M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway

Home , Smart motorway

M4 junctions 3 to 12 smart motorway

Health Impact Assessment

Document No: 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

M4 junctions 3 to 12 smart motorway

Health Impact Assessment

Document No: 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116 Revision / Status: 2F

October 2015

REVISION SCHEDULE

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

September Caroline Soubry- 0 Initial Draft Sarah Tooby Steve Finnie 2015 Smith

September Caroline Soubry- 1R For client review Alison Powell Steve Finnie 2015 Smith

October Addressing client 2F Alison Powell David Hoare Steve Finnie 2015 comments

Status Code and Description

I Information D Draft

R Review and Comment A Submitted for Approval

F Final C For Construction

Highways England URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Ltd The Cube Royal Court 199 Wharfside Street Basil Close Birmingham Chesterfield West Midlands Derbyshire B1 1RN S41 7SL

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Health Impact Assessment (“HIA”) considers the potential effects on human health of the proposed M4 junctions 3 to 12 smart motorway scheme (the “Scheme”). The assessment has comprised a desktop exercise, utilising information relating to the effects on human health from the various topic assessments within the Environmental Statement (“ES”) and other reports within the application for a Development Consent Order for the Scheme.

The HIA follows published methodologies and sets out data relating to the community profile of the area of the Scheme, along with the identification of priority groups for consideration. An assessment framework of relevance has been developed, which comprises the following appraisal questions of relevance. Relevance was determined following an analysis of the research available on the linkages between transport initiatives and human health.

The assessment criteria covered nine topic areas:

a) Access to social infrastructure; b) Recreation, green space and light pollution; c) Active travel; d) Air quality; e) Noise and vibration; f) Soil and water pollution; g) Community safety and driver stress; h) Access to work and training; and i) Minimising the use of resources.

Overall, the assessment of effects on human health indicates that the Scheme would have beneficial effects during operation. During construction, minor positive effects may be experienced for health determinants relating to: access to work and training; and minimising the use of resources. The Scheme provides an opportunity to develop good practice in terms of use of a proportion of the workforce from local communities, development of skills and training programmes, and apprenticeship schemes, which could have positive effects on health. The Scheme supports the delivery of core land-use planning principles, by providing improved infrastructure to support economic growth whilst conserving the natural environment to a greater extent than a traditional motorway widening scheme. This is because the use of land

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

for the Scheme is largely within the existing motorway corridor and involves the use of previously developed land (the motorway and its associated verges and embankments).

Health determinants that are predicted to experience negative changes during the construction phase of the Scheme relate to access to social infrastructure; recreation, green space and light pollution; active travel; air quality; noise and vibration; soil and water pollution; and community safety and stress.

During operation of the Scheme, the majority of the predicted impacts on health during the operation of the Scheme are positive. Positive effects on health are predicted against determinants relating to: access to social infrastructure; active travel; noise and vibration; community safety and stress; access to work and training; and minimising the use of resources. The operation of the Scheme is anticipated to relieve congestion and smooth the flow of traffic along the M4, which will result in improvements to the road network relied upon by local businesses and residents. In addition, “low noise” asphalt surfacing will be used to minimise noise effects to adjacent properties and in-vehicle noise levels, such that the Scheme is expected to result in an overall reduction in noise levels. An important objective of the Scheme is also to continue to deliver a high level of safety performance of the network using smart motorway techniques. The Hazard Log report (Annex E of the Engineering and Design Report, Application Document Reference 7-4) states that “Calculations show that the total score after implementation of the Scheme represents approximately a reduction of risk of 18% when compared with the safety baseline”. Each of these factors is also considered as being able to reduce driver stress.

Minor negative effects are predicted against health determinants relating to air quality and recreation, green space and light pollution. A small number of people are predicted to experience detrimental air quality effects in the Opening Year of the Scheme (2022). There will also be some loss of amenity through land-take, although this effect has been minimised as much as possible through the design of the Scheme.

The mitigation measures described in the relevant ES Chapters, if properly applied and monitored, are likely to ensure that the majority of negative health and wellbeing impacts, particularly during the construction phase, are minimised. The HIA strongly supports the adoption of the mitigation measures set out in the ES.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

CONTENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 8

1.1 OVERVIEW 8 1.2 DEFINITION OF HEALTH 9 1.3 HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 10 1.4 SCREENING AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 11 1.5 GUIDANCE 12 1.6 METHODOLOGY 13 1.7 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT 14 1.8 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT 15 2 CONTEXT ...... 17

2.1 SCHEME OVERVIEW 17 2.2 POLICY FRAMEWORK 21 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER LAND ...... 24

3.2 SCHEME LOCATION 24 3.3 OTHER LAND AND SURROUNDINGS 24 3.4 EXISTING LAND USES 25 3.5 EXISTING CHARACTER 25 4 COMMUNITY PROFILE ...... 27

4.1 BACKGROUND AND APPROACH 27 4.2 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC 27 4.3 HEALTH PROFILES 35 4.4 LOCAL AMENITIES 35 4.5 ACTIVE TRAVEL, RECREATION AND GREEN SPACE 43 4.6 RISK OF INJURIES AND DEATHS AND DRIVER STRESS 50 4.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 54 4.8 AIR QUALITY 56 4.9 SOIL AND WATER POLLUTION 59 5 APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT: HEALTH DETERMINANTS, PATHWAYS AND OUTCOMES ...... 62

5.1 LINKS BETWEEN TRANSPORT AND HEALTH OF RELEVANCE TO THE STUDY AREA 62 6 VULNERABLE OR PRIORITY GROUPS ...... 71

7 ASSESSMENT SCOPE AND FRAMEWORK ...... 74

8 ASSESSMENT ...... 82

9 SUMMARY ...... 100

9.2 HEALTH IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION 100

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

III

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

9.3 HEALTH IMPACTS FROM OPERATION 103 10 REFERENCES ...... 105

10.1 FOOTNOTES 107

ANNEXES: ANNEX A: CONSULTATION RESPONSES RELATING TO HEALTH

ANNEX B: HEALTH PROFILES

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

LIST OF TABLE 1: HIA METHODOLOGY ...... 13 TABLES: TABLE 2: POPULATION DATA ...... 28

TABLE 3: AGE BREAKDOWN ...... 29

TABLE 4: ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ...... 30

TABLE 5: PERCENTAGES OF WORKLESS PEOPLE ...... 31

TABLE 6: CAR AND VAN OWNERSHIP (CENSUS DATA FROM ONS, 2011) ...... 32

TABLE 7: HOUSEHOLD DEPRIVATION ...... 33

TABLE 8: DLA CLAIMANTS AND LLTS RESIDENTS ...... 34

TABLE 9: ACCIDENT NUMBERS ON IDENTIFIED LINKS ...... 52

TABLE 10: ACCIDENTS BY AGE GROUP ...... 53

TABLE 11: ACCIDENTS BY MODE ...... 53

TABLE 12: EXISTING ESTIMATED DRIVER STRESS FOR DRIVERS ON THE EASTBOUND M4 CARRIAGEWAY FOR 2013 (BASE YEAR) ...... 54

TABLE 13: EXISTING ESTIMATED DRIVER STRESS FOR DRIVERS ON THE WESTBOUND M4 CARRIAGEWAY FOR 2013 (BASE YEAR) ...... 54

TABLE 14: HEALTH EFFECTS CAUSED BY HIGH LEVELS OF POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH ROAD TRANSPORT ...... 57

TABLE 15: AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES...... 58

TABLE 16: IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT CONTAMINANT LINKAGES (“SCLS”) ...... 60

TABLE 17: HEALTH DETERMINANTS, PATHWAYS AND OUTCOMES RELEVANT TO TRANSPORT SCHEMES ...... 63

TABLE 18: VULNERABLE OR PRIORITY GROUPS ...... 71

TABLE 19: OTHER TARGET GROUPS ...... 72

TABLE 20: SCOPE OF THE HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 76

TABLE 21: ASSESSMENT SCALE AND DEFINITION OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ...... 83

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

TABLE 22: HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEME ...... 85

TABLE 23: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ...... 99

TABLE 24: RESPONSES TO CONSULTATIONS UNDERTAKEN UNDER S42 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008 AND CONSULTATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS (INCLUDING LOCAL RESIDENTS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 2013 TO JULY 2014) ...... 2

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

LIST OF FIGURE 1: THE DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND WELL-BEING IN OUR CITIES. A FIGURES: SETTLEMENT HEALTH MAP SHOWING THE BROAD NATURE OF MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT FORM ON HEALTH ...... 10

FIGURE 2: THE SCHEME ...... 25

FIGURE 3: NETWORK LINKS MEETING SCREENING CRITERIA FROM DO MINIMUM TO DO SOMETHING IN 2022 ...... 52

FIGURE 4: HEALTH PROFILE FOR WEST BERKSHIRE COUNCIL ...... 2

FIGURE 5: HEALTH PROFILE FOR READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ...... 3

FIGURE 6: HEALTH PROFILE FOR WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL ...... 4

FIGURE 7: HEALTH PROFILE FOR BRACKNELL FOREST COUNCIL ...... 5

FIGURE 8: HEALTH PROFILE FOR THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD ...... 6

FIGURE 9: HEALTH PROFILE FOR SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL ...... 7

FIGURE 10: HEALTH PROFILE FOR LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON ...... 8

FIGURE 11: HEALTH PROFILE FOR LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW ...... 9

FIGURE 12: HEALTH PROFILE FOR SOUTH BUCKS DISTRICT COUNCIL ...... 10

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

VII

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 This Health Impact Assessment (“HIA”) relates to an application, pursuant to the Planning Act 2008 (“PA 2008”), for the M4 (Junctions 3 to 12) (Smart Motorway) Development Consent Order (“DCO”) (the “Application”), which would grant development consent, authorising the construction, operation and maintenance of a smart motorway between the M4 junctions 3 to 12 (the “Scheme”), along with the compulsory acquisition of all the land necessary to enable this. The Application is subject to examination pursuant to the PA 2008. 1.1.2 Whilst its submission is not a mandatory requirement under the PA 2008, this HIA has been prepared to set out the potential effects on human health of the Scheme. It brings together information relating to effects on human health from the various topic assessments within the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1), Planning Statement (Application Document Reference 7-1) and Socio-Economic Report (Application Document Reference 7-2). 1.1.3 The S42 consultation response of Public Health England (“PHE”) dated 18 December 2014 in relation to the Scheme stated that, "PHE notes that the submitted documentation includes an assessment of the likely impacts on human health arising … we have no objections to the methodologies used… We do however note that the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment does not contain a specific section summarising the potential impacts on human health … [PHE] believes that the summation of the possible health impacts arising … into a specific section of the report provides a focus which ensures that public health is given adequate consideration." In order to allow a Statement of Common Ground to be concluded with PHE, this HIA has been undertaken. This HIA draws together the various assessments of health effects in the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Scheme recorded in the ES. That accords with paragraph 4.81 of the National Policy Statement for National Networks (“NN NPS”).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

1.2 Definition of Health

1.2.1 The World Health Organisation1 defines health as: “A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” 1.2.2 There has been an emerging shift in the meaning of the term ‘health’ in the context of assessments such as this. According to Grant, M. and Brown, C. (2007), the trend is towards ‘broadening the definition of health, with a wider subscription to a holistic definition.’ This can include the importance of external factors (or determinants) in influencing health, which will be considered within this HIA. Determinants of health and wellbeing within urban areas are summarised by Barton and Grant (2011) in Figure 1. The level of understanding of how each of these determinants affects health varies, but they can be defined with some confidence; although no list can be entirely comprehensive, especially where the definition of health includes wellbeing, as in this assessment.

1 Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 1: The determinants of health and well-being in our cities. A settlement health map showing the broad nature of multiple impacts of human settlement form on health

1.3 Health Impact Assessment

1.3.1 The online National Planning Practice Guidance (“NPPG”)2 refers to a HIA as a ‘useful tool to assess and address the impacts of development proposals’. According to the National Health Service (“NHS”) London Healthy Urban Development Unit3, the aim of a HIA is: ‘to identify the main impacts and prompt discussion about the best ways of dealing with them to maximise the benefits and avoid any potential adverse impacts.’ 1.3.2 A HIA has been defined (by Scott-Samuel 1998, in Scott-Samuel et al (2001), The Merseyside Guidelines for Health Impact Assessment, Second Edition, May 2001) as:

2 Department for Communities and Local Government, National Planning Practice Guidance, March 2012 3 http://www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk/our-services/delivering-healthy-urban-development/health-impact-assessment/

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

‘The estimation of the effects of a specified action on the health of a defined population’.

1.3.3 Health impact is defined as: ‘a change in health status (in the determinants of health status) of an individual or group attributable to a project, programme or policy’ (Scott-Samuel et al 2001). Health determinants, pathways and outcomes are defined in Section 4 of this report.

1.4 Screening and Stakeholder Consultation

1.4.1 The Merseyside Guidelines for Health Impact Assessment (Scott-Samuel et al 2001) state that:

‘The co-operation and expertise of a wide range of stakeholders (people who are involved in the project or will be directly affected by it) and key informants (people whose roles result in them having knowledge or information of relevance to the project and its outcomes) will be needed.’

1.4.2 Annex A to this document provides a summary of the relevant consultation responses in relation to health. It also provides a response to the consultation responses individually. The issues raised include the following:

i. Electromagnetic Field (“EMF”) impacts: “It is possible that the Scheme does not result in the movement or construction of any significant sources of EMF but we ask that this be confirmed…” (PHE, Appendix 29 of the Consultation Report) (Application Document Reference 5-2). ii. Contaminated Land: “In terms of contaminated land, PHE accepts that likely impacts can be managed or mitigated by the use of good construction practice…” (PHE, Appendix 29 of the Consultation Report) (Application Document Reference 5-2). iii. Water Quality: “Whilst the development has the potential to impact on several source protection zones PHE acknowledges that this issue predominantly falls under the statutory remit of the Environment Agency” (PHE, Appendix 29 of the Consultation Report) (Application Document Reference 5-2). iv. Air quality:  “Outdoor air quality is one of the most significant public health issues affecting the modern world...” (Slough Borough Council – Planning Department, Appendix 29 of the Consultation Report) (Application Document Reference 5-2);  “We are concerned about the health issues that may arise from the increased traffic in an area already at top level in relation to EU Standards” (Landowners, Appendix 7 of the Consultation Report) (Application Document Reference 5-2). v. Traffic Noise: “Exposure to elevated levels of road traffic noise and air pollution directly links to public health outcomes” (Slough Borough Council – Planning Department, Appendix 29 of the Consultation Report) (Application Document Reference 5-2).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

vi. The need for monitoring and mitigation measures: “…anyone within 1 mile and can see the motorway should be given benefits: triple glazed windows; health monitoring of individuals (especially chest infections and asthma); noise levels should be monitored.” (Local residents, Appendix 7 of the Consultation Report) (Application Document Reference 5-2).

1.4.3 It is clear from consultation responses received, from prescribed consultees and the general public, that health issues are of relevance to the Scheme. A range of potential health issues have been raised by consultees, however the issues of principal concern are air quality and traffic noise. 1.4.4 During the consultation process, Public Health England also specifically commented that “…PHE understands that the promoter will wish to avoid unnecessary duplication but believes that the summation of the possible health impacts from changes to air quality, emissions to water, waste management and contaminated land into a specific section of the report provides a focus which ensures that public health is given adequate consideration.” 1.4.5 Therefore, this HIA seeks to draw together the health impacts as assessed in the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1).

1.5 Guidance

1.5.1 The approach used for this assessment has been developed using the following guidance:

a) Health Scotland, Medical Research Council (“MRC”) Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and Institute of Occupational Medicine, Health Impact assessment of Transport Initiatives: A Guide, 2007;

b) NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (“HUDU”), HUDU Planning for Health: Rapid Health Impact Assessment Tool, Second Edition, June 2015; and

c) Scott-Samuel, A., Birley, M., Ardern, K. (2001), The Merseyside Guidelines for Health Impact Assessment, Second Edition, May 2001, published by International Health IMPACT Assessment Consortium.

1.5.2 As there is no definitive UK guidance on HIA generally, a combination of the above guidance has been used. Also, in the absence of a definitive UK guidance on the determinants, pathways and outcomes for health from transport schemes, Scottish guidance (such as that published by the MRC) has primarily been used for this purpose. This guidance is presented on the

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

HIA Gateway on the Public Health Observatories (part of Public Health England) website. Further sources of data and guidance are referenced throughout this report, and listed in Chapter 13 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1).

1.6 Methodology

1.6.1 The HUDU guidance provides assessment criteria, as well as providing guidance on the methodical approach to HIA. This includes the following, which have formed the basis of the approach within this HIA:

a) The planning issues and topics may be assessed according to local priorities and needs, derived from community engagement and a profile of community health and wellbeing needs and assets;

b) Impacts may be short-term or temporary, related to construction or longer- term, related to the operation and maintenance of a development and may particularly affect vulnerable or priority groups of the population, such as older people or black and ethnic minority groups. Some issues may have a local impact, whilst other issues may have a wider or neighbourhood impact;

c) Where an impact is identified, actions should be recommended to mitigate a negative impact or enhance or secure a positive impact. Recommended actions on development proposals may require design or layout changes, closer adherence to policy requirements or standards or planning conditions or obligations;

d) The matrix should bring together commitments made in other assessments, for example plans to mitigate construction impacts; and

e) To ensure that the recommended actions are implemented, monitoring arrangements should be put in place.

1.6.2 Table 1 shows the HIA methodology. Although the table shows a linear series of sequential steps, the guidance suggests that a HIA is an iterative process, where earlier steps may be revisited as a result of subsequent work.

Table 1: HIA Methodology

Stage Detail HIA Chapter

Step 1 Screening Decide whether you need to do an HIA 1

Step 2 Set up a team to do Ensure appropriate expertise is included Pre-report HIA

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Stage Detail HIA Chapter

Step 3 Set the geographical, population and time 1, 4 and 6 ‘Scoping’ boundaries over which to predict impacts. Identify affected population groups. Also see ES.

Step 4 Collate relevant data on the local populations and 4 Local Profile features of the local area(s).

Step 5 Consult with local people and other stakeholders 1 and Annex Involve stakeholders to identify their views on possible impacts. A

Step 6 Identify likely health impacts from the proposal. 5 and 8 Identify and assess Carry out further review of research if this will help impacts make recommendations.

Step 7 Use findings to recommend changes to the 8 and 9 Make proposal or other changes that would improve recommendations health impacts.

Step 8 Monitor actual impacts that arise after 9 Monitor impacts implementation of the proposal.

(1) Adapted from: Health Scotland, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and Institute of Occupational Medicine, Health Impact assessment of Transport Initiatives: A Guide, 2007, p74

1.7 Scope of the Assessment

1.7.1 The spatial scope of the HIA reflects the spatial scopes of the contributing studies set out in the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) and the Socio-Economic Report (Application Document Reference 7-2). These include the following chapters:

a) ES Chapter 6 (Air Quality);

b) ES Chapter 8 (Landscape)

c) ES Chapter 9 (Ecology and Nature Conservation);

d) ES Chapter 10 (Geology and Soils);

e) ES Chapter 11 (Materials and Waste);

f) ES Chapter 12 (Noise and Vibration);

g) ES Chapter 13 (Effects on all Travellers);

h) ES Chapter 14 (Community and Private Assets); and

i) ES Chapter 15 (Road Drainage and the Water Environment).

1.7.2 The scope of the assessments for different topic areas may vary and is

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

dependent on the methodologies and identified sensitivities of certain impacts and sensitive receptors. Further information can be found in the individual topic chapters of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) and the Socio-Economic Report (Application Document Reference 7-2). 1.7.3 The Merseyside Guidelines for Health Impact Assessment (Scott-Samuel et al 2001) identify that the range of potential health impacts identified in a HIA will be dependent on the definition of health which is employed. Further details relating to the definition of health and technical scope of the assessment through identified determinants is provided in Chapter 5 of this report.

1.8 Method of Assessment

1.8.1 This report has drawn upon the assessments undertaken for the topics considered within the ES. The methodologies for those assessments are set out within the individual ES topic chapters (Application Document Reference 6-1). Where further work has been undertaken for this assessment, it has involved the following:

a) Reviewing available research and information to understand the links and potential interactions between topics assessed in the ES and effects on human health (see Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6-1);

b) Reviewing the results of stakeholder consultation to gain insight into the issues of importance in relation to health (set out in Annex A of this report);

c) Making an assessment based upon a combination of the above information so that it relates to the study population relevant to the health determinant being assessed and identifying which groups of people are most affected (Chapters 7 and 8 of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6-1); and

d) Clarifying the significance of the health effect (Chapter 8 of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6-1).

1.8.2 Both potential beneficial and adverse effects of the Scheme on public health have been assessed. An assessment matrix has been used to undertake the assessment of health impacts for construction and operational phases. Assessment matrices help characterise the impacts in terms of their nature (positive/negative), intensity, likelihood, duration, strength of evidence and show which priority groups may be affected by the Scheme.

1.8.3 The significance of the impact on each health determinant has been assessed using professional judgement, taking into account environmental and health

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

baseline conditions in the local area, in particular the community profiling. Further information relating to this is provided in Chapter 7 of this report.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

2 CONTEXT

2.1 Scheme Overview

Scheme Objectives

2.1.1 The Scheme lies wholly within England and includes the alteration and improvement of a highway for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority. The Scheme’s key objectives are to:

a) Reduce congestion, smooth the flow of traffic to improve journey times and make journeys more reliable;

b) Support and enhance the role of the M4 as a major national and inter-urban regional transport artery;

c) Support the economy and facilitate economic growth within the regions, by providing much needed capacity on the motorway;

d) Continue to deliver a high level of safety performance of the network using smart motorway techniques; and

e) Deliver environmental improvements and mitigation where appropriate and required.

