Minerals Development Framework: Site Allocations DPD (Preferred Options)

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

Sustainability Appraisal Report (Appendices) June 2006

Prepared for Leicestershire County Council by:

Atkins Ltd Axis 6th 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 Minerals 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 17 Appendix C: Baseline Tables 25 Appendix D: Assessment of Proposed Sites 41

Leicestershire and 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, Programme Planning & Development, Birmingham Countryside Agency, Region, East Midlands Development Agency Nottingham

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

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, Chief Planning Officer, Council, Development Control Manager, and Borough Council, Assistant Director (Planning), Wigston and Bosworth Borough Council, District Planning Officer, Cambridgeshire County Council, Hinckley Environment and Transport Department, Cambridge

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

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, County Council, Director of Technical Services, Director of Environmental Services, Long Eaton Matlock Kettering Borough Council, Lincolnshire County Council, Director of Development Services, Head of Planning and Conservation, Kettering Lincoln Lichfield District Council, County Council, Director of Planning, Head of Sustainable Development, Lichfield Northampton District Council, , Director of Development, Director of Development, Newark, Nottingham Nottingham North Borough Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Borough Planning Officer, Director of Environment, Nottingham and Borough Peterborough City Council, Council, Head of Planning Services, Director of Planning and Development, Peterborough Nuneaton

Staffordshire County Council, Rugby Borough Council, Director of Development Services, Head of Planning Services, Stafford Rugby

Warwickshire County Council, Borough Council, Director of Development, , Nottingham Corby District Council, Director of Development Services, South Derbyshire District Council, Corby, Northants Planning Dept., Swadlincote, Derbyshire Daventry District Council, Director of Development Services, South Kesteven District Council, Daventry, Northants District Planning Officer, Grantham, East Northamptonshire District Council, Lincs. Chief Planning Officer, Thrapston

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

PARISH COUNCILS:

Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Barkby Thorpe Parish Council,

Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Barkby Parish Council,

Clerk to Braunstone Parish Council, Clerk to Barrow upon Soar Parish Council, Clerk to 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 Parish Council, Clerk to East Goscote Parish Council, Clerk to Enderby Parish Council, Clerk to Hathern Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Hoton Parish Council, Clerk to Glenfield Parish Council, Clerk to Mountsorrel Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Newtown Linford Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Twyford and Thorpe Parish Clerk to Parish Council, Council,

Clerk to Parish Clerk to Queniborough Parish Council, Council, Clerk to Quorndon Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council, Chairman of Ratcliffe on the Wreake Parish Council, Chairman of Lubbesthorpe Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council,

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

Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Shepshed Parish Council,

Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to South Croxton Parish Council,

Clerk to Parish Council, Chairman of Swithland Parish Council,

Clerk to Thurlaston Parish Council, Clerk to Syston Parish Council,

Clerk to Whetstone Parish Council, Clerk to Thrussington & Cropston Parish Council, Chairman of Wigston Parva Parish Council, Clerk to Thurmaston Parish Council,

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

Chairman of Ulverscroft Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council,

Clerk to Walton on the Wolds Parish Chairman of East Norton Parish Council, Council, Clerk to Parish Council, Chairman of Wanlip Parish Council, Clerk to Foxton Parish Council, Clerk to Woodhouse Parish Council, Chair of Frisby Parish Council, Clerk to Wymeswold Parish Council, Chairman of Frolesworth Parish Council, Chairman to Allexton Parish Meeting Clerk of Gaulby Parish Council, Clerk to Arnesby Parish Council, Clerk to Gilmorton Parish Council Clerk to Parish Council, Chairman of Parish Council, Chairman of Parish Council, Chairman of Parish Council,

Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to 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 Parish Council, Chairman of Parish Council

Chairman of Bringhurst, Drayton & Nevill Clerk to Parish Council Holt Parish Meeting, Parish Council Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council Clerk to Burton Overy Parish Council, Clerk to Husbands Bosworth Parish Chairman of Parish Council Council, Clerk to Illston on the Hill Parish Council Chairman of Catthorpe Parish Council, Chairman of Keyham Parish Council Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Kibworth Beauchamp Parish Council Clerk to Claybrooke Parva Parish Council, Clerk to Kibworth Harcourt Parish Council Cold Newton Parish Council, Norton Parish Council Clerk to Cotesbach Parish Council, Clerk to Knaptoft Parish Council Chairman of Parish Council, Chairman of Laughton Parish Council Clerk to Parish Council,

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

Clerk to Parish Council Clerk to Swinford Parish Council,

Clerk to 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 Parish Council,

Chairman of Parish Council Clerk to Tilton Parish Council,

Clerk to Lubenham Parish Council Clerk to Parish Council,

Clerk to 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 Parish Council Clerk to 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 & Thornton Parish Chairman of Noseley Parish Council Council,

Chairman to Parish Chairman of Shearsby Parish Council, Council Chairman of Parish Council, Chairman of Parish Council Clerk to 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 Parish Council Clerk to Parish Council,

Chairman of Shawell Parish Council Clerk to Earl Shilton Parish Council,

Clerk to Parish Clerk to Carlton Parish Council, Council Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Higham on the Hill Parish Chairman of Stockerston Parish Council Council,

Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Market Bosworth Parish Council,

Clerk to Stoughton Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council,

5 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 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 Parish Council, Council, Clerk to Ashby de la Zouch Town Clerk to Parish Council, Council,

Clerk to 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 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 and Battleflat Parish Council, Clerk to Buckminster Parish Council, Chairman of Parish Council, Clerk to Croxton Kerrial Parish Council, Chairman to Parish Council, Clerk to Eaton Parish Council, Heather Parish Council, Clerk to Freeby Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Frisby and Kirby Parish Council, Chairman of Parish Clerk to Gaddesby Parish Council, Council,

Clerk to Garthorpe Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council,

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

Clerk to Hoby with Rotherby Parish Clerk to Parish Council, Council, Parish Manager of Parish Clerk to Scalford Parish Council, Council

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

Clerk to Parish Clerk to Thurcaston and Cropston Parish Council Council

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

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

Clerk to Parish Council, Clerk to Parish Council Clerk to Parish Council Chairman of Clerk to Parish Council Parish Council

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

Chairman of Parish Clerk to Burton and Dalby Parish Council Council Clerk to Clawson, Hose and Harby Clerk to Swannington Parish Council Parish Council

Clerk to Parish Council Clerk to Knossington and 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

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

Wysall and Thorpe in the Glebe Parish Braunston in Parish Council 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 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 Parish Council Parish Council Marston Trussell Parish Meeting Wardley Parish Meeting Middleton Parish Council Whissendine Parish Council Rockingham Parish Meeting Atherstone Town Council Sibbertoft Parish Council Parish Council Stanford on Avon Parish Meeting Bentley and Merevale Joint Parish Sulby Parish Meeting Council

Sutton Bassett Parish Meeting Burton Hastings & Stretton Baskerville Parish Council Welford Parish Council Caldecote Parish Council Weston-by-Welland Parish Council Churchover Parish Council Wilbarston Parish Council Clifton upon Dunsmore Parish Council Ashwell Parish Council Copston Magna Parish Council Barrow Parish Meeting Grendon and Dordon Parish Council Baleythorpe Parish Meeting Harborough Magna Parish Council Belton in Rutland Parish Council Hartshill Parish Council

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

Mancetter Parish Council Elvaston Parish Council

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 Parish Council Rosliston Parish Council Parish Council Shardlow And Great Wilne Parish Willey Parish Council Council

Withybrook Parish Council Smisby Parish Council

Wolvey Parish Council Ticknall Parish Council

Aston upon Trent Parish Council Weston upon Trent Parish Council

Castle Gresley Parish Council Woodville Parish Council

Skellingthorpe Parish Council

UTILITIES AND OTHER BODIES

Anglian Water Services Ltd, East Midlands Electricity Plc, Castle Spalding, Donington Lincolnshire Powergen, British Telecommunications, Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station, Hanley, Nottingham Stoke-on-Trent Transco East Midlands LDZ, Energis Communications Ltd, , Dartford Nottinghamshire

National Grid Company Plc, Central Networks Hams Lane, Derbyshire Coleshill British Waterways, Severn Trent Water Ltd, East Midlands Office, Sheldon, Nottinghamshire Birmingham Coventry Airport, Transco LDZ, Coventry Wolverhampton East Midlands Airport Divisional Standards Manager (Environment), Castle Donington

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

GENERAL CONSULTATION BODIES

GENERAL:

Forestry Authority Loughborough Friends of the Earth, East Midlands Conservancy, Quorn, Lincolnshire Nr. Loughborough

British Geological Survey, National Farmers Union, Onshore Minerals and Energy Resources Uppingham, Programme, Rutland Nottingham The National Forest, The Coal Authority, Swadlincote Department of Mining, Projects and Property, The Ramblers Association, Nottinghamshire Coalville

Health and Safety Executive, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Field Operations Division, Banbury Northampton The Woodland Trust, Sport - East Midlands, Grantham Nottingham Leicestershire Representative, c/o Ministry of Defence, CABE, Defence Estate Organisation, Sutton Coldfield HBF Midland Region Contacts, Department of Trade & Industry, Birmingham Minerals Team, London Ketton Conservation Trust, Ketton, Stamford DEFRA, Government Office for the East National Playing Fields Association, Midlands, Coventry Nottingham NFU East Midlands Region, Council for the Protection of Rural Rutland & Stamford Branch, England, Stamford Thurnby Collyweston Stone Slaters Trust, Country Land & Business Association, Estate Office, Sutton Bassett, Peterborough Market Harborough Age Concern, Leicester Leicestershire Bridleways Association, Loughborough CEH Directorate, Abbots Ripton, Leicestershire Footpaths Association, Huntingdon Oadby CRE, Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust, Birmingham Oadby,

