-inert waste will not be granted unless provision is also made for measures to encourage the provision of facilities which move waste management up the waste hierarchy of waste reduction, followed by re-use, recycling and composting of materials, and energy recovery or alternative value recovery technologies that reduce the amount of waste that needs to be disposed.

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance No effect 0 Not applicable wildlife habitats and species, avoiding damage to or fragmentation of major features of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the No effect 0 Not applicable quality of the countryside and landscape 3 To protect places and buildings No effect 0 Not applicable of archaeological, cultural and historic value 4 To protect the quality of ground No effect 0 Not applicable and surface waters 5 To avoid soil contamination and No effect 0 Not applicable safeguard soil quality and quantity 6 To limit emissions to air to levels No effect 0 Not applicable that will not damage natural systems and affect human health 7 To minimise the contribution of No effect 0 Not applicable waste development to adverse climate change through reduced greenhouse gas emissions. 8 To minimise public nuisance No effect 0 Not applicable from waste treatment and disposal. 9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not applicable human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect 0 Not applicable sterilisation of mineral reserves

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

11 To facilitate the management, Policy reinforces the provisions of Core Strategy & ++ Not required as effect positive recovery and correct disposal of Development Control Policies 1-14) relating to wastes controlled by EC waste management provision and the waste Directives hierarchy. The overall effect is likely to be significantly positive 12 To encourage better use of No effect 0 Not applicable developed land and to prevent irretrievable loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste While policy permits landfill, it reinforces the ++ Not required as effect positive landfilled and to maximise re- provisions of Core Strategy & Development use, recovery and recycling of Control Policies 1-14) relating to waste waste management provision and the waste hierarchy. The overall effect is likely to be significantly positive 14 To reduce the need to travel, in No effect 0 Not applicable particular to reduce the transportation of untreated waste by road, and thereby vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect 0 Not applicable and the production of renewable energy 16 To promote stable employment No effect 0 Not applicable and employment diversity in the Framework Area 17 To promote sustainable No effect 0 Not applicable economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect 0 Not applicable waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect 0 Not applicable 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as No effect 0 Not applicable a result of waste development

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

B1: Manor Farm, Aston Flamville

Parish Council Aston Flamville District/Borough Council Blaby Brief Description of Proposal Extension to existing site composting site.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Manor Farm, Aston Flamville Proposal: Extension to existing composting site, size 2.5 ha

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The proposal has the potential for a slight - Habitat creation and enhancement where wildlife habitats and species, negative effect through the loss of agricultural practical. avoiding damage to or habitats. fragmentation of major features of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The extension is likely to have a slight negative - Site screening and landscape bunding, quality of the countryside and effect through the loss of land designated as along with sympathetic design of any landscape Countryside under the local plan. The effect is additional structures. likely to be permanent. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground There is the potential for minor negative effects on - Appropriate protection measures should be Assessment based on Environment and surface waters the Soar Brook which lies 100m to the east of the incorporated in any waste site to ensure that Agency correspondence 15.03.06. site. Although the site is underlain by non-aquifer, ground and surface waters are not at risk the Brook overlies material classified as a minor from contamination. aquifer. The effect has the potential to be permanent. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The extension of the site will have a significant -- Design of the site should ensure minimal safeguard soil quality and negative effect on the quantity of soil though the land take. quantity permanent loss of agricultural land (Agricultural Land Quality Grade 3). 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. The effect is numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health likely to be permanent. and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above 8 To minimise public nuisance The nearest receptors are located approximately 0 Not applicable. from waste treatment and 400m to the west of the site at Aston Flamville, disposal. and due to the nature of the proposals, are unlikely to be affected. 9 To maximise the benefits to ]No effect 0 Not applicable. human health and well-being

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposed extension to farm and green waste ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise reprocessing and composting is likely to have a use, recovery and recycling of significant positive effect. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of 0 Not applicable. a result of waste development flooding.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

B2 Enderby Hill Quarry

Parish Council Enderby District/Borough Council Blaby Brief Description of Proposal Recycling of construction and demolition waste.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Enderby Hill Quarry Proposal: Recycling of construction and demolition waste, size 3.6 ha of which 0.53 ha proposed for recycling facility

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance There is potential for a slight negative effect as - Mitigation measures to ensure that the wildlife habitats and species, the site has potential for a Site of Nature invertebrate interest of the site is not unduly avoiding damage to or Conservation due to its invertebrate interest. impaired. fragmentation of major features of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The upper floors of properties on Conery Lane will - Potential need to plant additional trees and quality of the countryside and experience visual intrusion caused by new facility. shrubs. landscape 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the lack of of archaeological, cultural and receptors in the vicinity of the site. historic value 4 To protect the quality of ground Although the site is underlain by a non aquifer, the -- Site proposals would need to ensure and surface waters site is a closed landfill and designated as a drainage from the site does not infiltrate the contaminated land site. There is potential for former landfill beneath and increase significant negative effects on surface and leachate rates. groundwater through the mobilisation of contaminants in the soil. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The development has the potential to mobilise - Site proposals would need to ensure safeguard soil quality and contaminants, with the potential for a slight drainage from the site does not infiltrate the quantity negative effect through spreading areas of soil former landfill beneath and increase contamination. leachate rates. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above 8 To minimise public nuisance There is potential for a significant negative effect --- Noise attenuation measures and screening Previous proposal considered from waste treatment and on the residential properties of Conery Lane and including landscape bunding. unacceptable by District EHO on disposal. Seine Lane from the proposed screening and grounds of noise. crushing operations. 9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals has the potential - Appropriate protection measures would need human health and well-being for a indirect negative effect on human health to be incorporated into the design through exposure to dust and noise.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The site is currently designated as Greenfield and + Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent has been restored to rough grassland. It has been irretrievable loss of the best and allocated in the Blaby Local plan as suitable for most versatile agricultural land employment use. The development of the site would therefore have a slight positive effect on encouraging the better use of developed land, as development would not result in the loss of agricultural land and the development potential of the site has been recognised through the existing planning permission. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposed recycling of construction and ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- demolition wastes will have a significant positive use, recovery and recycling of effect. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. and the production of renewable energy 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

B3 Soars Lodge Farm, Foston

Parish Council N/A District/Borough Council Blaby Brief Description of Proposal Extension of existing composting site.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Soars Lodge Farm, Foston Proposal: Extension of existing composting site, size 0.36 ha

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The proposal has the potential for a slight - Habitat creation and enhancement where wildlife habitats and species, negative effect through the loss of agricultural practical. avoiding damage to or habitats. fragmentation of major features of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The extension of the current site into agricultural - Landscaping and planting may be required quality of the countryside and land is likely to have a slightly negative effect on to screen the extension from views. landscape the quality of the countryside and potentially Foston. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground A spring is located approximately 160m to the - The site proposal must take into account any Assessment based on Environment and surface waters south of the site. There is potential for a slight potential surface water run-off and protection Agency correspondence 15.03.06. negative effect on this spring through surface measures should be incorporated into the runoff from the site. design of the site to ensure that the spring is not contaminated. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The loss of 0.36 ha of grade 3 agricultural land will -- Minimise land take from the site proposals. safeguard soil quality and have a negative effect on the quantity of soil quantity resources. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above 8 To minimise public nuisance Foston Medieval Village is located approximately 0 Not applicable. from waste treatment and 350m to the east of the proposed site; due to the disposal. nature of proposals there is unlikely to be an effect on public nuisance. 9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not applicable human health and well-being

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The extension of the current site into a small area - Minimise land take of proposals. Data unclear at present as to grade 3a developed land and to prevent of grade 3 agricultural land will have a negative or 3b - may not be best and most irretrievable loss of the best and effect through the permanent loss of agricultural versatile land. Small area would indicate most versatile agricultural land land. slight negative or negligible impact. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposal will have a significant positive effect ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- on minimising quantities of waste going to landfill use, recovery and recycling of by increasing capacity to compost green waste. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site There is a potential negative effect on particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and the surrounding countryside road transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. network. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. Controls of the numbers of HGVs needs to vehicle emissions, in line with be considered. the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

B4 Coventry Road, Narborough

Parish Council Narborough District/Borough Council Blaby Brief Description of Proposal Recycling of Construction & Demolition, Commercial & Industrial and municipal waste.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Land off Coventry Road, Narborough (current application before Council – Glenfield Waste), size 2.25 ha

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The site is not located near any designated sites - Conservation of any important local habitats wildlife habitats and species, although may hold some locally important habitats and species and enhancement where avoiding damage to or and species due to its brownfield nature. appropriate. fragmentation of major features Development of the site may have a slight of importance for fauna and negative effect on these habitats and species, flora although the effect is uncertain. 2 To conserve and enhance the Part of the site is designated as Countryside by - Sympathetic design of structures, screening quality of the countryside and the Local Plan, although the site is located on the and landscape bunding to consider the landscape urban fringe of Narborough and part is designated effects of the proposal on the quality of the for employment use. Development of the site is countryside. Restriction of development to likely to have a slight negative effect on the quality area allocated in local plan for employment of the countryside as the development will extend use the urban fringe of the town. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground The River Soar lies immediately adjacent to the -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters site boundary and the site is underlain by a minor to be incorporated into the design of the site aquifer. There is potential for significant negative and the location of facilities within site to effects from contaminated runoff from the site ensure that ground and surface waters are contaminating both surface and ground waters. not at risk from contamination. Drainage from the site would need to be passed into a sealed system and treated prior to disposal. 5 To avoid soil contamination and There is potential for runoff from the site to - Appropriate protection measures would need safeguard soil quality and introduce contaminants into the soil of the site, to be incorporated into the design of the site quantity with a potential significant negative effect on soil to ensure that ground and surface waters quality. are not at risk from contamination. Drainage from the site would need to be passed into a sealed system and treated prior to disposal. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

8 To minimise public nuisance Residential properties adjoin the site and have the -- Noise attenuation and dust & odour control from waste treatment and potential to be subject to noise, odour and dust measures. disposal. emissions from the site. These effects have the potential to be significant. 9 To maximise the benefits to The potential for contamination of surface and - Appropriate protection measures would need human health and well-being ground waters, has the potential for a slight to be incorporated into the design of the site indirect negative effect on human health through to ensure that ground and surface waters exposure. The likelihood of this occurring is low. are not at risk from contamination. Drainage from the site would need to be passed into a sealed system and treated prior to disposal. 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The site is currently part Greenfield and part PDL. + Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent It is not agricultural land and currently has irretrievable loss of the best and planning permission for industrial use. The most versatile agricultural land development of the site would therefore have a slight positive effect on encouraging the better use of developed land, as development would not result in the loss of agricultural land and the development potential of the site has been recognised through the existing planning permission. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The recycling facility for construction and ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- industrial waste will have a significant positive use, recovery and recycling of effect on minimising quantities of waste landfilled. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. The proposal contains no details for the and the production of renewable generation of renewable energy, energy although the development of the site presents an opportunity to utilise methane for electricity generation. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the slight positive effect through the provision of new Framework Area employment opportunities.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as Part of the site lies within the ‘low’ risk flood plain -- No development should take place within the a result of waste development as identified by the Environment Agency, where floodplain without the provision of the chance of flooding each year is 0.5% (1 in appropriate mitigation/compensation. There 200) or less. There is potential for a significant should be no increase in surface water negative effect on increasing flood risk. runoff from the site.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

B5 Sapcote and Granitethorpe Quarries

Parish Council Sapcote District/Borough Council Blaby Brief Description of Proposal Infilling with either inert or non-hazardous wastes.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Sites: Sapcote and Granitethorpe Quarries Proposal: Infilling with either inert or non-hazardous wastes, size 4 ha

