A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Tilton House

Chilver Bridge Farm Keepers Sierra Vista "N Stonery Farm Cottages

Tilton Wood

Beacon View

Shepherds Cottage New Barn Farm

Alciston Old Leylands Barn

Bopeep Farm

Berwick

Dawes House

Bostal Hill Church Barn

Bostal Bottom

Berwick Court Farm

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100030649. Metres Comp Barn You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, 0 500 the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, DO NOT SCALE Jerry's Bottom sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL Drawing Status Suitability Project Title KEY: A27 INFORMATON FINAL S0 EAST OF LEWES DESIGN FIX 3 In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title 1KM STUDY AREA detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks WSP House (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). 70 Chancery Lane FIGURE 12.2: FLOOD MITIGATION AREAS Construction London PROW WC2A 1AF 1KM STUDY AREA TEMPORARY COMPOUNDS Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 PAGE 3 OF 5 Maintenance / Cleaning www.wspgroup.co.uk PROW TYPE: www.pbworld.com Scale Drawn Checked Aproved Authorised Copyright © WSP Group (2019) CR CB GK MS 3 1:10,880 BRIDLEWAY Client Original Size Date Date Date Date BYWAY Use A3 14/03/19 14/03/19 14/03/19 14/03/19 Drawing Number Project Ref. No. FOOTPATH Contains OS data © Crown Project Originator Volume 70035418 Decomissioning / Demolition Revision RESTRICTED BYWAY Copyright and database right P01.1 --- First Issue ------HE552988 WSP P01 Rev. Date Description By Chk'd App'd 2018 Location Type Role Number

Path: \\uk.wspgroup.com\central data\Projects\700354xx\70035418 - A27EastOfLewes\02 WIP\GIS\Mxd\People and Communities\70035418_201800524_Figure_12.2_PROW.mxd: Plotted by: UKCJR003 Date: Mar 14, 2019 - 11:44AM ¦

Beacon View "N Warren Farm

Old Leylands Barn Sand Pit Farm

Sanders

Berwick Churchwood Farm

Dawes House

Wilmington Green Newbarn Farm

Longman Nursery

Wilmington Berwick Court Farm

Keepers Cottage

Mayflower House Milton Street

Folkington

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100030649. Metres You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, Winton0 500 Milton Court Farm the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, DO NOT SCALE sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL Drawing Status Suitability Project Title KEY: A27 INFORMATON FINAL S0 EAST OF LEWES DESIGN FIX 3 In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title 1KM STUDY AREA detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks WSP House (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). 70 Chancery Lane FIGURE 12.2: FLOOD MITIGATION AREAS Construction London PROW WC2A 1AF 1KM STUDY AREA TEMPORARY COMPOUNDS Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 PAGE 4 OF 5 Maintenance / Cleaning www.wspgroup.co.uk PROW TYPE: www.pbworld.com Scale Drawn Checked Aproved Authorised Copyright © WSP Group (2019) BRIDLEWAY 1:10,880 CR CB GK MS 4 Client Original Size Date Date Date Date BYWAY Use A3 14/03/19 14/03/19 14/03/19 14/03/19 Drawing Number Project Ref. No. FOOTPATH Contains OS data © Crown Project Originator Volume 70035418 Decomissioning / Demolition Revision RESTRICTED BYWAY Copyright and database right P01.1 --- First Issue ------HE552988 WSP P01 Rev. Date Description By Chk'd App'd 2018 Location Type Role Number

Thornwell Lake Farm "N

Little Friars Farm

Cophall Farm

Warren Farm

Hide Cottage Bramley Farm

Cop Hall Otham Court

Wootton Manor

Newbarn Farm

POLEGATE

The Flint House

Keepers Cottage Wannock Mill Stream

Old Rectory Cottage Mornings Mill Farm Folkington New Stream Ditch Middle Sewer

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100030649. Metres Wannock You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, 0 600 the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, DO NOT SCALE Folkington Bottom sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL Drawing Status Suitability Project Title KEY: A27 INFORMATON FINAL S0 EAST OF LEWES DESIGN FIX 3 In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title 1KM STUDY AREA detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks WSP House (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). 70 Chancery Lane FIGURE 12.2: FLOOD MITIGATION AREAS Construction London PROW WC2A 1AF 1KM STUDY AREA TEMPORARY COMPOUNDS Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 PAGE 5 OF 5 Maintenance / Cleaning www.wspgroup.co.uk PROW TYPE: www.pbworld.com Scale Drawn Checked Aproved Authorised Copyright © WSP Group (2019) BRIDLEWAY 1:13,380 CR CB GK MS 5 Client Original Size Date Date Date Date BYWAY Use A3 14/03/19 14/03/19 14/03/19 14/03/19 Drawing Number Project Ref. No. FOOTPATH Contains OS data © Crown Project Originator Volume 70035418 Decomissioning / Demolition Revision RESTRICTED BYWAY Copyright and database right P01.1 --- First Issue ------HE552988 WSP P01 Rev. Date Description By Chk'd App'd 2018 Location Type Role Number

13 ROAD DRAINAGE AND THE WATER ENVIRONMENT 13.1 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

13.1.1 The various legislative, policy and guidance documents used to shape the assessment related to the Road Drainage and the Water Environment effects are outlined in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1 - Legislation, Policy and Guidance

GROUNDWATER DIRECTIVE (2006/118/EC)250

WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (WFD) (2000/60/EC)251 LEGISLATION FLOOD AND WATER MANAGEMENT ACT 2010252

LAND DRAINAGE ACT (1991)253

THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF, 2019)254

NATIONAL PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE (NPPG,2014)255

POLICY ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 2010256

NON-STATUTORY TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 2015257

LEWES CORE STRATEGY (MAY 2016)258 LOCAL POLICY WEALDEN DISTRICT CORE STRATEGY (FEBRUARY 2013)259

DMRB VOLUME 11, SECTION 3, PART 10 (HD 45/09)260

GUIDANCE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY GROUNDWATER PROTECTION GUIDES261

CIRIA’S CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION FROM CONSTRUCTION SITES

250 https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/groundwater-directive-gwd-2006-118-ec 251 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html 252 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 2010, Flood and Water Management Act 2010 253 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1991, Land Drainage Act 1991 – Chapter 59 254https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2019 255 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance 256 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1154/contents/made 257https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415773 /sustainable-drainage-technical-standards.pdf 258 https://www.lewes-eastbourne.gov.uk/planning-policy/lewes-core-strategy-local-plan-part-1/ 259http://www.wealden.gov.uk/Wealden/Residents/Planning_and_Building_Control/Planning_Policy/CoreStra tegy/Core_Strategy_Local_Plan.aspx 260 DfT, DMRB Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3, Part 10 HD 45/09 Road Drainage and the Water Environment, November 2009 261 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/groundwater-protection

307 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

(C532)262.

CIRIA SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS (SUDS)263

13.1.1 Further detail on legislation and policy is provide in Appendix 1.1.

13.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

13.2.1 This chapter provides a high-level qualitative assessment of the potential impacts of the scheme on the water environment. The assessment is based on the design information that is available at this stage (PCF Stage 3 – Preliminary Design).

13.2.2 The assessment methodology has been undertaken in accordance with the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 (HD 45/09). The DMRB promotes the following approach:

 Estimation of the importance of the attribute.  Estimation of the magnitude of the impact (change).  Assessment of the significance of the effect based on the importance of the attribute and the magnitude of the impact.

13.2.3 The assessment of effects on flood risk has been informed by high-level hydraulic analysis using a 1D – 2D linked Infoworks ICM hydraulic model for the River Cuckmere to assess any effect on the floodplain from the proposed new footbridge as part of the Shared Use Path. Further modelling has been undertaken to assess the existing 15 culverted ordinary watercourses under the A27 between Beddingham and Polegate, including a more detailed assessment of the Langley Sewer at Polegate.

13.2.1 This analysis is presented as a standalone flood risk assessment (FRA) in Appendix 13.1. A FRA is required for the scheme as it sits partially within Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zones 2 and 3 and also covers an area greater than 1 hectare (ha), as set out in NPPF. The findings of this analysis used to better understand likely effects associated the scheme and inform likely mitigation requirements.

13.2.2 The importance of the water environment receptors is considered in terms of indicators such as quality, scale, rarity and substitutability. Guidance for estimating these factors is provided in Table 13.2 and the magnitude of impact on the water environment is provided in table Table13.3.

Table 13.2 Estimating the importance (sensitivity) of Water Environment Attributes – Taken from Table A4.3 of DMRB HD 45/9 Importance Criteria Example (Sensitivity) Surface Water: - EC Designated Salmonid/Cyprinid fishery - WFD Class ‘High’ Very high importance and rarity, - Site protected/designated under EC or UK habitat Very High international scale and very legislation (SAC, SPA, SSSI, WPZ, Ramsar site, limited potential for substitution. salmonid water)/ Species protected by EC legislation Groundwater: - Principal aquifer providing a regionally important

262 Control of water pollution from construction sites. Guidance for consultants and contractors (C532) https://www.ciria.org/ProductExcerpts/C532.aspx 263 The SuDS Manual, https://www.ciria.org/Resources/Free_publications/SuDS_manual_C753.aspx

308 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

resource or supporting site protected under EC and UK habitat legislation - SPZ1 Flood Risk: - Floodplain or defence protecting more than 100 residential properties from flooding Surface Water: - WFD Class ‘Good’ - Major Cyprinid Fishery - Species protected under EC or UK habitat legislation High importance and rarity, Groundwater: High national scale, and limited - Principal aquifer providing locally important potential for substitution. resource or supporting river ecosystem - SPZ2 Flood Risk: - Floodplain or defence protecting between 1 and 100 residential properties or industrial premises from flooding Surface Water: - WFD Class ‘Moderate’ Groundwater: - Aquifer providing water for agricultural or High or medium importance and industrial use with limited connection to surface Medium rarity, regional scale, limited water potential for substitution. - SPZ3 Flood Risk: - Floodplain or defence protecting 10 or fewer industrial properties from flooding Surface Water: - WFD Class ‘Poor’ Groundwater: Low or medium importance and Low (or lower) - Unproductive strata rarity, local scale. Flood Risk: - Floodplain with limited constraints and a low probability of flooding of residential and industrial properties

Table 13.3 - Estimating the magnitude of an impact on an attribute - taken from Table A4.3 of DMRB HD 45/9 Magnitude of Impact Typical Criteria Descriptors Example Surface Water - Removal of an existing polluting discharge through provision of pollution Minor benefit to, or addition of, prevention measures, or any other one (maybe more) key measure, affecting a site/habitat characteristics, features or protected under EC or UK legislation Large Beneficial elements; some beneficial (SAC, SPA, Ramsar site, SSSI, WPZ, impact on attribute or a reduced salmonid water) risk of negative impact occurring - Reduction by 50% or more in the existing likelihood of pollution arising from a spillage affecting a site/habitat protected under EC or UK legislation

309 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

(SAC, SPA, Ramsar site, - SSSI, WPZ, salmonid water) where existing risk >1% Groundwater - Removal of an existing polluting discharge within Zone 1 and 2 of a SPZ and/or a principal aquifer - Reduction by 50% or more in the existing likelihood of pollution arising from a spillage at discharge points within Zone 1 or 2 of a SPZ, principal aquifer and/or a site supporting a habitat protected under habitat legislation (existing risk >1%) - Recharge of aquifer through provision of treated discharges to ground resulting in measurable improvements to a connected site/habitat protected under EC or UK legislation (SAC, SPA, Ramsar site, SSSI, WPZ, salmonid water) Flood Risk - A reduction in peak flood levels (1% annual probability) >50 mm reducing the risk of flooding to >100 residential properties OR a reduction of >100 mm resulting in a reduced risk of flooding to 1-100 residential properties

310 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Surface Water - Method A assessment of both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants becomes Pass from previous Refer or Fail condition for existing discharges - Reduction by 50% or more in likelihood of pollution to watercourses from spillages from existing discharges through retrofitting of pollution control to outfalls into a High to Poor watercourse (existing risk >1%) - Recharge of aquifer through provision of treated discharges to ground resulting in Very minor benefit to or positive measurable improvements to a addition to one or more connected site/habitat of local nature Moderate Beneficial characteristics, features or conservation value i.e. Local Nature elements Reserve Groundwater - Reduction by 50% or more in existing likelihood of pollution arising from a spillage to an aquifer through retrofitting of pollution control (existing risk >1%) Flood Risk - A reduction in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >10 mm resulting in a reduced risk of flooding to >100 residential properties OR a reduction of >50 mm resulting in a reduced risk of flooding to 1-100 residential properties

Surface Water - Method A assessment of either soluble or sediment-bound pollutants becomes Pass from previous Fail condition for existing discharges - Reduction by 50% or more in existing pollution risk from spillages into High to Poor watercourses (when existing No loss or alteration of spillage risk is <1%) characteristics, features or Slight Beneficial elements; no observable impact Groundwater in either direction. - Reduction by 50% or more in existing pollution risk from spillages into an aquifer (when existing spillage risk is <1%) Flood Risk - A reduction in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >10 mm resulting in a reduced risk of flooding to 1-100 residential properties

311 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Surface Water - No risk identified by Method A or Method B assessment (Pass both solubles and sediment-bound pollutants) Where the net impact of the - Calculated risk of pollution from proposals is neutral, because it spillages <0.5% annually results in no appreciable effect, either positive or negative, on Groundwater Neutral the identified attribute. More than - No predicted change in quality of any one attribute may be affected by type of aquifer and/or its use as a a single project and each should be assessed and reported resource separately. - Calculated risk of pollution from spillages <0.5% annually Flood Risk - Negligible change in peak flood (1% annual probability) <+/- 10 mm Surface Water: - No risk identified by HAWRAT (Pass both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants) Loss of resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity; - Risk of pollution from spillages <0.5% Negligible partial loss of/damage to key Groundwater: characteristics, features or - No measurable impact upon an aquifer elements. and risk of pollution from spillages <0.5% Flood Risk: - Negligible change in peak flood level (1% annual probability) <+/- 10 mm Surface Water: - Failure of either soluble or sediment- bound pollutants in HAWRAT Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >0.5% annually and <1% annually Groundwater: Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity of resource; severe - Potential low risk of pollution to Minor Adverse damage to key characteristics, groundwater from routine runoff – risk features or elements score 0.5% annually and <1% annually Minor effects on groundwater supported wetlands Flood Risk: - Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >10mm. The scheme is unlikely to affect the integrity of the water environment Surface Water:

Results in effect on integrity of - Failure of both soluble and sediment- attribute, or loss of part of bound pollutants in HAWRAT (Method Moderate Adverse attribute A, Annex I) but compliance with EQS values (Method B) Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >1% annually and <2% annually

312 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Groundwater: - Partial loss or change to an aquifer

- Potential medium risk of pollution to groundwater from routine runoff – risk score 150-250 - Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >1% annually and Flood Risk: - Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >50 mm Surface Water: - Failure of both soluble and sediment- bound pollutants in HAWRAT (Method A, Annex I) and compliance failure with EQS values (Method B) Calculated risk of pollution from a spillage >2% annually (Spillage Risk Assessment, Method D, Annex I) - Loss or extensive change to a fishery - Loss or extensive change to a designated Nature Conservation Site WFD Class ‘Poor’ Groundwater: Results in loss of attribute and/ - Loss of, or extensive change to, an Major Adverse or quality and integrity of the aquifer Potential high risk of pollution to attribute groundwater from routine runoff – risk score >250 (Groundwater Assessment, Method C, Annex I) Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >2% annually (Spillage Risk Assessment, Method D, Annex I) - Loss of, or extensive change to, groundwater supported designated wetlands Flood Risk: - Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >100 mm (Hydrological Assessment of Design Floods and Hydraulic Assessment, Methods E and F, Annex I)

13.2.3 Please note that this assessment includes an assessment of potential effects on groundwater flows only. Groundwater quality effects are assessed in Chapter 9: Geology and Soils.

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

13.2.4 The significance of identified effects has been assessed based on the magnitude of change (impact) due to the scheme and the importance (sensitivity) of the affected receptor, which are outlined in more detail in Chapter 2: The Project. The importance of the affected receptor is assessed on a scale of high, medium, low and negligible, and the magnitude of change is assessed on a scale of large, medium, small and negligible.

313 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Table 13.4 - Significance of Effects Descriptors

SIGNIFICANCE TYPICAL DESCRIPTORS CATEGORY These effects represent key actors in the decision-making process. The effects are generally, but not exclusively, associated with sites or features of Very Large international, national or regional importance that are likely to suffer a most Adverse damaging impact and loss of resource integrity. However, a major change in a site or feature of local importance may also enter this category. These effects are considered to be very important considerations and are likely Large Adverse to be material in the decision-making process. These effects may be important but are not likely to be key decision-making Moderate factors. The cumulative effects of such factors may influence decision-making if Adverse they lead to an increase in the overall adverse effect on a particular resource or receptor. These effects may be raised as local factors. They are unlikely to be critical in Slight Adverse the decision-making process but are important in enhancing the subsequent design of the project. No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds Neutral of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.

13.2.5 The significance of overall effect is determined by combining the magnitude of impact with the importance of the receptor as presented in Table 13.5.

TABLE 13.5 - ESTIMATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS Magnitude of impact (Degree of change) No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major

Very High Neutral Slight Moderate or Large Large or Very Large Very Large

High Neutral Slight Slight or Moderate Moderate or Large Large or Very Large

Medium Neutral Neutral or Slight Slight Moderate Moderate or Large Importance Importance

Low Neutral Neutral or Slight Neutral or Slight Slight Slight or Moderate

Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral or Slight Neutral or Slight Slight

13.2.6 The following terms have been used to define the significance of the effects identified:

 Very Large/ Large: where the scheme could be expected to have a very significant effect (either positive or negative) on receptors;  Moderate where the scheme could be expected to have a noticeable effect (either positive or negative) on receptors;  Slight where the scheme could be expected to result in a small, barely noticeable effect (either positive or negative) on receptors; and  Neutral: where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the scheme on receptors.

314 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.3 ASSESSMENT ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

13.3.1 This report is based on currently available information and can be subject to change as the design progresses in Stage 5- Detailed design. This is of importance when considering potential impacts associated with the quality of surface water runoff, groundwater resources, hydromorphology and flood risk.

13.3.2 At the time of writing, the hydraulic models produced for the assessment have not been yet provided to the EA for approval at this stage. The proposed methodology document and hydrology calculations have been provided for review and comment see Table 13.10 for detailed commentary on engagement to date. Recommendations received which require addressing will be incorporated in Stage 5- Detailed design.

13.3.3 It is assumed that works being undertaken at the ordinary watercourses will aim to maintain existing channel profile and bed slope. Where existing culverts are to be removed and replaced with Boardwalks, it is proposed to reinstate a natural bank along the edges of the ordinary watercourses. In addition to this where culverts are proposed to be widened to accommodate additional flow a natural gravel bed will be placed/maintained.

13.3.4 In accordance with the DMRB an assessment of the potential impacts to the quality of receiving waterbodies is advised if the scheme will give rise to an increase in traffic flow of more than 20%. Traffic modelling predictions indicate the traffic increases fall below 20%, therefore a HAWRAT (Highways Agency (now England) Water Risk Assessment Tool) has not been applied as part of this assessment.

13.3.5 This assessment is limited to third party data from the British Geological Society (BGS) and the EA where appropriate. The acquired data is based on historic data which may not located in within the scheme extent, however, it provides a baseline from which to interpret the effects of the scheme. In addition, the accuracy and validity is assumed to be correct considering the assumptions made in this chapter.

13.3.6 No site investigation has been carried prior to the writing of this report. Therefore, available data from third party sources have been used. These data are likely to be superseded by site specific data obtained through proposed site investigations and the statements made in this report should therefore be treated as qualitative based on the information available at the time of writing.

13.3.7 This assessment is based on early preliminary design elements and scheme layout. The findings of this assessment should be reviewed as the detailed design progresses in PCF Stage 5.

13.3.8 The assessment assumes that the Gault Formation and Weald Clay Formation will behave as aquitards (largely impermeable).

13.3.9 At the time of writing, information on groundwater abstractions has not been received from the EA. However, due to the underlying Clay Gault Formation it is assumed that there will be limited abstractions from the groundwater within the study area. This should be confirmed during PCF Stage 5.

13.3.10 The superficial aquifers and principal aquifer are considered to be in hydraulic connectivity where no low permeable geology is present.

315 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.4 STUDY AREA

13.4.1 This section has been informed by the results of the PCF Stage 2- Option Selection Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) July 2017, PCF Stage 3- Preliminary design EAR Scoping July 2018, consultation with the EA, East Sussex County Council (ESCC) and Water Management Alliance who provide support services to the Pevensey and Cuckmere Water Level Management Board (PCWLMA). The methodology set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 Road Drainage and the Water Environment (HD45/09).

13.4.2 The study area of the assessment includes as a minimum, surface water features within 1km of scheme extent as shown in Figure 13.1. A 1km study area was chosen as research indicates that impacts associated with soluble pollutants will be sufficiently diluted beyond 1km, thereby reducing any potential impact (DMRB HD 45/09).

13.4.3 Potential receptors of high importance that are located at a distance greater than 1km from the scheme have been assessed based on whether they are considered to be hydraulically connected to the study area. These features may include surface water abstractions, downstream watercourses and Main Rivers (such as the Cuckmere River).

13.4.4 A NPPF compliant FRA has also been developed to support the scheme proposals. A study area of up to one kilometre is usually considered appropriate for this assessment, but the extent of any changes to flood risk will be confirmed as part of the FRA in Appendix 13.1. The general scheme arrangements are provided in Figure 2.3.

13.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS

13.5.1 Baseline information described in this section has been obtained from the following sources:

 DEFRA MAGIC online geographical information portal264  EA’s online Catchment Data Explorer265  EA’s online Flood Map for Planning266  British Geological Survey online viewer267  British Geological Society (BGS) Geoindex Webtool268  Ordnance Survey mapping269  Highways England Drainage Data Management System (HADDMS)270  Envirocheck Report dated April 2015271

264 MAGIC Map- Defra [online] Available at: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx [last accessed February 2018]. 265 Environment Agency, Catchment Explorer (2019) [online] Available at: https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/ [Accessed January 2019] 266 Environment Agency flood map for planning Available at: https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk [Accessed January 2019] 267 British Geological Society, Geology of Britain viewer (2018) [online] http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html [Accessed January 2019] 268 British Geological Survey, Mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk, (2018). GeoIndex - [online] Available at: http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html [Accessed January 2019] 269 Ordnance Survey (OS), OS Maps (2019) [online] Available at: https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ [last accessed February 2018]. 270 Highways England Drainage Data Management System (HADDMS) [online] Available at: http://www.haddms.com/ [last accessed February 2018]

316 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

 ESCC Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA), June 2011272  Cuckmere and Sussex Havens Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP), EA, December 2009273  River Ouse Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP), EA, December 2009274  South East River Basin District (RBD) Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) 2015-2021275  Lewes District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) Levels 1 and 2, October 2009276  ESCC Council Stage 1 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), September 2017277  Highway England, A27 EoL PCF Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Report August 2017, appendix L2278.  A27 EoL PCF Stage 3 Environmental Scoping Report July 2019279  Infoworks ICM 1D-2D ICM hydraulic model of the Cuckmere River and Langley Sewer built by WSP280  Baseline traffic flows from regional model  Engagement with the EA’s, PCWLMA, the Internal Drainage Board and ESCC Council as Lead Local Flood Authority.

