View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
From: Coleby, Tim <tim.coleby@stantec.com>
Sent: 27 May 2021 14:34
To: Eaton Jeremy
Cc: Adrian Whiteman; Samantha Ireson; Beth Entwistle; Griffiths, Daniel; Wearing,
Peter; Pawson, Rob; Will Gardner; Peter Widdrington; Hobbs, Jack
Subject: FW: 43270 - Shepshed - LCC Update
Attachments: RE: 43270 - Shepshed - LCC Update
Importance: High
Dear Jeremy,
Further to Adrian Whiteman’s comment highlighted yellow below, we will add a refuge to the A512 footway drawing and submit this to you asap today.
As the only matters still outstanding with the LHA are matters which can be addressed by suitable conditions/S106 obligations, we trust the application can still be reported to June 17 Committee and we would appreciate your confirmation in this regard.
As requested by Adrian below, a copy of our email to him of 20th May is attached for your formal consultation with the LHA.
Many thanks.
Kind Regards
Tim ColebySenior Associate Planner
Mobile: 07885 999744tim.coleby@stantec.com
The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorisation. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Adrian Whiteman <Adrian.Whiteman@leics.gov.uk> Sent: 27 May 2021 13:12To: Griffiths, Daniel <daniel.griffiths@stantec.com>Cc: Coleby, Tim <tim.coleby@stantec.com>; Pawson, Rob <rob.pawson@stantec.com>; Wearing, Peter <peter.wearing@stantec.com>; Eaton Jeremy <Jeremy.Eaton@charnwood.gov.uk>; Samantha Ireson <Samantha.Ireson@leics.gov.uk>Subject: RE: 43270 - Shepshed - LCC UpdateImportance: High
2
Hi Dan,
Thank you for your email of 20 May 2021. I apologise for not responding yesterday as promised. Please find my
responses in green in the body of your email below.
Given that there are still a few outstanding matters, I will not be able to provide final observations to the LPA this
week in time for them to write their observations for the next Planning Committee. I copy in the LPA’s case officer
for information.
I am on leave next week, but would hope that the outstanding elements can be resolved on my return during week
commencing 07 June 2021. Please ensure that your email of 20 May 2021, and any subsequent information, is
submitted to the LPA so that they can formally consult the LHA.
Regards,
Adrian
Adrian WhitemanSenior Transport EngineerHighway Development ManagementHighways & Transport Commissioning ServiceLeicestershire County Council
Tel: (0116) 305 0001DD: (0116) 305 5461Email: adrian.whiteman@leics.gov.uk
**Please note that the contents of this email including any attachments are offered as my officer opinion and will not prejudice any future decision the Highway Authority may make in relation to this matter**
Please Note: In line with Government Guidance for COVID-19, all site visits and face-to-face meetings are to be cancelled/rescheduled where they are unable to be conducted electronically (skype etc.). There is also a likelihood of a delay in providing a response to your query or concern at this time due to the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions. More details on the Council’s policy on social distancing and how it will affect services can be found here.
From: Griffiths, Daniel <daniel.griffiths@stantec.com> Sent: 20 May 2021 11:56To: Adrian Whiteman <Adrian.Whiteman@leics.gov.uk>Cc: Coleby, Tim <tim.coleby@stantec.com>; Pawson, Rob <rob.pawson@stantec.com>; Wearing, Peter <peter.wearing@stantec.com>Subject: RE: 43270 - Shepshed - LCC UpdateImportance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Adrian,
3
Thanks for your responses last week, we have reviewed these and provide an update below on several matters. We are also progressing with the Transport Assessment Addendum as you have requested, to report on the various agreements we have reached.
Nature of footway on Tickow Lane Railway Bridge (action with Stantec);
Response provided by LCC on 12/5. We have updated our proposals to indicate that a kerbed footway will be provided rather than a white line, as you have requested – this is shown in drawing number 332210543-100-004attached and we would be grateful if you could approve this in principle.
AW – I am happy that the revised drawing is suitable to form the basis of a planning condition.
LHA comments on Designer’s Response to RSA1 (action with Stantec);
Response provided by LCC on 12/5. RSA Designers response has been updated to include a comment regarding the footway over the bridge – this is attached for your approval.
AW – I am happy with the revised document.
Nature / deliverability of footway and crossings along A512 (action with Stantec);
Response provided by LCC on 12/5. We are comfortable that this is dealt with through a planning condition – the points you have raised (i.e. drainage) could be resolved through detailed design with relevant notes attached the drawing which would be conditioned; would this be acceptable?
AW – I require an updated preliminary design now given that pedestrian refuges will be required with associated
highway widening of the A512, to confirm that this is feasible within highway, on the basis that a planning
condition will need to be deliverable. I am, however, content that the drainage matters can be dealt with as part
of future detailed design (and that a note saying such can be added to the drawing).
Southern Tickow Lane Access junction – LHA comments do not seem to have been taken on board on drawing in tech note, and no revised swept path analysis presented (action with Stantec)
The access drawing has been updated to include the swept path analysis and some minor widening to reduce the extent of overrunning the centre line (notwithstanding that two refuse vehicles would not be using the junction at the same time); this is shown in drawing number 332210543-100-003 Rev A attached and we would be grateful if you could approve this in principle
AW – I am happy that the revised drawing is suitable to form the basis of a planning condition.
On-Site Bridge Crossing / Emergency Access matters (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP);
Response provided by LCC on 12/5 confirming no need for emergency access and provision of one bridge within the site is acceptable.
AW – Agreed.
PROW (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP);
Response provided by LCC on 12/5. We note that you are recommending that the PRoW improvement is to be done under condition rather than Section 106 agreement as we discussed with the PRoW officer. Previously, in Leicestershire, where PRoW upgrades have been established but lie outside of the land ownership, we have established that these are to be delivered through a Section 106. Can we discuss how this could work if LCC require it to be a condition please?
AW – We require a condition, as set out in my email a few minutes ago to your colleague Pete Wearing, unless it
is confirmed that this is not possible in planning terms.
Sum of contribution to Shepshed Highway Improvements (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP);
Please see our response to the below.
AW - I have reviewed the information below and am very pleased that the Applicant is willing to contribute to the
A512 schemes. I am in the process of reviewing your suggested methodology against how we have previously
determined contributions to the schemes and will respond further as soon as possible. If this is not by tomorrow,
it will be during week commencing 07 June 2021.
