responses to examining authority’s first questions … · responses to examining authority’s...

The East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Highway Order 201X

Responses to Examining Authority’s First Questions

Roxhill (Kegworth) Limited

Document No. 8.3

Date 6 March 2015

Document 8.3

1

Application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd

East Midlands Gateway Strategic Rail Freight Interchange

Applicants Reponses to the Examining Authority’s first written questions

Question: Applicant’s response

1. Policy

1 Applicant Please provide a note setting out the compliance of the

application with the:

Road Investment Strategy published on 1

December 2014

National Infrastructure Plan published on 2

December 2014 as part of the Autumn Statement

National Policy Statement for National Networks

designated on 12 January 2015

Please see Appendix 1 to this Document.

2. Transportation

2.1 Applicant Please identify within the Transport Assessment (TA) and appendices how the business case for the proposed improvements to M1 J24 and J24A has been prepared in accordance with Department for Transport’s Transport Business Case guidance and WebTAG guidance.

No business case has been prepared using WebTAG methodology. National Network NPS Para 4.5 states that a full business case based on WebTAG is required for road and rail NSIPs but not SRFIs. Para 4.8 relates to SRFIs and refers to a judgement of viability. The EMG scheme is complicated by having both SRFI and Highway NSIPs. However, as there would be no Highway NSIP without the SRFI NSIP it is our

Document 8.3

2


view that the judgement of viability referred to for SRFIs extends to all works required in order to facilitate the SRFI, including in this case the two required Highway NSIPs. In the Road Investment Strategy published alongside the 2010 Autumn Statement, it was confirmed that funding for the two Highway NSIPs at Junction 24/24A would come from the developer. Therefore, as the funding will not be from the public purse, it follows that there is no required economic justification via provision of a WebTAG compliant business case.

2.2 Applicant Please identify from within the application documents or otherwise provide any alternatives considered and the options appraisal for the highway schemes proposed as NSIPs (nationally significant infrastructure project) 2 and 3.

A report is provided in response to this question and can be

found at Appendix 2. This summarises the options that

were reviewed in the development of the Highway NSIPs

and how they relate to the SRFI NSIP.

2.3 Applicant Please provide base year 2012 traffic flows (annual

average daily traffic with the percentage of heavy goods

vehicles and/or passenger car units in the morning and

evening peaks):

on M1 southbound between J24A and J24

on A50 southbound between J24A and J24

on J24A and J24

A6 through Kegworth

The traffic model data, provided in response to this question, can be found at Appendix 3.

Document 8.3

3


2.4 Applicant Please provide traffic flows for each of the locations in question 2.3 at years 2016, 2023 and 2032 without the proposed NSIP 1 but including committed developments and transport improvements.

The traffic model data, provided in response to this question, can be found at Appendix 3.

It is assumed that this request is for the modelled reference case and not for a scenario where the highway improvements are constructed without the SRFI, which does not represent a realistic scenario.

Please note that the traffic models have been produced for 2031 and not 2032. Traffic data is not available for 2032. The Core Strategies for the surrounding planning authorities have been assessed in a range of forecast years from 2026 to 2031. It is was therefore agreed with the Transport Modelling Working Group that a 2031 sensitivity test to identify the impact of the development with the full Core Strategies in place would be undertaken. Paragraphs 4.8 to 4.14 of the TA set out further background with regard to the assessment years adopted in the transport modelling work.

2.5 Applicant Please provide traffic flows for each of the locations in question 2.3 at years 2016, 2023 and 2032 with the proposed NSIP 1, committed developments and transport improvements, but no proposed NSIPs 2 and 3 and Kegworth Bypass.

The traffic model data provided in response to this question can be found at Appendix 3.

Please note that the traffic models have been produced for 2031 and not 2032 as explained in the response to question 2.4.

2.6 Applicant Please provide traffic flows for each of the locations in question 2.3 at years 2016, 2023 and 2032 with the

The traffic model data provided in response to this question

Document 8.3

4


proposed NSIP 1, committed developments and transport improvements and the proposed NSIPs 2 and 3 and Kegworth Bypass.

can be found at Appendix 3.

Please note that the traffic models have been produced for 2031 and not 2032 as explained in the response to question 2.4.

2.7 Applicant Please provide an estimate of the costs of constructing Works Nos 7(1), 8(1) – (4), 11 and 13.

The highway works will be privately funded and procured by way of competitive tender. The Applicant would be reluctant to identify detailed costings for different elements of the scheme at this stage since it might prejudice that tendering process. The Applicant can advise however that the overall cost of the highway works has been calculated as likely to be in the region of £31m

3. Land Use

3.1

Applicant

The environmental statement (ES) states that the majority of the land for the proposed strategic rail freight interchange) SRFI belongs to Hall Farm, Lockington, which is predominantly in arable production. Hall Farm is also identified on Figure 14.1 as the largest agricultural business within the Order limits. However, paragraph 14.7.1 (residual effects) describes Fields Farm as being the largest agricultural business.

Please clarify which farm businesses have actually been assessed by the ES and confirm the correct name for the farm which would be taken by development of the

The reference to Field Farm should more properly be to Hall Farm. The Hall Farm operation, based in Lockington, encompasses the land and buildings at Field Farm.

The farm businesses which have been assessed by the ES are Hall Farm (effectively Field Farm), Mole Hill Farm and the Whatton Estates.

Document 8.3

5


SRFI.

3.2 Applicant Please explain the types of farming practices for each

farm receptor and how they will be affected by the

proposed development.

The nature of each farm is described in section 14.4 and the impacts in paragraph 14.7.1. Hall Farm (Field Farm) will lose a considerable part of its area to the development. Mole Hill Farm and the Whatton Estates are impacted upon by the Kegworth Bypass. The land lost from each of those operations is a very small percentage of their overall holding. Please also see Statement of Common Ground with Natural England (Document 7.13, paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10).

3.3

Applicant Paragraph 14.2.3 of the ES states that information on agricultural businesses was obtained through interviews with the main user. Details of the interview selection process and methodology/questions have not been provided. Please provide the information used to inform the impact assessment of the proposed development on farm businesses.

The information on the farm businesses was acquired through telephone conversations with the agricultural owners/users rather than by formal interview. The essence of the information upon which the impact assessment was based is set out in section 14.4.

3.4 Applicant There are areas within the Order limits shown on Figure 14.1 of the ES that are not shaded as a particular landowner/farm type, and soil resource not assessed on Figure 14.2 but is shown as other land on Figure 14.3. These are presumably buildings and woodland such a King Street Plantation and The Dumps. It is unclear whether this land forms part of the farm businesses

The areas referred to are areas of non agricultural land that were not relevant to consideration of agricultural impacts, the areas are however part of the agricultural holdings in which they sit.

Document 8.3

6


assessed in ES Chapter 14. Please explain the gaps in the data presented on Figures 14.1 and 14.2 of the ES.

3.5 Applicant Paragraph 14.4.8 of the ES states that ‘at least 250 soil observations across the application area confirm the soil pattern suggested by the National Soil Map’; however, no details of these surveys undertaken for the proposed development appear to have been presented. Please explain whether soil surveys have been undertaken in addition to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) surveys and surveys for the Highways Agency described in the ES, and if so please provide the results together with the survey methodology, location and dates.

Detailed survey information (one observation per hectare) for most of the area was supplied by Natural England. Additional detailed survey information was held by the Applicant’s consultants based on their work for other projects. Small areas not covered by the existing survey information were surveyed in detail (one observation per hectare) by the Applicant’s consultant in 2013/14. Please see also paragraphs 6.4 to 6.7 of the Statement of Common Ground with Natural England (Document 7.13). The survey information can be summarised as follows:-

1. 1990 Detailed Soil and Agricultural Land

Classification for large area of land extending north

east of M1 J24 to the rivers Soar and Trent carried

out by Land Research Associates.