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance Sapcote Quarry is adjacent to grassland of parish --- Avoid landfilling of Granitethorpe Quarry. wildlife habitats and species, level significance whilst Granitethorpe Quarry is of Creation and enhancement of habitats to avoiding damage to or district level ecological significance. Bats have compensate for other lost habitats. fragmentation of major features been recorded in the vicinity of the quarries. of importance for fauna and Overall, there is potential for a strongly negative flora effect, largely through the loss of the ecological significance of Granitethorpe Quarry. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located in an area of open countryside. -- Screening bunds and potentially planting quality of the countryside and There is the potential for a significant short term would be required on the site. landscape negative effect from the landfill and other operations. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground A watercourse lies approximately 175m to the -- Appropriate protection measures should be Assessment based on Environment and surface waters north of Granitethorpe Quarry and may be subject incorporated into the design to ensure that Agency correspondence 15.03.06. to ground and surface water contamination. The ground and surface waters are not at risk hydrogeology of both sites is unknown. The effect from contamination. has the potential to be significantly negative. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The proposal for landfilling operations of either -- Any site drainage associated with waste safeguard soil quality and inert or non-hazardous waste presents the activities would need to be designed so as quantity possibility of introducing contamination into the not to discharge to the underlying strata. underlying soil of the site. There is the potential for significant effects on soil contamination for the landfilling activities. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The development of the sites as landfills is likely - A gas migration system should be a waste development to adverse to have a slight negative effect through the requirement for the site if relevant alongside climate change through reduced emission of both CO 2 and methane. Overall, when measures to minimise vehicle trips to the greenhouse gas emissions. considered in combination with a likely increase in site. road traffic associated with the site, there is likely to be a slight negative effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

8 To minimise public nuisance Sapcote Village lies approximately 150m to the -- Noise effects could be mitigated by noise Site planning requirements should from waste treatment and west of the sites and there is the potential for attenuation measures such as barriers and include controls on any potential disposal. significant negative effects from noise, dust and appropriate choice of equipment. Dust and negative effects from these sources. odour. odour can be minimised by appropriate watering and covering techniques to minimise the amount of exposed refuse. 9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals has the potential - Appropriate protection measures should be human health and well-being for indirect negative effects on human health incorporated into the design through exposure to increased dust and traffic effects. 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. Mineral reserves at the sites have been sterilisation of mineral reserves exhausted and the quarries are currently disused. 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of Land currently Greenfield, though disturbed 0 No effect developed land and to prevent through minerals workings. Landfill would restore. irretrievable loss of the best and Neutral effect most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposals for landfilling alone will not 0 Not applicable. landfilled and to maximise re- contribute to minimising the quantities of waste use, recovery and recycling of landfilled. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site Access to the site by road is relatively particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and poor, with possible effects on transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. surrounding villages. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. The site requirements could be improved and the production of renewable by including the provision for energy energy generation from harvested landfill gas, and the incorporation of energy efficiency measures where practicable. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity Both quarries are designated as Regionally -- The preservation of the geological interest of Important Geological Sites (RIGS) in the Blaby the site is unlikely to be compatible with District Local Plan (1999). The proposals to infill landfilling activities. the quarries are likely to have significant negative effects through the probably loss of geodiversity interest. The effect is likely to be permanent. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of 0 Not applicable. a result of waste development flooding.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

B6 Thurlaston Sawmill

Parish Council Thurlaston District/Borough Council Blaby Brief Description of Proposal Recycling of construction and demolition waste.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Thurlaston Sawmill Proposal: Recycling of construction and demolition waste, size 1.5 ha

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The proposal is unlikely to have an effect as the 0 Not applicable. Further information is required on wildlife habitats and species, site was previously developed. habitats and species present. This avoiding damage to or should be covered in detailed planning fragmentation of major features applications for the site. of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the As the site was previously developed as a sawmill - Proposals should be designed to be quality of the countryside and and timberstore, the area is currently developed. sympathetic to the character of the landscape However there is potential for negative effects on countryside and landscape. the quality of the countryside, dependent on the design of the site proposals. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground A spring is located approximately 70m from the - Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters site which feeds into the Feeding Brook. There is to be incorporated into the design to ensure the potential for slight negative effects from that ground and surface waters are not at surface runoff from the site on the spring and the risk from contamination. Feeding Brook. 5 To avoid soil contamination and No effect. 0 Not applicable. safeguard soil quality and quantity 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above 8 To minimise public nuisance The nearest residential properties are located in -- Some additional screening of the site from from waste treatment and the Village of Thurlaston approximately 100m to the road and the village would be required. disposal. the southwest of the site. There is the potential for significant noise and dust nuisance effects. 9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals, has the potential - Appropriate protection measures would need human health and well-being for a slight indirect negative effect on human to be incorporated into the design health through exposure to dust and noise

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The proposal will have a significant positive effect ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent on the better use of previously developed land. irretrievable loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposal will have a significant positive effect ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- on the recovery and recycling of construction and use, recovery and recycling of demolition wastes. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. No waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. traffic should be allowed to pass Thurlaston vehicle emissions, in line with Village nor Huncote. the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. and the production of renewable energy 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

B7 Whetstone RHWS

Parish Council Whetstone District/Borough Council Blaby Brief Description of Proposal Waste management park incorporating range of facilities dealing with municipal waste including a replacement RHWS, transfer station, recycling, composting and waste treatment.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Whetstone RHWS Proposal: Waste management park incorporating range of facilities dealing with municipal waste including a replacement Recycling and Household Waste Site (RHWS), transfer station, recycling, composting and waste treatment, size 3.36 ha

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The proposal is unlikely to have an effect on 0 Not applicable. wildlife habitats and species, ecology as the site is previously developed and avoiding damage to or currently in use. fragmentation of major features of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located on the urban fringe of - Landscape screening and planting along quality of the countryside and Whetstone and has the potential to have a slight with sympathetic design of any structures. landscape negative effect as the site adjoins as green wedge designation. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the lack of known of archaeological, cultural and receptors in the vicinity of the site. historic value 4 To protect the quality of ground The site is underlain by a minor aquifer and is -- Appropriate protection measures would need Assessment based on Environment and surface waters situated approximately 60m from the River Sence. to be incorporated into the design to ensure Agency correspondence 15.03.06. There is the potential for significant negative that surface and ground waters are not at effects on the quality of ground and surface risk from contamination. waters. 5 To avoid soil contamination and There is potential for runoff from the site to -- Protection measures would need to ensure The level of soil contamination at the site safeguard soil quality and introduce soil contamination, and potentially that contaminated waters do not enter the is unknown although a certain level of quantity mobilise contaminants that may already be soil profile. contamination is likely to be present. present in the soil profile. The effect has the potential to be significantly negative, although uncertain due to lack of information of current contamination at the site. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

8 To minimise public nuisance Residential properties lie approximately 100m to - Noise attenuation measures and screening from waste treatment and the east of the site, but are separated by an active and bunding where appropriate. disposal. railway line and partly shielded by an embankment of a disused railway line and business park. However, there is the potential for slight negative effects from noise and odour emissions from the site on these receptors despite these buffers. 9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals, and the potential - Appropriate protection measures would need human health and well-being for contamination of surface waters and ground to be incorporated into the design to ensure waters, has the potential for a slight indirect that surface and ground waters and are not negative effect on human health through exposure at risk from contamination. of contaminated drinking waters. The likelihood of this occurring is low 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The majority of the proposal is in the urban fringe ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent and located on previously developed land, and will irretrievable loss of the best and have a significant positive effect. most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposal will have a significant positive effect ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- through the additional recycling, composting and use, recovery and recycling of waste treatment facilities. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative -/+ Applications for the development of the site Development of the site would require particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and significant investment on road transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. Rail improvements because of the access on waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. potential should be investigated, and and off a very busy section of a Class II vehicle emissions, in line with incorporated into proposals if feasible road, where there are already significant the proximity principle capacity and accident problems. Further information on rail potential required. Present knowledge of site uncertain as to rail potential. 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of - Development should take account of a result of waste development flooding. However Part of the site lies adjacent to adjacent floodplain/ Design of proposals ‘low’ risk flood plain as identified by the should ensure no increase in surface water Environment Agency, where the chance of runoff from the site. flooding each year is 0.5% (1 in 200) or less. There is potential for a slight negative effect on increasing flood risk through increased run-off.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

C1 & C2 Mountsorrel Quarry (A & B)

Parish Council Mountsorrel District/Borough Council Charnwood Brief Description of Proposal Transfer station for Commercial & Industrial and municipal wastes (marked ‘ A’ on map). Extension to existing aggregates recycling facility (marked ‘ B’ on map).

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Mountsorrel Quarry Proposals: Site A – Transfer station for commercial & industrial and municipal wastes, size 0.6 ha, potential capacity 40,000 tonnes/annum; Site B – Extension to existing aggregates recycling facility, potential capacity circa 40,000 tonnes/annum

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance Buddon Wood and Swithland Reservoir SSSI lies A : - Planning applications for the site should wildlife habitats and species, approximately 500m to the west of site A whilst B: 0 consider potential effects on Buddon Wood avoiding damage to or the Main Quarry, Mountsorrel SSSI lies adjacent and Swithland Reservoir SSSI and Main fragmentation of major features to Site B. Although the distance between site A Quarry, Mountsorrel SSSI of importance for fauna and and the Buddon Wood SSSI provide a buffer flora meaning that any effect is unlikely, there is slight potential for cumulative effects. The overall effect is likely to be slightly negative. 2 To conserve and enhance the Both sites fall within the Local Plan designation of A: - Site screening and landscape bunding, quality of the countryside and ‘Areas of Particularly Attractive Countryside’, the B: 0 along with sympathetic design of any landscape erection of any large structure associated with a additional structures. transfer station has the potential for negative effects on the quality of the countryside. However overall, taking into consideration the current uses of the site, negative effects are unlikely for both sites. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground Site A is situated on a non-aquifer, however a lake -- Measures to mitigate surface water pollution and surface waters is less than 10m away from the site. Site B is also include sustainable urban drainage systems. situated on a non-aquifer, there is a lake 95m away. Overall, there is potential for significant negative effects from surface water runoff contaminating surface waters. 5 To avoid soil contamination and Site proposals have the potential to introduce -- Measures to mitigate surface water pollution safeguard soil quality and contamination into the soil of the sites through include sustainable urban drainage systems. quantity contaminated runoff. The effect has the potential to be significantly negative. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. The effect is numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health likely to be permanent. and their effect on air quality. applications for the site.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above 8 To minimise public nuisance There is potential for a slight negative effect on - Noise attenuation and dust control Controls of noise and dust emissions from waste treatment and residential properties approximately 200m from measures. must accompany any application for the disposal. sites A and B, although vehicle depots, roads and site. the processing areas act as buffers between the proposed sites and residential properties. 9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals has the potential - Measures to mitigate dust, emissions and human health and well-being for a slight indirect negative effect on human surface water pollution health through exposure to water and air contaminants 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of Both sites fall within the existing quarry complex. ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent While quarry is not classified as PDL, proposals irretrievable loss of the best and offer medium-term temporary effective use of land most versatile agricultural land within operating quarry boundary and are likely to have a significant positive effect. 13 To minimise quantities of waste Proposals for a transfer station and extension to ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- existing aggregates recycling facility are likely to use, recovery and recycling of have a significant positive effect on minimising the waste quantities of waste landfilled. 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity Geological interest of Main Quarry, adjacent to 0 Not applicable. Site B, is already protected. Proposals unlikely to have effect. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of 0 Not applicable. a result of waste development flooding.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

C3 Newhurst Quarry, Shepshed

Parish Council N/A District/Borough Council Charnwood Brief Description of Proposal Landfill for non-hazardous waste (marked ‘ A’ on map). Mechanical biological treatment / in vessel compositing / materials recovery facility for construction & demolition and commercial & industrial waste / biomass waste to energy plant (marked ‘ B’ on map).

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Newhurst Quarry Proposals: Site A) Landfill for non-hazardous waste, potential capacity 6 million cubic metres for waste deposition. Site B) 1. Mechanical biological treatment 2. In vessel compositing 3. Materials recovery facility for construction & demolition and commercial & industrial waste 4. Biomass waste to energy plant **Note: Assessment based on all proposed elements being provided. Effect of incineration with energy recovery assessed in addition.

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

NOTE: The assessment of this site has been based on all elements of the proposals coming forward.