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

Leicestershire Representative, DTZ Pieda Consulting, c/o DRC Helpline, Birmingham Stratford upon Avon Jones Day, Leicestershire Representative, London c/o DPTAC , London National Federation of Builders, Midland Region, Housing Corporation Melbourne Leicester: Attenborough House, 109/119 Charles Street, Friends of the Earth (Leicester Branch,) Leicester Leicester

Leicestershire Representative, Environ, c/o The Gypsy Council, Leicester European and UK office, Aveley,

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

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

STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS:

Leicestershire Local Strategic Partnership Enable, c/o Leicestershire Council Council, Leciestershire County Council, Leicester. Leicester

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

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

North West Leics Lsp And Chairman, Chief Executive, Charnwood And North West Leics Pct, Harborough District Council, Ratcliffe On The Wreake Market Harborough

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

Acting Chief Executive, Leicester Hinckley And Bosworth Borough Council, Hinckley Assistant Chief Executive (Community Planning), Chief Executive, Leicestershire County Council, Melton Borough Council, Leicester Melton Mowbray Policy Assistant, Chief Executive’s Dept, Chief Executive, Leicestershire County Council, North West Leicestershire District Leicester Council, Coalville Environmental Management Section, Community Services Department Chief Executive, Leicestershire County Council Oadby & Wigston Borough Council, Leicester Wigston Leicester Partnership Development Jobcentre Plus, Manager, Leicester Leicester City Council, Leicester Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Combined Fire and Rescue Service, ‘Care And Repair (North West Leics) Leicestershire County Council, Ltd’, Leicester Coalville, Leicester

Chief Executive, Children And Young Persons’ Strategic Leicestershire County Council, Partnership For Leicestershire (Cypspl), Leicester C/O Social Services Department, Leicestershire County Council Government Office For The East Midlands, Director of Community Safety, Nottingham Leicestershire Fire And Rescue Service, Glenfield Melton Borough Councillor (Observer), Melton Mowbray Leicestershire and Rutland Association of Parish and Local Councils, Policy Team Leader, Chief Executive’s Leicestershire Dept., Leicestershire County Council,

CITY COUNCIL CONSULTEES:

Aylestone Village Society, CPRE Leicestershire, Aylestone Leicestershire

Braunstone Community Assocation, De Montfort University, Leicester Director of Estates, Leicester Capitec (Trent), Sheffield Fosse Golf Co (Leicester) Limited, Leicester Chaos Enterprises (Leicester), Tudor Centre, Hamilton Trustees, Leicester Loughborough,

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

Leicestershire Asian Business Leicestershire Golf Club, Assocation, Leicester Leicester Leicestershire T2000, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester Director of Estates, Leicester Biffa Leicester Ltd, Leicester Leicester Chamber Of Commerce, Leicester Leicestershire Business Voice, Leicester Leicester City plc, Leicester Open Spaces Society, Henley-on-Thames, Leicester City West Primary Care Trust, Oxon Leicester Powergen Uk, Leicester Civic Society, C/o Dtz Pieda Consultants Leicester SecondSite Property, Basingstoke Leicester College, Leicester Leicester Rugby Football Club, Leicester Leicester Friends Of The Earth, Leicester The University Of Leicester, Director of Estates, Leicester Regeneration Company, Leicester Leicester The Woodland Trust, Leicestershire County Cricket Club, Grantham Leicester Voluntary Action Leicester, Leicestershire Footpath Association, Leicester Nottingham

INDUSTRY: R.E.W. West, Viridor Waste Management, Leicestershire Taunton, Somerset Aggregate Industries UK Ltd, Lafarge Aggregates, Estates Manager, Leicestershire Leicestershire

GRS (roadstone) Limited, Quarry Products Association, , London Hinckley Ennstone Breedon Ltd, Castle Cement, Breedon-on-the-Hill London Sand & Gravel Ltd, Onyx UK limited, Leicester Wolverhampton Midland Quarry Products, R.M.C Aggregates (Eastern Counties) Buxton Ltd, Peterborough

14 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Tarmac Central Ltd, Merriman Ltd., Thurmaston, Buxton Leicester

Bullimores Sand and Gravel, Simon Heaton, Grantham West Bridgford, Nottingham Hepworth Concrete, Ellistown The Barton Willmore Planning Partnership (Northern), SITA, Meridan, Leeds Coventry Smith Stuart Reynolds Consultants, UK Coal Mining Ltd, Sywell, Doncaster Northampton George Wimpey (South Midlands) Ltd., Land & Mineral Resource Consultants Central Milton Keynes, Ltd, Bucks. Yate, South Gloucestershire Mineral Surveying Services, Glenfield, British Aggregates Association, Leicester Derbys. Wrightways Ltd., Dickerson Group, Coalvillle Cambridge Mr. E. Taylor, British Gypsum Limited, Lynden Lea, Loughborough Hinckley Tapton Estates Limited, Sheffield Midland Skip Hire, Bottesford, Hanson Brick, Nottingham Bedford Leicester Paper Processes, Ibstock Brick Leicester Ltd, Coalville London East Midlands Metals, Brick Ltd, Loughborough Shepshed, Leicestershire R.J. Stanley Plant Hire, Castle Donington Red Bank Manufacturing Co Ltd, Measham, Cossington Stables, Derbys' Cossington

Confederation of UK Coal Producers, Sherwood Skip Serbices, Wakefield Greetham

British Ceramic Confederation, De-Pack, Stoke on Trent Wymeswold, Burton on the Wolds

Ensor Holdings plc, J. Smith & Sons, Manchester Granite Close, Enderby Coal Contractors Limited, Rushyford, Co. Durham Glenfield Waste, Glen Parva

15 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Westmoreland Hualage, Enderby, Leicester

Planters, Osbaston

Neil Harby, Granite Way, Loughborough

LSPS, South Wigston, Leicester

Cosby Spinneys Farm, Cosby

Johnson Metals, Loughborough

Pebble Hall Farm, Theddingworth

Soars Lodge Farm, Countesthorpe

Planning Licensing and Estates Manager, Waste Recycling Grup PLC, Raynesway

Glebe Farm, Nuneaton

Planning Manager, Biffa Waste Services Ltd., Sutton Coldfield

Steven’s Scrap,Hungarton, Leicester

Environmental Services Association, London

16 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

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

17 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Table A: Summary of Consultation Responses on the Scoping Report No Consultee Comments on Additional Information Further Comments How Comments Have Been Dealt With Sources 1 English Nature SEA and Biodiversity: Guidance for Overall EN is pleased and supportive of the Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF Practitioners, RSPB emphasis put on biodiversity in the report. % of document. SSSI data to be included in SSSI in favourable conditions not included in Appendix C of MDF. Appendix A in the document. Local Geodiversity Action Plan for Leicester Supportive of inclusion of geodiversity within Comments noted & Rutland: Contact British Geological Minerals Development Framework. Survey Keith Ambrose, Kinsley Dunham Centre, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG Tel 0115 936 3100, Fax 0115 936 3200 2 English Heritage European Landscape Convention could be Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF added document. Table 6-1. Shortage of building and roofing stone LCC advises that heritage materials quarries is an issue for MDF. EH recommends are present in Rutland but that the resource is designation of heritage quarries. not generally available in Leicestershire National documents: 'The Historic Documents included in Table 3.1 in MDF Environment - a Force for our Future document. (DCMS 2001)…' 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 Documents included in Table 3.1 in MDF Environment Strategy and 'Viewpoints on 'protecting and enhancing the historic document. Comments to be taken into the historic Environment of the East environment.' consideration in development of MDF policies. Midlands'. Landscape change and the erosion of landscape Comment to be taken into consideration in quality and traditional character and the issue on development of MDF policies. aftercare and after use. Where mineral extraction cannot be avoided, the Comments to be taken into consideration in interpretation of the industrial and cultural development of MDF policies. heritage would be welcomed. Existing and future baseline conditions: For Restoration schemes could restore past Documents included in Table 3.1 in MDF general information on the state of historic landscapes. Some previously developed land document. Comments to be taken into environment- could be of natural or historic interest. consideration in development of MDF policies. www.heritagecounts.org.uk.(includes a regional version which is updated annually) 'Turning the Plough' for identified key areas of ridge and furrow field systems

18 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Table 7-1 Objective 4 - it should be stressed that Comments noted. there should be no loss of designated sites. Loss of other sites should be minimised. A target relating to the enhancement of historic assets could be included. 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 Table 7-1 Objective 5 - Would welcome the Consider inclusion of suggested indicator in www.northamptonshire.gov.uk inclusion of an indicator / target relating to the the MDF document. Include reference to ridge supply of building and roofing stone. A possible and furrow field systems in MDF document. indicator could be the identification of existing Additional data source noted. and potential sources of stone, and potential heritage quarries. Ridge and Furrow field systems are threatened yet characteristic landscape features of Leicestershire. Other data sources: Extensive Urban Table 7-1 Objective 7: The first indicator should Update Figure 5.4 in MDF. Distinguish Surveys, Conservation Area Appraisals, distinguish between ancient woodland and more woodland types. Additional data sources Buildings at Risk recent plantation/ regenerated sites. Figure 5-4, noted. the key should refer to 'Scheduled Monuments' and 'Registered Historic Parks and Gardens'. The registered Battlefield at Bosworth should be shown. Leicestershire's heritage service team Table 7-1 Objective 8: Waterlogged soils might Comments noted. Number of listed buildings should be consulted about baseline data for contain significant archaeological remains which grades for each district to be listed in a table historic environments, designated sites, need to be considered. The number of listed within the MDF document. Update Figure 5.4. relevant issues, appraisal of significant buildings in each grade for each district should Heritage Services to be included in the next effects, mitigation and enhancement, and be shown in a table and reference to this be round of consultation. monitoring. made in the key of the map. Table 7-1 Objective 14: As far as possible high Comments noted and to be considered in the quality building stone should not be used for formulation of policies and proposals. aggregate. Changes to policy should seek to reduce future damage, provide appropriate mitigation, and to remediate existing damage to archaeological sites through waste operations and mineral extractions. The sustainability framework will need to set out Include a monitoring network. the monitoring network.