Classification Survey of land south west of the M1

J24 carried out by the Government’s Resource

Planning Group.


Document 8.3

7


Classification Survey of the north east quadrant of

M1 J24 carried out by Land Research Associates.

This area overlapped with the 1990 survey area.

The resultant report is attached at Appendix 4A.

4. 2006 Detailed Agricultural Land Classification

Survey carried out by Land Research Associates for

the Highways Agency for a 250m wide zone either

side of the M1 from J21 to J24A. This overlapped

with some of the previous agricultural land

classification surveys.

5. 2008 Augmentation of the RPG 1996 survey

information with additional 75 detailed survey

observations undertaken by Land Research

Associates. This report is attached at Appendix 4B.

6. 2013 Detailed Soils and Agricultural Land

Classification Survey under taken by the Applicant’s

consultants in relation to 37 hectares of land within

the order limits which had not been previously

surveyed. This information is contained in

Appendix 4C.

3.6 Applicant Please explain how the mitigation for effects on soils described in ES Chapter 14 will be delivered.

The mitigation for the effects on soils as described in ES Chapter 14 will be delivered through the Construction Environmental Management Plan, Requirement 11, and the earthworks strategy, Requirement 12.

Document 8.3

8


4. The Draft Order

4.1 Applicant Articles 2, 5 and 32 The undertaker is defined as (a) Roxhill Developments Ltd and Roxhill Kegworth Limited and their associated companies, and (b) subject to Article 7 any person with the benefit of the land. Please explain what is meant by ’their associated companies’ and in what circumstances it is envisaged that they would be the undertaker.

This issue was discussed at the DCO hearing on 4 February 2015. It was agreed that the reference to “associated companies” was not necessary and the reference has been deleted from the latest version of the draft DCO. Since the 4 February hearing, Roxhill Developments Group Limited have been added to the definition of undertaker for reasons explained in paragraph 7.5 iii) of the revised Explanatory Memorandum.

4.2 Applicant Please explain why it is necessary for any other person with the benefit of the land to have all the powers proposed to be granted by the Order to operate and use the development.

This has been reviewed. The occupiers of NSIP 1 will need the powers to operate and use NSIP 1 but it is accepted that it would be inappropriate for those occupiers to also have the powers contained in the draft DCO relating to the implementation of the highways works. Accordingly, the latest version of the draft DCO has confined those powers to Roxhill Developments Group Limited, Roxhill (Kegworth) Limited and Roxhill Developments Limited (see revised Article 7).

4.3 Applicant Article 8(3) S.174 (3) PA 2008 inserts a new section into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) to provide that

Section 120 of the Planning Act 2008 provides the ability to disapply the application of legislation to the DCO including

Document 8.3

9


the Secretary of State shall be the appropriate authority for modifying or discharging a development consent obligation. Please provide a justification for proposing to disapply the PA 2008 provisions specifically designed for NSIP applications.

the Planning Act itself. Section 120 restricted the general scope of that power in respect of NSIPs in certain respects but, notably, such exclusions do not exclude what is proposed in Article 8(3). The Development Consent Obligation has been the product of negotiation between the local authorities and applicant. The contents and drafting of the document are not determined by the Secretary of State, unlike the DCO. Any amendment to the DCOb under the terms of s.106 would require agreement by all the parties. To require a further consent from the Secretary of State seems unnecessary.

4.4 Applicant Article 8(4) This provision seeks to apply certain parts of the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) as if it were an application for planning permission. Please explain why it is necessary to apply these provisions to this project.

The provisions which Art 8 (4) is seeking to apply are certain permitted development rights which relate to the type of development proposed by NSIP1. This is to ensure that the occupiers of the distribution warehousing benefit from the same permitted development rights as they would were they to be occupying under a conventional planning permission. This is necessary since occupiers are wary of the unknown and will want the comfort of knowing that they are not being restricted in what they are used to being able to do. This

Document 8.3

10


site will have to compete with other sites for occupants where there will be no such potential confusion. Such a provision was sought in the DIRFT III DCO and rejected, however, this was, at least in part, because there was no precedent for such action (see para 7.43 of Examining Authority’s Report). As noted in the revised Explanatory Memorandum for this DCO (para 7.20) there is, in fact, precedent see Article 3(3) of SI 2935 2014 (Able Marine). It has been suggested that Article 3(10) of the GDPO 1995 would negate this provision. That is not the case. What Article 3(10) provides is that permitted development rights can not be utilitised if the development that is proposed to be undertaken pursuant to those rights (i.e. the permitted development itself) would be EIA development. Where permitted development is judged to be EIA development then the deemed permission is removed by virtue of Article 3(10) and a planning application (or an amendment to a DCO) would then have to be applied for, accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

4.5 Applicant Article 25 Please provide a justification for this article and examples of any precedent in confirmed development consent orders (DCO).

The justification for Article 25 (now Article 26) is to ensure that, when land is acquired, whether by compulsory purchase or by agreement, it is free from restrictions such

Document 8.3

11


as restrictive covenants. The loss of any right or benefit over land would be compensatable, rather than being able to be the subject of an injunction that might halt the project. The article is the same as Article 31 in the Able Marine Energy Park Development Consent Order 2014 and is similar to an article included within DCO’s for North Killingholme Power Project, Rookery South, Thames Water Utilities (Thames Tideway Tunnel), Kings Lynn B Connection Project and Willington C Gas Pipeline.

4.6 Applicant Schedule 1 The further site-wide development categories (a) – (p) following Works No13 are very extensive; only those that fall within (p) should not give rise to any materially new or materially different effects from those assessed with the ES. Please explain why such site wide development cannot be better identified at this stage and included in the draft DCO.

Please see latest draft DCO which has:

1. Differentiated in Schedule 1 between the site wide works for the different elements of the scheme; and

2. Provides in Schedule 1 that all of those works are caught by the ES umbrella.

Also see paragraph 5.3 of the revised Explanatory Memorandum.

4.7 Applicant Please explain why all categories of site wide development should not fall within the scope of those assessed within the ES.

See 2. In response to Question 4.6 above.

4.8 Applicant Compulsory Acquisition (CA)

Document 8.3

12


Please explain how compensation will be secured for the CA of new rights in the absence of any amendment to the compensation provisions in the 1961 and 1965 Acts in the draft DCO.

On the basis that the question refers to compensation provisions in the 1965 Act and the Land Compensation Act 1973 (not 1961) the previous Article 24 omitted to secure compensation for the compulsory acquisition of new rights. We have amended Article 24 (now Article 25) and inserted a new Schedule 14 entitled Modification of Compensation and Compulsory Purchase Enactments for the Creation of New Rights to address this omission. Article 25 and the new schedule amends the compensation provisions in the 1973 and 1965 Acts so as to apply appropriate provisions for compensation for the creation of new rights which ought properly to be included.

4.9

Applicant

Book of Reference (BoR) Please confirm to which part or parts of the BoR the interest of Mr Charles Croker identified on page 3 is applicable.

The interest of Mr Coaker referred to on page 3 relates to his manorial rights. In addition to the parcels which are the subject of the registered titles referred to at 1. and 2. on page 3 of the book of reference, the following, unregistered and recently registered parcels are affected:- 1/1 (part), 2/1, 2/5, 2/6, 2/7, 2/10, 2/12, 2/13, 2/23, 2/24, 2/26, 2/27, 2/39, 3/1, 3/2, 3/9, 3/12, 4/8, 4/9, 5/3, 5/4, 5/6, 5/9, 5/24, 6/2, 6/9. For clarity, the part of Plot 1/1 which is subject to the interest of Mr Coaker is shown on the plan appended to this document at Appendix 5.

Document 8.3

13


Part 4 – Crown interests Crown interests totalling 518,265 sq metres are defined by reference to the Crown Land Plan rather than by specific plots. This seems much smaller than the area shown on the Crown Land Plans. The application states that no Crown interests are to be acquired. Several plots expressly refer to excluding Crown interests and the land plan does not appear to cover land identified in the Crown Land Plan.