Need for the Scheme

2.1.2 The need for the Scheme is summarised in the Planning Statement (Application Document Reference 7-1). The strategic case for providing additional capacity of the M4 within the Thames Valley was first examined in ‘The Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study’ (2003) (”TVMMS”), prepared for the Government Office for the South East. The purpose of the TVMMS was ‘to identify the most effective means of addressing current and future transport- related problems in the Thames Valley.’ 2.1.3 The TVMMS study area included the M4 between junctions 3 and 12. The TVMMS highlighted the highway network as a key feature of the area characterised by its west-east arteries, and recognised that addressing the transport problems of the Thames Valley would represent a major challenge. 2.1.4 The TVMMS also drew attention to the wider impacts that would be experienced as a result of predictions of an increase in congestion, with adverse implications for the environment anticipated. Whilst these effects were considered to be worst during times of congestion, it was noted that ‘the impacts of road traffic in terms, for instance, of noise, severance and air

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

quality are felt well beyond the peak periods. A number of Air Quality Management Areas (“AQMA”) have been designated within the study, overwhelmingly as a result of traffic emissions. AQMA are areas where air pollution exceeds recommended levels.’ 2.1.5 Consideration was given to a range of potential multi-modal interventions to address the transport problems within the Thames Valley. The TVMMS recognised that even with the proposed travel demand management and public transport enhancements in place, the overall magnitude of car-based demand would remain higher than now and that ‘congestion will remain and, in specific areas, may intensify significantly, eroding some of the wider benefits delivered by a wider strategy.’ 2.1.6 The proposed strategy for the Thames Valley road network placed an emphasis on better management of the existing road space, involving the identification of measures designed to reduce congestion broadly within existing road space, either through changes to the road layout, or through use of technology to better control traffic movements.

Key Components

2.1.7 The Scheme comprises a number of key components to be included within the Application. A detailed description of the various elements that comprise the Scheme is included in Chapter 4 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1). A summary of the main elements of the Scheme is provided below:

a) Conversion of the hard shoulder to a permanent running land and, where no hard shoulder is in place at present, the construction of a new lane. This will mainly take place between junction 4b and junction 8/9;

b) Replacement of overbridge structures where portals are too narrow to accommodate the improved motorway;

c) Extension of underbridges and other structures such as culverts and subways to accommodate the improved motorway;

d) Changes to junctions and slip roads needed to accommodate traffic joining and leaving the improved motorway, and to allow use of the hard shoulder as a running lane, as well as allowing through junction running (“TJR”);

e) Provision of new gantries and signs to allow the motorway to function as a smart motorway with a variable speed limit, and to provide messages to road users; and

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

f) Other infrastructure needed for the improved motorway, such as Emergency Refuge Areas (“ERAs”), enhanced communication systems, closed circuit television (“CCTV”) and electrical supplies, as well as works to accommodate statutory undertakers’ apparatus and other parties who may be affected by the Scheme.

2.1.8 The Scheme involves the conversion of the hard shoulder of the M4 to a permanent running lane, providing four lane all lane running, with five lane carriageways from Sutton Lane overbridge (just east of junction 5) to junction 4 and westbound between junctions 4 and 4b. As a result of hard shoulder discontinuities between junctions 4 and 8/9, where the existing bridges limit the available carriageway width, it is necessary for these to be either widened or demolished and rebuilt in order to deliver a permanent running lane. 2.1.9 Signing and technology to manage traffic using variable mandatory speed limits ("VMSL") must also be provided. These are being promoted separately under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Other minor works are also required to enable the appropriate lane widths to be achieved and to secure the necessary Scheme enhancements and mitigation works. 2.1.10 The works are described in detail within Schedule 1 to the Draft DCO (Application Document Reference 3-1) and are described briefly below. A detailed description of the Scheme is contained in the Engineering and Design Report (Application Document Reference 7-3). 2.1.11 In total, 11 overbridges, between junction 8/9 and junction 4b, are proposed to be demolished and replaced. Of these, seven are to be replaced as off-line improvements and the remaining four are to be replaced as on-line improvements. It is also proposed to widen four underbridges, two subways and lengthen four culverts where insufficient carriageway width exists at present. 2.1.12 TJR (allowing through traffic to remain in lane 1, the nearside lane, at each junction), is proposed along the route corridor with the exception of the motorway-to-motorway interchanges at junction 4b (M25) and junction 10 (A329M) and at the motorway junctions at either end of the Scheme (i.e. junction 3 and junction 12). 2.1.13 ERAs, similar to laybys and providing safe areas for vehicles to stop in an emergency, are to be provided within the existing highway verges no more than 2.5km apart. The application plans demonstrate that the average spacing between ERAs is in fact 1.14 miles (1.85km). Adjacent to some ERAs, Police Observation Platforms (“POPs”) are to be positioned to provide a safe area for

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

stationary police vehicles. 2.1.14 A rigid concrete safety barrier and paved central reserve are proposed to be provided throughout the length of the Scheme. Additional verge safety barriers in the form of steel safety barriers are to be provided at new hazards, such as gantries, signs and CCTV cameras. 2.1.15 The introduction of concrete barriers within the central reserve will affect the existing central reserve drainage system. This is to be replaced largely with linear drains in sloped/cambered sections of carriageway. In the verge, it is proposed to replace the existing kerb and gully system with linear drains and combined kerb and gully systems where appropriate. 2.1.16 It is proposed that all existing links within the Order limits and slip roads that currently have street lights will remain lit. The unlit section of the M4 between junction 8/9 and junction 10 is to remain unlit. Where lighting is required, existing lighting would be removed and replaced with modern light emitting diode (“LED”) lighting. 2.1.17 A total of 162 gantries incorporating LED signals are proposed along the length of carriageway to control the operation of the smart motorway; the majority of these are to be overhead. A total of 41 existing gantries that are no longer required are to be removed to ground level. 2.1.18 The Scheme will provide Thin Surface Course System (“TSCS”) (normally referred to as low-noise surfacing) throughout. It is assumed that lane 1 and lane 4 (existing hard shoulder and lane 3 respectively) will require a new surface course following the verge and central reserve works. Hot Rolled Asphalt (“HRA”) in lane 2 and lane 3 (existing lane 1 and lane 2 respectively) will be replaced with TSCS. This will reduce the noise impact of the Scheme, and will minimise the need for further maintenance. . 2.1.19 Environmental barriers in the form of fencing, to mitigate noise from the carriageway, are to be incorporated as part of the Scheme where required. 2.1.20 Environmental enhancement will be developed through the Environmental Masterplan which accompanied the Application (Annex A of the Engineering and Design Report) (Application Document Reference 7-4). This sets out the proposed approach to environmental design. Vegetation cleared during construction will be re-planted, where possible with native species to provide habitats and visual screening.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

2.2 Policy Framework

National Policy Statement for National Networks, Department for Transport, January 2015

2.2.1 Nationally, Section 104(2) PA 2008 provides the basis for determining an application for development consent where a National Policy Statement is in force. Under Section 104(3), the Secretary of State is required to decide the application in accordance with any relevant National Policy Statement, except in certain circumstances specified in subsections (4) to (8). These include circumstances where the adverse effects of a scheme outweigh the benefits. The National Policy Statement for National Networks (“NN NPS”) was designated on 14 January 2015 by the Department for Transport, meaning that a “relevant national policy statement” has effect in respect of the Scheme. This triggers the provisions of Section 104 PA 2008. 2.2.2 NN NPS paragraph 2.2 recognises that there is a critical need to improve the national networks to address road congestion in order “…to provide safe, expeditious and resilient networks that better support social and economic activity; and to provide a transport network that is capable of stimulating and supporting economic growth." It also notes that ‘improvements may also be required to address the impact of the national networks on quality of life and environmental factors.” 2.2.3 Paragraphs 4.79 of the NN NPS recognises that national road networks:

“…have the potential to affect the health, well-being and quality of life of the population and can have direct impacts on health because of increased traffic, noise, vibration, air quality and emissions, light pollution, community severance, dust, odour, polluting water, hazardous waste and pests.”

2.2.4 The NN NPS further states (paragraph 4.80) that:

“New or enhanced national network infrastructure may have indirect health impacts; for example if they affect access to key public services, local transport, opportunities for cycling and walking or the use of open space for recreation and physical activity.”

2.2.5 Paragraph 4.82 of the NN NPS therefore requires that:

“The applicant should identify measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for adverse health impacts as appropriate.”

2.2.6 Chapter 5 of the NN NPS sets out a range of generic impacts relevant to any national network infrastructure and describes how these impacts should be

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

considered by applicants. Those of relevance to the Scheme are considered further under the following headings:

a) Air quality;

b) Carbon emissions;

c) Biodiversity and ecological conservation;

d) Dust, odour, artificial light, smoke, and steam;

e) Water quality and resources;

f) Flood risk;

g) Land instability;

h) The historic environment;

i) Landscape impact;

j) Land use including open space, green infrastructure and green belt;

k) Noise and vibration; and

l) Impacts on transport networks.

2.2.7 The Planning Statement (Application Document Reference 7-1) provides a broad overview confirming the Scheme's compliance with the NN NPS. In addition, the Planning Statement also demonstrates compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (NPPF). Compliance is demonstrated further through this HIA. The completion and submission of this HIA serves to demonstrate further that the Scheme and the Application comply with the NN NPS and the NPPF.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Local Planning Policy

2.2.8 The Scheme passes through the administrative areas of 11 local authorities. The 11 ‘host’ authorities, whose areas are directly affected by the Scheme, comprise the following:

a) West Berkshire Council;

b) Reading Borough Council;

c) Wokingham Borough Council;

d) Bracknell Forest Council;

e) The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead;

f) Slough Borough Council;

g) London Borough of Hillingdon;

h) London Borough of Hounslow;

i) South Bucks District Council;

j) Buckinghamshire County Council; and

k) Greater London Authority.

2.2.9 Appendix 1 of the Planning Statement (Application Document Reference 7-1) provides a detailed assessment of the policy framework in place for each ‘host’ authority and its relevance to the Scheme. This includes policies relating to health and how the Scheme complies with them. Policy requirements have been integrated into the assessment framework in Table 20 of this HIA. Table 22 presents an assessment of the Scheme’s predicted health impacts, including measures identified to avoid, reduce or compensate these impacts.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER LAND

3.1.1 This section briefly describes the Order land which is the subject of the Application. A full description of the Order land can be found in Chapter 2 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) and in the Engineering and Design Report (Application Document Reference 7-3).

3.2 Scheme Location

3.2.1 The Scheme is located between junction 12 (Theale), immediately to the west of Reading and junction 3 (Hayes) in west London. The Scheme is linear in nature and extends for some 51km (32 miles) between these two junctions. Along the route of the Scheme are the main conurbations of Reading, Maidenhead, Slough, Hillingdon and Hounslow. Smaller, but notable, urban areas located along the route include Wokingham, Bracknell, Windsor, West Drayton and Hayes.

3.3 Other Land and Surroundings

3.3.1 The Order land is characterised by a complex variety of land uses, which includes a large rural component, much of which is designated as Green Belt, principally along the eastern sections of the M4 corridor. There is no single dominant urban centre along the route of the Scheme, although there are several larger settlements which function as centres of employment and residential development. At the eastern fringe of this section of the M4 corridor is the Greater London conurbation, with Heathrow, the UK’s main international airport, lying in proximity to the south of, and served by, the M4. Figure 3 shows an overview of the Scheme in relation to key settlements. The Scheme is also shown on the Works Plans and Land Plans that accompany the Application.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 2: The Scheme

3.4 Existing Land Uses

3.4.1 The vast majority of the land permanently required for the Scheme is currently in use as highway land, predominantly comprising the carriageway of the M4, or in the form of existing bridges carrying roads over the motorway (“overbridges”), or as bridges supporting the motorway over river and railway features (“underbridges”). In other areas, the motorway crosses over subways and service ducts. 3.4.2 Most of the works along the motorway corridor are within land currently owned by the Secretary of State, as the highway authority for, and landowner of, ‘special roads’ such as the M4. Some additional land will be required permanently to accommodate the Scheme, such as for side road realignment at overbridges and for underbridge widening, although this is being kept to the minimum land necessary. Areas of land will also be required temporarily for access, storage and construction activities.

3.5 Existing Character

3.5.1 The predominant nature of the Order land is that of a ‘transport corridor’ dominated by the route of the M4 and its associated highway structures. Along its length, the highway corridor is bisected by a series of north-south routes linking to the M4, together with entry and exit slip roads for service areas along the route. Located at various points along the length of the

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

highway corridor are traditional regulatory, directional and warning signs, along with modern Intelligent Transport System (“ITS”) apparatus on gantry signs for managing the flow of traffic.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

4 COMMUNITY PROFILE

4.1 Background and Approach

4.1.1 This Chapter seeks to set out the community profile, including the environmental baseline, where this may have an impact on health. This community profile/environmental baseline will then help to determine key impacts of relevance to the Scheme, which will help to define the framework for its assessment. The Scheme will then be assessed against the identified framework (see Tables 18, 19, 20 and 21), using the baseline identified in this section, as originally set out in the ES. Table 22 presents an assessment of the Scheme’s predicted health effects, separated by construction and operational effects. The Merseyside Guidelines for Health Impact Assessment (Scott-Samuel et al 2001) state that:

‘A profile of the areas and communities likely to be affected by the project should be compiled using available socio-demographic and health data and information from key informants. The profile should include an assessment of the nature and characteristics of groups whose health could be enhanced or placed at risk by the project’s effect. Vulnerable and disadvantaged groups require special consideration...Depending on the nature of the project being assessed, affected communities may be defined by geography, age, sex, income, or other social, economic or environmental characteristics; there may also be communities of interest, e.g. arts or sports enthusiasts, vegetarians, or cyclists.’

4.2 Socio-Demographic

4.2.1 The socio-demographic breakdown of the vulnerable groups within the population of the local planning areas that interface with the Scheme is analysed in this section.

Local Population Breakdown

4.2.2 Table 2 and Table 3 set out population data for the local authorities along the Scheme. Vulnerable groups within this section are deemed to be:

a) Children and adolescents (Age breakdown <16years);

b) Women (Gender breakdown % of female); and

c) Older people (Age breakdown 65+ years).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 2: Population data

Local Authority Total Population Male Population Female Population

West Berkshire 155,700 77,200 (49.5%) 78,500 (50.5%)

Reading 160,800 80,900 (50.3%) 79,900 (49.7%)

Wokingham 159,100 78600 (49.4%) 80,500 (50.6%)

Royal Borough of Windsor 147,400 72900 (49.4%) 74,500 (50.6%) and Maidenhead

Slough 144,600 72,400 (50%) 72,200 (50%)

Bracknell Forest 118,000 58,600 (49.6%) 59,400 (50.4%)

South Buckinghamshire 68,500 33,100 (48.3%) 35,400 (51.7%)

Hillingdon 292,700 146,000 (49.8%) 146,700 (50.2%)

London Borough of 265,600 134,400 (50.6%) 131,200 (49.4%) Hounslow

South East 8,873,818 4,364,810 (49.2%) 4,509,008 (50.8%)

England 54,316,618 26,773,196 (49.3%) 27,543,422 (50.7%)

Source: Office for National Statistics

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 3: Age Breakdown

Local Authority <16 years 16-25 years 16-64 years 65+ years

Hillingdon 21.2% 14.4% 65.7% 14%

Hounslow 20.9% 12.3% 67.9% 11.9%

Bracknell Forest 20.8% 11.4% 65.6% 14.5%

Reading 20.3% 15.7% 67.8% 12.7%

Slough 25.1% 11.8% 65.5% 10.1%

West Berkshire 20.2% 10.4% 62.4% 18.5%

Windsor and Maidenhead 20% 10% 61.9% 19.1%

Wokingham 20.7% 10.1% 62.3% 18.1%

South Bucks 19.1% 9.7% 60.1% 22%

England 19% 12.8% 63.5% 18.6%

Source: Office for National Statistics

Economic Activity

4.2.3 Table 4 identifies levels of economic activity by local authority area, setting out the number and percentage of working age residents who are economically active. The table shows that areas with particularly high rates of economic activity are West Berkshire (85.4%) and Bracknell Forest (84.9%).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 4: Economic Activity

Number of working age Percentage of working age residents economically residents economically Local Authority active (Apr 2013-March active (Apr 2013-March 2014) 2014)

London Borough of Hillingdon 146,000 77.2

London Borough of Hounslow 140,700 82.0

Bracknell Forest Council 68,600 84.9

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 80,000 81.2

Wokingham Borough Council 92,500 81.6

West Berkshire Council 88,600 85.4

Reading Borough Council 89,400 77.6

Slough Borough Council 73,400 78.1

South Buckinghamshire District Council 35,500 75.6

South East 4,620,000 80.4

Great Britain 31,763,000 78.1

Source: Office for National Statistics

4.2.4 Table 5 shows unemployment statistics for the various local authority areas. The table sets out the percentage of working age residents who are currently economically inactive (reasons may include long-term illness, for example, as well as unemployment), together with the percentage of residents claiming Jobs Seekers Allowance (“JSA”) in August 2014. JSA claimant figures show that all of the local authority areas have percentages below that for Great Britain as a whole; Slough Borough Council has the highest proportion of JSA claimants. Youth unemployment is a particular issue within a number of the local authority areas, for example, Slough. The relatively high proportion of economically inactive residents and JSA claimants within Slough is surprising given the presence of major employers in the Slough area such as those on the Slough Trading Estate. The East Berkshire Local Education Authority

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

(“LEA”) acknowledges this anomaly, stating that the occupational and skills profile of Slough residents contrasts sharply with the profile of jobs available in the Borough, which typically require higher skills levels; a further factor relates to a significant contraction of employment experienced by Slough town centre over the period 2003- 2008, equating to the loss of some 4,000 jobs.

Table 5: Percentages of Workless People

Percentage of working age JSA claimants (%) Area Name residents economically inactive (August 2014) (April 2013-March 2014)

London Borough of Hillingdon 22.8 1.7

London Borough of Hounslow 18.0 1.9

Bracknell Forest Council 15.1 1.0

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 18.8 0.9

Wokingham Borough Council 18.4 0.6

West Berkshire Council 14.6 0.8

Reading Borough Council 22.4 1.7

Slough Borough Council 21.9 2.0

South Buckinghamshire District Council 24.4 0.8

South East 20.1 1.6

Great Britain 22.6 2.8

Source: Office for National Statistics

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Transportation

4.2.5 Transport provides key connections between a range of services and amenities that are important for the health and wellbeing of a local community. Car ownership provides a greater level of mobility for individuals and families within a community and can help to reduce the likelihood of social exclusion. However, any shift towards public/green transport helps to improve a number of health risk factors such as a reduction in air emissions, reduced risk of accident and an increase in physical activity. Table 6 shows car and van ownership within the relevant local planning authorities.

Table 6: Car and van ownership (Census data from ONS, 2011)

Households Households Households Households Households Sum of all All with no with 4 or Area Name with 1 car with 2 cars with 3 cars cars or households cars or more cars or van or vans or vans vans vans or vans

Hillingdon 100,214 22,716 43,942 25,193 6,125 2,238 122,486

Hounslow 94,902 29,985 42,744 16,986 3,942 1,245 94,042

Bracknell Forest 45,878 6,275 17,818 16,656 3,794 1,335 68,374

Reading 62,869 17,819 28,235 13,326 2,612 877 66,681

Slough 50,766 11,885 22,404 12,478 2,974 1,025 60,827

West Berkshire 62,340 7,759 24,042 22,437 5,858 2,244 96,617

Windsor and 58,349 7,782 23,443 20,326 4,864 1,934 87,382 Maidenhead

Wokingham 60,332 5,422 22,202 24,577 5,873 2,258 99,057

South 26,514 2,711 9,591 9,845 2,966 1,401 44,527 Buckinghamshire

ENGLAND 22,063,368 5,691,251 9,301,776 5,441,593 1,203,865 424,883 25,696,833

Source: Office for National Statistics

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Deprivation

4.2.6 Table 7 shows the level of deprivation across the relevant local authorities. The dimensions of deprivation used to classify households are indicators based on the four selected household characteristics:

a) Employment (any member of a household not a full-time student is either unemployed or long-term sick);

b) Education (no person in the household has at least level 2 education (different qualifications are grouped together into various levels, so in this instance level 2 education would refer to people with GCSE grades A*-C, or BTEC Awards/NVQs at level 2), and no person aged 16-18 is a full-time student);

c) Health and disability (any person in the household has general health ‘bad or very bad’ or has a long term health problem); and

d) Housing (Household's accommodation is ether overcrowded, with an occupancy rating -1 or less, or is in a shared dwelling, or has no central heating).

Table 7: Household Deprivation

Area Name All Household Household Household Household Household categories: is not is deprived is deprived is deprived is deprived Classification deprived in in 1 in 2 in 3 in 4 of household any dimension dimensions dimensions dimensions deprivation dimension (%) (%) (%) (%) (No.) (%)

Hillingdon 100,214 40.1 34.7 19.6 5.0 0.6

Hounslow 94,902 37.3 35.6 20.2 6.1 0.8

Bracknell Forest 45,878 53.0 30.3 13.6 2.7 0.3

Reading 62,869 45.9 32.5 16.4 4.6 0.5

Slough 50,766 34.9 36.3 21.8 6.2 0.7

West Berkshire 62,340 53.7 30.2 13.2 2.7 0.3

Windsor and Maidenhead 58,349 54.4 30.2 12.8 2.3 0.2

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Wokingham 60,332 59.4 28.4 10.4 1.7 0.1

South Buckinghamshire 26,514 53.8 31.0 13.0 2.0 0.2

SOUTH EAST 3,555,463 47.7 32.2 16.0 3.7 0.4

ENGLAND 22,063,368 42.5 32.7 19.1 5.1 0.5

Source: Office for National Statistics

People with Disability

4.2.7 Table 8 shows the level of Disability Living Allowance (“DLA”) claimants and those who have a Limiting Long Term Sickness (“LLTS”) across the local authorities. It is important to consider these statistics in relation to the varied needs of disabled residents during the design, construction and operation of the Scheme.