19 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

3 Environment Publication referred - 'Policy and Practice Implication of flood risk should be identified in Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF Agency for the Protection of Flood Plains' table 6-1 and table 7-1. The source for document. Amend PPG reference. Include a identifying 'reducing flood risk' is a key issue flood risk objective and indicator in the MDF should be PPG25, and not PPG23. EA is eager document. EA to be included in development to discuss the issues and get engaged in of flood risk policies. considering core policies and options. SEA framework does not consider flood risk Objective 21 added to consider flood risk in MDF. 4 Biffa Waste Biffa finds the report to be quite comprehensive Comments noted. Services in its approach. 5 Lafarge- UK In Para 3.6 there doesn't seem to be any Amend para.3.6 to acknowledge site viability Aggregates recognition on the safeguarding of mineral and site safeguarding in MDF document. resource or reserve itself or the means by which it is worked. Downstream infrastructure e.g. asphalt plants, Comments noted and the MDF document to be mortar plants etc are not covered either as on- updated accordingly. site or as stand-alone units. The land that has the capacity to facilitate such Suggestion noted. uses or to enable onward transportation of materials such as wharf sites and rail sidings are also not considered in this context. Point 12 of the SA draft framework, in the Point 12 to be clarified. indicator column 'data on minimisation…' the context in which it is referred needs to be clarified. This same issue is pertinent to Point 1 of Table 8-1. The objective should be separated to cover two issues- minerals safeguarding/prevention of sterilisation and minerals management and their use. The above suggestion could relate to Point 4. MDF document to be amended Residential development being proposed near a mineral operation should not be allowed to have an adverse effect on the day to day running or reducing output due to limitations in respect to noise production or traffic movement or the overall viability of a site. 6 Nottingham Table 4-1 could include: ODPM circular Airport Safeguarding office is quite pleased to be Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF East Midlands 1/2003- Aerodrome Safeguarding and ICAO consulted. They are concerned about the safe document. Ensure that ASO are included in Airport Annex 14 Vol 1- provision of Bird Strike operation of aircraft and urges to take due regard next round of consultation. Hazard Reduction of the potential for bird strike.

20 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

7 Harborough 1. Core strategy Scoping Report, March In the Plans and Programmes, the Local Plan Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF Council 2005 and 2. Core strategy Issues and should be referred to as Harborough District document. Amend title of Harborough District Options Report, May 2005 Local Plan. Local Plan. Initial SA report is no longer required. The Action upon consultation responses to be SA/SEA work undertaken between the Scoping displayed on LCC website. Report and the Preferred Options must be made available to the public for information e.g. on the county website The report should refer to the WDF as a relevant Comment noted. plan. The coordination of both reports would be advantageous. Any plans to test the compatibility of the No, not required. objectives of the two plans? 8 Warwickshire The framework is found to be very clear with Comment noted. Council appropriate objectives, indicators and targets. Table 9-1 lists some methodologies, but does not The Sustainability Appraisal reports indicate explain which methodologies may be more the exact methodology utilised in the appropriate for certain types of policy. If they assessments. apply to every single policy, is there a resource implication? 9 Highways In Table 6-1 it is noted that 'minerals are Amend Table 6.1 in MDF document. Agency transported by road…' This should be expanded to include reference to congestion. Traffic issues are not sufficiently assessed until stage C. This may be too late. Regional Freight Strategy should be In Table 7-1 objective no.16 should refer in Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF included. particular to reduce the transportation of minerals document. Amend Table 7.1 in MDF by road and thereby vehicle omissions. The document. Agency supports this key objective. In Figure 5-5, A6 through Leicester and Amend Figure 5.5 in MDF document. Loughborough is identified as a trunk road which is no longer the case. 10 Woodhouse No comments on this occasion. Council wishes Noted. Parish Council to continue to receive reports of this type. 11 Medbourne We have access but could not download. Send a Print copy to be sent. Parish Council print copy.

21 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

12 The Countryside The State of Countryside Report (East Tables 4-1, 4-2, 6-1 and 7-1 should include Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF Agency- Midlands) 2004 reference to the relevant character areas from document. Tables 4.2, 6.1 and 7.1 to be Landscape www.countryside.gov.uk/publications/index. Countryside Agency's character assessment vol updated in MDF document. Access 4. Table 9-1 and appendix E- we welcome and Recreation agree with. Countryside Character Volume 4: East Landscape and Woodland Strategy has not Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF Midlands embraced a landscape character assessment document. www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Landscape/cc. approach to understanding the landscape of the county. Topic Papers to view on the countryside Local level LCA by Rutland County Council Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF Character Network www ccnetwork.org.uk. should be referred to. document. National database for all landscape Table 4-2 should include information from Additional information source noted. Update character assessment can be found at 'shaping the future' sections of CACC Vol 4. Table 3.2 in MDF document. www.ccnetwork.org.uk/index Data from Countryside Quality Counts Promotion of sustainable transport should be Document/website reference to be included in (CQC) project www.countryside-quality- informed by the Rights of Way improvement MDF document. counts.org.uk plans. Nationally designated Landscape Area A map of the Agency's local landscape character Include a map of local landscape character www.countryside.gov.uk areas could be included. areas. Maps of all open countryside and registered Table 6-1. MDF policy should seek to 'enhance' Additional information source noted. common land in England landscape character. Update table 6.1 in MDF. www.countryside.gov.uk Web based GIS data www.magic.gov.uk Table 7-1 objective 2, targets could be derived Additional information source noted. from objectives detailed for each character area Amend Table 7.1 in the MDF document. identified in the local level LCA.

22 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

13 Woodland Trust The regional forestry framework- Space 4 The impacts of climate change should be taken Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF Tree (www.space4trees.org.uk) into consideration within the MDF. The document. Refer to ancient woodlands and importance of the ancient woodland is missing climate change in the MDF policies. from the draft. The distribution of ancient woodland should be included on either Figure 5-2 or 5-3. ODPM document 'The Planning Response MDF should contain policies on climate change Document included in Table 3.1 in MDF to Climate Change …..' to ensure that site allocations and development document. Consider whether climate change control policies can be adapted to future should be included in MDF policies. conditions. Data on accessibility to woodlands in Leicestershire using the woodlands trust woodland access standard is available in map and numeric form, which the trust is happy and eager to supply. Mineral sites in close proximity to ancient Comment noted. woodland and other semi-natural habitats should be prioritised for restoration to woodland and other semi-natural habitats. 14 British Fig 5.5 Principal transport routes does not show Include navigation routes for boats in Figure Waterways navigations, which are the principal transport 5.5. routes for boats Appendix A table B notes modal split for waste Comment noted. movement. Note that dredgings from waterways may be spread on neighbouring fields or moved by barge.

23 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

24 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

APPENDIX C: BASELINE TABLES

25 Leicestershire Minerals 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 Leicester Environmental meeting PSA targets 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 Vlley declined from recorded as breeding in the county wildlife experts 3200ha in 1940 to 150ha in catchment of the 1998 after decades of absence. Loss/fragmentation of habitat through modern agricultural practices leading to species decline

26 Leicestershire Minerals 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). 256km2 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

27 Leicestershire Minerals 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) concentrations may M: 0 be exceeded around Croft NWL: Coalville 10N - 1 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

28 Leicestershire Minerals 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

29 Leicestershire Minerals 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, 58MW Narborough 2MW and Cotesbach 3MW.

Landfill gas power generators also exist at , 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

30 Leicestershire Minerals 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 4 of contaminated sites in dependent on the March 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 In England: 93% of river /evidenceAndAnalysis/rsotc/ 96.1% were classified as lengths were of good or Natural_ resources.asp poor phosphate quality. fair chemical quality in

31 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) 48.8% were nitrate poor or 2003, compared with 84% bad. in 1990. 62% were of good quality in 2003, compared with 43% 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 18th 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

32 Leicestershire Minerals 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

33 Leicestershire Minerals 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

34 Leicestershire Minerals 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 category 900: Sewage and

35 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) refuse disposal, sanitation & similar activities. Deprivation Leicester City is 29th 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 136th 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 lives Melton 99 in rural areas. NW Leicestershire 306 Oadby and Wigston 2324

36 Leicestershire Minerals 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 Melton 31.5% / 27 not be met

37 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

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

38 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

General Indicator Quantified Data Comparators and Trends Issues Source Targets (if applicable) (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

39 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

40 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED SITES

41 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

1. Thurlaston / Huncote 2. Flash Farm, Huncote

District/Borough Council Blaby Brief Description of Proposal Sand and gravel extraction (both sites).