Part 4 - Crown interests Crown interests total 515,087 sq metres (approximately 52 hectares) in accordance with the amended Book of Reference and Land Plans submitted in December 2014. The Examining Authority will recall that the amendments referred to above were necessary to reflect the recently registered Secretary of State titles. We confirm that the full extent of Crown Land is shown on the Crown Land Plan.

4.10 Applicant Please confirm that that all of the Crown interests are excluded from CA within the BoR, and provide a list of all plots containing a Crown interest.

Confirmed. The following plots contain a Crown interest:- 1/7, 1/8, 1/9, 2/24, 2/25, 2/26, 2/28, 2/29, 2/30, 2/31, 2/32, 2/33, 2/34, 2/35, 2/36, 2/37, 3/3, 3/7, 3/8, 3/9, 3/10, 3/11, 3/14, 5/4, 5/5, 5/6, 5/8, 5/22, 5/23, 5/24, 5/25.

4.11 Applicant Statement of Reasons Please provide a map of land interests within the Order lands under the control of the applicant and an estimate of the costs of likely compensation arising from interests which are proposed to be acquired compulsorily.

The Applicant has agreements with the owners of all of the land shaded blue on the Plan appended to this document at Appendix 6. Based on the transactions entered into by the Applicant to date with respect to the acquisition of land interests necessary for the delivery of the scheme, the Applicants informed view is that the likely cost of compensation will be

Document 8.3

14


in the region of £5,000,000 (five million pounds).

4.12 Applicant The Funding Statement Please provide evidence of the assertions regarding the financial resources of Roxhill Developments Group Limited.

The statement below updates the position set out in the Funding Statement (Document 4.2). As at 2 March 2015 Roxhill Developments Group Limited (the parent company of Roxhill Developments Limited and Roxhill (Kegworth) Limited), held available capital of £105m, of which £38m was available in cash. Attached at Appendix 7 is a letter from RDGL’s corporate lawyers (Gateley LLP) confirming the shareholders and the commitment to subscribe to £105m of preference share equity. The intention would be to raise any additional funds necessary to finance the scheme by way of a further commitment of sharehold equity, primarily from CBRE Investors and Forum Partners (as referred to in paragraph 2.3 of the Funding Statement), subject to the relevant board approvals.

5. Employment impacts

5.1 Local Authorities

An estimate of the number of construction workers has

been made based on the total capital expenditure of

the built development and infrastructure to be 3443

person-years of construction employment giving an

average of 688 job opportunities to be supported a

Document 8.3

15


year (ES paragraphs 4.8.3 – 4.8.4).

Please confirm agreement or otherwise and the

reasons.


An estimate of employment generated by the proposed

development has been made using research from a

Prologis Technical Note to be up to 6400 full time jobs

and 872 part time jobs. These jobs have been further

defined by type and whether they are full or part time

(ES paragraphs 4.9.1-4.9.4).


reasons.

5.3 Applicant

In ES paragraph 4.9.6 it is stated that approximately 2294 jobs will be created in the initial phase.

Please set out what period and development quantity the initial phase covers and the predicted job creation for subsequent phases throughout the development of the SRFI until it is fully operational.

ES paragraph 4.6.14 states that the first stage of development comprises around 186,000m2 of warehousing and distribution units and this is envisaged to be open 2016/17. For the purposes of assessment it has been assumed the subsequent development taking place at a rate of between 70,000m2 and 93,000m2 per year (ES 4.6.14). Each of these build-rates has been used in the table below to indicate the potential lower and upper job capacity as the proposal develops to full operation. The effects of leakage, displacement and the economic multiplier have not been applied to these numbers. The staff required at the rail terminal would be in addition to the numbers shown below.

Document 8.3

16


Period

Cumulative development (m2) with an annual build

rate of 70,000m2

Job Capacity

(FTE)

Cumulative development (m2) with an annual build

rate of 93,000m2

Job Capacity

(FTE)

2016-17

186,000 2,294 186,000 2,294

2017-18

256,000 3,325 279,000 3,623

2018-19

326,000 4,234 372,000 4,831

2019-20

396,000 5,143 465,000 6,039

2020-21

466,000 6,052 560,000 7,272

2021-22

536,000 6,961 - -

2022-23

560,000 7,272 - -

FTE: full-time equivalent

5.4 Applicant Please confirm what employment needs from other committed developments have been taken into account in the assessment of how employment requirements of the application proposal can be met from the local labour market.

The specific affects of committed development have not been taken into account in the assessment of how employment requirements can be met. The assessment work has shown that employees will be drawn from a wide area which includes parts of the Cities of Leicester, Derby and Nottingham and towns of Coalville, Ashby,

Document 8.3

17


Loughborough and Long Eaton. The labour market over such a large area is complex and affected by a wide range of factors including committed development within this wide area and growth of existing businesses. Committed development in the area around EMG is not considered to have a material affect on this wider labour market. The opportunity is taken to provide the Examining Authority with Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.9 of the Socio-Economic Chapter of the ES which it appears were omitted from the submitted version. These are contained in Appendix 8.

5.5

Local Authorities

The ES at states at paragraph 4.9.23 that taking into

account the future increase in housing supply, the

impact on housing demand is considered to be

negligible.


reasons.

6. Construction and operation impacts

6.1 Applicant The Construction Management Framework Plan

(CMFP) states it should be read in conjunction with the

Construction Management Strategy for Safeguarding

of East Midlands Airport and the Construction

Management Strategy for Safeguarding the Derwent

Valley Aqueduct. The CMFP does not appear to be

Paragraph 2.2.26 of the Environmental Statement explains that the ES has been prepared having regard to the CMFP. The Construction Management Strategy for safeguarding of the East Midlands Airport and the Construction Management Strategy for safeguarding the Derwent Valley Aqueduct are specific construction management documents relating to those matters and provide additional

Document 8.3

18


part of the ES. Requirement 11 of the draft DCO sets

out the need for a Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) which accords with the

principles of the CMFP.

Please explain the relationship between these documents and how they have been taken into account in the environmental assessment.

details to demonstrate how these facilities will be appropriately safeguarded. These documents are supplemental to the CMFP and as set out in the CMFP, should be read in conjunction with it. Please also see paragraphs 7.98 to 7.103 of the revised Explanatory Memorandum in this regard.

6.2 Applicant Paragraph 7.5.1.2 of the ES states that a Site Waste Management Plan (in accordance with the principles of the Site Management Framework Plan) for each construction contract and an Earthworks Specification will be prepared.

Please explain how these plans relate to the CEMP and Earthworks Strategy for each phase of the authorised development for each to be secured by requirements 11 and 12 of the draft DCO.

As part of the preparation of CEMPs for each Phase of development, the developer (contractor) would prepare details of site waste management in accordance with the Site Waste Management Framework Plan. This was not required by Requirement 11 as previously drafted. Requirement 11 has been amended to provide clarity on this matter. Please also see paragraphs 7.98 to 7.103 of the revised Explanatory Memorandum in this regard.

6.3 Applicant Please provide a draft of the CEMP for the first phase of the authorised development further to requirement 11 of the draft DCO.

Construction Environmental Management Plans will be prepared by the contractor appointed to construct each phase of development working alongside the undertaker. Individual contractors will have different approaches to construction management and as such the CEMPs will differ depending on the contractor appointed. Each CEMP will accord with the principles established in the CMFP. Having regard to this it was concluded that a Construction

Document 8.3

19


Management Framework Plan would provide the most appropriate mechanism for setting out what should be included in each CEMP. If a draft CEMP was prepared it would necessarily be generic because it would not have contractor input and would not therefore have any detail in it in relation to the matters identified by the CMFP. Rather than prepare a draft CEMP it was considered more appropriate to prepare a CMFP to establish construction management principles within which each CEMP would have to accord in accordance with Requirement 11. It may be that terminology is misleading here. The CMFP could equally have been called a CEMP and the subsequent CEMPs could equally have been called Construction Method Statements or similar. The approach taken is similar to the approach adopted for the DIRFT III development which provided that CEMPs be produced by contractors under a Site Wide Framework CEMP. In the case of the DIRFT III development even the Site Wide Framework CEMP (equivalent to our CMFP) was not drafted at this stage. We would ask the Examining Authority to review their request for a draft CEMP in light of this explanation. If, nonetheless, a draft CEMP is still requested then, of course, it will be provided.