4
Modelling matters – LCC need to review/agree Stantec modelling of M1 J23 and Shepshed signal junctions once reviewed from Stantec (action with Stantec)
We have run our traffic flows using the models provided by LCC and provide a summary of the results below, and the PRC reported in Table 1.
M1 Junction 23 has plenty of spare capacity with little development impact and as such a contribution to the recently completed improvement is not required
Both A512 junctions operate with spare capacity if run without the pedestrian stage (with and without development)
The two A512 signalised junctions are slightly over capacity in with the current highway improvement with and without development if pedestrian crossing are called every cycle.
Table 1 – Capacity Assessment results - PRC
Junction2018 Base
2026 Base (includes LCC
junction improvement)
2026 Base + Dev (includes LCC junction improvement)
2026 Base
(no ped stage)
2026 Base + Dev
(no ped stage)
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
M1 Junction 23 36.5 65.0 14.5 37.1 14.5 34.6 - - - -
Ashby Road/ Charnwood Road/ Iveshead Road
3.1 7.7 -7.8 -6.2 -11.7 -8.0 8.1 10.1 3.9 9.0
Ashby Road/ Leicester Road/ Ingleberry Road
11.2 12.6 -0.1 -0.4 -3.3 -2.5 12.5 9.1 8.1 7.8
AW – I am content that the results summarised above do not identify impacts with are significant enough to
warrant further improvements to these off site junctions in connection with the application. However, I will
require the models for review prior to formally confirming this.
Notwithstanding this, we recognise that LCC is seeking contributions for the two A512 schemes to recover the forward funding LCC has provided. We have reviewed the contributions recently sought for the 63 dwelling scheme on Iveshead Road (ref. P/20/1347/2) which outlined a contribution for each junction and we have converted this to a per dwelling basis; these contributions are set out below:
Ashby Road/ Charnwood Road/ Iveshead Road = £75,863.63 (per dwelling = £1,204.18) Ashby Road/ Leicester Road/ Ingleberry Road = £103,784.23 (per dwelling = £1,647.37)
Applying the £1,204.18 and £1,647.37 per dwelling to the proposed 210 dwellings at the proposed development off Tickow Lane, would result in contributions of up to £252,878.77 and up to £345,947.43 for the Iveshead Road and Ingleberry Road schemes respectively and a total contribution of £598,826.20. Our client has confirmed that on the basis that the contribution is required and proportionate, and to be made under a Section 106 contribution, they are happy with this amount so if you could confirm this is acceptable, that would be most appreciated.
As noted above, the TA Addendum is being prepared to capture the above points. If you can confirm agreement to the final points we will be able to reference in that in the TA Addendum.
Kind regards,
Dan Griffiths BSc (Hons) MCIHT MTPSDirector - Transport, Midlands and East
Direct: 0121 633 2900Direct: 0121 796 8258 ext Mobile: 07552 276 778daniel.griffiths@stantec.com
Stantec
5
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Stantec
The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
We continue to work remotely during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Therefore, I may reply at “odd” times and anticipate that you will read/ respond at a time that works for you. In all situations, I will respond as quickly as I can and if matters are particularly urgent, please call my mobile.
From: Adrian Whiteman <Adrian.Whiteman@leics.gov.uk> Sent: 12 May 2021 10:17To: Griffiths, Daniel <daniel.griffiths@stantec.com>Cc: Coleby, Tim <tim.coleby@stantec.com>; Seiboth, Matt <matt.seiboth@stantec.com>; Wearing, Peter <peter.wearing@stantec.com>Subject: RE: 43270 - Shepshed
Hi Dan,
Thank you for this. Our emails have crossed this morning (I attach my earlier email). I’ve scanned through the Tech Note at a high level and, subject to a more detailed review of the note and taking into account my earlier email attached, I consider the main points on which we still need to reach agreement to be as follows:
Nature of footway on Tickow Lane Railway Bridge (action with Stantec); LHA comments on Designer’s Response to RSA1 (action with Stantec); Nature / deliverability of footway and crossings along A512 (action with Stantec); Southern Tickow Lane Access junction – LHA comments do not seem to have been taken on board on
drawing in tech note, and no revised swept path analysis presented (action with Stantec) On-Site Bridge Crossing / Emergency Access matters (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP); PROW (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP); Sum of contribution to Shepshed Highway Improvements (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP); Modelling matters – LCC need to review/agree Stantec modelling of M1 J23 and Shepshed signal junctions
once reviewed from Stantec (action with Stantec)
I will advise of any other matters once I have reviewed the tech note in more detail, and will also respond on my outstanding actions, as soon as possible. In the meantime, I’d welcome your response on the points for Stantec’s action above.
Regards,
Adrian
Adrian Whiteman
Senior Transport Engineer
Highway Development Management
Highways & Transport Commissioning Service
6
Leicestershire County Council
Tel: (0116) 305 0001
DD: (0116) 305 5461
Email: adrian.whiteman@leics.gov.uk
**Please note that the contents of this email including any attachments are offered as my officer opinion and will not prejudice any future decision the Highway Authority may make in relation to this matter**
Please Note: In line with Government Guidance for COVID-19, all site visits and face-to-face meetings are to be cancelled/rescheduled where they are unable to be conducted electronically (skype etc.). There is also a likelihood of a delay in providing a response to your query or concern at this time due to the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions. More details on the Council’s policy on social distancing and how it will affect services can be found here.
From: Griffiths, Daniel <daniel.griffiths@stantec.com>Sent: 12 May 2021 09:55To: Adrian Whiteman <Adrian.Whiteman@leics.gov.uk>Cc: Coleby, Tim <tim.coleby@stantec.com>; Seiboth, Matt <matt.seiboth@stantec.com>; Wearing, Peter<peter.wearing@stantec.com>Subject: 43270 - Shepshed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning Adrian
Hope you are well. We are trying to get to the next planning committee and as such, had been advised that material to be reconsulted on needed to be issued to Charnwood yesterday. As a result, we have prepared the attached note and issued it to the planning authority along with other matters relating to the application.
This represents our understanding of the current situation, and we hope look forward to working with you to finalise the remaining items as quickly as possible.