271 Landmark (2016) Envirocheck reports purchased on 13 July 2016 and 20 October 2016 for Selmeston, Berwick Junction, Drusilla’s Roundabout, Milton Street Junction, Wilmington Junction and Polegate Junction 272 East Sussex County Council, Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) [online] Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328094441/http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/research/planning/135538.aspx [last accessed February 2018] 273 Environment Agency, Cuckmere and Sussex Havens Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) 2009 [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/29387 3/Cuckmere_and_Sussex_Havens_Catchment_Flood_Management_Plan.pdf [last accessed February 2018] 274 Environment Agency, River Ouse Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) 2009 [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/29387 0/Ouse_Sussex_Catchment_Flood_Management_Plan.pdf [last accessed February 2018] 275 Environment Agency, South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan, March 2016 [online] Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/50713 5/LIT_10221_SOUTH_EAST_FRMP_PART_A.pdf [last accessed February 2018] 276 Lewes District Council Level 1 &2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment September 2009, [online] Available at: https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TSF-45-Level-1-Update-and-Level-2- Strategic-Flood-Risk-Assessment.pdf [last accessed February 2018] 277 East Sussex County Council Stage 1 Surface Water Management Plans [online] available at https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/environment/flooding/surface-water-management-plans/ [last accessed February 2018] 278 Atkins, A27 EoL PCF Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Report August 2017, Appendix L: Water Framework Directive Assessment August 2017 279 WSP A27 EoL PCF Stage 3 Environmental Scoping Report July 2018, HE552988-WSP-EGN-SWI-RE- LA-00048 280 (WSP, 1D – 2D linked Infoworks ICM Hydraulic Model for the Cuckmere River and Langley Sewer 2018)

317 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

SURFACE WATER FEATURES

MAIN RIVERS

13.5.2 A review of Ordinance Survey (OS) mapping confirms there are three Main Rivers within the study area, Glynde Reach a tributary of the River Ouse which runs 0.8km north west of the scheme. The Cuckmere River which is crossed by the existing A27 0.7km east of the proposed improvements at Drusilla’s Roundabout and the Langley Sewer (also referred to as Mill Ditch) at the north-eastern extent of the scheme, south of the Polegate Roundabout. Main rivers are under the jurisdiction of the EA. The scheme is situated approximately 7.5km inland, approximately 1.1km upstream of the tidal limit of the Cuckmere River at Milton Lock.

13.5.3 The ecological and chemical quality of the main rivers within the study area are assessed by the EA in accordance with the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

13.5.4 The preliminary WFD assessment undertaken at PCF Stage 2 focused on waterbodies directly impacted and provides an overview of the WFD status of the waterbodies affected by the scheme (Cycle 2, 2016) taken from PCF Stage 2 EAR, Table 13.6 shows the current WFD classifications for the watercourses that are within the study area, or that receive flow from watercourses within the study area. There are no WFD designated lakes within the study area.

Table 13.6 - Water Framework Directive Status (2016 Cycle) Watercourse Overall Chemical Ecological Glynde Reach Bad Good Bad (GB107041012510)

Cuckmere from Alfriston to Arlington (GB107041012330) Moderate Good Moderate

Cuckmere (GB540704104800) (Transitional) Moderate Good Moderate Langley Sewer at Eastbourne (GB107041006650) Poor Good Poor

13.5.5 The findings from the WFD screening assessment undertaken at Stage 2- Options appraisal indicates that the scheme options considered at Stage 2 were considered to result in ‘no deterioration’ at the waterbody scale and should not prevent future attainment of Good Ecological Status (GES). This conclusion is based on key assumption that the design principles set out in Section 5 of the WFD screening report.

OTHER SURFACE WATER FEATURES

13.5.6 A review of OS mapping indicates that the scheme alignment crosses 15 culverted ordinary watercourses and one that is not culverted. The ordinary watercourses within the study area flow in a southerly direction and drain into either the Cuckmere River or River Ouse. The Internal Drainage Board that manages this region is the PCWLMA and has authority over the works going on in and around ordinary watercourses along with ESCC.

318 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.5.7

Table 13.7 - Ordinary Watercourses crossed by the scheme Ordinary Existing GA Drawing number Chainage Proposed Structure watercourse I.D Structure HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW1 CH 00+950 Culvert No change SWI-DR-CH-00014 HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW2 CH 01+800 Culvert No change SWI-DR-CH-00015 HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW3 CH 2+700 Culvert Proposed Boardwalk Location SWI-DR-CH-00015 HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW4 CH 03+050 Culvert Proposed Boardwalk Location SWI-DR-CH-00016 HE552988-WSP-HGN- CH 03+450 and CH OW5 Culvert Proposed Boardwalk Location SWI-DR-CH-00016 03+500 HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW6 CH 4+000 Culvert Proposed Boardwalk SWI-DR-CH-00017 HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW7 CH 5+000 Culvert Proposed Boardwalk Location SWI-DR-CH-00018 HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW8 CH 5+450 Culvert Proposed Boardwalk Location SWI-DR-CH-00019 HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW9 CH 5+600 Culvert Proposed Boardwalk Location SWI-DR-CH-00019 HE552988-WSP-HGN- Proposed Boardwalk Location OW10 CH 7+500 Culvert SWI-DR-CH-00021 & Cuckmere Bridge Location HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW11 CH 8+850 Culvert Widening of the Culvert SWI-DR-CH-00022 HE552988-WSP-HGN- Between CH 9+700 Proposed Boardwalk Location OW12 Culvert SWI-DR-CH-00023 and CH 9750 Wilmington Junction HE552988-WSP-HGN- Between CH 100+00 OW13 Culvert Widening of the Culvert SWI-DR-CH-00024 and CH 10+050 HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW14 CH 10+700 Culvert Widening of the Culvert SWI-DR-CH-00025 HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW15 CH 11+400 Culvert Proposed Boardwalk Location SWI-DR-CH-00025 HE552988-WSP-HGN- OW16 CH 11+975 Culvert No change SWI-DR-CH-00026

13.5.1 The Arlington Reservoir is located approximately 2km northwest of Wilmington Junction, which whilst not in the study area is identified as being inside of the maximum extent of reservoir flooding. This is discussed further in section 13.5.20.

13.5.2 There is one known existing highways attenuation pond located adjacent and to the north of the Langley Sewer, which is approximately 0.024km west of the A27 Polegate Roundabout section.

13.5.3 A review of OS mapping indicates there are approximately 109 ponds within the study area. These have no known designations, but their ecological value is reported and discussed further in Chapter 8: Biodiversity. The ponds are located within predominantly rural areas and are of no known significant recreational value or value to the economy.

319 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.5.4 A review of HADDMS (Highways Agency (Now England) Drainage Data Management System) was carried out of the outfalls in the area, however confidence in the data was low so therefore this was not used to inform the assessment.

DISCHARGE POINTS

13.5.5 The Envirocheck (2015) appended to the A27 Preliminary Sources Study Report (PSSR) identifies 52 active surface water discharge consents within 500m of the existing Scheme. The majority are for agricultural and commercial establishments discharging effluent. Southern Water also holds several licenses to discharge effluent and storm surge water to the Langley Sewer.

GROUNDWATER FEATURES (SEE FIGURE 13.2 – 13.4)

13.5.6 The BGS Geoindex Webtool is an interactive geological map which indicates that the site is underlain (from youngest to oldest) by the West Melbury Marly Chalk Formation, Gault Formation, Lower Greensands Group and the Weald Clay Formation bedrock geology. There are discrete locations of River Terrace, Head, Alluvium and superficial deposits overlaying these bedrock geologies. For a detailed description of these geologies please see Chapter 9: Geology and Soils. Please note that groundwater quality impacts are also discussed and assessed in Chapter 9.

13.5.7 The EA has classified the Head and Alluvium superficial deposits as Secondary Undifferentiated Aquifers, the River Terrace Deposits as a Secondary A Aquifer and the Melbury Marly Chalk Formation and Lower Greensand Group as Principal Aquifers, as shown on the DEFRA Magic Map.

13.5.8 Principal Aquifers281 are defined by the EA as “layers of rock or drift deposits that have high intergranular and/or fracture permeability - meaning they usually provide a high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. In most cases, principal aquifers are aquifers previously designated as major aquifer”. Groundwater flow in the Chalk bedrock will likely be predominantly driven via fracture flow whereas the Lower Greensand Group flow mechanics will likely be of intergranular flow. Both geologies have been, and can be, used for groundwater abstraction and supply (including public water supply).

13.5.9 The River Terraced Deposit (RTD) Secondary ‘A’ Aquifer is defined by the EA as “permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers”.

13.5.10 The Alluvium and Head Secondary ‘Undifferentiated’ Aquifers are defined by the EA as “assigned in cases where it has not been possible to attribute either category A or B to a rock type. In most cases, this means that the layer in question has previously been designated as both minor and non-aquifer in different locations due to the variable characteristics of the rock type”. Secondary ‘B’ aquifers are defined by the EA as “predominantly lower permeability strata which may in part have the ability to store and yield limited amounts of groundwater by virtue of localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering”. This indicates that groundwater may be present in the Alluvium and Head Deposits and this groundwater maybe finite in extent.

13.5.11 The Gault Formation and Weald Clay Formation bedrock are designated by the EA as Unproductive Strata which is defined as “geological strata with low permeability that have negligible significance for water supply or river base flow”.

281 http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/default.aspx

320 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.5.12 The presence of the aquifers within and immediately around the study area highlights the sensitivity and potential risks to groundwater. The West Melbury Marly Chalk Formation and the Lower Greensands Group are likely to be in (partial) hydraulic connectivity with the overlying superficial aquifers (River Terrace Deposits, Head and Alluvium deposits), however, the intrinsically lower permeabilities of these overlying superficial aquifers should retard the vertical flow of groundwater. If no low permeable materials separate aquifers, then this assessment assumes both aquifers are in full hydraulic connectivity with each other.

13.5.13 Where aquifers overlay the unproductive strata (the Gault Clay Formation and Weald Clay Formation), spring lines may occur. The Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 explorer map indicates these types of springs at Adder Wells (grid reference 548680, 108404), north west of Wilmington Green (grid reference 554105, 105722).

13.5.14 The DEFRA online Webtool (Magic Map) indicates that the West Melbury Marly Chalk Formation is located in a ‘Major Aquifer Intermediate’ groundwater Vulnerable Zone, the River Terrace Deposits is located in a ‘Minor Aquifer High’ groundwater Vulnerable Zone, and the Head and Alluvium deposits are located in a ‘Minor Aquifer Intermediate and Low’ Groundwater Vulnerable Zones. Groundwater Vulnerability Zone are defined by the EA and are based upon soil type and the underlying geology and the classification is predominantly driven by aquifer classification and soil permeability.

13.5.15 The British Geological Society database of boreholes logs has been consulted for the groundwater information. These logs usually include for groundwater strikes, these are water levels encountered during the drilling of boreholes and do not constitute as rest groundwater levels. Groundwater strikes have been recorded within 1m of the surface within the superficial / made ground deposits at borehole TQ40NW253 to the northwest of the scheme, 4.2m (TQ50NW106) in the central region and at 1.35m (TQ50NE39) in the southeast of the scheme.

13.5.16 The scheme does not lie within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ), which are areas designated to safeguard public water supply groundwater abstractions

13.5.17 Two groundwater abstraction licences are held at Drusillas Park Zoo, 100 m east and 300 m south of Drusillas roundabout respectively. The use for these abstraction licenses is categorised as for ‘general farming and domestic use’. These are both likely to be founded in the Chalk aquifer and this assessment has been based upon this assumption.

13.5.18 Three groundwater discharge consents for the discharge of treated sewage into land are present within 500 m of the scheme; namely: 200m and 400m southwest of Alfriston Junction and 341 m southwest of Firle Road Junction.

DESIGNATED AREAS

13.5.19 A review of OS mapping has identified that there are water dependent designated sites within the study area in Figure 13.1. Designated sites within the scheme are listed in Table 13.8.

321 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Table 13.8 - Designated Sites within the Study Area Approximate Scheme Element Designated Site distance from the Scheme Milton Gate Marsh is comprised of two wetland Drusillas Roundabout depressions forming a valley fen on alluvial soils created 539m north by the River Cuckmere and one of its tributaries Willingdon Downs SSSI is an area of species-rich chalk Wilmington Junction grassland and an important site for roosting passerine 562m south birds Polegate Junction (including Gainsborough Milton Gate Marsh SSSI 600m northwest Lane Junction) Shared use path Lewes Downs SSSI and SAC 907m northeast

13.5.20 These designated sites are not considered to not be impacted by the scheme from a water environment perspective and therefore not discussed any further in this chapter. Ecological effects will be considered in Chapter 8: Biodiversity.

13.6 FLOOD RISK

FLUVIAL FLOOD RISK

13.6.1 There are three EA designated ‘main rivers’ in the study area. To the west of the study area Glynde Reach flows in a south-north direction, away from the existing A27 corridor and study area. The Cuckmere River flows in a north-south direction intercepting the existing A27 and Langley Sewer (also known as Mill Ditch) flowing in a west-east direction and is culverted under the existing A27 corridor with its outfall to the east of Polegate junction.

13.6.2 A review of the EA Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) indicates that much of the scheme is in the low-risk Flood Zone 1 where the risk of flooding from fluvial sources is less than 1 in 1000 (0.1%) in any year. However, the Cuckmere River crossing, and Polegate Junction encroach onto Flood Zone 3, where there is a greater than a 1 in 100 (1%) risk of fluvial flooding in any year (as illustrated in Figure 13.1). The fluvial risk is associated with flooding from the River Cuckmere and Langley Sewer at Polegate respectively:

 Drusillas Roundabout- not located in or near a Flood Zone 2 or 3.  Polegate Junction- small area of Flood Zone 2 in Polegate, to the east of the scheme. Flood Zone 2 shows the extent of an extreme flood from rivers or the sea with up to a 1 in 1000 chance of occurring each year.  Shared Use Path: Flood Zone 2 and 3 extents encroaching onto the scheme from floodplain associated with Glynde Reach, Cuckmere River and Langley Sewer as shown in Figure 13.1  Sherman’s Bridge where the A27 crosses the River Cuckmere is within the defended extent of fluvial Flood Zone 3. The EA data indicates that defences are in place with a design standard for a 1 in 5-year event.

322 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.6.3 An NPPF compliant FRA provided in Appendix 13.1 has been undertaken in support of the scheme proposals. The FRA been informed by a 1D – 2D linked ICM hydraulic model of Cuckmere River built in Infoworks ICM for assessment of changes to the A27. The model includes the main A27 Sherman Bridge crossing of the Cuckmere River, as well as the flood relief culverts connecting the Cuckmere floodplains upstream and downstream of the A27. The upstream boundary is 1.8km north of Sherman Bridge and the downstream boundary is 1.5km south. Further modelling has been undertaken to assess existing 15 culverted drainage channels under the A27 between Beddingham and Polegate, including a more detailed assessment of the Langley Sewer at Polegate. The results are reported in this EAR chapter and the FRA in Appendix 13.1.

SURFACE WATER FLOOD RISK

13.6.4 Flooding from surface water is typically associated with natural overland flow paths and local depressions in topography where surface water runoff can accumulate during or following heavy rainfall events.

13.6.5 The EA’s Flood Risk for Surface Water map indicates that the risk ranges from high to medium on the surface drainage channels surrounding the scheme presented in Table 14-7. The surface water flood extents are presented in Figure 13.1 identifies areas at risk of surface water flooding within the scheme. The Flood Risk from Surface Water map can also indicate fluvial flood risk from watercourses with a catchment of less than 3km2 that are too small to be mapped on the EA Flood Map for Planning.

13.6.6 Surface water flooding at Polegate Junction and Drusillas Roundabout show localised areas shown to be at ‘High’ and ‘Medium’ surface flood risk indicated to be associated with depressions in topography and ordinary watercourses with small catchments within the area as shown in Appendix 13.1. There is a considerable amount of high risk surface water flooding areas along the scheme. ‘High’ risk is defined as an area that each year this area has a chance of flooding of greater than 3.3%. Localised areas in Figure 13.1 are shown to be medium risk of surface water flooding. ‘Medium’ risk is defined as an area that each year has a chance of surface water flooding of between 1% and 3.3%.

13.6.7 Several areas adjacent to the scheme are identified as being at low risk of surface water flooding. ‘Low’ risk is defined as an area that each year has a chance of surface water flooding of between 1 in 1000 (0.1% AEP) and 1 in 100 (1% AEP). Figure 13.1 shows that the scheme has a significantly low coverage of high risk flooding, however, surface water flooding is still a high risk to the scheme in these discreet areas. This is also discussed in further detail in the FRA Appendix 13.1.

FLOOD RISK FROM OTHER SOURCES (RESERVOIRS AND SEWERS)

13.6.8 The nearest reservoir associated with the A27 is Arlington Reservoir, which is located approximately 1.9km north east of the scheme. The EA’s Flood Risk from reservoirs map identifies the scheme as being within the maximum extent of flooding from reservoirs. The scheme study area is identified as being inside of the maximum extent of reservoir flooding, particularly along the Cuckmere River Valley area of the A27. The scheme is identified as being susceptible to flooding from reservoirs. The likelihood of reservoir failure is considered to be very small, the risk to the scheme is not deemed to be significant.

13.6.9 Based on the current information available principally the SFRA, the scheme is considered to be at low flood risk from sewer flooding. The SFRA mentions that surface water sewer flooding in the area could be expected to occur as a result of intense, short duration rainstorms, such as summer thunderstorms. The rapid runoff from impermeable areas overwhelms the capacity of the urban drainage system and the sewers become surcharged. Water escapes from the sewer at manholes and flows over the ground surface, generally along the line of the sewer.

323 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.6.10 The Lewes Integrated Urban Drainage Pilot Scheme is being implemented by the EA, Southern Water, ESCC and Lewes District Council with a view to integrate the management of all facets of the drainage system and provide the best possible level of service to the town of Lewes. Further information is mentioned in the FRA in Appendix 13.1.

GROUNDWATER FLOOD RISK

13.6.11 Sections of the route which are founded upon superficial deposits overlaying low permeable bedrock could be prone to groundwater flooding. The flood risk potential will increase where these superficial deposits thin, as their groundwater storability will reduce. During winter periods the capacity of these systems can become overloaded and cause groundwater flooding. These areas are considered susceptible to groundwater flooding. Please note that the Head and Alluvium superficial deposits can be predominantly composed of silts and clays, reducing their permeabilities and ability to transmit water. Should the Head and Alluvium deposits underlying the scheme be of this nature then the magnitude of groundwater flood risk will be reduced.

13.6.12 The far west of the Scheme route is founded upon a small segment of West Melbury Marly Chalk Formation. At this location the scheme is not located in a topographic low or valley, therefore the risk of groundwater flooding is considered to be low.

HISTORICAL FLOOD RISK

13.6.13 Historic flood incidents on the A27 were identified during consultation with the EA and the Lead Local Flood Authority and can be seen on Figure 13.1. The responses received captures flooding post-2010 and confirms the main source of flooding in the area is typically drainage and foul sewage related, caused by blocked drains and gullies. There are no records of fluvial flooding provided within the study area.

13.6.14 The PFRA states that East Sussex has suffered from groundwater flooding in 2001 and 2003. This is because the geology of the South Downs includes a band of chalk from which, after extended wet periods, springs emerge along the base of the chalk thus causing localised flooding. These factors do not necessarily apply to the scheme area due to the underlying clay geology. Furthermore, ESCC state in the PFRA “This makes it difficult to draw any conclusions about the historic groundwater incidents or to tie them in with any of the other historic flooding incident records.”

13.6.15 Engagement with ESCC confirmed they do not hold any modelled data for surface water in the Scheme area, although have records of flooding issues related to surface water pooling on the highway. ESCC notes that the design of the A27 improvements should aim to improve the current drainage capacity which has been considered in the design of the scheme.

13.6.16 Historic flooding is discussed in further detail in Section 5 of the FRA in Appendix 13.1.

13.7 IMPORTANCE OF RECEPTORS

13.7.1 Table 13.9 summarises sensitive receptors which have been assessed in this chapter. The importance of these receptors has been allocated in accordance with the criteria summarised in Table 13.2.

324 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.7.2

Table 13.9 - Importance of Baseline Receptors Receptors Description Importance Glynde Reach (GB107041012510)- Medium Cuckmere from Alfriston to Arlington Medium (GB107041012330)- Langley Sewer at Eastbourne (WFD ID: Main Rivers and Waterbody Medium GB107041006650) ID (WFD assessed) Cuckmere from Alfriston to Arlington Medium (WFD ID: GB107041012330) Cuckmere (transitional) (WFD ID: Medium GB540704104800) Ordinary Watercourses Drainage ditches Medium Local Seasonal Springs Low Seaford Chalk Formation Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation New Pit Chalk Formation Holywell Nodular Chalk Formation High Groundwater resources Zigzag Chalk Formation West Mulberry Marly Chalk Formation Lower Greensand Group Superficial River Terrace Deposits Medium Superficial Alluvium Low Superficial Head Deposits Abstractions* and discharges Surface water

Groundwater abstractions Very high *Information to be confirmed upon Discharges receipt of data request Seaford Chalk Formation Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation New Pit Chalk Formation Holywell Nodular Chalk Formation Groundwater flood risk - (subject to the spatial extents, thicknesses and Zigzag Chalk Formation High arrangements of stratigraphic units West Mulberry Marly Chalk Formation in particular locations) Lower Greensand Group Superficial River Terrace Deposits Superficial Alluvium Superficial Head Deposits

325 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.8 FUTURE BASELINE

13.8.1 Scientific consensus is that the global climate is changing as a result of human activity. Whilst there remain uncertainties in how a changing climate will affect areas already vulnerable to flooding, it is expected to increase flood risk significantly over time. Projections of future climate change for the UK indicate that more frequent, short-duration, high-intensity rainfall events and more frequent periods of long-duration rainfall could be expected.