Document 8.3

20


6.4 Applicant Compliance with the Earthworks Strategy for each phase of the authorised development may determine that some materials on site are not suitable for reuse and therefore more materials may need to be exported/imported to the site.

Please confirm what assumptions have been made in the earthworks calculations of about 4million cubic metres to be moved to assess the worst case and how these have been considered in the TA covering construction traffic impacts.

Initial geotechnical assessments (See ES Chapter 7 and Appendices 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6) have confirmed that sufficient acceptable material for structural filling is available and there is no need to import or export any bulk materials. The 4 million cubic meters refers to the amount of material which will be moved around the site to achieve a cut and fill balance. The screening bund has a capacity >1million m3 so materials not acceptable as structural fill can be incorporated in the bund. Standard civil engineering techniques such as lime or cement stabilisation would be used to improve the condition of ground if required, although the assessment work referred to above indicates that such measures are unlikely to be necessary. There is of course always the risk of unexpected material being encountered which may be unsuitable for incorporating in the bund (contaminated material for example) which may have to go off site; however, the assessment work undertaken to date has not identified any such material and the historic use of the site would suggest any significant volume is most unlikely. The construction traffic calculations are provided at Appendix W of the Transport Assessment, with the corresponding construction traffic impact examined at

Document 8.3

21


Section 9 of that document. The construction traffic calculations are robust and include a contingency which would cover the small, if any, volume of material to be disposed offsite. The overall balance and levels of the development would be adjusted to accommodate any small shortfall.

6.5 Applicant Please confirm how these assumptions have been

considered in the TA covering construction traffic

impacts.

Please refer to answer to 6.4 above.

6.6 Applicant Paragraph 2.2.20 of the ES refers to earthworks to

create the proposed development plateaus. The site

contours shown on Figure 5.12, the cross-sections in

Figure 5.15 and Photomontage 1 indicate the scale of

earthworks required, however it is not clear whether

these levels are intended to be committed or

indicative. The proposed contour labels are not legible

and the sections have no vertical scale or levels

shown.

Please confirm what proposed levels have been taken into account in the ES, and what assumptions have been made in respect of the cut and fill.

The proposed levels are shown on the cross-sections which are included within the Design and Access Statement and in Figure 5.15. The cross-sections are drawn to scale, both horizontal and vertical. However, in order to provide clarity on the proposed levels, a set of sections have been produced with spot heights added. These are included at Appendix 8. The assumption is that there will be an overall cut and fill balance across the site. See answer to Question 6.4

Document 8.3

22


Flooding

6.7 Applicant It is not clear what assumptions have been used in

the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to address the

proposed limits of deviation, the physical

characteristic of proposed railway and the

characteristics of proposed earthworks.

Please provide these assumptions with justifications.

The FRA reflects the parameters plan and regulation 6(2) plans and analysis has been carried out to assess the impact of any changes in level within the floodplain (see the Flood Risk Assessment Section 4) By way of mitigation for any loss of floodplain conveyance and floodplain storage the scheme includes for both volumetric floodplain compensation on a level for level basis and culverts for conveyance of flood water through the railway embankment. Irrespective of the railway alignment within the limits of deviation this mitigation is compliant as the required volumetric compensation and conveyance capacity remain unchanged. The level of flood risk and the proposed mitigation are therefore valid for any alignment within the limits of deviation.

6.8

Applicant

Paragraph 8.5.3 of the ES states a temporary surface

water management system is proposed to prevent

localised flooding during the construction phase.

Although referred to in the CMFP no details of the

system are contained in the ES or the FRA.

Please identify from within the application documents

or otherwise provide further details of the proposed

temporary surface water management system.

The temporary surface water management system referred to in the ES is to mitigate the potential increase in run off during the construction phase. The system would include ditches and ponds to provide on-site attenuation. The CMFP proposes a phased approach to the construction. Within each phase the necessary temporary and permanent drainage and balancing ponds with suitable outfalls will be constructed based on the storage and allowable flows confirmed in the FRA Section 5.

In order to control potential silt generated at the construction stage the surface water system will incorporate a range of methods such as silt fences, as

Document 8.3

23


identified in Pollution Prevention Guidelines 5, Section 2, issued by the Environment Agency in October 2007. Details of the temporary surface water drainage systems for each phase will be submitted under Requirement 11.

6.9 Applicant Paragraphs 8.5.39 to 8.5.42 of the ES set out

proposed compensation measures to offset the loss

of floodplain. However the characteristics of the land

where the compensation is proposed are not clearly

described.

Please set out any impacts such as presence of

ecological species or land uses such as agriculture

on land proposed for flood compensation.

The areas proposed for floodplain compensation measures in and around Lockington Park (the grounds of Lockington Hall) and the horseshoe area are illustrated on Figure 6.4, which accompanies the Ecology chapter of the ES. The grounds of Lockington Hall (shown as fields F6, F7, F8 and F9 on Figure 6.4) comprise a mix of semi-improved and improved grassland. These areas are of limited ecological interest, and in any event grassland will be restored once the over-deepening works are complete. The horseshoe area is field F13, shown on Figure 6.4 as an arable field. Again this is of limited ecological interest and the drainage works would have no significant effect on ecological receptors. The two main areas are currently in agricultural use and will be returned to such use when the compensation works have been completed.

6.10 Applicant In paragraphs 8.5.54 - 8.5.55 of the ES it is stated

that ‘...there will be no cumulative impacts associated

with any development.., and ‘’The only cumulative

These paragraphs deal with different aspects of cumulative effects. Para 8.5.54 refers to the cumulative impact of the proposed

Document 8.3

24


impacts may be beneficial…’

Please explain these conflicting statements.

development together with other developments in the area. Para 8.5.55 refers to the cumulative impact on receptors resulting from the effects of flood risk together with other environmental effects.

6.11 Applicant Please confirm whether any other committed

developments have been considered in the

cumulative assessment for flooding in addition to

those listed in Chapter 15.

Only the committed developments listed in Chapter 15 are considered to have the potential to contribute to the flood risk and therefore no other sites have been included.

6.12 Applicant, Environment Agency, Local Authorities

The ES/FRA do not refer to any proposals to monitor

changes to flood risk and/or the effectiveness of

proposed mitigation measures.

Please state if any monitoring is required and if so

how this should be secured in the draft DCO.

No requests for monitoring have been received.

Flood mitigation comprises flood compensation areas and surface water attenuation features. The flood compensation areas are excavated depressions which will be maintained for agricultural use and will only engage with flood water during extreme flood events. Therefore monitoring of their performance is not feasible or necessary due to their very infrequent use.

With respect to the surface water attenuation features, these will be subject to a maintenance strategy comprising vegetation clearance and inspection of embankments and flow control devices. The maintenance regime, to be submitted under Requirement 17(d), would provide an opportunity to monitor the performance of these features.

Document 8.3

25


6.13 Environment Agency

Flood defence consents are required under the

provisions of the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the

Water Resources Act 1991 for works associated with

the Hemington Brook and Lockington Brook, amongst

others, and these will be sought during the detailed

design.

Please confirm there are not expected to be any

impediments to issuing such consents.

6 Noise and Vibration

6.14

Applicant

Figure B1 of Appendix 9.1 of the ES shows the

baseline noise monitoring locations.