7
Kind regards,
Dan Griffiths BSc (Hons) MCIHT MTPS
Director - Transport, Midlands and East
Direct: 0121 633 2900Direct: 0121 796 8258 ext Mobile: 07552 276 778daniel.griffiths@stantec.com
Stantec
The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
We continue to work remotely during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Therefore, I may reply at “odd”
times and anticipate that you will read/ respond at a time that works for you. In all situations, I will
respond as quickly as I can and if matters are particularly urgent, please call my mobile.
Disclaimer: The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately. This communication may come from a variety of legal entities within or associated with the Stantec group. For a full list of details for these entities please see our website at www.stantec.com. Where business communications relate to the Stantec UK Limited entity, the registered office is Kingsmead Business Park, London Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP11 1JU Tel: 01494 526240 and the company is registered in England as registration number 01188070.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You'll no doubt be aware that the coronavirus pandemic is affecting all public services.
At Leicestershire County Council, we're currently working hard to maintain our critical services. Because of this we're having to prioritise all our work and you may not get a reply as quick as usual.
We're really sorry for any delay - and we hope to reply as soon as we can. Thank you for your support and understanding.
For the latest updates visit: www.leicestershire.gov.uk/coronavirus-covid-19
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any reading, printing, storage, disclosure, copying or any other action taken in respect of this e-mail is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by using the reply function and then permanently delete what you have received.
Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with Leicestershire County Council's policy on the use of electronic communications. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed for requests under Data Protection or Freedom of Information legislation. Details about how we handle information can be found at https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/data-protection
The views expressed by the author may not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Leicestershire County Council.
8
Attachments to e-mail messages may contain viruses that may damage your system. Whilst Leicestershire County Council has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept any liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Disclaimer: The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately. This communication may come from a variety of legal entities within or associated with the Stantec group. For a full list of details for these entities please see our website at www.stantec.com. Where business communications relate to the Stantec UK Limited entity, the registered office is Kingsmead Business Park, London Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP11 1JU Tel: 01494 526240 and the company is registered in England as registration number 01188070.
Disclaimer: The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately. This communication may come from a variety of legal entities within or associated with the Stantec group. For a full list of details for these entities please see our website at www.stantec.com. Where business communications relate to the Stantec UK Limited entity, the registered office is Kingsmead Business Park, London Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP11 1JU Tel: 01494 526240 and the company is registered in England as registration number 01188070.
1
From: Griffiths, Daniel <daniel.griffiths@stantec.com>
Sent: 20 May 2021 11:56
To: Adrian Whiteman
Cc: Coleby, Tim; Pawson, Rob; Wearing, Peter
Subject: RE: 43270 - Shepshed - LCC Update
Attachments: 332210543-100-004.pdf; 332210543-100-003 Rev A.pdf; 332210072-5510-
TN001-Rev A-Shepshed Stage 1 RSA Response Report 210518.docx
Importance: High
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for your responses last week, we have reviewed these and provide an update below on several matters. We are also progressing with the Transport Assessment Addendum as you have requested, to report on the various agreements we have reached.
Nature of footway on Tickow Lane Railway Bridge (action with Stantec);
Response provided by LCC on 12/5. We have updated our proposals to indicate that a kerbed footway will be provided rather than a white line, as you have requested – this is shown in drawing number 332210543-100-004attached and we would be grateful if you could approve this in principle.
LHA comments on Designer’s Response to RSA1 (action with Stantec);
Response provided by LCC on 12/5. RSA Designers response has been updated to include a comment regarding the footway over the bridge – this is attached for your approval.
Nature / deliverability of footway and crossings along A512 (action with Stantec);
Response provided by LCC on 12/5. We are comfortable that this is dealt with through a planning condition – the points you have raised (i.e. drainage) could be resolved through detailed design with relevant notes attached the drawing which would be conditioned; would this be acceptable?
Southern Tickow Lane Access junction – LHA comments do not seem to have been taken on board on drawing in tech note, and no revised swept path analysis presented (action with Stantec)
The access drawing has been updated to include the swept path analysis and some minor widening to reduce the extent of overrunning the centre line (notwithstanding that two refuse vehicles would not be using the junction at the same time); this is shown in drawing number 332210543-100-003 Rev A attached and we would be grateful if you could approve this in principle
On-Site Bridge Crossing / Emergency Access matters (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP);
Response provided by LCC on 12/5 confirming no need for emergency access and provision of one bridge within the site is acceptable.
PROW (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP);
Response provided by LCC on 12/5. We note that you are recommending that the PRoW improvement is to be done under condition rather than Section 106 agreement as we discussed with the PRoW officer. Previously, in Leicestershire, where PRoW upgrades have been established but lie outside of the land ownership, we have established that these are to be delivered through a Section 106. Can we discuss how this could work if LCC require it to be a condition please?
Sum of contribution to Shepshed Highway Improvements (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP);
Please see our response to the below.
Modelling matters – LCC need to review/agree Stantec modelling of M1 J23 and Shepshed signal junctions once reviewed from Stantec (action with Stantec)
2
We have run our traffic flows using the models provided by LCC and provide a summary of the results below, and the PRC reported in Table 1.
M1 Junction 23 has plenty of spare capacity with little development impact and as such a contribution to the recently completed improvement is not required
Both A512 junctions operate with spare capacity if run without the pedestrian stage (with and without development)
The two A512 signalised junctions are slightly over capacity in with the current highway improvement with and without development if pedestrian crossing are called every cycle.
