From: Harling-Phillips, Emma [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 March 2016 10:22 To: M4 Junction 3-12 Smart Motorway Cc: Lynne Stinson; Chris Tooth; Tooth, Chris ([email protected]) Subject: FW: M4 J3-12 Slough SoCG [DLAP-UKMATTERS.FID3729171]
Dear Sirs,
It has come to our attention that the Signed Statement of Common Ground (2SoCG") between Highways England and Slough Borough Council has not been published on the M4 page of the PINS website as part of the documents submitted by Highways England for Deadline VIII.
In case this was because you had problems downloading it from the V-room, please find a copy attached, along with the plans referred to in the SoCG.
Kind regards,
Emma
Emma Harling-Phillips Senior Associate
T +44 (0)20 7153 7554 F +44 (0)20 7796 6666 M +44 (0)7968558785 E [email protected]
M4 JUNCTIONS 3 TO 12 SMART MOTORWAY
The M4 Motorway (Junctions 3 to 12)(Smart Motorway) Development Consent Order 201[ ]
Planning Inspectorate Scheme Reference: TR010019
______
STATEMENT OF COMMON GROUND
between
(1) HIGHWAYS ENGLAND
and
(2) SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL
______
CONTENTS
1 Introduction ...... 3 2 Overview of Previous Engagement ...... 8 3 Matters Agreed ...... 28 4 Matters Not Agreed ...... 44
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 2
1 Introduction
Purpose of Statement of Common Ground
1.1 This Statement of Common Ground ("SoCG") has been prepared in respect of an application ("Application") made by the Highways Agency (which has now become the "Highways England Company Limited", known as "Highways England") to the Secretary of State for Transport ("Secretary of State") for a Development Consent Order ("DCO") under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 ("PA 2008").
1.2 The draft DCO is referred to as The M4 Motorway (Junctions 3 to 12) (Smart Motorway) Development Consent Order 201[*] (the "Order"). The Order would grant powers to improve the M4 motorway ("M4") to a smart motorway between junction 3 (Hayes) in west London and junction 12 (Theale), which is near Reading (the "Scheme").
1.3 Guidance on the purpose and possible content of SoCGs is given in paragraphs 58 - 65 of the Department for Communities and Local Government's "Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent" (March 2015).
1.4 Paragraph 58 confirms the basic function of SoCGs:
"A statement of common ground is a written statement prepared jointly by the applicant and another party or parties, setting out any matters on which they agree. As well as identifying matters which are not in real dispute, it is also useful if a statement identifies those areas where agreement has not been reached. The statement should include references to show where those matters are dealt with in the written representations or other documentary evidence."
Parties to this Statement of Common Ground
1.5 This SoCG has been prepared by (1) Highways England as the Applicant and (2) Slough Borough Council.
1.6 The Application was made by the Highways Agency. On 1 April 2015, the Highways Agency became a government-owned Strategic Highways Company, limited by shares, with the Secretary of State as sole shareholder. Highways England is the new company. It is established as the highway authority in England for the strategic road network and has the necessary powers and duties to operate, manage, maintain and enhance the network. Regulatory powers remain with the Secretary of State. The legislation establishing Highways England made provision for all legal rights and obligations of the
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 3
Highways Agency, including in respect of the Application, to be conferred upon or assumed by Highways England.
1.7 Slough Borough Council is the local planning authority and council responsible for the administrative area of Slough.
Summary of the Scheme
1.8 The M4 is the main strategic route between London and the west of England, and on to South Wales. Major towns and cities along the M4 include London, Reading, Swindon, Bristol, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea.
1.9 The M4 between junctions 3 and 12 carries over 130,000 vehicles per day, and more in places. At peak times, traffic flows on many links are close to or exceed the total flow that the link is designed to handle. This causes heavy congestion on the M4, which can lead to unpredictable journey times.
1.10 The Scheme will help to relieve congestion by permanently converting the hard shoulder of the M4 to a running lane and using technology to vary speed limits and manage traffic. Signs and signals will be used to inform drivers of conditions on the highway network, when and where variable speed limits are in place, and when lanes are closed.
1.11 The Scheme is some 51 km (32 miles) in length and will have a number of principal elements:
1.11.1 conversion of the hard shoulder to a permanent running lane 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;
1.11.2 replacement of overbridge structures where portals are too narrow to accommodate the improved motorway;
1.11.3 extension of underbridges and other structures such as culverts and subways to accommodate the improved motorway;
1.11.4 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");
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 4
1.11.5 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
1.11.6 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.
1.12 The works are more particularly described in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Draft DCO (Application Document Reference 3-1, REP5-002).
1.13 The Application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 30 March 2015, and the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, accepted the Application on 27 April 2015.
Structure of this Statement of Common Ground
1.14 This SoCG has been prepared for the purposes of the Examination to be held by the Secretary of State in accordance with PA 2008. In this SoCG, Highways England has provided a summary of its assessment for each issue addressed, as recorded in the Application documentation and subsequent reports.
1.15 Throughout this SoCG the phrase “It is agreed……” is used as a precursor to any point of agreement that has been specifically stated to be agreed between (1) the Applicant and (2) Slough Borough Council. The phrase “It is not agreed….” is used as a precursor to any point that (1) the Applicant and (2) Slough Borough Council wish to state as clearly not yet agreed. Points that are “not agreed” will be the subject of ongoing discussion wherever possible to resolve, or refine, the extent of disagreement between the parties.
1.16 This SoCG considers the items raised by Slough Borough Council in their relevant representation on the Application, and the items raised in a meeting held with Highways England on 19 June 2015 to discuss the Application. The SoCG has also been drafted having regard to the list of principal issues set out at Annex B of the Examining Authority's Rule 6 letter dated 7 August 2015. However, only the principal issues of concern to Slough Borough Council are addressed in this SoCG.
1.17 This SoCG considers the following items: Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 5
1.17.1 Policy
1.17.1.1 NN NPS
1.17.1.2 Slough Local Plan
1.17.1.3 Local Transport Plan
1.17.1.4 Green Belt
1.17.2 Environment
1.17.2.1 Landscape and visual impact
1.17.2.2 Flooding
1.17.2.3 Ecology and nature conservation
1.17.2.4 Air quality
1.17.2.5 Noise and vibration
1.17.2.6 Heritage assets
1.17.3 Engineering and design
1.17.3.1 Motorway junctions
1.17.3.2 Overbridges
1.17.3.3 Underbridges
1.17.4 Impact on road users
1.17.4.1 Traffic information and safety
1.17.4.2 Traffic on local roads
1.17.4.3 Non-motorised forms of travel
1.17.5 Socio-economic aspects
1.17.6 Other matters
1.17.6.1 Scheme programme and cumulative effect of other strategic
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 6
infrastructure schemes
1.17.6.2 Junction 5 Langley Interchange and SBC SMaRT scheme
1.17.6.3 Windsor Branch Line Services
1.17.6.4 Cost of legal orders
1.18 This SoCG considers data and assesses them in respect of the above topics and the methodologies set out in:
1.18.1 Book of Reference (Application Document Reference 4-3, REP5-007);
1.18.2 The Environmental Statement ("ES") (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-141 to APP-158);
1.18.3 Appendix 4.2A of the ES, Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (“CEMP”) (Application Document Reference 6-3, REP7-***);
1.18.4 The Socio-Economic Report (Application Document Reference 7-2, APP- 090); and
1.18.5 The Engineering and Design Report (“EDR”) (Application Document Reference 7-3, APP-096).
1.19 Where items in the ES and/or the accompanying technical reports are agreed, this is stated with the relevant document reference. Where items of data are new or represent an agreed variation presented in a technical report or other document, then a list of those documents is provided in Appendix 1 to this SoCG.
1.20 The assessments include a combination of desk based studies, site investigations and technical assessment work. The ES sets out mitigation and remedial measures where appropriate, concluding with a summary of the residual effects following mitigation. [The mitigation referred to in the ES has been refined and enhanced during the course of the Examination as set out in this SoCG and Highways England's submissions to the Examining Authority.]
1.21 References used in this SoCG, such as (APP-305) and (REP3-101), are those in the Examining Authority’s Examination Library. At the time of writing (29 February 2016) the Examination Library has not been updated to include documents submitted at Deadline VII (17 February 2016) and therefore these references are incomplete (REP7-***).
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 7
2 Overview of Previous Engagement
2.1 A summary of key meetings, workshops and consultation undertaken between (1) Highways England and (2) Slough Borough Council can be found in the following tables:
Table 2.1.1: Pre-application Engagement
Date Form of Contact Summary
15 May 2013 Meeting between Meeting held to discuss the Highways Agency and options being developed Slough Borough Council during Stage 2 for the side road improvements associated with the overbridge replacements within the Borough
10 March 2014 Invitation to attend a Invitation to a Preview Preview Public Information Public Information Exhibition, to be held on 18 Exhibition as part of initial March 2014 stakeholder engagement and information exercise
18 March 2014 Preview Public Information Did not attend, but a Exhibition representative from Slough Borough Council did attend the Public Information Exhibition held on 27 March 2014
11 April 2014 Email from Slough Request for an electronic Borough Council to copy of plans, including all Highways Agency affected bridges
11 April 2014 Email response from Noted that CDs were being Highways Agency to produced and would be Slough Borough Council to sent out shortly email dated 11 April 2014
29 April 2014 Email from Slough Repeated request for CD Borough Council to and noting that a complaint Highways Agency has been received from a resident of The Myrke regarding Land Interest Questionnaires received without having received an invitation to the Public Information Exhibition
30 April 2014 Email from Slough Confirmation of designated Borough Council to contact for Slough Borough Highways Agency Council
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 8
Date Form of Contact Summary
15 May 2014 Meeting with Berkshire Meeting to provide an Strategic Transport Forum, update on the progress of with a representative from the Scheme, consultation Slough Borough Council activity undertaken and on- going assessment work. Provision of information on the DCO process, Statement of Community Consultation and request to respective local authority representatives, potential stakeholders, exhibition venues, timings and other issues
16 May 2014 Email from Highways Provision of draft Agency following meeting distribution list for of 15 May 2014 consultation for local authority review, request for suggestions of future exhibition venues, diversity officer contact details, community newsletters, parish/town councils and major landowners
19 May 2014 Letter response from CD containing electronic Highways Agency to plans of the Scheme Slough Borough Council to provided emails dated 11 April 2014 and 29 April 2014 respectively
21 May 2014 Email from Highways Request for licence for Agency to Slough Borough survey access Council
30 May 2014 Meeting between Meeting held to update Highways Agency and Slough Borough Council on Slough Borough Council the proposals and to facilitate feedback on the proposals put forward
30 May 2014 Email from Slough Provision of some Borough Council in organisations in Slough to response to email request be included in consultation, dated 16 May 2014 along with newly elected members list
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 9
Date Form of Contact Summary
12 June 2014 Email response from Survey access was agreed Slough Borough Council to without the requirement for email dated 21 May 2014 a licence and associated fee
25 June 2014 Traffic Modelling Information meeting to Workshop and Scheme provide Berkshire Presentation organised in authorities' traffic conjunction with Thames representatives with an Valley Berkshire Local overview of the Scheme Enterprise Partnership and the traffic modelling
9 July 2014 Letter from Highways Request for suitable dates Agency requesting suitable when Highways Agency dates for a pre-application could meet with Slough notification meeting to Borough Council during discuss the Scheme July and August 2014 to proposals discuss the Scheme proposals and the local planning authority's involvement in the DCO process
23 July 2014 Email request for GIS data Request for GIS information for Scheme in the borough of Slough. GIS information provided.
8 August 2014 Invitation to attend an Invitation to an information Environmental Information meeting to discuss the EIA Workshop – Scoping (1), Scoping Report to be held on 20 August 2014
20 August 2014 Environmental Information Did not attend Workshop – Scoping (1)
1 September 2014 Invitation to attend an Invitation to an information Environmental Information meeting to discuss the EIA Workshop – Scoping (2), Scoping Report to be held on 12 September 2014
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 10
Date Form of Contact Summary
10 September 2014 Scoping Opinion Slough Borough Council Response advised that it was awaiting further details before commenting, but noted potential impacts on residents with respect to traffic congestion impacts, traffic flow, air quality, environmental noise, and flooding
12 September 2014 Environmental Information Did not attend Workshop – Scoping (2)
18 September 2014 Meeting between Information meeting to Highways Agency and discuss the Scheme and local planning authorities planning related issues. Representative from Slough Borough Council attended
19 September 2014 Meeting between Meeting to discuss side Highways Agency and road proposals and bridge Slough Borough Council solutions
3 October 2014 Formal Issue of Draft Formal consultation on Statement of Community Draft Statement of Consultation for review Community Consultation under Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008
9 October 2014 Response from Slough Slough Borough Council Borough Council regarding considered that it could be Draft Statement of better represented in the Community Consultation exhibitions, deposit points and unmanned exhibitions and requested a further exhibition at either SEGRO Marketing Suite, The Centre or The Marriott Hotel in Langley. Suggested further unmanned boards at St Martin’s Place and Landmark Place and an additional deposit point in Slough.