Table 8: DLA Claimants and LLTS residents

Area Name Disability Living Limiting Long Term Sickness Allowance (%) Day-to-day activities Day-to-day activities limited a lot (%) limited a little (%)

Hillingdon 3.5 6.6 7.7

Hounslow 3.7 6.5 7.3

Bracknell Forest 2.9 5.2 7.1

Reading 3.5 5.7 7.3

Slough 3.4 6.1 7.3

West Berkshire 3 5.4 7.8

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Area Name Disability Living Limiting Long Term Sickness Allowance (%) Day-to-day activities Day-to-day activities limited a lot (%) limited a little (%)

Windsor and Maidenhead 2.4 5.5 7.2

Wokingham 2.4 4.7 7.2

South Bucks 2.4 5.9 8.0

SOUTH EAST 3.8 6.9 8.8

ENGLAND 4.8 8.3 9.3

Source: Office for National Statistics and Department for Work and Pensions

4.3 Health Profiles

4.3.1 Health profiles for each of the local authorities of relevance to the Scheme can be found in Annex B of this report.

4.4 Local Amenities4

4.4.1 There are a variety of community facilities and establishments whose users may be affected by the Scheme. The study area as described in Chapter 14 of the ES ‘Community and Private Assets’ (Application Document Reference 6-1) includes facilities within 0.5km of the Scheme. For the purposes of this assessment, community facilities have been defined to include community centres, places of worship, schools and education facilities, and health care facilities including doctors and hospitals. Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheets 1-17) (Application Document Reference 6-2) provide the locations of these assets. A summary is provided below, by junction.

Junction 12 to junction 11

4.4.2 Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheets 1-3) (Application Document Reference 6-2) identifies locations of receptors relevant to this link. Below are details of relevant community facilities located along this link from west to east:

4 Source: Socio-Economic Report (Application Document Reference 7-2)

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

a) Community centres:

- Beansheaf Community Centre – a variety of community activities provided at this centre located off Charrington Road, Calcot.

b) Places of worship:

- Holy Trinity Church, Theale; and - St Luke’s Roman Catholic Church, Theale.

c) Schools and further education facilities:

- Theale Green Community School; - Theale Church of England Primary School; - The Performing Arts Institute (located within the Reading Lake Hotel complex); and - Calcot Community Learning College (Newbury College).

d) Healthcare facilities:

- Theale Wellbeing Centre.

Junction 11 to junction 10

4.4.3 Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheets 3 to 5) (Application Document Reference 6-2) identifies locations of receptors relevant to this link. Below are details of relevant community facilities located along this link of the M4 from west to east:

a) Community centres:

- Whitley Wood Community Centre – located on the Swallowfield Drive Estate, the community centre provides a local venue from which services for the community are run, for example youth clubs; - Winnersh Community Centre – located at the Bearwood Recreation Ground, Sindlesham, the centre includes a hall, with capacity for 190 people, a licensed bar and meeting rooms; - Lower Earley Library; and - The Royal British Legion.

b) Places of worship:

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

- St Mary’s, Shinfield; - Sindlesham Baptist Church; - Wesleyan Chapel; and - Trinity Church.

c) Schools and further education facilities:

- Focus School Reading Campus (an independent school for children aged 7-11); - Crossfields School; - Bearwood Primary School Nursery Class; - Happitots Day Nursery; - Winnersh Primary School; - Emmbrook Infants School; - Hillside Primary School; and - The Forest Comprehensive School.

d) Healthcare facilities:

- Westfield Road Surgery, Winnersh.

e) Other:

- Reading Road allotments – over 300 allotments within this site to the south of the M4 and bounded by Reading Road and the railway line. The site is managed by Woodley Town Council.

Junction 10 to junction 8/9

4.4.4 Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheets 6 to 9) (Application Document Reference 6-2) identifies locations of receptors relevant to this link. There are no relevant community facilities within the study area for this link.

Junction 8/9 to junction 7

4.4.5 Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheets 9 and 10) (Application Document Reference 6-2) identifies locations of receptors relevant to this link. Below are details of relevant community facilities located along this link of the M4 from west to east:

a) Community centres:

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

- Bray Village Hall – located in the south of the village of Bray and offering a main hall and stage facilities for hire to various groups and organisations. Bray Pre-School operates out of the Village Hall.

b) Places of worship:

- Burnham Abbey – an Anglican contemplative religious community located on Lake End Road.

c) Schools and further education facilities:

- Dorney School (Harcourt Way); and - Holyport Church of England Primary School.

Junction 7 to junction 6

4.4.6 Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheets 10 and 11) (Application Document Reference 6-2) identifies locations of receptors relevant to this link. Below are details of relevant community facilities located along this link of the M4 from west to east:

a) Community centres:

- Cippenham Community Centre – the community centre, which is located off Earls Lane, has two halls with capacities of 150 and 30 people respectively; and - Weekes Drive Community Hall – hosts a variety of activities and services for the local community.

b) Places of worship

- Hindu Temple Slough.

c) Schools and further education facilities:

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

- Sure Start Children’s Centre (nursery provision located in St Andrew’s Way, Cippenham); - Western House Primary School, Richard’s Way, Slough; - Montem Primary School, Chalvey Grove, Slough; - Cippenham Infants and Junior Schools; and - The Westgate School.

d) Healthcare facilities (e.g. Doctors):

- The Village Medical Centre, Cippenham.

e) Other:

- Keel Drive Allotments (located to the north of the M4, accessed from Keel Drive and Concord Way).

Junction 6 to junction 5

4.4.7 Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheets 11 to 13) (Application Document Reference 6- 2) identifies locations of receptors relevant to this link. Below are details of relevant community facilities located along this link from west to east:

a) Community centres:

- St Marys Hall; and - Chalvey Youth and Community Centre.

b) Schools and further education facilities:

- Slough College of Business Studies, Ladbrooke Road; - Chalvey Early Years Centre, Ladbrooke Road; - Slough and Eton Church of England College, Ragstone Road; - Long Close School, Upton; - Butterfly Pre-School, Slough Road, Datchet; - Eton End School; - Eton College; - Churchmead School, Datchet; - Datchet Montessori School; - Datchet St Mary Primary School;

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

- Crackerjacks Day Nursery; - St Marys Church of England Primary School; and - Upton Court Grammar School.

c) Places of worship:

- Quakers Religious Society of Friends, Ragstone Road; - Saint Lawrence Church, Upton Road; - St Augustine’s Roman Catholic Church; - Datchet Baptist Church; - Chalvey St Peter; and - St Andrew's Methodist Church.

d) Healthcare facilities:

- Upton Hospital.

e) Other:

- Ragstone Road allotments, Chalvey – allotments located adjacent to the railway line. The allotments are managed by Slough Borough Council; and

- The Myrke, Slough Road allotments, Datchet – an area of allotments bounded by Slough Road and the M4. The allotments are managed by Slough Borough Council.

Junction 5 to junction 4b

4.4.8 Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheets 13 and 14) (Application Document Reference 6-2) identifies locations of receptors relevant to this link. Below are details of relevant community facilities located along this link from west to east:

a) Community centres:

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

- Langley Village Club, Cheviot Road – proposals to change the club into a mosque and Islamic community centre were approved by Slough Borough Council in 2013; and - Westfield Estate Community Centre - the hall, located off Severn Crescent, has undergone a refurbishment programme by Colnbrook Community Partnership.

b) Schools and further education facilities:

- Foxborough Primary School, Common Road; - Honey Tree Day Nursery; and - Holy Family Catholic School.

c) Healthcare facilities:

- Langley Health Centre, Common Road.

d) Other:

- Allotments off Common Road.

Junction 4b to junction 4

4.4.9 Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheet 14) (Application Document Reference 6-2) identifies locations of receptors relevant to this link. Below are details of relevant community facilities located along this link from west to east:

a) Community centres:

- The Meadows Community Centre, West Drayton; - West Drayton Family Centre; - Harmondsworth and Longford Community Centre; and - Yiewsley and West Drayton Community Centre.

b) Places of worship:

- Bell Farm Church, West Drayton; - St Mary's Church of England; and - Sipson Christian Fellowship.

c) Schools and further education facilities:

- Laurel Lane Primary School, West Drayton;

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

- Cherry Lane Primary School;

- Harmondsworth Primary School; and

- Heathrow Primary School.

d) Other:

- Harmondsworth Cemetery, located off Harmondsworth Road in West Drayton.

Junction 4 to junction 3

4.4.10 Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheets 15 and 16) (Application Document Reference 6-2) identifies locations of receptors relevant to this link. Below are details of relevant community facilities located along this link from west to east:

a) Community centres;

- Crane Community Centre.

b) Places of worship:

- Life Oasis Centre, Carfax Road; - St Peter and Saint Paul Church, Harlington; and - St Dunstan’s Church of England – located in Cranford Park Conservation Area to the south of the M4. A new vestry and visitors centre were completed in March 2014.

c) Schools and further education facilities:

- Pinkwell Primary School; - Harlington School; - William Byrd Primary School, Harlington; - Cranford Park Primary School; - The Old Rectory Nursery School, Church Road, Cranford; and - Cranford Community College.

d) Healthcare facilities:

- Heathrow Medical Centre, Harlington; - Harlington Hospice, St Peter’s Way.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

e) Other:

- Cherry Lane Cemetery, Shepiston Lane.

4.5 Active Travel, Recreation and Green Space

4.5.1 There are a variety of open space and recreational activities, whose users may be affected by the Scheme. The study area as described in Chapter 14 of the ES ‘Community and Private Assets’ (Application Document Reference 6-1) includes recreational assets within 0.5km of the Scheme, which are shown on Drawing 14.1 of the ES (sheets 1-17) (Application Document Reference 6-2). Public Rights of Way (“PRoW”) surrounding or interacting with the Scheme are shown on the Environmental Masterplan, which can be found in Annex A of the Engineering and Design Report (Application Document Reference 7-4). A summary is provided below, on a ‘link by link’ basis.

Junction 12 to junction 11

4.5.2 Open space and recreational activities located along this link include the following:

a) Calcot Recreation Ground is a local authority-owned facility to the north of junction 12, with facilities including parking and both adult and junior grassed football pitches;

b) Holybrook Linear Park is an area of green space accessed off Charrington Road, Calcot, which also offers sports pitches and changing rooms. The Park is located immediately adjacent the M4 on the northern side;

c) The Burghfield Sailing Club operates from Hangar Road, to the south of the M4. The sailing lake used by the club extends as far as the M4;

d) Coarse fishing is a popular activity within this area, with lakes including Pingewood Lagoon to the south of Berrys Lane and Burghfield Main Lake. The former offers coarse angling on a season ticket and is run by the Reading and District Angling Association; the latter supplies specimen angling for carp, tench, bream and pike and is run by the Advanced Angling Club;

e) The Kennet and Avon Canal passes beneath the M4 near to junction 12 and runs in a west-east direction to the north of the M4. This section of the canal is navigable;

f) National Cycle Network (“NCN”) Route 4 runs along the towpath of the Kennet

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

and Avon Canal prior to it passing under the M4, from which point the cycle path turns south and runs adjacent to the M4 until Reading MSA, where it turns north to re-join the towpath. A connecting cycle path runs along the Holy Brook to join NCN4 close to the M4;

g) Burghfield Golf Course is located to the north of Reading Services Eastbound;

h) Public rights of way ("PRoW") identified in close proximity to this link include:

- A footpath passing underneath the M4 to the west of junction 12 and linking with Nunhide Lane to the north; and - A section of footpath passing between the north of the M4 and the south of the Reading International Business Park close to junction 11.

Junction 11 to junction 10

4.5.3 The Dinton Pastures Country Park, to the north of junction 10, comprises some 335 acres, and offers a variety of habitats to explore, together with a café and new adventure play area. 4.5.4 Open space and recreational activities located along this link include the following:

a) A footpath and cycleway runs parallel with the A33 to the south of the M4;

b) Informal open space is available in the area around the Swallowfield Drive Estate, including also the Pearman’s Copse Local Nature Reserve;

c) Informal open space with walking routes is available to the north of Lower Earley Way;

d) There is a cycle route along part of the River Loddon to the north of Lower Earley Way;

e) Bearwood Recreation Ground, Sindlesham includes play areas for children, an outdoor gym for adults, various sports pitches and a pavilion with changing facilities. The ground is the home of the Winnersh Rangers Football Club; and

f) PRoW identified in close proximity to this link include:

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

- A footpath connecting the old Basingstoke Road with Church Lane, passing across fields immediately to the south of the M4 carriageway; - A footpath/cycleway connecting Brookers Hill to the south of the M4 with Old Whitley Wood Lane to the north, via the Shinfield Footbridge; - A footpath connecting Betty Grove Lane with Mill Lane to the south of the M4, passing adjacent to the south carriageway in the vicinity of Mill Lane; and - A section of footpath running west from King Street Lane immediately adjacent to the north side of the carriageway of the M4 and connecting with residential parts of Winnersh to the north.

Junction 10 to junction 8/9

4.5.5 The Waltham Place Estate is open to visitors for part of the year, giving access to gardens and a tearoom. 4.5.6 Open space provision and recreational activities offered along this link includes the following:

a) Billingbear Park Golf Course, a pay and play course located to the south of the M4;

b) A small fishing lake accessed off Howe Lane immediately to the south of the M4;

c) Ockwells Park, an 18 hectare site to the south of Maidenhead with play equipment and café. The site includes walking routes and a nature trail, together with a newly planted Jubilee Wood;

d) The White Waltham Airfield, to the north of the M4, is home to the West London Aero Club; and

e) PRoW identified in proximity to this link include:

- A footpath passing through woodland immediately adjacent to the south of the M4 carriageway and linking with a fishing lake and Howe Lane; - Footpath linking Paley Street to the south of the M4 with Snowball Hill to the north via the Paley Street Farm overbridge; and - A footpath along Thrift Lane, crossing the M4 by means of the Stud Green Access overbridge; a further footpath runs adjacent to the north of the M4 carriageway in this location, linking Thrift Lane with Ockwells Park.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Junction 8/9 to junction 7

4.5.7 Recreational attractions along this link primarily include the village of Bray itself, with its attractive riverside setting and restaurants including a number of highly rated establishments. Dorney Lake, a modern, world-class rowing and canoeing centre set in 450 acres of parkland, is located to the south of the M4. The site is privately owned by Eton College. Dorney Court, a Tudor manor house that is open to the public and for school visits on a number of occasions throughout the year, is found to the south of the M4. 4.5.8 Open space and recreational activities offered along this link include the following:

a) The River Thames passes underneath the M4 in the vicinity of Bray. The river is a focus for various recreational users, including boating activity, walking and cycling along the river banks and fishing;

b) Bray Marina, located on the River Thames, is south of the study area, although boating activities would be expected to extend northwards. The marina has 400 berths and includes boat training and chandlery on site;

c) The Thames Valley Cycle Route (NCN4) passes through the village of Bray and over the M4 via Monkey Island Lane. The route continues southwards towards Dorney Lake;

d) Bray Lake, to the south of the M4, is home to Bray Lake Watersports, which offers activities including windsurfing, sailing and paddle sports;

e) There is a cycle route around part of Bray Lake, connecting with Tithe Barn Drive and the A308;

f) Cycle route NCN61 runs north-south along the towpath of the Jubilee River, passing under the M4. The Jubilee River is a manmade channel constructed to take overflow from the River Thames and thereby alleviate flooding and is used for various leisure activities including walking and cycling; it is also possible to fish from various points along the Jubilee River;

g) Amerden Lane and Lake End Road both form part of on-road cycle routes; and

h) PRoW identified in close proximity to the M4 along this link include:

- A footpath and bridleway crossing the M4 via the Monkey Island Lane overbridge; and

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

- The Thames Path, a 184 mile National Trail, which runs alongside the River Thames.

Junction 7 to junction 6

4.5.9 Recreational attractions along this link include the town of Windsor, with attractions such as Windsor Castle and the Royal Windsor Racecourse. Further afield, but accessed from the M4 for a significant proportion of its visitors, is Legoland Windsor. Other attractions in the area include Cliveden, a National Trust property near Maidenhead. 4.5.10 Open space and recreational activities located along this link include the following:

a) Mercian Way recreation ground is located to the north of the M4. The recreation ground includes tennis courts for public use;

b) Extending east from the Mercian Way recreation ground to as far as Paxton Avenue in the west is a linear park that forms a green buffer between the M4 and the outskirts of Slough. Walking and cycling routes pass through this green area, linking various residential roads;

c) Cippenham Village Green and Deerwood Park are located to the north of the M4. There is a further recreation ground at Weekes Drive;

d) An area of green space follows Richard’s Way and Wood Lane in a north/south direction. This area includes the Wood Lane Ancient Monument green space;

e) There is a cycle path running along the southern bank of the Jubilee River, to the south of the M4. The cycle path has a number of spurs leading variously to the settlements of Dorney Reach and Eton Wick to the south of the river; and heading northwards across a footbridge to the Mercian Way recreation ground and into the residential area of Cippenham/Slough; and

f) PRoW identified in close proximity to the M4 along this link include:

- To the east of junction 7, a footpath passes immediately to the south of the M4 carriageway before turning north across the Oldway Lane overbridge; and - A footpath runs in a north-south direction over the M4 via the Wood Lane overbridge.

Junction 6 to junction 5

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

4.5.11 Legoland Windsor is signed from junction 6 of the M4. 4.5.12 Open space and recreational activities located along this link include the following:

a) The Jubilee River runs adjacent to the M4 in a west-east direction prior to joining the River Thames near Datchet. Walking and cycling routes follow both banks of the river along the majority of this link. Spurs include a link passing under the M4 to reach Chalvey High Street. A cycle link from the Jubilee River also runs along The Myrke and passes to the west of the Slough Road allotments site;

b) Chalvey Recreation Ground is located adjacent to the A355;

c) There is a recreation ground in the Ragstone Road area;

d) Herschel Park is located to the north of the M4 and bounded by Datchet Road in the east. The Park, which is some 3.5ha in size, is Grade II listed. Facilities at the Park include a nature reserve;

e) There is a motocross and BMX track located immediately adjacent to the north of the M4 at Datchet;

f) Upton Court Park is one of Slough’s largest parkland areas and includes a mixture of uses from sports pitches through to semi-natural areas. Walking and cycling routes exist throughout the park. There is an overbridge linking Upton Court Park to the north of the M4 with Datchet Road to the south. The overbridge provides a route for NCN61 which links Maidenhead with Hoddesdon. Programmes of events held at Upton Court Park are advertised on boards on either side of the overbridge, highlighting the fact that the Park is a facility used by communities on either side of the M4; The Datchet Water Sailing Club uses the Queen Mother Reservoir as the base for sailing activities;

g) Datchet Cricket Club and ground is located adjacent to the Riding Court Road overbridge to the south of the M4; and

h) There is a pedestrian link across the M4 via Hams Farm footbridge.

Junction 5 to junction 4b

4.5.13 Open space and recreational activities located along this link include the following:

a) A basketball court located off Spitfire Close, Langley;

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

b) A local cycle route accessed from the Common Road roundabout in Langley passes along the green buffer between the Axis Business Park and the M4 to re-join with Sutton Lane to the east;

c) Richings Park Golf and Country Club are located to the north of the M4;

d) To the south of the M4 there is a bridleway connecting Old Slade Lane with the Colnbrook area. Old Slade Lane itself forms part of the Colne Valley Trail;

e) Datchet Water Sailing Club uses the Queen Mother Reservoir as the base for sailing activities, which is accessed from the London Road area; and

f) A cycle path connects London Road to the north and south of the M4, passing across the junction 5 roundabout underneath the M4.

Junction 4b to junction 4

4.5.14 Open space and recreational activities located along this link include the following:

a) Thorney Pool, Mayfields and Rodney Meadow Lakes are fishing lakes located in the vicinity of junction 4b. The lakes, which are stocked with carp, are managed by Boyer Fishing. There are basic facilities available for fishermen using the site;

b) There is a cycle path connecting the north and south of the M4 in the vicinity of Saxon Lake. The cycle path connects Wise Lane in West Drayton with Accommodation Lane near Harmondsworth. Other cycle links include a section following the Wraysbury River to the south;

c) There are cycle paths in the vicinity of Laurel Lane Primary School;

d) The Wraysbury River and River Colne form a green corridor running north- south through this part of the study area. The area is managed by a Community Interest Company as the Colne Valley Regional Park, which covers an area of some 27,500 acres of land in total. The Park includes walking trails and parts of the River can also be fished;

e) There is a pedestrian footbridge over the M4 in the vicinity of Saxon Lake, linking into the residential road of Little Benty to the north;

f) The Dell recreation ground is located off Dell Road in West Drayton; and

g) The Sipson Road subway provides a pedestrian link beneath the M4, linking the two sides of Sipson Road.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Junction 4 to junction 3

4.5.15 Open space and recreational activities located along this link include the following:

a) The Bourne Farm playing fields are located to the north of the Cherry Lane Cemetery;

b) The Goals Soccer Centre is located adjacent to Shepiston Lane, immediately to the north of the M4;

c) Harlington Playing Fields, a 10.5 acre site with a number of sports pitches and changing facilities, are located to the south of the M4;

d) Sipson Meadow is an area of green space close to the centre of Harlington;

e) Cranford Park is a site of nearly 60 hectares to the south of the M4 with facilities including a visitor centre, children’s play area, bridleway and a variety of walking routes. Cranford Park is divided into two parts by the M4, with the northern section extending westwards of the A312 (The Parkway) as far as the properties in Roseville Road;

f) Beyond the southern boundary of Cranford Park with the River Crane, is Avenue Park. This is a green space operated by Hillingdon Borough Council and which includes play areas, public tennis courts and changing facilities; and

g) There are three pedestrian subways along this link – St Peter’s subway, Fuller subway and St Dunstan’s subway. The latter two provide pedestrian links between the residential area of West Drayton to the north and the Cranford Park area. St Dunstan’s subway also provides access to St Dunstan’s Church and forms part of the Hillingdon Trail which runs in a north-south direction.