42 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Thurlaston/ Huncote Proposals: Sand and Gravel Extraction, site size 24 ha, potential capacity 200,000 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 There are no designated or locally important - Habitat creation and enhancement to offset wildlife habitats and species, habitats located at or in the vicinity of the site any losses. avoiding damage to or which is managed agricultural land aT present. fragmentation of major features However the site provides an agricultural land of importance for fauna and habitat that may be used by farmland birds, which flora would be lost through development of the site. The effect is likely to be slightly negative, although permanent. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located in an area of Open Countryside -- Landscape planting and bunding alongside quality of the countryside and as designated by the Blaby Local Plan. consideration of landscape and countryside landscape Development of the site is likely to have a character in the design of any structures at significant negative effect on the quality of the the site. countryside and landscape character, as the wider area provides a valued landscape to the surrounding villages and rights of way users. 3 To conserve geodiversity Any extraction has negative effects on - Unlikely to be mitigated. geodiversity as it results in the removal of the mineral resource. 4 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 5 To recognise, protect and No effect. 0 Not applicable. enhance the cultural heritage associated with Leicestershire’s mining and to promote the use of local building materials 6 To protect the quality of ground The extraction of sand and gravel mineral -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters resources has the potential to contaminate both to be incorporated into the design of the site surface and groundwaters through contaminated to ensure that ground and surface waters runoff. A minor watercourse runs through the site, are not at risk from contamination. however the hydrogeology of the site is unknown. There is the potential for significant negative effects on both surface and groundwaters. 7 To protect and enhance No effect. 0 Not applicable. woodland and forestry 8 To avoid soil contamination and The development of the site could have a --- Reclamation and after-use proposals should safeguard soil quality and significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable quantity loss of both grade 3a and 3b ALC agricultural soil resources. land.

43 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

9 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. 10 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures minerals development to effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & adverse climate change through and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation reduced greenhouse gas site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above. emissions. 11 To minimise public nuisance Yennards Farm lies within the site. Outside the --- Noise attenuation and dust control from minerals workings proposed site, the nearest properties are England measures. Landscape planting or bunding Farm within 20m and Yennards Cottages within would reduce the visual effect of the site. 30m. Thurlaston Village is approximately 300m to Alternative provision for rights of way, and the north. There is potential for significant appropriate traffic/pedestrians/horseriders negative effects on the receptors, particularly from separation or traffic control measures on noise, dust and visual effects. Additionally, M69 bridge. proposal affects bridleway V65 and footpath V61. The latter would have to be temporarily stopped up, as it runs directly across the extraction area. Potential for conflict between quarry traffic and horseriders / walkers rights of way cross the M69 on the accommodation bridge. 12 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 sterilisation of mineral reserves 13 To encourage better use of The proposed site is greenfield and development -- Minimise land take of proposal. previously developed land and would have a significant negative effect on effective remediation of encouraging the use of developed land. degraded land 14 To promote the efficient use of No effect. 0 Not applicable. raw materials (including aggregates), minimise waste and maximise re-use and recycling in order to reduce the need for landfill. 15 To prevent irretrievable loss of The development of the site could have a --- Reclamation and after-use proposals should the best and most versatile significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable agricultural land loss of grade 3a agricultural land. soil resources. 16 To reduce the need to travel. In The extension of the existing site, using the - Applications for the development of the site particular, to reduce the existing access and transport arrangements, will should include traffic assessments and transportation of minerals by have a slight negative effect through increased proposed detailed mitigation measures. road, and thereby vehicle traffic movements from the site, although the emissions effect is likely to be slight. 17 To promote stable employment The development of the site extension is likely to + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in have a slight positive effect through the provision Leicestershire of new and continued employment opportunities.

44 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

18 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in Leicestershire 19 To improve human health and No effect. 0 Not applicable. well-being 20 To support the creation of public No effect. 0 Not applicable. access and nature reserves on restored minerals workings, particularly in proximity to urban areas. Include the provision of interpretation facilities relating to the historic land use. 21 To avoid or reduce flood risk as No effect. 0 Not applicable. The site is not located in a floodplain. a result of minerals development.

45 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Flash Farm, Huncote Proposals: Sand and Gravel Extraction, site size 70 ha, potential capacity 150-200,000 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 There is one proposed Site of Nature -- Habitat creation and enhancement to offset wildlife habitats and species, Conservation Importance (SINC) (pond) located any losses. The sites of proposed SINC avoiding damage to or within the site and the Thurlaston Brook along the should be protected where possible. fragmentation of major features south west boundary of the site is also a proposed of importance for fauna and SINC. There is the potential for these sites to be flora affected by the proposal. The site also provides agricultural land habitat that may be used by farmland birds, which would be lost through development of the site. The site acts as a green separation between Huncote and Croft Quarries; there is potential for cumulative effects due to fragmentation of habitat. The overall effect is likely to be significantly negative and permanent. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located in an area of Open Countryside --- Landscape planting and bunding alongside quality of the countryside and as designated by the Blaby Local Plan and a consideration of landscape and countryside landscape Countryside Priority Area. Development of the site character in the design of any structures at is likely to have a significant negative effect on the the site. quality of the countryside and landscape character, as the valley is one of the few areas undisturbed by quarrying to the south of Huncote. 3 To conserve geodiversity Any extraction has negative effects on - Unlikely to be mitigated. geodiversity as it results in the removal of the mineral resource. 4 To protect places and buildings An adjacent property, Elms Farmhouse, is a -- Further archaeological surveys may be of archaeological, cultural and Grade II listed building. The proposal has the required to determine the nature and historic value potential to be detrimental to the setting of this significance of any archaeological remains. building. There are also likely to be a number of Adequate provision can then be made for archaeological remains across the site, given the the preservation, excavation or recording of close proximity of the and the River any interest in line with Core Policy 26 on Soar running through the site. Overall, there is the archaeology. potential for significant negative effects. The negative effect on the Elms Farmhouse may be unavoidable, however may be lessened through screening and landscaping of the site.

46 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

5 To recognise, protect and No effect. 0 Not applicable. enhance the cultural heritage associated with Leicestershire’s mining and to promote the use of local building materials 6 To protect the quality of ground The River Soar runs through the site, and there is -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters the potential for significant negative effects on this to be incorporated into the design of the site watercourse from the proposals. The River may to ensure that ground and surface waters have to be diverted and will be at risk from are not at risk from contamination. contaminated runoff from the site. Groundwaters at the site may also be at risk from contamination. The overall effect is likely to be significantly negative and permanent. 7 To protect and enhance No effect. 0 Not applicable. woodland and forestry 8 To avoid soil contamination and The development of the site could have a -- Reclamation and after-use proposals should safeguard soil quality and significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable quantity loss of BMV grade 1 and 3 agricultural land. soil resources. 9 To limit emissions to air to levels There is potential for minerals from the site to be - The overland conveyor would avoid some that will not damage natural transported from the site via overland conveyor impact on local residents. However, any systems and affect human directly into Croft quarry without the necessity to proposal should be accompanied with details health use the public highway. If this goes ahead, there on traffic movements in terms of their would a slight positive effect through limiting local numbers and routing, associated emissions air emissions from road transport. However, and their effect on air quality. minerals must be transported by road from the area, therefore there is likely to be a slight negative effect through an increase in vehicle related emissions from this new site. Overall, there is the potential for both positive and negative effects, depending on implementation. 10 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures minerals development to effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & adverse climate change through and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation reduced greenhouse gas site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above. emissions. 11 To minimise public nuisance The Village of Huncote is located immediately to --- Noise attenuation and dust control Access via Huncote Road has been from minerals workings the north west of the site and Narborough to the measures. Landscape planting or bunding deemed unacceptable. north west. There is potential for significant would reduce the visual effect of the site. negative effects on these receptors, particularly Traffic routing and control measures. from noise, dust and visual effects. Development Overhead conveyor would minimise traffic of this site would lead to increased traffic on the nuisance on village. B4114, a cumulative effect with existing quarry. 12 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves

47 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

13 To encourage better use of The proposed site is greenfield and development -- Minimise land take of proposal. previously developed land and would have a significant negative effect on effective remediation of encouraging the use of developed land. degraded land 14 To promote the efficient use of No effect 0 Not applicable raw materials (including aggregates), minimise waste and maximise re-use and recycling in order to reduce the need for landfill. 15 To prevent irretrievable loss of The development of the site could have a -- Reclamation and after-use proposals should the best and most versatile significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable agricultural land loss of BMV grade 1 and 3 agricultural land. soil resources. 16 To reduce the need to travel. In Additional vehicles from the site will increase the - The overland conveyor would address local particular, to reduce the transportation of minerals by road, and thereby traffic issues for transporting minerals from transportation of minerals by vehicle emissions. Overall, there is potential for the site. However any proposal should be road, and thereby vehicle slight negative effects. accompanied with details on traffic emissions movements in terms of their numbers and routing, 17 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in slight positive effect through the provision of new Leicestershire employment opportunities. 18 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in Leicestershire 19 To improve human health and No effect. 0 Not applicable. well-being 20 To support the creation of public No effect. 0 Not applicable. access and nature reserves on restored minerals workings, particularly in proximity to urban areas. Include the provision of interpretation facilities relating to the historic land use. 21 To avoid or reduce flood risk as A large part of the site lies within the floodplain -- Any development in the floodplain will a result of minerals identified by the Environment Agency. This will require compensation for the lost floodplain development. have a significant negative effect through and/or mitigation against the risk posed to increasing flood risk at the site, and potentially the development. A Flood Risk Assessment downstream. would be required for surface water management and there should be no overall increase in the surface water discharge from site.