Also requested that Highways Agency considers providing translated consultation documents.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 11
Date Form of Contact Summary
23 October 2014 Letter from Highways Questionnaire to obtain Agency requesting confirmation that the details completion of land previously provided ownership confirmation regarding the Scheme are questionnaire still valid and to offer the opportunity to provide any updates
29 October 2014 Email response from Acknowledgement of Slough Borough Council request and stated it would acknowledging request for not be able to comply with land ownership the allocated timescales but confirmation questionnaire will respond as soon as possible
10 November 2014 Planning Act 2008 Section Details of the pre- 47 Notification Letter application consultation to be held between 10 November and 21 December 2014
10 November 2014 Planning Act 2008 Section Notification of the formal 42: Notice of statutory Pre- pre-application consultation application consultation between 10 November and period 21 December 2014 about the Scheme in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008. Delivery of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report and Non-Technical Summary
14 November 2014 Telephone call between Queries surrounding the Highways Agency and location of the proposed Slough Borough Council Order limits around the ‘Watermain Subway’; permanent land loss; land take at Junction 7 and in regards to the allotments
18 November 2014 Public Exhibition Preview Representative from Slough Event Borough Council attended
3 December 2014 Letter requesting Request for details on information on cumulative relevant developments developments and within 1km of the Scheme planning history of land and planning history of the land within or immediately adjoining the Order limits
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 12
Date Form of Contact Summary
19 December 2014 Planning Act 2008 Section A number of detailed 42 Consultation Response matters raised relating to the short timetable for responding to the S42 request; air quality; public rights of way; potential for shared working; Chalvey Depot; integrated ITS / signing; safety; noise impact; control of construction impacts close to residential areas; landscape mitigation; cost recovery for the Council; phasing of works to start at eastern end of M4 to accommodate potential new runway at Heathrow; impacts on parks and allotments; construction compounds; construction of overbridges and diversions; temporary land take from Local Nature Reserves and public open space; earthworks; and impact on local highway network
6 January 2015 Invitation to attend an Invitation to an information Environmental Information meeting to discuss the Workshop – Preliminary Preliminary Environmental Environmental Information Information Report Report, to be held on 20 January 2015
13 January 2015 Email response from Slough Borough Council Slough Borough Council would welcome VMSL on relating to Variable this stretch of the M4 Mandatory Speed Limits (“VMSL”) Consultation
20 January 2015 Environmental Information Representative from Slough Workshop – Preliminary Borough Council attended Environmental Information Report
20 January 2015 Email from Slough Email querying where to Borough Council to find the locations of Highways Agency proposed site compounds
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 13
Date Form of Contact Summary
26 January 2015 Email from Highways Provision of Environmental Agency as follow up to the Information Workshop Environmental Information presentation Workshop held on 20 January 2015
26 January 2015 Email response from Thanking Highways Agency Slough Borough Council to for the presentation and email dated 26 January offer of further meeting at 2015 Slough Borough Council offices. Suggested two meetings – one with businesses and a second prior to Cabinet
2 February 2015 Email response from Provision of locations of Highways Agency to email proposed construction dated 20 January 2015 compounds
11 February 2015 Email requesting Clarification requested that confirmation on viewpoints the viewpoints selected for proposed for the ES the Preliminary Environmental Information Report are acceptable, and therefore can be used for the purposes of the ES
17 February 2015 Email from Highways Requesting a plan showing Agency to Slough Borough the location of the allotment Council plots at Upton Court, Myrke
17 February 2015 Email discussion between Arranging briefing meeting Highways Agency and Slough Borough Council
18 February 2015 Email discussion between Discussing the agenda Highways Agency and items for the briefing Slough Borough Council meeting
20 February 2015 Email from Slough Completed response form Borough Council to in relation to variable speed Highways England consultation setting out Councils’ comments on interaction with M25 and M3; interaction between AMIs along Slough section; enforcement; air quality; ramp metering; incidents; driver information; direction signs; and construction compounds
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 14
Date Form of Contact Summary
25 February 2015 Letter from Highways Request for confirmation Agency requesting that the information on confirmation of Interests Slough Borough Council held by Highways Agency was correct at the time of writing as outlined in the Book of Reference. Request for completion of land ownership confirmation questionnaire by 6 March 2015
5 March 2015 Telephone call from Information will be sent Slough Borough Council in through shortly. Also response to email dated 17 requested a copy of the February 2015 regarding Confirmation Schedule that allotment plots was sent out to the allotment holders
5 March 2015 Email response from Provision of a copy of the Highways Agency to Confirmation Schedule that telephone call on 5 March was sent out to the 2015 allotment holders
5 March 2015 Email response from Provision of plan of Myrke Slough Borough Council to allotment site email dated 17 February 2015 regarding allotment plots
5 March 2015 Email from Highways Query regarding plot holder Agency to Slough Borough access agreements to Council Myrke allotments
9 March 2015 Email response from Legal team contact Slough Borough Council to provided email dated 5 March 2015 regarding allotment access
9 March 2015 Telephone call and email Inquiry as to whether Myrke from Highways Agency to allotment plot holders have Slough Borough Council’s a formal agreement to use Legal Team the road to gain access to the allotments
9 March 2015 Email response from Official agreement for Slough Borough Council’s access not known but will Legal Team to telephone be confirmed in due course call and email dated 9 March 2015 regarding allotment access
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 15
Date Form of Contact Summary
9 March 2015 Email response from Confirmation that no Slough Borough Council to feedback had been email dated 26 January received from local 2015 businesses and therefore one meeting would proceed with Cabinet only
9 March 2015 Meeting between Overview of Scheme; Highways Agency and incorporation of major Slough Borough Council projects in traffic projections; expansion of Heathrow; air quality modelling and Myrke; noise impacts and Myrke; construction compounds and CEMP
10 March 2015 Email response from Explanation of requirements Slough Borough Council’s of tenancy agreement. Legal Team to telephone Provision of alternative call and email dated 9 access required for Myrke March 2015 regarding allotment holders. allotment access
10 March 2015 Email response from Confirming receipt of Highways Agency to email response and that the dated 10 March 2015 tenants will be kept in the regarding allotment access system as per Slough Borough Council’s suggestion
13 March 2015 Email from Slough Request for copy of Borough Council as follow presentation and up to meeting held on 9 data/answers to queries March 2015 raised on pollution and noise
13 March 2015 Email from Highways Requesting updated list of Agency to Slough Borough allotment plot holders Council information
17 March 2015 Email response from Provision of allotment plot Slough Borough Council to holders details email dated 13 March 2015
20 March 2015 Email response from Provision of presentation Highways Agency to email used in meeting held on 9 dated 13 March 2015 March 2015
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 16
Date Form of Contact Summary
21 March 2015 Email response (3 no) from Provision of information Highways Agency to email relating to air quality and dated 13 March 2015 noise
Table 2.1.2: Post-application Engagement
Date Form of Contact Summary
13 April 2015 Letter from Slough Confirming adequacy of Borough Council to consultation to PINS Highways England
27 April 2015 Slough Borough Council Adequacy of Consultation submission to Planning letter Inspectorate
5 May 2015 Email from Highways Provision of link to PINS England to Slough website for DCO submission Borough Council documents
5 May 2015 Email from Highways Copy of request sent to England to Slough Slough Library, Cippenham Borough Council Library and Chalvey Community Centre to be deposit point
5 May 2015 Email from Highways Minutes of meeting held 9 England to Slough March 2015 Borough Council
6 May 2015 Letter from Highways Provision of link to England to Slough Consultation Report Borough Council
11 May 2015 Email response from Consent grated in principle, Slough Borough Council to based on a licence email dated 5 May 2015 agreement being put in place regarding access for ecological surveys
11 May 2015 Email response from Licence agreement details to Highways England to email be provided in due course. dated 11 May 2015 Plans of the survey areas regarding access for provided ecological surveys
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 17
Date Form of Contact Summary
14 May 2015 Email from Slough Slough Borough Council are Borough Council to in the process of re-issuing Highways England with tenancy agreements for attached letter regarding vacant allotments and The Myrke allotments uncertainty about the future of the plots is making them difficult to let. Request for Highways England to clarify the situation regarding land at the allotment site and timescales
14 May 2015 Email from Highways Provision of a Method England to Slough Statement for ecological Borough Council surveys and further details regarding timeframes and types of surveys to be undertaken
15 May 2015 Email confirmation from Confirm delivery on either 26 Highways England of May 2015 or 27 May 2015 deposit delivery date
19 May 2015 Email from Highways Requesting likely timeframe England to Slough for when the ecology licence Borough Council agreements will be available
22 May 2015 Email request from Requested availability for a Highways England for number of potential meeting SoCG meeting dates dates in June 2015 to discuss the draft SoCG
27 May 2015 Email from Highways Copy of the Section 56 letter England providing preview sent to the relevant local of Section 56 notice planning authorities for template to landowners information and advising where application documents are available for inspection
28 May 2015 Section 56 notice of Copy of the Section 56 letter acceptance of an sent to the relevant local application for a DCO planning authorities for information
29 May 2015 Email response from Clarification requested as to Slough Borough Council to whether this information is letter dated 25 February still required 2015 regarding confirmation of interests
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 18
Date Form of Contact Summary
1 June 2015 Email response from Confirmation that information Highways England to email is still required dated 29 May 2015 regarding confirmation of interests
3 June 2015 Email response from Understand uncertainty Highways England to email about the allotments is dated 14 May 2015 raising concerns for tenants. regarding allotment land Confirmation that Thames Water will not be in a position to make a decision on the acceptability of alternative proposals until mid-July. Assurance that the preferred outcome is to reduce or completely remove the requirement for allotment plots for temporary use. Provision of construction programme
4 June 2015 Slough Borough Council Submission of Written submission to Planning Representation Inspectorate
5 June 2015 Repeat email request from Requested availability for a Highways England for number of potential meeting SoCG meeting dates dates in June and July 2015 (originally requested 22 to discuss the draft SoCG. May 2015) Response from Slough Borough Council to meet on 19 June 2015
5 June 2015 Email from Slough Requesting consolidated Borough Council to copy of ES Highways England
8 June 2015 Email response from Confirmation that no Highways England to email consolidated version exists, dated 5 June 2015 but sent a CD of the DCO documents
8 June 2015 Letter from Highways Requesting confirmation England regarding freehold whether Slough Borough land interests Council is willing to enter into negotiating terms relating to the purchase of land
17 June 2015 Email from Highways SoCG meeting agenda England to Slough document Borough Council
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 19
Date Form of Contact Summary
19 June 2015 SoCG meeting between Public rights of way; Highways England and construction, phasing and Slough Borough Council compounds; bridge closures and traffic management; vegetation clearance and landscape design; impact on air quality; impact on noise; potential for shared working; potential conflicts with Slough Borough Council’s major schemes and safety
23 June 2015 Email from Slough Provision of email received Borough Council regarding by Slough Borough Council allotment impact from one of the allotment tenants, asking how the Scheme would impact plots
26 June 2015 Email from Slough Confirmation of tenant Borough Council regarding addresses where allotment tenants undeliverable letters had been returned, and confirmation that one tenant has terminated their plot
1 July 2015 Email response from Re-provided Highways Highways England to email England email response to dated 23 June 2015 allotment impact of 3 June 2015
3 July 2015 Email from Slough Provision of information Borough Council regarding relating to rights of way rights of way network
15 July 2015 Email from Highways Noted that s56 Notices had England’s traffic modelling been completed and specialists to Slough requested a continuation of Borough Council the discussions relating to traffic modelling for the SoCG preparation
27 July 2015 Email from Highways Provision of minutes of England to Slough SoCG meeting held on 19 Borough Council June 2015
13 September 2015 Email from Highways Issue of draft SoCG to England to Slough Slough Borough Council, Borough Council including Nin Motorised Users Report
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 20
Date Form of Contact Summary
14 September 2015 Email from Slough Slough Borough Council Borough Council to confirmed receipt of the draft Highways England SoCG and that it had been read but that comments would be made along with the submission of their Local Impact Report. Requested confirmation of final compound locations in Slough
16 September 2015 Email from Slough Slough Borough Council’s Borough Council to consultant confirmed receipt Highways England of draft SoCG but are not yet in a position to agree to a meeting to discuss the SoCG
25 September 2015 Email from Highways Response to Slough England to Slough Allotment Federation letter of Allotment Federation 21 September 2015 (Slough Borough Council identifying area of Myrke copied) Allotments likely to be affected by the scheme
2 October 2015 Email from Slough Consultant’s request for Borough Council to traffic data for the scheme for Highways England an environment report he is doing on behalf of Slough Borough Council.
5 October 2015 Email and telephone Email requested Slough response from Highways Borough Council’s consultant England to email dated 2 to liaise directly with October 2015 Highways England’s traffic specialist to agree data to be provided. Telephone call from Highways England’s traffic specialist to Slough Borough Council’s consultant confirmed data requirements
6 October 2015 Email from Slough Requesting progress update Borough Council to on traffic data provision Highways England
6 October 2015 Email response from Provision of traffic model Highways England to email data requested dated 5 October 2015
8 October 2015 Email from Highways Requested progress update England to Slough on returning comments on Borough Council the draft SoCG
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 21
Date Form of Contact Summary
8 October 2015 Email response from Confirmed that Local Impact Slough Borough Council to Report was being finalised email dated 8 October and comments on the draft 2015 SoCG would be provided by 5 November 2015
8 October 2015 Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report submission to Planning submitted to Planning Inspectorate Inspectorate
16 October 2015 Email from Highways Requested progress update England to Slough on returning comments on Borough Council the draft SoCG
27 October 2015 Email from Highways Courtesy email informing England to Slough Slough Borough Council Borough Council Parks Department of Accompanied Site Inspection visit to Myrke Allotments
28 October 2015 Email from Highways Courtesy email informing England to Slough Slough Borough Council Borough Council Parks Department of survey team visit to Myrke Allotments to map plots
30 October 2015 Email response from Confirmed that the Council Slough Borough Council to had reviewed the 13th email dated 13 September September draft SoCG in the 2015 light of the Slough Local Impact Report and was preparing a revised version of the SoCG for discussion. Comments to be provided by 2 November 2015 with a view to agreeing appropriate text for submission by the 5 November deadline. Apologies given for the Council not responding earlier to the 13th September draft due to Slough's limited resources being directed towards the LIR submission
30 October 2015 Email response from Thanked Slough Borough Highways England to email Council for their update on dated 30 October 2015 progressing the SoCG
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 22
Date Form of Contact Summary
30 October 2015 Email from Highways Provided drawing showing England to Slough the extent of the Thames Borough Council and Water service culvert works Slough Allotment within the Myrke allotments Federation
2 November 2015 Email response from Provided comments on draft Slough Borough Council to SoCG excluding air quality email dated 16 October and noise sections 2015
2 November 2015 Email response from Confirmed receipt of Highways England to email comments on draft SoCG dated 2 November 2015 excluding air quality and noise sections
3 November 2015 Email response from Provided comments on draft Slough Borough Council to SoCG air quality and noise email dated 16 October sections 2015
3 November 2015 Email from Slough Requested confirmation of Borough Council receipt for email providing comments on draft SoCG air quality and noise sections
3 November 2015 Email response from Confirmed receipt of Highways England to email comments on draft SoCG air dated 3 November 2015 quality and noise sections
17-18 November 2015 Planning Inspectorate Attended hearings Issue Specific Hearing
17 November 2015 Verbal request at Issue Requested the results of the Specific Hearing from modelling for M4 junctions 5, Slough Borough Council 6 and 7 and the data that fed into the model. Also requested details of the impact on the surrounding local road networks
18 November 2015 Email from Slough Formal request of data Borough Council’s traffic requested verbally at the modelling specialist to Issue Specific Hearing Highways England
18 November 2015 Email response from Confirmed that Highway’s Highways England to email England’s traffic modelling dated 18 November 2015 specialists would be in contact to discuss Slough Borough Council’s exact data requirements
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 23
Date Form of Contact Summary
18 November 2015 Email response from Identified list of air quality Highways England to action points raised by ExA discussion at Issue at Issue Specific Hearing to Specific Hearing on 17 be resolved by Highways November 2015 England and Slough Borough Council.
20 November 2015 Email response from Provision of traffic modelling Highways England to email data dated 18 November 2015
23 November 2015 Email from Highways Follow up email to email England to Slough dated 18 November 2015 Borough Council requesting a progress update
24 November 2015 Email response from Slough Borough Council’s air Slough Borough Council’s quality specialists require an air quality specialist to instruction from Slough email dated 18 November Borough Council to 2015 undertake this work
24 November 2015 Email response from Slough Borough Council Slough Borough Council to need to review information email dated 18 November provided by Highways 2015 England and their own specialist before responding
25 November 2015 Email response from Slough Borough Council Slough Borough Council to identified the detailed traffic email dated 20 November modelling data required for 2015 them to consider various scenarios
27 November 2015 Email from Slough Submission of Slough Borough Council’s to the Borough Council’s Written Planning Inspectorate Summaries and Evidence of (Highways England Oral Submissions copied)
4 January 2016 Email from Highways Provision of turning England movement data for M4 J5, 6 and 7 and wider impact during construction
4 January 2016 Email from Highways Copy of Local Model England Validation Report (LMVR)
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 24
Date Form of Contact Summary
19 January 2016 Email from Slough Slough Borough Council Borough Council to Chris chasing issue of SoCG from Tooth at Highways Highways England and England requesting meeting prior to Hearings on 10th to 12th February
22 January 2016 Email from Highways Provision of traffic data England during construction period (2017 and 2020) for A4, A355 and A412.
28 January 2016 Email from Slough Slough Borough Council Borough Council to Lynne chasing issue of SoCG from Stinson at Highways Highways England and England requesting meeting prior to Hearings on 10th to 12th February 28 January 2016 Email from Highways Confirming issue of SoCG by England 1st February and offering dates for meeting
1 February 2016 Emails from Slough Covering items to be Borough Council discussed at meeting and agreeing to meeting on Friday 5 h February
1 February 2016 Email from Highways Submission of SoCG to England Slough Borough Council
5 February 2016 Meeting between Meeting to discuss SoCG Highways England and including noise & vibration, Slough Borough Council air quality including mitigation measures suggested by Slough Borough Council, footpath diversions/improvements, Slough Borough Council’s low emission strategy, local plan, green belt, landscape & visual impact, heritage assets, engineering & design, impact on road users, traffic on local roads, NMU’s, socio-economic aspects, DCO requirements and the Construction Environmental Management Plan.