Table 1 – Capacity Assessment results - PRC
Junction2018 Base
2026 Base (includes LCC
junction improvement)
2026 Base + Dev (includes LCC junction improvement)
2026 Base
(no ped stage)
2026 Base + Dev
(no ped stage)
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
M1 Junction 23 36.5 65.0 14.5 37.1 14.5 34.6 - - - -
Ashby Road/ Charnwood Road/ Iveshead Road
3.1 7.7 -7.8 -6.2 -11.7 -8.0 8.1 10.1 3.9 9.0
Ashby Road/ Leicester Road/ Ingleberry Road
11.2 12.6 -0.1 -0.4 -3.3 -2.5 12.5 9.1 8.1 7.8
Notwithstanding this, we recognise that LCC is seeking contributions for the two A512 schemes to recover the forward funding LCC has provided. We have reviewed the contributions recently sought for the 63 dwelling scheme on Iveshead Road (ref. P/20/1347/2) which outlined a contribution for each junction and we have converted this to a per dwelling basis; these contributions are set out below:
Ashby Road/ Charnwood Road/ Iveshead Road = £75,863.63 (per dwelling = £1,204.18) Ashby Road/ Leicester Road/ Ingleberry Road = £103,784.23 (per dwelling = £1,647.37)
Applying the £1,204.18 and £1,647.37 per dwelling to the proposed 210 dwellings at the proposed development off Tickow Lane, would result in contributions of up to £252,878.77 and up to £345,947.43 for the Iveshead Road and Ingleberry Road schemes respectively and a total contribution of £598,826.20. Our client has confirmed that on the basis that the contribution is required and proportionate, and to be made under a Section 106 contribution, they are happy with this amount so if you could confirm this is acceptable, that would be most appreciated.
As noted above, the TA Addendum is being prepared to capture the above points. If you can confirm agreement to the final points we will be able to reference in that in the TA Addendum.
Kind regards,
Dan Griffiths BSc (Hons) MCIHT MTPSDirector - Transport, Midlands and East
Direct: 0121 633 2900Direct: 0121 796 8258 ext Mobile: 07552 276 778daniel.griffiths@stantec.com
Stantec
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Stantec
The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
3
We continue to work remotely during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Therefore, I may reply at “odd” times and anticipate that you will read/ respond at a time that works for you. In all situations, I will respond as quickly as I can and if matters are particularly urgent, please call my mobile.
From: Adrian Whiteman <Adrian.Whiteman@leics.gov.uk> Sent: 12 May 2021 10:17To: Griffiths, Daniel <daniel.griffiths@stantec.com>Cc: Coleby, Tim <tim.coleby@stantec.com>; Seiboth, Matt <matt.seiboth@stantec.com>; Wearing, Peter <peter.wearing@stantec.com>Subject: RE: 43270 - Shepshed
Hi Dan,
Thank you for this. Our emails have crossed this morning (I attach my earlier email). I’ve scanned through the Tech Note at a high level and, subject to a more detailed review of the note and taking into account my earlier email attached, I consider the main points on which we still need to reach agreement to be as follows:
Nature of footway on Tickow Lane Railway Bridge (action with Stantec); LHA comments on Designer’s Response to RSA1 (action with Stantec); Nature / deliverability of footway and crossings along A512 (action with Stantec); Southern Tickow Lane Access junction – LHA comments do not seem to have been taken on board on
drawing in tech note, and no revised swept path analysis presented (action with Stantec) On-Site Bridge Crossing / Emergency Access matters (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP); PROW (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP); Sum of contribution to Shepshed Highway Improvements (action with LHA – I will respond ASAP); Modelling matters – LCC need to review/agree Stantec modelling of M1 J23 and Shepshed signal junctions
once reviewed from Stantec (action with Stantec)
I will advise of any other matters once I have reviewed the tech note in more detail, and will also respond on my outstanding actions, as soon as possible. In the meantime, I’d welcome your response on the points for Stantec’s action above.
Regards,
Adrian
Adrian Whiteman
Senior Transport Engineer
Highway Development Management
Highways & Transport Commissioning Service
Leicestershire County Council
Tel: (0116) 305 0001
4
DD: (0116) 305 5461
Email: adrian.whiteman@leics.gov.uk
**Please note that the contents of this email including any attachments are offered as my officer opinion and will not prejudice any future decision the Highway Authority may make in relation to this matter**
Please Note: In line with Government Guidance for COVID-19, all site visits and face-to-face meetings are to be cancelled/rescheduled where they are unable to be conducted electronically (skype etc.). There is also a likelihood of a delay in providing a response to your query or concern at this time due to the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions. More details on the Council’s policy on social distancing and how it will affect services can be found here.
From: Griffiths, Daniel <daniel.griffiths@stantec.com>Sent: 12 May 2021 09:55To: Adrian Whiteman <Adrian.Whiteman@leics.gov.uk>Cc: Coleby, Tim <tim.coleby@stantec.com>; Seiboth, Matt <matt.seiboth@stantec.com>; Wearing, Peter<peter.wearing@stantec.com>Subject: 43270 - Shepshed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning Adrian
Hope you are well. We are trying to get to the next planning committee and as such, had been advised that material to be reconsulted on needed to be issued to Charnwood yesterday. As a result, we have prepared the attached note and issued it to the planning authority along with other matters relating to the application.
This represents our understanding of the current situation, and we hope look forward to working with you to finalise the remaining items as quickly as possible.
Kind regards,
Dan Griffiths BSc (Hons) MCIHT MTPS
5
Director - Transport, Midlands and East
Direct: 0121 633 2900Direct: 0121 796 8258 ext Mobile: 07552 276 778daniel.griffiths@stantec.com
Stantec
The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
We continue to work remotely during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Therefore, I may reply at “odd”
times and anticipate that you will read/ respond at a time that works for you. In all situations, I will
respond as quickly as I can and if matters are particularly urgent, please call my mobile.
Disclaimer: The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately. This communication may come from a variety of legal entities within or associated with the Stantec group. For a full list of details for these entities please see our website atwww.stantec.com. Where business communications relate to the Stantec UK Limited entity, the registered office is Kingsmead Business Park, London Road,
High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP11 1JU Tel: 01494 526240 and the company is registered in England as registration number 01188070.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You'll no doubt be aware that the coronavirus pandemic is affecting all public services.
At Leicestershire County Council, we're currently working hard to maintain our critical services. Because of this we're having to prioritise all our work and you may not get a reply as quick as usual.
We're really sorry for any delay - and we hope to reply as soon as we can. Thank you for your support and understanding.
For the latest updates visit: www.leicestershire.gov.uk/coronavirus-covid-19
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any reading, printing, storage, disclosure, copying or any other action taken in respect of this e-mail is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by using the reply function and then permanently delete what you have received.
Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with Leicestershire County Council's policy on the use of electronic communications. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed for requests under Data Protection or Freedom of Information legislation. Details about how we handle information can be found at https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/data-protection
The views expressed by the author may not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Leicestershire County Council.