4.6 Risk of Injuries and Deaths and Driver Stress

Risk of Injuries and Deaths

4.6.1 The analysis undertaken as part of the Engineering and Design Report (Hazard Log) concludes that the safety of the Scheme overall improves by 18% when compared to the current 3 lane motorway without MIDAS. 4.6.2 As part of the overall business case for the Scheme, to evaluate its benefits and potential drawbacks, the study area was assessed in broad terms for its potential effect, including on accident numbers. Accident numbers were calculated based on guidance from WebTAG unit A4.2, identifying relevant

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

links associated with the Scheme for the calculation of accident data. WebTAG unit A4.2 requires accident analysis to be undertaken for “any change in alignment of a transport corridor (or road layout) or new transport corridor, that may have positive or negative safety impacts (identified through a qualitative assessment or from accident modelling outputs).” In addition, the guidance stipulates that the analyst should consider whether the intervention causes any significant changes (>10%) in vehicle flow, speed, HGV use or a significant change (>10%) in the number of pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists using the road network. 4.6.3 Changes in flow, speed and %HGVs should be considered in terms of annual average daily values between the ‘do-minimum’ and ‘do-something’ (in the Opening Year (2022)). 4.6.4 For this analysis the modelled COBA links were imported into a GIS package, and all links within the simulation area were identified that met any of the following criteria:

a) AADT increase of more than 10%;

b) HDV increase of more than 10%; or

c) Speed increase of more than 10%.

4.6.5 Figure 4 shows the model simulation area and the links identified as relevant through screening using the criteria. The findings were summarised in a Social and Distributional Impacts (“SDI”) report. The SDI analysis seeks to assess the impact on individual social groups, which may be positive or negative, and consider the relative share of this impact for each group. 4.6.6 A summary of the accident analysis on the links identified is presented in Table 9. Although 498 casualties on the local roads were recorded, these casualties relate to 101 links identified from the screening process. The highest number of casualties on a single local road link is 28. Table 10 and Table 11 indicate that the proportion of vulnerable group casualties within the impact area / on the affected links (See Figure 3) is not significant, nor do the vulnerable groups experience accident rates at levels statistically significantly higher than the national average for their group (young males in the Scheme area experience approximately a 1% higher than national average accident rate, but all other groups experience rates lower than the national average accident rate).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 3: Network links meeting screening criteria from Do Minimum to Do Something in 2022

Table 9: Accident numbers on identified links

No of Link Description Casualties 1 A329M 1 2 Local Roads 498 3 M4 - EB J12 to J11 7 4 M4 - EB J4b to J4 2 5 M4 - EB J6 to J5 12 6 M4 - EB J7 to J6 2 7 M4 - EB Through J5 2 8 M4 - EB Through J6 18 9 M4 - EB Through J8/9 6 10 M4 - WB J11 to J12 2 11 M4 - WB J3 to J4 6 12 M4 - WB J4 to J4b 3 13 M4 - WB J4b to J5 3 14 M4 - WB J5 to J6 3 15 M4 - WB J7 to J8/9 11 16 M4 - WB J8/9 to J10 1 17 M4 - WB Through J6 17 18 M4 - WB Through J7 3

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

No of Link Description Casualties 19 M4 - WB Through J8/9 8 20 M40 J1a Offslip 1

Table 10: Accidents by age group

Group Total % in M4 SM Analysis area % of accident (national average) Children (Under 16 years old) 37 5% 8% Young Males (16-24) 86 12% 11% Older People (65+) 37 5% 11% Other 534 77% 69% Total 694 100% 100% Table 11: Accidents by mode

Group Total % in M4 SM Analysis area % of accident (national average) Pedestrians 23 3% 12% Cyclists 37 5% 10% Motorcyclists 63 9% 10% Other (Inc. car drivers, 571 82% 60% passengers) Total 694 100% 100%

Driver Stress5

4.6.7 Paragraphs 13.2.7 to 13.2.27 of the ES describe the assessment of driver stress. The assessment is based on a comparison of traffic flow (in terms of peak hour flow per lane) and speed between the existing three-lane motorway with hard shoulder and the Scheme. 4.6.8 A summary of the current average peak hourly flow per lane, average journey speed and percentage of HGVs, is presented within Table 12 (eastbound traffic) and Table 13 (westbound traffic) for the baseline year (2013), for the mainline M4 carriageway, for the connected road network and for roads that pass over, under or parallel to the Scheme6. The percentage of HGVs is weighted by a factor of 3 in comparison to cars when calculating the average peak hourly flow per lane, to take into account the size of the vehicles in comparison to a car (see Chapter 13 of the ES for further information) (Application Document Reference 6-1). All of the M4 links assessed are

5 Source: ES Chapter 13: Effects on all Travellers (Application Document Reference 6-1) 6 Entry and exit slips have not been considered as they would not align with the rigid speed and flow tables provided in DMRB assessment framework due to the presence and close proximity of junctions, and short link lengths slowing speeds. The tables are designed for free flow sections of the link, not short motorway slips.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

categorised as contributing to high levels of driver stress in the base year in both directions. Chapter 13 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) also includes data relating to existing estimated driver stress for drivers on non-motorway local, connected or affected roads. As the connected or crossing road network is comprised of numerous different road types, with varying travel patterns and characteristics, there is no common pattern of driver stress in the base year.

Table 12: Existing estimated driver stress for drivers on the eastbound M4 carriageway for 2013 (base year)

2013 Base M4 Link Average peak hourly Average Average Driver junctions flow per lane journey speed HGVs stress (flow units/hr) (km/hr) (%) level 12-11 Mainline 1998 88 6.7% High 11-10 Mainline 2025 87 6.9% High 10-8/9 Mainline 1930 89 6.2% High 8/9-7 Mainline 2026 87 6.0% High 7-6 Mainline 1947 87 6.8% High 6-5 Mainline 2035 87 6.5% High 5-4b Mainline 1612 93 6.6% High 4b-4 Mainline 1672 83 4.8% High 4-3 Mainline 1907 67 6.1% High Table 13: Existing estimated driver stress for drivers on the westbound M4 carriageway for 2013 (base year)

2013 Base M4 Link Average peak hourly Average Average Driver junctions flow per lane journey speed HGVs stress (flow units/hr) (km/hr) (%) level 12-11 Mainline 1746 94 6.5% High 11-10 Mainline 1860 91 6.0% High 10-8/9 Mainline 1776 93 5.8% High 8/9-7 Mainline 1866 91 5.8% High 7-6 Mainline 1835 90 6.2% High 6-5 Mainline 1961 88 6.0% High 5-4b Mainline 1620 92 5.8% High 4b-4 Mainline 1646 111 4.5% High 4-3 Mainline 1945 85 4.5% High

4.7 Noise and Vibration

4.7.1 The noise and vibration assessment in relation to the Scheme is discussed in detail in Chapter 12 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

4.7.2 Noise and vibration can contribute to a wide range of health issues ranging from low level annoyance to more severe impacts on mental and physical health. Health issues include but are not limited to:

a) Annoyance;

b) Disrupting sleep patterns and behaviour;

c) Increase in stress levels;

d) Decrease in ability to clearly communicate by speech;

e) Hearing impairment and fatigue; and

f) Mental health effects.

4.7.3 Chapter 12 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) provides details of how effects have been assessed. The vast majority of potentially sensitive receptors are residential properties, which are classed as being of high sensitivity to road traffic noise. A total of 44,259 residential properties have been identified within the 1km study area. Residential properties are generally concentrated within the larger settlements of West Drayton, Slough, Maidenhead, Wokingham and Reading. 4.7.4 The following non-residential sensitive properties have been identified within 1km of the Scheme:

a) 69 schools and other places of education;

b) 52 places of worship;

c) 59 community facilities; and

d) 1 hospital.

4.7.5 The schools, other places of education and the hospital are classed as being of high sensitivity to road traffic noise and the places of worship and community facilities as being of medium sensitivity. 4.7.6 There are also one AONB, four SSSIs, four Local Nature Reserves and five scheduled monuments within 1km of the Scheme. No designated sites protected by designation at a European level exist within 1km of the Scheme. The AONB is located to the west of junction 12. Two SSSIs are located between junctions 12 and 11, one between junctions 10 and 8/9 and one between junctions 8/9 and 7. One Local Nature Reserve is located between

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

junctions 11 and 10, one between junctions 10 and 8/9, one between junctions 8/9 and 7 and one between junctions 6 and 5. One scheduled monument is located between junctions 12 and 11, one between junctions 10 and 8/9, one between junctions 8/9 and 7, one between junctions 7 and 6 and one between junctions 6 and 5. 4.7.7 There are presently 35 Important Areas (as defined in The Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 (as amended 2008 and 2009) (Ref 12- 18)) along the M4 between junctions 3 and 12. These are shown in Drawing 12.1 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-2). The Noise Action Plans for these Important Areas have been taken into account in the development of mitigation for the Scheme.

Existing Noise Conditions

4.7.8 As part of the assessment, baseline noise measurements were carried out at a number of locations within the Scheme corridor. These measurements are reported in paragraphs 12.4.12 to 12.4.19, and accompanying Table 12.11 and Drawing 12.1, in the ES (Application Document Reference 6-2). A subjective assessment of the noise climate within the Scheme corridor was also carried out during the baseline measurement survey. 4.7.9 As would be expected, the noise climate is dominated by road traffic on the M4 motorway for both the daytime and night-time, although many residential properties benefit from shielding provided by other properties. A number of residential areas are exposed to noise levels above the daytime and night- time Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (“SOAEL”) values. The concept of SOAEL values is set out in the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) as the levels where significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur.

4.8 Air Quality

4.8.1 Exposure to air pollution can be a significant contributor to ill health and premature death within communities. These health problems include, but are not limited to, asthma, chronic bronchitis, heart and circulatory disease, and cancer. Road transport is responsible for up to 70% of air pollution within urban areas, therefore the minimisation of air pollutants when dealing with a road scheme is important in terms of the health of local communities. Table 15 shows the most common types of air pollutants associated with road transport and the health effects they cause.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 14: Health effects caused by high levels of pollutants associated with road transport

Pollutants Health effects at elevated levels

Nitrogen Dioxide Respiratory irritants to airways of the lungs, increasing the symptoms of those suffering from lung diseases.

Particles Fine particles can be carried deep into the lungs where they can cause inflammation and a worsening of heart and lung diseases.

Source: Defra

4.8.2 Air Quality Management Areas (“AQMAs”) are designated in areas where it has determined been determined by local authorities that air quality objectives are unlikely to be met. Objective values are set out in Table 16. The AQMAs that interface with the Scheme are as follows:

a) Wokingham AQMA;

b) Reading AQMA;

c) Bray/M4 AQMA;

d) South Bucks AQMA;

e) Slough AQMA No.1;

f) Hillingdon AQMA; and

g) Hounslow AQMA.

4.8.3 For location of AQMAs refer to Drawings 6.1 to 6.35 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-2).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 15: Air quality objectives

Pollutant Averaging period Objective

3 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual average 40 µg/m

1-hour average 200 µg/m3 (not to be exceeded more than 18 times a year)

3 Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual average 40 µg/m

24-hour average 50 µg/m3 (not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year)

4.8.4 Local authorities within the study area for the air quality assessment collect monitoring data within their area. In addition, Highways England commissioned passive diffusion tube monitoring at a series of locations along the Scheme. These sites were chosen to supplement data available from local authority sources and complete data gaps in relation to the Scheme and adjacent routes. Across the study area a total of 197 locations were surveyed for the Scheme. These are shown on Drawings 6.0 to 6.35 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-2).

3 4.8.5 Where exceedances of the 40 µg/m NO2 annual average objective (see Table 16) were measured, this is identified in the baseline sections of ES Chapter 6 (Application Document Reference 6-1). Diffusion tube monitoring

data within the study area show that the annual average objective for NO2 has been exceeded at 90 locations of the 197 surveyed sites. 4.8.6 For full details on the baseline for air quality across the Scheme refer to Chapter 6 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

4.9 Soil and Water Pollution

4.9.1 Soil and water pollution in relation to the Scheme is discussed in detail in Chapter 10 (Geology and Soils) and Chapter 15 (Road drainage and water environment) of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1). 4.9.2 The disturbance of contaminated land can have its own particular risks to public health and the environment. Where development is proposed on sites known, or suspected, to be contaminated, or where the development is in the vicinity of a former landfill site, the developer or contractor is required to carry out a risk assessment. This risk assessment must establish any possible pollutant pathways and identify all necessary mitigation measures, as appropriate, to eliminate the risk or (if not possible) to reduce the risk to an acceptable level to allow development to proceed. 4.9.3 There are a number of former landfill sites lying adjacent to the Scheme. These are comprised largely of former gravel extraction sites that have been infilled over time by a variety of domestic and industrial wastes. Whilst there is no clear evidence of landfill material being present beneath the existing M4 within the study area, historical evidence suggests that the potential for localised occurrences is relatively high, particularly on associated link/slip roads. There is also the potential for the migration of ground gas and soil/groundwater contamination from these areas towards and under the Scheme. Chapter 10 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) identifies the locations of former landfill sites adjoining the Scheme. 4.9.4 The assessment of contaminated land takes account of the “source- pathway- receptor” approach which aims to determine whether there is a link between a source and a receptor which may constitute a risk. Based on the limited information available on each landfill/contaminated site, an assessment has been carried out within the ES for each site to examine the source(s) of potentially harmful substances in relation to the potential receptor(s) which might be a person, sensitive environmental feature, or building. This has been used to determine whether there is a linkage (pathway) between them. If any of these elements (source, pathway or receptor) are absent or removed, the site in question poses no risk. A Conceptual Site Model has been used to assess potential risks from possible contaminant linkages (Source-Pathway- Receptor), with the results for each landfill/contaminated site presented in Table 17. 4.9.5 Highly sensitive receptors identified in the ES include Groundwater Abstraction Source Protection Zones (“SPZs”). Chapter 15 identifies the

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

locations of SPZ Zones 1 (Inner Protection Zone – very high sensitivity); 2 (Outer Protection Zone); and 3 (Source Catchment Protection Zone). The ES also identifies that there may also be unlicensed, minor groundwater abstraction points, which could be highly sensitive to risk from contamination.

Table 16: Identified Significant Contaminant Linkages (“SCLs”)

Sources Receptors Pathways SCL

Site Number 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15

Landfill body, leachate and gas Groundwater (major Migration of Possible and minor aquifers) contaminated waters and Type of waste unknown but assume gas via pile bores for potential contamination from: Down gradient structure foundations Unlikely - heavy metals, sulphates, pH, carriageway Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (“PAHs”), construction Ecology Possible hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (“PCBs”) and methane gas Construction Workers Likely

Waste materials - asbestos No pathways - None identified No asbestos not soluble

Site Number 6 in water

Radium 226 Groundwater (major Migration/mixing of Possible and minor aquifers) contaminated waters/ arisings via pile bores for

Down gradient structure Unlikely

Surface watercourses/water features

4.9.6 There are over 60 watercourses which pass under the M4 between junctions 12 and 3 (Drawing 15.1 of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6-2).

Surface water and sewer flood risk

4.9.7 The data within the Highways Agency Drainage Data Management System ("HADDMS") have been used in the Flood Risk Assessment (“FRA”) (Application Document Reference 5-3) to assess the flood risk from surface water and the surface water drainage system (sewers). According to the register, all historic flood events listed below occurred due to blocked drains

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

and ponding of surface water on the carriageway. Further details of specific events are provided in the HADDMS records contained within the FRA. The Scheme will include measures to augment or replace the existing drainage system in the M4.

Light pollution

4.9.8 Chapter 8 of the ES (Landscape) (Application Document Reference 6-1) identifies Environmental Zones that define the broad night-time characteristics of areas in terms of relative brightness or darkness. Environmental Zones are considered to best describe the various locations covered by the Scheme, against which light pollution can be assessed. The Environmental Zones which relate to each of the Landscape Character Areas (“LCAs”) are identified as part of the baseline features section for each Scheme link, and are identified on Drawing 8.4 (sheets 1 to 16) of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-2).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

5 APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT: HEALTH DETERMINANTS, PATHWAYS AND OUTCOMES

5.1 Links between transport and health of relevance to the study area

5.1.1 The identification of links between transport systems and health, covering health determinants, pathways and outcomes are presented in Table 17. This analysis has informed the identification of potential health impacts of the Scheme on identified vulnerable groups during construction and operation (Section 7). 5.1.2 The following definitions have been adapted:

a) Health Determinants: Factors that cause outcomes and influence our state of health. Factors are personal, social, cultural, economic and environmental. They include our physical environment, income, employment, education, social support and housing (Birley, 2011);

b) Health Pathways: Routes leading to a change in determinant which affect the health risks (the probability that a particular harms will occur) (Birley, 2011); and

c) Health Outcomes: medically defined states of disease and disability, as well as community defined states of wellbeing (Birley, 2011).

5.1.3 Table 17 identifies potential linkages between transport schemes and health, based on findings from research. However, the MRC Guide advocates that the findings from research be assessed against the local profile and qualitative evidence, to determine whether these findings are likely to be applicable to the Scheme. This assessment has been undertaken and is reflected in Chapter 7 of this report (Table 20). 5.1.4 It is concluded from the assessment in Table 17 that all of the identified potential health outcomes could be potentially relevant to the Scheme. Therefore, they have all been included within the assessment framework.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 17: Health Determinants, Pathways and Outcomes Relevant to Transport Schemes

Determinant and Explanation Pathways Health Outcomes

Accessibility to transport options and community facilities Construction Construction Accessible and affordable transport, enabling good access to Transport routes and modes can be adversely affected by Limited and disrupted accessibility may reduce access education, employment, fresh food, friends and family, leisure construction activities. to amenities and services, adversely affecting general and health services, enhances general physical health and physical health and wellbeing. This is due to greater wellbeing. There can be disruption and reduced access to existing difficulties in traveling to the service or amenities and transport modes and routes from route closures and the increased stress caused by the disruption while Accessibility is a critical component of locally-based travel, diversions. travelling. which is influenced by socio-economic activity. Poor transport provision disproportionately affects lower-income groups and Research shows that journey duration, predictability vulnerable groups and can lead to social exclusion and and convenience appear to be associated with lower contribute negatively to quality of life and health. Specific stress levels.7 groups include: teenagers, the elderly, job seekers, and people living in rural locations. Disruption to pedestrian routes may result in a temporary increase in local traffic and congestion. Car ownership amongst vulnerable groups is low. Therefore the availability of other transport options is important for the Operation Operation wellbeing of vulnerable social groups. Transport schemes can lead to an increase in the provision The identified pathways can lead to improvement in of public transport use and an improvement of the physical fitness, physical health and mental wellbeing. walking/cycling environment. This can lead to a reduction in car usage.

Risk of injuries and deaths and driver stress Construction Construction Road traffic accidents are a significant cause of mortality, Increased construction traffic in residential area and Vulnerable road users, including motorcyclists, elderly disability and serious injuries across all age groups.8 alteration to existing traffic routes and patterns, can drivers, children, pedestrians, new drivers and cyclists, increase the risk of injury as a result of increase traffic may be at more risk of injury due to increased Chapter 13 of the ES (Effects on all Travellers) explains the levels and an unawareness of altered traffic movements. construction traffic and altered traffic movements. methodology from DMRB in relation to the calculation of driver stress. It also notes that, since the development of the DMBR The risk of driver stress could be increased during Driver stress could be increased during construction methodology, understanding of the principal factors which construction activity. activity.

7 MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and Institute of Occupational Medicine, Health Impact assessment of Transport Initiatives: A Guide, 2007, p34 8 Eastern Region Public Health Observatory, Transport, Access and Health in the East of England, 2005, p 16-23

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Determinant and Explanation Pathways Health Outcomes

cause driver stress has developed. Frustration at the inability Operation Operation to drive at a constant speed, as well as unreliable journey times, are now considered to represent factors of increased Transport schemes can improve road safety, which can There can be a reduction in traffic-related injury and importance in assessing driver stress. improve actual and perceived road safety. death and the risk of such. Vulnerable groups are similar to the ones identified for the construction stage. Driver stress can be improved by the introduction of transport schemes. Driver stress can be improved by the introduction of transport schemes. Other known benefits which result from the introduction of smart motorways include maintaining existing high safety standards.

