Sent: To: Cc: Subject: RE: 43270 -Shepshed -LCC Update

1

From: Coleby, Tim <[email protected]>

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 [email protected]

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 <[email protected]> Sent: 27 May 2021 13:12To: Griffiths, Daniel <[email protected]>Cc: Coleby, Tim <[email protected]>; Pawson, Rob <[email protected]>; Wearing, Peter <[email protected]>; Eaton Jeremy <[email protected]>; Samantha Ireson <[email protected]>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: [email protected]

**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 <[email protected]> Sent: 20 May 2021 11:56To: Adrian Whiteman <[email protected]>Cc: Coleby, Tim <[email protected]>; Pawson, Rob <[email protected]>; Wearing, Peter <[email protected]>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 [email protected]

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.


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 <[email protected]> Sent: 12 May 2021 10:17To: Griffiths, Daniel <[email protected]>Cc: Coleby, Tim <[email protected]>; Seiboth, Matt <[email protected]>; Wearing, Peter <[email protected]>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: [email protected]



From: Griffiths, Daniel <[email protected]>Sent: 12 May 2021 09:55To: Adrian Whiteman <[email protected]>Cc: Coleby, Tim <[email protected]>; Seiboth, Matt <[email protected]>; Wearing, Peter<[email protected]>Subject: 43270 - Shepshed


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


Stantec



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.



1

From: Griffiths, Daniel <[email protected]>

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


Stantec

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Stantec



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 <[email protected]> Sent: 12 May 2021 10:17To: Griffiths, Daniel <[email protected]>Cc: Coleby, Tim <[email protected]>; Seiboth, Matt <[email protected]>; Wearing, Peter <[email protected]>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: [email protected]



From: Griffiths, Daniel <[email protected]>Sent: 12 May 2021 09:55To: Adrian Whiteman <[email protected]>Cc: Coleby, Tim <[email protected]>; Seiboth, Matt <[email protected]>; Wearing, Peter<[email protected]>Subject: 43270 - Shepshed


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


Stantec



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 ##

https://www.stantec.com/uk

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

https://www.stantec.com/uk

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: [email protected]

TECHNICAL NOTE


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


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


Page 4 of 9





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


Page 5 of 9





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


Page 6 of 9





across the bridge

TECHNICAL NOTE


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


Page 8 of 9

Appendix A TMS Stage 1 RSA Report and RSA Brief

TECHNICAL NOTE


Page 9 of 9

Appendix B Drawing No. 332210543-100-002

Sent: To: Cc: Subject: RE: 43270 -Shepshed -LCC Update

Documents

Transcript of Sent: To: Cc: Subject: RE: 43270 -Shepshed -LCC Update