48 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

3. Shawell / Cotesbach

District/Borough Council Harborough Brief Description of Proposal Sand and gravel extraction.

49 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Shawell/ Cotesbach Proposals: Sand and Gravel Extraction, potential to supply approx. 4.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel

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 Two SINC are located within the site (hedgerows), -- Habitat creation and enhancement to offset wildlife habitats and species, plus additional proposed SINCs (hedges and a any losses. SINCs and proposed SINCs avoiding damage to or pond) that may be negatively affected the should be protected where possible. Need to fragmentation of major features proposals. The site also provides agricultural land ensure that the features of special interest at of importance for fauna and habitat that may be used by farmland birds, which the Cave’s Inn Pits SSSI are maintained. flora would be lost through development of the site. The site is also within 500m of the Cave’s Inn Pits SSSI. Overall there is the potential for significant negative effect from the potential loss of these habitats. 2 To conserve and enhance the Although the existing quarry lies to the east of the -- Landscape planting and bunding alongside quality of the countryside and proposed sites, the quarry extension will extend consideration of landscape and countryside landscape into current agricultural land closer to both the character in the design of any structures at Village of Cotesbach, the A426 and the A5. There the site. is the potential for a significant negative effect on the countryside and landscape character. 3 To conserve geodiversity Any extraction has negative effects on - Unlikely to be mitigated geodiversity as it results in the removal of the mineral resource. 4 To protect places and buildings There is significant potential for buried -- Further archaeological surveys may be of archaeological, cultural and archaeological remains at the site. Potential for required to determine the nature and historic value Roman remains are adjacent to . significance of any archaeological remains. There is potential for a significant negative effect Adequate provision can then be made for by disturbance to these receptors. the preservation, excavation or recording of any interest. 5 To recognise, protect and No effect. 0 Not applicable. enhance the cultural heritage associated with Leicestershire’s mining and to promote the use of local building materials 6 To protect the quality of ground Although no watercourses run through the site, -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters watercourses nearby may be at risk from to be incorporated into the design of the site contaminated runoff from the site. Groundwaters to ensure that ground and surface waters may also be at risk, although the nature of the are not at risk from contamination. hydrogeology of the site is unknown. Overall, there is potential for a significant negative effect on both surface and groundwaters.

50 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

7 To protect and enhance No effect. 0 Not applicable. woodland and forestry 8 To avoid soil contamination and The development of the site could have a -- Reclamation and after-use proposals should safeguard soil quality and significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable quantity loss of BMV Class 2 (20-60% BMV grades likely) soil resources. agricultural land. 9 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. 10 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures Further information is required on minerals development to effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & anticipated vehicle movements. This adverse climate change through and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation should be covered in detailed planning reduced greenhouse gas site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above. applications for the site. emissions. 11 To minimise public nuisance Cotesbach Village lies to the north east of the site, -- Noise attenuation and dust control from minerals workings although is separated by the A426. There is measures. Landscape planting or bunding potential for significant negative effects on the would reduce the visual effect of the site. residents of Cotesbach, particularly from noise, dust and visual effects, although the A426 does provide a buffering effect. 12 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 sterilisation of mineral reserves 13 To encourage better use of The proposed site is greenfield and development -- Minimise land take of proposal. previously developed land and would have a significant negative effect on effective remediation of encouraging the use of developed land. degraded land 14 To promote the efficient use of No effect 0 Not applicable raw materials (including aggregates), minimise waste and maximise re-use and recycling in order to reduce the need for landfill. 15 To prevent irretrievable loss of The development of the site could have a -- Reclamation and after-use proposals should the best and most versatile significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable agricultural land loss of BMV Class 2 (20-60% BMV grades likely) soil resources. agricultural land. 16 To reduce the need to travel. In The extension of the existing site, using the - Applications for the development of the site particular, to reduce the existing access and transport arrangements, will should include traffic assessments and transportation of minerals by have a slight negative effect through increased proposed detailed mitigation measures. road, and thereby vehicle traffic movements from the site, although the emissions effect is likely to be slight. 17 To promote stable employment The development of the site extension is likely to + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in have a slight positive effect through the provision Leicestershire of ongoing employment opportunities at the site.

51 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

18 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in Leicestershire 19 To improve human health and No effect. 0 Not applicable. well-being 20 To support the creation of public No effect. 0 Not applicable. access and nature reserves on restored minerals workings, particularly in proximity to urban areas. Include the provision of interpretation facilities relating to the historic land use. 21 To avoid or reduce flood risk as No effect. 0 Not applicable. a result of minerals development.

52 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

4. Husbands Bosworth

District/Borough Council Harborough Brief Description of Proposal Sand and gravel extraction.

53 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Husbands Bosworth Proposals: Sand and Gravel Extraction, potential capacity 455,000 tonnes of reserves

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 are two proposed SINCs within the site, a -- Habitat creation and enhancement to offset wildlife habitats and species, pond and a wood adjacent to the Grand Union any losses. The sites of proposed SINC avoiding damage to or Canal. The site also provides agricultural land should be protected where possible. fragmentation of major features habitat that may be used by farmland birds, which of importance for fauna and would be lost through development of the site. flora Bosworth Mill Meadow SSSI is also located within 1km of the site. Overall, there is the potential for significant negative effects through the loss of these habitats. 2 To conserve and enhance the Although the site is extending the current - Landscape planting and bunding alongside quality of the countryside and extraction areas into the countryside, the area of consideration of landscape and countryside landscape expansion is relatively small, and although having character in the design of any structures at a negative effect on the quality of the countryside the site. Maintain existing woodland barrier and landscape, the effect is likely to be slightly between site and canal to screen site. negative. 3 To conserve geodiversity Any extraction has negative effects on - Unlikely to be mitigated. geodiversity as it results in the removal of the mineral resource. 4 To protect places and buildings The area is rich in prehistoric archaeology and a -- Further archaeological surveys may be of archaeological, cultural and Scheduled Ancient Monument is located nearby required to determine the nature and historic value (Neolithic Causeway Enclosure). There is a significance of any archaeological remains. potential significant negative effect on these Adequate provision can then be made for receptors. the preservation, excavation or recording of any interest. The Scheduled Ancient Monument should be protected by a buffer zone. 5 To recognise, protect and No effect. 0 Not applicable. enhance the cultural heritage associated with Leicestershire’s mining and to promote the use of local building materials 6 To protect the quality of ground The site is located adjacent to the Grand Union -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters Canal, and there is potential for runoff from the to be incorporated into the design of the site site to contaminate the canal. Groundwaters may to ensure that ground and surface waters also be at risk, although the nature of the are not at risk from contamination. hydrogeology of the site is unknown. Overall, there is potential for a significant negative effect on both surface and groundwaters.

54 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

7 To protect and enhance The woodland adjoining the -- The trees and woodland adjoining the Grand woodland and forestry may be at risk of being lost from the proposals, Union Canal should be protected. with a significant negative effect. 8 To avoid soil contamination and The development of the site could have a --- Reclamation and after-use proposals should safeguard soil quality and significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable quantity loss of BMV Class 1 (>60% BMV grades likely) soil resources. agricultural land. 9 To limit emissions to air to levels Plans for the site propose to use the existing + Not required as effect positive. that will not damage natural conveyor routes via the Welford Road tunnel to systems and affect human convey mineral from the allocated area to the health processing plant. This would have a slight positive effect through limiting air emissions from road transport. 10 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures minerals development to effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & adverse climate change through and greenhouse gas emissions associated with operation proposals. Traffic minimisation reduced greenhouse gas the site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above emissions. 11 To minimise public nuisance Glebe Farm lies approximately 200m to the east - Noise attenuation and dust control from minerals workings of the site, whilst Welford Lodge Farm lies measures. Landscape planting or bunding approximately 400m to the south across the would reduce the visual effect of the site. Grand Union Canal. Although the area is relatively isolated, and the existing minerals are a similar distance from the Glebe Farm, there is potentially an increase in noise and dust emissions and visual effects and a slight negative effect on these receptors. 12 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 sterilisation of mineral reserves 13 To encourage better use of The proposed site is greenfield and development -- Minimise land take of proposal. previously developed land and would have a significant negative effect on effective remediation of encouraging the use of developed land. degraded land 14 To promote the efficient use of No effect. 0 Not applicable. raw materials (including aggregates), minimise waste and maximise re-use and recycling in order to reduce the need for landfill. 15 To prevent irretrievable loss of The development of the site could have a --- Reclamation and after-use proposals should the best and most versatile significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable agricultural land loss of BMV Class 1 (>60% BMV grades likely) soil resources. agricultural land.

55 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

16 To reduce the need to travel. In Plans for the site propose to use the existing + Not required as effect positive. particular, to reduce the conveyor routes via the Welford Road tunnel to transportation of minerals by convey mineral from the allocated area to the road, and thereby vehicle processing plant. This would have a slight positive emissions effect on reducing the need to travel. 17 To promote stable employment The development of the site extension is likely to + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in have a slight positive effect through the provision Leicestershire of continued employment opportunities. 18 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in Leicestershire 19 To improve human health and No effect. 0 Not applicable. well-being 20 To support the creation of public No effect. 0 Not applicable. access and nature reserves on restored minerals workings, particularly in proximity to urban areas. Include the provision of interpretation facilities relating to the historic land use. 21 To avoid or reduce flood risk as No effect. 0 Not applicable. a result of minerals development.

56 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

5. Slip Inn Quarry, Ashby Parva

District/Borough Council Harborough Brief Description of Proposal Sand and gravel extraction.