Active travel Construction Construction Walking and cycling are physically active forms of transport. A Increased disruption, altered traffic movements and Reduced levels of active travel may lead to increased supportive environment for physical activity is a decisive factor perception that routes have become unsafe can reduce prevalence of sedentary lifestyles, proven to increase in stimulating uptake. High quality, accessible new routes for active travel. risks of many preventable health conditions, including pedestrians and cyclists with appropriate and safe crossing cardiovascular disease, obesity, osteoporosis and points are vital. depression.9

Operation Operation Transport schemes can enhance walking and cycling An increase in active travel would increase the rate of through new and more accessible, attractive and improved physical activity leading to a potential improvement in walking and cycling routes. wellbeing and improvement in physical fitness. This could lead to a decrease in conditions related to sedentary lifestyles.

Access to green space and land blight Construction Construction Studies10 have shown that exposure to the natural Transport schemes may lead to disruption of the normal Green space can affect health by inducing beneficial environment, or green space, has an independent effect on uses of, or reduced access to, and potential loss of, green physical activity and by ameliorating stress level. health and health-related behaviours. space. This can reduce the use of green space and have a Reducing or disrupting access to green space may negative aesthetic impact on the use and perception of the therefore have negative health consequences. green space. The fear of land being blighted by the proposals may lead to an increase in stress and affect wellbeing.

9 Health Scotland, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and Institute of Occupational Medicine, Health Impact assessment of Transport Initiatives: A Guide, 2007, p18 10 Mitchell, R and Popham, F, Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study, 2008

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Determinant and Explanation Pathways Health Outcomes

Operation Operation Transport schemes can encourage active travel and An increase in access and interaction with green improve access to local amenities, including green spaces. spaces could lead to an improvement in mental health However, transport schemes could also lead to a loss of and wellbeing. It would also lead to an improvement in green space due to land-take. physical fitness, and a potential decrease in conditions related to sedentary lifestyles or air pollution. Loss of green space could cause the reverse of the above, as well as generate blight. This could have a further negative effect on wellbeing and health.

Air pollution Construction Construction and Operation Road traffic is a main source of air pollution. Pollutants that Construction activities can have a short term negative Increases in outdoor air pollution can lead to increased adversely impact health from road traffic include particulate impact on air quality. cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and morbidity. matter (PM) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Some effects are more or less immediate and affect There can be dust from site works and construction vulnerable groups (e.g. children or people whose health vehicles carrying site materials or waste along with exhaust is already impaired) in particular, whereas the effects of emissions from construction and other traffic due to road long-term exposure are more widespread. disruption and diversions. PM is the constituent most closely associated with Operation adverse health effects. Some evidence shows that PM from traffic is more toxic (per unit mass) than PM from Transport schemes can increase car or motor vehicle other sources.11 usage leading to an increase in air pollution. They can also reduce car usage, which in turn could reduce air pollution. A reduction in air pollution can reduce the above adverse health effects. Increased efficiency of the road network could also lead to an overall neutral effect on air pollution, as although motor vehicle usage may increase, there may be less congestion.

Noise pollution and vibration Construction Construction and Operation Motorise forms of transport are a common source of noise Construction activities can lead to an increase in localised Noise pollution and vibration at the levels generated by pollution. noise and vibration. traffic can lead to annoyance, interference with speech

11 MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and Institute of Occupational Medicine, Health Impact assessment of Transport Initiatives: A Guide, 2007, p26-31

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Determinant and Explanation Pathways Health Outcomes

and sleep disturbance. It can also have cardiovascular Operation and physiological effects. Transport schemes can increase noise pollution and Stress has been suggested as a possible mechanism vibration through increase motor vehicle usage and the through which noise may affect mental and physical construction of new road and rail routes. health. They can also reduce noise and vibration by encouraging a Evidence suggests noise pollution may limit children’s shift from cars to active travel and public transport or learning. through smoother traffic flows. An improvement in mental and physical health may result during operation, should noise and vibration levels decrease.

Soil and water pollution Construction and Operation Construction and Operation Surface water run-off containing particles from car tyres, brake Potential for localised contamination can occur during the Soil and water pollution can lead to public health linings and road surfaces contribute to the spread of construction period from construction spills and road run- impacts directly when people come into contact with hazardous substances in the environment and impact on water off. water and soil through recreation activities and or and soil quality. Oil and vehicle fuel also contain harmful indirectly through the use of water for gardens or other organic substances. Road construction activities can bring about changes in green spaces. groundwater levels and pollute nearby waterbodies. During operation, potential for pollution as a result of drainage contaminated with vehicle emission particulates and grit/salt spreading residues. Also potential contamination as a result of fuel/chemical spillages following major traffic accidents.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Determinant and Explanation Pathways Health Outcomes

Quality of life Construction Construction Quality of life is typically measured using a range of indices, A combination of all pathways. A combination of all outcomes. encompassing health, happiness, prosperity, arts, safety, community, public realm, access to transport, access to green Light pollution could result from an increase in lighting There is evidence showing that exposure to light at space, diet, etc. relating to construction activities. night can lead to associated problems including psychological stresses; increased cancer rates; disruption in sleeping patterns; and negative impacts on immune systems12. Glare from poorly shielded outdoor lighting is also harmful to health, because it decreases vision by reducing contrast. This limits our ability to see potential dangers at night. Aging eyes are especially affected.13

Operation Operation Increasing the accessibility of transport options can lead to Increased quality of life can improve wellbeing and an increase in access to education, employment facilities, mental health and vice versa. health and social care facilities, leisure facilities, and family and friends. This could improve quality of life. There is evidence showing that exposure to light at night can lead to associated problems including Community severance could reduce accessibility and psychological stresses; increased cancer rates; hence reduce quality of life. disruption in sleeping patterns; and negative impacts on immune systems. Glare from poorly shielded Light pollution could result from an increase in lighting as outdoor lighting is also harmful to health, because it part of Scheme design decreases vision by reducing contrast. This limits our ability to see potential dangers at night. Aging eyes are especially affected.

12 http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/health.html 13 http://darksky.org/light-pollution/human-health/

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Determinant and Explanation Pathways Health Outcomes

Personal safety and perceptions of safety Construction Construction More segregated spaces with limited natural surveillance may During construction, the perception of safety along routes Fear of crime and perception of safety can be an lead to enhanced fear of crime.14 could decrease due to the removal of open spaces, important factor influencing travel choices. Women’s presence of site hoardings, construction activities, access fear is generally greater than men’s. Women are diversions, a reduction on the attractiveness of walking and therefore more likely to avoid segregated spaces and cycling, decreased interaction with other people (as disrupted routes. Elderly people and people with construction reduces access and prevents people from disabilities may also avoid disrupted routes. Personal walking or cycling) and the general construction safety may also affect decisions to walk or cycle. This environment generating noise/vibration, which may create has implications for public health directly (fear of crime) the perception that the area is unsafe. and indirectly (decrease in active lifestyle).

Operation Operation Transport schemes can enhance actual and perceived In addition to the above, an increased use of public safety through road safety improvements and increase transport during operation could increase interaction natural surveillance. They can also enable more strangers with other people, which could increase perceptions of to travel through an area which can reduce perceived a safer community through natural surveillance. This safety. could reduce stress and improve mental wellbeing. Improvements to the walking and cycling environment However, the use of underpasses could increase the fear should also increase perceptions of safety. or crime and reduce usage, in comparison to bridges.

14 Hillier, B. and Sahbaz, O, Crime and Urban Design, 2009 In: Cooper, R. Evans, G. and Boyko, C. Designing Sustainable Cities, 2009

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Determinant and Explanation Pathways Health Outcomes

Social interaction and community severance Construction Construction There is an observed relationship between positive social During construction, there could be a decrease in access to Community severance can result from the divisive capital and health. Well-connected and walkable services and amenities resulting from road effects of major roads and railways running through an neighbourhoods can enhance social capital by increasing co- closures/diversions and disruption to traffic and road flows. existing community including through the construction presence and encounter opportunities, which are vital for of new routes or increased traffic on existing routes. interaction. Construction can decrease transport mode and route options and can increase the cost of travel. There is also a Potential severance during construction can lead to a risk of communities being severed by the construction decrease in interaction with other people. This can be traffic routes through an increase in the levels of traffic. of particular importance to those who rely heavily of local social networks e.g. the elderly and parents with young children. Reduced social interaction and increased community severance can reduce wellbeing and mental health as well as lead to reduced active travel and reduced physical fitness and a potential increase in obesity and cardiovascular disease.

Operation Operation Enhanced connectivity and new travel modes and route An increase in social interaction and reduced options could increase social interaction and reduce community severance could improve wellbeing and community severance. However, new routes through or mental health as well as lead to increased active travel near existing communities could increase community and improved physical fitness. This could improve severance and reduce social interaction. physical and mental health.

Climate Change Construction Construction Greenhouse gases (GHGs) from transport contribute to climate During construction, increased vehicle movements from Climate change consequences, at local level, are likely change. construction vehicles and car movements, as well as the to affect the health of the population, particularly with an embodied energy in construction materials, can lead to an increase in flooding, summer temperatures, levels of increase in fossil fuel use and an increase in GHG solar radiation and frequency of extreme weather emissions. events leading to, for example, increased levels of fatalities, injuries, infectious diseases, heat related deaths , skin cancer cases and cataracts.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Determinant and Explanation Pathways Health Outcomes

Operation Operation Transport schemes may reduce the efficiency in the use of In addition to the above, a reduction in GHG emissions roads or a reduction in car usage. These aspects could could have positive implications for public health. decrease the use of fossil fuels, which could lead to a reduction in GHG emissions.

Employment Construction Construction and Operation The implementation of infrastructure projects generates new New employment opportunities can be generated by The HUDU planning tool states that unemployment employment opportunities. Employment is a positive factor for construction activities. generally leads to poverty, illness and a decrease in health, providing financial security and contributing to self- personal and social esteem. People in employment are esteem. Operation healthier, particularly those who have more control over their working conditions. Employment is also associated Transport schemes may improve access to employment with income, a feeling of security, increase friendship opportunities for various social groups. networks and social status. In turn, these are linked to better health. These positive impacts are particularly important at a time where economic downturn is recent, which may have had negative effects on mental health. (2) Adapted from: Atkins Limited, South Bristol Link: Environmental Statement Volume 2: Health Impact, July 2013

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

6 VULNERABLE OR PRIORITY GROUPS

6.1.1 A HIA considers the effects of a project on both the health of the population affected by a project overall and the distribution of those impacts within the affected population. However, it is necessary to identify particular priority groups because changes to overall health determinants can have greater or lesser effects on population sub-groups depending on, for example, their age, health status, income and social support. The term "Vulnerable or Priority Groups" is derived from the HUDU guidance. 6.1.2 The identification of the priority population sub-groups that need to be considered during the assessment of impacts for the HIA of the Scheme was done through the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) process. The priority population sub-groups identified have been divided into vulnerable sub-groups and other relevant target sub-groups. Vulnerable sub-groups are more likely to be susceptible to the Scheme’s impacts than other social groups due to various factors as explained in Table 18. Other wider target groups including adults and professionals and the general population living in proximity to the Scheme may also be impacted by the Scheme (Table 19). An assessment of the Scheme against identified criteria, including specific impact on priority groups, is included in Table 22 of this HIA.

Table 18: Vulnerable or Priority Groups

Vulnerable/ Explanation and Health Outcomes Priority Group

Children and adolescents constitute a vulnerable population group due partly to their need to be able to move around freely to and from school and recreational activities, whilst they lack the experience and judgement displayed by adults when moving Children and around in traffic and public spaces. Hence, children and adolescents as pedestrians adolescents and cyclists are at elevated risk from danger distributed by motorised transport. Furthermore, children are more sensitive than adults to air pollution, noise and other environmental factors. A particularly sensitive group is children in low-income families.

Women are more likely to not own a car and as a result can find it harder to travel to shops, employment, healthcare and other services. They are more reliant on the Women provision of public transport. Women may also have more safety and security concerns when travelling alone and when there are more strangers in an area e.g. resulting from an influx of construction workers.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Vulnerable/ Explanation and Health Outcomes Priority Group

Generally, the older people are, the slower their movement and reactions are and the poorer their hearing and vision can be. Therefore, older people are considered to be more sensitive as users when compared with younger and middle-aged adults. Older people can be more at risk from injury, may fear falls, and may be concerned about a lack of safe crossing points and short crossing times at safe crossing points. This can Older People deter them from outdoor activity, especially walking, which can be critical for muscle strength and reduces the risk of falls, amongst other benefits. Older people can feel more vulnerable using public transport. They also often need to seek health services. Their continuing independence at home is often dependent on having availability to a range of transport mode and route options.

This group may not be able to access many forms of transport or need special arrangements and/or support to access those. They are more likely to find it difficult to walk or travel independently and can also be disadvantaged by the cost of transport. People who are Chronically ill persons, for example, people with impaired lung function, can be more disabled and/or adversely affected by air pollution. The same is true of hypersensitive individuals such with other health as asthmatics. Noise can cause hypertension and cardio-vascular problems. Those problems who already have these conditions can be more troubled by noise than others. People with existing physical and mental illnesses, including sleep disturbance, anxiety and depression, can be more sensitive to even small changes to their local environment.

People on low incomes (living in a deprived area is used as a proxy for a low income) and without access to a car are likely to walk further. Their lack of transport options, which may include affordability of public transport, may limit life and work opportunities. People living in deprived areas can be particularly vulnerable to road traffic incidents Those in low- (deaths and injuries), noise and air pollution. Deprived areas are often characterised income groups/ by higher traffic volumes as well as other environmental burdens such as industrial People without facilities.15 This group is generally more likely to already have reduced access to access to a car health and social care as well as other services and amenities. This group may have existing increased stress levels due to the factors above. A poor physical environment can also act as a barrier to active travel, or travel in general. In addition, this group is more vulnerable to food insecurity (meaning “consistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year”), which has an access dimension.16 (3) Adapted from: Atkins Limited, South Bristol Link: Environmental Statement Volume 2: Health Impact, July 2013 17 Table 19: Other Target Groups

Target Group Explanation and Health Outcomes

15 Greater London Authority, London Health Commission and London Health Observatory (2002) Rapid review of health evidence for the draft London Plan; and Jarvis, S., Towner, E. et al 1995 cited in Cave, B (2001) “Accidents” in The health of our children ed. Botting, B, London, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, HMSO 16 S.Tsang, MHSc, RD (1); A.M.Holt, MHSc(2); E.Azevedo, MSc, RD (1), An assessment of the barriers to accessing food among food-insecure people n Cobourg, Ontario, Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada, Volume 31, no.3, June 2011 17 The APHO website includes the SBL report as a good practice example of an HIA for a road project: http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=136453

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Target Group Explanation and Health Outcomes

Along with all groups, this social group needs easily accessible and safe routes to and from home/work as well as easily accessible key services and Adults/Working people amenities. They are likely to benefit from improved public transport provision but can also be affected by disruptions during construction.

The overall impacts of the Scheme on local people (those living near the proposed route including construction areas and diverted routes) and users of the Scheme also need to be assessed. These people are likely to be Entire population subject to both beneficial and adverse effects of the Scheme’s construction and operation. This group also includes future residents in the area, for the consideration of impacts. (4) Adapted from: Atkins Limited, South Bristol Link: Environmental Statement Volume 2: Health Impact, July 2013

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

7 ASSESSMENT SCOPE AND FRAMEWORK

7.1.1 The analysis of health impacts focuses on the identification of links between transport systems and health, specifically health determinants and outcomes, compared against the community profile for the area. The analysis informs the identification of potential health impacts of the Scheme on the identified priority population sub-groups during construction and operation. 7.1.2 To determine the significance of impacts of the Scheme, the analysis of potential determinants, pathways and outcomes (Table 17) has been compared against the HUDU Framework, to identify a list of relevant assessment criteria against which to assess the Scheme. This is presented in Table 20, which provides the scope of the assessment. The key issues from the stakeholder consultation, as summarised in Annex A, have been included within the scope of the assessment. 7.1.3 In response to one of the consultation comments from PHE, electromagnetic field impacts have been scoped out of the assessment. Highways England’s technology equipment must comply with TR1100 ‘General Specification for Motorway Signs, Signalling and Communications Equipment’. Within this specification it requires equipment to be capable of meeting the acceptance criteria of the tests listed in BS EN 50293 ‘Road traffic signal systems electromagnetic compatibility’. TR1100 also states that “Equipment shall comply with the requirements current at the date of tender of relevant European Directives and UK legislation, in particular those related to Product Liability, Safety, Electromagnetic Compatibility (“EMC”), Waste Management and Restrictions on the use of Hazardous Substances”. Therefore, Highways England can confirm that the Scheme does not result in the movement or construction of any significant sources of electromagnetic field (“EMF”) and therefore there is no need to address EMF impacts within this HIA. 7.1.4 The range of determinants selected relates to the potential health impacts of a transport scheme. Health covers a broad range of determinants, including the health impacts addressed by the EIA process. The following data sources have been used to determine the health impacts of the Scheme:

a) Socio-Economic Report (Application Document Reference 7-2);

b) ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) Chapter 6 (Air Quality);

c) ES Chapter 8 (Landscape)

d) ES Chapter 9 (Ecology and Nature Conservation);

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

e) ES Chapter 10 (Geology and Soils);

f) ES Chapter 11 (Materials and Waste);

g) ES Chapter 12 (Noise and Vibration);

h) ES Chapter 13 (Effects on all Travellers);

i) ES Chapter 14 (Community and Private Assets); and

j) ES Chapter 15 (Road Drainage and the Water Environment).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 20: Scope of the Health Impact Assessment

Assessment Criteria from HUDU Matrix Relevance Final Assessment Criteria

1. Housing quality and design

. Does the proposal seek to meet all 16 design criteria of the Lifetime The Scheme will not include any new n/a Homes Standard or meet Building Regulation requirement M4 (2)? housing. Therefore, these criteria are not considered to be relevant. . Does the proposal address the housing needs of older people, i.e. extra care housing, sheltered housing, lifetime homes and wheelchair accessible homes? . Does the proposal include homes that can be adapted to support independent living for older and disabled people? . Does the proposal promote good design through layout and orientation, meeting internal space standards? . Does the proposal include a range of housing types and sizes, including affordable housing responding to local housing needs? . Does the proposal contain homes that are highly energy efficient (e.g. a high SAP rating)?

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Assessment Criteria from HUDU Matrix Relevance Final Assessment Criteria

2. Access to healthcare services and other social infrastructure 1. Access to social infrastructure

Section 4.5 (Local Amenities) provides . Does the proposal retain or re-provide existing social . Does the proposal retain or re-provide existing social details of social infrastructure. As the infrastructure? infrastructure? Scheme will not be changing routes or . Does the proposal assess the capacity, location and . Does the proposal assess the impact on healthcare services? the location of services, the opportunities for shared community use or the co- accessibility of other social infrastructure, e.g. . Does the proposal include the provision, or replacement of a location of services is not considered to schools, social care and community facilities? healthcare facility and does the facility meet NHS requirements? be of relevance. The impact on . Does the proposal disrupt or reduce access to healthcare services criteria has been existing transport modes? . Does the proposal assess the capacity, location and accessibility of deleted as the Scheme will not be directly other social infrastructure, e.g. schools, social care and community contributing to residential numbers. The . Does the proposal disrupt or reduce access to facilities? criteria relating to the provision of existing community facilities including consideration . Does the proposal explore opportunities for shared community use education needs and healthcare facilities of priority groups and community severance? and co-location of services? have also been deleted, as these are not relevant to the Scheme. . Does the proposal contribute to meeting primary, secondary and post 19 education needs? Additional assessment criteria have been added based on the analysis in Table 17.

3. Access to open space and nature 2. Recreation, green space and light pollution

Section 4.6 (Active Travel, Recreation . Does the proposal retain and enhance existing open . Does the proposal retain and enhance existing open and natural and Green Space) provides details of and natural spaces? spaces? such within the study area (Drawing 14.1 . Does the proposal reduce access to green space? . In areas of deficiency, does the proposal provide new open or of the ES). As the Scheme will not be natural space, or improve access to existing spaces? directly contributing to residential . Does the proposal lead to the loss of accessible numbers, it is considered that: the green space? . Does the proposal provide a range of play spaces for children and provision of new open spaces in areas of young people? deficiency; and the provision of play . Will the proposal have a negative aesthetic effect on spaces are not relevant to the Scheme. green space/change the perception of its . Does the proposal provide links between open and natural spaces attractiveness? and the public realm? Additional assessment criteria have been added based on the analysis in Table 16. . Does the proposal maintain or enhance biodiversity? . Are the open and natural spaces welcoming and safe and accessible for all? . Does the proposal lead to an unacceptable increase in light pollution? . Does the proposal set out how new open space will be managed and maintained? 3. Active travel

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Assessment Criteria from HUDU Matrix Relevance Final Assessment Criteria

. Does the proposal disrupt or reduce access to pedestrian or cycle routes?

4. Air quality, noise and neighbourhood amenity 4. Air quality

Section 4.9 (Air Quality) and Section 4.8 . Does the proposal minimise air pollution including (Noise and Vibration) provide baseline from dust during construction? . Does the proposal minimise construction impacts such as dust, information upon which an assessment of noise, vibration and odours? the Scheme will be made. The criteria 5. Noise and vibration have been modified to reflect the . Does the proposal minimise air pollution caused by traffic and assessment in Table 16. Air Quality and energy facilities? Noise and Vibration have been separated . Does the proposal minimise noise pollution and out due to their potential significance. vibration? . Does the proposal minimise noise pollution caused by traffic and The ‘from traffic’ element has been commercial uses? removed to allow other construction practices to be considered as part of the assessment of impacts.

Additional assessment criteria have been . 6. Soil and water pollution added based on the analysis in Table 17. . Will the proposal lead to localised contamination of the soil and water environment? . Does the proposal incorporate sustainable urban drainage techniques?