Attachments to e-mail messages may contain viruses that may damage your system. Whilst Leicestershire County Council has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept any liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
SP
SVSV
Bin
postGas
Gas
Gas
Gas
GasGas
95.08
95.49
95.86
95.5
6
96.07
96.4
7
96.62
96.7696.75
96.67
96.32
95.87
95.69
95.43
95.11
95.0
3
95.5
3
95.8
9
96.49
96.4
7
96.6
6
96.9
796
.67
96.7
1
96.7
6
97.0
0
97.8
0
97.9897.89
97 31
97 01
96 92
96.87
96.82
96.9
5
97.00
96.8
4
96.90
96.93
96.92
96.89
96.9
6
96.84
97.19
97.0
3
97.1
6
97.30
97.6297.5
8
98.2
3
96.62
97.0
9
97.3
1
96.7
5
96.7
6
97.0
6
97.2
2
97.7
1
97.0
5
95.4
5
96.1
5
96.6
5
96.7
0
96.5
1
96.3
8
96.7
8
97.1
7
97.7
8
93.17
98.44
97.8897.84 97.56 96.47 95.03
94.4596.1696.9397.21
97.24
97.05
96.88
96.68
96.06 94.64
95.59
95.4
2
95.43
95.2595.6
95.6
95.35
93.28
94.29
90.66
90.67
90.55
90.61
90.5690.52
90.52
90.42
90.33
90.39
90.35
90.25
90.65
90.51
90.3690.31 90.43
90.71
90.6090.58
90.87
90.45 90.45
90.56
90.5190.58
90.88
90.5590.62
90.77
90.99
90.67
90.92
90.63
90.64
90.83
90.67
90.66
96.45
96.56 96.5596.32
93.2792.65
93.56
93.3293.34
93.1693.07
90.37
90.43
90.28
90.33
90.30
90.40
90.31
90.63
90.4290.43
90.50
90.40
90.32
90.41
90.47
90.90
94.97 95.54
95.18 95.52
95.6995.69
91.69
92.42 92.64
92.00
92.40
92.68
90.77
90.73
90.71
90.67
90.77
90.94
90.7090.69
90.64
90.61
90.78
90.52
90.60
90.51
90.64
90.65
94.9994.54
93.83
92.18
91.89
91.50
90.77
90.78 90.78
90.7990.76
92.50
92.01
90.92
92.81 92.73
92.03
91.4991.40
91.22
90.92
91.03
91.11
90.06
90.01
91.01
92.7092.34
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
eCo
ncre
te E
dge
Concrete Edge
Hed
ge
Fence Post/Rail
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Gat
e
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Hed
ge
Hed
ge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Scrub Edge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Fenc
e Po
st/R
ail
Hedg
eC
oncr
ete
Edge
Hedg
eCo
ncre
te E
dge
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
TrackTrack
TrackTrack
TrackTrack
TrackTrackTrackTrack
TIE INTO EXISTING2.0m FOOTWAY
1.5m KERBED FOOTWAYACROSS BRIDGE
2.0m FOOTWAY ONTICKOW LANE
3.3m MINIMUMCARRIAGEWAY WIDTH
ACROSS BRIDGE
2.8m
2.8m
3.4m 1.5m
3.3m 1.5m
3.4m 1.5m
3.5m 1.5m
STAN 01
By Appd YYYY.MM.DDIssued/RevisionP01 - - --
www.stantec.com/uk
Project No. Scale
Dwn. Dsgn. Chkd. YYYY.MM.DD
Title
Revision Drawing No.
Client/Project Logo
Copyright Reserved
ORI
GIN
AL S
HEET
- ISO
j:\43
270
- she
pshe
d, le
ics\
tech
nica
l\dr
awin
gs\1
00\3
3221
0543
-100
-004
Plot
ted:
18.
05.2
021
2021
.05.
18 2
:53:
37 P
M B
y: P
awso
n, R
ob
Client/Project
Issue Status
This document is suitable only for thepurpose noted above.
Use of this document for any otherpurpose is not permitted.
The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing- any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction oruse for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.
Notes
1 2 3 4 5
D
C
B
A
BARWOOD LAND
LAND OFF ASHBY ROAD WEST, SHEPSHED
PROPOSED SHUTTLE SIGNALS ONTICKOW LANE
332210543 1:250
- 332210543-100-004
RP RP - 2021.05.18
FOR INFORMATION
A1
Stantec UK LimitedBIRMINGHAMWaterloo House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B2 5TBTel: +44 121 633 2900
N
INDICATIVE SITE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY BOUNDARY
Key
1. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL OTHER RELEVANTDOCUMENTATION
2. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING, USE ONLY PRINTED DIMENSIONS
3. ANY PROPOSALS DEPICTED ON THIS DRAWING ARE 2D CONCEPT DESIGNSTO PROVIDE AN INDICATION OF THE EXTENT AND PRINCIPLES OF THEDESIGN. DETAILED DESIGN MUST BE CARRIED OUT TO CONFIRM EXTENT OFPROPOSALS INCLUDE ROAD GEOMETRY, EMBANKMENTS AND OTHER LANDREQUIREMENTS.
4. STATUTORY UNDERTAKER AND UTILITIES INFORMATION WILL BE REQUIREDTO INFORM THE DETAILED DESIGN AND IMPACT ON EXISTING UTILITIES ORDIVERSIONS REQUIRED HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT THISSTAGE.
5. DRAWING BASED ON TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY UNDERTAKEN BY SVSURVEYING IN JUNE 2018
6. HIGHWAY BOUNDARY DATA PROVIDED BY LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTYCOUNCIL IN JUNE 2018
HEALTH, SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL NOTES
DENOTES THE LOCATION OF HAZARD OR RISK.FOR MORE INFORMATION REFER TO RISK REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION BELOW
IN ADDITION TO THE HAZARDS AND RISKS NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE FORM OFCONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED ON THIS DRAWING, THE FOLLOWING RESIDUAL RISKS SHOULD BE
CONSIDEREDP - PRELIMINARY, C - CONSTRUCTION, S - IN SERVICE / MAINTENANCE, D - DECOMMISSIONING /
DEMOLITIONRISK
PREFIXRISKREF. RISK DESCRIPTION
RISKPHASE
STAN 01STRUCTURAL SURVEY OF BRIDGE REQUIRED TO CONFIRM CURRENTSTRUCTURE CAN SUPPORT FOOTWAY. DETAILS TO BE CONFIRMED ATLATER DESIGN STAGE.