57 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Slip Inn Quarry, Ashby Parva Proposals: Sand and Gravel Extraction, site size 36 ha, potential capacity 3.86 million tonnes

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 extension site itself includes 4 recorded --- Introduction of a buffer zone between wildlife habitats and species, wildlife sites of parish level significance; a pond in extraction areas and important habitats. avoiding damage to or improved grassland in the northern field and Habitat creation and enhancement for fragmentation of major features grassland areas to the south east. Adjacent habitats lost. of importance for fauna and habitats comprise a woodland, stream and flora restored quarry, all of parish level significance apart from an area of osier beds adjacent to the southern boundary which is of district level importance. Development of the site, and removal of the sand and gravel aquifer, could have significance negative effects on these habitats. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is in an area of undisturbed farmland -- Screening and landscape bunding – quality of the countryside and south of Dunton Bassett and is elevated above although due to the elevation of the site landscape the surrounding areas. Due to the sites these negative effects may be difficult to prominence, there is a potential significant mitigate. negative effect on the quality of the countryside and landscape character. 3 To conserve geodiversity Any extraction has negative effects on - Unlikely to be mitigated geodiversity as it results in the removal of the mineral resource. 4 To protect places and buildings There is potential for archaeological remains at - Further archaeological surveys may be of archaeological, cultural and the sites, although there is a general lack of data. required to determine the nature and historic value There is a potential slight negative effect on significance of any archaeological remains. archaeological resources from mineral extraction Adequate provision can then be made for at the site. the preservation, excavation or recording of any interest. 5 To recognise, protect and No effect. 0 Not applicable. enhance the cultural heritage associated with Leicestershire’s mining and to promote the use of local building materials 6 To protect the quality of ground A stream runs approximately 50m to the south of -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters the site, which potentially may be contaminated to be incorporated into the design of the site from runoff from the site, with the potential for a to ensure that surface waters are not at risk significant negative effect on surface water from contamination. quality. 7 To protect and enhance There is a potential significant negative effect on -- Introduction of a buffer zone between woodland and forestry the woodland to the south of the site through the extraction areas and the area of woodland to removal of the sand and gravel aquifer. the south of the site.

58 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

8 To avoid soil contamination and The development of the site could have a --- Reclamation and after-use proposals should safeguard soil quality and significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable quantity loss of BMV Class 1 (>60% BMV grades likely) soil resources. agricultural land. 9 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. 10 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures minerals development to effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & adverse climate change through and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation reduced greenhouse gas site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above. emissions. 11 To minimise public nuisance Dunton Bassett and Ashby Parva are located - Noise attenuation and dust control from minerals workings some distance from the site, although Dunton measures. Landscape planting or bunding Bassett is closer. Given this buffer distance, there would reduce the visual effect of the site. may be some negative nuisance effects from noise and dust, and visual effects, although these are likely to be slight. 12 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 sterilisation of mineral reserves 13 To encourage better use of The proposed site is greenfield and development -- Minimise land take of proposal. previously developed land and would have a significant negative effect on effective remediation of encouraging the use of developed land. degraded land 14 To promote the efficient use of No effect. 0 Not applicable. raw materials (including aggregates), minimise waste and maximise re-use and recycling in order to reduce the need for landfill. 15 To prevent irretrievable loss of The development of the site could have a --- Reclamation and after-use proposals should the best and most versatile significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable agricultural land loss of BMV Class 1 (>60% BMV grades likely) soil resources. agricultural land. 16 To reduce the need to travel. In The extension of the existing site, using the - Applications for the development of the site particular, to reduce the existing access and transport arrangements, will should include traffic assessments and transportation of minerals by have a slight negative effect through increased proposed detailed mitigation measures. road, and thereby vehicle traffic movements from the site, although the emissions effect is likely to be slight. 17 To promote stable employment The development of the site extension is likely to + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in have a slight positive effect through the provision Leicestershire of continued employment opportunities. 18 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in Leicestershire

59 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

19 To improve human health and No effect. 0 Not applicable. well-being 20 To support the creation of public No effect. 0 Not applicable. access and nature reserves on restored minerals workings, particularly in proximity to urban areas. Include the provision of interpretation facilities relating to the historic land use. 21 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site lies adjacent to a flood plain, although - Ensure that development of the site a result of minerals none of the extended site area is located on the considers flood risk as advised by the development. floodplain. There is potential for a slight negative Environment Agency. effect from runoff from the site increasing flood risk downstream.

60 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

6. North Kilworth

District/Borough Council Harborough Brief Description of Proposal Sand and gravel extraction.

61 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: North Kilworth Proposals: Sand and Gravel Extraction, site size 42 ha, potential capacity 2.8 million tonnes of sand and gravel

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 Much of the site is limited in nature conservation -- Habitat creation and enhancement for wildlife habitats and species, value, however there are a number of species and habitats lost. avoiding damage to or features within and around the site which are of fragmentation of major features local importance. There is potential for a of importance for fauna and significant negative effect, particularly from the flora potential loss of existing species-rich hedgerows and associated mature trees within the site. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located in an area of open countryside -- Landscape planting and bunding alongside quality of the countryside and and is likely to have a significant negative effect consideration of landscape and countryside landscape on the quality of the countryside and landscape character in the design of any structures at character, particularly during the operational life of the site. the site and for a period afterwards. 3 To conserve geodiversity Any extraction has negative effects on - Unlikely to be mitigated. geodiversity as it results in the removal of the mineral resource. 4 To protect places and buildings Geophysical surveys and trial trenching at the site - Further archaeological surveys may be of archaeological, cultural and has indicated that the site is of low archaeological required to determine the nature and historic value importance. Given the results of these surveys, significance of any archaeological remains. there may be a slight negative effect on the Adequate provision can then be made for archaeological resources of the site. the preservation, excavation or recording of any interest. 5 To recognise, protect and No effect. 0 Not applicable. enhance the cultural heritage associated with Leicestershire’s mining and to promote the use of local building materials 6 To protect the quality of ground Although there are no watercourses crossing the -- Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters site, an aquifer and several groundwater to be incorporated into the design of the site boreholes exist nearby. There is the potential for a to ensure that ground and surface waters significant negative effect on surface and ground are not at risk from contamination. water from contaminated runoff from the site. 7 To protect and enhance Development of the site is likely to have a slight - Tree planting to compensate for losses. woodland and forestry negative effect through the loss of mature trees on the site. 8 To avoid soil contamination and The development of the site could have a --- Reclamation and after-use proposals should safeguard soil quality and significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable quantity loss of 11.7 ha of ALC Grade 3a agricultural land. soil resources.

62 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

9 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. 10 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures minerals development to effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & adverse climate change through and greenhouse gas emissions associated with operation proposals. Traffic minimisation reduced greenhouse gas the site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above. emissions. 11 To minimise public nuisance There are a number of individual residential -- Mitigation measures have been proposed for from minerals workings properties that lie in close proximity to the site. the site. It is thought that noise it be possible There is the potential for a significant negative to achieve acceptable noise provided that effect from noise and dust emissions on these the extraction area is restricted and a 5 properties. metre high barrier is erected in the vicinity of The Bungalow. Dust emissions should be able to be kept to acceptable levels with the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. 12 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 sterilisation of mineral reserves 13 To encourage better use of The proposed site is greenfield and development -- Minimise land take of proposal. previously developed land and would have a significant negative effect on effective remediation of encouraging the use of developed land. degraded land 14 To promote the efficient use of No effect. 0 Not applicable. raw materials (including aggregates), minimise waste and maximise re-use and recycling in order to reduce the need for landfill. 15 To prevent irretrievable loss of The development of the site could have a --- Reclamation and after-use proposals should the best and most versatile significant negative effect through the permanent provide for the preservation of most valuable agricultural land loss of 11.7 ha of ALC Grade 3a agricultural land. soil resources. 16 To reduce the need to travel. In The development of this new mineral extraction -- Applications for the development of the site particular, to reduce the site is likely to have a significant negative effect should include traffic assessments and transportation of minerals by on traffic levels, particularly on Pincet Lane, and proposed detailed mitigation measures. road, and thereby vehicle lead to increased vehicle emissions from the emissions transport of minerals. 17 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in slight positive effect through the provision of new Leicestershire employment opportunities. 18 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in Leicestershire 19 To improve human health and No effect. 0 Not applicable. well-being

63 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

20 To support the creation of public No effect. 0 Not applicable. access and nature reserves on restored minerals workings, particularly in proximity to urban areas. Include the provision of interpretation facilities relating to the historic land use. 21 To avoid or reduce flood risk as The site is not located within a flood plain as 0 Not applicable. a result of minerals identified by the Environment Agency. development.

64 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

7. Cadeby

District/Borough Council Hinckley & Bosworth Brief Description of Proposal Sand and gravel extraction.