14 February 2016 Email from Highways Submission of SoCG to England Slough Borough Council
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 25
Date Form of Contact Summary
17 February 2016 Email from Slough Submission on Air Quality, Borough Council to noise and cumulative effects Planning Inspectorate to PINS (copied to Highways England)
22 February 2016 Meeting between Meeting to discuss SoCG Highways England and including noise & vibration, Slough Borough Council air quality including mitigation measures suggested by Slough Borough Council, footpath diversions/improvements, Slough Borough Council’s low emission strategy, local plan, green belt, landscape & visual impact, heritage assets, engineering & design, impact on road users, traffic on local roads, NMU’s, socio-economic aspects, DCO requirements and the Construction Environmental Management Plan
23 February 2016 Email from Highways Issue of update on SoCG England progress to Slough Borough Council
24 February 2016 Email from Highways Issue of updated SoCG to England Slough Borough Council including revised Environmental Masterplan drawings as Appendix 2
25 February 2016 Email from Slough Costs of legal orders Borough Council provided
25 February 2016 Email from Slough Comments on draft SoCG Borough Council (excluding noise and air quality) provided
25 February 2016 Email from Highways Issue of updated SoCG to England Slough Borough Council including table of mitigation as Appendix 3
26 February 2016 Email from Slough Comments on draft SoCG Borough Council (excluding noise and air quality) provided
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 26
Date Form of Contact Summary
26 February 2016 Email from Highways Issue of update on SoCG England progress to Slough Borough Council – just awaiting noise and air quality comments from Slough Borough Council
29 February 2016 Email from Slough Comments on draft SoCG Borough Council (noise and air quality) provided
29 February 2016 Email from Highways Issue of SoCG for Signature England
2.2 It is agreed that this is an accurate record of the key meetings, workshops and consultation undertaken between (1) Highways England and (2) Slough Borough Council in relation to the issues addressed in this SoCG.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 27
3 Matters Agreed
Policy
National Policy Statement for National Networks
3.1 It is agreed that the Scheme generally meets the provisions of the National Policy Statement for National Networks (“NN NPS”) subject to the concerns raised by Slough Borough Council in Section 4.
Local Plan
3.2 It is agreed that Highways England has identified relevant policies in the Development Plan policies for Slough, including Core Policy 7 and Core Policy 8 which relate to air quality, noise and other environmental matters.
3.3 Under Core Policy 9 Natural and Built Environment, development will not be permitted unless it (a) enhances and protects the historic environment, and (b) respects the character and distinctiveness of existing buildings, townscapes and landscapes and their local designations, among other things. .
3.4 It is agreed that the Scheme does not affect the character and distinctiveness of existing buildings or townscapes, given that the route is largely rural, by-passing the suburbs of Slough and does not require any property demolition. The Scheme does not pass through any local landscape designations. The additional features required for the Scheme, such as the gantries, earthworks and modifications to existing bridges are in keeping with a motorway corridor. Table 8.2 in the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-148) summarises the landscape and visual assessment. The permanent effects on the landscape at worse are slight adverse decreasing to neutral over time while the permanent effects on visual amenity at worse are moderate / slight decreasing to slight adverse/neutral. The Environmental Masterplan includes planting proposals to mitigate the effect of the scheme on landscape and views wherever possible. The proposed changes to the existing lighting arrangements will also reduce night-time glare and light spill. Details on design and mitigation are set out in paragraphs 8.2.13 to 8.2.14 in Chapter 8 of the ES (application Document reference 6-1, App-148).
Local Transport Plan
3.5 It is agreed that Highways England has correctly identified the Local Transport Plan for Slough and that the Scheme is in general alignment with the local transport strategy.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 28
3.6 Slough Borough Council considers that Highways England should refer to the Local Transport Plan Supplementary Strategy Documents (“SSD”) that give further details on Slough’s local transport strategy. Of particular relevance are those relating to network management and Intelligent Transport Systems (“ITS”).
3.7 Highways England notes Slough Borough Council’s SSD on Network Management and Intelligent Transport Systems and, in particular, NMD Theme 1: “Managing Network Efficiency, Demand and Future Growth”. This theme recognises (paragraph 2.3.2 of the SSD) the M4 as part of Slough Borough Council’s Strategic Route Network with its focus on the movement of people and goods. The Scheme will be particularly supportive of Slough Borough Council’s desire to retain its economic competitiveness and role as an economic hub in the South East.
3.8 Highways England also notes Strand 4 of the Council’s policies within Theme 1 (paragraph 3.1.1.4 of the SSD) covering “Managing the Road Network more efficiently”, with its emphasis on ITS and the use of technology. Slough Borough Council’s Urban Traffic Control (“UTC”), Variable Message Signs (“VMS”), air quality monitoring, real time passenger information and journey time monitoring systems are complementary to the implementation of traffic control technology within the Scheme. The Council’s aspiration to move towards Urban Traffic Management and Control (“UTMC”) is also complementary to the continuation of partnership working with Highways England under the SSD’s NMD Theme 3: “Contingency Planning and Incident Management” (paragraph 3.3.3 of the SSD) which has formalised agreed routes and junctions to be used to direct motorists on and off the motorway in the event of a major incident.
3.9 As such it is agreed that the Scheme is not in conflict with the SSD.
3.10 The A355 enhancement scheme referred to in paragraph 3.51 includes the installation of a 30 mph speed limit between Junction 6 and the Copthorne roundabout. The traffic signals at the motorway junction are currently operated by Reading Borough Council and maintained by Slough Borough Council. Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (“MOVA”) is being installed. It is agreed that coordination between Highways England and Slough Borough Council will take place to ensure the smooth running of traffic between Junction 6 and the A355 in Slough, particularly for ‘high stress’ northbound movements.
Green Belt
3.11 It is agreed that the proposed operation of the Scheme and gantries would not have a
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 29
material impact on the openness of the Green Belt nor on the five purposes of that designation.
Environment
Landscape and visual impact
3.12 The baseline information for Highways England’s landscape and visual assessment is agreed.
3.13 Slough Borough Council has concerns that vegetation removal for the works to construct the Scheme will have an adverse visual impact and be detrimental to the existing landscape. However, it is agreed that any impacts from vegetation removal are capable of being mitigated by the provision of replacement planting where vegetation is removed as a result of the works. This replacement planting is described in the outline replacement landscaping proposals at paragraphs 8.4.10, 8.4.11, 8.4.12, 8.9.8, 8.9.9, 8.9.14, 8.10.8, 8.10.9, 8.10.16, 8.10.17, 8.10.18, 8.11.9, 8.11.10, 8.11.19, 8.11.20 and 8.11.21 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-148) and Drawing 8.1 (Application Document Reference 6-2, APP-214-217).
3.14 It is agreed that sufficient information has been provided to assess the visual impact of new lighting, especially those to be mounted on the central barrier, and how light spill would compare with the existing. The information to make this assessment was provided at Deadline lll (REP3-017) in Highways England's response to Slough Borough Council’s Local Impact Report. The assessment reports that the Scheme would potentially reduce light spill and light pollution. The proposed lighting design has not changed since Deadline lll.
Flooding
3.15 The proposal to extend the Chalvey Culvert is agreed subject to the works being carried out with minimum disturbance to existing vegetation. This is secured at DCO requirement 8 (REP5–002).
Ecology and nature conservation
3.16 The conclusions of Table 9.5 (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-149) addressing the residual effect of the Scheme on ecology and nature conservation are agreed.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 30
3.17 Slough Borough Council agrees that a habitat survey at the site of proposed Construction Compound 9 was completed on 11 November 2015 and that the habitats present were confirmed to be of not more than local value. The majority of the site comprised an arable crop, with one species-poor hedgerow, a small area of immature broadleaved plantation woodland, and areas of scattered scrub. The survey found no evidence of protected species. The hedgerows, trees and scrub were suitable for use by nesting birds, and the site was considered to have some limited potential to support amphibians and reptiles, particularly around the field margins.
3.18 It is also agreed that a pre-construction habitat survey will be completed prior to any works starting on the site of the proposed Construction Compound 9.
3.19 Slough Borough Council considers that, although the presence of the Herschel Park Local Nature Reserve (“LNR”) is recorded in APP-149 there does not appear to be a full description of this LNR in the document and therefore it is not clear what the potential impact of the Scheme would be on the south-eastern corner of the reserve in relation to works on the Datchet Road overbridge and gantries G4-13 and G4-15 (note that references originally stated by Slough Borough Council were G5-03 and G5-05). Following Highways England’s response below this matter is now agreed.
3.20 Highways England agrees that the Herschel Park LNR and the potential effects of the Scheme on this site were not described in the ES (Application Document Reference 6- 1, APP-149). In recognition of this, Highways England presented the assessment (REP3-017) of the Scheme on Herschel Park in its response to Slough Borough Council’s Local Impact Report (REP2-047). An assessment of Gantries G5-03 and G5- 05 did not form part of this assessment, as they are not located near to Herschel Park. However, Highways England understands that Slough Borough Council was in fact referring to Gantries G4-13 and G4-15.
3.21 Gantry G4-13 will be located within the motorway boundary close to the Datchet Road bridge site and would require approximately 0.0117ha (117m²) of permanent land-take from the south-eastern corner of Hershel Park LNR (refer to Sheet 23 of the Vegetation Clearance drawings submitted to PINS at Deadline VII, REP7-***). This represents a 0.27% loss of the total area of the LNR, affecting an area supporting grassland, scrub and semi-mature trees. Therefore, the conclusions of the assessment presented in REP3-017 remain valid i.e. a ‘minor’ magnitude of impact and a ‘neutral’ significance of effect.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 31
3.22 Gantry G4-15 is located to the south of the LNR boundary beyond the motorway, and therefore no direct impacts to Hershel Park LNR are anticipated as a result of its construction.
3.23 Herschel Park (which predominantly encompasses Herschel Park LNR) falls mostly outwith the Zone of Visual Influence for the Scheme (refer to Sheets 11 and 12 of Drawing 8.2 of the Environmental Statement) (Application Document Reference 6-2, APP-220). However, Receptor 12.3.1, a path within Herschel Park, would have a view to elements of the Scheme, resulting in a slight adverse visual effect during construction and Opening Year (2022). However, by Design Year (2037), as the landscape mitigation establishes, the visual effects would reduce to neutral (refer to Appendix 8.3 of the Environmental Statement) (Application Document Reference 6-3, APP-314).
Air quality
3.24 Slough Borough Council indicated that they wish to consider the significance of the Scheme on air quality following recent guidance from Environmental Protection UK (“EPUK”) and Institute of Air Quality Management (“IAQM”) issued in May 2015, and that they may calculate air quality damages costs.
3.25 The methodology used to consider air quality significance for the strategic network is agreed. Highways England follows its prescribed methodology to assess the significance of air quality (as outlined in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (“DMRB”) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality’ (HA207/07) and associated Interim Advice Note (“IAN”) 174/13), as stated in paragraph 6.2.1 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-146).
3.26 Additionally, the EPUK / IAQM guidance in question states that:
“This document has been developed for professionals operating within the planning system. It provides them with a means of reaching sound decisions, having regard to the air quality implications of development proposals. It also is anticipated that developers will be better able to understand what will make a proposal more likely to succeed. This guidance, of itself, can have no formal or legal status and is not intended to replace other guidance. For example, … for major new road schemes, Highways England has prepared a series of advice notes on assessing impacts and risk of non- compliance with limit values.”
3.27 The above quotation from the EPUK / IAQM guidance reinforces Highways England’s
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 32
position that air quality assessments for major road schemes, such as the M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway, should be undertaken in line with Highways England guidance. Therefore, Highways England believes this is a robust and comprehensive methodology.
3.28 In relation to damage costs, the overall appraisal for the Scheme (as reported in the Appraisal Summary Table (“AST”)) (Appendix B of the Socio-Economic Report) (Application Document Reference 7-2, APP-090) has, in the opinion of Highways England, already considered and reported the associated air quality damage costs to
central government for oxides of nitrogen (“NOx”) and particulates ("PM10"). The damage costs have been calculated using Department for Transport appraisal guidance notes (WebTAG). These costs have therefore already been accounted for at the national scale. No additional local damage cost calculations or contributions are proposed and none are required by policy applicable to nationally significant infrastructure projects or by law..
3.29 Paragraphs 6.9.15, 6.9.16, 6.10.17, 6.10.18, 6.10.19, 6.11.14 and 6.11.15 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6.1, APP-146) identify areas where the air quality modelling predicts improvements in air quality and locations where it is forecast to worsen. Slough Borough Council considers that the verification factors presented in Appendix 6.4, Section 5 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-3, APP-307) in some locations are higher than expected. Highways England notes that the areas where the verification factors are higher than expected by Slough Borough Council reflect those areas with congestion, such as slip roads. It is agreed that the verification factors have been accurately recorded in the ES and are appropriate to verify the air quality assessment results in the assessment.
3.30 Slough Borough Council is concerned about air quality in the area and is developing plans to reduce these levels by 2020 through Air Quality Management Area Action Plans and by implementing a low emissions strategy, to include targets and objective measures focussed on reducing health impacts. Slough Borough Council would like Highways England to support this strategy.
3.31 It is agreed that in relation to the Scheme, the adoption of best practice measures on construction sites to address the air quality exceedances and their health impacts on the local communities by Highways England will support Slough Borough Council with their low emission strategy. Measures to mitigate air quality on the construction sites are described in Appendix 6.1 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-3, APP-304)
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 33
and in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Outline CEMP (Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6-3, REP7-***). These air quality mitigation measures are based on the IAQM guidelines, see paragraph 1.10 in Appendix 6.1 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6.3, APP-304). The preparation and implementation of the CEMP, including approval by the relevant authority, is secured under Schedule 2, Requirement 8 of the Draft DCO (Application Document Reference 3.1, REP5-002).
Noise and vibration
3.32 It is agreed that the noise modelling results presented in paragraphs 12.9.13, 12.9.16, 12.10.13, 12.10.16, 12.11.12 and 12.11.15 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6.1, APP-152) show that the forecast impacts of the Scheme within Slough Borough Council are generally beneficial in the Opening Year (2022) with the Scheme compared with the predicted levels without the Scheme. This reflects the proposals to surface the motorway with a Thin Surface Course System (low noise surfacing), as outlined in paragraph 12.2.49 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6.1-APP-152).
3.33 In relation to noise mitigation proposed as part of the Scheme, some areas of additional noise barriers are proposed where the forecast increase in noise is perceptible, as illustrated on Drawing 12.2 Sheets 11 and 13 (Application Document Reference 6.2, APP-259 and APP-260) and set out in Appendices 12.1 and 12.2 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6.3, APP-347 and APP-348). Existing noise barriers will be retained, or replaced like for like in terms of height and length, but to modern specification for noise reduction, if in poor condition. It is agreed that this comprises sufficient and appropriate mitigation for the effects of the Scheme.
3.34 In the case of new highway or altered highways where additional carriageway is being constructed the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975, as amended 1988, require the highway authority, if certain criteria are met, to offer secondary glazing and alternative ventilation for habitable rooms of dwellings so affected. Properties within 300m of the highway are eligible if the use of a highway causes or is expected to cause noise at a level not less than the specified level L 10 (18-hour) of 68dB(A) if: the relevant noise level is greater by at least 1dB(A) than the prevailing noise level and is not less than the specified level, and noise caused or expected to be caused by traffic using or expected to use that highway makes an effective contribution to the relevant noise level of at least 1dB(A).
3.35 The Borough Council seeks clarification of all Slough residential properties that may be
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 34
entitled to noise compensation or insulation under these legal provisions.