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The site is designated as a SSSI for geological - Habitat and species surveys will be required wildlife habitats and species, interest. Badger setts have been recorded in the as part of an Environmental Statement for avoiding damage to or vicinity of the site, and will need to be taken into the site and mitigation measures might fragmentation of major features account in development of the site. There is the include the creation of substitute habitats. of importance for fauna and potential for a slight negative effect. flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The site falls within the Local Plan designation of - The retention and enhancement of existing A landscape and visual assessment of quality of the countryside and ‘Areas of Particularly Attractive Countryside’, and screening bunds at the site would be detailed proposals should accompany landscape the current quarry void and processing area are required alongside consideration of any application the existing uses of the site. However there is a sympathetic design of structures proposed , potential negative effect from the structures for the site. associated with the mechanical biological treatment facility, in vessel composting facility, and materials recovery facility. These are not likely to have significant impact given the site's location and existing uses of the site. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground Site A is mostly underlain by non aquifer, although -- Appropriate protection measures would need Assessment based on Environment and surface waters a small portion of the site overlies part of a major to be incorporated into the design of the site Agency correspondence 15.03.06. aquifer. There is potential for a significant effect to ensure that ground and surface waters on surface and groundwaters. are not at risk from contamination. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The proposal for landfilling operations of non- -- Any site drainage associated with waste safeguard soil quality and hazardous waste presents the possibility of activities would need to be designed so as quantity introducing contamination into the underlying soil not to discharge to the underlying strata. of the site. There is the potential for significant effects on soil contamination for the landfilling activities.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The development of site A as a landfill is likely to - A gas migration system should be a waste development to adverse have a slight negative effect through the emission requirement for the site alongside measures climate change through reduced of both CO 2 and methane. Overall, when to minimise vehicle trips to the site. Energy greenhouse gas emissions. considered in combination with a likely increase in and emissions minimising measures should road traffic associated with the site, there is likely be incorporated into design & operation to be a slight negative effect on greenhouse gas proposals. emissions. 8 To minimise public nuisance Although the sites are well distanced from -- Noise effects could be mitigated by noise Site planning requirements should from waste treatment and residential properties, the landfill proposal has the attenuation measures such a barriers and include controls on any potential disposal. potential for significant negative effects through appropriate choice of equipment. Dust and negative effects from these sources. potential noise, dust, odour and bird nuisance odour can be minimised by appropriate problems. There is potential for nuisance from watering and covering techniques to traffic movements. minimise the amount of exposed refuse. Access arrangements and improvements would need to be put in place. 9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals, has the potential - Appropriate protection measures would need human health and well-being for a slight indirect negative effect on human to be incorporated into the design of the site health through exposure to contaminated waters and air pollutants 10 To minimise the irreversible Landfilling will begin after mineral reserves have 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves been exhausted. 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of While the former quarry is not classified as PDL, ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent its use for waste management is an effective use irretrievable loss of the best and of a site that is, in the short-medium term, unlikely most versatile agricultural land to be restored to former uses. Use of this site for the large-scale operation proposed would safeguard other Greenfield sites from development. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposals for mechanical biological ++ Not required as effect positive. Site conditions should aim to husband landfilled and to maximise re- treatment, composting, and recycling prior to void space by requiring the construction use, recovery and recycling of landfill will have significant positive effect on of treatment facilities alongside landfill waste minimising the quantities of waste landfilled. operations.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have an overall slight + Not required as effect positive. particular to reduce the positive effect on reducing the need to travel transportation of untreated through the provision of an integrated waste waste by road, and thereby management facility, with the provision of four vehicle emissions, in line with types of waste disposal/re-use/recycling facilities the proximity principle provided at the same site. Vehicle movements will be required to transport waste to the site, however these will be minimised when compared to individual waste treatment site situated separately. 15 To increase energy efficiency The proposals for a biomass waste to energy 0/++ Not required as effect positive. Positive effects dependent on waste to and the production of renewable plant at the site will have a significant positive energy element of proposals coming energy effect by producing renewable energy from the forward site. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity The Newhurst Quarry is currently designated as a -- Measures to safeguard the geological SSSI for geological interest. There is potential for interest of the site should be incorporated in a significant negative effect on geodiversity. the site design. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of 0 Not applicable. a result of waste development flooding.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

C4 Loughborough RHWS

Parish Council Loughborough District/Borough Council Charnwood Brief Description of Proposal Waste transfer station dealing with municipal waste together with provision of additional capacity for existing RHWS.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Loughborough RHWS Proposal: Waste transfer station dealing with municipal waste together with provision of additional capacity for existing RHWS, size 1.18 ha, potential capacity 55,000 tonnes/annum

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance No effect as site already developed. 0 Not applicable. Existing use of the site is a Civic amenity wildlife habitats and species, site and County Council vehicle depot avoiding damage to or and workshop. fragmentation of major features of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located in the urban fringe and there is - Landscape screening and planting along quality of the countryside and the potential for a slight negative effect on the with sympathetic design of any structures. landscape countryside and landscape. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the lack of of archaeological, cultural and receptors in the vicinity of the site. historic value 4 To protect the quality of ground A watercourse runs approximately 50m from the -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters site. There is the potential for a significant to be incorporated into the design to ensure negative effect on this watercourse from surface that surface waters are not at risk from runoff from the site. contamination. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The development of the site has the potential to -- The design of the site extension should safeguard soil quality and mobilise the contamination present at the site ensure contamination on the site is quantity from previous landfilling activities. The effect has undisturbed. the potential to be significantly negative. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above 8 To minimise public nuisance The site is well distanced from sensitive receptors, - Noise attenuation measures and screening from waste treatment and approximately 250m from residential properties, and bunding where appropriate. disposal. although separated by an industrial estate. There is potential for slight negative effects principally from noise and odour, although the buffer of the industrial estate will lessen effects.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals, and the potential - Appropriate protection measures would need human health and well-being for contamination of surface waters and soil to be incorporated into the design to ensure contamination, has the potential for a slight that surface waters and are not at risk from indirect negative effect on human health through contamination from contaminated soils. exposure to contaminants. 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The site is currently used and the proposal will ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent have significant positive effect on this objective. irretrievable loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The provision for additional RHWS capacity will ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- have a significant positive effect. use, recovery and recycling of waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site Further information required on rail particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and potential. Present knowledge indicates transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. use of rail is unlikely to be feasible. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. Feasibility of potential for using rail line vehicle emissions, in line with should be investigated. the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs. 19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as Part of the existing site is located within the ‘low’ 0 Not applicable. a result of waste development flood risk zone as identified by the Environment Agency, however the extension to the site is not covered by this. There is likely to be no effect from the proposals on flood risk.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

C5 Anstey Lane, Thurcaston

Parish Council Anstey District/Borough Council Charnwood Brief Description of Proposal Transfer station and recycling facility for construction & demolition, commercial & industrial and municipal wastes.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Thurcaston Proposal: Transfer station and recycling facility for construction & demolition, commercial & industrial and municipal wastes, size approx. 5 ha

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance No effect. The proposed site is presently a 0 Not applicable. wildlife habitats and species, disused sewage treatment works which holds no avoiding damage to or significant ecological value, and there are no fragmentation of major features designated habitats in the vicinity of the site. of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the Although the site is previously developed, the site -- Sympathetic design of facilities to take . Policy 18 (CS&DC) on Countryside and quality of the countryside and is located in an area of Countryside and falls account of local landscape character. green Wedges relevant to this site landscape within a Green Wedge designation. There are Screen planting where appropriate. potentially significant effects on landscape However, some residual visual effects are character and the quality of the countryside. likely 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the lack of of archaeological, cultural and receptors in the vicinity of the site. historic value 4 To protect the quality of ground The Rothley Brook runs adjacent to the site. - Appropriate protection measures would need The underlying hydrogeology of the site and surface waters There is potential for slight negative effects on this to be incorporated into the design to ensure is unknown at the time of the watercourse, from runoff from the site. that surface waters are not at risk from assessment. contamination. 5 To avoid soil contamination and No effect. 0 Not applicable. safeguard soil quality and quantity 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above 8 To minimise public nuisance The nearest residential properties are located -- Mitigation measures would be required for from waste treatment and approximately 300m to the east of the site, noise, dust and odour emissions. disposal. although allotments are located approximately 150m to the west. Due to the nature of the proposals and the buffer zone to receptors, there is only likely to be a slight negative effect from the site operations. However, the traffic nuisance is likely to be significant.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not Applicable human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The proposal to redevelop the former sewage ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent works will have a significant positive effect on the irretrievable loss of the best and better use of developed land. most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposals for recycling facilities will have a ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- significant positive effect. use, recovery and recycling of waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated transport waste to the site through the Villages of proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby Anstey, Thurcaston and Cropston. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

C6 Wanlip Sand and Gravel, Syston

Parish Council Syston District/Borough Council Charnwood Brief Description of Proposal Recycling of construction and demolition waste.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Wanlip Sand and Gravel Proposal: Recycling of construction and demolition waste, size approx. 2 ha

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The existing site is an aggregate sales and has no - Habitat surveys are required to ascertain the wildlife habitats and species, ecological value, although the wider area is ecological importance of the site and its avoiding damage to or designated as floodplain grazing marsh BAP surrounds. fragmentation of major features priority habitat. There is the potential for slight of importance for fauna and negative effect on this habitat. flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is situated in an area of Countryside has -- Design ,particularly plant height, would have The site is subject to the Soar Valley quality of the countryside and the potential to have a significant negative effect to be considered and full visual assessment Area of Local Landscape Value and landscape on the quality of the countryside in the vicinity of carried out of proposals. Screening and Countryside Policies. the site. bunding will be required to reduce the visual intrusion of the site. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. of archaeological, cultural and historic value 4 To protect the quality of ground The site is situated on a minor aquifer, and is -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters close to several water bodies (ex gravel workings) to be incorporated into the design to ensure and is 60m from the River Soar. There is a that ground and surface waters are not at licensed abstraction 60m to the north west of the risk from contamination. Drainage from the site. There is the potential for significant negative site would be required to be passed into a effects on these receptors from surface runoff sealed system. from the site. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The proposal has the potential to introduce - Appropriate protection measures would need safeguard soil quality and contamination into the soil of the site through to be incorporated into the design to ensure quantity contaminated runoff. There is potential for a slight that ground and surface waters are not at negative effect. risk from contamination. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above 8 To minimise public nuisance The site is well distanced from the nearest - Dust control measures to prevent off-site from waste treatment and residential properties. There is potential to have a dust nuisance. disposal. slight negative effect through dust emissions from the site on the A46.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals, and the potential - Appropriate protection measures would need human health and well-being for contamination of surface waters and soil to be incorporated into the design to ensure contamination, has the potential for a slight that surface and groundwaters are not at indirect negative effect on human health through risk from contamination from contaminated exposure to contaminants. soils. 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The site is currently PDL used for aggregates + Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent sales and the change of use would encourage the irretrievable loss of the best and better use of developed land with a slight positive most versatile agricultural land effect. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposal will have a significant positive effect ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- through the recycling of construction and use, recovery and recycling of demolition waste. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site The site proposal will result in problems particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and with vehicles leaving and joining the transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. A46. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs. 19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site is situated in Flood Risk Zone 3 and at -- The site may be within the functional Assessment based on Environment a result of waste development risk of flooding with potential significant negative floodplain and a Flood Risk Assessment is Agency correspondence 15.03.06. effects. required to demonstrate the suitability of the site.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

H1 Northfield Farm, Cotesbach

Parish Council Cotesbach District/Borough Council Harborough Brief Description of Proposal Inert landfill / green waste composting / recycling of construction waste

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Northfield Farm, Cotesbach Proposals: 1) Inert landfill 2) Green waste composting 3) Recycling of construction waste

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

NOTE: The assessment of this site has been based on all elements of the proposals coming forward.