65 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Cadeby Proposals: Sand and Gravel Extraction, potential capacity 1.9 million tonnes of reserves

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 statutory designated sites are located within or -- Habitat creation and enhancement for wildlife habitats and species, adjacent to the site. Potential SINC adjoin the habitats lost. Translocation of any species avoiding damage to or western boundary of Area D, and two sites lie identified by species surveys. fragmentation of major features close to the western boundary of Area B. of importance for fauna and Protected species records are located throughout flora the area, and include badgers and grass snakes. There is the potential for significant negative effects on these habitats and species from development of the sites. Cumulative effects likely. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located in an area of open countryside -- Landscape planting and bunding alongside quality of the countryside and and is likely to have a significant negative effect consideration of landscape and countryside landscape on the quality of the countryside and landscape character in the design of any structures at character, particularly during the operational life of the site. the site and for a period afterwards. 3 To conserve geodiversity Any extraction has negative effects on - Unlikely to be mitigated geodiversity as it results in the removal of the mineral resource. 4 To protect places and buildings The area of proposed quarrying lies within a -- Further archaeological surveys may be of archaeological, cultural and landscape of that contains significant amounts of required to determine the nature and historic value archaeological resources. The only extension that significance of any archaeological remains. contains recorded archaeology is Area B – the Adequate provision can then be made for remains of a deserted Medieval Village and the the preservation, excavation or recording of site of a post-medieval windmill. There is clear any interest. potential for significant buried archaeological remains in this area. The surrounding area contains evidence of activity dating from the Bronze Age onwards; 2 sets of ring ditches and pottery, a spearhead and a possible Bronze Age/Iron Age pit alignment; several undated cropmarks and rectangular enclosures; Roma pottery nearby and the Mancetter Roman Rd runs to the south; and a further Deserted Medieval Village. There is potential for significant negative effects on these identified receptors from development of the sites.

66 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

5 To recognise, protect and No effect. 0 Not applicable. enhance the cultural heritage associated with Leicestershire’s mining and to promote the use of local building materials 6 To protect the quality of ground Although there are no watercourses crossing the - Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters site, there is the potential for a slight negative to be incorporated into the design of the site effect on surface and ground water from to ensure that surface waters are not at risk contaminated runoff from the site. from contamination. 7 To protect and enhance No effect. 0 Not applicable. woodland and forestry 8 To avoid soil contamination and Predictive soil maps for the area show that the --- Reclamation and after-use proposals should safeguard soil quality and whole of areas C and D as BMV class 1 (>60% provide for the preservation of most valuable quantity BMV Grades likely). Most of Areas A and B are soil resources. also Class 1, with small areas of BMV Class 2 (20-60% BMV likely). The development of the site is likely to have a significant negative effect through the loss of valuable soil resources. 9 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. 10 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures minerals development to effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & adverse climate change through and greenhouse gas emissions associated to the operation proposals. Traffic minimisation reduced greenhouse gas site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above. emissions. 11 To minimise public nuisance Area A lies immediately to the east of Cadeby -- Noise attenuation and dust control from minerals workings Village, but is separated by the A447. Areas B/C measures. Landscape planting or bunding lie immediately south of Newbold Verdon. Area D would reduce the visual effect of the site. lies near to some isolated rural properties. Significant negative noise and dust effects are likely on these receptors. 12 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 sterilisation of mineral reserves 13 To encourage better use of The proposed site is greenfield and development -- Minimise land take of proposal. previously developed land and would have a significant negative effect on effective remediation of encouraging the use of developed land. degraded land 14 To promote the efficient use of No effect. 0 Not applicable. raw materials (including aggregates), minimise waste and maximise re-use and recycling in order to reduce the need for landfill.

67 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

15 To prevent irretrievable loss of Predictive soil maps for the area show that the --- Reclamation and after-use proposals should the best and most versatile whole of areas C and D as BMV class 1 (>60% provide for the preservation of most valuable agricultural land BMV Grades likely). Most of Areas A and B are soil resources. also Class 1, with small areas of BMV Class 2 (20-60% BMV likely). The development of the site is likely to have a significant negative effect through the loss of valuable soil resources. 16 To reduce the need to travel. In The extension of the existing site, using the - Applications for the development of the site Serious injury accidents are currently an particular, to reduce the existing access and transport arrangements, will should include traffic assessments and issue on the section of the A447 transportation of minerals by have a slight negative effect through increased proposed detailed mitigation measures. between Bull in the Oak Crossroads and road, and thereby vehicle traffic movements from the site, although the the Fenn Lanes junction. Any permission emissions effect is likely to be slight. extending the life of the quarry may require mitigation works to improve highway safety on the A447. 17 To promote stable employment The development of the site extension is likely to + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in have a slight positive effect through the provision Leicestershire of continued employment opportunities. 18 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in Leicestershire 19 To improve human health and No effect. 0 Not applicable. well-being 20 To support the creation of public No effect. 0 Not applicable. access and nature reserves on restored minerals workings, particularly in proximity to urban areas. Include the provision of interpretation facilities relating to the historic land use. 21 To avoid or reduce flood risk as No effect. 0 Not applicable. a result of minerals development.

68 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

8.

District/Borough Council Melton Brief Description of Proposal Sand and gravel extraction.

69 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Brooksby Proposals: Sand and Gravel Extraction, potential capacity 1.6 million tonnes

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 nearest designated site to Brooksby are the - A restoration scheme would be required that wildlife habitats and species, areas of floodplain and grazing marsh BAP priority would benefit local biodiversity and avoiding damage to or habitat located approximately 1 km to the north of potentially enhance local habitats. fragmentation of major features the site alongside the River Wreake. Due to the of importance for fauna and distance to these habitats, effects are unlikely. flora 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 proposals. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located in an area of open countryside - Landscape planting and bunding alongside quality of the countryside and and is likely to have a slight negative effect on the consideration of landscape and countryside landscape quality of the countryside and landscape character in the design of any structures at character, particularly during the operational life of the site. the site and for a period afterwards. The effect is likely to be short term and temporary. 3 To conserve geodiversity Any extraction has negative effects on - Unlikely to be mitigated. geodiversity as it results in the removal of the mineral resource. 4 To protect places and buildings A number of recorded archaeological sites are -- Further archaeological surveys may be of archaeological, cultural and known either from within or in the immediate required to determine the nature and historic value vicinity of the proposed areas suggesting a significance of any archaeological remains. potential for buried archaeological remains. The Adequate provision can then be made for presence of organic-rich river deposits within the the preservation, excavation or recording of sands and gravels are potentially of national any interest. significance. There is potential for significant negative effects on these identified receptors from development of the sites. 5 To recognise, protect and No effect. 0 Not applicable. enhance the cultural heritage associated with Leicestershire’s mining and to promote the use of local building materials 6 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. ground and surface waters from contaminated runoff from the site.

70 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

7 To protect and enhance No effect. 0 Not applicable. woodland and forestry 8 To avoid soil contamination and The site is large made of 3b ALC soil, however -- Reclamation and after-use proposals should safeguard soil quality and there is some 3a ALC soil on the site. The provide for the preservation of most valuable quantity development of the site is likely to have a soil resources. significant negative effect through the loss of valuable soil resources. 9 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. 10 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures minerals development to effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & adverse climate change through and greenhouse gas emissions associated with operation proposals. Traffic minimisation reduced greenhouse gas the site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above emissions. 11 To minimise public nuisance Although the site is located within an area of open -- Noise attenuation and dust control from minerals workings countryside, the site is located approximately measures. Landscape planting or bunding 300m south west of the Agricultural College and would reduce the visual effect of the site. less than 150m away from several farms. There is Alternative provision for or securing of rights potential for significant negative effects from noise of way. and dust emissions on these receptors. Bridleway H58 cuts through one of the sites along the access track to Spinney Farm from Melton Road and the Nursery. The route forms part of the Midshires Long Distance Bridleway. 12 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 sterilisation of mineral reserves 13 To encourage better use of The proposed site is greenfield and development -- Minimise land take of proposal. previously developed land and would have a significant negative effect on effective remediation of encouraging the use of developed land. degraded land 14 To promote the efficient use of No effect. 0 Not applicable. raw materials (including aggregates), minimise waste and maximise re-use and recycling in order to reduce the need for landfill. 15 To prevent irretrievable loss of The site is largely 3b ALC soil, however there is -- Valuable soil resources may be exported the best and most versatile some 3a ALC soil on the site. The development of from the site to be utilised elsewhere. agricultural land the site is likely to have a significant negative effect through the loss of valuable soil resources.

71 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

16 To reduce the need to travel. In The extension of the existing site, using the - Applications for the development of the site particular, to reduce the existing access and transport arrangements, will should include traffic assessments and transportation of minerals by have a slight negative effect through increased proposed detailed mitigation measures. road, and thereby vehicle traffic movements from the site, although the emissions effect is likely to be slight. 17 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in slight positive effect through the provision of Leicestershire continued employment opportunities. 18 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in Leicestershire 19 To improve human health and No effect. 0 Not applicable. well-being 20 To support the creation of public No effect. 0 Not applicable. access and nature reserves on restored minerals workings, particularly in proximity to urban areas. Include the provision of interpretation facilities relating to the historic land use. 21 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 minerals watercourse which feeds into the River Wreake. require compensation for the lost floodplain development. 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 of the site. negative effects without appropriate mitigation.

72 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

9. Lockington

District/Borough Council North West Leicestershire Brief Description of Proposal Sand and gravel extraction.