3.36 As it has been confirmed by Highways England in paragraph 3.33 above, that the noise and vibration assessment, as provided in Chapter 12 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-152), indicates that no properties will qualify for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988), this matter is now agreed.
3.37 The Borough Council seeks confirmation that within Slough the entire stretch of the M4 and associated slip roads would be resurfaced with a low-noise surface rather than just the re-surfacing of the existing hard shoulder and far-side lane. Highways England has provided confirmation of that low noise surfacing will be provided across both carriageways and the slip roads for the full extent of the Scheme; refer to paragraph 3.56.3 of the response to the Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report (REP3-017).
3.38 DEFRA has adopted a Noise Action Plan to reduce road noise (including major roads. The M4 has been strategically noise mapped and there is a number of noise hotspots identified, referred to under DEFRA guidance as ‘Important Areas’. Within the Borough of Slough there are 8 ‘Important Areas’. The Borough Council considers that there is a requirement on Highways England under the DEFRA Noise Action Plan to take steps to minimise noise in the Borough. It is agreed that this matter has been covered by the enhanced noise mitigation study, which has been provided for Deadline V. (REP5-002) and updated at Deadline VII (REP7-***).
3.39 Slough Borough Council's view is that Highways England’s assessment indicates that seven properties would experience a minor increase in road traffic noise levels as a result of the Scheme against the ‘do minimum scenario’ and 27% experience a negligible increase in noise when comparing the opening year of scheme with existing. When comparing 2037 (Scheme open 15 years) against the ‘do minimum’ of 2022, 29% of residents experience a negligible increase. A ‘negligible increase’ is defined by Highways England as one of more than 1dB as a result of the Scheme but it is unclear how many properties would also experience the specified level of L 10 (18-hour) of 68dB(A).
3.40 It is agreed that this issue is addressed in the response to paragraph 3.55 of the Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report (REP3-017). It should also be noted that a negligible increase is not defined by Highways England as more than 1 dB: negligible in the long term is defined as 0.1 to 2.9 dB. Highways England confirms that there are no
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 35
properties in the study area which experience noise increases of 1 dB or more to levels at or above 68 dB and thus Highways England considers that there are no properties that would qualify for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988). Highways England will work with Slough Borough Council to resolve details and questions raised over the noise insulation and re-housing policy during the construction phase as raised in the hearing and their submissions at Deadline VII
3.41 It is agreed that the Enhanced Noise Mitigation Study, which was provided for Deadline V. (REP5-002) and updated at Deadline VII (REP7-***), provides sufficient barriers to mitigate the residential properties along the M4 within Sough borough.
Heritage assets
3.42 It is agreed that there would be adverse temporary and permanent impacts on the setting of Cippenham Court scheduled monument, as reported in Table 7.3 of Chapter 7 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-147). (Mitigation is discussed in Section 4 of this Statement of Common Ground). It is agreed that only a very small portion of the monument lies within the Zone of Visual Influence of the Scheme, which will limit the extent and severity of any visual impacts.
3.43 Slough Borough Council agrees that the Environmental Master Plan, as submitted would satisfactorily mitigate the adverse temporary and permanent impacts on the setting of Cippenham Court scheduled monument as illustrated on Drawing 7.1 Sheet 11 (Application Document Reference 6-2, APP-212). Consequently, the planting shown in the Environmental Masterplan Sheet 21 (Application Document Reference 7-4, APP- 100), including trees and linear belts of trees and shrubs at the northern approaches of Wood Lane Overbridge is more than adequate to mitigate the change in setting.
Engineering and design
Motorway junctions
3.44 It is agreed that the design of Junction 5/Langley, Junction 6 Chalvey, and Junction 7/Huntercombe Spur works is acceptable.
Overbridges
3.45 It is agreed that the design of the Oldway Lane, Old Slade Lane, Langley and Wood
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 36
Lane overbridges is appropriate.
3.46 As the proposed works at Datchet Road overbridge includes the reconstruction of the bus laybys as close as practical to the existing locations and to the same dimensions, as set out in paragraph 4.8.1 of the response to Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report (REP3-017) it is agreed that this is sufficient provision for both northbound and southbound bus services.
Underbridges
3.47 Highways England's approach to the proposed widening of the Windsor Branch Railway Bridge on the southern side is agreed, subject to confirming the outcome of Highway England’s embankment option (paragraph 7.7.23 of EDR (Application Document Reference 7-3, APP-096)).
Impact on road users
Traffic Information and Safety
3.48 It is agreed that the proposed variable speed management regime will result in better incident management and reduce the need to divert M4 traffic onto the local road network. Highways England confirms that:
a. Widespread publicity would be produced in advance of speed management being introduced to raise awareness and give drivers an early warning. A national campaign will also be undertaken by Highways England to coincide with All Lane Running Schemes opening on the strategic network ;
b. Variable speed working on the M4 would be co-ordinated with that on the M25 and M3;
c. There would be the ability to vary speeds on different section of the motorway between Junctions 4B and Junction 8/9 to increase safety for traffic entering/ leaving the M4 at Slough; and
d. Further consultation would take place on the information to be displayed on direction signs including those directing HGVs to Slough Trading Estate.
3.49 Highways England provided responses to the above four items in response to the
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 37
Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report (REP3-017), paragraphs 5.2.7 to 5.2.10 are reproduced below:
‘With regard to point (a) above, Highways England seeks to provide information on incidents/congestion further along the network, on the basis this may enable drivers to choose an alternative route if they are made aware of circumstances sufficiently in advance. The equipment installed as part of each smart motorway scheme provides a highly controlled environment which allows better detection and management of incidents. During busy periods, radar devices or detection loops below the road surface are used to identify breakdowns in traffic flow and automatically set lower speed limits on the approach to an incident or congestion. The overhead electronic signals can also be used to display warning messages to approaching drivers and close lanes to protect vehicles. Signs display messages as part of a strategy to help promote various initiatives; however, these would always be overridden by other messages.
With regards to point (b) above, the speed limits on the Scheme will be automatically set in response to the road conditions. Should congestion begin to build then the signalling system will react accordingly and automatically set reduced speed limits to manage the flow of traffic. Should there be an incident on Scheme, the Operator at the Regional Control Centre (RCC) is able to set appropriate signs and signals if necessary. Depending on the location (i.e. should the incident occur near the M25 merge or diverge) then it may be necessary for appropriate signs and signals to be set on the M25. The signalling rules will automatically set signals upstream (whether that be on the M4 or M25) once the Operator has set a signal at a specific location to protect the scene at an incident.
With regards to point (c) above, the speed limits on the Scheme will be automatically set in response to the road conditions. Depending on the level of congestion, the automatically displayed speed limits will display 40mph, 50mph, 60mph or the national speed limit. The system is programmed not to vary the speed unnecessarily – the system will moderate traffic speeds in order to improve and smooth the flow of traffic through the section.
With regards to point (d) above, the Advanced Direction Signs (ADS) have been consulted upon through the consultation period for the Application. None of the signs relate to specifically directing HGV drivers to the Sough Trading Estate. Further discussions can be undertaken through the Detailed Design stage should there be a need for further information to be included on signs.’
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 38
Traffic on local roads
3.50 Slough Borough Council is concerned about the potential cumulative effects of several major schemes planned for construction at the same time as the M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway Scheme, which will generate heavy goods vehicle (“HGV”) movements during and after construction. Slough Borough Council identified the Slough Intermodal Freight Exchange, the HS2 proposal to move the Heathrow Express from Oak Common to Langley, the Western Rail Link to Heathrow and gravel extraction by Cemex at Riding Court Farm.
3.51 Slough Borough Council in association with Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership has developed proposals for improvements to the A355 north of Junction 6 with funding from the Government’s Local Growth Fund. This includes a Hanger Lane style design at the Copthorne roundabout between the motorway and the A4 with traffic light controlled turning movements at Junction 6. It is agreed that Highways England and Slough Borough Council will continue their liaison over the design and construction of the two schemes to minimise any potential conflicts due to design and construction issues.
3.52 In relation to the volume of construction traffic that might arise during construction, as explained in paragraphs 2.2.4 to 2.2.8 of the Outline Environmental Management Plan (Appendix 4.2 of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6.3, APP-299), the contractor will be responsible for developing the Outline CEMP presented in Appendix 4.2A of the ES (REP3-010), into a final version which sets out in detail how the construction-related impacts will be mitigated. Proposals for traffic management during construction are provided in the Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (“CTMP”) (Appendix 4.2A of the ES, Annex E) (REP7-***). The contractor will be responsible for developing the CEMP and CTMP in consultation with Slough Borough Council, as the local highway authority, taking account of other major projects being developed in parallel. The preparation of the CEMP, including the Outline CTMP, is secured pursuant to Schedule 2, Requirement 8 of the Draft DCO (Application Document Reference 3-1, REP5- 002).
3.53 It is agreed that the contractor and Highways England will work with Slough Borough Council in order to establish agreed haulage and delivery routes, as set out in Section 13.8 of the Outline CEMP (Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (REP7-***) and access and egress routes to compounds as set out in the CTMP.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 39
3.54 It is agreed that the potential impacts from construction traffic as a result of the Scheme are capable of being appropriately managed by the provisions in the Outline CEMP and CTMP which are secured by Requirement 8 in the DCO. It is agreed that the mechanism of the CEMP and CTMP enable the effects of other major developments that have construction scheduled at the same time as construction of the Scheme to be taken into account. It is also agreed that it is for other developers to have regard to the Scheme in developing their own proposals where their proposals were brought forward after the Scheme itself, including where there is proposed movement of construction traffic across administrative boundaries.
3.55 Slough Borough Council sees the opportunity for collaboration between Highways England and the local highway authorities on wider driver information. Such collaboration would aid each authority in carrying out its Network Management duty and include a partnership approach to the sharing of information for use within the ITS equipment operated by the respective parties. To have a positive impact for drivers travelling into, through and out of Slough the Borough Council sees the potential for sharing and displaying information on Authority-owned variable message signs in the following locations:
a. Northbound on A355 Tuns Lane between the M4 Junction 6 roundabout and the Copthorne roundabout. (Useful information for drivers leaving the M4 and approaching Slough Trading Estate or the town centre);
b. Westbound on A4 Bath Road towards the Huntercombe Spur roundabout. (Useful information for drivers heading out of Slough on traffic conditions around Junction 7 of the M4); and
c. Eastbound on A4 Bath Road, approaching the Huntercombe Spur roundabout. (Useful information for drivers approaching a decision point, either to continue on the A4 or to turn onto the Huntercombe Spur link towards Junction 7 of the M4.
3.56 As previously confirmed in the response to paragraph 5.4 of the Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report (REP3-017), ‘Highways England welcomes the opportunity to work more closely with Slough Borough Council in order to share knowledge and information and also to discuss planned works and development and emergency situations. With the ITS introduced by Slough Borough Council and by Highways England, there are significant opportunities to work together and look at how both organisations can help each other to provide accurate and reliable information to the road user. This would
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 40
enable road users to make informed decisions on their journey prior to reaching either the Slough Borough Council local road network or prior to reaching the Highways England network’ Therefore, this matter is now agreed.
3.57 Slough Borough Council understands that enforcement of variable mandatory speed limits is planned to be carried out using a combination of gantry-mounted and verge mounted speed enforcement equipment, and traditional enforcement by the Police. As the distances between Junction 5, 6 and 7 are relatively short, it is considered that average speed enforcement would prove a more effective alternative.
3.58 Highways England confirms that, at present, all smart motorway schemes are to be enforced by speed enforcement cameras which can be located on a gantry or on verge mounted MS4s. It is agreed that these cameras will provide spot speed enforcement as there is currently no approved average speed enforcement system which would enable the enforcement of variable speed limits on smart motorway schemes. It is also agreed that levels of compliance will be monitored for the early smart motorway schemes.
3.59 The traffic signals at Junction 5 are also currently operated by Reading Borough Council and maintained by Slough Borough Council. As with Junction 6, the Borough Council sees it essential as local highway authority has the means to manage traffic flows at this important roundabout and coordinate with ramp metering by Highways England for westbound M4 traffic. East of this roundabout the ‘high stress’ A4 London Road/ Colnbrook Bypass is an important connection to Heathrow Airport, representing the strategic interface between the M4 and the local road network.
3.60 It is agreed that Highways England must retain control of Junctions 5 and 6. This will form part of the Urban Traffic Management and Control ("UTMC") System, which is the national initiative for the development of a more open approach to Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in urban areas. The control of the traffic signals is necessary to allow Highways England to change the settings for the length of time a light is green or red, which will help to clear traffic in congested areas and keep traffic moving. However, Highways England will work with Slough Borough Council to enable the optimum timings at the signals for all routes.
Non-motorised forms of travel
3.61 Slough Borough Council agrees in principle that the public right of way diversions are required for the Scheme, and that the proposed diversion routes for public rights of way are acceptable subject to the CEMP making provision for the relevant designated users.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 41
3.62 Proposed diversion routes are explained in paragraphs 4.7.10, 4.9.9, 4.9.11, 4.9.15, 13.4.2 and 13.6.4 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6.1, APP-144 and APP- 153). The general approach for managing closures and diversions of public rights of way is explained in section 13.7 of the Outline CEMP (Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (REP7-***)
3.63 It is agreed that the general approach set out in the Outline CEMP is suitable to manage the closure and diversion of the public rights of way during the construction of the Scheme. The arrangements for closures and diversions of public rights of way during construction at specific locations will be developed by the contractor in consultation with Slough Borough Council. The preparation and implementation of the CEMP, including approval by the relevant authority, is secured under Schedule 2, Requirement 8 of the Draft DCO (Application Document Reference 3.1, REP5-002).
3.64 Usage surveys have been carried out on the public rights of way by Highways England, which are reported in the Non-Motorised User Survey (REP1-003). It is agreed that the surveys of non-motorised users (“NMUs”) were undertaken at selected locations where temporary diversions are needed for the construction of structures, which are reported in paragraph 13.7.7 to Chapter 13 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP- 153). This includes Oldway Lane Accommodation Overbridge east of junction 7 and Langley Interchange Underbridge at junction 5, both in Slough, and Recreation Ground Overbridge which connects to public rights of way in Slough on the north side of the motorway. This is explained in paragraph 13.7.15 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6.1, APP-153). The report on the NMUs was provided at Deadline I (REP1- 003).
3.65 It is agreed that consideration should be given to establishing a bridleway over Old Slade Lane Bridge, to connect with bridleways on either side of the M4. Highways England notes that Buckinghamshire County Council is seeking formal designation of a bridleway to connect Buckinghamshire and South Bucks District Council on the north side of the M4 with Slough Borough Council on the south side. Highways England has agreed to work with these authorities to establish the standards required to enable Old Slade Lane Overbridge to be made suitable for vehicles, pedestrians, and equestrians, within the Scheme design and Order limits. The proposed design is suitable for shared space, with 1.8m high parapets, which are suitable for equestrians, and a 5m width, as shown in Drawing 11 of the EDR, Appendix F3 Overbridges (Application Reference Document 7.4, APP-120). It is agreed that Highways England will review the current designation status of the public right of way over the bridge and ensure that its design enables its future use as a bridleway.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 42
3.66 Bridleway 17 SLO crosses the current Wood Lane overbridge and it is agreed that the new structure would need to be designed to appropriate standards for a bridleway, including parapets with a minimum height of 1.8m, highway gradient and a footway of sufficient width to allow pedestrians to cross safely off-carriageway.
Socio-economic aspects
3.67 It is agreed that Slough Borough Council is one of the six Berkshire authorities on the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership which produced the Thames Valley Berkshire Strategic Economic Plan (“SEP”) submitted to the Government in 2014. The SEP strategy document states that ‘we welcome the planned M4 Smart Motorway Scheme from Junction 3 out to Junction 12, due to start construction in 2016. This should include screening, noise reduction and air quality measures’. The Scheme also features prominently in the SEP Implementation Plan.