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance Hedgerow of district level ecological significance -- Protection of habitats where possible, and Detailed species and habitats surveys wildlife habitats and species, falls within the site, which is a former sand and habitat creation and enhancement post would be required for the Environmental avoiding damage to or gravel extraction area. Watervoles have been operation. Statement for the site. fragmentation of major features recorded in the vicinity. There is the potential for of importance for fauna and significant negative effects on these receptors. flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is currently designated as open -- Screening bunds and vegetation. quality of the countryside and countryside and the proposal will have a landscape significant negative effect on the quality of the countryside. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground An un-named ‘ordinary watercourse’ runs through -- Appropriate protection measures would need Assessment based on Environment and surface waters the site. There is potential for both ground and to be incorporated into the design of the site Agency correspondence 15.03.06. The surface water contamination from landfilling and to ensure that ground and surface waters nature of the underlying geology of the composting and recycling activities. Overall there are not at risk from contamination. site is unknown at the time of the is potential for a significant negative effect. assessment. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The proposal for operations presents the - Any site drainage associated with waste [Inert waste only proposed.] safeguard soil quality and possibility of introducing contamination into the activities would need to be designed so as quantity underlying soil of the site. There is the potential not to discharge to the underlying strata. for slight effects. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of Overall, when considered in combination with a - Energy and emissions minimising measures [Inert waste only proposed.] waste development to adverse likely increase in road traffic associated with the should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced site, there is likely to be a slight negative effect on operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. greenhouse gas emissions. assessments should be supplied as above

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

8 To minimise public nuisance Although Cotesbach Village lies 500m from the - Noise effects could be mitigated by noise Site planning requirements should from waste treatment and site, there is the potential for dust effects on attenuation measures such a barriers and include controls on any potential disposal. nearby roads. appropriate choice of equipment. Dust and negative effects from these sources. odour can be minimised by appropriate watering and covering techniques to minimise the amount of exposed refuse. 9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not applicable human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The site is currently in agricultural land use (ALC - Minimise land take of proposals. Not necessarily best and most versatile developed land and to prevent Grade grade 3), which will be lost through the land. Further information required on soil irretrievable loss of the best and development of the site. The effect is likely to be quality. If 3a BMV, effect likely to be most versatile agricultural land slightly negative. significantly negative given site area 13 To minimise quantities of waste The green waste composting and recycling of ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- construction waste activities proposed for the site use, recovery and recycling of are likely to have a significant positive effect. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site Access to the site by road is relatively particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and good with M6 Junction 1 approximately 4 transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. km from the site. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs. 19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of 0 Not applicable. a result of waste development flooding.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

H2 Harborough Road, Kibworth

Parish Council Kibworth Beauchamp District/Borough Council Harborough Brief Description of Proposal 1. Transfer station; 2. Materials Recovery Facility for municipal waste; 3. Composting of municipal waste; 4. Incineration with energy recovery of municipal and Commercial & Industrial waste.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Harborough Road, Kibworth Proposals: Proposed for four uses 1) Transfer station 2) Materials recover facility for municipal waste 3) Composting of municipal waste 4) Incineration with energy recovery of municipal and commercial and industrial waste; size 4.4 ha . Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

Note: Assessment based on all proposed elements being provided.

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The site is not located near to any designated - Further habitat and species surveys should wildlife habitats and species, habitats and its current use is agricultural. Losses support any applications for the site. avoiding damage to or of agricultural land habitats are likely to be minor. fragmentation of major features Barn owl and bats have been recorded. of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is designated as an Area of Particularly -- Mitigation measures could include quality of the countryside and Attractive Countryside in the Local Plan. The landscaping, screening and sympathetic landscape development is likely to have significant negative design of any buildings. effects on the quality of the countryside 3 To protect places and buildings Potential for archaeology may exist at the site - Archaeological surveys may be required to of archaeological, cultural and which may be disturbed with slight negative determine the nature and significance of any historic value effects. archaeological remains. Adequate provision can then be made for the preservation, excavation or recording of any interest. 4 To protect the quality of ground An un-named watercourse flows through the site -- Mitigation measures could include the use of and surface waters and there is potential for contaminated runoff Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. during construction and also impermeable areas once operational. The effect has the potential to be significantly negative. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The loss of agricultural land (Grade 3) from the -- Minimise landtake. Soil storage or transfer safeguard soil quality and development is likely to have a significant quantity negative effect through the loss of 4.4 ha of agricultural land. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures Air quality emissions/ mitigation that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and should be incorporated into design & measures should be detailed in any systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. The effect is operation proposals. Traffic minimisation future planning application/ health likely to be permanent. Mitigation should ensure assessments should be supplied as above Environmental Impact Assessment for vehicle trips to the site are minimised. The the development. proposal for incineration of municipal and commercial & industrial waste has the potential for significant negative effects through emissions

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a significant effect - Any proposal should be accompanied with Mitigation measures should be detailed waste development to adverse through additional CO 2 emissions from the details on traffic movements in terms of their in any future planning application/ climate change through reduced incineration process and additional vehicle trips to numbers and routing, associated emissions Environmental Statement for the greenhouse gas emissions. the site. and their effect on air quality. development. 8 To minimise public nuisance Although the nearest residential properties are - Mitigation measures should include noise from waste treatment and located approximately 1 km to the west of the site and odour attenuation measures. Although disposal. in Kibworth Beauchamp, there is the potential for modern technologies are clean burning, slight negative effects through noise and odour mitigation measures to ensure lack of emissions on these properties. nuisance would be required for the The proposal for incineration with energy recovery incinerator. has the potential for nuisance effects, or perceived nuisance, from air emissions to Kibworth Beauchamp. 9 To maximise the benefits to There is potential for a slight negative effect on - Appropriate protection measures should be Further detailed investigations would be human health and well-being human health through increased air emissions incorporated into the design required in any future planning and potentially contaminated surface and ground application/ Environmental Impact waters, Assessment for the development 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The site is currently in agricultural land use - Minimise land take Not necessarily best and most versatile developed land and to prevent (Grade 3), which will be lost through the land. Further information required on irretrievable loss of the best and development of the site. whether site is 3a or 3b soil. If BMV, most versatile agricultural land effect likely to be significantly negative given site area 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposal is likely to have a significant positive ++ Not necessary as effect is positive landfilled and to maximise re- effect through recovering, reusing and recycling use, recovery and recycling of materials. Final disposal via incineration removes waste this from landfill and offers the potential for energy production. 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site Further information is required on particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and anticipated vehicle movements. transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. Rail Further information is required on rail waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. potential should be investigated and rail potential. Present knowledge of site vehicle emissions, in line with incorporated into proposals if feasible indicates rail potential is low the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency The proposal is likely to have a significant positive 0/++ Not applicable as effect positive Only positive if incineration with energy and the production of renewable effect through the generation of energy through recovery is incorporated. energy the waste to energy process if this element is incorporated.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not applicable as effect positive and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as Part of the site is located on a flood plain and -- A Flood Risk Assessment is required for the a result of waste development there is potential for a significant negative through surface water management on site and any increased flood risk. loss of floodplain will require an appropriate flood compensation scheme. There should be no overall increase in the surface water discharge from the site with any additional flows being attenuated prior to discharge.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

H3 Shawell Quarry

Parish Council Shawell District/Borough Council Harborough Brief Description of Proposal 1. Non hazardous waste landfill facility (area A) 2. Materials recovery facility to deal with municipal waste and commercial & industrial wastes (area B) 3. Relocation of existing aggregate recycling facility (area C).

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Shawell Quarry Proposals: 1) Non-hazardous waste landfill facility (area A) 2) Materials recovery facility to deal with municipal waste and commercial & industrial waste (area B) 3) Relocation of existing aggregate recycling facility (area C); size 84.8 ha

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

NOTE: The assessment of this site has been based on all elements of the proposals coming forward

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance Hedgerows of district and parish level ecological Protection of habitats where possible, and Landfill follows mineral extraction. wildlife habitats and species, significance fall within and alongside the border of -- habitat creation and enhancement post Agricultural land habitats will lost through avoiding damage to or the site, which is a former sand and gravel operation. the extraction of mineral reserves, fragmentation of major features extraction area, with 3 of these being classed of although this is unrelated to the waste of importance for fauna and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation operations. flora (SINC). Part of the site also encroaches into Shawell Pits which is of County level ecological significance. Roosting bats have been recorded in the vicinity. There is the potential for significant negative effects on these receptors. The site is part agriculture and part silt lagoons / sand and gravel extraction. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is in open countryside. Part of the site is - Landscape bunding and planting where quality of the countryside and currently in use as agriculture, although this will appropriate during operation. The after use landscape be lost through the excavation of minerals restoration scheme must consider landscape reserves. Landfilling activities have the potential to character and the quality of the countryside. have a negative effect on the quality of the countryside, although the restoration scheme for the landfill could have a positive effect on the quality of the countryside in the long term. The buildings associated with MRF likely to have a permanent negative effect; the relocation of aggregates facility is unlikely to have effect. The overall effect is likely to be slightly negative. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground An un-named watercourse runs through the -- Appropriate protection measures should be and surface waters northern section of site A, and the Shawell Brook incorporated into the design to ensure that runs along the southern tip of site A. There is ground and surface waters are not at risk potential for both ground and surface water from contamination. contamination to these receptors with significant effect.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

5 To avoid soil contamination and The proposal for landfilling operations of either -- Any site drainage associated with waste safeguard soil quality and inert or non-hazardous waste presents the activities would need to be designed so as quantity possibility of introducing contamination into the not to discharge to the underlying strata. underlying soil of the site. There is the potential for significant effects on soil contamination for the landfilling activities. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. However this numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health may be minimised by collocation of facilities and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The development of site A is likely to have a slight - A gas migration system should be a waste development to adverse negative effect through the emission of both CO 2 requirement for the site alongside measures climate change through reduced and methane. Overall, when considered in to minimise vehicle trips to the site. Energy greenhouse gas emissions. combination with a likely increase in road traffic and emissions minimising measures should associated with the site, there is likely to be a be incorporated into design & operation slight negative effect on greenhouse gas proposals. Traffic minimisation assessments emissions. should be supplied as above 8 To minimise public nuisance There is potential for negative noise, dust and -- Noise effects could be mitigated by noise Site planning requirements should from waste treatment and odour effects on Shawell Village which is attenuation measures such a barriers and include controls on any potential disposal. approximately 200m to the east of the site and appropriate choice of equipment. Dust and negative effects from these sources. Cotesbach village to the north. odour can be minimised by appropriate watering and covering techniques to minimise the amount of exposed refuse. 9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals has the potential - Appropriate protection measures should be human health and well-being for a slight indirect negative effect on human incorporated into the design health through exposure to water and air contaminants 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives

12 To encourage better use of The site is largely greenfield, landfilling will take + Not required as effect positive. Part of site is existing silte lagoon developed land and to prevent place after mineral extraction. While Quarry sites irretrievable loss of the best and are not PDL, the proposals would have potential most versatile agricultural land to reinstate some agricultural land following disturbance by quarrying activity 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposals for recovery and aggregate ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- recycling will have a significant positive effect. use, recovery and recycling of waste

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site Access to the site will have possible particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and effects on surrounding villages. transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. The site requirements could be improved and the production of renewable by including the provision for energy energy generation from harvested landfill gas, and the incorporation of energy efficiency measures where practicable. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The southern part of the site lies within the -- Flood Risk Assessments should be a result of waste development floodplain of the Shawell Brook (‘low’ flood risk), conducted for the site proposals. with the potential for significant negative effects on flood risk.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

HB1 E Taylor Recycling, Leicester Road, Hinckley

Parish Council Hinckley District/Borough Council Hinckley & Bosworth Brief Description of Proposal Extension of existing site comprising materials recovery facility and transfer station.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: E Taylor, Leicester Road, Hinckley. Proposal: Extension of existing site comprising materials recovery facility and transfer station, size 1.58h. Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance There is potential for a significant negative effect --- Detailed habitat/species surveys would be wildlife habitats and species, on wildlife habitats from the proposed extension to required to identify species and habitats of avoiding damage to or the site which is designated as Green Wedge. the site. Translocation and/or additional fragmentation of major features Although the site itself is not designated, Burbage habitat creation/ enhancement may be of importance for fauna and Common and Woods Local Nature Reserve required. flora (district level ecological significance) lies directly to the south of the site and there is a pond of parish level interest on the adjacent gold course. Bats, watervole and otter have been recorded in the vicinity of the site. Burbage Woods and Aston Firs SSSI lie approximately 750m to the south of the site. 2 To conserve and enhance the There is potential for a significant negative effect --- Effective screening and design of the quality of the countryside and as the site is currently designated as green wedge development to minimise effect on landscape in the Local Plan, is greenfield and in an area of landscape character, however it is likely that open countryside. The effect is likely to be there will be residual effects from the permanent and long term. proposal. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground The nature of the site proposal is unlikely to have - Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems should and surface waters a significant effect on water quality, although as be used to control and treat any surface the site is located on a flood plain, there is the runoff from the site. potential for runoff contaminating local waterways during times of high rainfall. The overall effect is slightly negative. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The proposal will have a significant negative effect -- The design of the proposal should seek to safeguard soil quality and through the loss of a quantity of approximately minimise the amount of land taken. Seek quantity 1.58h of greenfield land. alternative brownfield sites. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels There is a potential slight negative effect on levels - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural of air quality due to additional traffic movements details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human and increased air emissions. The scale of effect is numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health largely uncertain at this time. and their effect on air quality. applications for the site.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