P
STAN ##
SP
SP
LP
LP
LP
LP
LP
96.9
796
.67
96.7
1
96.7
6
97.0
0
97.8
0
97.98
98 43
98.5
7
98.93
99.1
9
99.18
99.33
99.01
98.61
97.89
97 31
97 01
96 92
96.87
96.82
96.9
5
97.00
96.8
4
96.90
96.93
96.92
96.89
96.9
6
96.84
97.19
97.0
3
97.1
6
97.30
97.6297.5
8
98.2
3
99.0
3
99.5
4
99.40
99.60
99.50
99.60
99.8
7
99.87
100.45
100.
95
100.98
101.34
101.55
101.90
102.23
101.
99
101.96
101.81
101.59
101.30
100.74
100.25
99.92
99.81
99.75
99.64
99.6
3
99.7
4
99.98
101.
78
100.
49
100.57
100.98
100.
9210
1.24
101.31
101.54
101.
78
101.76
101.71
101.82
101.93
101.88
101.
93
101.77
101 65
101.
6110
1.38 101.30
100.
84
100.89
100.
5510
0.38
100.42
100.65
100.92
101.08
101.27
101.58
101.84
102.02
102 07
101.28
101.51
102.46
102.47
102.48
102.34
102.37
102.
02
101.83
102.
10
102.04
102.16101.65
101.
48
101.61102.11
101.65 101.45
101.
22
101.24
100.96 100.
89
100.72
100.
34
102.
16
101.
5610
1.30
100.
9710
0.42
101.
9010
1.96
101.
9810
1.66
101.
4410
0.90
100.
6110
0.43
94.38 94.15
93.97
95.00
95.48
97.0
9
97.3
1
96.7
5
96.7
6
97.0
6
97.2
2
97.7
1
98.2
4
98.7
3
99.5
1
99.7
3
99.5
9
99.8
6
99.8
4
100.
4310
1.10
101.
36
101.
57
101.
6810
1.66
101.
64
102.15
97.0
5
96.6
5
96.7
0
96.5
1
96.3
8
96.7
8
97.1
7
97.7
8
98.2
8
98.8
2
99.2
9
99.3
8
99.3
2
99.4
8
99.8
0
100.
34
100.
97
91.59
93.58
95.71
97.72
98.88
99.53
99.69
99.94
99.9099.76 99.18 98.40 96.87
96.2498.2898.71
98.91
98.85
98.44
97.8897.84 97.56 96.47
96.1696.9397.21
97.24
97.05
96.88
96.68
96.06 94.64
99.84
99.81
98.97
97.94
95.19
94.02
92.77
91.92
91.33
91.65
92.39
93.16
94.76
96.68
98.69
99.56
99.94
99.93
100.04
100.36
100.51
100.21
99.71
98.52
95.99
94.51
94.03
92.41
93.28
94.79
96.41
96.80
96.36
97.54
100.24
100.85101.03
101.23
101.32
100.81
99.95
98.16
98.28
98.55
97.92
95.00
93.63
96.51
96.44
95.94
94.95
96.66
97.71
99.24
99.57
99.54
100.16
100.58
101.24
101.34
101.97
101.52
101.18
100.83
100.63
98.94
99.24
100.83
101.53
101.94
102.39
102.55Fence Post/Rail
Hedge
Hedge
Scrub Edge
Hedge
Gul
ly
Hedge
Hed
ge
Hed
ge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Verge
Verge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Hed
ge
Hed
ge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Hed
ge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Gat
e
Hed
ge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Hedg
e
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
eCo
ncre
te E
dge
Concrete Edge
Hed
ge
Fence Post/Rail
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Fenc
e Po
st/R
ail
Hedg
eC
oncr
ete
Edge
Hedg
eCo
ncre
te E
dge
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Hedg
e
Hed
ge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Hed
ge
Hed
ge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Hed
ge
Fenc
e Po
st/R
ail
Gat
e
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Hed
ge
Verg
e Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Verge
Sign
Concrete Edge
Concrete Edge
Gully
Scrub Edge
Scrub Edge
Hedge
Hedge
Dense Vegetation
2.0m FOOTWAY ONTICKOW LANE
FOOTWAY TO BE PROVIDEDALONG TICKOW LANE OR WITHINSITE (TO BE CONSIDERED AT ALATER STAGE)
5.5m
2.0m
R6.0m
2.0m
5.5m
2.0m
2.0m
6.1m
2.8m
3.0m3.0m
3.0m
5.5m
R6.0m
GHOST ISLAND RIGHT TURNDESIGN PARAMETERS:DESIGN SPEED = 70kphTURNING LENGTH = 10mDECELERATION LENGTH = 40mTHROUGH LANE WIDTH = 3mTURNING LANE WIDTH = 3mDIRECT TAPER = 15mMERGING TAPER = 1:20 (60m)
STAN 01
STAN 02
STAN 02
STAN 03
STAN 03
STAN 04
R8.0m
R8.0m
WINDOW 1
WINDOW 2
97.0
0
97.8
0
97.98
98 43
98.5
7
98.93
99.1
9
99.18
99.33
99.01
98.61
97.89
97 31
97 01
97.19
97.0
3
97.1
6
97.30
97.6297.5
8
98.2
3
99.0
3
99.64
99.6
3
97.0
6
97.2
2
97.7
1
98.2
4
98.7
3
99.5
1
96.3
8
96.7
8
97.1
7
97.7
8
98.2
8
98.8
2
99.9099.76 99.18
98.7198.91
98.85
98.44
97.8897.84
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Hedg
e
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Hedg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Conc
rete
Edg
e
Hedg
e
SP
LP
LP
LP
LP
100.
95
100.98
101.34
101.55
101.90
102.23
101.
99
101.96
101.81
101.59
101.30
101.
78
100.98
100.
9210
1.24
101.31
101.54
101.
78
101.76
101.71
101.82
101.93
101.88
101.
93
101.77
101.84
102.02
102 07
101.28
101.51
102.46
102.47
102.48
102.34
102.37
102.
02
101.83
102.
10
102.04
102.
16
101.
9010
1.96
101.
98
101.
10
101.
36
101.