13.8.2 In accordance with EA’s Climate Change Guidance (2016)282 the most significant change in the baseline conditions is likely to be associated with an increase in peak river flows and peak rainfall intensity associated with the potential effects of climate change. The Environment Agency provides guidance on a range of potential climate change allowances dependant on the relevant river basin district and climate change probability. The scheme is located within the South-East River Basin District. In this region it is predicted that by 2115 peak river flows could increase by 35% (central allowance), 45% (higher central allowance) and 105% (upper end allowance). This may increase the frequency of flood risk to identified receptors and increase the extent of Flood Zones 2 and 3, resulting in a greater area of the site at risk of fluvial flooding.

13.8.3 The InfoWorks ICM Hydraulic model for the Cuckmere River has been developed in line with the EA’s guidance. The hydraulic modelling undertaken as part of the FRA used the Upper End allowance for 2080 of 105% in this region to assess the increase in peak river flows as a result of climate change. The results of the climate change modelling indicate that the scheme may give rise to localised increases in water level in the main river Cuckmere channel and floodplain with the addition of the Shared Use Path. The scheme changes at Langney Sewer cause a small displacement of the floodplain by approximately 5m to the west of the widened bypass, this is discussed further in section 13.12 and the FRA in Appendix 13.1.

13.8.4 The peak rainfall intensity may also increase as a result of climate change, which could potentially increase the risk of surface water flooding to the site. The EA provides guidance on the central and upper end allowances for all of England. The total potential change anticipated up to 2115 is 20% (central allowance) and 40% (upper end allowance). The proposed surface water drainage strategy will consider these increases in the peak rainfall intensity of a 40% allowance to ensure that the scheme and people and property elsewhere will not be at increased flood risk during the design life of the scheme.

13.9 ENGAGEMENT

13.9.1 The EA, ESCC and PCWLMA, acting as the Internal Drainage Board have been consulted as part of PCF Stage 3- Preliminary Design. Data relating to the water environment and flooding has been requested to inform the hydraulic modelling work, FRA and PCF Stage 3 EAR- Preliminary Design, Table 13.10 summarises consultation to date.

282 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances#what-climate-change- allowances-are

326 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.9.2

Table 13.10 - Summary of Engagement of Date - February 2019 Consultee Date Purpose of Consultation/ Summary of Outcome 19th Introduction and overview of scheme to the EA. Request for data on any January previous hydraulic models, flood incidents and information on any flood 2018 alleviation schemes planned or ongoing in the area. EA respond to introductory email stating that it holds an existing J-Flow model (proprietary software). In addition to this Polegate is not included in the model. The EA also provided information on a current scheme on- 12th going study in the area looking at reducing flood risk in Polegate. Part of February this will involve assessing whether there are opportunities to hold water 2018 back to the west of the A27 at Polegate. The EA confirm that it holds no records of historic flooding (fluvial) along the existing A27 alignment and own no assets in the area and has only visually expected one culvert under the existing A27 alignment. A further data request to inform the FRA with scheme extents and figure of scheme attached querying the following: • Detailed FRA Map, including flood zones, defences and storage areas, areas benefiting from defences, statutory main river designations, historic flood event outlines and more detailed information from the current model (including model extent, information on one or more specific points, flood levels, flood flows).

• Information on any flood defences or flood alleviation schemes in the Environment Agency area, including the level of protection afforded by those defences / schemes.

• The most current mapping/flood data for the Risk of Flooding from 4th June Surface Water. 2018 • EA requirements in relation to discharge rates/ rate restriction of surface water runoff.

• Confirmation of the Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) for the area including the Policy Units, Sub-Areas and the preferred Policy Options.

• Confirmation as to whether the CFMPs are now superseded by the River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan.

• Information on groundwater flood risk including any historical records and Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding (AStGWF) mapping.

• Any other pertinent information for this locality in relation to flood risk and flood risk management. 4th June Drawings setting out the scheme extent to inform the data request sent to 2018 the EA

327 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

The EA responds to the further information request above providing and confirming the following: • Product 4- modelled flood zone outlines for the area encompassing the scheme

• The requirement of floodplain compensation • 11th June Requirements in relation to discharge rates/ rate restriction of surface 2018 water runoff should be discussed with ESCC directly. • Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) for the area including the Policy Units, Sub-Areas and the preferred (CFMP has now moved to Flood Risk Management Plan, however the policy units / content is still valid).

• Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding (AStGWF) mapping is available on data.gov.uk.

12th June Presentation of the proposed methodology for undertaking hydraulic 2018 modelling of the Cuckmere River, culvert capacity checks and the FRA.

EA responds on the proposed methodology for undertaking hydraulic modelling on the Cuckmere River, culvert capacity checks and the FRA. Review undertaken on behalf of the EA recommends suggestions to 29th amend the FEH methodology applied to the 14 minor watercourse October crossings within the model owing to the assumed size of the 2018 catchment(s) (less than 0.5km2). In addition to this, commentary on the calibration methodology of the model with statistical methodology (WINFAP) rather than available evidence is required as well as further detail on the drainage capacity to avoid challenge. 2nd Formal response to the EA presenting results which clarify and justify the November selected approach. Further engagement with the EA to be carried out in 2018 the next stage refine flood modelling methodology and outputs. Introduction and overview of scheme. Request for data encompassing the following: • Previous flood incidents

14th May • Flood mapping 2018 • LLFA requirements in relation to discharge rates/ rate restriction of surface water runoff Information on groundwater flood risk including any historical records and East Sussex County Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding (AStGWF) mapping Council as LLFA ESCC sends response to data request and refer WSP to the following publicly available reports 15th May 2018 • Surface Water Management Plans; and

• Section 19 investigations. 08th June ESCC sends further information as requested. 2018 1st October E-mail query to seek ESCC’s advice on whether the Shared Use Path is 2018 to be built to be flood free. ESCC confirm this is a requirement.

328 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Data request email to request the following information: Confirmation of the Internal Drainage Board watercourses that interact with the scheme area; • Information on any flood defences or flood alleviation schemes in the area, 14th including the level of protection afforded by those defences / schemes; May 2018 • IDB requirements in relation to discharge rates/ rate restriction of surface water runoff; and

• Any other pertinent information for this locality in relation to flood risk and flood risk management. Pevensey and Cuckmere Water PCWLMA, stating that: Level Management Alliance (Internal • As parts of the site is within the Internal Drainage District (IDD) of the Drainage Board) PCWLMA, then the Board’s byelaws apply. • If the proposals include works within 9m of a PCWLMA adopted 09th watercourse, consent is required under byelaw 10. July 2018 • If a surface water (or treated foul water) discharge is proposed to a watercourse within the IDD (either directly or indirectly), then the proposed development will require a land drainage consent in line with the Board’s byelaws (specifically byelaw 3). Any consent granted will likely be conditional, pending the payment a surface water development contribution fee, calculated in line with the Board’s charging policy.

13.10 POTENTIAL IMPACTS CONSTRUCTION PHASE

13.10.1 During the construction phase without appropriate mitigation, the possible significant impacts to surface water features, groundwater features and flood risk could arise from:

 Increased pollution risks from spillage and/or leakage of fuels and contaminants that may migrate to local surface water and groundwater receptors.  Increased sedimentation within watercourses caused by surface water runoff from areas of bare earth, construction materials such as aggregate and stockpiles of topsoil along the length of the scheme.  Impacts to the hydromorphological, chemical and ecological quality of watercourses associated with works within or near watercourses such as the installation and alteration of culverts, including longer-term changes associated with sediment deposition, particularly to the replacement and removal of existing culverts at the ordinary watercourses.  Increased flood risk associated with temporary works within areas of fluvial flood storage, works to existing watercourse alignments and culverts, and associated with changes to catchment permeability and hydrology.  Works associated with the removal of the existing culverts located underneath the existing A27 with boardwalks  Effects of routine runoff to groundwater, including contamination by sediment.  Potential changes to groundwater hydrodynamics during construction with subsequent effects on receptors and groundwater levels.  Potential impact of groundwater flooding depending on the positioning and structure of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) resulting in SuDS not operating as required.

329 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

 Presently the scheme includes two cuttings over 0.5m deep. Any groundwater encountered during the construction of these proposed cuttings will likely be limited in extent and quantity. Therefore, small quantities of groundwater may require management during Scheme construction.  At present the proposed scheme foundations are not known, however, should they intercept groundwater then groundwater mounding or flooding impacts could occur.

13.10.2 During the site preparation, earthworks and construction phases of the scheme, measures set out within the CEMP will ensure the correct management and storage of construction materials, notably fluids. The required construction material for the scheme along with other materials, for instance oils, fuels, lubricants, chemicals substances, sediment etc. (for/from machinery and vehicles), may accidently enter the groundwater system if managed and used incorrectly. These spillages and leakages could potential lead to degradation of the water quality beyond the vicinity of the scheme.

OPERATIONAL PHASE

13.10.3 The assessment of potential impacts that may occur during the operational phase of the scheme is summarised below. This assessment has been undertaken whilst taking into account mitigation measures that are proposed to form part of the design of the scheme.

13.10.4 At this stage of the design, it is understood that the works that may have an impact on water quality and flood risk comprise:

 Polluted surface water runoff containing silts and hydrocarbons that may migrate or be discharged to surface water features or groundwater resources.  Increased flood risk to people and property elsewhere as a result of an increase in areas identified to be at flood risk, thus impacting flood flow conveyance and reducing floodplain storage, particularly at the A27 (Sherman Bridge) crossing over the River Cuckmere and the Langley Sewer at Polegate.  Increased flood risk from surface water as a result of construction within areas identified as being susceptible to surface water flooding, thus redirecting surface water flows into other areas of the existing carriageway and floodplain.  Increased rates and volumes of surface water runoff from an increase in impermeable area or changes to the existing drainage regime leading to a potential increase in flood risk, particularly relating to the proposed Shared Use Path that will increase the amount of hardstanding impermeable area.  Increase in polluted surface water runoff containing silts and hydrocarbons as a result of the increased runoff rates due to increases in impermeable area.  Permanent impacts associated with the removal of existing works associated with the removal of the existing culverts located underneath the existing A27 with boardwalks  Encroachment onto floodplain leading to displacement in flood conveyance.  At present the Scheme foundation are not known, however, should they intercept groundwater then groundwater mounding or flooding impacts could occur.

13.11 DESIGN, MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES CONSTRUCTION PHASE

13.11.1 A CEMP will be prepared for the works, which will include method statements for the proposed works, details of materials to be used, and an emergency response plan. The CEMP will also contain measures to protect both surface and groundwater quality, and other water resource aspects.

330 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.11.2 During the construction phase, consideration will be given to likely significant effects on catchment hydrology, hydrogeology and flow within existing watercourses within the study area.

13.11.3 The knock-on effect of a potential spill may have an extended impact on surface water bodies such as the River Cuckmere, and nearby ordinary watercourses crossed by the scheme. To mitigate these risks as far as practicable, the CEMP will be adopted during the construction stage to limit the risk of pollutants entering surface water features or discharging to ground. The CEMP will detail the procedures and methods that must be followed to minimise the potential environmental effects of construction activities. The CEMP will also describe the procedures to be followed in the event of a fuel or chemical spillage, and will also include the following measures to prevent pollution of watercourses:

 Minimise areas of exposed surface by only removing vegetation when necessary and keep gradients as shallow as possible to prevent large amounts of earth being washed away during periods of heavy rainfall;  Undertake works during periods of low flow to prevent transportation of sediment downstream;  Enforce tight control of site boundaries including minimal land clearance and restrictions on the use of machinery adjacent to water bodies. Where possible, do not locate stockpiles within 10m of water bodies or drainage lines;  Construction materials, such as cement, should be mixed in designated areas located away from water bodies and drainage lines; and  Construction workers should be made aware of the risks associated with flooding out of watercourses should large rainfall events occur during construction.

13.11.4 Where excavations are required above the aquifer, groundwater levels at least one winter in advance of construction must be defined, to ensure no groundwater interceptions arise. If groundwater interceptions could arise then further groundwater investigation / mitigation will be required to prevent potential future groundwater flooding events. Mitigation such as design alternations to improve groundwater flow through, ground permeability improvement and dewatering are a few mitigation methods which could be employed to ensure groundwater seepage, heave, mounding and/or flooding impacts are negated.

OPERATION PHASE

13.11.5 Impacts that may occur during the operational phase will be managed through measures that are intrinsic to the design of the scheme. It will be important to ensure that the scheme does not increase the risk of flooding to people and property elsewhere, most notably through the reduction of floodplain storage at the Cuckmere River crossing, obstruction to flow conveyance, or an increase in the rate and volume of surface water runoff. Therefore, design of the scheme is expected to incorporate the following:

 No increased flood risk to people and property associated with impacts to flood conveyance and storage.  Ensure the scheme will remain operational. The EA outlined that as the road is essential infrastructure, crossing a functional floodplain, it will need to remain operational and safe for users in times of flood.  Provision of appropriately sized culverts for all crossings of other ordinary watercourses and drains in accordance with the DMRB, at minimum maintaining the capacity of the channel. Consideration will also need to be given to maintaining connectivity for terrestrial and aquatic ecology.  Where new impermeable areas are introduced to the scheme, the drainage system will be designed to attenuate runoff to the existing discharge rate.  Provide a robust surface water drainage system that ensures discharge does not increase flood risk elsewhere up to and including the 1 in 100 annual probability rainfall events.

331 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

 Consideration of the potential effects of climate change over the lifetime of the Scheme and in accordance with EA guidance river flows are likely to increase by approximately c.35-105% and rainfall intensity is likely to increase by 20-40% in accordance with updated EA projections.  Design the drainage to accommodate for the increased risk to water quality associated with increased traffic flow along areas along the scheme, particularly the Langley Sewer, an area that is predicted for a greater than 20% traffic increase.

13.11.1 The design will incorporate treatment measures that will reduce the potential for an adverse effect on water quality, which in turn could have an adverse effect on local surface water and groundwater abstractions. Consideration has been given to the treatment of runoff prior to discharge and the measures that will be required in the event of spillage. Multi-stage proposals that maximise passive treatment through the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs) are recommended. In summary, the proposed works listed above are not predicted to have a notable impact on the quality of water environment features or on flood risk. A summary of this assessment is provided below in section 13.12.

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

13.11.2 A summary of the impacts associated with increased flood risk as a result of the scheme is provided below. A detailed assessment of the impacts associated with flood risk is provided in the standalone FRA in Appendix 13.1

13.11.3 A 1D – 2D linked ICM hydraulic model of Cuckmere River was built in Infoworks ICM for assessment of changes to the A27. The model includes the main A27 (Sherman Bridge) crossing of the Cuckmere River, as well as the flood relief culverts connecting the Cuckmere floodplains upstream and downstream of the A27. The upstream boundary is 1.8km north of Sherman Bridge and the downstream boundary is 1.5km south.

13.11.4 The model was run for a range of return periods including 1 in 100 year + 105% climate change (CC). The climate change allowance projection is the “Upper End” category for South East river basin district, anticipated change for 2070-2115, within Flood Zone 3 and “Essential Infrastructure” flood risk vulnerability category.

13.11.5 The sensitivity tests carried out on the model show that the model is not very sensitive to blockage, changes in roughness or changes to downstream boundary conditions. It is nominally sensitive to changes in flow.

13.11.6 At this stage of the assessment the provision of suitable mitigation measures such as floodplain compensation and the design of structural elements are assumed to be guaranteed within the design of the scheme. The assessment of potential effects therefore assumes that mitigation measures will be designed at the detailed design stage and assesses the impacts and residual risk of the scheme post-mitigation.

13.12 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

13.12.1 This assessment of the potential effects takes into consideration mitigation measures that are considered to be good practice such as the implementation of a CEMP. This assessment additionally takes into consideration mitigation that will determine the design of the scheme, such as the provision of clear-span bridge structure, floodplain compensation to account for the loss in fluvial flood storage, maintaining river and floodplain connectivity, the provision of appropriate drainage and appropriate culvert design for ordinary watercourse crossings where wider culverts are proposed.

332 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

13.12.2 The greatest risks to water quality during construction is predicted to be associated with work close in proximity of the River Cuckmere, the Langley Sewer and ordinary watercourses crossed directly by the scheme. The provision of, and adherence to, the measures outlined in the CEMP and associated pollution control documents (as well as other recommend design and construction processes) is considered adequate to reduce the likelihood of increased sediment loading, the release of hydrocarbons and release of hazardous substances. The importance of these watercourses is considered to be medium. The magnitude of the impact associated with this construction work is considered to be negligible. Where indirect effects are expected, the magnitude of the impact with the implementation of the CEMP and associated pollution control documents is considered to reduce the overall significance of effect to neutral.

13.12.3 Where direct impacts are expected due to construction works taking place directly in or adjacent to watercourses there may still be some residual risk, especially from sedimentation. These risks are likely to be most notable with works associated with the removal of 10 existing culverts along the scheme conveying flow under the existing A27. Construction proposals include the widening of 3 culverts as set out Table 13.7. In addition to this, proposals include the removal of 10 existing culverts to be replaced with Boardwalks as set out in Table 13.7. It is assumed that the existing flooding mechanisms will be maintained, and appropriate pollution control provisions will be made. The importance of ordinary watercourses is considered to be medium. The magnitude of change associated with the widening and replacement of these culverts is considered to be negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct and long-term effect of neutral significance.

13.12.4 Temporary works will be required within the Cuckmere River floodplain does not affect any residential or industrial properties therefore the importance floodplain is considered to be low. The Langney Sewer is considered to be low. The magnitude of the impact will be heavily dependent on local conditions; however, the implementation of the CEMP and an appropriate flood response strategy will manage these risks. The impact magnitude is assessed to be negligible, with an overall significance of effect of neutral.

13.12.5 The proposed scheme cuttings have the potential to intercept groundwater, however, as these cuttings are to be founded within aquitard ground material i.e. ground material with very low to no ability to transmit groundwater, groundwater dewatering is expected to be minimal. Where discrete horizons of groundwater are occurred, these should be managed through sump pumping and appropriate disposal. The importance of the receptor (aquitard) is considered low. The magnitude of this impact is assessed as negligible with an overall significance of effect of neutral.

13.12.6 Where groundwater is intercepted by the scheme foundations, groundwater rise/mounding may occur. If groundwater is close to the surface, or if the foundations were to cause large groundwater displacement, groundwater flooding could occur. To the far west the scheme is located on West Melbury Marly Chalk Formation, however, geographic constrains suggest groundwater is unlikely to be intercepted at this location (low importance). The magnitude of impact on the West Melbury Marly Chalk Formation is assessed as negligible with an overall significance of effect as negligible. Where the scheme is founded upon superficial deposits overlaying low permeable bedrock, groundwater flooding could arise. Following appropriate mitigations, the foundation groundwater flow impact on the superficial deposits is assessed as minor with an overall significance of effect as slight. To the east a small section of the scheme is located on Lower Greensand Group and the geographic constrains suggest groundwater is unlikely to be intercepted at this location. The magnitude of impact on the Lower Greensand Group is assessed as negligible with an overall significance of effect as neutral.

333 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

OPERATION

13.12.7 During operation, risks to water quality in the Cuckmere River, the Langley Sewer, ordinary watercourses and groundwater that may receive the discharge as a result of an increase in generated surface water runoff from the scheme. This is to be mitigated by the proposed surface water drainage system that will include appropriate pollution control measures. These measures comprise of multiple stages of treatment prior to discharge in accordance with best practice and chapter 8 of the DMRB HD 45/09. The impact magnitude is likely to be negligible, with a significance of effect of neutral. For further information regarding the mitigation measures embedded within the surface water drainage design is provided in drainage strategy outlined in the FRA (Appendix 13.1).

13.12.1 A culvert assessment was undertaken to derive water levels to accommodate increased flows range of return periods as recommended in the DMRB. Proposals include the widening 3 existing culverts and the replacement of 10 culverts with boardwalks as set out in Table 14.10. The impact related to the replacement of the culverts on existing flood risk considered to be negligible. The importance of ordinary watercourses is considered to be medium. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct and long-term significance effect of neutral.

13.12.2 The existing A27 crossing (Sherman Bridge) is a clear span structure that crosses Cuckmere River. This crossing will be maintained with an additional Shared Use Path running parallel to the Sherman Bridge. The additional Shared Use Path will be 3m wide (between parapets) and will have a minimum height of 6m. The River Cuckmere fluvial floodplain with no prior history of recorded fluvial flood incidents as reported by the EA and does not affect any residential or industrial properties and has been assessed to have a medium importance. In accordance with the NPPF, the modelling results confirm the requirement of compensatory storage up to 1400m3 upstream of Sherman Bridge to adequately account for loss in fluvial floodplain as a result of the Shared Use Path crossing. The reasoning for this is that that flooding mechanisms in this area is not wholly dependent upon the provision of like-for-like compensation.

13.12.1 The changes to road embankments at Polegate Junction will cause a small displacement of the floodplain associated with the Langley Sewer to the west by approximately 5m (rather than an increase in water level as such due to the flooding mechanisms in this area). The volume of 1 in 100 year +105% climate change floodplain that is being displaced westwards due to the widened embankments of the Polegate Bypass is approximately 230m3 and will be compensated for on a like for like basis. This is discussed in further detail in the FRA (Appendix 13.1).

13.12.2 The works are unlikely to pose significant impact to the hydro-morphological and ecological quality of affected watercourses. The ordinary watercourses crossing the scheme is not expected to negatively affect the ecological habitat which has been considered in the design of the scheme and therefore the impacts are likely to be negligible. The resulting overall significance of effect is likely to be neutral.

13.12.3 Where groundwater is intercepted by proposed scheme foundations, groundwater rise/mounding may occur. If groundwater is close to the surface, or if the foundations were to cause large groundwater displacement, groundwater flooding could occur. To the far west the scheme is located on West Melbury Marly Chalk Formation, however, geographic constrains suggest groundwater is unlikely to be intercepted at this location. All groundwater resources are assessed to have an importance of high. The magnitude of impact on the West Melbury Marly Chalk Formation is assessed as negligible with an overall significance of effect as neutral. Where the scheme is founded upon superficial deposits overlaying low permeable bedrock, groundwater flooding could arise Following appropriate mitigation measures such as alternations to cuttings to improve groundwater flow, the foundation groundwater flow impact on the superficial deposits is assessed as minor with an overall significance of effect as slight to moderate adverse. To the east a small section of the scheme is located on Lower Greensand Group and the geographic constrains suggest groundwater is unlikely to be intercepted at this location. The magnitude of impact on the Lower Greensand Group is assessed as negligible with an overall significance of effect as neutral.