7 To minimise the contribution of The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. However, waste development to adverse slight positive effect on reducing greenhouse gas energy and emissions minimising measures climate change through reduced emissions through facilitating additional recovery should be incorporated into design & greenhouse gas emissions. and recycling of waste materials. Although operation proposals. Traffic minimisation additional traffic movements are likely to access assessments should be supplied as above the site, with the potential for an increase in traffic related greenhouse gas emissions, the overall effect is likely to be slightly positive. 8 To minimise public nuisance The nearest receptor to the proposed site is the - Noise effects could be mitigated by noise Site planning requirements should from waste treatment and Hinckley Golf Club and Clubhouse, which is less attenuation measures such as barriers and include controls on any potential disposal. than 100m from the proposed site boundary. appropriate choice of equipment. The design negative noise effects. Although the current site may already cause a of the site should consider odour and dust degree of disturbance, extension of the site closer issues. to the golf club is likely to have a slightly negative effect through noise, odour and dust emissions. 9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not applicable human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of Although the site is not located on agricultural - Design of the site should minimise the developed land and to prevent land, the site is considered greenfield and is required land take to minimise the negative irretrievable loss of the best and designated as a green wedge in the Local Plan. effect on loss of greenfield land. most versatile agricultural land The effect is likely to be slightly negative, although permanent. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The extension of the site to increase materials ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- recovery and recycling is likely to have a use, recovery and recycling of significant positive effect on minimising the waste quantities of waste landfilled. 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The extension of the site is likely to have a slightly - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the negative effect through the additional road traffic should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated movements generated, although traffic already proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby accesses the existing site and traffic growth may vehicle emissions, in line with be minimal. the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency The current site allocation contains no proposals 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable for energy efficiency or the production of and incorporation of energy saving energy renewable energy. measures where practical should be considered in site requirements.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

16 To promote stable employment The existing site currently employs 12 people, and + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the further development of the site is likely to have a Framework Area slight positive effect through creating additional employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable Development of the site is unlikely to economic growth in the have an effect on promoting sustainable Framework Area economic growth. 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. The site is not designated as a Regionally Important Geological Site or SSSI. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as Part of the site lies within the ‘low’ risk flood plain -- No development should take place within the a result of waste development as identified by the Environment Agency, where floodplain without the provision of the chance of flooding each year is 0.5% (1 in appropriate mitigation/compensation. There 200) or less. There is potential for a significant should be no increase in surface water negative effect on increasing flood risk. runoff from the site.

100

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

HB2 G Taylor, Leicester Road, Hinckley

Parish Council Hinckley District/Borough Council Hinckley & Bosworth Brief Description of Proposal Proposed extension to existing transfer station.

101

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: G Taylor, Leicester Road, Hinckley. Proposal: Proposed extension to existing transfer station, size 0.06h

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance There is potential for a negative effect on wildlife -- Detailed habitat/species surveys would be wildlife habitats and species, habitats from the proposed extension to the site. required to identify species and habitats of avoiding damage to or Although the site itself is not designated, Burbage the site. Translocation and/or additional fragmentation of major features Common and Woods Local Nature Reserve habitat creation/ enhancement may be of importance for fauna and (district level ecological significance) lies directly required. flora to the south of the site and there is a pond of parish level interest on the adjacent gold course. Bats, watervole and otter have been recorded in the vicinity of the site. Burbage Woods and Aston Firs SSSI lie approximately 750m to the south of the site. 2 To conserve and enhance the There is potential for a negative effect as the site -- Effective screening and design of the The site is currently in use for quality of the countryside and is currently designated as green wedge in the development to minimise effect on residential. landscape Local Plan (although the site is currently in landscape character. residential use), is greenfield and in an area of open countryside. The effect is likely to be permanent and long term. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground The nature of the site proposal is likely to have a - Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems should and surface waters significant effect on surface water quality, through be used to control and treat any surface the potential for runoff contaminating local runoff from the site. waterways. 5 To avoid soil contamination and No effect. 0 Not applicable. Development of the site is unlikely to safeguard soil quality and have an effect on soil contamination and quantity quality and quantity as the site is currently in residential use. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels There is a potential slight negative effect on levels - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural of air quality due to additional traffic movements details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human and increased air emissions. The scale of effect is numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health largely uncertain at this time. and their effect on air quality. applications for the site.

102

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

7 To minimise the contribution of The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. However, waste development to adverse slight positive effect on reducing greenhouse gas energy and emissions minimising measures climate change through reduced emissions through facilitating additional recovery should be incorporated into design & greenhouse gas emissions. and recycling of waste materials. Although operation proposals. Traffic minimisation additional traffic movements are likely to access assessments should be supplied as above the site, with the potential for an increase in traffic related greenhouse gas emissions, the overall effect is likely to be slightly positive. 8 To minimise public nuisance The nearest receptor to the proposed site is a - Noise effects could be mitigated by noise Site planning requirements should from waste treatment and residential building adjoining the site boundary to attenuation measures such a barriers and include controls on any potential disposal. the north east; additionally the rear of the site appropriate choice of equipment. negative noise effects. backs on a car park used for Burbage Common. There is a potential for a slight negative effect from additional noise from the site proposals. 9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 No effect human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of Although the site is not located on agricultural - Design of the site should minimise the developed land and to prevent land, the site is considered greenfield and is required land take to minimise the negative irretrievable loss of the best and designated as a green wedge in the Local Plan. effect on loss of greenfield land. most versatile agricultural land The effect is likely to be slightly negative, although permanent. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The extension to the site will have a positive effect + Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- on the ability to process waste to landfill. use, recovery and recycling of waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The extension of the site is likely to have a slightly - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the negative effect through the additional road traffic should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated movements generated, although traffic already proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby accesses the existing site and traffic growth may vehicle emissions, in line with be minimal. the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency The current site allocation contains no proposals 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable for energy efficiency or the production of and incorporation of energy saving energy renewable energy. measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The further development of the site is likely to + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the have a slight positive effect through creating Framework Area additional employment opportunities.

103

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable Development of the site is unlikely to economic growth in the have an effect on promoting sustainable Framework Area economic growth. 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. The site is not designated as a Regionally Important Geological Site or SSSI. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of 0 Not applicable. a result of waste development flooding.

104

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

HB3 Thornton Lane, Markfield

Parish Council Markfield District/Borough Council Hinckley & Bosworth Brief Description of Proposal Deposition of inert waste in conjunction with a proposed leisure scheme for the site

105

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Thornton Lane, Markfield Proposal: Deposition of inert waste in conjunction with a proposed leisure scheme for the site, size 6.7h

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The site, in agricultural use, lies adjacent to a - A buffer zone will be required between the wildlife habitats and species, marshy grassland of district level ecological site and marshy grassland. avoiding damage to or significance. Bats have been recorded in the fragmentation of major features vicinity. Overall there is potential for a slight of importance for fauna and negative effect. flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The proposal is likely to have a significant -- Screening bunds and potentially planting quality of the countryside and negative effect as it is located in an agricultural would be required on the site. landscape field in an area of open countryside. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground Although the site is underlain by a non aquifer, an -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters un-named watercourse which feeds into the to be incorporated into the design of the site Thornton Reservoir lies immediately next to the to ensure that ground and surface waters site boundary. There is potential for significant are not at risk from contamination. Drainage negative effects from runoff from the site. from the site would need to be passed into a sealed system. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The development of the site will result in the loss -- Reduce land take of development proposals. safeguard soil quality and of 6.7h of grade 3 agricultural land. The effect on quantity the quantity of agricultural land will be significantly negative and permanent. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Traffic minimisation assessments should be waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions supplied as above climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. 8 To minimise public nuisance The nearest residential property lies -- Appropriate choice of equipment and noise from waste treatment and approximately 20m from the site. There is the and dust attenuation measures. disposal. potential for significant negative effects from noise and dust on this residential property, and other properties to the east of the site.

106

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not applicable human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The development of this agricultural site has a -- Seek alternative brownfield sites. Minimise developed land and to prevent significant negative effect. land take of site proposals. irretrievable loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste No effect. 0 Not applicable. No recycling facilities are proposed for landfilled and to maximise re- the site. use, recovery and recycling of waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. and the production of renewable energy 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of - Development should take account of a result of waste development flooding. However Part of the site lies adjacent to adjacent floodplain. Design of proposals a small area of ‘low’ risk flood plain as identified should ensure no increase in surface water by the Environment Agency, where the chance of runoff from the site. flooding each year is 0.5% (1 in 200) or less. There is potential for a slight negative effect on increasing flood risk through increased run-off.

107

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

HB4 Nailstone Colliery

Parish Council Nailstone District/Borough Council Hinckley & Bosworth Brief Description of Proposal 1. Municipal Waste Treatment (including potential incineration with energy recovery) 2. Composting (in southern third of the site). 3. Recycling (in southern third of the site). 4. Landfill for non-hazardous waste (in northern two thirds of the site).

108

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Nailstone Quarry Proposals: 1) Municipal Waste Treatment inc incineration with energy recovery 2) Composting (in southern third of the site) 3) Recycling (in southern third of the site) 4) Landfill for non-hazardous waste (in northern two thirds of site); size 0.6 sq km

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

NOTE: The assessment of this site has been based on all elements of the proposals coming forward. If landfill only were to be approved, this would lead to a far greater number of significant negative effects, and the synergy of co-location would be lost. Effect of incineration with energy recovery assessed in addition.

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The southern and eastern parts of the site are of -- Proposals should aim to maintain the Although the composting and recycling wildlife habitats and species, Parish level ecological significance. Active badger biodiversity interest of the site, whilst the proposals are located in the southern avoiding damage to or setts have been recorded at the site. ‘Wet restoration scheme should aim to enhance third of the site, and will have less effect fragmentation of major features woodland’ BAP priority habitats are also present local biodiversity interest. than infilling operations, mitigation of importance for fauna and towards the southern part of the site. There are measures would be required to minimise flora potential significant negative effects on these negative effects on habitats and species. receptors from the site proposals. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is currently an unused former colliery site, -/-- Mitigation to include the retention and The scale of the effect is dependent on quality of the countryside and and the potential exists for slight negative effects enhancement of existing screening bunds the details of the proposal. Incineration landscape on the quality of the countryside. and vegetation. would have more significant effects than other uses. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground The proposal for landfilling operations of non- -- Appropriate protection measures would need Further information required on surface and surface waters hazardous waste presents the possibility of to be incorporated into the design to ensure and groundwater characteristics of the contaminating surface and groundwaters. that ground and surface waters are not at site to complete the assessment. Groundwater characteristics of the site are risk from contamination. Drainage from the currently unknown. There is the potential for site would need to be passed into a separate significant effects, on both surface and ground system. water, from the site. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The proposal for landfilling operations of non- -- Any site drainage associated with waste Further information required on geology safeguard soil quality and hazardous waste presents the possibility of activities would need to be designed so as characteristics of the site to complete the quantity introducing contamination into the underlying soil not to discharge to the underlying strata. assessment. of the site. Geological characteristics of the site are currently unknown. There is the potential for significant effects on soil contamination for the landfilling activities. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This

109

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. Additionally numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health there is potential for negative effects on air quality and their effect on air quality. Air quality applications for the site. from the proposal for incineration. The overall has emissions/ mitigation measures should be the potential to be significantly permanent. detailed in any future planning application/ Environmental Impact Assessment for the development. 7 To minimise the contribution of The development of the site as a landfill is likely to - A gas migration system should be a waste development to adverse have a slight negative effect through the emission requirement for the site alongside measures climate change through reduced of both CO 2 and methane. Overall, when to minimise vehicle trips to the site. Energy greenhouse gas emissions. considered in combination with a likely increase in and emissions minimising measures should road traffic associated with the site, there is likely be incorporated into design & operation to be a slight negative effect on greenhouse gas proposals. Traffic minimisation assessments emissions. should be supplied as above 8 To minimise public nuisance The landfill proposal has the potential for -- Noise effects could be mitigated by noise Site planning requirements should from waste treatment and significant negative effects on nearby properties attenuation measures such a barriers and include controls on any potential disposal. through potential noise, dust, odour and bird appropriate choice of equipment. Dust and negative effects from these sources. nuisance problems. odour can be minimised by appropriate watering and covering techniques to minimise the amount of exposed refuse. 9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals, has the potential - Appropriate protection measures would need human health and well-being for a slight indirect negative effect on human to be incorporated into the design to ensure health through exposure to air and water that ground and surface waters are not at contaminants. risk from contamination. Drainage from the site would need to be passed into a separate system. 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. The Colliery has ceased operating. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The development of the former colliery for waste ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent management has a significant positive effect on irretrievable loss of the best and encouraging the better use of developed land. most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposals for municipal waste treatment, ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- composting, and recycling prior to landfill will have use, recovery and recycling of significant positive effect on minimising the waste quantities of waste landfilled.