57
101.
68
100.
97
100.36
100.51
100.21
99.71
98.52
100.24
100.85101.03
101.23
101.32
100.81
99.95
98.16
Hed
ge
Hed
ge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Verge
Verge
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Hed
ge
Hed
ge
Fenc
e Po
st/R
ail
Gat
e
Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Hed
ge
Verg
e Con
cret
e Ed
ge
Verge
Sign
Concrete Edge
HEALTH, SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL NOTESDENOTES THE LOCATION OF HAZARD OR RISK.
FOR MORE INFORMATION REFER TO RISK REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION BELOWIN ADDITION TO THE HAZARDS AND RISKS NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE FORM OF CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED ON
THIS DRAWING, THE FOLLOWING RESIDUAL RISKS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
P - PRELIMINARY, C - CONSTRUCTION, S - IN SERVICE / MAINTENANCE, D - DECOMMISSIONING / DEMOLITION
RISKPREFIX
RISKREF. RISK DESCRIPTION
RISKPHASE
STAN 01CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SAFE ACCESS AND EGRESS TO THE. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC TOBE RESTRICTED TO USING JUNCTION ONE DUE TO CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH (TICKOW LANE ~5.2m). DETAILS TO BE CONFIRMED ATLATER DESIGN STAGE.
P
STAN 02 JUNCTION LEVELS / CONTOURS WILL REQUIRE FURTHER DESIGN TO AVOID STEEP TIE IN GRADIENTS. JUNCTIONS HAVE BEENMODELED NOTIONALLY FOR THIS EXERCISE. P
STAN 03 POSSIBLE DIVERSION OF UTILITIES REQUIRED, LINE AND LEVEL OF BURIED SERVICES TO BE CONFIRMED AT LATER DESIGN STAGE. P
STAN 04 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ROUTING WOULD NEED TO BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE PLANT / HGV VEHICLES ARE ABLE TO NAVIGATETHROUGH THE SITE P
STAN ##
By Appd YYYY.MM.DDIssued/RevisionA ACCESS UPDATED AND TRACKING ADDED RP 2021.05.18-
www.stantec.com/uk
Project No. Scale
Dwn. Dsgn. Chkd. YYYY.MM.DD
Title
Revision Drawing No.
Client/Project Logo
Copyright Reserved
ORI
GIN
AL S
HEET
- ISO
j:\43
270
- she
pshe
d, le
ics\
tech
nica
l\dr
awin
gs\1
00\3
3221
0543
-100
-003
Plot
ted:
18.
05.2
021
2021
.05.
18 3
:10:
05 P
M B
y: P
awso
n, R
ob
Client/Project
Issue Status
This document is suitable only for thepurpose noted above.
Use of this document for any otherpurpose is not permitted.
The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT scale the drawing- any errors or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproduction oruse for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.
Notes
1 2 3 4 5
D
C
B
A
BARWOOD LAND
LAND OFF ASHBY ROAD WEST, SHEPSHED
TICKOW LANE ACCESS
332210543 1:500
A 332210543-100-003
RP RP PW 2021.05.18
FOR INFORMATION
A1
Stantec UK LimitedBIRMINGHAMWaterloo House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B2 5TBTel: +44 121 633 2900
N
INDICATIVE SITE BOUNDARY
HIGHWAY BOUNDARY
Key
1. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL OTHER RELEVANTDOCUMENTATION
2. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING, USE ONLY PRINTED DIMENSIONS
3. ANY PROPOSALS DEPICTED ON THIS DRAWING ARE 2D CONCEPT DESIGNSTO PROVIDE AN INDICATION OF THE EXTENT AND PRINCIPLES OF THEDESIGN. DETAILED DESIGN MUST BE CARRIED OUT TO CONFIRM EXTENT OFPROPOSALS INCLUDE ROAD GEOMETRY, EMBANKMENTS AND OTHER LANDREQUIREMENTS.
4. STATUTORY UNDERTAKER AND UTILITIES INFORMATION WILL BE REQUIREDTO INFORM THE DETAILED DESIGN AND IMPACT ON EXISTING UTILITIES ORDIVERSIONS REQUIRED HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT THISSTAGE.
5. DRAWING BASED ON TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY UNDERTAKEN BY SVSURVEYING IN JUNE 2018
6. HIGHWAY BOUNDARY DATA PROVIDED BY LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTYCOUNCIL IN JUNE 2018
WINDOW 1 - TICKOW LANE NORTHERN ACCESS (SCALE = 1:250)
WINDOW 2 - TICKOW LANE SOUTHERN ACCESS (SCALE = 1:250)SCALE = 1:500
Vehicle Profile
TECHNICAL NOTE
C:\Adlib\System\Work\20210601T084810.695\20210601T084813.927\332210072-5510-TN001-Rev A-Shepshed Stage 1 RSA Response Report 210518.docx
Page 1 of 9
Job Name: Shepshed, Leicestershire
Job No: 332210072
Note No: 332210072/5510/TN001 Rev A
Date: 30 April 2021
Prepared By: Pete Wearing
Subject: Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Response Report
1. Project details
Project detailsReport title: Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Response ReportDate: 30 April 2021Document reference and revision: 332210072/5510/TN001Prepared by: Stantec (UK) LtdOn behalf of: Barwood Development Securities Ltd
Authorisation sheetReport title: Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Response ReportPrepared byName: Peter WearingPosition: Principal EngineerSigned:
Organisation: Stantec (UK) LtdDate: 30 April 2021Approved byName: Daniel GriffithsPosition: Director Signed:
Organisation: Stantec (UK) Ltd
Date: 30 April 2021
DOCUMENT ISSUE RECORD
Technical Note No Rev Date Prepared Checked Reviewed(Discipline Lead)
Approved(Project Director)
332210072/5510/TN001 - 30/04/21 PW MR DG
332210072/5510/TN001 A 18/05/21 RP
This report has been prepared by Stantec UK Limited (‘Stantec’) on behalf of its client to whom this report is addressed (‘Client’) in connection with the project described in this report and takes into account the Client's particular instructions and requirements. This report was prepared in accordance with the professional services appointment under which Stantec was appointed by its Client. This report is not intended for and should not be relied on by any third party (i.e. parties other than the Client). Stantec accepts no duty or responsibility (including in negligence) to any party other than the Client and disclaims all liability of any nature whatsoever to any such party in respect of this report.