Please set out the distances between the 11

receptors and the nearest elements of the proposed

development.

The approximate distance between the measurement locations and the nearest point of the proposed development are as follows:

Location 1: 100 m

Location 2: 1 km

Location 3: 350 m

Location 4: 320 m

Location 5: 450 m

Location 6: 390 m

Location 7: 400 m

Location 8: 700 m

Location 9: 85 m

Document 8.3

26


Location 10: 150 m

Location 11: 240 m

Note that the above distances relate to the distance between the respective monitoring locations and the nearest element of new road or rail infrastructure or new buildings/service yards within the SFRI site. The above distances do not therefore, reflect the distances between the monitoring locations and the nearest element of that part of the development that comprises only landscaping.

6.15

Applicant

Paragraph 9.4.24 of the ES refers to the year 2031

being used in the noise model for the year of

opening. However the TA and CMFP indicate that

the proposed development is assumed to be

complete by 2023.

Please confirm whether the noise assessment has

covered the worst case scenario as a result of the

development, if noise impacts at only 2031 have

been considered.

The data from the traffic modelling for 2031 includes traffic from the development committed through the Development Plans being brought forward in the area (see answer to question 2.4). In this regard the use of this data provides an extremely robust data set because traffic levels and noise associated with it, will be higher than in earlier years as a result of this growth.

6.16 Applicant Please provide indicative timescales for the

construction of the proposed development and

confirm if these timescales have been used

consistently throughout the environmental impact

assessment (EIA).

Indicative timescales for the construction of the proposed development are set out in the indicative Master Programme contained in Appendix 3 of the Construction Management Framework Plan. As outlined in paragraph 2.2.26 of the Environmental Statement, the ES has been prepared having regard to the CMFP.

Document 8.3

27


The timescales shown in the indicative Master Programme are based on reasonable assumptions based on experience.

The ES Chapters have had regard to this indicative programme where appropriate. However each chapter, in accordance with best practice in relation to each discipline, has adopted appropriate dates to ensure assessments are robust.

6.17 Applicant Construction and operational vibration has not been

considered in the assessment as sensitive receptors

are unlikely to be affected during construction

(paragraph 9.4.10 of the ES) and once operational

the nearest receptor is 120 metres (paragraph 9.4.26

of the ES).

Please identify the receptors referred to in reaching

these conclusions about vibration during the

construction and operational phases.

The receptors referred to are the nearest properties to the different parts of the development, principally properties to the north of Hemington and Lockington, east and south of Lockington, east of Castle Donington and south of Kegworth.

During the operational phase, the receptors referred to in reaching these conclusions are the properties nearest to the proposed rail link. These are, properties on the north of Hemington, properties to the north of Lockington, properties to the east of Lockington and The Hilton East Midlands Hotel.

The nearest receptor is The Hilton East Midlands Hotel at approximately 120m from the new rail link.

Separation distances are greater than this for other receptors and are greater than this between all properties and the proposed warehouse buildings and service yards.

Document 8.3

28


6.18 Applicant Paragraphs 9.4.17 to 9.4.19 describe a number of assumptions concerning operational noise from the new rail link.

Please set out the assumptions used in the noise

modelling about the horizontal and vertical alignment

of the new rail link.

The horizontal and vertical alignments of the rail link that have been modelled for noise impact purposes are shown on the Regulation 6(2) drawings, drawing numbers BWB/NTH/209/100-04 (General Arrangement Railway), BWB/NTH/209/101-04 (Long Sections – Railway Alignment) and BWB/NTH/209/102-04 (Cross Sections – Railway Alignment). (Documents 2.4D & 2.4G respectively). Please see Article 4 of the draft DCO in this regard.

6.19 Applicant BS 5228-1:2009 was amended in February 2014 and BS 5228-2:2009 in June 2014.

Please confirm whether the 2014 amendments to BS 5228 – 1 and 2 alter the noise assessment for the proposed development and if so set these out.

The 2014 amendments to BS 5228:2009 are minor text changes and do not materially affect the construction noise assessment presented in the ES.

6.20 Applicant Paragraph 9.4.9 of the ES states that consideration has been given to the possible noise impacts of construction related traffic.

Please identify in the application documents where this assessment is set out.

The construction traffic assessment is not outlined in detail in the application documents. For the purpose of the assessment of significant environmental effects it is judged that a minimum of a 10% increase in road traffic flows would be needed for any significant increase in road traffic noise. Since the construction traffic will mainly access the site from the M1, A50, A453 or A42, all of which currently carry more than 15000 vehicles per day, construction traffic flows, whilst not specifically defined in the ES, will be

Document 8.3

29


significantly less than 10% of the flow of these roads and therefore there will be a negligible impact from construction traffic, as per paragraph 9.6.11 of the noise chapter.

6.21 Applicant Paragraph 9.6.41 of the ES states that the results of the TA have been used as the basis of a road traffic noise assessment.

Please identify the location of the roads in Table D3 of Appendix 9.1 and set out the cross references to the TA.

A series of plans showing the location of the roads set out in Table D3 is provided at Appendix 10 together with an updated version of Table D3 to include a reference ID for the roads shown on the plans (no other changes have been made to the table).

Section 4 of the Transport Assessment details the transport modelling scenarios undertaken to support the proposed development. Paragraphs 4.13 to 4.14 and Table 4.2 of the TA summarise the modelling scenarios used in the Environmental Statement.

6.22 Applicant The predicted day and night-time operational noise levels are given in Tables 9.25 and 9.26 of the ES. It is stated that these include the total noise from the site and noise due to all stationary sources.

Please clarify which moving sources of noise have been considered.

Moving sources refers to road traffic within the site (i.e. on the internal roads, service yards and within the rail terminal).

6.23 Applicant Predicted overall changes in noise level due to site operations are given in Table 9.27 of the ES. Please clarify what sources of operational noise have

been used to inform this table.

The sources of operational noise that have been included in the results presented in Table 9.27 are based on the predicted noise levels presented in the second column of Tables 9.25 and 9.26 (i.e. the total noise level). As such, the results of Table 9.27 include the effects of all SRFI on-site noise sources (including traffic moving within the SRFI

Document 8.3

30


site), but not offsite rail and road traffic, which is assessed separately (see Tables 9.29 and 9.30 respectively).

6.24 Applicant Please explain the predicted decrease in traffic noise

at location 9 in Table 9.30 of the ES.

The reduction in noise levels at location 9 (The Hilton East Midlands Hotel) stems from changes to the traffic flows that are expected to occur due to the changes to the road network, and in particular the changes to the north of Junction 24, which bring southbound traffic from the A50 down the new road link to the east of the M1.

6.25 Applicant The ES states at paragraph 9.6.12 that the end users of the commercial premises are unknown and therefore a generic assessment for the operational noise has been undertaken. The Assessment Methodology provides the commercial noise sources for the assessment but it is not clear where the results are presented. Please identify from within the application documents or otherwise provide the full noise assessment of the operational Rail Freight Terminal and the warehouse buildings.

The results relating to the operation of the rail freight terminal and the fixed sources associated with the warehouses are presented in Tables 9.25 and 9.26 of the noise chapter. The contribution from fixed sources only (i.e. the rail freight terminal and the sources associated with the warehouses) are presented in the third column of these tables. The second column of tables 9.25 and 9.26 includes contributions from the fixed sources, plus traffic within the site. The assessment of the impact of these noise sources is presented in Table 9.27 (see also response to Question 6.23).

6.26 Applicant Acoustic fencing and earth bunds along the new railway line and bypass are referred to in paragraphs 9.7.9 and 9.7.11of the ES. The height of the bunds is likely to have a bearing on the extent of noise

The heights of the proposed bunds are shown on the Regulation 6(2) plans for both the Kegworth Bypass bund and the bund associated with the rail line and on cross sections contained within the Design and Access

Document 8.3

31


mitigation. Please identify from within the application documents or otherwise provide information on the heights of the bunds and confirm how the fencing and bunds are secured in the draft DCO.