334 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

RESIDUAL EFFECTS

13.12.4 The scheme is not expected to give rise to significant residual effects during either the construction or operational phases as no effects are of greater than slight significance (as outlined in Chapter 4: Environmental Assessment Methodology). Whilst temporary impacts to surface water features have been identified during the construction phase, residual risks are considered to be temporary and are not envisaged to pose a risk to the long-term quality of the water features (or downstream receptors) including to local habitats or the integrity of the water feature.

SUMMARY

13.12.5 A summary of likely significance of effects during construction and operation is provided within Table 13.11. This assessment is based on the possible effects of the scheme, based on the design that is available at this stage in the scheme development (PCF Stage 3 – Preliminary Design).

335 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

13.13 SUMMARY

Table 13.11 Summary of likely significant effects during construction and operation

Assessment of Effect Mitigation Residual Effect

Long term/ Effect Receptor medium Significance Beneficial/ Direct/ short term/ Mechanism/ Beneficial/ (Very large – Description Responsibility Significance Adverse Indirect Timing Adverse neutral) Temporary /Permanent

Construction Phase

Increased The provision of, and sediment loading, River adherence to, the Pre- release of Cuckmere, the measures outlined in construction hydrocarbons and Langley Sewer Adverse Direct Temporary Neutral Contractors Neutral Neutral the CEMP and and release of and ordinary associated pollution Construction hazardous watercourses control documents substances

Works taking Dependent on local place within Cuckmere River conditions; however, Pre- fluvial floodplains and Langley the implementation construction Adverse Direct Temporary Neutral Contractors Neutral Neutral and areas at risk Sewer, ordinary of the CEMP and an and of surface water watercourses appropriate flood Construction flooding response strategy

340 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Pre- Ground permeability improvement Long construction Detailed designer Groundwater Flooding Superficial Aquifers Adverse Direct Minor and dewatering if required following - Neutral Term and and Contractor ground investigations. Construction

Operational Phase

Risks to water quality Cuckmere River, ordinary Surface water drainage system that Highways England of nearby watercourses and Long Adverse Direct Neutral will include appropriate pollution Operation appointed - Neutral watercourses as a groundwater that may term control measures. maintenance team result of the scheme receive the discharge

Loss of fluvial Floodplain associated floodplain therefore Long Flood compensation proposed to Appointed with the Cuckmere River Adverse Direct Neutral Detailed Design - Neutral increasing the risk of term account for loss designer and Langley Sewer fluvial flooding

Provision of natural gravel bed of Removal of ecological proposed culverts and reintroducing Maintaining Long Appointed habitat and Ordinary watercourses Adverse Direct Neutral connectivity to ordinary watercourses habitat - Neutral term designer connectivity where culverts are proposed to be connectivity. removed

Pre- Ground permeability improvement Long construction Detailed Design/ Groundwater Flooding Superficial Aquifers Adverse Direct Slight and dewatering if required following - Neutral Term and Contractor ground investigations Construction

341

Path: \\uk.wspgroup.com\central data\Projects\700354xx\70035418 - A27EastOfLewes\02 WIP\GIS\Mxd\Water\70035418_20190114_14.2_Water_Constraints_Mapsheets.mxd: Plotted by: UKCJR003 Date: Mar 15, 2019 - 11:42AM - 2019 15, Mar Date: UKCJR003 by: Plotted WIP\GIS\Mxd\Water\70035418_20190114_14.2_Water_Constraints_Mapsheets.mxd: A27EastOfLewes\02 - data\Projects\700354xx\70035418 \\uk.wspgroup.com\central Path:

Role

Type Location Number

2018 Chk'd Rev. App'd By Description Date P01

(

HE552988 WSP HE552988

------Issue First --- P01.1 ---

UNKNOWN

Revision

Decomissioning / Demolition / Decomissioning

Contains OS data © Crown © data OS Contains

70035418

Project Originator

Volume

* #

SURFACE WATER- PLUVIAL RUNOFF PLUVIAL WATER- SURFACE

Drawing Number Drawing Project Ref. No. Ref. Project

15/03/19 15/03/19 15/03/19 15/03/19

* # Use

SURFACE WATER- HIGHWAY CULVERT HIGHWAY WATER- SURFACE

Date Date Size Original Date Date Client

1:16,000 MS GK CB CR

SURFACE WATER - DRAINAGE - WATER SURFACE

MAIN RIVERS (WFD ASSESSED) (WFD RIVERS MAIN Authorised Aproved Scale www.pbworld.com

Checked Drawn

Maintenance / Cleaning / Maintenance

SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST INTEREST SCIENTIFIC SPECIAL OF SITE

* www.wspgroup.co.uk #

SURFACE WATER SURFACE

FLOOD ZONE 2 ZONE FLOOD

Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 7314 (0)20 +44 Tel:

PAGE 1 OF 5 OF 1 PAGE

FLOOD ZONE 3 ZONE FLOOD

1 WC2A 1AF WC2A )

FLUVIAL FLOOD RISK: FLOOD FLUVIAL GROUNDWATER

W ATER CONSTRAINTS MAPSHEETS CONSTRAINTS ATER

London Construction

LOW

70 Chancery Lane Chancery 70

13.1: FIGURE

(Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). hazard design the to made be also shall (Reference MEDIUM

FOUL

WSP House WSP

detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks residual significant following the note drawing, this on detailed

HIGH

Drawing Title Drawing

In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work of types the with associated normally hazards/risks the to addition In

RISK OF FLOODING FROM SURFACE WATER: SURFACE FROM FLOODING OF RISK

HISTORIC FLOOD INCIDENTS: FLOOD *#HISTORIC EAST OF LEWES OF EAST

ZONE III - TOTAL CATCHMENT TOTAL - III ZONE 1KM STUDY AREA STUDY 1KM FINAL INFORMATON

A27 A27 GROUNDWATER SOURCE PROTECTION ZONES: PROTECTION SOURCE GROUNDWATER 3 FIX DESIGN

SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH SAFETY,

Project Title Project Suitability Status Drawing KEY:

u-iec, itiue r el n o ti dt t tid ate i ay form. any in parties third to data this of any sell or distribute sub-licence,

DO NOT SCALE NOT DO

the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, copy, to permitted not are You data. the with you provided that organisation the

3 500 0

You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, with, interact or to, respond to you enable to solely data this use to permitted are You

Meters

Coombe Ellman's

* #

*# *#

( !

Spring Ditch Spring

) "

The Caburn The

Glynde Reach Glynde

Caburn Bottom Caburn N

" ¦

Path: \\uk.wspgroup.com\central data\Projects\700354xx\70035418 - A27EastOfLewes\02 WIP\GIS\Mxd\Water\70035418_20190114_14.2_Water_Constraints_Mapsheets.mxd: Plotted by: UKCJR003 Date: Mar 15, 2019 - 11:43AM - 2019 15, Mar Date: UKCJR003 by: Plotted WIP\GIS\Mxd\Water\70035418_20190114_14.2_Water_Constraints_Mapsheets.mxd: A27EastOfLewes\02 - data\Projects\700354xx\70035418 \\uk.wspgroup.com\central Path:

Role

Type Location Number

2018 Chk'd Rev. App'd By Description Date P01

(

HE552988 WSP HE552988

------Issue First --- P01.1 ---

UNKNOWN

Revision

Decomissioning / Demolition / Decomissioning

Contains OS data © Crown © data OS Contains

70035418

Project Originator

Volume

* #

SURFACE WATER- PLUVIAL RUNOFF PLUVIAL WATER- SURFACE

Drawing Number Drawing Project Ref. No. Ref. Project

15/03/19 15/03/19 15/03/19 15/03/19

* # Use

SURFACE WATER- HIGHWAY CULVERT HIGHWAY WATER- SURFACE

Date Date Size Original Date Date Client

1:16,000 MS GK CB CR

SURFACE WATER - DRAINAGE - WATER SURFACE

MAIN RIVERS (WFD ASSESSED) (WFD RIVERS MAIN Authorised Aproved Scale www.pbworld.com

Checked Drawn

Maintenance / Cleaning / Maintenance

SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST INTEREST SCIENTIFIC SPECIAL OF SITE

* www.wspgroup.co.uk #

SURFACE WATER SURFACE

FLOOD ZONE 2 ZONE FLOOD

Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 7314 (0)20 +44 Tel:

PAGE 2 OF 5 OF 2 PAGE

FLOOD ZONE 3 ZONE FLOOD

WC2A 1AF WC2A )

FLUVIAL FLOOD RISK: FLOOD FLUVIAL GROUNDWATER

A W TER CONSTRAINTS MAPSHEETS CONSTRAINTS TER

London Construction

LOW

70 Chancery Lane Chancery 70

FIGURE 13.1: FIGURE

(Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). hazard design the to made be also shall (Reference MEDIUM

FOUL

WSP House WSP

detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks residual significant following the note drawing, this on detailed

HIGH

Drawing Title Drawing

In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work of types the with associated normally hazards/risks the to addition In

RISK OF FLOODING FROM SURFACE WATER: SURFACE FROM FLOODING OF RISK

HISTORIC FLOOD INCIDENTS: FLOOD *#HISTORIC EAST OF LEWES OF EAST

ZONE III - TOTAL CATCHMENT TOTAL - III ZONE 1KM STUDY AREA STUDY 1KM FINAL INFORMATON

A27 A27 GROUNDWATER SOURCE PROTECTION ZONES: PROTECTION SOURCE GROUNDWATER 3 FIX DESIGN

SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH SAFETY,

Project Title Project Suitability Status Drawing KEY:

3 u-iec, itiue r el n o ti dt t tid ate i ay form. any in parties third to data this of any sell or distribute sub-licence, DO NOT SCALE NOT DO

the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, copy, to permitted not are You data. the with you provided that organisation the

500 0

You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, with, interact or to, respond to you enable to solely data this use to permitted are You Firle Beacon Firle

Meters © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100030649. 100030649. Survey Ordnance 2019 rights database and copyright Crown ©

* #

*# *#

" ¦ ¦

*# "N *#

Firle Beacon

Beacon Bottom

Tilton Bottom *#

Drusillas Roundabout *# Bostal Hill Bostal Bottom

Jerry's Bottom

Meters © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100030649. 0 500 You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, DO NOT SCALE sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form.

KEY: SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL Drawing Status Suitability Project Title

DESIGN FIX 3 GROUNDWATER SOURCE PROTECTION ZONES: A27

INFORMATON FINAL S0

1KM STUDY AREA ZONE III - TOTAL CATCHMENT EAST OF LEWES * HISTORIC# FLOOD INCIDENTS: RISK OF FLOODING FROM SURFACE WATER: In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title HIGH detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks FOUL WSP House MEDIUM (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). 70 Chancery Lane FIGURE 13.1: LOW Construction London GROUNDWATER FLUVIAL FLOOD RISK: WATER CONSTRAINTS MAPSHEETS )" WC2A 1AF FLOOD ZONE 3 PAGE 3 OF 5 FLOOD ZONE 2 Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 # SURFACE WATER * SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST Maintenance / Cleaning www.wspgroup.co.uk FLOOD MITIGATION AREAS www.pbworld.com Scale Drawn Checked Aproved Authorised *# SURFACE WATER - DRAINAGE Copyright © WSP Group (2018) TEMPORARY COMPOUNDS 3 1:16,000 CR CB GK MS MAIN RIVERS (WFD ASSESSED) Client Original Size Date Date Date Date SURFACE WATER- HIGHWAY CULVERT *# Use A3 15/03/19 15/03/19 15/03/19 15/03/19 *# SURFACE WATER- PLUVIAL RUNOFF Drawing Number Project Ref. No. Contains OS data © Crown Project Originator Volume 70035418 Decomissioning / Demolition Revision (! UNKNOWN Copyright and database right P01.1 --- First Issue ------HE552988 WSP P01 Rev. Date Description By Chk'd App'd 2018 Location Type Role Number

*# * #

Drusillas

Roundabout *# *

# *#

Wilmington Junction

Folkington Bottom Wilmington Cranedown Bottom Hill 3 2

1 Meters © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100030649. 0 500 You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or Wannockinteract with, DO NOT SCALE Windover Hill the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permittedGlen to copy, 2 3 sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. KEY: SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL Drawing Status Suitability Project Title

DESIGN FIX 3 GROUNDWATER SOURCE PROTECTION ZONES: A27

INFORMATON FINAL S0

1KM STUDY AREA ZONE I - INNER PROTECTION ZONE EAST OF LEWES * HISTORIC# FLOOD INCIDENTS: ZONE II - OUTER PROTECTION ZONE In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title ZONE III - TOTAL CATCHMENT detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks FOUL WSP House RISK OF FLOODING FROM SURFACE WATER: (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). 70 Chancery Lane FIGURE 13.1: HIGH Construction London GROUNDWATER MEDIUM WATER CONSTRAINTS MAPSHEETS )" WC2A 1AF LOW PAGE 4 OF 5 FLUVIAL FLOOD RISK: Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 # SURFACE WATER * FLOOD ZONE 3 Maintenance / Cleaning www.wspgroup.co.uk FLOOD ZONE 2 www.pbworld.com Scale Drawn Checked Aproved Authorised *# SURFACE WATER - DRAINAGE SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST Copyright © WSP Group (2018) 1:16,000 CR CB GK MS FLOOD MITIGATION AREAS Client Original Size Date Date Date Date SURFACE WATER- HIGHWAY CULVERT 4 *# TEMPORARY COMPOUNDS Use A3 15/03/19 15/03/19 15/03/19 15/03/19 MAIN RIVERS (WFD ASSESSED) *# SURFACE WATER- PLUVIAL RUNOFF Drawing Number Project Ref. No. Contains OS data © Crown Project Originator Volume 70035418 Decomissioning / Demolition Revision (! UNKNOWN Copyright and database right P01.1 --- First Issue ------HE552988 WSP P01 Rev. Date Description By Chk'd App'd 2018 Location Type Role Number

Saltmarsh Sewer

Marland Sewer "N Glynleigh Sewer Holm Sewer

Drockmill Hill Gut

Gainsborough

Lane Junction *

# *#*#

* *#*##

*# *# * # *

*## *# *# *#(!*# *#*#*#

Wilmington Junction Polegate Junction

Wannock Mill Stream

Willingdon and West Langney Sewer

New Middle Stream Ditch Sewer

Folkington Bottom Wilmington Cranedown Shinewater Willingdon Hill Bottom Lake Upper 2 1 Wannock Glen Windover Hill 3

Hydneye Lake 2 Meters © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100030649. 0 600 You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, 1 the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, DO NOT SCALE sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form.

KEY: SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL Drawing Status Suitability Project Title

DESIGN FIX 3 GROUNDWATER SOURCE PROTECTION ZONES: A27

INFORMATON FINAL S0

1KM STUDY AREA ZONE I - INNER PROTECTION ZONE EAST OF LEWES * HISTORIC# FLOOD INCIDENTS: ZONE II - OUTER PROTECTION ZONE In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title ZONE III - TOTAL CATCHMENT detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks FOUL WSP House RISK OF FLOODING FROM SURFACE WATER: (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). 70 Chancery Lane FIGURE 13.1: HIGH Construction London GROUNDWATER MEDIUM WATER CONSTRAINTS MAPSHEETS )" WC2A 1AF LOW PAGE 5 OF 5 FLUVIAL FLOOD RISK: Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 # SURFACE WATER * FLOOD ZONE 3 Maintenance / Cleaning www.wspgroup.co.uk FLOOD ZONE 2 www.pbworld.com Scale Drawn Checked Aproved Authorised *# SURFACE WATER - DRAINAGE SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST Copyright © WSP Group (2018) 5 1:20,000 CR CB GK MS FLOOD MITIGATION AREAS Client Original Size Date Date Date Date SURFACE WATER- HIGHWAY CULVERT *# TEMPORARY COMPOUNDS Use A3 15/03/19 15/03/19 15/03/19 15/03/19 MAIN RIVERS (WFD ASSESSED) *# SURFACE WATER- PLUVIAL RUNOFF Drawing Number Project Ref. No. Contains OS data © Crown Project Originator Volume 70035418 Decomissioning / Demolition Revision (! UNKNOWN Copyright and database right P01.1 --- First Issue ------HE552988 WSP P01 Rev. Date Description By Chk'd App'd 2018 Location Type Role Number

Chalvington "N Glynde Wickstreet

Wilmington Caneheath Wood Abbot's Wood Heighton Street Arlington Firle Gate Wood Selmeston

Berwick Nate Wood

Beddingham Hill Firle Beacon

Alciston Gainsborough Lane Junction

Wilmington Blackcap Hill Green Bostal Hill Wilmington Polegate Junction Junction Drusillas Wilmington Roundabout

Milton Street

Heighton Hill Folkington Fore Hill Winton Gardener's Folkington Hill Wannock Wilmington Bottom Hill Lower Denton Hill Alfriston Greenway Willingdon Bottom Windover Hill Filching

Blackstone Bottom Cuckmere River Denton Litlington France Bottom Willingdon

Mount Combe Hill Pleasant Kilometres Devilsrest 0 Bottom 2 Dukes Green DO NOT SCALE Oldkiln Bottom Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2018 Drawing Status Suitability Project Title KEY: SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL A27 INFORMATON FINAL S0 DESIGN FIX 3 MAXIMUM EXTENT EAST OF LEWES In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title 1KM STUDY AREA detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks WSP House (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). 70 Chancery Lane SUPERFICIAL GEOLOGY TYPE: Construction London FIGURE 13.2: WC2A 1AF SUPERFICIAL GEOLOGY OVERVIEW ALLUVIUM - CLAY, SILT, SAND AND PEAT Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 Maintenance / Cleaning www.wspgroup.co.uk HEAD - CLAY, SILT, SAND AND GRAVEL www.pbworld.com Scale Drawn Checked Aproved Authorised Copyright © WSP Group (2018) 1:34,000 CR CB GK MS CLAY-WITH-FLINTS FORMATION CLAY, SILT, SAND GRAVEL Client Original Size Date Date Date Date Use A3 13/03/19 13/03/19 13/03/19 13/03/19 RIVER TERRACE DEPOSITS, 2 - SAND AND GRAVEL Drawing Number Project Ref. No. Project Originator Volume 70035418 Decomissioning / Demolition Revision P01.1 --- First Issue ------HE552988 WSP P01 Rev. Date Description By Chk'd App'd Location Type Role Number

Path: \\uk.wspgroup.com\central data\Projects\700354xx\70035418 - A27EastOfLewes\02 WIP\GIS\Mxd\Geology\70035418_20190114_9.2_Superficial_geology_overview.mxd: Plotted by: UKCJR003 Date: Mar 13, 2019 - 04:48PM ¦

Chalvington "N Glynde Wickstreet

Wilmington Caneheath Wood Abbot's Wood Heighton Street Arlington Firle Gate Wood Selmeston

Berwick Nate Wood

Beddingham Hill Firle Beacon

Alciston Gainsborough Lane Junction

Wilmington Green Blackcap Hill Wilmington Junction Polegate Bostal Hill Junction

Drusillas Wilmington Roundabout

Milton Street

Heighton Hill Folkington Fore Hill Winton Gardener's Folkington Hill Wannock Wilmington Bottom Hill Lower Denton Hill Alfriston Greenway Willingdon Bottom Windover Hill Filching

Blackstone Bottom Cuckmere River Denton Litlington France Bottom Willingdon

Mount Combe Hill Pleasant Kilometres Devilsrest 0 Bottom 2 Dukes Green DO NOT SCALE Oldkiln Bottom Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2018 Drawing Status Suitability Project Title KEY: SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL A27 INFORMATON FINAL S0 DESIGN FIX 3 EAST OF LEWES In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work 1KM STUDY AREA Drawing Title detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks WSP House BEDROCK GEOLOGY TYPE: (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). 70 Chancery Lane GAULT FORMATION - MUDSTONE Construction London FIGURE 13.3: WC2A 1AF HOLYWELL NODULAR CHALK FORMATION - CHALK Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 BEDROCK GEOLOGY OVERVIEW www.wspgroup.co.uk LOWER GREENSAND GROUP SANDSTONE SILTSTONE MUDSTONE Maintenance / Cleaning www.pbworld.com Scale Drawn Checked Aproved Authorised NEW PIT CHALK FORMATION - CHALK Copyright © WSP Group (2018) 1:34,000 CR CB GK MS NEWHAVEN CHALK FORMATION - CHALK Client Original Size Date Date Date Date Use A3 SEAFORD CHALK FORMATION - CHALK 13/03/19 13/03/19 13/03/19 13/03/19 Drawing Number Project Ref. No. WEALD CLAY FORMATION - MUDSTONE Project Originator Volume 70035418 Decomissioning / Demolition Revision WEALD CLAY FORMATION - SILICATE-CLAYSTONE P01.1 --- First Issue ------HE552988 WSP P01 WEST MELBURY MARLY CHALK FORMATION - CHALK Rev. Date Description By Chk'd App'd Location Type Role Number

Path: \\uk.wspgroup.com\central data\Projects\700354xx\70035418 - A27EastOfLewes\02 WIP\GIS\Mxd\Geology\70035418_20190114_9.3_Bedrock_geology_overview.mxd: Plotted by: UKCJR003 Date: Mar 13, 2019 - 04:37PM ¦ Ripe Upper Dicker Tile Hurst

"N Chalvington

Glynde Wickstreet Cuckmere River

Cuckmere River Wilmington Caneheath Wood Abbot's Wood Heighton Street Arlington Firle Gate Wood Selmeston

Berwick Nate Wood

Beddingham Hill Firle Beacon

Alciston Gainsborough Lane Junction

Berwick Wilmington Green Blackcap Hill Polegate Bostal Hill Wilmington Junction Junction Drusillas Wilmington Roundabout

Milton Street

Heighton Hill Folkington Fore Hill Winton Gardener's Folkington Hill Wannock Wilmington Bottom Hill Lower Denton Hill Alfriston Greenway Willingdon Bottom Windover Hill Filching

Blackstone Bottom Cuckmere River Denton Litlington France Bottom Willingdon Kilometres Mount 0 2 Combe Hill DO PleasantNOT SCALE Devilsrest Bottom Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2018 Drawing Status Suitability Project Title KEY: SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL A27 DESIGN FIX 3 MAXIMUM EXTENT INFORMATON FINAL S0 EAST OF LEWES 1KM STUDY AREA In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the types of work Drawing Title *PRINCIPAL AQUIFER (BEDROCK) detailed on this drawing, note the following significant residual risks WSP House (Reference shall also be made to the design hazard log). FIGURE 13.4: SECONDARY AQUIFER (SUPERFICIAL DEPOSITS) 70 Chancery Lane Construction London SUPERFICIAL AND BEDROCK AQUIFER WC2A 1AF Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000 OVERVIEW Maintenance / Cleaning www.wspgroup.co.uk www.pbworld.com Scale Drawn Checked Aproved Authorised Copyright © WSP Group (2018) 1:34,000 CR CB GK MS Client Original Size Date Date Date Date Use A3 13/03/19 13/03/19 13/03/19 13/03/19 Drawing Number Project Ref. No. Project Originator Volume 70035418 Decomissioning / Demolition Revision P01.1 --- First Issue ------HE552988 WSP P01 Rev. Date Description By Chk'd App'd Location Type Role Number

Path: \\uk.wspgroup.com\central data\Projects\700354xx\70035418 - A27EastOfLewes\02 WIP\GIS\Mxd\Geology\70035418_20190114_9.4_Superficial_and_Bedrock_Aquifer_Overview.mxd: Plotted by: UKCJR003 Date: Mar 13, 2019 - 05:28PM A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

14 CLIMATE GREENHOUSE GASES

14.1 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

14.1.1 The various legislative, policy and guidance documents used to shape the assessment of Greenhouse Gases are outlined in Table 14.1.