T: +44 (0)121 633 2900 E: birmingham@stantec.com
TECHNICAL NOTE
C:\Adlib\System\Work\20210601T084810.695\20210601T084813.927\332210072-5510-TN001-Rev A-Shepshed Stage 1 RSA Response Report 210518.docx
Page 2 of 9
2. Introduction
This Technical Note provides a response to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) report that was 2.1.prepared by TMS (TMS document ref. no. 16295), dated 23 April 2021, of new site accesses off Tickow Lane and proposals at Tickow Lane bridge, associated with a proposed residential development on Land off Ashby Road West, Shepshed, Leicestershire.
The TMS report and RSA Brief is held in Appendix A and the drawings depicting the proposals 2.2.subject to the Stage 1 RSA are held in Appendix B.
3. Key personnel
Overseeing organisation: Leicestershire County CouncilRSA team: Refer to TMS document ref. no. 16295Design organisation: Stantec (UK) LtdDesign team leader: Dan Griffiths – DirectorDesign team lead designer: Pete Wearing – Principal EngineerDesign team member: Rob Pawson – Senior Transport Planner
TECHNICAL NOTE
C:\Adlib\System\Work\20210601T084810.695\20210601T084813.927\332210072-5510-TN001-Rev A-Shepshed Stage 1 RSA Response Report 210518.docx
Page 3 of 9
4. Road Safety Audit decision log
RSA problem(refer to TMS report for locations)
RSA recommendationDesign organisation
responseOverseeing organisation
responseAgreed RSA action
2.1 Location: Tickow Road, north access
Summary: Speed related junction collisions
As the north access is in close proximity to the shuttle signals over the bridge, with a limited visibility splay, depending on the phasing of the signals, distant traffic might speed up when they see a green light to pass through it before it changes. This could increase vehicle speeds at the junction and could increase the risk of collisions with vehicles pulling out into high-speed oncoming traffic.
The signals should be set to ‘rest on red’ to help control vehicle speeds at the shuttle signals.
Agreed. The settings of the signals will be confirmed prior to installation.
2.2 Location: Extents of scheme
Summary: Collisions in the hours of darkness
It was noted that there
The scheme should be fully street lit to tie into the existing lighting at both the north and south extents of the scheme, ensuring consistent levels of
Agreed. Proposals to provide street lighting along the lane will be discussed with the local highway authority.
TECHNICAL NOTE
C:\Adlib\System\Work\20210601T084810.695\20210601T084813.927\332210072-5510-TN001-Rev A-Shepshed Stage 1 RSA Response Report 210518.docx
Page 4 of 9
RSA problem(refer to TMS report for locations)
RSA recommendationDesign organisation
responseOverseeing organisation
responseAgreed RSA action
was a system of street lighting at both the south and north extents of the scheme, however no additional lighting has been specified to cover the two accesses and the shuttle signals over the bridge. Drivers will therefore go from light to dark conditions at critical conflict points, where their eye site might not have sufficient time to adjust to the change in lighting levels. This could increase the risk of shunt and junction collisions, where they might not observe vehicles both queuing at the bridge or manoeuvring in and out of the two accesses.
Additionally, drivers might not observe pedestrians walking on the footway over the bridge, with potential kerb strikes and the risk of pedestrians being struck.
lighting throughout.
2.3 Location: Tickow Road, Southern access
The utility inspection chamber should be
Agreed. Alterations to the utilities will be determined
TECHNICAL NOTE
C:\Adlib\System\Work\20210601T084810.695\20210601T084813.927\332210072-5510-TN001-Rev A-Shepshed Stage 1 RSA Response Report 210518.docx
Page 5 of 9
RSA problem(refer to TMS report for locations)
RSA recommendationDesign organisation
responseOverseeing organisation
responseAgreed RSA action
Summary: Junction collisions
From the site visit, there was a utility inspection chamber located in the verge, where the southern access is proposed to be located. This might have poor skid resistant properties or could be inconsistent with the carriageway surface. This could therefore increase the risk of vehicles skidding and losing control when manoeuvring at the junction, especially for two wheeled vehicles and in wet and icy conditions.
relocated out of the access road junction.
at the next design stage and will include the relocation of the inspection cover away from the middle of the proposed site access.
Location: Tickow Lane bridge
Summary: Collisions with pedestrians on footway
Demarcation of the footway with a white line could result in vehicles drifting over the white line and potentially colliding with pedestrians walking
Fully constructed kerbed footway should be provided
Agreed. Kerbed footway will be provided.
TECHNICAL NOTE
C:\Adlib\System\Work\20210601T084810.695\20210601T084813.927\332210072-5510-TN001-Rev A-Shepshed Stage 1 RSA Response Report 210518.docx
Page 6 of 9
RSA problem(refer to TMS report for locations)
RSA recommendationDesign organisation
responseOverseeing organisation
responseAgreed RSA action
across the bridge
TECHNICAL NOTE
C:\Adlib\System\Work\20210601T084810.695\20210601T084813.927\332210072-5510-TN001-Rev A-Shepshed Stage 1 RSA Response Report 210518.docx
Page 7 of 9
5. Design organisation and overseeing organisation statements
Design organisation statement5.1.
On behalf of the design organisation I certify that:
1) the RSA actions identified in response to the Road Safety Audit problems in this RoadSafety Audit have been discussed and agreed with the overseeing organisation.
Name: Pete WearingSigned:
Position: Principal EngineerOrganisation: Stantec (UK) Ltd
Date: 28 April 2021
Overseeing organisation statement5.2.
On behalf of the overseeing organisation I certify that:
1) the RSA actions identified in response to the road safety audit problems in this RoadSafety Audit have been discussed and agreed with the design organisation; and
2) the agreed RSA actions will be progressed.
Name: Adrian WhitemanSigned:
Position: Highway Development ManagementHighways & Transport Commissioning Service
Organisation: Leicestershire County Council
Date:
TECHNICAL NOTE
C:\Adlib\System\Work\20210601T084810.695\20210601T084813.927\332210072-5510-TN001-Rev A-Shepshed Stage 1 RSA Response Report 210518.docx
Page 8 of 9
Appendix A TMS Stage 1 RSA Report and RSA Brief
Recommended