73 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Lockington Proposals: Sand and Gravel Extraction, potential capacity 3,850,000 tonnes

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 Potential SINCs lie within the site, particularly --- Habitats within the site should be protected wildlife habitats and species, Green Spot Wood and March Cover. The site is where possible. Habitat creation and avoiding damage to or located upstream of Lockington Marshes SSSI, enhancement for habitats lost. Translocation fragmentation of major features which is designated for its wetland ecology. The of any species identified by species surveys. of importance for fauna and sites are also located upstream of floodplain Need to ensure features of special interest of flora grazing marsh BAP priority habitat. The sand and Lockington Marshes SSSI are not affected. gravel geology provides a fairly free flowing connection to this sensitive receptor. There is potential for significant negative effects on these habitats. 2 To conserve and enhance the The site is located in an area of countryside, and -- Landscape planting and bunding alongside quality of the countryside and could have significant negative effects on the consideration of landscape and countryside landscape quality of the countryside and landscape character character in the design of any structures at through the loss of woodlands, hedgerows, the site. hedgerow trees and small streams. The site is very visible from the southbound M1 and the northbound A453. 3 To conserve geodiversity Any extraction has negative effects on - Unlikely to be mitigated. geodiversity as it results in the removal of the mineral resource. 4 To protect places and buildings There is potential for archaeology on the site and -- Further archaeological surveys may be of archaeological, cultural and two Scheduled Ancient Monuments lie required to determine the nature and historic value immediately to the north of the site. There is significance of any archaeological remains. potential for significant negative effects through Adequate provision can then be made for disturbance to the archaeology of the site, and the preservation, excavation or recording of disturbance to the setting of the Scheduled any interest. English Heritage should be Ancient Monuments. consulted on detailed mitigation measures to preserve the settings of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments. 5 To recognise, protect and No effect. 0 Not applicable. enhance the cultural heritage associated with Leicestershire’s mining and to promote the use of local building materials

74 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

6 To protect the quality of ground There are various surface and ground water -- Any site drainage associated with waste and surface waters features located close to the site including a activities would need to be designed to not tributary of the River Trent which runs adjacent to discharge to the underlying strata. and a licensed groundwater abstraction. There is potential for a significant negative effect, possibly over a large range related to the area of the aquifer. 7 To protect and enhance Development of the site will have a significant -- Woodland within the site should be protected woodland and forestry negative effect through the loss of woodlands both where possible. Woodland creation and on and adjacent to the site. enhancement may offset woodlands lost. 8 To avoid soil contamination and 1988 ALC information for most of the site found a -- Reclamation and after-use proposals should safeguard soil quality and mix of 3a/b grades. ALC predictive maps shows provide for the preservation of most valuable quantity the whole site as BMV class 2 (20-60% BMV soil resources. grades likely). The development of the site is likely to have a significant negative effect through the loss of valuable soil resources. 9 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. 10 To minimise the contribution of The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Energy and emissions minimising measures minerals development to effect through additional vehicle CO2 emissions should be incorporated into design & adverse climate change through and greenhouse gas emissions associated with operation proposals. Traffic minimisation reduced greenhouse gas the site. The effect is likely to be permanent. assessments should be supplied as above. emissions. 11 To minimise public nuisance The proposal is likely to have a slight negative - Noise attenuation and dust control from minerals workings effect through the potential for noise and dust measures. emissions. The site is close to a few farms, which may be subject to negative effects, although the site is generally well distanced from residential properties. 12 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 sterilisation of mineral reserves 13 To encourage better use of The proposed site is greenfield and development -- Minimise land take of proposal. previously developed land and would have a significant negative effect on effective remediation of encouraging the use of developed land. degraded land 14 To promote the efficient use of No effect. 0 Not applicable. raw materials (including aggregates), minimise waste and maximise re-use and recycling in order to reduce the need for landfill.

75 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

15 To prevent irretrievable loss of 1988 ALC information for most of the site found a -- Reclamation and after-use proposals should the best and most versatile mix of 3a/b grades. ALC predictive maps shows provide for the preservation of most valuable agricultural land whole site as BMV class 2 (20-60% BMV grades soil resources. likely). The development of the site is likely to have a significant negative effect through the loss of valuable soil resources. 16 To reduce the need to travel. In The extension of the existing site, using the - Applications for the development of the site particular, to reduce the existing access and transport arrangements, will should include traffic assessments and transportation of minerals by have a slight negative effect through increased proposed detailed mitigation measures. road, and thereby vehicle traffic movements from the site, although the emissions effect is likely to be slight. 17 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a + Not required as effect positive. and employment diversity in slight positive effect through the provision of Leicestershire continued employment opportunities. 18 To promote sustainable No effect. 0 Not applicable. economic growth in Leicestershire 19 To improve human health and No effect. 0 Not applicable. well-being 20 To support the creation of public No effect. 0 Not applicable. access and nature reserves on restored minerals workings, particularly in proximity to urban areas. Include the provision of interpretation facilities relating to the historic land use. 21 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 minerals as identified by the Environment Agency, where storage as compensation does not appear to Agency correspondence 15.03.06. development. 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.

76 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

10. Donington Island

District/Borough Council North West Leicestershire Brief Description of Proposal Permanent permission for existing Fireclay stocking and blending facility

77 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

Site Name: Donington Island Proposals: Fireclay stocking and Blending 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 The site currently supports existing clay stocking 0 Not applicable. Proposals involve reduction of degraded wildlife habitats and species, and blending facilities and supports no known area to accommodate rationalised avoiding damage to or designated or locally important habitats. No effect stocks. Potential exists for reclamation of fragmentation of major features is predicted from proposals. remaining area to incorporate elements of importance for fauna and of habitat enhancement or creation. flora 2 To conserve and enhance the The site lies within open countryside. Clay - Planning conditions could ensure long-term quality of the countryside and stocking, blending and despatch operations take positive landscape restoration of area not landscape place within landscaped screening mounds. In the selected for continued activity. short to medium term proposals will prolong existing negative impacts at site currently designated for closure and reclamation in 2012. The overall effect is likely to be slightly negative. 3 To conserve geodiversity No effect. 0 Not applicable. 4 To protect places and buildings No effect. 0 Not applicable. of archaeological, cultural and historic value 5 To recognise, protect and No effect. 0 Not applicable. enhance the cultural heritage associated with Leicestershire’s mining and to promote the use of local building materials 6 To protect the quality of ground There is potential for slight negative effects arising - Appropriate protection measures would need and surface waters from contaminated runoff from site area. to be incorporated into the design of the site to ensure that ground and surface waters are not at risk from contamination. 7 To protect and enhance Current proposals will have no effect. 0 Potential for reclamation proposals to The legal agreement for the adjacent woodland and forestry incorporate planting. New Albion landfill site provides for the transfer of restored land at Donington to the Heart of the National Forest Foundation. 8 To avoid soil contamination and No effect. 0 Not applicable . safeguard soil quality and quantity 9 To limit emissions to air to levels Potential for inefficiencies in transportation and - Energy and emissions minimising measures that will not damage natural local air quality issues. should be incorporated into design & systems and affect human operation proposals. Traffic minimisation health assessments should be supplied.

78 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

SA Objectives Description of Effect Scale of Description of Mitigation Comments / Explanation Effect 10 To minimise the contribution of Potential for inefficiencies in transportation and - Energy and emissions minimising measures minerals development to local air quality issues. should be incorporated into design & adverse climate change through operation proposals. Traffic minimisation reduced greenhouse gas assessments should be supplied. emissions. 11 To minimise public nuisance Potential local impacts from, particularly, noise - Noise and traffic control mitigation measures Clay lorry movement to Hepworth’s local from minerals workings and traffic. Cumulative effects through can be implemented as part of planning factory is via an existing access off prolongation of activity beyond originally predicted conditions. Spring Rd and does not pass any life of site. residential properties. All other clay movements are direct from the A444 via an access road onto Occupation Road, . 12 To minimise the irreversible No effect. 0 Not applicable. sterilisation of mineral reserves 13 To encourage better use of The site is not classified as PDL. However, the + Not required as effect positive. Positive effect dependant on reclamation previously developed land and rationalisation of the area to be used for stocking of area not being used for permanent effective remediation of and blending allows for reclamation of the facility. degraded land remainder of the site and would safeguard alternative Greenfield sites from development. 14 To promote the efficient use of Provision of a dedicated stocking and blending 0 Not applicable. Efficiency of use also dependent on raw materials (including facility serving a range of works contributes to location of users of the stocks. aggregates), minimise waste efficient use and conservation of fireclay resource. and maximise re-use and However, this is not linked to reduction of landfill. recycling in order to reduce the Overall effect is neutral. need for landfill. 15 To prevent irretrievable loss of No effect. 0 Not applicable. the best and most versatile agricultural land 16 To reduce the need to travel. In Potential for inefficiencies in transportation and - Applications for the development of the site particular, to reduce the local air quality issues. The provision of a single should include traffic assessments and transportation of minerals by stocking and blending facility is likely to increase proposed detailed mitigation measures. road, and thereby vehicle the number of vehicle journeys to local and distant emissions works 17 To promote stable employment The development of the site is likely to have a ++ Not required as effect positive. The restriction of use of existing stocks and employment diversity in significant positive effect through securing the of fireclay to local works rather than Leicestershire long-term viability of local works and provision of nationwide markets would extend the continued employment opportunities. future of local works reliant on these stocks of clays. 18 To promote sustainable Promotes economic stability and continuation of + Not required as effect positive. The restriction of use of existing stocks economic growth in current uses. of fireclay to local works rather than Leicestershire nationwide markets would extend the future of local works reliant on these stocks of clays. 19 To improve human health and No effect. 0 Not applicable. well-being

79 Leicestershire Minerals Development Framework Site Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal Report Appendices

20 To support the creation of public Current proposals will have no effect. 0 Not applicable. Potential for remediation measures access and nature reserves on benefiting public access/interpretation to restored minerals workings, be incorporated into planning conditions particularly in proximity to urban for continuance of Donington Island. areas. Include the provision of interpretation facilities relating to the historic land use. 21 To avoid or reduce flood risk as No effect. 0 Not applicable. a result of minerals development.

80