110

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have an overall slight + Not required as effect positive. particular to reduce the positive effect on reducing the need to travel transportation of untreated through the provision of an integrated waste waste by road, and thereby management facility, with the provision of four vehicle emissions, in line with types of waste disposal/re-use/recycling facilities the proximity principle provided at the same site. Vehicle movements will be required to transport waste to the site, however these will be minimised when compared to individual waste treatment site situated separately. 15 To increase energy efficiency The proposal could have a significant positive 0/++ Not required as effect positive. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable effect through the generation of energy through and incorporation of energy saving energy the waste to energy process if incineration with measures (into the transfer station and energy recovery.is applied. composting and recycling facilities) where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect 0 Not applicable 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of 0 Not applicable. a result of waste development flooding.

111

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

L1 Sunningdale Road, Leicester

Parish Council N/A District/Borough Council Leicester City Brief Description of Proposal Recycling of construction & demolition, non- hazardous household and commercial & industrial wastes

112

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Sunningdale Road, Leicester Proposal: Recycling of construction & demolition, non-hazardous household and commercial & industrial wastes, size 3 ha, potential capacity 25,000 tonnes/annum

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The existing use of the site is industrial. To the - Protection and enhancement of the existing Habitat creation may enhance the wildlife habitats and species, south and west of the site is designated a nature conservation value of the site, biodiversity value of the developed site. avoiding damage to or Biodiversity Enhancement Site in the Leicester including, where possible, enhancement at fragmentation of major features Local Plan. Meynell’s Gorse SINC lies to the the part of the site identified as a Biodiversity of importance for fauna and south of the site. Enhancement Site by the Leicester City flora Council Local Plan. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located in an urban area and will have 0 Not applicable. quality of the countryside and no effect. landscape 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the lack of of archaeological, cultural and receptors in the vicinity of the site. historic value 4 To protect the quality of ground The location of surface watercourses and the - Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters nature of the hydrogeology of the site. From the to be incorporated into the design to ensure proposed use of the site, there is potential for that surface and ground waters are not at contamination of both surface and ground waters, risk from contamination. Sustainable Urban with a potential slight negative effect, although the Drainage Systems should be used where scale of this effect is uncertain. appropriate. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The site has the potential to be contaminated from -- Soil contamination studies should be carried safeguard soil quality and previous land uses (industrial). There is potential out prior to development to ascertain quantity from the proposals to introduce additional contamination levels. All drainage from the contamination into the soil from contaminated site should be passed into a sealed system. runoff, and also to mobilise existing contaminants within the soil profile. Overall there is potential for a significant negative effect. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels Access is likely to be by road via existing - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural industrial estate roads. Therefore the proposal is details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human likely to have a slight negative effect through numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health additional vehicle trips and associated emissions and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. to the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Possible utilisation of transport vehicles waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions powered by bio fuels or solar power. climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the Generation of renewable energy on site. greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent.

113

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

8 To minimise public nuisance The nearest residential properties to the site are - The site should be designed to minimise from waste treatment and located approximately 150m to the southwest of potential negative effects through disposal. the site, however they are separated by the park sympathetic design, noise, dust and odour and ride and road. There is a permanent caravan attenuation measures. site 50m to south of site, also separated from site by railway. There is potential for slight negative effect through dust, noise and odour emissions, although the buffering effect provided by the uses described above is likely to lessen any negative effects. 9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not applicable human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The proposal will have a significant positive effect ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent on encouraging the better use of developed land. irretrievable loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposal will have a significant positive effect ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- on encouraging the better use of developed land. use, recovery and recycling of waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in Access is likely to be by road via existing - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the industrial estate roads. Therefore the proposal is should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated likely to have a slight negative effect through proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby additional vehicle trips required to transport waste vehicle emissions, in line with to the site. the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area

114

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

115

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

L2 Ulverscroft Road, Leicester

Parish Council N/A District/Borough Council Leicester City Brief Description of Proposal Materials Recovery Facility for Construction & Demolition, Commercial & Industrial and municipal wastes.

116

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Ulverscroft Road, Leicester Proposal: Materials Recovery Facility for Construction & Demolition, Commercial & Industrial and municipal wastes, potential capacity 80,000 tonnes/annum construction & demolition waste recycling or 250,000 tonnes/annum MRF

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The site is currently brownfield land (disused - Protection and enhancement of the existing wildlife habitats and species, railway sidings) and as such is likely to support nature conservation value of the site, avoiding damage to or brownfield habitats and species of value, although including, where possible, enhancement at fragmentation of major features sites surveys will be required to determine the the part of the site identified as a Biodiversity of importance for fauna and extent and value of these habitats. Development Enhancement Site by the Leicester City flora of the site has the potential to destroy these Council Local Plan. habitats, with a slight negative effect, although due to the largely unknown habitat value of the site, this effect has a high degree of uncertainty. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located in an urban area and will have 0 Not applicable. quality of the countryside and no effect on the quality of the countryside. landscape 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the lack of of archaeological, cultural and receptors in the vicinity of the site. historic value 4 To protect the quality of ground The Willow Brook lies directly beneath the site -- Appropriate protection measures would need Assessment based on Environment and surface waters and, according to the Environment Agency, is to be incorporated into the design to ensure Agency correspondence 15.03.06. probably culverted. The site is also underlain by a that surface and ground waters are not at minor aquifer. Due to the nature of the site risk from contamination. All drainage from proposals, there is potential for a significant the site should be passed into a sealed negative effect on surface and groundwater from system. the site, due to contaminated runoff. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The site has the potential to be contaminated from -- Soil contamination studies should be carried safeguard soil quality and previous land uses (particularly rail sidings). There out prior to development to ascertain quantity is potential from the proposals to introduce contamination levels. All drainage from the additional contamination into the soil from site should be passed into a sealed system. contaminated runoff, and also to mobilise existing contaminants within the soil profile. Overall there is potential for a significant negative effect.

117

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

6 To limit emissions to air to levels The site is located directly adjacent to an active +/- Transport of waste to the site should be via that will not damage natural rail line and has the potential to receive waste the rail sidings where suitable. systems and affect human from rail. If this mode of transport is used, this will health have a slight positive effect on limiting emissions. However, there is potential for the site to receive wastes from road transportation, and if this occurs, the proposal is likely to have a slight negative effect through additional vehicle trips and associated emissions to the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The site is located directly adjacent to an active +/- Transport of waste to the site should be via waste development to adverse rail line and has the potential to receive waste the rail sidings where suitable. Energy and climate change through reduced from rail. If this mode of transport is used, this will emissions minimising measures should be greenhouse gas emissions. have a slight positive effect on limiting incorporated into design & operation greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is proposals. Traffic minimisation assessments potential for the site to receive wastes from road should be supplied transportation, and if this occurs, the proposal is likely to have a slight negative effect through additional vehicle trips and associated greenhouse gas emissions to the site. 8 To minimise public nuisance The nearest residential properties are located -- The site should be designed to minimise from waste treatment and approximately 60m from the site boundary, with potential negative effects through disposal. the potential for significant negative visual, noise, sympathetic design, noise, dust and odour odour and dust effects on these properties. attenuation measures. 9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals, has the potential - Appropriate protection measures would need human health and well-being for a slight indirect negative effect on human to be incorporated into the design to ensure health through exposure to air and water that ground and surface waters are not at contaminants. risk from contamination. Drainage from the site would need to be passed into a separate system. 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The proposal will have a significant positive effect ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent on encouraging the better use of developed land. irretrievable loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposal for a Materials Recovery Facility will ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- have a significant positive effect. use, recovery and recycling of waste

118

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

14 To reduce the need to travel, in The site location close to potential waste sources -/++ Proposals should address feasibility of using particular to reduce the and adjacent to rail sidings with the potential to rail line. transportation of untreated transport wastes to the site by rail, has the waste by road, and thereby potential for a significant positive effect by vehicle emissions, in line with reducing the transportation of untreated waste by the proximity principle road and allowing treated waste to be transported by train. If rail not used, potential for negative effects from road transport. 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area local employment opportunities in City which has higher unemployment rates than County 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

119

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

M1 Brooksby Quarry

Parish Council Hoby, Rotherby, Ragdale & Brooksby District/Borough Council Melton Brief Description of Proposal Integrated waste management facility comprising: • Within Area A: 1. Materials Recovery Facility to deal with municipal and commercial & industrial wastes; 2. Aggregates recycling facility; and 3. Green waste composting facility • Within Area B: 4. Non-hazardous waste landfill

120

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Brooksby Quarry Proposals: 1) Materials recovery facility to deal with municipal and commercial & industrial wastes 2) Aggregates recycling facility 3) Green waste composting facility 4) Non- hazardous waste landfill; size 138 ha, potential landfill capacity 5,000,000 cubic metres

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

NOTE: The assessment of this site has been based on all elements of the proposals coming forward.

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The nearest designated site to Brooksby Quarry, - A restoration scheme or design conditions Brooksby Quarry is to be disturbed by wildlife habitats and species, currently in sand and gravel extraction and should be required that would benefit local mineral extraction that already has avoiding damage to or agricultural use, are the areas of floodplain and biodiversity and potentially enhance local planning permission. fragmentation of major features grazing marsh BAP priority habitat located habitats. of importance for fauna and approximately 1 km to the north of the site flora alongside the River Wreake. Due to the distance to these habitats, effects are unlikely. However, as the site is located in open countryside and agricultural land, there is the potential for minor effects on non-designated agricultural land habitats that will be affected by proximity effects. 2 To conserve and enhance the The effect of the landfilling operations is likely to - Landscaping and site planting would be The proposed expansion to the site that quality of the countryside and have a slight negative effect on the quality of the required to minimise negative visual and is currently used for sand and gravel landscape countryside during operation, however in the landscape effects. extraction over an area of open longer term the restoration of the site presents an countryside and agricultural land is likely opportunity to restore the landscape character to have a negative effect on the quality and quality of the site. The permanent of the countryside and landscape construction of waste management plant at the (although this currently has planning site is likely to have a slight negative effect. permission for mineral extraction). Overall, the effect is likely to be slightly negative 3 To protect places and buildings A number of archaeological sites are known from - Archaeological surveys may be required to of archaeological, cultural and within the site or in the immediate vicinity of the determine the nature and significance of any historic value proposed areas suggesting a potential for buried archaeological remains. Adequate provision archaeological remains. The presence of organic- can then be made for the preservation, rich river deposits within the sands and gravels excavation or recording of any interest. are potentially of national significance. There is potential for significant negative effects on these identified receptors.

121

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

4 To protect the quality of ground The site is located on a minor aquifer and an un- -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters named watercourse which feeds into the River to be incorporated into the design of the site Wreake runs through the middle of the site. There to ensure that ground and surface waters is potential for significant negative effects on both are not at risk from contamination. Drainage ground and surface waters from the non- from the site would need to be passed into a hazardous waste landfill from contaminated sealed system and treated prior to disposal. surface water runoff and groundwater leachate. 5 To avoid soil contamination and Brooksby quarry currently has planning -- Any site drainage associated with waste Brooksby Quarry to be disturbed by safeguard soil quality and permission. Landfill operations have the potential activities would need to be designed so as mineral extraction as already has quantity to introduce contamination into the underlying not to discharge to the underlying strata. planning permission. strata of the site, with the potential for significant negative effects. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels There is a potential slight negative effect on levels - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural of air quality due to additional traffic movements details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human and increased air emissions. The scale of effect is numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health largely uncertain at this time. and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of Although the proposed site uses include an - The efficiency of the material recovery and waste development to adverse integrated waste management facility comprising recycling facilities should be maximised to climate change through reduced a materials recovery facility, an aggregates reduce the amount of non-hazardous waste greenhouse gas emissions. recycling facility, and a green waste facility, which entering the landfill. A gas migration system will minimise greenhouse gas emissions should be a requirement to reduce methane compared to landfilling techniques, the non emissions. hazardous waste landfill proposal is likely to have a slight negative effect through increased CO 2 and methane emissions. Overall, when considered in combination with a likely increase in road traffic associated with the site, there is likely to be a slight negative effect on greenhouse gas emissions. 8 To minimise public nuisance Although the site is located within an area of open -- Noise effects could be mitigated by noise Site planning requirements should from waste treatment and countryside, the site is located approximately attenuation measures such a barriers and include controls on any potential disposal. 300m south west of the Agricultural College and appropriate choice of equipment. Dust and negative effects from these sources. less than 150m away from several farms. There is odour can be minimised by appropriate potential for a significant negative effect from watering and covering techniques to noise, dust and odour of the landfilling activities minimise the amount of exposed refuse. on these receptors. 9 To maximise the benefits to The nature of the site proposals,have the potential - Appropriate protection measures would need human health and well-being for a slight indirect negative on human health to be incorporated into the design of the site through exposure to dust, emissions, to avoid pollution and contamination. contaminated drinking waters. 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. Landfill operations will begin once the 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves mineral reserves in the planned quarry reserve have been utilised.