Statement (Document 6.9). Spot heights are now also shown on the cross sections in Appendix 9. Please also see revised Requirement 6.

6.27 Applicant Please confirm what cumulative noise effects are likely from other committed development.

Cumulative noise effects are likely from other committed development on road traffic noise. The cumulative effects of committed development on road traffic levels and road traffic noise have been assessed as this forms part of the traffic data utilised in the noise assessment. There are not considered to be any other forms of cumulative noise effects from committed development.

Air quality

6.28 Applicant The existing air quality conditions are described in respect of road vehicle emissions. There is no reference in the ES to where existing emissions in respect of rail vehicles are described. Please identify from within the application documents or otherwise provide such information.

The ES Chapter makes clear in paragraphs 10.5.60 to 10.5.63 that, following Defra Guidance (which states that only locations with a large number of diesel locomotive movements, along with background concentrations above 25 µg/m3, need be assessed), there is no risk of significant air quality impacts along local railway lines. This assumption is valid both for existing rail traffic volumes and rail traffic volumes with the scheme. This is because background concentrations in the area of the railway lines are below 25 µg/m3, and the lines will see a low volume of traffic.

Document 8.3

32


The Defra guidance actually outlines explicitly which lines are of concern (for example the Paddington to Swansea line – see http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/laqm-faqs/faq37.html), and the Castle Donington branch line is not on this list, and nor does it have anything like the volume of diesel locomotive traffic on these lines. It is thus reasonable to assume that the contribution of rail traffic to local air pollutant concentrations will be minor, and need not be considered in detail.

6.29 Applicant Please confirm the statement at paragraph 10.5.4 of the ES that there are no homes within 50m of the SRFI boundary.

We have reviewed the statement that there are no homes within 50m of the SRFI boundary and can clarify the statement in paragraph 10.5.4 of the ES. We confirm that there are no homes within 50m of the main site (Works No’s 2-5). If one considers the SRFI boundary to be the outer boundary of NSIP 1 (i.e. works 1-7) some of the travelling show people’s quarters on the land north of the railway at Rycroft Road fall within 50m from the outer boundary of NSIP 1, along with the swimming pool and tennis court attached to Hall Farm House on Church Street in Lockington. Field Farm house which is located in the middle of the SRFI is to be demolished.

Document 8.3

33


6.30 Applicant Paragraphs 10.3.10 and 10.3.11 of the ES appear contradictory in terms of what schemes are assumed to be included in the 2016 scenario. Please confirm the assumptions regarding the highway network for the 2016 scenario.

In the 2016 ‘without scheme’ scenario it is assumed that the road network develops as is currently planned, without the scheme, with the key additional feature being the M1 Junction 24 pinch point scheme (currently underway). In the 2016 ‘with scheme’ scenario the M1 Junction 24 pinch point scheme is replaced by the proposed highway works at M1 Junction 24/24A. It is assumed that 2 million sqft of the B8 units are operational at the SRFI site but that the Kegworth bypass is not in place. A summary of the modelling scenarios used in Environmental Impact Assessment is given at Table 4.3 of the Transport Assessment.

6.31 Applicant, Local Authorities

Paragraph 10.6.3 of the ES states that mitigation measures for construction impacts should be written into a dust management plan (DMP), which will be considered in the CEMP, and may require monitoring. Please confirm who would be responsible for carrying out such monitoring and how this would be secured in requirement 11 of the draft DCO.

The dust management plan will set out the processes to be employed during construction, to minimise the creation of dust. It will form part of each CEMP as required by the CMFP section 6 and secured through Requirement 11. Monitoring of the implementation of all the requirements set out in each CEMP will be carried out by Contractors, overseen by the Undertaker and enforced by the local planning authority.


Paragraphs 10.8.1 and 10.8.2 of the ES state that there are no committed developments which could lead to significant cumulative dust impacts during construction and operation.

Document 8.3

34


Please confirm agreement or otherwise and the reasons.

6.33

Local Authorities

Mitigation measures are not proposed for the operational phase, on the basis that the overall impact of the scheme on human receptors (in terms of air quality) will be slight to moderate beneficial. Please confirm agreement or otherwise to the conclusion in the ES that the three existing Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) (M1, Kegworth and Castle Donington) are likely to be rescinded.

Lighting

6.34 Applicant Chapter 12.5 of the ES states that assessment

criteria from the Institute of Lighting Professionals

Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light

have been used and also refers to the International

Commission on Illumination Guide.

Please explain how the criteria have been used to

assess the significance of the effects of the project,

and the likely effects of the scheme before and after

mitigation.

The existing environmental zone of the SRFI site and surrounding area has been classified based on guidance within CIE I5O (Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations prepared by the International Commission on Illumination. A visual survey of the site concluded that the existing site and surrounding area is generally of low brightness surrounded by villages (Hemington and Lockington) and small town / city centres (Kegworth and Castle Donnington). Based on this information the Environmental Category for the site can be defined as category E2 or E3, using the definitions included in the “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light GN01:2011” prepared by the Institute of Lighting Professionals.

Document 8.3

35


Category E2 has been selected for this site rather than E3 as the lower environmental category rating has a higher requirement to prevent light spill, i.e. it is more onerous towards light pollution to limit spill light to nearby receptors. A lighting proposal based on the details shown on the Illustrative Masterplan has been produced having regard to advice set out in CIE 150 and the Guidance for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light prepared by the Institute of Lighting Professionals. The external lighting proposals includes luminaires with flat glass full cut-off (FCO) properties and the assessment work shows that utilising this approach the light spill beyond the site boundary will be 0 lux and will therefore not result in a change to the Environmental Category for the surrounding area. The external lighting proposals have been based on a selection of generic luminaires which achieve the required lux levels for the site operation and also limit the light spill to adjacent areas. This approach will be secured by Requirement 14 which has been amended to ensure that the lighting details accord with the principles established in the lighting proposal.

Document 8.3

36


6.35 Applicant The receptors dealing with the lighting effects during

operation phase are shown on Figures 2, 2A and 2B

of ES Chapter 12.

Please justify the choice for those receptors and how the area likely to be affected by the lighting from the project has been identified.

A site survey has been carried out to establish the key receptors. The receptors that have been identified are areas adjacent to the development which are likely to be sensitive to light spill. The receptors have been identified having regard to CIE 150. This provides guidelines for assessing the environmental impact of outdoor lighting and to advise on the recommended limits for relevant lighting parameters to contain the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting within tolerable levels.

6.36 Applicant Please justify on what basis the sensitivity levels were assigned to each receptor.

The sensitivity level for each receptor has been based on the ILP guideline values for the environmental zones. Within CIE 150, table 2.2 identifies the maximum values permissible for each individual receptor. These values have been used to assess the sensitivity level for each receptor. The level has been determined based on distance from the proposed light source and severity of impact on the zone.

6.37 Applicant Please explain the reasons why the construction lighting effects are not considered, taking into the account that some of the works could take place outside the construction hours set out in requirement 21 of the draft DCO.

It is considered that the effects of lighting during construction will not result in significant environmental effects. Normal construction hours, secured through Requirement 21, will limit the need for lighting. The need for lighting during more sensitive night time period will be infrequent and of a short temporary nature. Requirement 21 together with revised Requirement 11 (f) will

Document 8.3

37


appropriately control construction activity and lighting which has to take place outside of normal working hours.

6.38 Applicant The levels of lighting envisaged for road and street lighting are provided in paragraph 12.6.8 of the ES. No other information has been provided on the effects of proposed lighting of the Kegworth Bypass junctions on the surrounding areas. Please provide this information.