Table 14.1 – Legislative and Policy Framework United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 283

LEGISLATION The Climate Change Act (2008)284

Infrastructure Carbon Review285

National Planning Policy Framework286

National Policy Statement for National Networks287 POLICY Environment Strategy for East Sussex288

East Sussex Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2026289

IAN 114/08 – Highways Agency Carbon Calculation and Reporting Requirements290

DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 HA 207/07 Air Quality291 GUIDANCE IEMA EIA Guide to Assessing GHG Emissions and Evaluating their Significance292

283 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change https://unfccc.int/ 284 HM Government Climate Change Act (2008) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/introduction 285 HM Treasury, Infrastructure Carbon Review (2013) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260710/infrastructure_c arbon_review_251113.pdf 286 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018)https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728643/Revised_ NPPF_2018.pdf 287 Department for Transport, National Policy Statement for National Networks (2014). https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387222/npsnn-print.pdf 288 East Sussex Strategic Partnership, Environment Strategy for East Sussex (2011): https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/1988/environment_strategy_for_east_sussex.pdf 289 East Sussex County Council, Local Transport Plan –2011-2026 East Sussex Local Transport Plan 2011 – 2026 (2011) https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/2336/ltp3_main_doc_2011-2026.pdf 290 Highways Agency Interim Advice Note 114/08 Highways Agency Carbon Calculations and Reporting Requirements (2008) http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/ian114.pdf 291 DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 HA 207/07 (2007) http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/Section3/ha20707.pdf

342 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

TAG Unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal293

PAS 2080:2016 Carbon Management in Infrastructure294

14.1.2 Further detail on legislation and policy is provide in Appendix 1.1.

14.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

14.2.1 GHGs are natural and man-made gases occurring in the atmosphere which absorb and emit infrared radiation thereby maintaining the Sun’s energy within the Earth’s atmosphere. There is a scientific consensus that the major increase in the concentration of GHGs from man-made sources is contributing to climate change.

14.2.2 The seven main GHGs defined by the Kyoto Protocol are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride. In combination, these GHG emissions are commonly expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) according to their relative global warming potential. For this reason, the term ‘carbon’ may be used to refer to GHGs.

14.2.3 The assessment approach considers the likely magnitude of GHG emissions (or avoided emissions) of the scheme in comparison to the baseline scenario with no scheme. It considers emissions throughout the lifecycle of the scheme including:

 Construction stage – for example the embodied emissions associated with materials, transportation of materials to site and waste / arisings from site, and the construction process; and  Operation - for example emissions (or avoided emissions) from end-user vehicles.

14.2.4 The decommissioning stage has not been assessed as the expected timescales for the scheme reaching its end of life, are so far into the future that there is insufficient certainty about the likelihood, type or scale of emissions activity to enable a meaningful assessment to be undertaken. Lifecycle stages relevant to; maintenance; repair, replacement and refurbishment; and emissions sources at end of life have been scoped out of this assessment due to the negligible changes in emissions expected from these sources.

For the applicable construction and operation lifecycle stages of the scheme the assessment includes the following:

292 IEMA EIA guide to Assessing GHG emissions and evaluating their significance (2017) https://www.iema.net/policy/ghg- in-eia-2017.pdf 293 Department for Transport Tag Unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal (2015) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/638648/TAG_unit_a3_e nvir_imp_app_dec_15.pdf 294 BSI PAS 2080:2016 Carbon management in infrastructure (2016) https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=000000000030323493

343 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

 Collection of available data / information on the scale of GHG emitting activities for the baseline scenario and for the scheme e.g. tonnes of concrete, litres of diesel, average daily traffic flows. In each case, this covers the whole life cycle of the assets; and  Calculation of the GHG emissions using a standard emissions calculation methodology applying a suitable emissions factor e.g. kgCO2e per tonne of concrete.

14.2.5 The construction stage emissions have been calculated using an industry recognised carbon calculation tool. Highways England’s carbon tool295 has been used for this assessment. It multiplies emissions activity (for example; quantities of material consumed, transport distances, fuel and power) by the relevant emissions factors, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents. Values have been reported as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (tCO2e). Professional judgement has been applied when interpreting the bill of quantities for input into the Highways England Carbon Calculation Tool. This was based upon knowledge of similar schemes.

14.2.6 The total operational stage end-user GHG emissions from traffic have been modelled as part of the air quality assessment. The modelling includes the total GHG emissions for vehicles covering the strategic and local road network in the area of the scheme and its surrounding region.

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

14.2.7 IEMA guidance (IEMA’s EIA guide to Assessing GHG emissions and evaluating their significance292) and professional judgement has been used to assess the significance of GHG effects. In line with the National Networks NPS287, the GHG emissions arising from the scheme are presented against the respective UK carbon budgets (see Appendix 1.1) which have been set by the UK government covering the period 2018 to 2032.

There are currently no agreed thresholds for what level of GHG emissions is considered significant in EIA terms. Professional judgement is used regarding the likely magnitude of emissions, the context of the Scheme and the potential impact on the Government meeting its carbon reduction targets.

EFFECT SIGNIFICANCE

14.2.8 Professional judgement based on schemes of a similar size and nature will be used to identify the likely significance of effects. The following terms have been used to define the significance of the effects identified:

 Major effect: where the Scheme could be expected to have a significant effect (either positive or negative) on receptors;  Moderate effect: where the Scheme could be expected to have a noticeable effect (either positive or negative) on receptors;  Minor effect: where the Scheme could be expected to result in a small, barely noticeable effect (either positive or negative) on receptors; and

295 Highways England Carbon emissions calculation tool https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carbon-tool

344 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

 Negligible: where no discernible effect on receptors is expected due to the scheme.

14.3 ASSESSMENT ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

14.3.1 There is currently no specific guidance or carbon emissions threshold, which, if exceeded, would be considered significant. The assessment will therefore be based on professional judgement and Highways England guidance.

14.3.2 This assessment has been completed based on the currently available information regarding the scale and nature of the scheme. Type and quantities of material and waste provided by the design team at this stage are indicative and will be refined as the design of the scheme progresses. Assumptions regarding the quantities have been made based on the current design drawings, such as the thickness of asphalt and aggregates, quantity of concrete required for culverts and catch pits, signage and lighting column dimensions.

14.3.3 The availability of robust information on the transportation of materials and waste to and from site (the source of materials and destination of waste) has been taken from RICS296 transportation scenarios in the absence of location specific data.

14.4 STUDY AREA

14.4.1 The greenhouse gas (GHG) assessment is not restricted by geographical area but instead includes any increase or decrease in emissions as a result of the scheme, wherever that may be. This includes:

 Construction emissions in the area of the scheme footprint but also related to the transport of materials to and from the site, their manufacturing and disposal (this may be far from the scheme location (for example emissions for manufacture of concrete and steel).  Operational emissions (or reduction in emissions) which result from the end-use of the scheme and any shifts in transport modes/patterns which may occur. Such emissions include those for traffic using the scheme as well as the surrounding regional road network.

14.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS CURRENT EMISSIONS SOURCES AND FUTURE BASELINE

14.5.1 In the baseline (do nothing) scenario, GHG emissions occur constantly and widely as a result of human and natural activity including energy consumption (fuel, power), industrial processes, land use and land use change. The baseline GHG assessment considers the current emissions due to the existing traffic in the study area, and the future baseline is the predicted increase in these emissions sources without the scheme. The emissions generated during the baseline (do nothing) and future baseline construction activities (repair or maintenance) is not assessed as data on the manufacturing of materials and construction processes is not available.

296 RICS (2017) Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment. RICS professional standards and guidance, UK.

345 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

14.5.2 Total end-user GHG emissions are presented in Table 14.2 - Baseline GHG emissions data and end user traffic in the region of the scheme for the baseline ‘do nothing’ scenario, and future baseline year 2037. The baseline GHG emissions are expected to increase by 13% between 2023 (operational year) and 2041 (future year) as traffic growth outweighs increased vehicle efficiency. The total end-user traffic emissions for the 60-year operational life of the scheme (2022 to 2081) are also presented along with the average annual emissions for that period.

Table 14.2 - Baseline GHG emissions data and end user traffic in the region of the scheme

TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS FOR ALL TRAFFIC IN THE TRAFFIC MODEL AREA (THOUSAND TONNES OF CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVALENT; KTCO2E)

SCENARIO TOTAL 2022 (OPERATIONAL 2037 (FUTURE AVERAGE PER YEAR (2022- YEAR) YEAR) (2022-2081) 2081)

BASELINE (‘DO 125.0 141.5 139.3 8357 NOTHING’)

14.5.3 In addition to the baseline traffic emissions presented above, emissions during 2016 within East Sussex and nationally297 are presented in Table 14.3 - Greenhouse gas emissions, East Sussex and National, 2016 for context.

Table 14.3 - Greenhouse gas emissions, East Sussex and National, 2016

SOURCE EAST SUSSEX (KTCO2) NATIONAL (KTCO2)

A. Industry and Commercial Electricity 240 51,532

B. Industry and Commercial Gas 162 35,973

C. Large Industrial Installations 7.7 32,466

D. Industrial and Commercial Other Fuels 96 17,658

E. Agriculture 47 5,382

Industry and Commercial Total 552 143,010

F. Domestic Electricity 294 31,442

G. Domestic Gas 490 60,203

H. Domestic 'Other Fuels' 101 10,788

297 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2018), UK local authority and regional carbon dioxide emissions national statistics: 2005 to 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-local-authority-and-regional-carbon-dioxide- emissions-national-statistics-2005-2016

346 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Domestic Total 884 102,432

I. Road Transport (A roads) 460 54,351

J. Road Transport (Motorways) - 28,032

K. Road Transport (Minor roads) 438 41,483

L. Diesel Railways 17 2,151

M. Transport Other 5 2,036

Transport Total 919.5 128,053

N. LULUCF Net Emissions -268 -16,026

Grand Total 2088 357,470

Population ('000s, mid-year estimate) 545 65,648

Per Capita Emissions (t) 4 5

14.6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

14.6.1 The impacts of GHGs relate to their contribution to climate change. These impacts are global and cumulative in nature, with every tonne of GHGs contributing to impacts on natural and human systems. GHG emissions result in the same global effects wherever and whenever they occur and, therefore, the sensitivity of different human and natural receptors is not considered.

CONSTRUCTION PHASE GHG EMISSIONS

14.6.2 The scheme has the potential to result in increases in greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction activities (such as manufacturing of materials and construction processes). During construction, notable sources of emissions will include ‘embedded carbon’ emissions generated during extraction and manufacturing of construction materials including: asphalt, aggregate, structural and reinforced steel and concrete. These are required for: the pavement for junction improvements; development of the Shared Use Path; construction of the new bridge over the Cuckmere River; and widening of the existing bridge over the railway at Polegate.

14.6.3 The construction lifecycle stages included within the scope of this EAR and corresponding potential sources of emissions are outlined in Table 14.4.

347 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Table 14.4 - Key emissions activity during the scheme lifespan

CONSTRUCTION POTENTIAL SOURCES OF EMISSIONS (NOT EXHAUSTIVE) LIFECYCLE STAGE

Embodied emissions associated with extraction and manufacturing of the required raw materials, including:  33,820 tonnes asphalt for surfacing the Shared Use Path and junction improvements

Product stage  13,499 tonnes aggregate for structural backfill and drainage (manufacture and  13.474 tonnes of imported earthworks (fill) transport of raw materials to suppliers)  2,462 tonnes concrete for the bridge structures and retaining walls, drainage feature and lighting and signage foundations.  76 tonnes steel for bridge structures, reinforcement and retaining walls.  Smaller quantities of ancillary aspects such plastic drainage pipes, aluminium signage and lighting columns, copper cabling and timber for fencing and formwork.

Emissions from the construction stage include such emissions sources as fuel/energy consumption from: Construction process  Delivery of materials for junction improvement, new Shared Use Path and stage (transport of bridge, widening of existing bridge at Polegate as well as fill material materials and arisings  Export and disposal of 19,699 tonnes carriageway planings to/from site; construction process, earth  Export and disposal of 5,438 tonnes of surplus topsoil movements)  Export and disposal of 639 tonnes concrete  Export and disposal of smaller quantities of arisings such as mixed metals and timber.

14.6.4 The total construction related GHG emissions arising from: material supply; the manufacturing of materials; waste generation and disposal; and transportation of materials and waste to and from site; has been calculated to be 17.4 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (KTCO2e), as presented in Figure 14.1.

14.6.5 Figure 14.1 also shows a breakdown of the GHG emissions ‘hot spots’ from materials, as the main source of emissions from construction of the scheme.

348 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Figure 14.1 Total GHG Emissions Breakdowns Associated with Materials

14.6.6 The majority (93.5%) of GHG emissions are associated with materials (product stage ‘cradle to gate’ or ‘embodied’ emissions) with 4.1% from transport of those materials and wastes and 2.4% from waste generation and disposal.

14.6.7 The majority (89.4%) of the emissions for materials relate to the pavement for the junction improvements and bridge widening. Other significant contributions are from bulk materials (5.7%) required for the scheme which comprise aggregate and concrete required for all aspects of the scheme and asphalt for the Shared Use Path. Smaller contributions are from street furniture (lighting and signage, 2.2%), drainage (1.6%), civil structures (steelwork and formwork only, concrete is accounted for in bulk materials, 0.7%) and less than 1% from earthworks and fencing.

14.6.8 In the absence of agreed thresholds for what level of GHG emissions is considered significant in an EIA, professional judgement, based on schemes of a similar size and nature, and presenting the scheme GHG emissions against the respective UK carbon budgets and total road CO2 emissions for East Sussex has been used to assess the significance of effects.

349 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

14.6.9 The GHG emissions from the construction of the scheme is likely to have an adverse impact. The magnitude of change in GHG emissions is considered to be negligible.

14.6.10 The scheme is therefore expected to have an effect of neutral significance on climate, during construction. This assessment takes into consideration the confirmed construction phase mitigation measures, the magnitude of GHG emissions and the context of the scheme, and using professional judgement it is considered that the neutral effect of this scheme will not be significant. Furthermore, as presented in Table 14.6 - Key emissions activity during the scheme lifespan, the GHG impacts of the scheme would not have a material impact on the Government meeting its carbon reduction targets.

OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS

14.6.11 The scheme will result in changes to end-user traffic emissions throughout its operational life, which could be an increase or decrease depending on the effect on traffic flows, percentage of Heavy Duty Vehicles (%HDV) and speed. Any increase in emissions and the corresponding concentrations of GHGs present in the atmosphere will contribute to global warming and climate change.

14.6.12 Total end user emissions are presented in Table 14.5 for the year 2022 (the first year of operation for the scheme) and the year 2037 (the future modelled year). In addition, the average annual and total emissions for the 60 year assumed operational period of 2022 to 2081 are presented. The baseline figures (without the scheme) are included to show the impact due to the scheme.

Table 14.5 - End user GHG emission data for traffic in the region of the scheme

TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS FOR ALL TRAFFIC IN THE TRAFFIC MODEL AREA (THOUSAND TONNES OF CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVALENT; KTCO2E)

SCENARIO 2022 2037 (FUTURE AVERAGE PER TOTAL (OPERATIONAL YEAR) YEAR (2022-2081) (2022-2081) YEAR)

BASELINE (‘DO 125.0 141.5 139.3 8357 NOTHING’)

THE SCHEME 125.5 141.7 139.5 8372

14.6.13 The total regional traffic emissions for the operational lifespan of the scheme (2022-2081) are 14 tCO2e higher (+0.2%) than the baseline (do nothing) scenario.

350 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

14.6.14 The magnitude of change in GHG emissions during operation is predicted to be negligible. GHG emissions from the operation of the scheme are likely to have an effect of neutral significance. this assessment take into consideration the magnitude of GHG emissions (slight increase) and the context of the scheme, using professional judgement including previous experience of road infrastructure schemes, it is considered that the neutral effect of this scheme will not be significant. Furthermore, as presented in Table 14.6 - Key emissions activity during the scheme lifespan, the GHG impacts of the scheme would not have a material impact on the Government meeting its carbon reduction targets.

SCHEME IMPACT ON UK CARBON BUDGETS AND EAST SUSSEX 2016 ROAD EMISSIONS

14.6.15 The total estimated GHG emissions arising from the scheme have been estimated as part of the air quality assessment, and are presented in Table 14.6 below. They are presented for the construction stage to first year of operation (2020-2022), the operation stage (2022-2081) and the overall total for the whole lifecycle (2020-2081).

14.6.16 The total emissions during each of the UK National Carbon Budget periods is presented and compared in percentage terms to the respective National budget. The Third Carbon Budget covering 2018 to 2022 is 2,544 million tCO2e. The Fourth Carbon Budget covering 2023 to 2027 is 1,950 million tCO2e. The Fifth Carbon Budget covering 2028 to 2032 is 1,725 million tCO2e (the latest carbon budget agreed by the government).

14.6.17 The percentage of 1 year’s operational phase total GHG emissions arising from the scheme are also presented in comparison with the 2016 road CO2 emissions for East Sussex in 2016297.

Table 14.6 - Key emissions activity during the scheme lifespan

TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (THOUSAND TONNES OF STAGE / TIMING CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVALENT; kTCO2e)

Construction phase (2020-2022) 17.4

Operational phase (2022 – 2081) 14.5 (0.2 per year)

Total for lifecycle (2020 – 2081) 31.9

Total for third carbon Budget period (2018 – 2022) [% of budget] 17.9 [0.00070%]

Total for fourth carbon Budget period (2023 – 2027) [% of budget] 2.2 [0.00011%]

351 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Total for fifth carbon Budget period (2028 – 2032) [% of budget] 1.7 [0.00010%]

East Sussex Total Road Co2 emissions estimates 2016 [% of 1 460 [0.0525%] year’s operational phase]

Table 14.7 - Summary of GHG Effects

LONG TERM/ MEDIUM SIGNIFICANCE BENEFICIAL/ DIRECT/ SHORT TERM/ EFFECT RECEPTOR (VERY LARGE ADVERSE INDIRECT

TEMPORARY – NEUTRAL) /PERMANENT

CONSTRUCTION

GHG emissions result in the same global INCREASE IN GHG effects wherever EMISSIONS FROM and whenever Long term MANUFACTURE they occur and, Adverse Direct Neutral AND SUPPLY OF therefore, the Permanent MATERIALS AND sensitivity of CONSTRUCTION different human ACTIVITIES and natural receptors is not considered

OPERATION

GHG emissions result in the same global CHANGE GHG effects wherever and whenever EMISSIONS FROM Long term they occur and, END-USER Adverse Direct Neutral therefore, the EMISSIONS Permanent (REGIONAL sensitivity of TRAFFIC FLOWS) different human and natural receptors is not considered

352 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

14.7 DESIGN, MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

14.7.1 The confirmed mitigation measures to reduce the impact of GHG emissions during construction comprise; the use of site won arisings (earthworks and topsoil), local sourcing of materials and waste management facilities, and the use of materials containing recycled content (for example aggregate, asphalt and cement binder).

14.7.1 A summary of further measures for consideration are noted in Table 14.8 - Recommended design, mitigation or enhancement measures.

Table 14.8 - Recommended design, mitigation or enhancement measures

MECHANISM/ MEASURE DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMING

Design optimisation to reflect the carbon reduction Detailed Detailed designer hierarchy. design

Reduce the elements required for the scheme. Detailed Detailed designer design

Reduce the requirement for construction materials Detailed Detailed designer Reduce through design and use of site won arisings; design and and Lead embodied Construction Contractor carbon through finessing the detailed design Substitute construction elements for lower-carbon Detailed Detailed designer alternatives (e.g. changing the design and materials design and and Lead for the bridge). Construction Contractor

Specify materials and products with reduced Detailed Detailed designer embodied GHG emissions including through material design and and Lead substitution, recycled or secondary content and from Construction Contractor renewable source.

353 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Maximise opportunities for local sourcing of materials and use of local waste management facilities. Construction Lead Contractor

Select and engage with material suppliers and Detailed Detailed designer construction contractors taking into account their design and and Lead EMBODIED policies and commitments to reduction of GHG Construction Contractor CARBON emissions, including embodied emission in materials. THROUGH CONSTRUCTION PHASE Minimise energy consumption including fuel usage by,

EFFICIENCIES for example, reducing the requirement for earth Construction Lead Contractor movements to/from and within the construction site.

Use energy-efficient plant; minimising vehicle idling; and use renewable energy devices wherever possible. Construction Lead Contractor

Designing, specifying and constructing the scheme with a view to maximising the operational lifespan and Detailed Detailed designer minimising the need for maintenance and design refurbishment (and all associated emissions).

Designing, specifying and constructing the scheme with a view to maximising the potential for reuse and Detailed Detailed designer recycling of materials/elements at the end-of-life design CHANGE GHG stage. EMISSIONS FROM END- USER Specifying high efficiency mechanical and electrical Detailed Detailed designer EMISSIONS equipment such as lighting and telecoms. design (REGIONAL TRAFFIC FLOWS) Operating, maintaining and refurbishing the scheme using best-practice efficient approaches and equipment. Ensure designs are focussed upon reduction of emissions from end-user vehicle Detailed movement (traffic) for example by providing the Detailed designer design conditions for efficient low-carbon vehicles and driving practices, such as increasing capacity, which would potentially result in a reduction in emission per vehicle where congestion is relieved.