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Assessment Criteria from HUDU Matrix Relevance Final Assessment Criteria

5 Accessibility and active travel

. Does the proposal prioritise and encourage walking (such as Section 4.6 (Active Travel, Recreation Criteria of relevance based on the analysis presented in through shared spaces?) and Green Space) provides details of Table 17 have been added to criteria questions 1, 3 and such within the study area (Drawing 14.1 6. . Does the proposal prioritise and encourage cycling (for example by of the ES). Although none of the criteria providing secure cycle parking, showers and cycle lanes)? are considered to be directly relevant, . Does the proposal connect public realm and internal routes to local criteria of relevance based on the and strategic cycle and walking networks? analysis presented in Table 17 have been added to criteria questions 1, 3 and . Does the proposal include traffic management and calming 6. measures to help reduce and minimise road injuries? . Is the proposal well connected to public transport, local services and facilities? . Does the proposal seek to reduce car use by reducing car parking provision, supported by the controlled parking zones, car clubs and travel plans measures? . Does the proposal allow people with mobility problems or a disability to access buildings and places?

6 Crime reduction and community safety 7. Community safety and driver stress

. Does the proposal incorporate elements to help design out crime? Section 4.7 (Risk of injuries, deaths and . Has engagement and consultation been carried out driver stress) provides information of with the local community? . Does the proposal incorporate design techniques to help people relevance. As the Scheme will not lead to feel secure and avoid creating ‘gated communities’? the increase in permanent buildings, the . Does the Scheme reduce risk of injury? . Does the proposal include attractive, multi-use public spaces and majority of the criteria are not considered . Does the Scheme reduce risk of driver stress? buildings? to be relevant. However, criteria of relevance based on the analysis in Table . Does the Scheme alter perceptions of safety along . Has engagement and consultation been carried out with the local 17 have been added. pedestrian and cycle routes? community?

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Assessment Criteria from HUDU Matrix Relevance Final Assessment Criteria

7 Access to healthy food

. Does the proposal facilitate the supply of local food, i.e. allotments, Section 4.5 (Local Amenities) provides n/a community farms and farmers’ markets? details of social infrastructure. Questions 1 and 2 will address issues relating to . Is there a range of retail uses, including food stores and smaller allotments and green space. Other affordable shops for social enterprises? criteria are not considered to be relevant to the Scheme, based on the assessment . Does the proposal avoid contributing towards an over- in Table 17 and the community profile concentration of hot food takeaways in the local area? information.

8 Access to work and training 8. Access to work and training

. Does the proposal provide access to local employment and training Section 4.3 provides information . Does the proposal provide access to local opportunities, including temporary construction and permanent including data relating to existing employment and training opportunities, including ‘end-use’ jobs? employment profiles. The inclusion of temporary construction and permanent ‘end-use’ childcare facilities and provision of jobs? . Does the proposal provide childcare facilities? workspace are not considered to be relevant to the Scheme. The other criteria . Does the proposal include opportunities for work for . Does the proposal include managed and affordable workspace for local people from various social groups via local local businesses? have been modified to reflect the assessment in Table 17. procurement arrangements? . Does the proposal include opportunities for work for local people via local procurement arrangements?

9 Social cohesion and lifetime neighbourhoods

. Does the proposal connect with existing communities, i.e. layout and movement which avoids physical barriers and severance and land uses and spaces which encourage social interaction? . Does the proposal include a mix of uses and a range of community facilities? Criteria of relevance are included under Criteria of relevance are included under question 1 question 1 above. above. . Does the proposal provide opportunities for the voluntary and community sectors? . Does the proposal address the six key components of Lifetime Neighbourhoods?

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Assessment Criteria from HUDU Matrix Relevance Final Assessment Criteria

10 Minimising the use of resources and climate change 9. Minimising the use of resources

. Does the proposal make best use of existing land? . Does the proposal make best use of existing land? . Does the proposal encourage recycling (including . Does the proposal encourage recycling (including building building materials)? These questions are considered to be of materials)? relevance to the Scheme. . Does the proposal encourage sustainable waste . Does the proposal incorporate sustainable design and construction management with consideration of human health? techniques? . Does the proposal incorporate sustainable design and construction techniques?

11 Climate change

. Does the proposal incorporate renewable energy? . Does the proposal ensure that buildings and public spaces are designed to respond to winter and summer temperatures, i.e. ventilation, shading and landscaping? Criteria of relevance are included under Criteria of relevance are included under questions 2, 6 questions 2, 6 and 9 above. and 9 above. . Does the proposal maintain or enhance biodiversity? . Does the proposal incorporate sustainable urban drainage techniques? (5) See Table 2 for the linkages between health determinants, pathways and outcomes as well as a summary of key data of relevance to the Scheme.

(6) Table adapted from: NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit, HUDU Planning for Health: Rapid Health Impact Assessment Tool, Second Edition, June 2015

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

8 ASSESSMENT

8.1.1 A seven point assessment scale that classifies the significance of the identified impacts (see Table 21) is used to categorise the effects for the assessment18. Significance incorporates the intensity of the impact and its potential duration. 8.1.2 Table 22 presents an assessment of the Scheme’s predicted health effects, separated by construction and operational effects. The assessment is at a strategic level, providing an overall assessment for the whole Scheme. However, where specific effects may relate to a certain area of the Scheme, or priority groups, these have been highlighted. The assessment has been based on the baseline data provided in the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1), which is summarised in Section 4 of this HIA (Community Profile). The assessment determines whether or not the Scheme will have a positive or negative impact from this baseline. 8.1.3 As outlined in the Health Scotland Guide (MRC), there are many examples for which preliminary research or ‘common sense’ suggests that a certain intervention will lead to a specific beneficial impact. Any predictions set out in this HIA are hypothetical and based on professional judgement. However, the majority of judgements are based on research evidence from the ES, which gives predictions a stronger grounding. The monitoring of effects is recommended, to ensure no unpredicted adverse impacts arise, as additional mitigation may be required.

18 This approach has been adapted from the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), for the North Staffordshire ‘Streetcar’ Bus Rapid Transport Scheme Health Impact Assessment, IOM, 2009 IN Atkins Limited, South Bristol Link: Environmental Statement Volume 2: Health Impact, July 2013

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 21: Assessment Scale and Definition of Impact Significance

Significance Definition Intensity Duration of Impact

Health effects are categorised as a major negative if they The exposures Long term could lead directly to deaths, acute or chronic diseases or tend to be of duration (L) mental ill health. high intensity (Operation – and/or over a Opening Year They can affect either both physical and mental health, large 2022) either directly or through the wider determinants of health geographical Major and wellbeing. Intermittent (I), Negative area and/or affects a large Temporary (T) These effects can be important local, district, regional and or Permanent national considerations. number of people (e.g. (P) in nature. Mitigation measures and detailed design work can reduce over the level of negative effects though residual effects are approximately likely to remain. 500 people) or impacts on Health effects are categorised as a major positive if they vulnerable Major prevent deaths/prolong lives, reduce/prevent the groups Positive occurrence of acute or chronic diseases or significantly enhance mental wellbeing.

Health effects are categorised as a moderate negative if The exposures Medium term health effects are long term nuisance impacts e.g. odours tend to be of duration and noise, or may lead to the exacerbation of an existing moderate (Construction) illness. intensity and/or over a Intermittent (I), Moderate negative effects may include nuisance/quality relatively Temporary (T) of life impacts which may affect physical and mental localised area or Permanent health either directly or through the wider determinants of and/or likely to (P) in nature. Moderate health. Negative affect a The cumulative effect of a set of moderate effects could moderate- lead to a major effect. These effects could be important large number locally or regionally. of people e.g. between Mitigation measures and detailed design work can reduce approximately an in some/many cases remove the negative and 100-500 enhance the positive effects through residual effects are people and/or likely to remain. vulnerable groups. Health effects are categorised as a moderate positive if Moderate they enhance mental wellbeing significantly and/or Positive reduce exacerbations to existing illness and reduce the occurrence of acute or chronic diseases.

Minor Health effects are categorised as minor positive or The exposures Short term Negative negative if they are generally lower quality of life or tend to be of duration (only wellbeing impacts. low intensity part of the and/or over a construction Increases or reductions in noise, odour, visual amenity, small area period) etc. are examples of effects, which could be important and/or affect a Minor local considerations. small number Intermittent (I), Positive Temporary (T) Mitigation measures and detailed design work can reduce of people e.g. approximately or Permanent the negative and enhance the positive effects such that (P) in nature. there are only some residual effects remaining. less than 100.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

SEPTEMBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Significance Definition Intensity Duration of Impact

No health effects or effects within the bounds of N/A N/A Neutral/No normal/accepted variation. Effect (n) (7) Adapted from: Atkins Limited, South Bristol Link: Environmental Statement Volume 2: Health Impact, July 2013

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

SEPTEMBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 22: Health Impact Assessment of the Scheme

Commentary Assessment Recommendations Assessment Criteria of Impact

1. Access to social infrastructure

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

. Does the The proposal has some effects upon certain recreational amenities - see below - but otherwise does not retain or Moderate No further proposal retain reprovide existing social infrastructure. As such, it has a neutral effect. Negative recommendations or re-provide above the mitigation Temporary land-take, could have a negative effect on the availability of community assets, leading to the loss of existing social included within the existing social infrastructure, including the loss of space for the growing of local food and active recreation. Land-take infrastructure? ES. As set out in will be required from community assets between the following links: Chapter 3 ‘Design . Does the . Junctions 8/9 to 7 (Part of Tumpers Field recreation area (Dorney School)); Iterations and proposal Alternatives assess the . Junctions 7 to 6 (allotment land at West Point and part of the Mercian Recreation Ground); Considered’, the capacity, most appropriate location and . Junctions 6 to 5 (allotments at Myrke Slough Road; Bentley Education Centre; Datchet Cricket Club; areas of Upton Court Park) construction accessibility of methodology for the other social Details of residential, commercial and agricultural land-take are provided in the Socio-Economic Report. The required infrastructure, Engineering Design Report also includes detail of land-take required for the Scheme. improvements to e.g. schools, structures, such as During construction, community severance issues could reduce accessibility to a range of community assets. social care and overbridges, has Community severance issues are identified in the Socio-Economic Report at Junctions 8/9 to 7; 7 to 6; and 6 to 5. community been selected Within these links, overbridges are to be re-built. However, in most cases, offline options have been chosen in order to facilities? based on the minimise potential severance issues and avoid travel delay. Possible community severance impacts may occur as a particular . Does the result of the rebuilding process as short term closures will be necessary. Appropriate diversion routes, signage and circumstances proposal information will be provided. Further, construction is planned to take place on a ‘link by link' basis, rather than in its applying in relation disrupt or entirety. Specific communities and users affected are detailed in the Socio-Economic Report. reduce access Construction to each structure, to existing Within link 5 to 4b, the Old Slade Lane overbridge will be rebuilt on-line, which will necessitate the closure of both the such as the transport road and bridleway. This would affect road users, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians travelling to and from availability of modes? destinations on either side. diversion routes, and the existence of . Does the Within link 4b to 4, the Socio-Economic Report highlights potential community severance issues from the lengthening sensitive receptors proposal of a subway. This may affect pedestrians travelling north/south to community facilities, employment areas and homes. in the vicinity of the disrupt or A 1.5km diversion would be put in place, which could minimise the significance of the effect. structure. The reduce access Accessibility can enhance both physical and mental health and wellbeing. As effects from land-take and severance alternatives to existing would be considered temporary, effects are considered to be minor negative, as the number of people affected could considered and the community include priority/vulnerable groups. The ES (Chapter 14: Community and Private Assets) concludes that effects from method of facilities construction would be ‘slight adverse’. The construction period is due to last a number of years. However, residual construction including effects would be of minor intensity as, although some routes may be closed, mitigation in the form of diversions and selected are set out consideration of the phasing of construction activities is likely to reduce the significance of negative effects. in Chapter 3. priority groups and community Further information relating to mitigation of construction nuisance can be found within the Outline Construction severance? Environmental Management Plan (“CEMP”) (Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6-3).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Some permanent land-take will be required from community facilities between the following links: 11 to 10 (common Minor Positive No further land, whereby a replacement will be provided); and 7 to 6 (green space north of the Jubilee River). However, as this recommendations

will be relatively minor, a minor negative effect is predicted against this criterion. Overall, however, the Socio- above the mitigation Economic Report highlights that ‘the effect of the operation of the Scheme on community and private assets in general included within the is considered to be beneficial overall. The operation of the Scheme would relieve congestion and smooth the flow of ES. traffic along the M4. It can therefore be expected for there to be improvements in the road network relied upon by local

Operation businesses and residents.’ ON balance, a minor positive effect is predicted overall. Details of residential, commercial and agricultural land-take are provided in the Socio-Economic Report. The Engineering Design Report also includes detail of land-take required for the Scheme.

2. Recreation, green space and light pollution

. Does the The Scheme seeks to retain existing green, open and natural spaces, and has been developed to minimise land-take Minor No further proposal retain where possible, thereby minimising the number of people potentially affected. However, the Scheme will lead to the Negative recommendations and enhance loss of existing open and natural spaces. This could lead to a minor negative effect against this criteria as well as the above the mitigation existing open criterion relating to the perception of the attractiveness of green spaces. Locationally specific mitigation and details included within the and natural relating to land-take is identified within the relevant links within the Socio-Economic Report. Detailed information in ES. spaces? relation to mitigation for visual amenity affects can be found in Chapter 8 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1). . Does the proposal Accessibility to green space could be reduced due to temporary community severance effects, as assessed under reduce access assessment criterion 1, which could lead to minor negative effects. The Wraysbury River/Colne Valley Regional Park to green close to junction 4b forms a hub of recreational activities for walkers and cyclists; construction works in connection space? with the Wraysbury River and River Colne underbridges may divert visitors from this area to other parts of the Park.

Effects experienced by users of recreational routes within this area may relate to some loss of amenity. . Does the proposal lead The Outline CEMP outlines that lighting will be designed, positioned and directed so as not to intrude unnecessarily on to the loss of adjacent buildings, ecological receptors, structures used by protected species and other land uses to prevent accessible unnecessary disturbance, interference with local residents, railway operations, or passing motorists. This provision will green space? apply particularly to sites where night working will be required. In addition, at construction sites where potentially

Construction significant impacts are identified, the contractor will develop and implement lighting controls as part of their EMS. . Will the Temporary aesthetic/visual amenity effects in particular, are assessed as moderate adverse in the ES. The night-time proposal have visual assessment for the construction compounds has also assessed the effects of light pollution as moderate a negative adverse. aesthetic effect on green Chapter 9 of the ES (Ecology and Nature Conservation) (Application Document Reference 6-1) demonstrates the space/change approach the Scheme has taken to avoid and mitigate its effects on ecology and nature conservation. The majority of the perception the Scheme’s residual effects in relation to ecology and nature conservation have been assessed to be neutral, with of its the exception of habitat removal in relation to amphibians and reptiles, for which the effects have been assessed as attractiveness? slight adverse. A full list of the residual effects of the Scheme in relation to ecology and nature conservation is set out in Table 9.5 of Chapter 9. . Does the proposal Overall, a minor negative effect is predicted against these criteria, as there will be some loss of amenity and maintain or accessibility, although this effect has been minimised as much as possible through design measures. HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

enhance biodiversity? The Scheme seeks to retain existing green, open and natural spaces, and Scheme has been developed to minimise Minor No further land-take where possible, thereby minimising the number of people potentially affected. Location specific mitigation Negative recommendations . Does the relating to land-take is identified within the relevant links within the Socio-Economic Report. above the mitigation proposal lead included within the to an Chapter 8 of the ES ‘Landscape’ (Application Document Reference 6-1) refers to the Environmental Masterplan for the ES. unacceptable Scheme which provides information relating to on-going mitigation in relation to landscape and visual amenity. The increase in light Chapter also assesses the potential impact on human health from light pollution. It concludes that the lighting pollution? proposals for the Scheme are such that lighting will be retained at its current locations and no new lighting will be introduced. In the light of this, it is considered that the broad night-time landscape characteristics i.e. the baseline Environmental Zones identified within each link, will not be affected by the Scheme because no new lighting will be introduced.

Chapter 9 of the ES (Ecology and Nature Conservation) (Application Document Reference 6-1) demonstrates the approach the Scheme has taken to avoid and mitigate its effects on ecology and nature conservation. The nature of the Scheme, being intrinsically tied to the existing M4 infrastructure and having only a small land take, means that

Operation opportunities to provide biodiversity enhancements are limited. Nevertheless, where benefits can be achieved (for example, the construction of otter ledges within existing culverts, and the provision of bat and bird boxes), biodiversity enhancement measures will be delivered. Where possible, habitats will be restored after construction works have finished, and biodiversity will be taken into account during landscaping, including the use of wildflowers and native and fruit-bearing species which will provide benefits to wildlife in general. Overall, there will be some loss of green space and potential negative effect on biodiversity, although this effect has been minimised as much as possible through design and mitigation measures. Some positive effects may result from biodiversity enhancements. However, as some permanent land-take will be required from community assets between the following links: 11 to 10 (common land, whereby a replacement will be provided); and 7 to 6 (green space north of the Jubilee River) (albeit minor), along with amenity impacts from temporary land-take, a minor negative effect is predicted against this criteria.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

3. Active travel

Community severance issues are identified in the Socio-Economic Report at Junctions 8/9 to 7; 7 to 6; and 6 to 5. Moderate No further These are assessed under assessment criterion 1. Within these links, overbridges are to be re-built. However, in most Negative recommendations cases, offline options have been chosen in order to minimise potential severance issues and avoid travel delay. above the mitigation Possible community severance impacts will occur as a result of the rebuilding process as temporary closures will be included within the necessary. Appropriate diversion routes, signage and information will be provided. Specific communities and users ES. As set out in affected are detailed in the Socio-Economic Report. Chapter 3 ‘Design Iterations and Within link 5 to 4b, the overbridge will be rebuilt on-line, which will necessitate the closure of both the road and Alternatives bridleway. This would affect road users, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians travelling to and from destinations on Considered’, the either side. The particular communities and users that may be affected in this area are discussed in more detail within most appropriate Section 6.9 of the Socio-Economic Report. The ES concludes that this effect would be ‘slight adverse’. construction Within link 4b to 4, the Socio-Economic Report highlights potential community severance issues from the lengthening methodology for the of a subway. This may affect pedestrians travelling north/south to community facilities, employment areas and homes. required A 1.5km diversion would be put in place, which could minimise the significance of the effect. The ES concludes that improvements to . Does the this effect would be ‘slight adverse’. structures, such as proposal overbridges, has disrupt or In developing the Scheme, the most appropriate construction methodology for the required improvements to been selected reduce access structures, such as overbridges and underbridges, has been selected based on the particular circumstances applying based on the to pedestrian or in relation to each structure, such as the availability of diversion routes, and the existence of sensitive receptors in the particular cycle routes? vicinity of the structure. Where appropriate diversion measures for all travellers have not been identified, alternative circumstances Construction solutions are identified by junction within the Socio-Economic Report. applying in relation Accessibility can enhance both physical and mental health and wellbeing. As effects from severance to walking and to each structure, cycling routes would be considered temporary, effects are considered to be minor negative, as the number of people such as the affected could include priority/vulnerable groups. The ES (Chapter 14: Community and Private Assets) concludes that availability of effects from construction on users of walking and cycling routes would be ‘slight adverse’. The construction period is diversion routes, due to last a number of years. However, residual effects would be of minor intensity as, although some routes may be and the existence of closed, mitigation in the form of diversions and the phasing of construction activities is likely to reduce the significance sensitive receptors of negative effects. in the vicinity of the structure. The . alternatives considered and the method of construction selected are set out in Chapter 3.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

The Socio-Economic Report highlights that ‘the effect of the operation of the Scheme on community and private Minor Positive The Scheme has assets in general is considered to be beneficial overall. The operation of the Scheme would relieve congestion and considered how smooth the flow of traffic along the M4. It can therefore be expected for there to be improvements in the road network existing walking and relied upon by local businesses and residents.’ cycling routes can be retained through Scheme operation is not considered to either disrupt or reduce access to pedestrian or cycle routes, with routes the design of affected during construction being reinstated. The Scheme has considered how existing walking and cycling routes replacement can be retained through the design of replacement overbridges and underbridges, the identification of appropriate

overbridges and diversion routes where possible and considerate construction practices where possible (for example the consideration underbridges, the of priority groups). Therefore, a minor positive effect is predicted. identification of appropriate diversion routes

Operation where possible and considerate construction practices where possible (for example the consideration of priority groups).

4. Air quality

Chapter 6 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) selected relevant receptors based on potential impacts on Minor No further human health. The air quality objective values have been set at concentrations that provide protection to all members Negative recommendations of society, including more vulnerable groups such as the very young, elderly or unwell. As such, the sensitivity of above the mitigation

. Does the receptors was considered in the definition of the air quality objective values. Further information can be found in included within the proposal Chapter 6 of the ES (Air Quality). Chapter 6 of the ES highlights that amenity effects (including dust) will be sought to ES. minimise air be minimised through the preparation and implementation of a CEMP. However, the ES highlights potential adverse pollution impacts from dust emissions at sensitive receptors close to the Scheme route during construction works along the including from entirety of the Scheme. This could lead to moderate negative effects as priority groups (including those whose health dust during may already be impaired) may be disproportionately affected. construction? Construction Mitigation could reduce the significance of effects. Detailed information relating to mitigation for effects from air quality can be found in Chapter 6 of the ES. For construction effects, these will be included within a CEMP. Therefore, an overall minor negative effect is predicted. The ES assesses residual effects as ‘not significant’.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Local operational effects for each link of the Scheme focus on NO2. This is because concentrations of PM10 are Minor No mitigation is predicted to be well below the annual average objective value in 2022, both with and without the Scheme, for all Negative recommended sensitive receptors, with a maximum predicted concentration of 26.3 μg/m3 with the Scheme. Effects at all sensitive during the receptors were predicted to be negligible. operational phase.