122

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The quarry is not classed as PDL. The waste + Not applicable Brooksby Quarry to be disturbed by developed land and to prevent proposals for the site are likely to have a slight mineral extraction as already has irretrievable loss of the best and positive effect on restoring this disturbed land and planning permission (this extraction is most versatile agricultural land offering potential for reinstating agricultural land. likely to have a negative effect on the loss of agricultural land but already has planning permission). Agricultural grade of land to be disturbed unknown. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposal for a fully integrated waste ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- management facility is likely to have a significant use, recovery and recycling of positive effect through the provision of a materials waste recovery facility, aggregates recycling facility, and green waste composting facility. 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have an overall slight + Not required as effect positive. particular to reduce the positive effect on reducing the need to travel transportation of untreated through the provision of an integrated waste waste by road, and thereby management facility, with the provision of four vehicle emissions, in line with types of waste disposal/re-use/recycling facilities the proximity principle provided at the same site. Vehicle movements will be required to transport waste to the site, however these will be minimised when compared to individual waste treatment sites situated separately. 15 To increase energy efficiency The current site allocation contains no proposals 0 Not applicable. The site requirements could be improved and the production of renewable for energy efficiency or the production of by including the provision for energy energy renewable energy. generation from harvested landfill gas, and the incorporation of energy efficiency measures where practicable. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the slight positive effect through the provision of new Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. The site is not designated as a Regionally Important Geological Site or SSSI.

123

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies on the flood plain of an unnamed -- Any development in the floodplain will a result of waste development watercourse which feeds into the River Wreake. require compensation for the lost floodplain The flood plain is identified by the Environment and/or mitigation against the risk posed to Agency as being ‘low’ risk, with a chance of the development. A Flood Risk Assessment flooding of each year of 0.5% (1 in 200) or less. would be required for surface water Overall, there is the potential for significant management and there should be no overall negative effects without appropriate mitigation. increase in the surface water discharge from sites.

124

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

NW1 Coalville RHWS (WITHDRAWN)

Parish Council Coalville District/Borough Council North West Leicestershire Brief Description of Proposal Extension to County Council’s existing Recycling and Household Waste Site or transfer station, or provision of new transfer station.

125

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Coalville RHWS Site Proposals: Extension to RHWS site, new transfer station; size 0.62 ha; potential capacity 10,000-25,000 tonnes/annum

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The site (a car park and scrubland) is located 0 Not applicable. wildlife habitats and species, within an urban area and no located near any avoiding damage to or designated habitats. Development of the site is fragmentation of major features unlikely to have an effect. of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located within an urban area and 0 Not applicable. quality of the countryside and development will have no effect. landscape 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the lack of known of archaeological, cultural and receptors in the vicinity of the site. historic value 4 To protect the quality of ground There are no surface watercourses or licensed - Sustainable urban drainage systems. and surface waters groundwater abstractions in the area and the site is underlain by a non aquifer. However, surface water runoff from the site will have the potential to carry contaminants into the receiving environment, with the potential for slight negative effects. 5 To avoid soil contamination and There is potential for runoff from the site to - Sustainable urban drainage systems. safeguard soil quality and introduce contaminants into the soil of the site, quantity with a potential slight negative effect on soil quality. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels There is a potential slight negative effect on levels - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural of air quality due to additional traffic movements details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human and increased air emissions. The scale of effect is numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health largely uncertain at this time. and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above .

126

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

8 To minimise public nuisance The site is located approximately 60m from the - Noise attenuation and dust & odour control from waste treatment and nearest residential properties, but is separated measures. disposal. from them by existing industrial units. Given that the site is currently in use as a RHWS site, and the buffering effect of the existing industrial units, there is likely to be a slight negative effect through noise and odour emissions on the existing residential properties. 9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not applicable human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The development of the site will have a significant ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent positive effect on encouraging the better use of irretrievable loss of the best and developed land. most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The extension of the recycling site will have a ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- significant positive effect on minimising quantities use, recovery and recycling of of waste landfilled. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency The current site allocation contains no proposals 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable for energy efficiency or the production of and incorporation of energy saving energy renewable energy. measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. Note: the site is currently allocated in the and employment diversity in the slight positive effect through the provision of new Local Plan for employment use. Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

127

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

128

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

NW2 Little Wigston, Appleby Magna

Parish Council Appleby Magna District/Borough Council North West Leicestershire Brief Description of Proposal Recycling and reuse of construction & demolition waste

129

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Little Wigston Proposal: Recycling and reuse of construction and demolition waste; size 1.2 ha; potential capacity 75,000 tonnes/annum

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance Although the site is located within the catchment - Habitat creation and enhancement to offset wildlife habitats and species, of the River Mease SAC, the river itself is losses. avoiding damage to or approximately 2 km from the site beyond the M42 fragmentation of major features and A444. No designated habitats are located of importance for fauna and near the site. However there is likely to be a slight flora negative effect through the loss of agricultural land habitats. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site, currently in agricultural use, is located - A proposed landscaping scheme must quality of the countryside and within an area designated as Countryside by the accompany and proposal to screen landscape NW Leicestershire Local Plan, although the site is development from nearby residences. located close to the M42. The closest residential properties are located 400m to the east. The overall effect is likely to be slightly negative. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground The proposal has the potential for a slight - Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems should The Site is within 5km of the River and surface waters negative effect on ground and surface waters from be used to control and treat any surface Mease SAC catchment and proposals potential runoff from the site. runoff from the site. may therefore require Appropriate Assessment in line with PPS9. This possibility should be scoped at proposal stage. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The proposal will have a significant negative effect -- Storage or reuse of soil elsewhere would safeguard soil quality and on soil quantity through the loss of 1.2 ha of safeguard quality soils quantity agricultural land. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. The effect is numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health likely to be permanent. and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above

130

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

8 To minimise public nuisance The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Noise attenuation and dust control Controls of noise and dust emissions from waste treatment and effect through the potential for noise and dust measures. must accompany any application for the disposal. emissions, however as the nearest residential site. properties are located 400m to the east of the site (separated by the A42), the effect is likely to be very minor. 9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not applicable human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The site is agricultural land ALC grade 2, which -- Design of the site should minimise the Note: While land is designated ALC developed land and to prevent will be lost through the development of the site. required land take to minimise the negative Grade 2, this is currently in rough, irretrievable loss of the best and The effect will be significantly negative due to the effect on loss of agricultural land. degraded state and not used for most versatile agricultural land high quality of agricultural land lost. agriculture at present. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposed use for the site (recycling and reuse ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- of construction and demolition waste) will have a use, recovery and recycling of significant positive effect on minimising the waste quantities of waste landfilled and to maximise reuse, recovery and recycling of waste. 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site Although development of the site is likely particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and to increase vehicle trips, this is transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. preferable to exporting waste from the waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. County. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable.

131

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of 0 Not applicable. a result of waste development flooding.

132

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

NW3 Hemington Quarry

Parish Council Lockington-Hemington District/Borough Council North West Leicestershire Brief Description of Proposal Continuation of existing aggregate operations on a permanent basis

133

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Hemington Quarry Proposal: Continuation of existing aggregate recycling operations on a permanent basis, potential capacity 60,000 tonnes/annum

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The continuation of the current permission for 0 Not applicable. wildlife habitats and species, aggregate recycling operations is unlikely to have avoiding damage to or an effect. fragmentation of major features of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The continuation of the current permission for 0 Not applicable. quality of the countryside and aggregate recycling operations is unlikely to have landscape an effect. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground The site is situated on a minor aquifer, is close to -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters several water bodies (ex gravel workings), and is to be incorporated into the design to ensure 35m from the River Trent. There is potential for a that ground and surface waters are not at significant negative effect from contaminated risk from contamination. Drainage from the runoff from the site. site would need to be passed into a separate system. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The proposal has the potential to introduce -- Appropriate protection measures would need safeguard soil quality and contamination into the soil of the site through to be incorporated into the design to ensure quantity contaminated runoff. There is potential for a that ground and surface waters are not at significant negative effect. risk from contamination. Drainage from the site would need to be passed into a separate system. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The continuation of the current permission is likely - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural to have a slight negative effect through vehicle details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human trips and associated emissions to the site. The numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health effect is likely to be permanent. and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above

134

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

8 To minimise public nuisance Public nuisance is likely to be minor as the - Noise attenuation and dust control Controls of noise and dust emissions from waste treatment and nearest residential property is located measures. must accompany any application for the disposal. approximately 300m to the east of the proposed site. development and across the B6540 Tamworth Road. The overall effect is likely to be slightly negative. 9 To maximise the benefits to The potential for contamination of soil and water - Measures to minimise contamination of soil human health and well-being has the potential for a slight indirect negative and water; emissions-minimising measures effect on human health through exposure 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The continuation of the current permission will ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent have a significant positive effect through the irretrievable loss of the best and continued operation of the present activities. most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The continuation of the current permission will ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- have a significant positive effect through the use, recovery and recycling of continued operation of the present activities. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site Although development of the site is likely particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and to increase vehicle trips, this is transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. The overall effect is proposed detailed mitigation measures. preferable to exporting waste from the waste by road, and thereby likely to be slightly negative. County. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of additional Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

135

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. 20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The entire site lies within the ‘low’ risk flood plain -- No development should take place within the a result of waste development as identified by the Environment Agency, where floodplain without the provision of the chance of flooding each year is 0.5% (1 in appropriate mitigation/compensation. There 200) or less. There is potential for a significant should be no increase in surface water negative effect on increasing flood risk. runoff from the site.

136

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

NW4 Ibstock Brick

Parish Council Ibstock District/Borough Council North West Leicestershire Brief Description of Proposal Landfill

137

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Ibstock Brickworks Proposal: Landfill, size 30 ha, potential capacity 3 million cubic metres

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The development of the site, currently brickworks 0 Not applicable. Development of the site may provide an wildlife habitats and species, with clay extraction, is unlikely to have an effect opportunity to create additional habitats. avoiding damage to or due to the lack of designated and locally important fragmentation of major features wildlife habitats and species. of importance for fauna and flora 2 To conserve and enhance the Current site use is for brickworks, with permission +/- Landscape bunding and planting where Current permission is for low-level quality of the countryside and for low-level restoration without waste infill. appropriate during operation. The after use restoration without use of waste infill. landscape Landfilling activities have the potential to have a restoration scheme must consider landscape Policy M2 of local plan applies negative effect on the quality of the countryside character and the quality of the countryside. during operation, although the restoration scheme for the landfill can have a positive effect on the quality of the countryside in the long term 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the absence of of archaeological, cultural and known receptors in the vicinity of the historic value site. 4 To protect the quality of ground There is potential for contamination of surface -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters waters and groundwater from leachate and to be incorporated into the design of the site contaminated surface water runoff, although the to ensure that ground and surface waters clay geology is likely to restrict significant levels of are not at risk from contamination. Drainage groundwater contamination. There is the potential from the site would need to be passed into a for a significant negative effect. The Site is within sealed system and treated prior to disposal. 5km of the River Mease SAC catchment. The Site is within 5km of the River Mease SAC catchment and proposals may therefore require Appropriate Assessment in line with PPS9. This possibility should be scoped at proposal stage. 5 To avoid soil contamination and The landfill operations are likely to have a -- Appropriate protection measures would need safeguard soil quality and significant negative effect on the contamination of to be incorporated into the design of the site quantity the soil of the brickworks though the introduction to ensure the protection of underlying strata. of contaminants for the landfilling process. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels There is a potential slight negative effect on levels - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural of air quality due to additional traffic movements details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human and increased air emissions. The scale of effect is numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health largely uncertain at this time. and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The development of the site as a landfill is likely to - A gas migration system should be a waste development to adverse have a slight negative effect through the emission requirement for the site alongside measures

138

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect

climate change through reduced of both CO 2 and methane. Overall, when to minimise vehicle trips to the site. greenhouse gas emissions. considered in combination with a likely increase in road traffic associated with the site, there is likely to be a slight negative effect on greenhouse gas emissions. 8 To minimise public nuisance Existing residential properties lie immediately to --- Noise effects could be mitigated by noise Site planning requirements should from waste treatment and the south of the site on Pretoria Road, and there attenuation measures such a barriers and include controls on any potential disposal. is potential for significant negative effects due to appropriate choice of equipment. Dust and negative effects from these sources. noise, odour and dust nuisance. Effects are likely odour can be minimised by appropriate to be long term, though temporary. Potential for watering and covering techniques to nuisance from traffic movements during life of minimise the amount of exposed refuse. landfill. Applications for the development of the site should include traffic assessments and proposed detailed mitigation measures. 9 To maximise the benefits to The potential for contamination of soil, air and - Measures to minimise contamination of soil human health and well-being water has the potential for a slight indirect and water; emissions-minimising measures negative effect on human health through exposure 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. All mineral resources will be extracted sterilisation of mineral reserves prior to landfill. 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives 12 To encourage better use of The proposal is likely to have a positive effect as + Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent the site has been previously used for mineral irretrievable loss of the best and extraction and, while it is not classified as PDL, most versatile agricultural land the proposals avoid loss of agricultural land. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposal as it stands does not contribute 0 Not applicable. landfilled and to maximise re- towards the reuse, recovery and recycling of use, recovery and recycling of waste. waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site Although development of the site is likely particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and to increase vehicle trips, this is transportation of untreated transport waste to the site. proposed detailed mitigation measures. preferable to exporting waste from the waste by road, and thereby County. vehicle emissions, in line with the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. The proposal contains no details for the and the production of renewable generation of renewable energy, energy although the development of the site presents an opportunity to utilise methane for electricity generation.