354 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

14.8 ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS

Table 14.9 - Summary of effects

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT MITIGATION RESIDUAL EFFECT

Long term/ EFFECT RECEPTOR medium Significance Beneficial/ Direct/ short term/ Mechanism/ Beneficial/ (Very large Description Responsibility Significance Adverse Indirect Timing Adverse – neutral) Temporary /Permanent

Construction Phase

Design optimisation to minimise material usage, recover site arisings, minimise waste generation and maximising efficient Increase in construction and GHG transportation methods emissions Global from receptors Long term Specifying materials and During Design manufacture Designer and sensitive to Adverse Direct Neutral products with reduced and Adverse Neutral and supply Contractor climate Permanent embodied GHG emissions construction of materials change and Selection of material construction suppliers and construction activities contractors committed to reducing GHG emissions.

Use of efficient construction plant and equipment.

355 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Operational Phase

Change Global Design optimisation to GHG receptors maximise operational emissions sensitive to Long term efficiency; from end- climate During Adverse Direct Neutral Designer Adverse Neutral user change Focus design on reduction operation Permanent emissions of emissions from end-user (regional vehicle movements. traffic flows)

356 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

CLIMATE RESILIENCE

14.9 INTRODUCTION

14.9.1 The requirement to consider a scheme’s vulnerability to climate change results from the 2014 amendment to the EIA Directive (2014/52). The Directive has been fully transposed into UK law in The Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017 and came into force in the UK on the 2017. The Directive requires:

“A description of the likely significant effects of the project on climate (for example the nature and magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions) and the vulnerability of the project to climate change.”

14.9.2 This section assesses the vulnerability of the scheme to the impacts of climate change.

14.10 SCHEME

14.10.1 The scheme consists of the elements outlined in Chapter 2 – The Project.:

14.11 STUDY AREA

14.11.1 The assessment of vulnerability of the scheme to the impacts of climate change has been informed by regional scale information on historic and projected change in climate variables. The UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18)298 are the most up-to-date projections of climate change for the UK, however, data from the probabilistic projections at the administrative region scale were not available. Information on the projected climate has therefore been taken from previous projections, UKCP09299, for the South-East England administrative area. The vulnerability of scheme elements within the scheme extent to changes in climate (at the regional scale) has been assessed.

14.12 ASSESSMENT APPROACH

14.12.1 This section outlines the approach to assessment of climate vulnerability and risk. This approach aligns with the following UK and international guidance:

 IEMA (2015) Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation300  European Commission (2013) Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment301;

298 United Kingdom Climate Projections 2018 https://ukclimateprojections-ui.metoffice.gov.uk/ 299 United Kingdom Climate Projections 2009 http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/ 300 IEMA (2015) Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation. Available at: https://www.iema.net/assets/templates/documents/iema_guidance_documents_eia_climate_change_resilience_and_ adaptation%20(1).pdf. 301 European Commission (2013) Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA%20Guidance.pdf

357 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

 European Commission (2016) Climate change and major projects302; and  European Commission Non-paper Guidelines for Project Managers: Making vulnerable investments climate resilient303.

14.12.2 The full approach consists of 4 steps:

 Step 1: Identify receptors and analyse policy context;  Step 2: Climate vulnerability assessment;  Step 3: Risk assessment; and  Step 4: Adaptation measures.

14.12.3 The PCF Stage 3 Scoping Report (July 2018) presented the detailed assessment and results of Step 1 and Step 2 describing the level of vulnerability of the scheme to the impacts of climate change, and determining which vulnerabilities should be assessed further (Steps 3 and 4). This vulnerability assessment is presented in Appendix 14.1. This EAR completes the assessment Steps 3 and 4.

STEP 1: IDENTIFY RECEPTORS AND ANALYSE POLICY CONTEXT

14.12.4 During this stage, relevant receptors which may be affected by climate change were identified with consideration given to the impact of extreme weather and changes in climate on the scheme over its lifetime. This stage includes a definition of the policy context.

STEP 2: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

14.12.5 This stage comprised an assessment of the vulnerability of the receptors identified in Step 1 to projected climate change and extreme weather variables. The vulnerability of a receptor to extreme weather and climate change is a function of:

 The typical sensitivity of the receptor to climate variables – based on literature review and expert judgement.  The exposure of the receptor to projected change in climate variables – based on information on observed climate and projected climate.

14.12.6 For each element of the vulnerability assessment (sensitivity and exposure), a categorisation is assigned to each climate variable based on the following scale:

 High: High climate sensitivity or exposure.  Moderate: Moderate climate sensitivity or exposure.  Low: No significant climate sensitivity or exposure.

14.12.7 This is a qualitative assessment informed by expert opinion and supporting literature.

302 European Commission (2016) Climate Change and Major Projects. : https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/major_projects_en.pdf 303 European Commission (undated) Non-paper Guidelines for Project Managers: Making vulnerable investments climate resilient. Available at: http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/guidances/non-paper-guidelines-for- project-managers-making-vulnerable-investments-climate-resilient/guidelines-for-project-managers.pdf

358 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

14.12.8 The vulnerability of receptors to climate variables was determined from the combination of the sensitivity and exposure categorisation, using the matrix shown in Table 14.11. At this point, climate variables to which the scheme’s vulnerability has been assessed as ‘Low’ were scoped out of further assessment. Climate variables to which the scheme’s vulnerability has been assessed as ‘High’ or ‘Medium’ were taken forward to Steps 3 and 4.

TABLE 14.10 - VULNERABILITY MATRIX

EXPOSURE SENSITIVITY LOW MODERATE HIGH Low Low vulnerability Low vulnerability Low vulnerability Moderate Low vulnerability Medium vulnerability Medium vulnerability High Low vulnerability Medium vulnerability High vulnerability

STEP 3: RISK ASSESSMENT

14.12.9 Impacts related to the ‘scoped in’ variables were identified. Typical impacts are shown in Table 14.12.

TABLE 14.11 - TYPICAL HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH CLIMATE VARIABLES

CLIMATE VARIABLE CLIMATE-RELATED IMPACTS High temperatures, longer growing season Average air temperature change (annual, seasonal, monthly) Fewer incidences of low temperature related hazards such as ice, snow, damage from freeze-thaw Extreme air temperature (frequency and Heatwaves magnitude) Average precipitation (annual, seasonal, Flooding (fluvial, pluvial), reduced ground stability monthly) Soil moisture deficit, snow, ice and hail Extreme rainfall (frequency and magnitude) Flooding (fluvial, pluvial), reduced ground stability Average wind speed change (annual, Increase wind loading seasonal, monthly) Gales and extreme winds (frequency and Increase in storm intensity, storm surge, lightning magnitude) Humidity Fog Solar radiation High UV levels Sea level Coastal flooding, coastal erosion

14.12.10 The risk assessment is undertaken by considering the likelihood of climate hazards occurring and the consequence to the scheme elements if they occur.

14.12.11 Likelihood and consequence are qualitatively assessed using the descriptions in Table 14.13 and Table 14.14.

TABLE 14.12 – QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF CONSEQUENCE

CONSEQUENCE OF DESCRIPTION IMPACT Negligible Disruption to an isolated section of a strategic route lasting less than 1 day.

359 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Minor adverse Regional level disruption to strategic route(s) lasting less than 1 day. Moderate adverse Regional level disruption to strategic route(s) lasting more than 1 day but less than 1 week. Large adverse National level disruption1 to strategic route(s) lasting more than 1 day but less than 1 week OR regional level disruption to strategic route(s) lasting more than 1 week. Very large adverse National level (or greater) disruption to strategic route(s) lasting more than 1 week.

TABLE 14.13 – QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF LIKELIHOOD

LIKELIHOOD OF DESCRIPTION IMPACT Very low The event may occur once during the lifetime of the scheme (60 years). Low The event occurs during the lifetime of the scheme (60 years) e.g. once in 60 years. The event occurs limited times during the lifetime of the scheme (60 years) e.g. Medium approximately once every 15 years, typically 4 events. The event occurs several times during the lifetime of the scheme (60 years) e.g. High approximately once every five years, typically 12 events; The event occurs multiple times during the lifetime of the scheme (60 years) e.g. Very high approximately annually, typically 60 events.

14.12.12 These determinants are then combined to develop a climate risk rating for each scheme element in respect to specific climate hazards (Table 14.15). The assessment is a qualitative assessment based on expert judgment, engagement with the design team and a review of relevant literature.

TABLE 14.14 - SIGNIFICANCE RATING MATRIX

CONSEQUENCE OF IMPACT OCCURRING LIKELIHOOD OF IMPACT MODERATE VERY LARGE OCCURRING NEGLIGIBLE MINOR ADVERSE LARGE ADVERSE ADVERSE ADVERSE Very low Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Low Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Significant Medium Not significant Not significant Significant Significant Significant High Not significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Very high Not significant Significant Significant Significant Significant

STEP 4: MITIGATION MEASURES

14.12.13 Mitigation measures for the significant risks are identified through consultation with the design team and based on expert opinion. Taking account of the contribution of incorporated mitigation measures, a summary of the level of climate resilience of the scheme elements to climate change is applied:

 Low - a low level of climate resilience leading to significant residual climate risk. Remedial action or adaptation is required as a priority.  Moderate – a moderate degree of climate resilience leading to no significant residual climate risk. However, ongoing monitoring and/or remedial action or adaptation could be considered; and

360 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

 High – a strong degree of climate resilience leading to no significant residual climate risk. Remedial action or adaptation may be required but is not a priority.

14.12.14 Recommendations for supplementary climate change adaptation measures are then identified where necessary.

14.13 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

ASSESSMENT ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

14.13.1 In the absence of an agreed methodology for assessing the vulnerability of schemes to climate change, the approach in this chapter has been developed and applied based on existing best practice, and in collaboration with Highways England and expert opinion.

14.13.2 The UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) are the most up-to-date projections of climate change for the UK. However, at the time of writing this EAR chapter, UKCP18 regional data was not available, so UKCP09 regional data was used.

14.13.3 As future emissions of GHGs, and resulting pathway, is uncertain. A precautionary approach has been applied, by selecting the High emissions scenario and long-term timeslice304 (2080s), in line with Highways England guidance. This time horizon is consistent with the 60 years design life of the scheme.

14.13.4 The determination of resilience has been undertaken under the assumption that robust design standards will be adhered to where detailed information is unavailable.

STEP 1 AND STEP 2: IDENTIFICATION OF RECEPTORS AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

14.13.5 Steps 1 and 2 were completed in the PCF Stage 3 Scoping Report (July 2018). Appendix 14.1 presents the findings of Step 2, the Vulnerability Assessment. The climate variables to which the scheme’s vulnerability has been assessed as ‘High’ or ‘Medium’ were taken forward to Steps 3 and 4 and are present in Table 14.15, Table 14.16 and Table 14.17.

TABLE 14.15 - VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT - ROAD SENSITIVITY EXPOSURE VULNERABILITY CLIMATE VARIABLE RATING RATING RATING Medium Extreme rainfall Medium Medium vulnerability Precipitation Medium Drought Medium High vulnerability

Medium Temperature Extreme temperature Medium High vulnerability

304 UKCP09 projections are given for seven overlapping 30-year time periods (timeslice).

361 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Gales and extreme wind Medium Wind Medium Medium events vulnerability

Medium Soil moisture Medium High vulnerability Soil Medium Stability Medium Medium vulnerability

TABLE 14.16 - VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT – BRIDGE SENSITIVITY EXPOSURE VULNERABILITY CLIMATE VARIABLE RATING RATING RATING Medium Precipitation Extreme rainfall Medium Medium vulnerability Medium Temperature Extreme temperature Medium Medium vulnerability Gales and extreme wind Medium Wind High Medium events vulnerability Medium Soil Stability Medium Medium vulnerability

TABLE 14.17 - VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT – CYCLE AND FOOTWAY SENSITIVITY EXPOSURE VULNERABILITY CLIMATE VARIABLE RATING RATING RATING Medium Extreme rainfall Medium Medium Precipitation vulnerability Drought Medium Medium High vulnerability Temperature Extreme temperature Medium Medium High vulnerability

Gales and extreme wind Medium Wind Medium Medium events vulnerability

Medium Soil moisture Medium High vulnerability Soil Medium Stability Medium Medium vulnerability

STEP 3: RISK ASSESSMENT

14.13.6 This section describes the assessment of risk based on the medium vulnerability climate variables identified in Step 2. No high vulnerability variables were identified.

14.13.7 Climate and weather-related impacts associated with the identified medium vulnerabilities during construction and operation are described in Appendix 14.2. Unless stated otherwise, the impacts identified in Appendix 14.2 are expected to impact the whole scheme.

362 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

14.13.8 Table 14.19 presents significance ratings for each of the identified climate risks, across both the construction and operational phases, to the scheme based on a qualitative assessment of likelihood and consequence.

363 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

TABLE 14.18 – SIGNIFICANT RISKS IDENTIFIED FOR THE SCHEME (PRE MITIGATION) DESCRIPTION OF RISK MITIGATABLE SIGNIFICANCE THROUGH DMRB/ COMPONENT CONSEQUENCE LIKELIHOOD RATING (WITHOUT DESIGN HAZARD RISK MITIGATION) STANDARDS? Damage to carriageway Moderate structures due to Medium Significant Yes adverse increased runoff Medium. Areas of the Scheme are located within Flood Zone 2 Soil saturation and water Minor adverse or 3 although risk could change Not Significant N/A damage over time due to climate change. Undercutting and scour Extreme rainfall particularly in relation to Moderate Medium Significant Yes the bridge over the adverse Cuckmere River Moderate Increased slope instability Medium Significant Yes adverse Structural stability Damage to unpaved Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A shoulders Erosion, silting and Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A sedimentation Loss of vegetation leading Drought Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A to greater erosion risk Cracking and expansion Moderate particularly impacting Medium Significant Yes adverse bridge structures Extreme Overheating of equipment, temperature including during Moderate Medium Significant Yes construction and operation adverse (e.g. electronic signage) Increased risk of erosion Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A

364 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Risk of damage to structures and Moderate Medium Significant Yes foundations, including adverse Gales and extreme flood scour and/or runoff wind events Damage to signage and Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A site structures Erosion of banks and Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A exposed surfaces Shrinking and cracking of Moderate Medium Significant Yes soils leading to subsidence adverse Soil softening and erosion leading to collapse and Moderate Medium Significant Yes settlement of soil adverse Soil moisture structures Moderate Increased slope instability Medium Significant Yes adverse Moderate Soil saturation Medium Significant Yes adverse Subsidence impacting road, cycleway and Moderate Medium Significant Yes footpath and bridges over adverse the Cuckmere River Failure of earthworks due Moderate Medium Significant Yes Stability to desiccation adverse Shrinking and cracking of Moderate Medium Significant Yes soils adverse Greater rates of soil Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A erosion Drying out of construction Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A materials and cracking Drought Structural Deformation of rigid Moderate Low Not Significant N/A robustness structures adverse Extreme Risks to stored equipment, Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A temperature including waste

365 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Damage and disruption Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A (e.g. fires) Drains and culverts Minor adverse High Significant Yes becoming overwhelmed Blockages of drainage Minor adverse High Significant Yes assets Extreme rainfall Greater mobilisation of pollutants in soil/ground Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A causing premature deterioration of materials Damage and disruption Drought Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A (fires) Damage to external weather proofing and Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A Extreme detailing at ground level temperature Ancillary Higher day and night-time Minor adverse High Significant Yes equipment temperatures Damage from high winds Gales and extreme and rain-infiltration into Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A wind events surfaces and materials Shrinking and cracking of Moderate Medium Significant Yes soils leading to subsidence adverse Soil softening and erosion Soil moisture leading to collapse and Moderate Medium Significant Yes settlement of soil adverse structures Increased rate of deterioration, potentially Stability Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A leading to need for early replacement Softening of subsurface materials below the road, Moderate Material durability Extreme rainfall Medium Significant Yes cycle and footway and adverse bridge structures

366 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Enhanced reactions when cement stabilising and Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A Drought and drying of concrete prolonged dry spells, Increased rate of including drier deterioration of materials, Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A summers potentially leading to need for early replacement Shrinking and cracking Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A Enhanced reactions when Extreme cement is stabilising and Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A temperatures, drying of concrete including hotter UV degradation of summers exposed equipment e.g. Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A cabling Increased rate of Gales and extreme deterioration of materials, Moderate Medium Significant Yes wind events potentially leading to early adverse replacement Greater mobilisation of Soil moisture pollutants in the Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A soil/ground Increased rate of deterioration of materials, Stability Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A potentially leading to need for early replacement Water accumulation Moderate causing disruption to Medium Significant Yes adverse construction and operation Stopping of services due Moderate Site contents and Medium Significant Yes business Extreme rainfall to asset failure adverse continuity Scour of embankments Moderate leading to increased Medium Significant Yes adverse maintenance Traffic disruption and Moderate Medium Significant Yes

367 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

congestion adverse Excessive vegetation Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A growth Reduced opportunities for Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A maintenance Reduced working periods Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A and delays Extreme Reduced opportunities for Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A temperature maintenance Moderate Operational disruption Medium Significant Yes adverse Increased maintenance Moderate Soil moisture costs and risks to Low Not Significant N/A adverse operation Increased maintenance Moderate Stability costs and risks to Low Not Significant N/A adverse operation Difficult working conditions Minor adverse High Significant Yes Movement of debris Moderate causing slip, trip and fall Medium Significant Yes Extreme rainfall adverse hazards Health and safety risks to Moderate Medium Significant Yes road users adverse

H&S of users Drought, including More dust Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A (operators and long periods of dry Evaporation of Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A customers) weather construction water Difficult working conditions Minor adverse High Significant Yes Moderate Increased fire risk Medium Significant Yes Extreme adverse temperature Hot surfaces may cause Minor Medium Not Significant N/A injury Health and safety risks to Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A

368 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

road users Difficult working conditions Minor adverse High Significant Yes Gales and extreme Health and safety risks to Moderate wind events road users particularly high Medium Significant Yes adverse sided vehicles) Soil moisture Difficult working conditions Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A Movement of debris Stability causing slip, trip and fall Minor adverse Medium Not Significant N/A hazards

369 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

14.13.9 Risks which have been assessed as not significant are not considered further in this assessment although ongoing maintenance of the asset by the Applicant in its capacity as highways authority for the scheme will be upheld to ensure that these risks are addressed in the future if their risk status changes and/or new information might affect their risk status.

STEP 4: MITIGATION MEASURES

14.13.10 This section outlines the adaptation measures that have been integrated into the Scheme in response to significant risks.

14.13.11 In consultation with the design and project teams, a range of mitigation options have been identified to reduce the vulnerability of the scheme to the identified climate and weather-related risks (Table 14.18). Further adaptation mitigation measures are likely to be integrated into the detailed design at PCF Stage 5 – Construction Preparation.

Table 14.19 - Significant Risks and Planned Mitigation Measures for the Scheme

RISK MITIGATION MEASURES The drainage design includes Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) to reduce surface water flooding and a climate change factor of 40% on rainfall. The increase in impermeable surface area has been taken into account in the Increased drainage design. The Shared Use Path however is likely to be managed precipitation separately to the existing carriageway. The length of culverts (where appropriate) have been increased on the Shared Use Path and boardwalks have been used where possible. A dust management plan will be developed. Drought Water efficiency measures will be implemented at PCF Stage 5. Drought resistant vegetation will be considered at PCF Stage 5. Undercutting The ground covering/ material will be designed at PCF Stage 5, taking into and scour account outputs from flood modelling. Current standards for geotechnical design will be utilised when designing slopes, Soil moisture with appropriate margins incorporated to account for changes in moisture and and stability stability.

Extreme All equipment will be to current design standards as used throughout the Highways temperatures England network. (overheating The Polegate Railway Bridge widening aspect has been designed to Eurocodes equipment, and DMRB which include measures for wind and thermal action. These cover fires): extreme events commensurate with a 120 year design life. The new cycle / foot bridge over the River Cuckmere and Polegate Railway Bridge widening aspects have been designed to Eurocodes and DMRB which include Gales and measures for wind and thermal action. These cover extreme events extreme wind commensurate with a 120 year design life. events Aspects such as signage, lighting, CCTV masts will all be designed for wind loading, anticipated to account for high wind forces, This will be further considered during detailed design (PCF Stage 5).

370 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

The scheme has been designed to minimise maintenance requirements, for Delays and example the sealed surface of the Shared Use Path will last longer than gravel or reduced other similar material. maintenance All equipment will be to current design standards as used throughout the Highways opportunities England network. impacting business Further operational and maintenance business continuity aspects will be reviewed continuity and adopted by A1+ (Highways England Maintenance Contractor for the southeast). Extreme weather events Operational and maintenance health and safety aspects will be reviewed and impacting on adapted by A1+ (Highways England Maintenance Contractor for the south-east). health and safety

14.13.12 Further mitigation and resilience to climate and weather-related risks will be considered periodically through maintenance regimes. For example, regular inspections (at minimum two and six yearly intervals) will be undertaken for structures to mitigate the impacts of excessive vegetation growth and deterioration of materials. Inspections will also occur following an extreme weather event to monitor any damage and implement appropriate mitigation as necessary.

14.13.13 A list of weather related incidents (for example, road surface deformations, snow and ice) would be maintained to assist in identifying thresholds which, when exceeded, require maintenance.

RESIDUAL EFFECTS

14.13.14 Where a significant pre-mitigation climate risk was found (Table 14.18), the level of resilience has been determined based on the integration of the above planned mitigation measures (presented in Table 14.19). Where it has been indicated by the design team that mitigation measures will be considered further at a later stage of the design process, the resilience ratings in Table 14.20 below are dependent on that further consideration and incorporation of mitigation taking place.