As referred to in the question, only the junctions at either end of the Kegworth Bypass would be lit – it would otherwise be an unlit road. As set out in the ES, the lighting of the junctions would be in accordance with the standards for Highways (BS5489), and to luminous intensity Class G6 (referred to at para 12.7.2 of the ES. This is the standard defined for highways lighting by national design guidance in order to limit environmental impact. This standard requires targeted downward lighting to limit light-spill, resulting in highly localised lighting effects at the junctions only. There are considered to be no significant environmental effects from the highway lighting proposed. Drawing NTH/209/SK89 – ‘Street Lighting Strategy South’ within the TA (Appendix 13) identifies the location of highway lighting proposed, and the location of existing highway lighting to which the proposed lighting relates.

Document 8.3

38


6.39 Applicant The ES does not make any reference to whether the range of units and development quantities and gantry cranes heights indicated on the Parameters Plans have any implications for the assessment of lighting effects.

Please explain what development parameters for the SRFI have been used as the basis of the assessment of lighting effects.

The assessment of lighting effects is based on the parameters set out on the Parameters Plan and description of development. The assessment shows that with the use of appropriate lighting, particularly flat glass full cut-off, light spill will be minimised. Alternate site arrangements to those modelled from the lighting proposals set out in Chapter 12, would not result in significantly different effects provided flat glass full cut-off lighting is employed.

6.40 Applicant The ES lists the general mitigation measures and states that these will be incorporated into the detailed lighting design and strategies for the application site. Please explain how the mitigation measures have been taken into account in the consideration of lighting effects and how they will be secured in requirement 14 of the draft DCO.

The mitigation measures for all the receptors is generally defined as “Use of flat glass full cut-off (FCO) luminaires to minimise light spill to adjacent areas.” A typical external lighting proposal which includes the use of flat glass full cut-off lighting, is set out in Chapter 12 and it is this typical proposal that has been assessed. The assessment shows that with the use of flat glass full cut-off lighting, the light spill beyond the site boundary will be 0 lux. Proposed amendments to Requirement 14 now specifically refer to the need to accord with the lighting proposal contained in Chapter 12.

Landscape and Visual Effects


Paragraph 5.4.176 of the ES states that the locations for photomontages have been agreed with Leicestershire County Council.

Document 8.3

39


Please confirm agreement to the locations for photomontages.

6.42 Applicant It is not clear whether the visual effects of trains on the proposed new rail line to the Railport have been considered. In addition, has the potential for trains which might use the SRFI which are longer than 775m been assessed. Please confirm whether such visual impacts have been taken into account and provide the assessment setting this out.

There are no trains longer than 775m on the UK network. 775m is a rail industry standard maximum length for intermodal trains. All new intermodal rail terminals are designed to this standard as is network capability on the Network Rail network. The visual effects of trains on the proposed new rail line to the Railport have been assessed. Trains moving along this new line in addition to the new line and the associated embankment and associated fencing and planting form part of the assessed visual effects for receptors with views towards this part of the proposed development. Whilst the trains may not have been explicitly stated in the description of the visual effects this rail link is referenced in a number of places in both Chapter 5 (e.g. 5.4.108; 5.4.142 and 5.4.164) and in the accompanying visual effects table.

6.43 Applicant Paragraphs 5.4.197- 5.4.200 of the ES state that a Lighting Assessment is being undertaken and will inform a Lighting Strategy. Please explain how the Lighting Assessment and Strategy relates to Chapter 12 of the ES.

Chapter 12 of the ES includes a lighting proposal to inform the assessment of lighting effects. The Lighting Strategy referred to in paragraph 5.4.197 - 5.4.200 should read lighting proposals and reference to lighting assessment should refer to the assessment of effects presented in Chapter 12.

6.44 Applicant Chapter 7, Section 7.7 of the ES states that the The timescales for the HS2 project are currently unknown.

Document 8.3

40


proposed route of HS2 is planned to run under the development. Please confirm there are no cumulative landscape and visual effects arising from the possible construction of HS2.

Whilst consultation has been undertaken on a preferred route this route is under review following recommendations by Sir David Higgins in his report Rebalancing Britain: From HS2 towards a National Transport Strategy October 2014. This includes investigating alternative locations for an East Midlands hub station and therefore the associated line of HS2 to it. A commitment to the HS2 project and the specific decisions regarding station locations and line routes, remains uncertain therefore. The decision will be subject to Government review and ultimately an Act of Parliament. Given the uncertainty regarding the HS2 route, it is not possible to consider the cumulative effects arising from its possible construction. Once a route for HS2 is determined that project will have to undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment including taking into account committed development.

6.45 Applicant Paragraph 6.7.24 of the ES refers to the area of the HS2 corridor shown on the Landscape Framework Strategy (Figure 5.12), but this does not appear to be the case. Please confirm which plan shows the HS2 corridor.

Please refer to the answer to question 6.44 above and the plan included at Appendix 11 which shows the HS2 corridor as envisaged in 2013.

Document 8.3

41


6.46

Natural England, Local Authorities

Paragraph 5.6.17 of the ES gives a list of other developments that have been included in the cumulative assessment. Please confirm that these have been agreed with the applicant.

6.47 Applicant Paragraph 5.5.31 of the ES states that a Landscape Management Plan will be implemented and a table of proposed contents list is given in Appendix 5.6. It is further stated that this will be conditioned and prepared as part of reserved matters applications. Please explain the relationship between the Landscape Strategy contained in Chapter 5 of the ES, the Landscape Management Plan set out in Appendix 5.6 and the Landscape Framework Plan to which landscaping schemes must comply in accordance with requirement 8 of the draft DCO.

The Landscape Strategy details the overriding design principles, approach and features that will form the basis for the subsequent more detailed landscape proposals. The Landscape Framework Plan illustrates these principles, approach and features in a plan form. The Landscape Strategy and the Landscape Framework Plan therefore sit alongside each other and should be read together. The Landscape Management Plan will detail the management and maintenance objectives and regimes and monitoring requirements to be adopted across the Landscape Framework area to ensure that these proposals are successfully and appropriately established and then managed in the short, medium and longer terms.

Please also see paragraphs 7.98 to 7.103 of the revised Explanatory Memorandum in this regard.

6.48 Natural England, Local Authorities

Please confirm agreement or otherwise and the reasons whether there is sufficient detail in the contents list for the proposed Landscape Management Plan given in Appendix 5.6, particularly with regard to management and monitoring.

Document 8.3

42


Ecology and Nature Conservation

6.49 Applicant Paragraphs 6.7.8 and 6.7.25 of the ES (e.g.) refer to proposed mitigation measures and an ecological and landscape management strategy to be produced. Please explain the relationship between this management strategy and the landscape documents referred in in question 6.47 above, the overall Ecological Management Plan referred to in paragraph 9 of the Ecology Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) (Document No 7.9a) and such plans required for each phase of the authorised development in accordance with requirement 10 of the draft DCO.

Reference to an ecological and landscape management strategy is incorrect. The Landscape Framework Plan has been informed by the ecological mitigation proposals. The landscaping scheme required to be submitted pursuant to revised Requirement 8 includes details of ecological mitigation. These details are required to conform to the Landscape Management Plan. There will also be a Landscape Management Plan and an Ecological Management Plan as required by Requirements 8 and 10 respectively. Please see paragraphs 7.98 to 7.103 of the revised Explanatory Memorandum in this regard.

6.50 Applicant Please provide an indicative plan to demonstrate the locations and scale of each of the proposed habitat types that are to be established.

Please see plan attached at Appendix 12 which identifies specifc habitats which sit within the wider landscape framework which also provides habitats. All being consistent with the Landscape Framework Plan and governed by requirements 8 and 10.

6.51 Applicant As referenced in paragraph 6.7.13 of the ES, please provide details of the veteran trees that are to be translocated and the specific translocation methodology that is to be used.