Other Matters
Windsor Branch Line Services
3.68 Highways England confirms that any possessions required to complete the works at Slough-Windsor branch railway, which is an important link between the two towns and provides essential connections with First Great Western Main Line services to London and Reading, will be agreed in advance with Network Rail.
DCO Requirements
3.69 Draft DCO Requirements 7 and 8 mean that both the CEMP and EMP would need local planning authority approval but Slough Borough Council is concerned that the outline CEMP (Application Document Reference 6-3, REP7-***) is not sufficient to secure mitigation and that too many details are left to the future contractor. Clause (3) of Requirement 8 as drafted leaves it open for the CEMP to be modified by Highways England after the Scheme has commenced without further reference to the local planning authority and without any guarantee that the necessary mitigation would in fact be implemented.
3.70 Highways England confirms that Clause 3 was removed from DCO Requirement 8 and was submitted to the Examining Authority at Deadline V (REP5-002). This matter is now agreed.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 43
4 Matters Not Agreed
4.1 The following matters are not yet agreed and are subject to on-going discussion between Highways England and Slough Borough Council.
Policy
National Policy Statement for National Networks
4.2 Slough Borough Council does not consider that Highways England has provided in the design of the Scheme sufficient evidence that it has taken ‘reasonable opportunities to deliver environmental and social benefits’ nor used ‘reasonable endeavours to address the needs of cyclists and pedestrians’ in line with the aims of the NN NPS (paras 3.3 and 3.17).
4.3 Highways England does not agree with this statement. Slough Borough Council's submission is that the design of the Scheme should provide the necessary evidence. Highways England considers that the information already submitted as part of the Application demonstrates that it meets the policy standard. The full text of NN NPS paragraph 3.3 does not impose an exhaustive obligation to demonstrate that every such opportunity has been identified and pursued. It entails that reasonable opportunities are considered and requires that:
"Applicants should also provide evidence that they have considered reasonable opportunities to deliver environmental and social benefits as part of schemes"
4.4 On that basis, there is not an obligation to deliver environmental and social benefits, but to provide evidence that it has considered them. Highways England has both considered, and will deliver, environmental and social benefits as part of the Scheme, as set out in Chapter 13 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6.1, APP153) As these benefits will be implemented by the Scheme, it is self-evident that Highways England has "considered reasonable opportunities" as required by the NN NPS.
4.5 The Socio-Economic Report ("SER")(Application Document Reference 7-2, APP-090) refers to a range of beneficial effects to be derived from construction of the Scheme (Paragraph 7.1.4), whilst Paragraph 7.1.6 of the SER highlights a number of mitigation measures proposed to ameliorate any negative effects of the Scheme. The EDR (Application Document Reference 7-3, APP-096) refers, in Paragraph 7.12.1 to various enhancement measures set-out in the accompanying Environmental Masterplan (Annex A1 to the Report, APP097 to APP-101), as suggested mitigation measures for the
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 44
Scheme. The Environmental Masterplan drawings were updated for Deadline VII (REP7-*** to REP7-***).
4.6 In any event, in relation to NN NPS paragraph 3.17, Highways England considers that it has used reasonable endeavours to ensure that the needs of pedestrians and cyclists are considered in the Scheme design and, where appropriate, enhanced, for example through the provision of parapets of increased height to safeguard equestrian passage over certain structures.
4.7 Chapter 13 (Effects on all Travellers) of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-153) assessed the potential effects of the Scheme on vehicle travellers and non- motorised users (“NMUs”). The latter group includes pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians. Paragraph 13.1.3 of the ES notes that NMUs are not permitted to use motorways for safety reasons, although it recognises that they may be affected by the Scheme when travelling on the locally adopted highway network and other Public Rights of Way (“PRoW”) surrounding or interacting with the Scheme.
4.8 The assessment undertaken within the Chapter focussed on the Scheme effects on pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians in relation to the impacts on PRoW. Paragraph 13.6.1 reports that proposed mitigation measures for NMUs during the Scheme’s construction phase will be managed and monitored pursuant to the CEMP, which is secured under Requirement 8, Schedule 2 of the Draft DCO (Application Document Reference REP5- 002).
Local Plan
4.9 In assessing the Scheme against the Core Policies of the Slough Development Plan Slough Borough Council does not agree that the mitigation and enhancement measures being put forward in relation to landscaping are sufficient. Highways England does not agree with this statement.
4.10 Slough Borough Council do not agree that the Scheme under Core Policy 2 Green Belt and Open Spaces, will preserve and enhance existing private and public open spaces.
4.11 Highways England disagrees and notes that the impact and proposed mitigation on key open spaces is covered elsewhere within this SoCG including: Herschel Park (paragraphs 3.19 to 3.23), Upton Park (Appendix 3 to this SoCG), Mercian Way Recreation Ground (paragraphs 4.68, 4.69 and Appendix 3 of this SoCG). The Green Belt is considered in paragraphs 3.11 and 4.19 to 4.23 of this SoCG.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 45
Local Transport Plan
4.12 In assessing the Scheme against the policy guidance of the Slough Local Transport Plan, Slough Borough Council does not agree that overall changes in air quality would be insignificant; that noise impacts would be negligible; nor that the Scheme would directly contribute to strategies aimed at increasing the uptake and mode share for public transport, walking and cycling.
4.13 Highways England accepts that the Secretary of State may have regard to the Slough Local Transport Plan under section 104(2)(d) of the Planning Act 2008 as one of "any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant to the Secretary of State's decision".
4.14 However, Section 104(3) provides that the Secretary of State must “decide the application in accordance with” the NN NPS, whereas any conflict with the Slough Local Transport Plan would have to outweigh the benefits of the Scheme in compliance with the NN NPS. On that basis, Highways England has considered the changes in air quality, noise impacts, modal shift and non-motorised users against the relevant policies of the NN NPS. The Scheme complies with those policies, which are the key determinant of compliance with policy.
4.15 Moreover, Highways England disagrees that the Scheme does not meet the policy requirements of the Slough Local Transport Plan. One objective of Slough's Local Transport Plan is to “Improve quality of life by making Slough a cleaner, greener, place to live, work and play” with an accompanying objective “To minimise the noise generated by the transport network, and its impacts”. In paragraph 4.3.15 of Slough’s Third Local Transport Plan, Slough Borough Council acknowledges the existence of “Noise Action Planning First Priority Areas” on the M4 and A4, and goes on to state that they are required to work with DEFRA and the Highways Agency (now Highways England) to identify the noise problems at these locations and the mitigation that might be needed. Slough Borough Council proposes to address the objective “to minimise the noise generated by the transport network and its impacts” through network management measures. In paragraph 5.6.22, Slough Borough Council identifies four actions that could be implemented in a noise action plan:
a. noise barriers or carriageway realignment;
b. working with freight operators to reduce noise from loading and unloading at local premises, promote upgrading of the vehicle fleet and encourage best
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 46
practice driving;
c. working with bus operators to promote upgrading of vehicles, encourage best practice driving techniques, and identify localised problems from bus routing and stop location; and
d. low noise surfacing.
4.16 The Scheme will implement two of these actions: the provision of noise barriers and low noise surfacing across all the lanes. These measures will mitigate not only excessive noise at First Priority Areas on the M4 but also noise across the whole Scheme, resulting in a decrease in traffic noise levels in the year of opening.
4.17 Highways England has responsibility for the strategic road network, which is used by public and private means of vehicular transport. Where the Scheme impinges on public rights of way used by equestrians, pedestrians and cyclists, notably during construction, Highways England has proposed mitigation measures to minimise the impact of the Scheme and to reinstate the public rights of way on completion of the construction works.
4.18 In light of this, Highways England considers that there is no conflict with the measures contained in Slough Borough Council’s policy.
Green Belt
4.19 Slough Borough Council considers that proposed Construction Compound 9 would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would affect the openness of the Green Belt in this sensitive part of the Borough. This is indicated on the Local Plan key diagram as part of the Strategic Gap between Slough and greater London in accordance with Local Plan Core Policy 2.
4.20 Highways England does not agree that the reported neutral effect on landscape and the temporary, short term visual effects on adjacent residential properties arising from Construction Compound 9 would have a material impact on the five purposes of the Green Belt. In addition, Highways England also does not agree with the term “sensitive” to describe the landscape within this part of Slough Borough Council. Paragraph 8.11.5 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-148) states that the landscape (within which Construction Compound 9 sits) is considered to be of low value (sensitivity).
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 47
4.21 The proposed site for Construction Compound 9, at Colnbrook Landfill Site off Sutton Lane, lies in an open area of land within the Green Belt. Chapter 8 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-148) sets out the construction effects of the construction compounds on the landscape character and visual amenity within the Green Belt. Table 8.2 within that Chapter summarises the results of the assessment and indicates that the effect of the Scheme on the construction compounds, including the one at Colnbrook Landfill Site, would be short term slight to moderate adverse significance of effect on landscape character and a slight to moderate adverse significance of effect on visual amenity in the short term. Paragraphs 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.4 and 8.3.5 of the Outline CEMP (Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6-3, REP7-***) set out general provisions to mitigate the impact of works at each of the construction compounds on landscape and views from sensitive receptors. The effects of the potential construction compounds, including that proposed at Colnbrook Landfill Site, are reversible, and at the end of the construction period the land will be reinstated to its former use.
4.22 At the start of the construction works, the contractor will prepare details for Construction Compound 9, to be agreed with Slough Borough Council, and the construction compound will be reinstated on the completion of works, as described in paragraph 5.1.1 and paragraph 10.3.3 of the Outline CEMP (Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (Application Document Reference 6-3, REP7-***), which will be secured under Requirement 8, Schedule 2 of the Draft DCO (Application Document Reference 3-1, REP5-002). Consequently, at Opening Year 2022 following reinstatement, Construction Compound 9 will have no permanent effect on the landscape character or visual amenity of the Green Belt. As Construction Compound 9 is a temporary land-use, the long term openness of the Green Belt will be preserved.
4.23 The extent to which Construction Compound 9 at Colnbrook Landfill Site will impact on each of the five purposes of the Green Belt is considered below. In respect of the five purposes, Highways England acknowledges that Construction Compound 9 is located outside the existing motorway corridor, in open countryside and within Green Belt land. All the construction compounds are each recognised as having adverse effects on the local character, visual amenity and setting to intermittent sections of the large built up areas adjacent to the M4 Motorway. However, in view of the temporary nature of the construction compounds, including Construction Compound 9 at Colnbrook Landfill Site, any short term impacts are reversible with the land returning to its current use at the end of the construction period, as described in paragraph 10.3.3 of the Outline CEMP
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 48
(Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (Application Document Reference 3-1, REP7-***). The proposals in the Outline CEMP will be secured under Requirement 8, Schedule 2 of the Draft DCO (Application Document Reference REP5-002):
(1) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas:
As any short term impacts are reversible, and the land will return to its current uses at the end of the construction period, it is considered that Construction Compound 9 at the Colnbrook Landfill Site will not result in the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
(2) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another:
As any short term impacts are reversible, and the land will return to its current uses at the end of the construction period, it is considered that Construction Compound 9 at the Colnbrook Landfill Site will not result in neighbouring towns merging into one another.
(3) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment:
As any short term impacts are reversible, and the land will return to its current uses at the end of the construction period, it is considered that Construction Compound 9 at the Colnbrook Landfill Site will continue in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
(4) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns:
The landscape and visual assessments presented in Chapter 8 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-148) has not identified any impacts arising from the siting of any of the construction compounds, including the Colnbrook Landfill Site, in relation to the setting and special character of any historic towns. Consequently, Construction Compound 9 at the Colnbrook Landfill Site will continue to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns within Slough Borough Council.
(5) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land:
The Scheme is not an urban regeneration project, and it would not be appropriate for it to use other derelict or urban land, as this would be likely to
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 49
increase the negative impacts from construction on other receptors. That said, the identification of each of the construction compound sites has taken account of the suitability of choosing brown field sites over green field sites. The Colnbrook Landfill Site lies within an area of undefined urban fringe landscape located between the M4 and the A4, Colnbrook by-pass. This area contains a number of disparate elements such as landfill, pockets of restored farmland, gravel pit lakes, a sewage treatment works and the Lakeside industrial Estate. The use of this site as a construction compound is a temporary one, with the land returning to its current use at the end of the construction period.
Environment
Landscape and visual impact
4.24 Slough Borough Council does not agree that the landscaping proposals put forward in the submitted Environmental Master Plan would provide the necessary mitigation to the adverse visual impact of the new bridges and other structures; removal of vegetation for widening; installation of gantries, noise barriers and lighting; and construction compounds. The Planning Statement (Application Document Reference 4-1, APP-089, paragraphs 5.2.18) suggests that “opportunities for environmental enhancement measures have been taken where possible” but the Borough Council considers that there are further enhancement opportunities that should be taken (see Appendix 2).
4.25 Highways England does not agree that the mitigation shown on the Environmental Masterplan does not provide the necessary mitigation to offset the adverse effects of the new bridges, other structures, removal of vegetation, installation of gantries, noise barriers and lighting. Each area of disagreement is discussed below.
4.26 Slough Borough Council and Highways England have agreed to work together to establish the final landscaping scheme design pursuant to requirements under Schedule 2, Requirements 7, 8 and 9 of the Draft DCO (Application Document Reference 3-1, REP5-002). However, the Borough Council considers that changes to the Environmental Masterplan are required prior to submission of the CEMP / Environmental Management Plan for approval.
4.27 In terms of structures, Slough Borough Council considers that the Environmental Masterplan, as submitted, fails to mitigate sufficiently the visual impact at five locations, which are discussed further in the Table of Mitigation (Appendix 3 of this SoCG).
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 50
4.28 In terms of gantries Slough Borough Council considers that the Environmental Master Plan, as submitted, fails to mitigate sufficiently the visual impact at four locations, which are discussed further in the Table of Mitigation (Appendix 3 of this SoCG).
4.29 Slough Borough Council considers that insufficient information has been provided to assess the visual impact of new and replacement environmental (noise) barriers in terms of their design and materials, provision of screening by vegetation and the increased heights suggested in the Enhanced Noise Mitigation Strategy, which has been provided for Deadline V (REP5-002).
4.30 Highways England notes the position by Slough Borough Council but as explained at the November Hearing, the Enhanced Noise Mitigation Study was then being prepared and has since been provided at Deadline V (REP5-002) and updated at Deadline VII (REP7-***).
4.31 Slough Borough Council considers that the proposed Compound No. 9 in a prominent location at the junction of Sutton Lane and A4 London Road/Colnbrook Bypass would have a seriously adverse visual impact. Installation of boundary fencing would not provide satisfactory mitigation. In the Borough Council’s opinion the impact of construction compound lighting and of any night time construction works should have been assessed.
4.32 Highways England does not agree as explained in response to paragraph 4.19 above. Highways England disagrees that the site of the proposed Construction Compound 9 is “prominent”, as it is located in a low lying and flat area and set in the context of a landfill site, the busy A4 and is bordered by existing vegetation.
4.33 “Seriously” is not a recognised term in relation to the methodology used to assess visual effects and suggests the effects are significant and irreversible. Highways England does agree that the compound would be visible from adjacent residential properties along the west side along Sutton Lane. Highways England states in paragraph 8.11.18(a) of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-148) that these properties would experience a short term moderate adverse visual effect during the lifetime of the construction compound. There would be no visual effects on completion of the construction work as the site would be restored to its present condition.
4.34 Highways England confirms that night-time lighting of Construction Compound 9 has been assessed in the ES and further details were submitted at Deadline lll (REP3-009). With reference to paragraph 8.10.3 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1,
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 51
APP-148), Construction Compound 9 will be located within the Institution of Lighting Professional’s (ILP) Environmental Zone 2 Low District Brightness Area. Lighting at this location is influenced by night-time lighting from the adjacent urban area, the A4 and local road.