14.13.15 The conclusions of this analysis or resilience and residual significance are presented in Table 14.20.

Table 14.20 - Climate resilience rating following integration of the proposed mitigation measures RESILIENCE RESIDUAL COMPONENT IMPACT RISK RATING EFFECT Damage to carriageway Not structures due to increased High Significant runoff. Extreme Undercutting and scour Structural rainfall particularly in relation to the Not Stability Moderate bridge over the Cuckmere Significant River. Loss of vegetation leading Not Drought High to greater erosion risk. Significant

371 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Overheating of equipment, including during Extreme Not construction and operation High temperature Significant (such as electronic signage) Risk of damage to structures and foundations, Not Moderate Gales and including flood scour and/or Significant extreme wind runoff. events Damage to signage and Not High site structures. Significant Shrinking and cracking of Not Moderate soils leading to subsidence. Significant Soil softening and erosion Not leading to collapse and Significant Moderate settlement of soil Soil moisture structures. Increased slope instability. Not Moderate Significant Soil saturation. Not Moderate Significant Subsidence impacting Not road, cycleway and Significant Moderate footpath and bridges over the Cuckmere River. Stability Failure of earthworks due Not Moderate to desiccation. Significant Shrinking and cracking of Not Moderate soils. Significant Structural Extreme Damage and disruption Not High robustness temperature (e.g. fires). Significant Damage and disruption Not Drought High (fires). Significant Extreme Higher day and night-time Not High temperature temperatures. Significant Shrinking and cracking of Not Moderate soils leading to subsidence. Significant Ancillary Soil softening and erosion Not equipment Soil moisture leading to collapse and Significant Moderate settlement of soil structures. Increased rate of Not deterioration, potentially Significant Stability Moderate leading to need for early replacement. Increased rate of Gales and Material deterioration of materials, Not extreme wind High durability potentially leading to early Significant events replacement.

372 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Water accumulation Not causing disruption to High Significant construction and operation. Stopping of services due to Not High asset failure. Significant Scour of embankments Not Extreme leading to increased Moderate Significant rainfall maintenance. Traffic disruption and Not High Site contents congestion. Significant and business Excessive vegetation Not continuity High growth. Significant Reduced opportunities for Not High maintenance. Significant Reduced working periods Not High and delays. Significant Extreme Reduced opportunities for Not High temperature maintenance. Significant Operational disruption. Not High Significant Difficult working conditions. Not High Significant Movement of debris Not Extreme causing slip, trip and fall Moderate Significant rainfall hazards. Health and safety risks to Not Moderate road users. Significant Drought, including long Not More dust. High periods of dry Significant weather Difficult working conditions. Not H&S of users High Significant (operators and Increased fire risk. Not High customers) Significant Extreme Hot surfaces may cause Not High temperature injury. Significant Failure of temperature Not High controls. Significant Health and safety risks to Not High road users. Significant Difficult working conditions. Not High Gales and Significant extreme wind Health and safety risks to Not events road users particularly high High Significant sided vehicles).

373 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

14.13.16 As presented in Table 14.20, many climate risks have been assessed to have a high resilience rating when taking account of the planned mitigation measures described in Table 14.19 - Significant Risks and Planned Mitigation Measures for the Scheme (i.e. where it is considered that there is a strong degree of climate resilience) and are deemed to be not significant.

14.13.17 The application of the mitigation measures will be closely monitored as the detailed design progresses and as operational and maintenance management plans are developed.

14.13.18 Given the uncertainties inherent in climate science and the associated projections used in this assessment, it is recommended that the vulnerabilities and risks identified in this assessment are monitored throughout the design, construction and operational phases of the scheme. The monitoring would be undertaken to assess the appropriateness of the mitigation measures, and be revisited when new or updated information becomes available.

14.14 CLIMATE CHAPTER SUMMARY

14.14.1 The GHG assessment has concluded that the scheme will have an effect of neutral significance on GHG emissions during construction and operational phases. Table 14.10 provides a summary of the effects.

14.14.2 The climate resilience assessment has concluded that, due to the planned mitigation measures, the climate risks have a high resilience rating and are deemed to be not significant. Table 14.20 provides a summary of the climate resilience rating and residual effect.

374 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

15 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 15.1 CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

15.1.1 The cumulative effects assessment follows the guidance contained in DMRB Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5 and considers the nature of the affected receptor and the significance of the impact.

15.1.2 The DMRB requires study areas to be defined which reflect the scheme and the surrounding environment over which significant effects can reasonably be thought to have the potential to occur both from that scheme and in combination with other schemes.

15.1.3 The study area for the assessment of cumulative and combined effects has been defined using professional judgement and following guidance outlined within the DMRB. Study areas for each technical specialist are identified within the relevant topic chapters of this EAR.

COMBINED EFFECTS

15.1.4 The assessment methodology for combined effects involves the identification of impact interactions associated with the scheme upon individual environmental receptors. Professional judgement has been used to group receptors together into receptor groups. For example, ‘local residents’ include local road users, local pedestrians and those that interact with the scheme on a regular basis.

15.1.5 The potential combined effects on receptors and resources identified are outlined for both construction and operation. The significance of combined effects upon each environmental receptor or resource has been based upon professional judgement and the effect significance within the preceding EAR chapters and DMRB guidance.

15.1.6 The methodology for the assessment of combined effects follows DMRB Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5: Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects.

15.1.7 The significance criteria in DMRB Volume 11, Section 2 Part 5 Table 2.6 have been used to assess the potential combined effect on each receptor group.

15.1.8 Within the combine effects assessment, a consideration of climate change has been made. Mitigation set out in some of the technical chapters could be adversely impacted by climate change and so mitigation measures are set out within this chapter.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

15.1.9 Where other major development and construction projects are delivered at the same time and in proximity to the scheme, the potential for cumulative effects, both adverse and beneficial exists. It is possible that, when considered in isolation, the environmental effects of any single project upon any single receptor or resource may not be significant. However, if multiple projects effect the same receptor or resource, a significant effect may occur.

15.1.10 For the purposes of this cumulative effects chapter, ‘other development’ is defined as:

 ‘Reasonably foreseeable’ projects as described in Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5 of the DMRB including:

375 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

 Trunk road projects which have been confirmed (such as those that have gone through statutory processes) in proximity to the scheme.

 Development projects with valid planning permissions for which statutory EIA is a requirement or a non-statutory EIA has been undertaken.

15.2 ASSESSMENT OF COMBINED EFFECTS

15.2.1 A review of the EAR was undertaken and a comparison between environmental topics was made to identify common resources and receptors. The overall potential residual effects on common receptors and resources are outlined in Table 15.1 (construction) and Table 15.2 (operation).

15.2.2 Where an interaction between environmental topics has been identified, the effect and level of significance is described in Table 15.3 (construction) and Table 15.4 (operation). An overall combined effect is determined for each receptor or resource based on professional judgement.

376 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

TABLE 15.1 POTENTIAL EFFECT INTERACTION DURING CONSTRUCTION AIR QUALITY CULTURALHERITAGE VISUAL LANDSCAPEAND B GEOLOGYAND SOILS MATERIALS NOISEAND VIBRATION HEALTH POPULATIONAND ENVIRONMENT THEWATER ROADDRAINAGE AND IODIVERSITY

RECEPTOR/

RESOURCE

Local Residents ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Local Ecology ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Surface water bodies ✓ ✓ ✓

Local heritage assets ✓ ✓ ✓ (above ground) Visitors/ users of the national park and public ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ footpaths Local businesses (including customers and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Potential for effect interactions to occur for receptor group? receptor for occur to interactions effect for Potential staff)

377 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

TABLE 15.2 POTENTIAL EFFECT INTERACTION DURING OPERATION AIR QUALITY CULTURALHERITAGE LANDSCAPEAND VISUAL BIODIVERSITY GEOLOGYAND SOILS MATERIALS NOISEAND VIBRATION POPULATIONAND HEALT WATERENV ROADDRAINAGE AND THE

IRONMENT RECEPTOR/ RESOURCE

Local Residents ✓  ✓  ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓

Local Ecology ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓  ✓

Surface water bodies ✓   ✓ ✓   ✓

Local heritage assets  ✓ ✓    ✓   (above ground) Visitors/ users of the national park and public ✓  ✓    ✓ ✓  footpaths Potential for effect interactions to occur for receptor group? receptor for occur to interactions effect for Potential Local businesses (including customers ✓      ✓  ✓ and staff)

378 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

TABLE 15.3 POTENTIAL COMBINED EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING MITIGATION Visitors/ users Local businesses Local heritage Surface water of the national (including TOPIC / RECEPTOR Local Residents Local Ecology assets (above bodies park and public customers and ground) footpaths staff)

AIR QUALITY Neutral Neutral N/A Neutral Neutral Neutral

CULTURAL HERITAGE N/A N/A N/A Slight adverse Slight N/A

N/A N/A Moderate LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Moderate adverse Neutral Moderate adverse adverse

BIODIVERSITY N/A Slight Neutral N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A Minor to moderate GEOLOGY AND SOILS Slight adverse

MATERIALS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

NOISE AND VIBRATION Slight adverse Neutral N/A Neutral Neutral Neutral

N/A N/A N/A Minor to moderate POPULATION AND HEALTH Minor adverse Minor adverse adverse

ROAD DRAINAGE AND THE N/A Neutral Neutral N/A Neutral N/A WATER ENVIRONMENT

379 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Minor adverse Minor adverse – Minor adverse– locally Minor adverse– Minor adverse – OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE Not Significant – locally locally significant significant locally significant locally significant significant

380 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Table 15.4 Potential combined effects during Operation following mitigation Visitors/ users Local businesses Local heritage Surface water of the national (including TOPIC / RECEPTOR Local Residents Local Ecology assets (above bodies park and public customers and ground) footpaths staff)

AIR QUALITY Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral

CULTURAL HERITAGE N/A N/A N/A Slight N/A N/A

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL Slight beneficial N/A N/A Slight Slight beneficial Slight beneficial

BIODIVERSITY N/A Slight N/A N/A Slight N/A

GEOLOGY AND SOILS Slight beneficial Slight beneficial Slight beneficial N/A Slight beneficial N/A

MATERIALS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

NOISE AND VIBRATION Neutral/ Slight Neutral N/A Neutral Neutral Neutral

POPULATION AND HEALTH Slight beneficial N/A N/A N/A Slight beneficial Slight beneficial

ROAD DRAINAGE AND THE N/A Neutral Minor N/A Neutral N/A WATER ENVIRONMENT

Minor Minor beneficial – Minor beneficial – Minor adverse– beneficial – Minor beneficial– OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE Not Significant locally significant locally significant locally significant locally locally significant significant

381 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

15.3 CONSIDERATION OF CLIMATE RESILIENCE

15.3.1 The receptors for the climate resilience assessment are the scheme and its users. The risks to the scheme during operation from higher winter rainfall and extreme rainfall as a result of climate change (as identified Chapter 14 - Climate) will exacerbate flood risk identified by the Flood Risk Assessment. However, the FRA takes account of climate change so this is not assessed further.

15.3.2 Higher summer temperatures and more extreme temperature events could affect people’s health and wellbeing during both construction (workforce) and operation (scheme users).

15.3.3 There is potential for mitigation measures identified by other disciplines to further mitigate risks associated with climate change. Examples include:

 Tree planting will increase shade, reducing the effects of high temperatures;  Using vegetation to stabilise soil and slopes will reduce the effects of changes in soil moisture; and  Habitat creation and areas of new landscaping has the potential to slow overland flows and reduce flood risk as a result of increased rainfall and extreme rainfall events

15.3.4 In order to maximise the potential of the above measures to mitigate risks from climate change, care should be taken when specifying species used in habitat creation and the landscape designs to ensure planting is resilient to drier conditions and drought.

IMPACT ON EFFECTS

Climate change has the potential to worsen the effect of the scheme as a result in a change in weather conditions. Table 15.5 considers how climate change may interact with the effects associated with the scheme.

TABLE 15.5 - IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON EFFECTS

EFFECT TYPE/ ELEMENT INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION OF THE SCHEME

Replacement habitat has been designed into the scheme. Climate change may result in Loss of habitat drought which could affect the success of new planting. Consideration of drought resistant (native) species in landscaping and new areas of habitat. New landscaping has been designed into the Landscape screening scheme. Climate change may result in drought which could affect the success of new planting.

Oil interceptors will be included in More intense rain events may increase run-off Drainage into the detailed drainage design to into the drainage system and in-turn into watercourses ensure contaminated run-off does surface water bodies not enter surface water bodies.

Planting creating a more Higher temperatures may lead to heatstroke comfortable environment. At Use of the Shared Use and heat stress resulting in uncomfortable detailed design stage suitable rest Path travelling conditions. areas should be considered along the Shared Use Path.

382 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

15.4 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

15.4.1 For the purposes of the cumulative effects assessment, the spatial extent for the review of planning applications was defined as the scheme footprint and a 500m study area for non-traffic related topics.

15.4.2 A review of the Lewes and Wealden planning registers were undertaken at the scoping stage. No local development projects (which were subject to a formal or non-statutory environmental impact assessment) were noted within the 500m of cumulative assessment study area. There are no Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) or trunk road schemes within the cumulative assessment study area or within the Affected Road Network (for traffic related topics).

15.4.3 The traffic related environmental topics (air quality and noise) utilised the regional traffic model in their assessments. This traffic model included ‘core growth’ which included a number of local plan related development sites. These schemes are not deemed suitable for non-traffic related topics as they are not regarded as ‘reasonably foreseeable’ and there is insufficient detail to allow for them to be accurately assessed.

15.4.4 There are in-combination effects anticipated with the scheme and other reasonably foreseeable schemes. The assessment of air quality (see Chapter 6: Air Quality) and noise (see Chapter 11: Noise and Vibration) include future growth within the future baseline scenarios and therefore indirectly assess ‘cumulative’ schemes as part of the standard assessment.

15.4.5 No cumulative effects are expected to arise between the scheme and ‘other developments’ as defined by DMRB

383 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

16 SUMMARY

AIR QUALITY

IMPACT TYPE MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT

TOPIC EFFECT RECEPTOR LONG TERM/ MEDIUM SHORT BENEFICIAL/ DIRECT/ MECHANISM/ SIGNIFICANCE TERM/ DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY SIGNIFICANT? ADVERSE INDIRECT TIMING LEVEL TEMPORARY /PERMANENT

Properties within 200m Implementation Dust & Short Construction AIR QUALITY buffer Adverse Direct of Industry Contractor Imperceptible No PM10 Term/Temporary Phase (CONSTRUCTION) Construction Best Practice works

Properties Road within 200m Emissions buffer Long Operational Highways AIR QUALITY Adverse Direct N/A Imperceptible No (OPERATION) (NO2 & Affected Term/Permanent Phase England PM10) Road Network

384 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

HERITAGE

IMPACT TYPE SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT MITIGATION ASSET IMPACT SENSITIVITY MEASURES MAGNITUDE OF LONG TERM/ ADVERSE/ SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANT? IMPACT TEMPORARY BENEFICIAL OF EFFECTS

Construction

Statutory designated assets

Change of setting Implementation of Moderate during measures outlined in Minor Temporary Adverse No /slight construction. the CEMP

SCHEDULED SITE OF DESERTED Construction MEDIEVAL resulting in High Measures as per SETTLEMENT damage to the correspondence with NORTH OF CHURCH asset and loss of Historic England Moderate FARM (DES8329); Minor Permanent Adverse No potential /slight archaeological Design has kept to the remains and road verge. earthworks

GRADE II Change of setting Implementation of Moderate REGISTERED PARK during High measures outlined in Minor Temporary Adverse No /slight AND GARDEN AT construction. the CEMP FIRLE (DES305).

385 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Change of setting Implementation of BERWICK VILLAGE Moderate during High measures outlined in Minor Temporary Adverse No CONSERVATION /slight AREA (DES9772), construction. the CEMP

Change of setting Implementation of SELMESTON Moderate during High measures outlined in Minor Temporary Adverse No CONSERVATION /slight AREA (DES9853); construction. the CEMP

Change of setting Implementation of WILMINGTON Moderate during High measures outlined in Minor Temporary Adverse No CONSERVATION /slight AREA (DES9886); construction. the CEMP

Grade II Listed Buildings

ALL LISTED Change of setting Implementation of BUILDINGS WITHIN during Medium measures outlined in Minor Temporary Adverse Slight No THE INNER STUDY construction. the CEMP AREA

Non-designated heritage assets

SITE OF ARLINGTON TO RIVER OUSE Partial loss and Programme of ROMANO-BRITISH disturbance to archaeological ROAD AT non-designated Medium investigations. Minor Permanent Adverse Slight No GREENSAND WAY asset and potential (DES10070, MES4753, loss to hitherto Implementation of DES9301); unknown buried measures outlined in

386 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

assets the CEMP Slight if SITE OF BERWICK Review of habitat planting Medium No MEDIEVAL VILLAGE creation areas and reduced within (DES8603); reduce of areas asset required

SITE OF ALCISTON MEDIEVAL VILLAGE Medium Slight No (DES9089);

SITE OF WILMINGTON Medium Slight No MEDIEVAL VILLAGE (MES21822)

SITE OF ROMANO- BRITISH SETTLEMENT AT Medium Slight No OLD LEYLANDS (DES9307);

SITE OF PREHISTORIC AND ROMANO-BRITISH SETTLEMENTS AT Medium Slight No DRUSILLAS (DES9308) AT THE COMPS

SITE OF WILMINGTON Medium Minor Permanent Adverse Slight No MEDIEVAL HAMLET (DES9203)

387 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Programme of archaeological investigations.

Compound to be designed in consultation with archaeologist. Temporary (if geo- membrane in SITE OF PEVENSEY Use of geo-membrane/ applied) / Minor (geo TO CUCKMERE Medium anti compaction Permanent (if Adverse Slight No membrane) /) ROMANO-BRITISH materials in area archaeological ROAD (DES9300); construction investigation is compound. undertaken)

Implementation of measures outlined in the CEMP

Review of habitat creation requirements.

Minor SITE OF FORMER BRICKFIELD Programme of Due to the extent of No (MES24667) archaeological the ground investigations. disturbance Low associated with Permanent Adverse Neutral/ Slight Implementation of Polegate Bypass, SITE OF POUND measures outlined in archaeological PLACE BURNT the CEMP remains are likely to No MOUND (MES7331), have been BERWICK. previously disturbed.

388 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Operation

Statutory designated assets

Sympathetic screening SCHEDULED SITE OF could reduce the DESERTED effects on setting, and where applicable, this MEDIEVAL High SETTLEMENT should complement the NORTH OF CHURCH local landscape FARM (DES8329); character, seasonal and diurnal changes.

Change in setting BERWICK VILLAGE due to operation of Negligible Permanent Adverse Slight No CONSERVATION the scheme High AREA (DES9772), Use of appropriate materials in keeping with the conservation SELMESTON area. CONSERVATION High AREA (DES9853); Appropriate screening within landscape WILMINGTON areas. CONSERVATION High AREA (DES9886);

389 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

LISTED BUILDINGS

Detail design to review requirements for new areas of habitat and reduce where possible. ALL LISTED BUILDINGS Change in WITHIN THE STUDY AREA setting due Medium Sympathetic screening could reduce the effects on Negligible Permanent Adverse Slight No (SEE CHAPTER 6) to operation setting, and where applicable, this should complement the local landscape character, seasonal and diurnal changes.

LANDSCAPE

IMPACT TYPE MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT

LONG TERM/ EFFECT RECEPTOR MEDIUM DIRECT/ MECHANISM/ BENEFICIAL/ SHORT TERM/ DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANT? INDIRECT TIMING ADVERSE TEMPORARY /PERMANENT

Construction Phase

CHANGE IN Protection Short term, Detailed design Environment teams LANDSCAPE LLCA1 Direct measures within Adverse Slight/Moderate No temporary and construction and contractors CHARACTER OF CEMP LLCA1

CHANGE IN Short term, LANDSCAPE LLCA2 Indirect None required N/A N/A Adverse Slight No CHARACTER OF temporary LLCA2

390 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

CHANGE IN Protection Short term, Detailed design Environment teams LANDSCAPE LLCA3 Direct measures within Adverse Slight No temporary and construction and contractors CHARACTER OF CEMP LLCA3

CHANGE IN Short term, LANDSCAPE LLCA4 Indirect None required N/A N/A Adverse Neutral/slight No CHARACTER OF temporary LLCA4

Visual CHANGE IN Protection receptors Short term, Detailed design Environment teams VISUAL Direct measures within Adverse Slight/moderate No within LLCA temporary and construction and contractors AMENITY CEMP WITHIN LLCA 1 1

Visual CHANGE IN Protection receptors Short term, Detailed design Environment teams VISUAL Direct measures within N/A Neutral No within LLCA temporary and construction and contractors AMENITY CEMP WITHIN LLCA 2 2

Visual CHANGE IN Protection receptors Short term, Detailed design Environment teams VISUAL Direct measures within Adverse Slight No within LLCA temporary and construction and contractors AMENITY CEMP WITHIN LLCA 3 3

391 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Operational Phase Year 1 Year 15

CHANGE IN Environment Long term, Landscape Detailed design LANDSCAPE LLCA1 Direct teams and Adverse Slight/ Moderate Slight No permanent design and construction CHARACTER OF contractors LLCA1

CHANGE IN Long term, None LANDSCAPE LLCA2 Indirect N/A N/A N/A Neutral Neutral No CHARACTER OF permanent required LLCA2

CHANGE IN Environment Neutral/ slight/ Neutral/ Long term, Landscape Detailed design LANDSCAPE LLCA3 Direct teams and Adverse Moderate Sight No permanent design and construction CHARACTER OF contractors Adverse Beneficial LLCA3

CHANGE IN Long term, None LANDSCAPE LLCA4 Indirect N/A N/A N/A Neutral Neutral No CHARACTER OF permanent required LLCA4

Visual Environment CHANGE IN VISUAL Long term, Landscape Detailed design receptors Direct teams and Beneficial Slight/ moderate Slight No AMENITY WITHIN LLCA permanent design and construction 1 within LLCA 1 contractors

Visual CHANGE IN VISUAL Long term, None receptors Direct N/A N/A N/A Neutral/ slight Neutral No AMENITY WITHIN LLCA permanent required 2 within LLCA 2

392 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Visual Environment CHANGE IN VISUAL Long term, Landscape Detailed design Neutral/ receptors Direct teams and N/A Slight/ moderate No AMENITY WITHIN LLCA permanent design and construction Slight 3 within LLCA 3 contractors

Visual CHANGE IN VISUAL Long term, None receptors Direct N/A N/A N/A Neutral Neutral No AMENITY WITHIN LLCA permanent required 4 within LLCA 4

BIODIVERSITY

TYPE OF EFFECT MITIGATION EFFECT

LONG TERM/ MEDIUM EFFECT RECEPTOR BENEFICIAL/ DIRECT/ SHORT MECHANISM/ BENEFICIAL/ DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANT? ADVERSE INDIRECT TERM/ TIMING ADVERSE TEMPORARY /PERMANENT

Construction Phase

Medium Protection Detailed Environment Ancient HABITAT Adverse Indirect term, measures design and teams and N/A Neutral No Woodland DEGRADATION temporary within CEMP construction. contractors

Medium Protection Detailed Environment Cuckmere HABITAT Adverse Indirect term, measures design and teams and N/A Neutral No River DEGRADATION temporary within CEMP construction. contractors

393 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Medium Protection Detailed Environment HABITAT Adverse Indirect term, measures design and teams and No DEGRADATION temporary within CEMP construction. contractors

Other habitat Landscape of ecological Detailed Beneficial Slight Detailed design team in importance design, landscape consultation with Short term, construction HABITAT LOSS Adverse Direct creation and ecologist, No temporary and AND CREATION management contractors, operational plans Highways phases England

Detailed Detailed mitigation Ecologist in design, strategy, consultation with construction LOSS OF Notable flora Adverse Direct Permanent habitat landscape N/A Neutral No and INDIVIDUALS creation and design team, operational management contractors. phases plans

HABITAT Medium Protection Detailed Environment DEGRADATION Adverse Indirect term, measures design and teams and No temporary within CEMP construction. contractors

HABITAT LOSS Landscape Invertebrates Detailed Beneficial Slight AND CREATION Detailed design team in design, landscape consultation with Short term, construction Adverse Direct creation and ecologist, No temporary and management contractors, operational plans Highways phases England

394 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

DISTURBANCE Adverse Direct Avoidance of Short term, migration Construction Contractors No temporary season phase disturbance Fish N/A Neutral

HABITAT Adverse Indirect Medium Protection Detailed Environment DEGRADATION term, measures design and teams and No temporary within CEMP construction. contractors

Landscape Detailed Detailed design team in design, landscape consultation with Short term, construction HABITAT LOSS Adverse Direct creation and ecologist, No temporary and AND CREATION management contractors, operational plans Highways phases England Great crested Beneficial Slight newts Medium Protection Detailed Environment HABITAT Adverse Indirect term, measures design and teams and No DEGRADATION temporary within CEMP construction. contractors

Detailed Detailed Ecologist and Adverse Direct Permanent mitigation design and No MORTALITY contractors strategy construction.