Paragraphs 4.14 and 6.5 of the Arboricultural Assessment completed by FPCR (Appendix 5.4 to the Landscape & Visual Effects chapter) refer to translocation of veteran trees. As is recognised in these paragraphs, the survival rate of mature translocated trees is low and in this instance most of the veteran or near veteran trees to be removed would have a slim chance of survival. However, as also

Document 8.3

43


noted in these paragraphs much of the habitat provided by a veteran tree is in the rotting heartwood of the main stem. Consequently, all veteran trees to be removed will be assessed for their viability for translocation. Those which can be translocated and have a better chance of survival will have a specific method statement constructed to detail the required processes. Of the remainder of the veteran trees, those most suitable for translocation as standing dead wood will be reduced to a suitable crown size and moved sympathetically to ensure the stem and ecological value is retained Where trees could not be translocated and where translocation fails, deadwood would be retained and incorporated into new and retained woodland. Also please see revised Requirement 10(d) .

6.52 Applicant Please provide further details of the ‘formula’ referred to in paragraph 8iv of the Ecology Statement of Common Ground (Document No 7.9a).

Paragraph 8iv of the Statement of Common Ground with Leicestershire County Council (i.e. the County Ecologist) is as follows:

The general principles for mitigation are … iv. A formula for creating an agreed alternative

habitat to compensate for the loss of veteran trees, as irreplaceable habitats.

In this context the word ‘formula’ means method, or the

Document 8.3

44


means by which the proposed mitigation will be implemented. It does not mean a mathematical equation. As set out in the ES, a significant area of new woodland planting is to be established, and existing veteran trees to be lost will be translocated to form new deadwood habitats in new and existing woodland. This will, wherever possible, include all the veteran trees to be lost.

6.53 Applicant Paragraph 5.2.2.1 of the CMFP (Document No 6.10) refers to a fence to protect habitats. Please provide details of the intended location of such fencing.

It is not practical to detail the location of each and every fence. The detail of all of the works are subject to further approval and this will have a bearing on the fencing required. This fencing, which is a standard requirement for trees in relation to development, will be installed wherever necessary where the development area approaches woodland or individual trees that are to be retained. This will follow the requirements of the British Standard. The location of all temporary protective fencing to existing retained trees and planting will be agreed prior to construction of the adjacent works, and this will be secured through Requirements 8 and 11 as part of a phased arrangement.

Cultural Heritage

6.54 Applicant Paragraph 11.4.14 of the ES refers to ‘a programme of targeted trial trenching’ in late summer early autumn of 2014, and this is referenced in both the Heritage SoCGs and as comprising documents ‘v’

Copies of documents v and vi are provided at Appendix 13.

Document 8.3

45


and ‘vi’ in paragraph 3 of the Archaeology SoCG (Document no 7.11). Please provide copies of these documents.

6.55 English Heritage and Leicestershire County Council

Please provide comments on the results of the trial trenching programme referred to in question 6.54.

6.56 Applicant Paragraph 11.6.3 of the ES refers to proposed measures for disseminating information about the results of the fieldwork and post-excavation analysis. Please provide further details about the intended programme.

Please see newly submitted Statement of Common Ground with Leicestershire County Council (Document 7.16).

7. Effect on the East Midlands Airport

7.1

Manchester Airport Group (MAG)

The relevant representation from the MAG states that unmitigated, the SRFI development would result in an unacceptable risk to the safe operation of aircraft at East Midlands Airport. Please set out what mitigation additional to that set out in the ES the airport operator is seeking.

Document 8.3

46


7.2 Manchester Airport Group

The relevant representation from the MAG concerning East Midlands Airport states that the outputs from the road traffic modelling and assessment of future junction and link capacity are not agreed. Please provide the detailed appraisal of the TA which leads to these conclusions.

7.3 Manchester Airport Group

The relevant representation from the MAG states that the proposed public transport strategy for the SRFI must not compromise the future development of such services to the East Midlands Airport. Please provide the detailed appraisal of the Public Transport Strategy (Appendix B of the TA) which leads to these conclusions.

7.4 Applicant Appendix 4 of the Strategy for the Safeguarding of East Midlands Airport (Doc 6.12) is a Birdstrike Risk Assessment and Avoidance Strategy to be incorporated into a Construction Management Strategy to safeguard the airport during construction and development of the project. It also states that an acceptable Landscape, Biodiversity and Drainage Strategy has been put forward.

Please confirm whether the Birdstrike Risk Assessment and Avoidance Strategy has been agreed with the operator of the East Midlands Airport, and how it is intended to be incorporated into the CEMP and secured in the draft DCO.

Confirmed. Please see the Statement of Common Ground between East Midlands Airport and the Applicant dated 18 February 2015 (Doc 7.14) and in particular, paragraphs 6.6 to 6.10 of that document.

Please also see revised Requirement 11.

The draft DCO requires that the undertaker complies with the Strategy as protective provisions for the benefit of the Airport. Please see Article 38 and Schedule 16 in this regard.

Document 8.3

47


7.5 Applicant Please confirm whether the Landscape, Biodiversity and Drainage Strategy referred to in paragraph 5.4 of Appendix 4 is a separate document and if so provide a copy and how it relates to the ES and other application documents.

Reference to a Landscape, Biodiversity and Drainage Strategy is incorrect, no such document exists. Please see the revised Explanatory Memorandum for an explanation of the relevant documents and their interrelationship, paragraphs 7.98 to 7.103

8. General Matters

8.1 Applicant Please describe how the potential phasing of HS2 construction work has been taken into account in the construction programme for the proposed development.

See answer to question 6.44 in relation to the status of the HS2 project.

8.2 Applicant The Parameters Plans do not define all the parameters of the proposed development or the proposed limits of deviation.

Please confirm which plans form the basis of the EIA presented in the ES and what limits of deviation have been assumed.

Please see paragraphs 6.1 to 6.6 of the revised Explanatory Memorandum.

8.3 Applicant The ES does not contain a chapter which describes the general methodology for EIA.

Please describe how the risk of possible inconsistences in the assessment has been addressed.

Paragraph 1.3.3 sets out the approach to the general methodology for the Environmental Statement.

It is not considered that the approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment has given rise to inconsistencies.

8.4 Applicant Please reconcile the development quantities in the

revised schedule of Parameters Plans submitted on

The revised parameters plans provided maximum floor areas within each development sub-zone A1-A6. However,

Document 8.3

48


10 November with those used in the TA based on

the indicative masterplan, for example at Table 5.1,

and which appear on Doc 2.12B.

the total floor area within Area A remains capped at 555,476m2. The TA adopted a slightly larger figure of 560,000m2 for assessment purposes (TA para 5.4) and not the sum of the individual areas A1-A6, nor the areas provided at Table 5.1 of the TA. The larger floor area figure of 560,000m2 was used in the TA to provide a robust assessment. As such, the change in the parameters plan does not affect the TA.

8.5 Applicant Please identify within the application documents or otherwise provide a large scale cross section drawing with a vertical scale of the Railport showing the maximum height of gantry cranes set out in the Parameter Plans for Zone C in relation to adjoining land and features

Please refer to the drawing attached in Appendix 9 which show cross sections A and B and the maximum height of gantry cranes in accordance with the parameters plans.

8.6 Applicant Accepting that the application is for a SRFI, what is

the applicant’s view about the current market

demand for the scale of development proposed in

view of current availability at the East Midlands

Distribution Centre and that the rail connection to

the Marks and Spencer warehouse has yet to be

brought into use?

The applicant’s view of market demand is set out in the Market Report (Document 6.8). This report takes account of the availability of land at EMD as part of its assessment of demand and supply. The applicant considers that there is currently extremely strong demand and they expect this to continue to grow in the future. This the applicant considers that, in line with the NPS (see note in response to Question 1), there is a compelling need for a network of SRFIs to meet the needs of the logistics industry and to support economic growth. EMDC is not a strategic rail freight interchange. The rail sidings are not yet operational and are under the sole

Document 8.3

49


control of M&S.