4.35 The impact of construction compound lighting has also been assessed by Highways England. As explained in the Deadline lll submission at paragraphs [5 and 38 to 41] (REP3-009) Construction Compound 9 will have 24 hour operation for vehicle recovery services and traffic management maintenance crews. The existing background lighting will help mask the low level lighting within this construction compound. Occasional floodlighting will provide localised greater illumination within parts of the construction compound.
4.36 There are three visual receptors (ref. 13.1.14, 13.1.15 and 13.2.2) with views to Construction Compound 9 shown on Drawing 8.2, Sheet 13 (Application Document Reference 6-2, APP-221) and listed in Appendix 8.3 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-3, APP-314). The existing street lighting and urban night-time context in combination with the controls on lighting, the perimeter solid hoarding or stripped topsoil storage bunds and retained hedgerow vegetation, will avoid light pollution onto the adjacent receptors. Highways England confirms that it is our contractor’s intention to access Construction Compound 9 from the existing access in the North West corner of the site (off Sutton Lane) as set out in the CTMP (REP7-***).
4.37 It is considered that the night-time landscape and visual effects of Construction Compound 9 are as reported in paragraphs 8.11.14 and 8.11.18 a) of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-148) i.e. neutral and short term moderate adverse effect on the night-time landscape and night-time views respectively.
Air quality
4.38 Whilst the methodology used to consider air quality significance for the strategic network is agreed, that for the local network and compounds is not agreed. Highways England follows its prescribed methodology to assess the significance of air quality (as outlined in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (“DMRB”) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality’ (HA207/07) and associated Interim Advice Note (“IAN”) 174/13), as stated in paragraph 6.2.1 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-146).
4.39 The potential impact of the Scheme on air quality is a major concern for Slough Borough Council, who consider the principal cause being road traffic emissions. Air Quality
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 52
Management Area (“AQMA”) 1 extends along the M4 within the Borough and other AQMAs cover the Brands Hill area near Junction 5, the A4 in the town centre and the A355 Tuns Lane north of Junction 6. All of these have been declared due to breaches
of the National Air Quality Objective for annual nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The Borough Council considers that it has a comprehensive air quality monitoring network in place and the results indicate that a number of sites in AQMA 1 are consistently breaching the National Air Quality Objectives/EU limits.
4.40 Concern is raised by Slough Borough Council about residential receptors that may be affected by both the operational and construction phases of the Scheme. In particular, the Borough Council considers that the ES lacks sufficient detailed assessment to draw conclusions. There are Slough residents predicted to be affected by breaches of the EU
Limit on NO2 annual mean at the year of opening (2022) and therefore, without mitigation, the Scheme would not in the Borough Council’s view comply with the requirements of the NN NPS.
4.41 Highways England disagrees with the Borough Council and considers that an appropriate and sufficiently detailed assessment has been undertaken in line with relevant guidance. Compliance issues against the EU Limit Values are not predicted with the Scheme based on the compliance risk assessment undertaken for the Scheme. No change in AQMA shape or any need to declare new AQMAs is predicted with the Scheme, nor is a significant air quality effect anticipated. On that basis, Highways England considers that the Scheme is consistent with the requirements of the NN NPS for air quality.
4.42 DEFRA funding has been secured recently by the Borough Council to develop a low emission strategy. The Borough Council intends to publish the low emissions strategy
in Spring 2016. It is aimed at reducing NOx emissions from road transport within the
Borough. The objective is to comply with all NO2 limits by 2020 (10 years after compliance with the EU limits was due).
4.43 In the light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in ClientEarth, the Government is consulting on draft plans to improve air quality, The Borough Council believes that these new draft action plans and evidence base should be taken into account in assessing the
Scheme. These draft plans aim to meet the annual and hourly EU nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values over the shortest possible time. Slough falls within the South East UK 0031 Zone and the Government predicts that the Zone will be compliant with the EU limits by 2020 but only if Euro 6 emission standards perform as modelled. The Borough Council
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 53
is aware that there is significant concern that real world Euro 6 passenger diesel car emissions standards are not performing as modelled, in which case compliance may not be reached. The Borough Council considers that the Scheme could jeopardise the situation unless mitigation is adopted.
4.44 The implications of the ClientEarth judgement have been addressed in full in Highways England's response provided to the first written questions (question E4.6.1) (REP2-002). Highways England considers that the real world driving emissions of vehicles have also been taken into account through both the model verification and the consideration of future air quality using the Highways England long term trend IAN 170/12 v3 and associated spreadsheet (version 1.1).
4.45 Slough Borough Council is concerned that Highways England considers the impact on those residents exposed to breaches of the EU Limit at the year of opening (2022) not to be significant because they are applying their own ‘non-statutory’ ‘IAN 174/13 Updated Advice for evaluating significant local air quality effects for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality (HA207/07)’. The Borough Council believes this advice note does not adequately address the policy changes within NN NPS and more importantly the more urgent requirements under the DEFRA Draft Action Plan to reach compliance with the EU Directive with respect to compliance of exposure to
annual concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values in the shortest possible time.
4.46 Highways England considers that the IAN (174/13) is aligned to the requirements of the NN NPS as it considers effects on nature conservation sites, EIA significance of effects and EU Limit Value compliance, which are the policy tests for air quality. The implications of the Defra draft action plan have been addressed through the Highways England response provided to the first written questions (question E4.6.1) (REP2-002).
4.47 Slough Borough Council does not agree with Highways England's conclusions, nor with the Evidence in Support of Professional Judgement covered within Section 6.15.16 of the ES. The principal basis of the Highway England ‘significance test’ relates to the relatively small number of residents exposed to breaches of the Air Quality Objective (at the time of opening, 2022: a total of 18 residential receptors but with 11 of these receptors within Slough, including those at Chalvey and Upton) and the medium to small ‘detrimental’ magnitude of change of the limit value. The Borough Council's main concern is that this is a limit value that should have been complied with by 2010. Slough Borough Council does not accept the assessment of significance applied by the Highways England consultants and their justification for not adopting mitigation for
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 54
residential receptors exposed to breaches of the EU limit for NO2 annual mean and notes that there was no pre-consultation on the methodology applied for air quality assessment prior to submission of the ES.
4.48 Highways England Notes that the significance test considers a number of questions, of which the number of sensitive receptors considered by the Scheme is one question. The effect of the Scheme on nature conservation resources and compliance with EU Limit Values is also considered as part of the overall evaluation of significance.
4.49 The approach to the air quality assessment was consulted upon through the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report for the Scheme (issued August 2014) and consultation events were undertaken following completion of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (issued November 2014) (http://www.highways.gov.uk/publications/m4-junction-3-to-12-smart-motorway- consultation-documents/), following which written submissions were received from local authorities and other interested parties.
4.50 The Borough Council notes that the Highways England modelling attempts to verify modelled results and then applies adjustments to represent the observed long term
trend (LTT) profile of NO2 concentrations described in the IAN 170/12. The results are considered by Highways England to present a realistic worst case scenario, as only a portion of the full anticipated improvements in air quality by DEFRA guidance are assumed to occur in the Gap Analysis result in 2022 (year of operation). However, even applying this adjustment needs to be treated with caution because it is clear air quality is not improving at predicted rates and the trend is still continuing.
4.51 Highways England notes that paragraph 5.8 of the NN NPS indicates that “Defra publishes future national projections of air quality based on evidence of future emissions, traffic and vehicle fleet. Projections are updated as the evidence base changes. Applicant’s assessment should be consistent with this but may include more detailed modelling to demonstrate local impacts.” The air quality assessment for the Scheme has been based upon Defra predictions with additional conservative adjustments using the long term trend approach. On that basis, Highways England considers that the air quality assessment is consistent with the requirements of the NN NPS.
4.52 Slough Borough Council notes that Highways England state that it will be difficult to avoid or reduce or repair or compensate for the effect of the Scheme as the M4 is as an
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 55
existing route and therefore ‘traditional options to adjust alignment are limited (Chapter 6: Table 6.22). However, the Borough Council considers other options are available to mitigate the impact of the Scheme on residential receptors including: Variable speed
controls to reduce NO2 exposure to residential receptors to within EU limits; Barrier
treatment: changing the height of the barriers to reduce NO2 exposure to residential receptors to within EU limits; the extension of the enhanced noise mitigation barriers at junction 6 near Spackmans Way and Paxton Avenue as shown on drawing extract in Appendix 2 to this SoCG and Boundary treatment of residential facades with carbon
filtration ventilation systems to reduce the impact of NO2 exposure where these are predicted to breach EU limits. The Borough Council also considers that Highways England should install Air Quality Monitoring at Spackmans Way as set out in Slough Borough Councils Deadline VII response to the Examining Authority (REP7-***) and included on drawing extract and photograph in Appendix 2 to this SoCG. In relation to the suggested mitigation measures above, it is noted that Highways England has considered screening barriers in noise terms as part of an enhanced noise mitigation study (REP7-***). However, speed and flow controls and residential abatement measures (treated ventilation) are not currently being considered.
4.53 Slough Borough Council has at its own expense requested consultants Ricardo-AEA to assess the first two of these options. The consultants’ modelling results are given in the Local Impact Report for Slough. The results indicate that if traffic on the M4 was to be maintained at a free flowing speed of 50mph compliance will be achieved at all residential locations. They also suggest that 6m high barriers would afford sufficient
protection to all residential properties affected by elevated levels of NO2. The model can be refined further if Highways England release all model input files so that maps can be reproduced with mitigation in place for different height barriers. Highways England has addressed these points in the response to the Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report (REP3-017).
4.54 The provision of additional measures, such as barriers, speed and traffic flow controls and residential abatement measures (such as treated ventilation) are not agreed.
4.55 In relation to the construction phase, Slough Borough Council advocates the use of IAQM Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction rather than the DMRB assessment methodology and recommends this approach be used to inform the final Construction and Environmental Management Plan (“CEMP”). The 200m study area for construction phase traffic effects should extend around the construction compounds and along construction routes along the local road network.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 56
4.56 Highways England does not agree that the IAQM Guidance should be used to assess dust from demolition and construction. Highways England considers that the DRMB assessment methodology is robust and has been approved by the Secretary of State on other road schemes. Other guidance is only considered by Highways England where guidance is not available in DMRB and associated advice notes.
4.57 The Borough Council does not accept that the effect of emissions from HGV construction movements on local roads should be disregarded because they would in total be less than a threshold of 200 daily vehicle movements. Proposed Compound 9 has been sited within AQMA 2 Brands Hill and Compound 8 has been sited close to AQMA 4 Town Centre and HGV construction traffic proposed routing is through AQMA 4 Town Centre and AQMA 3 Tuns Lane and Slough Borough Council is concerned that HGV traffic generated by these sites would further deteriorate air quality levels within the AQMAs and jeopardise compliance by 2020: this compound should therefore be removed from the list of potential compounds on air quality grounds.
4.58 Highways England does not agree that Compounds 8 or 9 should be removed on air quality grounds as numbers of HGVs of less than 200 movements per day would be
anticipated to result in a change in air quality of less than 1% of annual mean NO2 EU Limit Values and as such would not result in an EU Limit Value compliance risk. On that basis, Construction Compounds 8 and 9 would not significantly deteriorate air quality levels with the Brands Hill area, nor would it jeopardise compliance by 2020. Traffic routes for the construction traffic are set out in the CTMP which was revised at Deadline V (REP5-002) and again at Deadline VII (REP7-***). Slough Borough Council expects air quality assessments for HGV routing to meet IAQM guidance and argues changes as little as small as 1% can be deemed in an AQMA to be moderately significant and therefore required mitigation.
4.59 If the Compounds are to remain all construction site traffic (HDVs) should in Slough Borough Council’s opinion, be Euro VI compliant and LDVs Euro 6 compliant with an uplift of 10% plugged in and electric hybrid vehicles to be used. Non-road mobile construction machinery would be expected to comply with London NRMM standards for emissions.
4.60 Highways England will ensure that all delivery vehicles and Site Plant will meet current legislation in relation to emissions and road worthiness, wherever practicable Highways England will also endeavour to provide the latest vehicle engine models delivering the most efficient fuel and emissions standards; plant no older than 4 years will be used,
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 57
thus ensuring compliance with all maximum emission standards. Although the contractor operates a range of hybrid and electric plug in vehicles, the contractor cannot commit to a 10% provision at this moment in time as the range and variety of vehicles required for the construction works cannot be defined at this current stage of the programme.
Noise and vibration
4.61 Slough Borough Council notes that calculated noise levels within Slough are quite high: M12 Hoylake Close is calculated to have L 10 (18-hour) of 69dB(A); M13 Cooper Way to have L 10 (18-hour) of 63dB(A); M14 Winvale to have L 10 (18-hour) of 66dB(A); and M17 Severn Crescent to have L 10 (18-hour) of 70dB(A). The monitored noise levels are within 1dB at Winvale and Severn Crescent. The difference at Cooper Way and Hoylake Close suggests the monitoring location was not appropriate or shielded from road traffic noise. This does raise issues over the robustness of the noise model used.
4.62 Highways England does not agree that the above monitored noise levels raise concern over the robustness of the noise model for the Scheme. The operational noise assessment is based on calculation. The monitored noise levels are used to validate the performance of the noise models employed for those calculations. It is considered that the model is robust, as described in the response to paragraph 3.49 of the Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report (REP3-017).
4.63 In relation to the construction phase Slough Borough Council notes the outline CEMP but is particularly concerned about the impact of night time noise and vibration impact from construction activities and dust impact to residents in Slough. The Highways England detailed noise assessment of demolition, piling and construction is based on BS5228 guidance and references and Best Practicable Means. A detailed noise management plan (Section 12 of the Outline CEMP, (Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (REP7- ***)
4.64 As stated in paragraph 3.59 of the response to the Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report (REP3-017), Highways England ‘considers that the CEMP is sufficiently robust to manage noise and dust impacts from construction activities’. Furthermore, ‘there will be close liaison between the contractor and Local Authority Environmental Health Officers, affected residents and commercial operations, to ensure that noise and vibration during construction are effectively managed. The contractor will enter into Section 61 Agreements (under the Control of Pollution Act 1974) with relevant local authorities. Noise and vibration limits will form part of these Section 61 Agreements’.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 58
Section 61 Agreements are covered within Section 12.4 of the CEMP (REP7-***).
4.65 In Appendix 12.3 (APP-349) ‘construction noise data and results’, the assessments suggest a number of Slough’s residential properties (CR-66, CR-72, CR-75, CR-81, would experience moderate to major magnitude of impact from evening mainline construction noise and night-time resurfacing and traffic management activity and night time impact from demolition of bridge at CROB 17 and CROB 18 and this gives the Borough Council concern. The Borough Council would want to impose restrictions on evening and night-term working that could adversely harm residential amenities and seeks ways and means through the DCO process to enable such controls to be applied.
4.66 Highways England agrees that a number of Slough's residential properties would experience moderate to major impacts from evening and night-time construction activities related to the Scheme. However, Highways England does not agree that restrictions should be imposed on evening and night-term working for the following reasons:
a. certain construction operations are required to be carried during night-time working to reduce the impact of carriageway closures on the users of the M4;
b. these periods of working with be kept within the working hours outlined in the CEMP; and
c. the contractor will also seek to enter into a Section 61 Agreement with Slough Borough Council to agree suitable noise and vibration limits for these works as set out in paragraph 11.4 of the CEMP.
4.67 On this basis, Highways England considers that the concerns of Slough Borough Council can be met with the DCO as drafted.