395 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Reptiles Beneficial Slight Medium Protection Detailed Environment HABITAT Adverse Indirect term, measures design and teams and No DEGRADATION temporary within CEMP construction. contractors

Detailed Detailed Ecologist and Adverse Direct Permanent mitigation design and No MORTALITY contractors strategy construction.

Detailed Detailed Short term, Ecologist and Adverse Indirect mitigation design and No DISTURBANCE temporary contractors strategy construction.

Landscape Birds Detailed Beneficial Slight Detailed design team in design, landscape consultation with Short term, construction HABITAT LOSS Adverse Direct creation and ecologist, No temporary and AND CREATION management contractors, operational plans Highways phases England

396 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Detailed Detailed Ecologist and Adverse Direct Permanent mitigation design and No MORTALITY contractors strategy construction.

LOSS OF Detailed Detailed Ecologist, design ROOSTING Adverse Direct Permanent mitigation design and team and No OPPORTUNITIES strategy construction. contractors

Landscape Detailed Detailed design team in design, landscape consultation with Short term, construction HABITAT LOSS Adverse Direct creation and ecologist, No temporary and AND CREATION management contractors, operational plans Highways phases England Bats N/A Neutral Direct Detailed Detailed Ecologist and Adverse and Permanent mitigation design and No MORTALITY contractors indirect strategy construction.

Landscape Detailed Detailed design team in Permanent design, Direct landscape consultation with and short construction HABITAT Adverse and creation and ecologist, No term, and FRAGMENTATION indirect management contractors, temporary operational plans Highways phases England

397 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Detailed Detailed Short term, Ecologist and Adverse Indirect mitigation design and No DISTURBANCE temporary contractors strategy construction.

Landscape Detailed Detailed design team in design, landscape consultation with construction HABITAT Adverse Direct Permanent creation and ecologist, No and FRAGMENTATION management contractors, operational plans Highways phases England

Landscape Hazel Detailed Detailed design team in N/A Neutral dormouse design, landscape consultation with Short term, construction HABITAT LOSS Adverse Direct creation and ecologist, No Adverse and AND CREATION management contractors, operational plans Highways phases England

Detailed Detailed Ecologist and Adverse Direct Permanent mitigation design and No MORTALITY contractors strategy construction.

Detailed Detailed Short term, Ecologist and Water vole Adverse Indirect mitigation design and N/A Neutral No DISTURBANCE temporary contractors strategy construction.

398 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Protection Detailed Environment Ecologist and HABITAT Adverse Indirect measures design and teams and N/A Neutral No contractors DEGRADATION within CEMP construction. contractors

Detailed Detailed Short term, Ecologist and Adverse Indirect mitigation design and No DISTURBANCE temporary contractors strategy construction.

Protection Detailed Environment HABITAT Adverse Adverse Indirect measures design and teams and No DEGRADATION within CEMP construction. contractors Otter N/A Neutral Protection Detailed Environment HABITAT Adverse Direct Temporary measures design and teams and No FRAGMENTATION within CEMP construction. contractors

Detailed Detailed Ecologist and Adverse Direct Permanent mitigation design and No HABITAT LOSS contractors strategy construction.

DAMAGE OR Detailed Detailed Ecologist and DESTRUCTION Badger Adverse Direct Permanent mitigation design and contractors N/A Neutral No OF SETTS strategy construction.

399 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Detailed Detailed Ecologist and MORTALITY Adverse Direct Permanent mitigation design and contractors No strategy construction.

Operational Phase

River HABITAT Adverse Indirect Permanent N/A N/A Neutral No DEGRADATION Cuckmere

Lighting Sensitive Detailed designer in HABITAT Invertebrates Beneficial Indirect Permanent lighting N/A Neutral No design consultation with DEGRADATION design ecologist.

Sensitive Design team in Great Detailed Adverse Direct Permanent drainage consultation with N/A Neutral No MORTALITY crested newt design design ecologist.

400 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Lighting Sensitive Detailed designer in HABITAT Bats Adverse Indirect Permanent lighting N/A Neutral No design consultation with DEGRADATION design ecologist.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT MITIGATION RESIDUAL EFFECT

LONG TERM/ EFFECT RECEPTOR DIRECT/ MEDIUM SHORT BENEFICIA BENEFICIAL/ADVER SIGNIFICANC SIGNIFICANT INDIREC TERM/ DESCRIPTION MECHANISM/ TIMING RESPONSIBILITY L/ SE E ? T TEMPORARY ADVERSE /PERMANENT

Construction Phase

Long Constructio Adverse Direct term/Permane Beneficial Neutral No n workers nt Controls and measures within the CEMP Construction Contractor Controlled waters - Protocol for managing Detailed Lead Long Ground Principal ground contamination Design/Constructi Designer/Contract Adverse Direct term/Permane Neutral Neutral No disturbanc aquifer and on or nt Material Management e River Plan Cuckmere Construction Contractor Removal/decommissioni ng of below ground Construction Contractor tanks/disused services Controlled Long waters – Adverse Direct term/Permane Neutral Neutral No Secondary nt aquifer

401 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Controlled waters – ponds, Long drainage Adverse Direct term/Permane Neutral Neutral No ditches, nt minor watercours es

Long Off-site Adverse Direct term/Permane Neutral Neutral No users nt

Long Off-site Adverse Direct term/Permane Neutral Neutral No properties nt

Undergroun Long d services Appropriate protection Adverse Direct term/Permane Construction Contractor Beneifical Neutral No and of existing services nt concrete

Designated Long geological Adverse Direct term/Permane Scheme not considered to have an effect on the LGS/RIGS. Neutral No features nt (LGS/RIGS)

Constructio Long Controls and measures Construction Contractor Constructio n Adverse Direct term/Permane within the CEMP Beneficial Neutral No n workers operations nt Protocol for managing Detailed Lead Design/Constructi Designer/Contract

402 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

ground contamination on or Controlled Material Management waters - Construction Contractor Long Plan Principal Adverse Direct term/Permane Neutral Neutral No aquifer and nt Removal/decommissioni Construction Contractor River Cuckmere ng of below ground tanks/disused services

Controlled Long waters – Adverse Direct term/Permane Neutral Neutral No Secondary nt aquifer

Controlled waters – ponds, Long drainage Adverse Direct term/Permane Neutral Neutral No ditches, nt minor watercours es

Long Off-site Adverse Direct term/Permane Neutral Neutral No users nt

Long Off-site Adverse Direct term/Permane Neutral Neutral No properties nt

403 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Underground Long services and Adverse Direct Beneficial Neutral No term/Permanent concrete

A detailed ALC survey will be undertaken ahead of detailed design and the design amended accordingly to avoid BMV where possible. Pre- Detailed Long term/ BMV Adverse Direct Design and Lead Designer Adverse Slight No permanent The size of habitat replacement Detailed Design areas will be reviewed to ensure Land take minimal BMV land-take.

Soils being Long term Preparation and implementation returned to Adverse Direct of a soil handling and Construction Contractor Adverse Neutral No agricultural use Permanent management strategy.

Operational Phase

Site users – Long Inherent in road road/pavement Beneficial Direct Road construction Beneficial Neutral No term/Permanent design users Ground Lead contamination Designer/Contractor Site users – Road construction Inherent in road Long maintenance Adverse Direct design Beneficial Neutral No term/Permanent workers Remediation Remediation to

404 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Health and safety protocols be completed during construction works, if required

Controlled waters - Principal aquifer Long Beneficial Direct Beneficial Neutral No and River term/Permanent Cuckmere Inherent in road design Road construction/drainage Controlled waters – Long Beneficial Direct Remediation to Beneficial Neutral No Secondary aquifer term/Permanent be completed Remediation during construction Controlled waters – works, if required ponds, drainage Long Beneficial Direct Beneficial Neutral No ditches, minor term/Permanent watercourses

Inherent in road design Road construction Long Off-site users Beneficial Direct Remediation to Beneficial Neutral No term/Permanent be completed Remediation during construction works, if required

Road construction Long Remediation to Off-site properties Adverse Direct Beneficial Neutral No term/Permanent be completed Remediation during construction

405 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

works, if required

Remediation to Remediation be completed Underground during Long services and Beneficial Direct construction Beneficial Neutral No term/Permanent Appropriate design of buried concrete concrete and appropriate works, if required material for water supply pipes Design stage

MATERIALS

TYPE OF EFFECT MITIGATION EFFECT

EFFECT RECEPTOR LONG TERM/ MEDIUM BENEFICIAL/ DIRECT/ MECHANISM/ BENEFICIAL/ SIGNIFICANCE SHORT TERM/ DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY SIGNIFICANT? ADVERSE INDIRECT TIMING ADVERSE LEVEL TEMPORARY /PERMANENT

Construction

Detailed Designer, Long term Minimising Detailed MATERIALS Primary Lead Contractor Adverse Direct primary design and Adverse Slight No RESOURCE materials and Environmental resource use construction CONSUMPTION Permanent Consultant

406 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Long term Landfill Diversion of waste Detailed design and Detailed Designer, Lead Contractor DISPOSAL OF WASTE Adverse Direct Adverse Slight No capacity from landfill construction and Environmental Consultant TO LANDFILL Permanent

NOISE AND VIBRATION

TYPE OF EFFECT MITIGATION EFFECT

LONG TERM/ RECEPTO MEDIUM EFFECT SIGNIFICANC R DIRECT/ SHORT BENEFICIAL E (VERY MECHANISM RESPONSIBILIT BENEFICIAL SIGNIFICANC SIGNIFICANT INDIREC TERM/ DESCRIPTION / ADVERSE LARGE – / TIMING Y / ADVERSE E LEVEL ? T TEMPORARY NEUTRAL) /PERMANEN T

Construction

Residents Liaise with Constructio Short term at nearby N/A Direct N/A Environmenta n noise Temporary properties l Health Department at the relevant council Prepare and Construction Contractor N/A N/A No Residents implement a Constructio Short term at nearby N/A Direct N;/A CEMP. Adopt n vibration Temporary properties the best practice measures set- out in the Chapter and

407 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Best Practicable Means.

Level 1 mitigation is required for all construction activities. Level 2 mitigation is required (in addition to Level 1), where sensitive receptors are located within the SOAEL zone for the specific construction activity.

Noise (Operation)

Without mitigation, the predicted noise level changes due to the scheme do not constitute a significant effect in the context of Residents Road Traffic the EIA Directive. at nearby No noise In line with aims of NPSE, the three proposed noise barriers will form part of the scheme. properties Two residential dwellings are likely to be eligible for an offer of noise insulation, under the NIR.

408 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

POPULATION AND HEALTH

TYPE OF EFFECT MITIGATION EFFECTS

LONG TERM/ EFFECT RECEPTOR MEDIUM SHORT DIRECT/ MECHANISM/ BENEFICIAL/ TERM/ DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANT? INDIRECT TIMING ADVERSE TEMPORARY /PERMANENT

Construction Phase

Design will include measures to reduce fear of accidents

Motorised Short Term Provide adequate Contractor/ Lead DRIVER Direct Construction Adverse Slight No STRESS Travellers Temporary signage for Designer diversions.

Manage traffic with speed restrictions.

Open views of the surrounding Short Term countryside will be Motorised kept open where Slight to VIEWS FROM Direct Construction Contractor Adverse No Travellers feasible. Moderate THE ROAD Temporary No new structures will be introduced to further obstruct

409 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

views.

Existing PRoW will be retained. Walkers, Short Term cyclists and Direct Construction Contractor Adverse Slight No PROW Temporary closures horse riders Temporary and diversions will be kept to a minimum.

Existing footpaths Short Term will be retained, COMMUNITY Communities Direct existing crossings Construction Contractor Adverse Slight No SEVERANCE Temporary should be maintained.

Temporary and LAND TAKE/ Long Term permanent loss of Slight to land will be Moderate (Slight LOSS OF Construction Contractor Adverse No AMENITY AND Permanent (for minimised during the in regards to loss ACCESS land take) detailed design of BMV) stage.

Private and Community Direct Land Landscaping will be used to screen construction LOSS OF activities. AMENITY AND Temporary Construction Contractor Adverse Slight No ACCESS Access will be maintained during construction

410 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

Measures will be put Short Term in place to maximise Economy Direct the potential for the Construction Contractor Beneficial Slight No Temporary workforce to be locally sourced.

PEOPLE Ensure tourist Short Term organisations are Slight to Tourism Direct aware of the Construction Contractor Adverse No Moderate Temporary construction works, before they begin.

The use of best Short Term practice methods for Local HUMAN Direct construction will be Construction Contractor Adverse Neutral to Slight No population HEALTH Temporary used to minimise impacts on residents.

Operational Phase

Motorised DRIVER - No change N/A N/A N/A Neutral No STRESS Travellers

Walkers, Long term/ Yes - cyclists and N/A N/A N/A Beneficial Moderate PROW permanent beneficial horse riders Direct

Long term/ COMMUNITY Communities Direct N/A N/A N/A Beneficial Slight No SEVERANCE permanent

411 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

LAND TAKE Community Long term/ Yes - Direct N/A N/A N/A Beneficial Moderate AND Land permanent beneficial SEVERANCE

Medium term/ Economy Direct N/A N/A N/A N/A Neutral No permanent

PEOPLE Long term/ Yes – Tourism Direct N/A N/A N/A Beneficial Moderate permanent beneficial

Local Long HUMAN Direct N/A N/A N/A Beneficial Slight No HEALTH population term/permanent

ROAD DRAINAGE AND THE WATER ENVIRONMENT

TYPE EFFECT MITIGATION EFFECT

LONG TERM/ MEDIUM EFFECT RECEPTOR SIGNIFICANCE DIRECT/ SHORT MECHANISM/ BENEFICIAL/ (VERY LARGE DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANT? INDIRECT TERM/ TIMING ADVERSE – NEUTRAL) TEMPORARY /PERMANENT

Construction Phase

INCREASED River The provision Pre- SEDIMENT construction Cuckmere, Direct Temporary Neutral of, and Contractors N/A Neutral No LOADING, the Langley adherence to, and RELEASE OF Sewer and the measures Construction HYDROCARBONS ordinary outlined in the

412 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

AND RELEASE OF watercourses CEMP and HAZARDOUS associated SUBSTANCES pollution control documents

Dependent on WORKS TAKING local conditions; Cuckmere PLACE WITHIN however, the River and Pre- FLUVIAL implementation Langley construction FLOODPLAINS Direct Temporary Neutral of the CEMP Contractors N/A Neutral No Sewer, and AND AREAS AT and an ordinary Construction RISK OF appropriate watercourses SURFACE WATER flood response FLOODING strategy

Ground permeability improvement Pre- Detailed Superficial and dewatering construction GROUNDWATER Direct Long Term Minor designer and N/A Neutral No Aquifers if required and FLOODING Contractor following Construction ground investigations.

Operational Phase

Cuckmere Surface water RISKS TO WATER River, drainage Highways QUALITY OF ordinary system that will England NEARBY watercourses Direct Long term Neutral include Operation appointed N/A Neutral No WATERCOURSES and appropriate maintenance AS A RESULT OF groundwater pollution control team THE SCHEME that may measures. receive the

413 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

discharge

Floodplain LOSS OF FLUVIAL associated Flood FLOODPLAIN with the compensation Detailed Detailed design THEREFORE Cuckmere Direct Long term Neutral N/A Neutral No proposed to Design lead INCREASING THE River and account for loss RISK OF FLUVIAL Langley FLOODING Sewer

Provision of natural gravel bed of proposed culverts and REMOVAL OF Maintaining Ordinary reintroducing Detailed design ECOLOGICAL Direct Long term Neutral habitat N/A Neutral No watercourses connectivity to lead HABITAT AND connectivity. CONNECTIVITY ordinary watercourses where culverts are proposed to be removed

Ground permeability improvement Pre- Superficial and dewatering construction Detailed Design/ GROUNDWATER Direct Long Term Minor N/A Neutral No FLOODING Aquifers if required and Contractor following Construction ground investigations

414 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

CLIMATE

EFFECT TYPE MITIGATION EFFECT

LONG TERM/ MEDIUM TOPIC EFFECT RECEPTOR BENEFICIAL/ DIRECT/ SHORT MECHANISM/ BENEFICIAL/ SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY SIGNIFICANT? ADVERSE INDIRECT TERM/ TIMING ADVERSE LEVEL TEMPORARY /PERMANENT

Construction GHG Design emissions optimisation to result in the minimise same global material effects usage, wherever recover site and arisings, Increase in whenever minimise GHG they occur waste emissions and, generation from therefore, Maximise During manufacture the Long term efficient Designer and Adverse Direct Design and Adverse Neutral No CLIMATE and supply of sensitivity of Permanent construction Contractor construction materials different and and human and transportation construction natural methods activities receptors is Specifying not materials and considered products with reduced embodied GHG Selection of material

415 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

suppliers and construction contractors committed to reducing GHG Use of efficient construction plant and equipment.

Operation

GHG emissions result in the same global effects Design wherever optimisation to Change and maximise GHG whenever operational emissions they occur efficiency; from end- Long term During and, Adverse Direct Focus design Designer Adverse Neutral No CLIMATE user Permanent operation therefore, on reduction emissions the of emissions (regional sensitivity of from end-user traffic flows) different vehicle human and movements. natural receptors is not considered

416 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

GLOSSARY OF TERMS/ ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ALC Agricultural Land Classification AM Ancient Monuments AMAAA Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act ANA Archaeological Notification Areas AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty APIS Air Pollution Information System AQAP Air Quality Action Plan AQMA Air Quality Management Area ARN Affected Road Network BGL Below Ground Level BGS British Geological Survey BPM Best Practicable Means BRE Building Research Establishment CCG Clinical Commissioning Group CCS Countryside Stewardship Scheme CDE Construction, Demolition and Excavation CDM Construction (Design and Management) Regulations CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management CIfA Chartered Institute for Archaeologists CL:AIRE Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments CoPA Control of Pollution Act COPD Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease CRoW Countryside and Rights of Way CRTN Calculation of Road Traffic Noise Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DfT Department for Transport DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges EA Environment Agency EAR Environmental Assessment Report EIA Environmental Impact Assessment END Environmental Noise Directive EoL East of Lewes EPA Environmental Protection Act ESCC LTP2 East Sussex County Council Local Transport Plan FRA Flood Risk Assessment GCN Great Crested Newts GGBS Granulated Blast Furnace Slag GHG Greenhouse Gas GLVIA Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

417 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

GQRA Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment HDV Heavy Duty Vehicles HPI Habitats of Principle Importance HR Hour HSI Habitat Suitability Index IAN Interim Advice Note IEF Important Ecological Features IMD Indices of Multiple Deprivation KM Kilometres KTCO2e Thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent LDC Lewes District Council LED Light Emitting Diode LLCA Local Landscape Character Assessment LNR Local Nature Reserve LNS Low Noise Surface LOAEL Lowest Observed Effect Level LSOA Lower Layer Super Output Areas LULUCF Land use, land use change and forestry LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment LWS Local Wildlife Site MMP Materials Management Plan MT Motorised Travellers NCA National Character Area NERC Natural Environment and Rural Communities NIA Noise Important Area NIR Noise Insulation Regulations NMU Non-Motorised User NN NPS National Policy Statement for National Networks NNR National Nature Reserve

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOEL No Observed Effect Level NP National Parks NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPSE Noise Policy Statement for England ONS Office for National Statistics OS Ordnance Survey PCF Policy Control Framework PCM Pollution Climate Mapping Pre Desk-Study Assessment PDSA

PFA Pulverised Fuel Ash PNL Prevailing Noise Level PPG Planning Practice Guidance PPV Peak Particle Velocity

418 A27 East of Lewes Improvements PCF Stage 3 – Environmental Assessment Report

PRA Preferred Route Announcement PRF Potential Roosting Feature PRoW Public Rights of Way PSSR Preliminary Sources Study Report RIS Road Investment Strategy RNL Relevant Noise Level SAC Special Area of Conservation SDNP South Downs National Park SDNPA South Downs National Park Authority SGR Stage Gate Review SOAEL Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level SoI Statement of Intent SPA Special Areas of Protection Species of Principal Importance, as identified under the Natural Environment and Rural SPI Communities Act (2006) SPZ Source Protection Zone

SRN Strategic Road Network SRN Strategic Road Network SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SWMP Site Waste Management Plan TMP Traffic Management Plan UKCP18 UK Climate Projections 2018 UXO Unexploded ordnance

VED Visual Effects Drawings WDC Wealden District Council WFD Water Framework Directive WRAP Waste & Resources Action Programme ZVI Zone of Visual Influence

419