139

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the slight positive effect through the provision of new Framework Area employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs.

140

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

NW5 & NW6 Lockington Quarry (A and B)

Parish Council Lockington-Hemington District/Borough Council North West Leicestershire Brief Description of Proposal Continuation of existing aggregate recycling operations (Area A) Infilling of proposed sand and gravel extraction areas with inert wastes (Area B)

141

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Lockington Quarry Proposals: Area A – continuation of existing aggregate recycling operations, size 1.5 ha, Area B – Infilling of proposed sand and gravel extraction areas with inert wastes, size 90 ha, potential capacity 2 million cubic metres.

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative; ? unclear

NOTE: The assessment of this site has been based on all elements of the proposals for both sites coming forward.

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance Both sites are located within areas of sand and -- Any site drainage associated with waste Assessment based on Environment wildlife habitats and species, gravel and are located upstream of the Lockington activities would need to be designed so as Agency correspondence 15.03.06. avoiding damage to or Marshes SSSI, which is designated for its wetland not to discharge to the underlying strata. In fragmentation of major features ecology. The sites are also located upstream of the case of the landfill, the site may be of importance for fauna and floodplain grazing marsh BAP priority habitat. The deemed too sensitive for biodegradable flora sand and gravel geology provides a fairly free material. flowing connection to this sensitive receptor. There is also a wood within the site and one immediately to the south of the site, which are protected by tree preservation orders. There is potential for significant negative effects on these habitats. 2 To conserve and enhance the Area B is being put forward as a quarry extension A: 0 Not required as effect positive. quality of the countryside and in the Minerals Development Framework, which in B: + landscape itself would have a negative effect through the loss of landscape character. The landfill proposal when considered independently for site B would have a positive effect as it would restore the landscape character of the proposed mineral extraction area. Overall the effect of the proposals is likely to be slightly positive in the long term. Area A proposals to continue existing use would not cause any additional effects 3 To protect places and buildings Two Scheduled Ancient Monuments lie A: 0 Consultation with English Heritage should of archaeological, cultural and immediately to the north of the site. There is B: - inform detailed mitigation measures. historic value potential for slight negative effects on both monuments, due to degradation of their setting. 4 To protect the quality of ground There are various surface and ground water A: - Any site drainage associated with waste Assessment based on Environment and surface waters features located close to the sites including a B:-- activities would need to be designed so as Agency correspondence 15.03.06. tributary of the River Trent which runs adjacent to not to discharge to the underlying strata. Area B and a licensed groundwater abstraction Area B may be deemed too sensitive for approximately 100m to the east of Area A. The biodegradable material. sand and gravel geology provides a fairly free flowing medium, and Area B may be deemed too

142

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect sensitive for biodegradable material. There is potential for a significant negative effect, possibly over a large range related to the area of the aquifer. 5 To avoid soil contamination and Landfilling of Area B has the potential to introduce A: 0 Any site drainage associated with waste safeguard soil quality and contamination into the soil, with the potential for B: -- activities would need to be designed so as quantity significant negative effects due to the unrestrained not to discharge to the underlying strata. nature of the aquifer. There is potential for a Area B may be deemed too sensitive for significant negative effect, possibly over a large biodegradable material. range related to the area of the aquifer. 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. The effect is numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health likely to be permanent. and their effect on air quality. applications for the site. 7 To minimise the contribution of The development of the site as a landfill is likely to - A gas migration system should be a waste development to adverse have a slight negative effect through the emission requirement for the site alongside measures climate change through reduced of both CO 2 and methane. Overall, when to minimise vehicle trips to the site. greenhouse gas emissions. considered in combination with a likely increase in road traffic associated with the site, there is likely to be a slight negative effect on greenhouse gas emissions. 8 To minimise public nuisance The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Noise attenuation and dust control Controls of noise and dust emissions from waste treatment and effect through the potential for noise and dust measures. must accompany any application for the disposal. emissions. The sites are close to a few farms, site. which may be subject to negative effects, although the sites are generally well distanced from residential properties. 9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not applicable human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible The landfill is proposed to restore the proposed 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves mineral extraction areas on the mineral reserves have been extracted. Therefore neutral effect overall. 11 To facilitate the management, Provision of facilities can assist in meeting this + Not required as effect positive. recovery and correct disposal of objective wastes controlled by EC Directives

143

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

12 To encourage better use of Area B is being put forward as a quarry extension 0 Not applicable developed land and to prevent in the Minerals Development Framework, which in irretrievable loss of the best and itself would have a negative effect through the most versatile agricultural land loss of agricultural land. The continuation of activities at Area A would have a neutral effect through the continuation of current activities, whilst the infilling of the void at Area B would have neutral effect. 13 To minimise quantities of waste The continuation of the existing aggregate A: ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- recycling operations will have significant positive B: 0 use, recovery and recycling of effect. Landfill only at Area B will not contribute to waste this objective 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative -/++ Applications for the development of the site Although development of the site is likely particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required to should include traffic assessments and to increase vehicle trips, this is transportation of untreated transport waste to the site if road access is used.. proposed detailed mitigation measures. preferable to exporting waste from the waste by road, and thereby However there is potential for use of the Proposals should address feasibility of using County. Rail line offers potential for vehicle emissions, in line with operational rail sidings to minimise road transport rail line. siting a facility which could make use of the proximity principle of waste this (eg reprocessing facilities accepting waste from outside the region, or which bulk/export waste to out of-region reprocessing facilities) 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. The proposal contains no details for the and the production of renewable generation of renewable energy, energy although the development of the site presents an opportunity to utilise methane for electricity generation. 16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of continuing Framework Area and additional employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs. 19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable.

144

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The entire site lies within the ‘low’ risk flood plain -- There should be not net loss of floodplain Assessment based on Environment a result of waste development as identified by the Environment Agency, where storage as compensation does not appear to Agency correspondence 15.03.06. the chance of flooding each year is 0.5% (1 in be an option for the site. The following 200) or less. There is potential for a significant activities would require prior written consent negative effect on increasing flood risk. from the Environment Agency: - Any storage/mounding of material within the floodplain - Any culverting/ diversion of watercourses, any proposed installation of devices with an effect on flows, and bridges - Any works within 8 metres of the Lockington Brook which is classified as a Main River

145

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

NW7 Swainspark

Parish Council Ashby Woulds District/Borough Council North West Leicestershire Brief Description of Proposal Potential resource recovery park, dealing with construction & demolition, commercial & industrial and municipal waste.

146

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site: Swainspark Proposals: Potential resource recovery park, dealing with construction & demolition, commercial & industrial and municipal waste

Scale of Effect (SE): 0 – no effect; +++ strongly positive; ++ moderately positive; + slightly positive; --- strongly negative; -- moderately negative; - slightly negative ; ? unclear

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 1 To conserve and enhance The site currently supports facilities for the 0 Not applicable. wildlife habitats and species, Albion opencast coal/landfill site and supports avoiding damage to or no designated or locally important habitats. fragmentation of major features There is likely to be no effect from the site of importance for fauna and proposals. flora 2 To conserve and enhance the In the short term the effect of the proposals -- Sympathetic design, landscaping and screen quality of the countryside and would be slight given the adjacent land uses. planting. landscape However, in the longer term, following cessation of landfill and clay stocking, the facility would potentially have a significant negative effect on the restored landscape forming part of the National Forest Park. 3 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. No effect likely due to the lack of of archaeological, cultural and receptors in the vicinity of the site. historic value 4 To protect the quality of ground Due to the nature of the proposals there is - Appropriate protection measures would need The site is within 5km of the River and surface waters potential for a slight negative effect on the to be incorporated into the design to ensure Mease SAC catchment area. Although contamination of surface and ground waters that surface and ground waters are not at due to the nature of the site and the from contaminated runoff from the site. risk from contamination. Sustainable Urban proposals there is little potential for Drainage Systems should be used where adverse effects, this should be appropriate. addressed and scoped out as part of any proposal in line with PPS 9. 5 To avoid soil contamination and No effect. 0 Not applicable. safeguard soil quality and quantity 6 To limit emissions to air to levels The proposal is likely to have a slight negative -/+ Any proposal should be accompanied with Further information is required on that will not damage natural effect through additional vehicle trips and details on traffic movements in terms of their anticipated vehicle movements. This systems and affect human associated emissions to the site. The site is numbers and routing, associated emissions should be covered in detailed planning health located directly adjacent to an active rail line and their effect on air quality. Transport applications for the site. and has the potential to receive waste from rail. should be via rail sidings where possible If this mode of transport is used, this will have a slight positive effect on limiting emissions.

147

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

7 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative -/+ Energy and emissions minimising measures waste development to adverse effect through additional vehicle CO2 should be incorporated into design & climate change through reduced emissions and greenhouse gas emissions operation proposals. Traffic minimisation greenhouse gas emissions. associated to the site. The effect is likely to be assessments should be supplied as above. permanent. The site is located directly adjacent Transport should be via rail sidings where to an active rail line and has the potential to possible receive waste from rail. If this mode of transport is used, this will have a slight positive effect on limiting emissions. 8 To minimise public nuisance Five properties on Spring Cottage Road lie -- Noise and dust attenuation measures. Odour from waste treatment and immediately to the south of the site on the emissions may be reduced through design disposal. opposite side of the road. The nearest property considerations and enclosing waste sources. to the north lies 175m from the site access onto Occupation Road. There is the potential for significant negative effects, particularly through noise, dust and odour emissions on these receptors. 9 To maximise the benefits to No effect 0 Not applicable human health and well-being 10 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 11 To facilitate the management, Resource recovery park often tend to include + Not required as effect positive Further details required on detail of recovery and correct disposal of recycling/reuse operations dealing with combination of facilities to be provided wastes controlled by EC controlled waste Directives 12 To encourage better use of The site is not classed as PDL. However, use ++ Not required as effect positive. developed land and to prevent for proposals as alternative to restoration could irretrievable loss of the best and safeguard agricultural land elsewhere. most versatile agricultural land 13 To minimise quantities of waste The proposal for a resource recovery park will ++ Not required as effect positive. landfilled and to maximise re- have a significant positive effect. use, recovery and recycling of waste 14 To reduce the need to travel, in The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Applications for the development of the site particular to reduce the effect through additional vehicle trips required should include traffic assessments and transportation of untreated to transport waste to the site. However the co- proposed detailed mitigation measures. waste by road, and thereby location of facilities is likely to reduce vehicle emissions, in line with transportation. the proximity principle 15 To increase energy efficiency No effect. 0 Not applicable. Generation of renewable energy on site and the production of renewable and incorporation of energy saving energy measures where practical should be considered in site requirements.

148

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework

Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

16 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in the positive effect through the provision of Framework Area additional employment opportunities. 17 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in the Framework Area 18 To ensure adequate access to No effect. 0 Not applicable. waste facilities appropriate in scale and type to local needs. 19 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable.

20 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk 0 Not applicable. a result of waste development of flooding.

149