Engineering and design
Motorway junctions
4.68 Slough Borough Council does not agree that the Environmental Master Plan, as submitted would satisfactorily mitigate the adverse temporary and permanent impacts of the proposed works to Junction 7. Unless the landscaping proposals are improved by further planting the Borough Council (see Appendix 2 of this SoCG) considers that the eastward realignment of the Huntercombe overbridges, the increased height of the bridges, the link road and approach embankment would result in inacceptable adverse Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 59
effects on residential areas in Cippenham, the Mercian Way Recreation Ground and adjacent allotments.
4.69 Highways England disagrees and considers that the Environmental Masterplan will satisfactorily mitigate the temporary and permanent impacts of the proposed works to Junction 7. Highways England does not consider that the landscaping proposals at this location require improvement, as although there will be some residual adverse visual effects, however the nearest visual receptor, shown on sheet 10 (Application Document Reference 6-2, APP-212), will only experience a slight adverse significance of effect.
Impact on road users
4.70 Traffic information and safety
4.71 Given the relatively limited distances between Junctions 5, 6 and 7 and the amount of M4 traffic, especially at peak times, Slough Borough Council is concerned that the All Lane Running (ALR) proposed in the Scheme would give rise to safety issues. Slough Borough Council will review this position following their consideration of the M25 J23-27 Twelve Month Evaluation Report (REP6-15 and Explanatory Note (REP6-12) submitted by Highways England at Deadline VI.
4.72 As stated in the response to paragraph 5.1 of the Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report (REP3-017), ‘Highways England has considered the safety issues arising from ALR, and considers that the safety implications from ALR will be no worse than the baseline. This is confirmed in the Hazard Log report, Annex E of the Engineering and Design Report, (Application Document Reference 7-3), which outlines the hazard analysis work undertaken and leads to the conclusion that, the All Lane Running design of the M4 J3-12 Scheme is likely to be no worse in terms of safety performance (than the baseline)’.
Traffic on local roads
4.73 There is a close relationship between traffic movements on the M4 and the local road network, emphasised by the presence of 3 junctions along a relatively short motorway section at Slough. Current experience is that motorway incidents and events lead to congestion which encourages drivers to divert onto local roads through Slough. The aim of the Scheme is to reduce congestion, smooth the flow of traffic to improve journey times and make journeys more reliable. However the Borough Council remains
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 60
unconvinced that this aim can be achieved without some knock-on effect on local roads, taking into account the forecast increase in M4 traffic. Some of this increase, at least, is likely to be generated by traffic accessing the motorway at Junction 5, 6 or 7 – all involving use of the A4 and/ or A355.
4.74 The qualitative assessment carried out by Highways England of ‘driver stress’ on local roads that feed in to the M4 (APP-153, Table 13.8) suggests that stress is already high on the M4 Huntercombe Spur northbound (Junction 7), A355 Tuns Lane northbound (Junction 6) and A4 London Road/Colnbrook Bypass west and eastbound to/from Heathrow (Junction 5). This quantitative assessment of the impact of the Scheme on local roads, i.e. consideration of the net effect of indirectly encouraging car use which could present additional local car journeys as residents enter/ exit the M4, was made available to the Borough Council at Deadline VI (REP6-005, REP6-007 and REP6-008). The Borough Council’s analysis of the forecasts suggests that there will be increases in one-way morning and evening peaks along these routes when the Scheme is operational. Slough Borough Council’s concerns were submitted to the Examining Authority at Deadline VII (Rep7-***) and will be responded to in Highways England’s Deadline VIII submission.
4.75 The Traffic Forecasting Report (REP1-003) for the Scheme describes the modelling methodology used to undertake forecasts and provides the key statistics associated with those traffic forecasts. Included within the Report are descriptions of the assessments of the amount of generated or ‘induced’ traffic and the extent to which trips change mode or time of day.
4.76 Drawing on the above, Highways England disagrees with the assessment of Slough Borough Council and considers that there will be only a small amount of induced traffic, and that there is negligible change in mode or time of day that trips take place. Accordingly, the majority of “additional” traffic forecast to use the Scheme is already on the highway network and is re-assigned from existing, less suitable roads. This is reported in the traffic Forecasting Report (REP1-003). Therefore, Highways England considers that the Scheme will not encourage additional local car journeys that would enter/exit the M4 at Junctions 5, 6, or 7.
4.77 Highways England notes the concerns raised by Slough Borough Council in connection with the potential impacts arising during operation of the Scheme on the Huntercombe Spur, A4 and A355 routes within the Borough (REP7-*** and REP7-***). Highways England will continue to engage with the Borough Council to address these concerns
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 61
and where appropriate undertake verification traffic surveys at relevant locations on these routes.
4.78 During the construction phase Slough Borough Council is concerned that the narrowing of lanes and 50 mph speed limit on the M4 ‘main line’ will encourage some drivers to divert from the motorway on to the local road network. At Junction 7 shuttle working for the M4 Huntercombe Spur overbridge and slip road works has the potential to cause congestion at the Spur intersection with A4 Bath Road, especially if they were to continue throughout the duration of the 26-month reconstruction works.
4.79 Slough Borough Council is unclear about the programming of the Junction 7 works and also about the potential effects on local traffic at the Junction 5 roundabout of the works to widen the Langley Interchange underbridges which it is understood could last for 12 months. The Borough Council is concerned about potential increases in congestion and journey delays on the A4 and B470 that could arise from traffic management proposals. The traffic impact assessment provided at Deadline VI (REP6-005, REP6-007 and REP6-008) also highlights significant increases in peak period traffic along the A412 Yew Tree Road/ Uxbridge Road during the construction phase. (Slough Borough Council’s concerns were submitted to the Examining Authority at Deadline VII (Rep7- ***). Highways England will respond to these concerns at Deadline VIII.
4.80 At Datchet Road the proposed shuttle working during construction of the new overbridge (potentially lasting 20 months) has, in the Borough Council’s view, the potential to create significant journey delays on the B376 which links Slough to Datchet, Old Windsor and Staines.
4.81 It is accepted by the Borough Council that through the CEMP (REP7-***) the future contractor will put forward haul routes but remains concerned about the effect of significant HGV flows arising from the Scheme and other major schemes in the area and the likely prospect that most journeys would have to cross administrative boundaries.
4.82 Highways England confirm that work in ongoing to identify possible haulage routes and numbers of HGV movements; the outcome of this work will be available for Deadline VII. It is noted that this work will not include any impact assessments of using the routes. During construction we will have 24/7 CCTV to identify vehicles in need of recovery and to monitor other incidents during the works. There will be 24/7 recovery in operation and mobile variable message signs in conjunction with mobile temporary Intelligent Transport Systems will be located throughout the extents of the Scheme and will be
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 62
used to provide journey time and other real time information, as set out in the CTMP.
4.83 Slough Borough Council considers that HGV movements along Sutton Lane and the A4 London Road/ Colnbrook Bypass are already significant and have an adverse impact on the amenities of local residents including air quality (the Brands Hill AQMA). HGV flows to and from proposed Construction Compound No. 9 would exacerbate existing traffic and safety problems in this general area. Similarly, HGV flows to and from Construction Compound 8 would, if directed through Slough along the A412, A332, A4 and A355, exacerbate existing traffic and safety problems and pass through both the Town Centre and A355 Tun’s Lane AQMAs.
4.84 Highways England disagrees with this statement. Paragraph 5.18.2 of the response to the Slough Borough Council Local Impact Report (REP3-017) notes that ‘A Construction Traffic Management Plan ("CTMP") will be developed for the Scheme. This will be prepared following consultation with the stakeholders to understand all the issues, to ensure that the traffic management plan addresses all relevant concerns. The CTMP will form part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan and will therefore be secured by Requirement 8, Schedule 2 of the Draft DCO (Application Document Reference REP5-002)’. On that basis, Highways England considers that the CEMP and accompanying CTMP will provide suitable mitigation measures for any impacts that arise from the construction of the Scheme.
Non-motorised forms of travel
4.85 The Scheme would in the Borough Council’s opinion have an adverse impact on public rights of way in the Borough as a result of closures and diversions. During the construction phase the disturbance to a number of rights of way could extend for lengthy periods. Although the Borough Council acknowledges in paragraph 3.54 that the arrangements for closures and diversions will be developed by the future contractor through the CEMP it is considered that a more comprehensive approach should be taken at this current DCO stage. This should address the need for improvements needed to diversionary routes, as identified by the Borough Council in Appendix 4 and provide further information to users of scheme programming.
4.86 Highways England agrees that the temporary closures and diversion of public rights of way during the construction phase would have an adverse impact on users, as explained in chapter 13 of the ES.
4.87 However, Highways England disagrees that a more comprehensive approach should be
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 63
taken at this stage of the Examination. The approach Highways England has adopted is already a comprehensive approach. The suitability of the proposed diversion routes will be assessed in consultation with the respective local authorities. In order to ensure that users of routes will not be put at a disadvantage by the use of diversions, paragraph 4.1.1 of the Outline CEMP (Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (REP7-***) notes that a communications plan will be produced by Highways England. The strategy will include procedures to not only maintain effective community engagement throughout the construction period, but also to inform affected communities in advance of relevant construction works, including the programming thereof. Section 4.3 of the Outline CEMP (Appendix 4.2A of the ES) (REP7-***) states that methods identified to communicate matters during construction works include on-line communication, a Scheme newsletter and notification to local residents, businesses and key stakeholders as appropriate, of planned construction works a minimum of two weeks in advance. As noted in the representation, the CEMP is secured by Requirement 8, Schedule 2 of the Draft DCO (REP5-002).
4.88 Surveys of non-motorised users have been carried out of certain public rights of way but it is considered the survey should have been extended to Wood Lane where users could be disadvantaged by the works even though they are off-line. The survey should also have been extended to the usage of Footpaths SLO 32 and 32a (part of the Slough- Windsor Cycle Route) where they pass under the Windsor Branch Rail bridge.
4.89 Surveys on non-motorised uses have been carried out by Highways England where PRoW cross the M4 by overbridges that will be constructed on-line, for example Recreation Ground overbridge and Old Slade Lane overbridge, where disruption to non- motorised users as a result of severance has been assessed as severe in paragraphs 13.7.20 and 13.7.21 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6.1, APP 153). The use of Wood Lane by pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists is only likely to experience temporary short term disruption as a result of construction works and as such, severance issues have not been deemed significant. On that basis Highways England does not agree that the surveys should have been extended to Wood Lane.
4.90 Similarly, Slough Borough Council considers that users of cycling and walking routes along either side of the Windsor Branch Railway Bridge may experience adverse impacts at certain times during the underbridge widening works; although diversion routes during these periods of closure may range from moderate to severe (depending for example on direction of travel), routes will remain open to users at most times and consequently any impact will only be for a short duration (paragraph 13.7.28 of the ES
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 64
(Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-153)). On that basis, Highways England does not agree that the usage of Footpaths SLO32 and 32a required assessment.
4.91 Use of land at Sutton Lane for Compound No. 9 would in the opinion of the Borough Council create an unacceptable disruption to use of Public Footpath Slough 8 which crosses it diagonally.
4.92 Highways England does not agree that the disruption to Public Footpath Slough 8 would be unacceptable. If this site is selected as a construction compound, the contractor will identify suitable footpath diversion routes during the detailed design phase.
4.93 Slough Borough Council is working with South Bucks District Council to re-establish a bridleway over Old Slade Lane Overbridge and enquired whether the new bridge could be made to accommodate a shared bridleway / footpath / vehicle access. Slough Borough Council seeks confirmation that Highways England will agree to enter into a legal agreement under Section 25 of the Highways Act to upgrade the public right of way across the new bridge to bridleway status.
4.94 Old Slade Lane Overbridge is used by walkers, including people on the Colne Valley Trail, and cyclists. A 12 hour count of users of the bridge undertaken on 3 and 6 June 2015 found a relatively low level of usage, as reported in the NMU Survey Report which was provided at Deadline I (REP1-003). On Wednesday 3 June 2015, a total of 58 people used the bridge (45 adults, 6 children and 7 cyclists) and on Saturday 6 June 2015 44 people were observed using the bridge (35 adults and 9 cyclists). The Buckinghamshire County Council interactive map of rights of way shows that footpaths IVE/20/2 and IVE/24/1 and IVE/20/3 approach the Old Slade Lane Bridge. The Colne Valley Trail follows the north east quadrant of junction 4, crosses Old Slade Lane Bridge, and continues southwards to Colnbrook. Bridleway IVE/31/2 follows part of the Colne Valley Trail along the northwest quadrant of junction 4b, but turns north before reaching Old Slade Lane Overbridge. On the south side of the M4, in Slough Borough Council, Old Slade Lane Overbridge is identified as a public footpath and it leads to a circular bridleway. The bridge is used by pedestrians and cyclists (see count of users above), but no equestrians were observed using the bridge during the surveys.
4.95 Paragraph 3.65 of this SoCG notes that 1.8m parapets are to be provided at Old Slade Lane overbridge and that Highways England will continue to work with local authorities regarding the provision of bridleway facilities.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 65
Socio-economic aspects
4.96 Slough Borough Council is concerned that increases in traffic as a result of increasing populations and the continued development of housing and employment areas, as recognised in paragraph 6.2.7 of the Socio-Economic Report (Application Document Reference 7-2, APP-090), could generate additional traffic movements on the local road network. Any increase in traffic and congestion on linked, local routes including the A4 could delay buses and create further hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. This could discourage use of sustainable travel alternatives, resulting in a reduced level of social inclusion, deteriorating environmental conditions and a downturn in public health.
4.97 The Socio-Economic Report fails in the Borough Council’s view to consider the impact and effect of the Scheme on local travel and its potential to encourage more car commuting for short journeys and work against the Borough Council’s mode shift and behavioural change strategies. Slough Borough Council therefore sees the need for mitigating measures in the form of a ‘smarter choices package’ to promote sustainable modes of local travel. This would complement the Smart Motorway project and help deliver the environmental and social benefits in line with the aims of the NN NPS (paras 3.3 and 3.17). It could also be utilised to raise awareness and support activity to mitigate the negative impacts of the Scheme during the construction phase.
4.98 Highways England disagrees that the issues raised by Slough Borough Council are relevant to the the purpose of the Socio-Economic Report, which is set out clearly in paragraph 1.1.2 of the document (Application Document Reference 7-2, APP-090): namely to set out the strategic socio-economic context, provide a detailed socio- economic profile of the area through which the Scheme passes and to present detailed consideration of the construction and operational effects of the Scheme as they relate to community and private assets. Whilst it is acknowledged that the M4 does not operate in isolation and that the impact on the associated road network and local travel behaviour are important factors for consideration, the Socio-Economic Report has not been tasked with assessing these issues specifically.
4.99 Moreover, Highways England disagrees that the impact on the associated road network and local travel behaviour are key considerations set out in the NN NPS. Mitigating measures in the form of a ‘smarter choices package’ to influence an uptake towards sustainable modes of travel fall outside the scope of the Scheme.
4.100 Slough Borough Council sees the ‘smarter choices package’ being funded as an integral part of the Scheme with a budget of at least £12 million representing some 2% of the
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 66
£608.2 million Scheme cost (total capital, operating and maintenance costs as shown in AST of the Socio-Economic Report) .
4.101 Highways England disagrees that it should fund the 'smarter choices package', as such measures fall outside the scope of the Scheme and its own statutory purposes. It would not be appropriate for Highways England to fund local authorities as suggested.