Negative effects of medium magnitude at receptors predicted to experience annual mean concentrations above the objective value were predicted at 5 residential properties between junctions 11 to 10; and 2 sensitive receptors between junctions 8/9 to 7 with the remainder of receptors predicted to experience annual mean concentrations above the objective experiencing a small or negligible change. Due to the small number of people experiencing a negative

Operation effect and because no larger increases in NO2 were predicted, which could have health effects, the assessment of impact is considered to be minor negative. Chapter 6 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) states that the effects of the Scheme on air quality are not considered to be significant overall, therefore no mitigation is recommended during the operational phase.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

5. Noise and vibration

Works are programmed to start in late 2016. Phasing of the works is such that the section between junctions 12 to 8/9 Minor No further should be completed by early 2018, thus residents within this section will experience minimal disturbance after this Negative recommendations time. Similarly, people living between junctions 8/9 to 3 may experience only minimal disturbance until early 2019. above the mitigation included within the For the mainline works (see paragraph 12.4.38 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) for defined ES. construction activities), construction noise levels have been calculated and assessed at 95 representative residential receptors and at 61 sensitive non-residential receptors. The significance of this effect is predicted to be minor negative. Site clearance, cabling, earthworks, drainage, resurfacing, installation of traffic management and gantry foundations result in moderate or major impacts at a small number of receptors. However, these activities are all dynamic in nature, as the works move along the Scheme, and these worst case noise levels will prevail for only a short period of time (for example, resurfacing progresses at a rate of 1000 to 2000 lane metres per shift, putting a considerable distance between a particular receptor and the works over the course of a shift) and the overall significance is assessed as minor negative. With respect to vibration, the majority of plant to be employed for the mainline works are not sources of significant ground-borne vibration. However, sheet piling will be carried out at some locations and vibratory rollers will be

employed for ground compaction, both potential sources of significant ground borne vibration. The significance of . Does the effect is slight adverse at receptors beyond the identified stand-off distances (see Table 12.13 and Table 12.14 of the proposal ES) (Application Document Reference 6-1). The number of sensitive receptors within the stand-off distances for minimise noise annoyance is relatively small. Therefore, effects are assessed as minor negative. pollution and vibration? For the overbridge works (see paragraph 12.4.39 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) for defined Construction demolition and construction activities), demolition and construction noise levels have been calculated and assessed at 23 representative residential receptors. For the underbridge works (see paragraph 12.4.40 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) for defined demolition and construction activities), demolition and construction noise levels have been calculated and assessed at seven representative residential receptors. Effects are predicted to be minor negative. ES Chapter 12 (Application Document Reference 6-1) states that, for construction compounds 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 the magnitude of impact from noise and vibration is negligible or minor for daytime, evening and night-time. For construction compound 2, the magnitude of impact is major for daytime, evening and night-time. For construction compound 3, the magnitude of impact is moderate for daytime and evening and major for night-time. For construction compound 11, the magnitude of impact is minor for daytime and evening and moderate for night-time. With appropriate mitigation, such as optimised site layout and the provision of bunding and/or barriers, the significance of effects are expected to be reduced to neutral or minor negative. Detailed information in relation to mitigation for potential effects from noise and disturbance can be found in Chapter 12 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1). A range of good site practices will be adopted in order to mitigate construction phase noise and vibration. These will be secured in the CEMP.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Chapter 12 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) identifies a small number of receptor locations along the Minor Positive No further route of the Scheme which may experience noise increases (greater than or equal to 1dB) and appropriate mitigation recommendations has been identified at these locations accordingly through the use of additional noise barriers and the installation of above the mitigation low-noise surfacing along the Scheme. No locations which experience noise increases greater than or equal to 3dB in included within the the long-term have been identified. ES.

The majority of receptors within the study area experience a negligible or minor decrease in traffic noise levels in the short-term (2022). In the long-term, the majority of residential properties experience a negligible decrease in traffic noise levels from 2022 to 2037. This is a consequence of the assumption of a low-noise surface along the complete

Operation Scheme length, even though traffic flows are generally predicted to increase over time. Compared to a do minimum scenario, the residual effects of the Scheme are predicted in the ES to be negligible or minor beneficial. Therefore a minor positive has been predicted against this criteria. Notwithstanding the slight beneficial effects of the Scheme in the short term and the neutral effects of the Scheme in the long term, an enhanced noise mitigation strategy (to provide long term benefits to residential areas along the Scheme) was provided in Appendix 12.5 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-3).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

6. Soil and water pollution

Construction works are predicted to have negligible adverse effects on water quality after mitigation. Construction Minor No further works will occur near to and within watercourses, abstraction point and surface water features and will also involve Negative recommendations works to the drainage network. These have the potential to provide a pathway for pollutants to reach watercourses above the mitigation and surface water features. Sources of pollutants could include storage and management of fuels and oils, use of included within the cement-based products and the potential release of sediment. Additional hazards arising from construction activities ES. include accidental release of floatable material, such as plastic and plastic film, and loss of material during storm events from surface water runoff. In addition, there is also a higher risk of entraining fine sediment in runoff, which could increase siltation in the receiving watercourse. Another potential effect is the mobilisation of contamination and migration into controlled waters. The Scheme runs through several SPZs comprising significant aquifers from which groundwater abstraction is currently taking place. The majority of predicted effects within Chapter 10 of the ES (Application Document Reference . Will the 6-1) are neutral or slight adverse, with the exception of the former landfills below offline link roads (junctions 5 to 6; 6 proposal lead to 7; and 7 to 8/9) which may have a moderate adverse effect. The details of certain construction operations, such as to localised piling, excavation of soft ground below newly widened embankments and excavation below the water table all have contamination potential to cause migration of contaminants (suspended solids and chemical contaminants from landfill materials)

of the soil and which may affect groundwater quality and in particular affect public water drinking supplies, which could negatively water affect human health, and thus will be considered further during the detailed design phase. Residual effects are environment? considered to be slight adverse. Slight adverse residual effects are also predicted for the deterioration of shallow aquifer water quality at unlicensed abstraction points. Appropriate measures will reduce/mitigate any effect where . Does the such operations are not able to be eliminated. Further details are included within Chapter 10 of the ES (Application

proposal Construction Document Reference 6-1). incorporate sustainable Chapter 10 of the ES (Geology and Soils) outlines that mitigation of the effects on soils both within and outside the urban drainage highway boundary, which relates mainly to the spread of pollution, will be achieved through appropriate control techniques? measures which will be administered through the CEMP and will be incorporated into the construction phase of the Scheme. Measures will include providing a suitable construction site drainage system including cutoff ditches or drains and Sustainable Drainage Systems (“SuDS”), or equivalent, with suitably sized treatment facilities such as settlement or detention basins. Chapter 15 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) provides a summary of the predicted impacts on road drainage and the water environment. To ensure the quality of the water environment does not deteriorate during construction, a CEMP will document all construction phase mitigation measures. An Emergency Flood Response Plan is required by the CEMP. There are 62 water abstraction points located between junctions 12 and 3 within 500m of the Scheme. Impacts could occur on the local water resources and associated infrastructure from plant and access to the works. In summary, due to the potential effect on health and wellbeing, a minor negative effect is predicted against these criteria.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

The majority of predicted effects within Chapter 10 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) are neutral or Neutral No further slight adverse, with the exception of the former landfills below offline link roads (junctions 5 to 6; 6 to 7; and 7 to 8/9) recommendations which may have a moderate adverse effect. Where it is necessary to safeguard highway users and the wider above the mitigation environment, long term monitoring of settlement and leachate/gas regimes within disturbed areas of landfill will be included within the implemented. Such areas will have been identified during the detailed design stage. Residual effects are considered ES. to be neutral. Regular maintenance of highway drainage infrastructure, in accordance with industry best practice requirements and guidance, will ensure that contaminants that might be released accidentally onto the operational highway would not significantly impact adjacent geology and soils or surface and groundwater regimes. A potential effect during operation is the mobilisation of contamination into controlled waters from vehicles using the Scheme. Road drainage could be contaminated by spills and leaks of oil and fuel, and by other materials deposited onto the drained surfaces, and contaminated runoff could be released into the surface water environment via this route. During the operational phase, there is a pollution risk associated with storm water runoff. Road runoff can contain hydrocarbons, heavy metals, chemicals and de-icing agents. These pollutants when combined with rainfall can runoff into the drainage system and have an adverse effect on the receiving watercourses. The pollutants may also find their way into groundwater through filter drains and overland flows during heavy rainfall events. There is also a risk that polluting materials may be spilt onto the road surface as a result of a road accident. The magnitude of impacts is considered to be negligible. Chapter 15 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1) includes measures that will augment existing pollution

Operation control measures. Drainage systems may be either active or passive in operation. Active systems (requiring operators) comprise penstocks, valves and notched weirs. Passive systems comprise swales, ponds, wetlands, ditches, basins, silt traps, filter drains, soakaways and oil separators. There will be a relatively small increase in impermeable area, so there will be no change to the operation of the vast majority of the drainage system. The ES states that the existing drainage system is fit for purpose and there are no identifiable risks to the water environment. The Drainage Strategy (Application Document Reference 7-5) is based on the principle of not polluting the water environment. In accordance with HA Guidance and the NN NPS, the Drainage Strategy has incorporated SuDS within the drainage design and it is proposed to use soakaways as part of the attenuation for the Scheme. The design will include mitigation measures to ensure flood risk to the Scheme or third parties is not increased as a result of altering the course of existing ditches or creating new channels/ditches. The details of the measures in question will be specified as part of the detailed design of the Scheme. The current drainage network within and serving the M4 is designed for a 1 in 2 year storm event and has not been designed with an allowance for climate change. For the existing M4, improving the existing drainage system and by implementing a routine maintenance plan will have benefits and will be designed for a 1 in 5 year storm event, with a 20% allowance for climate change, which will enhance flood attenuation. Overall, considering the mitigation and assessments in the ES, the potential effect on human health during the operation phase against these criteria is considered to be neutral.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

7. Community safety and stress

The CEMP requires a community engagement strategy to be prepared for the Scheme which will include a Moderate No further programme of high quality, effective and sustained communication with communities and stakeholders, setting out Negative recommendations areas affected by construction works and information regarding planned construction works. This may reduce some above the mitigation aspects of stress. Therefore a moderate negative effect is predicted. included within the ES. Traffic management measures associated with construction of the Scheme, including the use of narrow lanes and

reduced lane speeds, may lead to temporary increases in journey times and congestion, which may in turn have a negative effect on all travellers from increased levels of stress. More detailed information can be found in ES Chapter 13 ‘Effects on All Travellers’ (Application Document Reference 6-1). Overall, however, residual effects from speed and . Has flow restrictions associated with a 50mph speed limit are assessed in the ES as being beneficial. The effect from the engagement reconstruction of overbridges and underbridges, culverts and subways, particularly those to be constructed online, will have effects on local communities that are judged to be significant. However, these effects are for a limited duration of

and Construction consultation between 9 and 12 months whilst the bridges are under construction. Residual effects are considered to be both slight been carried adverse for aspects relating to the temporary closure of overbridges and underbridges. out with the The CEMP also includes that site lighting and signage will be provided by the contractor to enable the safety and local security of the construction sites. Where appropriate, lighting to site boundaries will be provided and illumination will community? be sufficient to provide a safe route for the passing public. This could improve perceptions of safety along these . Does the routes. Motion sensor lighting will be used where appropriate to prevent unnecessary usage. Scheme reduce risk of injury? An important objective of the Scheme is to continue to deliver a high level of safety performance of the network using Moderate The Scheme could smart motorway techniques. By way of reference, a study of the safety benefits of the M42 pilot smart motorway Positive consider how . Does the reported a 55.7% improvement in (personal injury) accidents as a result of that scheme. Again, as a smart motorway perceptions of Scheme reduce scheme which implemented similar technology to that proposed as part of this Scheme, the M42 is considered to be safety could be risk of driver an appropriate comparator for the Scheme. The SDI Report (see Section 4.6.1 of this HIA) indicates that as a improved on stress? consequence of implementing the Scheme, there is likely to be a decrease of 33 fatal, 303 serious and 1,622 slight replacement . Does the injury accidents. This demonstrates that the Scheme could have a positive impact, potentially reducing the casualties underbridges and Scheme alter within the study area. overbridges, to perceptions of encourage active ES Chapter 13 ‘Effects on All Travellers’ (Application Document Reference 6-1), identifies beneficial effects of the travel. safety along Scheme in relation to factors such as road safety and reduction of general congestion. Journey time reliability will pedestrian and improve as a result of the introduction of the Scheme. In addition to the benefits associated with the introduction of a cycle routes? smart motorway, following consultation it has been decided to resurface all lanes with a Thin Surface Course System,

Operation otherwise known as “low noise” surfacing, along the complete Scheme extent. With this mitigation in place, in addition to the predicted negligible changes or decreases in noise levels within the Scheme corridor with the Scheme in operation, the surfacing will reduce tyre noise and consequently in-vehicle noise levels, which will be beneficial to driver stress. Driver information will improve considerably as a result of the introduction of the Scheme - additional Variable Message Signs ("VMS") being a key feature of smart motorways. The reduction of general congestion and the likelihood of ‘traffic flow breakdown’ are other key outcomes that have been identified from studies following the introduction of a smart motorway. Each of these factors is considered as being able to reduce driver stress.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

8. Access to work and training

The Scheme provides an opportunity to develop good practice in terms of use of a proportion of the workforce from Minor Positive The CEMP could local communities, development of skills and training programmes, and apprenticeship schemes. The requirement for include using local people within the workforce is identified within the Outline CEMP. The Socio-Economic Report highlights specifications that a that the ‘construction phase of the Scheme is likely to have a positive impact on employment in the sub-region. range of Construction of the Scheme is estimated to create in the region of 400 temporary FTE jobs, equating to some 2,000 employment types, person years of employment over a five year period.’ However, the types of jobs are not specified, and so minor for a range of skills positive effects are predicted. The Outline CEMP outlines that the provision for either access to on-site or near site levels, should be . Does the occupational healthcare in relevant locations will be provided. offered to local

proposal Construction people. This could provide access improve health to local levels for priority employment groups. and training opportunities, The M4 currently suffers from heavy congestion and unpredictable journey times. Increases in traffic along the route of Moderate No mitigation including the Scheme are likely in the future as a result of increasing populations and the continued development of housing Positive included. temporary and employment areas. Traffic congestion is a possible constraint to the further economic development of the sub- construction region, affecting not only travel to work journeys, but also the attractiveness of the wider area as a place to live and and permanent visit and health and wellbeing in general. The operation of the Scheme is anticipated to relieve congestion and smooth ‘end-use’ jobs? the flow of traffic along the M4. Therefore, it can be expected for there to be improvements in the road network relied upon by local businesses and residents. . Does the proposal The Scheme may positively influence decision-making for businesses looking to locate to areas within the sub-region, include as it makes a significant and strategic improvement to local infrastructure. An Economic Assessment Report (February

opportunities 2015), Social and Distributional Impact Report (“SDI”) and Regeneration Report have been prepared for the Scheme for work for using guidance contained within the Department for Transport’s (“DfT”) Transport Analysis Guidance, WebTAG, the local people Appraisal Summary Table for which can be found at Appendix B to the Socio-Economic Report. Key findings, as from various summarised in the Socio-Economic Report, include an overall improvement in the transport economic efficiency

social groups Operation (“TEE”) of business users as a result of the Scheme, principally in the form of savings in journey time. 92% of total via local TEE benefit during normal operation is attributable to changes in business journey times and vehicle operating costs. procurement A total of 56.7million vehicle hours will be saved by business users in the Opening Year (2022) during normal arrangements? operation. The Regeneration Report notes that the Scheme passes within close proximity to five Regeneration Areas (“RAs”), namely Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell, Maidenhead and Slough. The overall conclusion of the analysis is that the Scheme does have a slight beneficial impact on travel times in relation to RAs which are close to the Scheme. The above effects could lead to improvements for health and wellbeing through improving the area generally, as well as leading to an increase in potential indirect employment opportunities for a range of people. Therefore a moderate positive effect is predicted, as significant wellbeing effects could result.

9. Minimising the use of resources

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

The Scheme supports the delivery of core land-use planning principles, by providing improved infrastructure to Minor Positive No further support economic growth whilst conserving the natural environment to a greater extent than a traditional motorway recommendations widening scheme. This is because the use of land for the Scheme is largely within the existing motorway corridor and above the mitigation . Does the involves the use of previously developed land (the motorway and its associated verges and embankments). included within the ES. proposal make Chapter 11 of the ES (Materials and Waste) (Application Document Reference 6-1) highlights that the design best use of approach has been and will be carried out to minimise the amount of the excavated materials exported offsite. The existing land? production of a Materials section within the CEMP, a MMP and a Logistics Plan will support the contractor in . Does the identifying and maximising opportunities for the reuse of materials onsite as the Scheme progresses. Throughout the proposal design process, “designing out waste” principles have been considered in order to minimise the quantity of material encourage resources required for the Scheme. One objective of the MMP will be to ensure that material resources and waste recycling arisings are handled and used in a manner which prevents harm to human health and pollution of the environment. (including The MMP will be based on an appropriate risk assessment that underpins the Scheme design and any need for

building remediation. There is a requirement for the removal of hazardous and controlled waste arising from the Scheme materials)? should any be identified during the CD&E phases, but the volumes of any hazardous or controlled waste arising are anticipated to be negligible. . Does the proposal The Scheme will, where possible, maximise the reuse of site-won materials and procure materials with a high recycled encourage content percentage. However, the magnitude of impact of the embodied carbon contained within the main material

sustainable Construction resources to be used on the Scheme is assessed as significant. However, through the maximising of the amount of waste material resources and waste to be reused onsite the overall demand for materials from offsite sources could be management reduced. with Chapter 10 of the ES (Geology and Soils) (Application Document Reference 6-1) summarises mitigation measures consideration of including at offline side roads, where earthworks retaining solutions have been included within the design in order to human health? minimise the footprint of the works and hence reduce any effects on soils at these locations. Areas of land falling . Does the within the footprint of new earthworks may be stripped of potentially valuable topsoil which may be reused within the proposal Scheme or, where surplus to requirements, potentially offered for beneficial reuse offsite in the surrounding area. incorporate Topsoil existing at temporary construction compound locations would be stripped and stockpiled for later sustainable reinstatement following the decommissioning and removal of the construction compounds. design and As the Scheme is considered to make the best use of the existing land and infrastructure, whilst encouraging construction sustainable waste management, a minor positive effect is predicted as benefits to human health with largely be techniques? indirect.

Operational effects were scoped out of the HIA assessments and have thus not been considered further. n/a n/a

Operation

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 23: Summary of Impacts

ISSUE Major Negative Moderate Minor Negative Neutral Minor Positive Moderate Positive Major Positive Negative

Access to social 1 1 infrastructure

Recreation, green 2 space and light pollution

Active travel 1 1

Air quality 2

Noise and vibration 1 1

Soil and water 1 1 pollution

Community safety 1 1 and stress

Access to work 1 1 and training

Minimising the use 1 of resources

TOTAL 0 2 6 1 5 2 0

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

9 SUMMARY

9.1.1 Table 22 shows the results of the HIA. Table 23 shows a summary of the predicted effects. This shows that the majority of effects are minor, with a balance of both minor positive and minor negative effects.

9.2 Health impacts from construction

9.2.1 Health determinants that are predicted to experience negative changes are access to social infrastructure; recreation, green space and light pollution; active travel; air quality; noise and vibration; soil and water pollution; and community safety and stress. The most significant effects that may affect health relate to community severance; and increased stress, resulting from construction activities. 9.2.2 Minor positive effects may be experienced for health determinants relating to access to work and training; and minimising the use of resources. The Scheme provides an opportunity to develop good practice in terms of the use of a proportion of the workforce from local communities, development of skills and training programmes, and apprenticeship schemes, which could have positive effects on health. The Scheme supports the delivery of core land-use planning principles, by providing improved infrastructure to support economic growth whilst conserving the natural environment to a greater extent than a traditional motorway widening scheme. This is because the use of land for the Scheme is largely within the existing motorway corridor and involves the use of previously developed land (the motorway and its associated verges and embankments). 9.2.3 The mitigation measures described in the relevant ES Chapters, if properly applied and monitored, are likely to ensure that the majority of negative health and wellbeing impacts, particularly during the construction phase, are minimised. The HIA strongly supports the adoption of the mitigation measures set out in the ES. Key mitigation measures of relevance to health are summarised in the Outline CEMP (Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6-3), as well as ES Chapters 6 (Air Quality) and 12 (Noise and Vibration) (Application Document Reference 6-1). Mitigation measures included within the Outline CEMP include the following:

a) The development of method statements and implementation of appropriate measures to control the risk of pollution due to construction works, materials and extreme weather events;

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

100

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

b) The establishment of systems and procedures for responding to environmental incidents;

c) Compliance with industry best practice guidance, including the EA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines and CIRIA Environmental good practice – site guide;

d) Development and implementation of a series of dust management measures and monitoring measures. Monitoring may include monitoring of dust deposition, dust flux, real-time PM10 continuous monitoring and/or visual inspections. Where standard mitigation measures may not be sufficient to minimise emissions of dust alone, additional mitigation measures will be required;

e) Measures will be implemented to assess and control risks to humans (e.g. construction workers, site visitors and nearby residents) resulting from the disturbance of contaminated land including the effects from encountering contaminated dust, soils and groundwater and the presence of ground gas and/or vapours, which may lead to confined space risks during excavations. If ground gas issues are identified, appropriate monitoring will be undertaken and/or appropriate ground gas protection measures provided.

f) A risk assessment will be undertaken by the contractor for excavation work associated with impacts on aquifers and private water supplies, the risk assessment will form part of the final CEMP.

g) Construction activities will be undertaken by the contractor taking into consideration the requirements to avoid any significant increase of flood risk.

h) The contractor will assess, consider and implement best practicable means (“BPM”) at all times throughout the construction of the Scheme in order to control noise and vibration resulting from the construction works. Management and monitoring processes will be introduced across all construction sites and compounds to ensure that the effects of noise and vibration are controlled and that BPM are planned and employed during construction period. The contractor will be required to detail the application of BPM within the final CEMP for the construction works. BPM should be included in the following order:

I. Control of noise and vibration at source - such as the provision of acoustic enclosures and the use of less intrusive alarms and the screening of equipment; II. Should the application of BPM at source not prove effective and noise exposure exceeds the criteria defined in this Outline CEMP, the

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

101

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

contractor may offer: - Noise insulation; or ultimately - Temporary re-housing.

i) Implementation of traffic management measures during the construction of the Scheme on all public roads and non-motorised user (“NMU”) paths. The contractor will prepare the final Construction Traffic Management Plan (“CTMP”) which will describe the traffic management, safety and control measures proposed during construction of the Scheme. Construction workforce travel plans will be prepared to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport where possible and to reduce the impact of workforce travel on the local road network and associated communities.

j) Where the proposed traffic management measures may affect the flow of public transport vehicles appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented.

k) Where separate routes used by pedestrians and other NMUs are affected, the contractor will provide alternative routes within the traffic management Scheme being implemented. Once agreed, the specific right of way affected will need to be scheduled with appropriate nomenclature and diversion routes suitably signposted throughout the works.

l) Where the contractor proposes to provide a temporary or substitute road or access or the like, the width and standard of construction and any lighting and signage required will be suitable for the traffic anticipated to use the route.

9.2.4 In addition, Scheme design measures that could minimise the significance of predicted effects include the following:

a) Development of the Scheme to minimise land-take where possible.

b) Selection of the most appropriate construction methodology for the required improvements to structures, such as overbridges and underbridges, based on the particular circumstances applying in relation to each structure, such as the availability of diversion routes, and the existence of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the structure. In most cases, offline options have been chosen to minimise potential severance issues and avoid traffic delay. Appropriate diversion routes, signage and information will be provided.

c) Continued consultation will be undertaken with landowners, occupiers and agents where necessary to manage and reduce impacts on day to day

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

102

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

activities as far as possible. Locationally specific mitigation relating to land- take is identified within the relevant links in the Socio-Economic Report.

9.2.5 In order to improve the effects on health, it is recommended that the CEMP should include specifications that a range of employment types, for a range of skills levels, should be offered to local people. This could improve health levels for priority groups.

9.3 Health impacts from operation

9.3.1 Table 22 shows the results of the HIA. The majority of the predicted impacts on health during the operation of the Scheme are positive, although minor negative effects are predicted against health determinants relating to air quality and recreation, green space and light pollution. A small number of people are predicted to experience detrimental air quality effects in the Opening Year of the Scheme (2022). Overall, as the number of properties with small and medium magnitude adverse changes in air quality above the objective is below the significance criteria described in the ES, and there is no adverse effect on air quality for compliance links or European and nationally designated habitat sites, an overall evaluation of ‘not significant’ has been assigned to the Scheme’s operational air quality effects. There will also be some loss of amenity through land-take, although this effect has been minimised as much as possible through design measures included within the ES. 9.3.2 Positive effects on health are predicted against determinants relating to: access to social infrastructure; active travel; noise and vibration; community safety and stress; access to work and training; and minimising the use of resources. The operation of the Scheme is anticipated to relieve congestion and smooth the flow of traffic along the M4. Therefore, it can be expected for there to be improvements in the road network relied upon by local businesses and residents. In addition, “low noise” surfacing will reduce tyre noise and consequently in-vehicle noise levels. An important objective of the Scheme is also to continue to deliver a high level of safety performance of the network using smart motorway techniques. Each of these factors is considered as being able to reduce driver stress. 9.3.3 The mitigation measures described in the relevant ES Chapters, if properly applied and monitored, are likely to ensure that the majority of negative health and wellbeing impacts, particularly during the construction phase, are minimised. The HIA strongly supports the adoption of the mitigation measures set out in the ES. Key mitigation measures of relevance to health through the

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

103

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

design of the operational Scheme include:

a) The replacement of any loss of land, for example common land between junctions 12 and 11, in an alternative location.

b) Where possible, habitats will be restored and enhanced after construction works have finished.

c) The use of a low noise surface along the length of the Scheme, noise barriers in identified locations, along with an enhanced noise mitigation strategy (Appendix 12.5 of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6-3), should lead to benefits as a result the Scheme over predicted future conditions for noise and vibration levels; and

d) Other design measures such as the use of drainage systems to minimise soil and water pollution are summarised in Table 22.

9.3.4 The Scheme has considered how existing walking and cycling routes can be retained through the design of replacement overbridges and underbridges, the identification of appropriate diversion routes where possible and considerate construction practices where possible (for example the consideration of priority groups).

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

104

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

10 REFERENCES

. Atkins Limited, South Bristol Link: Environmental Statement Volume 2: Health Impact, July 2013, Available at: http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=136451

. Barton, H. and Grant, M. (2011), A Review of the Progress of the European Healthy Cities Programme, Available at: http://www.healthycities.org.uk/uploads/files/bartongrant_juh_2012.pdf

. Birley, M (2011), Health Impact Assessment, principles and practice, IN Atkins Limited, South Bristol Link: Environmental Statement Volume 2: Health Impact, July 2013, Available at: http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=136451

. Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 6077/2116950.pdf

. Communities and Local Government, National Planning Practice Guidance, March 2012, Available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/health-and- wellbeing/what-is-the-role-of-health-and-wellbeing-in-planning/

. Department for Transport, National Policy Statement for National Networks, December 2014, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 387223/npsnn-web.pdf

. Eastern Region Public Health Observatory, Transport, Access and Health in the East of England, 2005, Available at: http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=85561

. Grant, M. and Brown, C.(2007), Planning for healthy communities, Available at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/7877/1/MG1.pdf

. Greater London Authority, London Health Commission and London Health Observatory (2002), Rapid review of health evidence for the draft London Plan, Available at: http://www.who.int/hia/examples/development/whohia010/en/

. Highways Agency, A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme, Environmental Statement Appendices, Appendix 18.1: Assessment of Human

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

105

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Health Impacts, December 2014, Available at: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp- content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010018/2.%20Post- Submission/Application%20Documents/Environmental%20Statement/A14%2 06.3%20ES%20Appendix%2018.01.pdf

. Jarvis, S. Towner, E. et al., 1995 cited in Cave, B. (2001), “Accidents” in The health of our children ed. Botting, B, London, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, HMSO

. MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and Institute of Occupational Medicine (2007), Health Impact assessment of Transport Initiatives: A Guide, Available at: www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=44167

. NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit, HUDU Planning for Health: Rapid Health Impact Assessment Tool, Second Edition, June 2015, Available at: http://www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk/our-services/delivering- healthy-urban-development/health-impact-assessment/

. Planning Act 2008, Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/29/contents

. Scott-Samuel, A., Birley, M., Ardern, K. (2001), The Merseyside Guidelines for Health Impact Assessment, Second Edition, May 2001, published by International Health IMPACT Assessment Consortium, Available at: http://www.who.int/hia/examples/toolkit/whohia131/en/

. S.Tsang, MHSc, RD (1); A.M.Holt, MHSc (2); E.Azevedo, MSc, RD (1), An assessment of the barriers to accessing food among food-insecure people in Cobourg, Ontario, Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada, Volume 31, no.3, June 2011

. The Planning Inspectorate, Advice Note Six: Preparation and submission of application documents, October 2014, Available at http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/Advice-note-6-version-71.pdf

. World Health Organisation, Available at: http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

106

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

10.1 Footnotes

2 Department for Communities and Local Government, National Planning Practice Guidance, March 2012

3 http://www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk/our-services/delivering-healthy-urban-development /health-impact-assessment/

4 Source: Socio-Economic Report (Application Document Reference 7-2)

5 Source: ES Chapter 13: Effects on all Travellers

6 Entry and exit slips have not been considered as they would not align with the rigid speed and flow tables provided in DMRB assessment framework due to the presence and close proximity of junctions, and short link lengths slowing speeds. The tables are designed for free flow sections of the link, not short motorway slips

7 MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and Institute of Occupational Medicine, Health Impact assessment of Transport Initiatives: A Guide, 2007, p34

8 Eastern Region Public Health Observatory, Transport, Access and Health in the East of England, 2005, p 16-23

9 Health Scotland, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and Institute of Occupational Medicine, Health Impact assessment of Transport Initiatives: A Guide, 2007, p18

10 Mitchell, R and Popham, F, Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study, 2008

11 MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and Institute of Occupational Medicine, Health Impact assessment of Transport Initiatives: A Guide, 2007, p26-31

12 Hillier, B. and Sahbaz, O, Crime and Urban Design, 2009 In: Cooper, R. Evans, G. and Boyko, C. Designing Sustainable Cities, 2009

13 http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/health.html

14 http://darksky.org/light-pollution/human-health/

14 Greater London Authority, London Health Commission and London Health Observatory (2002) Rapid review of health evidence for the draft London Plan; and Jarvis, S., Towner, E. et al 1995 cited in Cave, B (2001) “Accidents” in The health of our children ed. Botting, B, London, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, HMSO

15 S.Tsang, MHSc, RD (1); A.M.Holt, MHSc(2); E.Azevedo, MSc, RD (1), An assessment of the barriers to accessing food among food-insecure people n Cobourg, Ontario, Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada, Volume 31, no.3, June 2011

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

107

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

16 This approach has been adapted from the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), for the North Staffordshire ‘Streetcar’ Bus Rapid Transport Scheme Health Impact Assessment, IOM, 2009 IN Atkins Limited, South Bristol Link: Environmental Statement Volume 2: Health Impact, July 2013

17 Health Scotland, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and Institute of Occupational Medicine, Health Impact assessment of Transport Initiatives: A Guide, 2007, p70

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

108

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Annex A: Consultation responses relating to health

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Table 24: Responses to consultations undertaken under s42 of the Planning Act 2008 and consultations with stakeholders (including local residents during the period from March 2013 to July 2014)

ES Chapter / Consultee Comments Response (If Provided) Section

Appendix 29 Public Health PHE notes that the submitted documentation includes an Impacts on health are fully addressed in the various (Page 34) England assessment of the likely impacts on human health arising from topic-specific chapters of the ES, in accordance transport related emissions to air, construction related emissions, with the National Policy Statement for National and land contamination. We can confirm that we have no objections Networks. No separate health impact chapter of the to the methodologies used for the assessment of health impacts via ES has therefore been provided as there is a need air, land or water and that we have not identified any significant to avoid duplication of information. omissions in the associated documentation. At this time we do not provide comments relating to noise and vibration. The Agency can confirm that the Scheme does not result in the movement or construction of any In terms of land contamination, PHE accepts that likely impacts can significant sources of EMF. be managed or mitigated by the use of good construction practice which will be included in the forthcoming Construction and Environmental Management Plan. Whilst the development has the potential to impact on several source protection zones PHE acknowledges that this issue predominately falls under the statutory remit of the Environment Agency.

We do however note that the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment does not contain a specific section summarising the potential impacts on human health. PHE understands that the promoter will wish to avoid unnecessary duplication but believes that the summation of the possible health impacts from changes to air quality, emissions to water, waste management, and contaminated land into a specific section of the report provides a focus which ensures that public health is given adequate consideration.

Likewise we note that EMF impacts have not been mentioned. It is possible that the Scheme does not result in the movement or construction of any significant sources of EMF but we would ask that this be confirmed or that the necessary assessments be included with the next submissions. We hope that the above is

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

ES Chapter / Consultee Comments Response (If Provided) Section

useful but should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact us.

We note that the Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment does not contain a specific section summarising the potential impacts on human health. Likewise we note that EMF impacts have not been mentioned. Appendix 29 Slough 8.0 The Highway Agency has a duty to ensure the impact of the 8.0 The assessments undertaken for the Scheme (Page 2) Borough strategic road network does not give rise to harm to public health. were focussed on the effects of the Scheme on Council - The European Union have initiated infraction proceedings against local air quality, rather than the effects of the Planning the UK Government for non-compliance with (NO2) EU Limits. strategic road network as a whole. This is as is Department required by the methodology set out in the 9.0 Outdoor Air quality is one of the most significant public health Highways Agency's Design Manual for Roads and issues affecting the modern world, and there is growing body of Bridges ("DMRB"). medical evidence that the prolonged exposure to NO2 pollution may have longer term impacts on health in particular lung function and 9.0 The air quality assessment considers the effects respiratory symptoms, and there is more data coming through of the Scheme compared to the health epidemiological studies. based objective values set out in legislation, such as the Air Quality Standards Regulations 11.0 There is also a need to drive more harmful fine particulate 2010. emissions from road traffic which are known to cause chronic health impacts (relation to heart and lung function) and affects mortality. 11.0 & 12.0 The assessment of PM2.5 does not Whilst the existing particulate levels from the M4 are below EU currently form a part of the Highways Agency's limits, there is still a need to reduce the impact further in particular DMRB methodology. Therefore a PM2.5 assessment the smaller PM2.5 fraction. has not been undertaken for this Scheme.

12.0 Particulate matter (PM) PM aggravates respiratory and 13.0 The effect of the Scheme on concentrations of cardiovascular conditions. The smaller the particle, the deeper it will NO2 is a key focus of the assessment of air quality deposit within the respiratory tract. The health impacts of PM2.5 are for Highways Schemes. Mitigation measures are especially significant. The Mayor of London commissioned a study linked to the prediction of significant Scheme in 2010, which suggested that around 4,300 deaths per year in effects, which are not anticipated for this Scheme. London are partly caused by long term exposure to PM2.5 (which is widely acknowledged as being the pollutant which has the greatest 21.0 Mitigation measures are linked to the effect on human health). Road traffic is a significant source of PM2.5 prediction of significant Scheme effects. As the and the M4 will be a significant source of local PM2.5 in Slough. effect of the Scheme on air quality is not predicted HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

ES Chapter / Consultee Comments Response (If Provided) Section

to be significant, operational mitigation is not 13.0 The impact of high levels of NO2 on health is mostly acute, and proposed. However, construction activities could there are some studies to suggest that it cause inflammation of the adversely affect air quality in some areas through airways, and can also increase asthma symptoms. Air quality is dust generation and plant emissions. Proposals to therefore a significant consideration and a public health issue and control these potential impacts are set out in the the Highway Agency have an obligation to take all practical Outline CEMP, which accompanies the DCO measures to minimise the exposure of air pollution from the Application. motorway and trunk road system.

21.0 The M4 road traffic noise and air pollution are material impacts to be fully considered by the Planning Inspector. Exposure to elevated levels of road traffic noise and air pollution directly links to public health outcomes. The Highway Agency needs to ensure that if the proposed smart M4 leads to an increase in noise levels and air pollution above EU limits, mitigation is required to prevent unacceptable exposure to residents. Appendix 29 Slough 15.0 Road traffic noise is the most pervasive environmental noise There are 39 Important Areas ("IAs") between (Page 23) Borough source in the UK affects more than 92% of dwellings in England and junctions 3 and 12 of the M4, 8 of which are in the Council – Wales, 2% are affected by motorway noise, and prolonged Slough jurisdiction. The Noise Action Plans for exposure to high levels of road traffic noise can give cause to harm these IAs were consulted in the development of the Planning to public health through impact on cognitive processing and mitigation strategy for the Scheme. With only one Department learning, particularly children, heightened annoyance, anxiety and exception (an IA not in the Slough area), the stress which may lead to cardiovascular disease. investigation outcomes were the provision of low noise surfacing or no further works planned. 18.0 Defra has also adopted a Noise Action Plan to reduce road noise (including major roads. The Action Plan aims to promote good Existing noise barriers will be retained (or replaced health and good quality of life (wellbeing) through the effective if in poor condition). There will be 6 additional noise management of noise. This Action Plan will be relevant to highways barriers in the Slough area - one between J7 and J6 authorities, including the Highways Agency. It is intended that this and five between J6 and J5. No additional noise Action Plan will assist the management of environmental noise in barriers are proposed between J5 and J4b. The the context of Government policy on sustainable development. It original intention was to resurface only lanes 1 and has been estimated that the approximate number of people 4 of the Scheme associated with the Important Areas (noise “hotspots”) identified through the process described in the Action On Scheme opening, it is predicted that only 2 Plan for the major roads outside agglomerations is just under residential properties would experience a minor HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

ES Chapter / Consultee Comments Response (If Provided) Section

51,000. However the Important Area is not defined but is likely to be increase in noise level of just over 1 dB (out of a close to the specified level quote above. It is noted the last round of total of 23025 residential properties in the detailed noise mapping took place in 2012 and next round in 2017 it will study area). Only 505 residential properties would need to take account of the increase capacity on the M4 when it is experience a negligible increase in noise levels (< 1 fully operational in 2022. dB). The remaining properties would experience no change or decreases in noise level.

In the long term, with the Scheme in operation, it is predicted that no residential properties would experience increases in noise levels greater than negligible. For the Do Minimum changes, approximately 13% of residential properties in the detailed study area would experience negligible increases in noise levels; for the Do Something changes, this figure increases to approximately 20% of residential properties in the detailed study area. The maximum increase would only be approximately 1.7 dB. Appendix 29 Slough 20.0 The World Health Organisation (WHO) has recommended a Slough Borough Council Planning Department (Page 24) Borough night time noise guidelines of Lnight, outside 40 dB and an interim request further information, namely:- Council - target of Lnight, outside 55 dB8. The latest Defra Action Plan Detailed noise mapping of all residential properties Planning advises that just less than 1 million people in England experience within Slough for both Do Minimum and Do Department road traffic noise Lnight, outside 55 dB. The onset of significant Something scenarios. This information is available, community annoyance in the daytime is observed above levels of but does not form part of the Environmental Leq, 16 hours 55 dB. The Defra Action Plan identifies more than 2 Statement, which presents noise change contours. million people experience road noise above this level. A separate package of information was provided to Slough Borough Council Planning Department. 21.0 Therefore the M4 road traffic noise and air pollution are material impacts to be fully considered by the Planning Inspector. Exposure to elevated levels of road traffic noise and air pollution directly links to public health outcomes. The Highway Agency needs to ensure that if the proposed smart M4 leads to an increase in noise levels and air pollution above EU limits, mitigation is required to prevent unacceptable exposure to residents.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

ES Chapter / Consultee Comments Response (If Provided) Section

45.0 It is clear M4 with or without the Scheme exposes significant numbers of residents above the WHO interim target of Lnight, outside 55 dB level, there is clear evidence of impacts to public health above this level. The motorway is noisy and has 8 Important Areas within the Slough jurisdiction that require noise mitigation even without the Scheme. There is a requirement on the Highways Agency under the Defra Noise Action Plan to take steps to minimise noise the local authority. Appendix 29 NHS (Page 31) Wokingham Please be informed that we have no specific comments or concerns CCG, on the Scheme. NHS South Reading CCG, NHS North & West Reading CCG, NHS Newbury and District CCG Appendix 7 Local If the project goes ahead, anyone within 1 mile and can see the A noise assessment and air quality is part of the (Page 7) Residents motorway should be given benefits: environmental assessment process. This will 2) Triple glazed windows; assess the likely changes in noise from the road 3) Health monitoring of individuals (especially chest infections and and air quality as a result of the Scheme. asthma); 5) Noise levels should be monitored; Mitigation options will be considered where there is a significant increase in noise (an increase of 3dB or greater) as a result of the Scheme. These mitigation options could include upgrading the existing noise barriers, the provision of new barriers, and the use of low noise road surfacing.

Mitigation options to be considered where there is a significant increase in pollution, as a result of the HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

ES Chapter / Consultee Comments Response (If Provided) Section

Scheme may include speed restrictions or capacity constraints, e.g. controlled motorway running and junction alterations, at selected locations.

Following the completion of the noise and air quality assessment works in the Summer, more detailed information will be available during further consultation, due to commence in Autumn 2014. Appendix 7 Landowners Air quality - we are concerned about the health issues that may rise Air quality assessments are to be undertaken as (Page 47) from the increased traffic in an area already at top level in relation to part of the environmental assessment process. This EU Standards will assess the likely changes in noise and air quality as a result of the Scheme.

Mitigation options to be considered where there is a significant increase in pollution, as a result of the Scheme may include speed restrictions or capacity constraints, e.g. controlled motorway running and junction alterations, at selected locations.

Following the completion of the assessment works in the Summer, more detailed information will be available during further consultation, due to commence in Autumn 2014.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Annex B: Health Profiles

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 4: Health Profile for West Berkshire Council

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 5: Health Profile for Reading Borough Council

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 6: Health Profile for Wokingham Borough Council

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 7: Health Profile for Bracknell Forest Council

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 8: Health Profile for The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 9: Health Profile for Slough Borough Council

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 10: Health Profile for London Borough of Hillingdon

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 11: Health Profile for London Borough of Hounslow

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND – M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY

Figure 12: Health Profile for South Bucks District Council

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400116

OCTOBER 2015