Other matters
Scheme programme and cumulative effect of other strategic infrastructure schemes:
4.102 The Socio-Economic Report identifies a number of developments in the vicinity of the Scheme under the heading ‘Future Conditions’ in the Section 4 link-by-link assessment in (Application Document Reference 7-2, APP-090) but Slough Borough Council believes that three other strategic infrastructure developments should have been taken into account. All three schemes directly affect the Borough and, although there are many uncertainties attached each, their future delivery has the potential to coincide with implementation of the M4 Smart Motorway scheme. These schemes are:
• Western Rail Link to Heathrow scheme (Network Rail project for new rail tunnel, leaving the Great Western Main Line between Langley and Iver, connecting to the airport; subject to public consultation in early 2015; business case now being refreshed for formal DCO application);
• Heathrow Express (Hex) depot at Langley (a proposal forming part of the High Speed Rail [London West Midlands] Bill, Additional Provisions of July and October 2015); and
• Heathrow North West Runway scheme (recommendation of the Airports Commission Final Report, July 2015).
4.103 Slough Borough Council is concerned about the cumulative effect of these strategic projects and suggested during the Smart Motorway consultation period that the sequence of Scheme activities put forward in the outline construction programme should be reviewed. In the light of recent events (i.e. Airports Commission Final Report and HS2 Bill Additional Provision both published in July this year). The Borough Council believes that this review is now more urgent.
4.104 Paragraph 16.4.1 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-1, APP-156) states that the assessment of combined and cumulative effects has been based on the available
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 67
information for other developments that are planned/proposed, for example in relation to construction and operation timescales, traffic generation and the nature and scale of the development and associated impacts. Appendix 16.1 of the ES (Application Document Reference 6-3, APP-356) presents the information available at the time of writing the ES (January 2015).
4.105 The Western Rail Link to Heathrow proposal was announced on 5 February 2014 following consideration of four options by Network Rail. At the time the assessment for the Scheme was undertaken, the proposal was at “early stages of development” following its inclusion in the Route Utilisation Strategies published in March 2010. As such, it was not at a sufficiently developed stage to be included in the cumulative assessment for the Scheme, and did not come within the guidelines set out in DMRB for those committed, reasonable foreseeable developments that should be included in the assessment. It is understood an application may be brought forward in due course. Any application for the construction of the Western Rail Link will be required to take the M4 improvement scheme into account when assessing the effect of their proposals, rather than the reverse.
4.106 Similarly, the requirement to relocate the Heathrow Express depot is dependent on the HS2 Bill receiving Royal Assent and, without such approval, it cannot be regarded as committed. However, the sidings site is identified in the local development framework for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham as a site for employment and potentially some element of residential use. Accordingly, it was included in the development sites assessed within the traffic model.
4.107 In respect of the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow Airport, the recommendations of the Airports Commission are under consideration by the Government. There are two potential solutions under consideration for Heathrow Airport and a third at Gatwick Airport. As such, there are no proposals capable of being assessed at this stage.
4.108 It is acknowledged that other proposals, some of which, as highlighted above, are likely to be significant developments with wide reaching impacts should they be progressed, will emerge over time. The ES and associated documents must, by necessity, operate a ‘cut-off’ point up to which other developments can be included within the assessment but following which a separate assessment cannot be made. The development site collation process was ‘frozen’ for the purposes of developing the traffic forecasts in February 2014.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 68
Junction 5 Langley Interchange and Borough Council SMaRT scheme
4.109 Junction 5 at Langley Interchange is the eastern end of Phase 1 of Slough Borough Council’s 'Slough Mass Rapid Transit scheme' (SMaRT) which will deliver a dedicated bus lane and enhanced bus services along the A4 corridor between Junction 5, Slough town centre and Slough Trading Estate to the west. This runs roughly parallel to the route of the M4 and will provide commuters with increased opportunity to switch from cars to public transport along this important east-west corridor; this in turn would be expected to improve traffic conditions and air quality. Construction of Phase 1 is programmed to start in December 2015 with funding from the Government’s Local Growth Fund and support from the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership.
4.110 Phase 2 of this project is planned to continue SMaRT from Junction 5 to Heathrow to provide a fast attractive public transport link between Slough and the airport. Backing has been received from Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership and Heathrow Airport Ltd to carry out a feasibility study into Phase 2 as the prelude to preparation of the business case. To connect the SMaRT scheme from Slough to Heathrow means crossing under the M4 using the Junction 5 roundabout and Slough Borough Council is seeking the cooperation of Highways England in achieving, as part of the Scheme, an efficient and effective way for buses to pass around this roundabout with minimum delay. This is regarded by the Borough Council as being line with two NN NPS objectives: to provide ‘reasonable opportunities to deliver environmental and social benefits’ (para 3.3) and give due consideration to ‘impacts on local transport networks and policies’ ( para. 5.211).
4.111 Highways England disagrees that the improvements to Junction 5 should be part of the M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway Scheme. However Highways England under its wider remit of highway, street and traffic authority for the strategic road network, will continue to negotiate with Slough Borough Council regarding an effective and efficient way for buses to pass around the Junction 5 roundabout with minimum delay.
4.112 In addition to benefits for public transport at the roundabout Slough Borough Council considers that there are opportunities to enhance conditions for pedestrians and cyclists in the vicinity of the Langley Interchange. In relation to the right of way that traverses the roundabout paragraph 7.8.20 of the EDR states that ‘the three lanes of the roundabout and the footpaths under the bridge will be kept operational for the bulk of the construction period with only short-term closures anticipated’ (Application Document Reference 7-3,
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 69
APP-096). However it is understood that when closures are necessary the aim is to find a suitable surface level diversionary route for pedestrians and cyclists. There may be scope for a route if this kind to become a permanent feature and offering an alternative to the current subway and extensive ramps.
4.113 The diversion routes will be agreed with Slough Borough Council as set out in the CEMP (REP7-***). A surface level diversionary route would not be possible as a permanent solution as it is not set out in the DCO and had not been assessed as part of the application.
Cost of legal orders
4.114 A number of legal orders would be needed to manage traffic during the construction phase as well as to divert, close or create Public Rights of Way. If legal and staff resources are expected to be provided by Slough Borough Council the Authority seeks assurance that these costs would be reimbursed by Highways England or its contractors.
4.115 Highways England confirms that a schedule of costs for legal orders was provided by Slough Borough Council on 25 February 2016. Highways England will consider payment of the fees for the legal orders.
DCO Requirements
4.116 Draft DCO Requirement 9 refers to a landscaping scheme being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval (Clause 1) which must reflect the mitigation measures included in the Environmental Masterplan (Clause 2). As the Borough Council is concerned about the adequacy of the Environmental Masterplan (Application Document Reference 7-4 Annex A1, APP-097 to APP-101 and revised at Deadline VII, REP7-***), assurance is sought that Requirement 9 would allow the local planning authority to require enhancements over and above the mitigation measures currently shown on the Masterplan.
4.117 Highways England disagrees that the Environmental Masterplan is inadequate. Highways England will not amend Requirement 9 in the DCO to allow the local planning authority to require enhancements over and above the mitigation measures currently shown on the Masterplan, as this would be outwith the DCO process and usurp the authority of the Secretary of State.
4.118 Slough Borough Council believes that the period shown in Clause 4 of Requirement 9
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 70
for replacement planting should be extended beyond 5 years.
4.119 Highways England’s contracts do not extend replacement planting beyond five years. Five years is considered enough time for planting to become established. Any plant needing replacement in that time would be replaced with a specimen of the same species and size in the first available planting season. Planting would be maintained by Highways England’s Asset Support Contract beyond the five year period.
4.120 Slough Borough Council considers that Requirement 10 in relation to fencing and other means of enclosure should be amended to require details to be submitted for approval to the local planning authority. This would take into account their potential visual impact and their importance in terms of noise attenuation and potential for mitigating localised air quality problems.
4.121 Highways England disagrees that requirement 10 should be amended to require details to be submitted for approval to the local planning authority. The visual impact of the environmental fencing has been taken into account in Chapter 8 of the Environmental Statement (Application document Reference 6-1, APP-148) and the additional fencing has been assessed as part of the enhanced noise mitigation study (REP5-002 and revised at Deadline VII REP7-***). Acoustic barrier approval and installation is secured at DCO requirement 22 (REP5–002).
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 71
Appendix 1: Supplementary Technical information
Date Form of Document Summary
13/09/15 Non-Motorised Users Results of non-motorised Report of Survey user surveys (Issued with draft SoCG)
(available as REP1-003)
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 72
Appendix 2: Additional Environmental Mitigation Suggested by Slough Borough Council
The following drawings have been amended to include potential additional planting and landscaping areas identified by Slough Borough Council:
Environmental Masterplan (Application Document Reference 7-4, Annex A1, REP7-***) sheet 20 of 31.
Environmental Masterplan (Application Document Reference 7-4, Annex A1, REP7-***) sheet 21 of 31.
Environmental Masterplan (Application Document Reference 7-4, Annex A1, REP7-***) sheet 22 of 31.
Environmental Masterplan (Application Document Reference 7-4, Annex A1, REP7-***) sheet 25 of 31.
The drawing extract below shows Slough Borough Council’s suggested extension to the enhanced noise mitigation barriers at M4 J6 near Spackmans Way and Paxton Avenue
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 73
Location suggested by Slough Borough Council for an Air Quality Monitoring station at Spackmans Way
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 74
Appendix 3: Table of Mitigation
Item Comment Mitigation Assessment against Highways England is only responsible for strategic Highways England notes that the Scheme will implement policy guidance of the road network and therefore cannot implement two the following measures that will assist Slough Borough Slough LTP actions that could form part of Slough Borough Council address two actions in their potential noise action paragraph 5.6.22. Council’s potential noise action plan: plan: Working with freight operators to reduce noise Noise barriers or carriageway realignment. from loading / unloading at local premises. Low noise surfacing. Promote upgrading of bus operators’ fleets, best practice driving techniques and identify localised problems with bus routing and stop locations. Insufficient mitigation Slough BC consider that the Environmental The EDR, Annex A, Environmental Masterplan sheet 20 of visual impact in the Masterplan fails to mitigate the visual impact of (Application Document Reference 7-4, REP7-***) indicates Environmental Huntercombe eastern realignment of slip road retained vegetation along the Order limits and new Masterplan of (views from nearby housing, Mercian Way Recreation planting (L2.3) immediately adjacent to the Oldway Lane structures. Ground and allotments) and that additional mitigation overbridge. With reference to Appendix 4.3 of the ES, in the form of additional planting is required (see photomontage A4.3.11 (Application Document Reference Appendix 2 of this SoCG). 6-2, APP-300) indicates that the proposed mitigation is capable of reducing the effects of the replacement overbridge on the adjacent visual receptors. Slough BC consider that the Environmental The EDR, Annex A, Environmental Masterplan sheet 20 Masterplan fails to mitigate the visual impact of (Application Document Reference 7-4, REP7-***) indicates Oldway Lane Overbridge (views from nearby retained vegetation along the Order limits and new housing and Mercian Way Recreation Ground) and planting (L2.3) immediately adjacent to the Oldway Lane that additional mitigation in the form of additional overbridge. With reference to Appendix 4.3 of the ES, planting is required (see Appendix 2 of this SoCG). photomontage A4.3.11 (Application Document Reference 6-2, APP-300) indicates the proposed mitigation is capable of reducing the effects of the replacement overbridge on the adjacent visual receptors.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 75
Item Comment Mitigation Slough BC consider that the Environmental The EDR, Annex A, Environmental Masterplan sheet 21 Masterplan fails to mitigate the visual impact of Wood (Application Document Reference 7-4, REP7-***) indicates Lane Overbridge (views from nearby housing and new planting (L2.2, L2.3 and L2.10) along the approaches public open space) and that additional mitigation in the to the Wood Lane overbridge. With reference to Appendix form of additional planting is required (see Appendix 2 4.3 of the ES, photomontages A4.3.12 and A4.3.13 of this SoCG). (Application Document Reference 6-2, APP-300) indicate the proposed mitigation is capable of reducing the effects of the replacement overbridge on the adjacent visual receptors. Slough BC consider that the Environmental The EDR, Annex A, Environmental Masterplan sheet 23 Masterplan fails to mitigate the visual impact of (Application Document Reference 7-4, REP7-***) indicates Junction 6 slip road realignments (impact on that the embankments to the realigned Datchet Road existing vegetation) and that additional mitigation in overbridge, which face Upton Court Park, would be the form of additional planting is required (see planted (L2.3) and in combination with existing vegetation Appendix 2 of this SoCG). outside the Order limits is considered to mitigate the effects of the Scheme on views from Upton Court Park by Design Year 15. Slough BC consider that the Environmental The EDR, Annex A, Environmental Masterplan sheet 23 Masterplan fails to mitigate the visual impact of (Application Document Reference 7-4, REP7-***) indicates Junction 5 Langley Interchange widening the embankments on both sides of Junction 5 would be (prominent feature viewed from both north and south planted (L2.3), and in combination with the proposed noise with significant disturbance to existing tree and shrub fencing on top of the mainline embankment, is considered screening; new piers, embankments and retaining to be capable of mitigating the effects of the Scheme by walls) and that additional mitigation in the form of Design Year 15. additional planting is required (see Appendix 2 of this SoCG). Insufficient mitigation Slough BC consider that the Environmental Residual effects on adjacent visual receptors is reported of visual impact in the Masterplan fails to mitigate the visual impact of gantry as slight adverse. No space within Order Limits to further Environmental G5-11 (Huntercombe Spur). mitigate beyond existing proposals shown on Masterplan of Environmental Masterplan sheet 20 (Application Document gantries. Reference 7-4, REP7-***).
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 76
Item Comment Mitigation Slough BC consider that the Environmental Gantry G5-10 is on the westbound side of the Scheme i.e. Masterplan fails to mitigate the visual impact of gantry the opposite side of the M4 to the Mercian Recreation G5-10 (Cippenham, Mercian Way Recreation Ground. With reference to Appendix 4-3 of the ES, Ground). Drawing 8-3, sheet 5 (Application Document Reference 6- 3, APP-223) gantry G5-10 would be located more or less behind the goal posts in the middle of the view. In summer and summer night-time, views of the gantry would typically be filtered by the intervening vegetation. In winter and winter night time, views of the gantry would be perceptible and similar in height to the existing 12m high central reserve lighting, taking account of its position on the opposite side of the M4 and beyond the visible lighting. Although visible in these winter views it is considered that as a new feature it would be easily overlooked and overall would not detract from the existing view. Slough BC consider that the Environmental Gantries G5-03 and G5-05 are located on either side of Masterplan fails to mitigate the visual impact of gantry Wood Lane overbridge. Gantry G5-05 (eastbound) would G5-03 and G5-05 (Wood Lane). be visible over the top of the noise barrier on the eastbound but Highways England considers it would form an unobtrusive element in views from the adjacent open space (Appendix 4.3 of the ES, photomontages A4.3.12 and A4.3.13 (Application Document Referent 6-3, APP- 300)). Gantry G5-03 (westbound) would be visible from several receptors to the south of the M4 resulting in a slight adverse visual effect. However there is no room within the Order limits to provide additional planting to mitigate this effect and the mitigation of the effects is sufficient. Slough BC consider that the Environmental Highways England recognises that Gantry G4-16 at design Masterplan fails to mitigate the visual impact of gantry year 15 would result in a residual moderate adverse effect G4-16 (east of A332 Prince of Wales Bridge, adjacent on the views from adjacent residential properties at to Winvale). Winvale. The proposed planting within the Order limits
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 77
Item Comment Mitigation would not be sufficient to screen this gantry in views from some adjacent properties. Bearing in mind the adjacent area of operational car parking and garages, it is anticipated that even if off-site planting were possible at this location, it is unlikely it would reduce the reported residual effect within the timescales stated.
Statement of Common Ground with Slough Borough Council Highways England 78
Appendix 4: Table of Works to Public Rights of Way Sought by Slough Borough Council
Bridgeworks Works needed to diversionary route(s) Oldway Lane Surfacing works to BR14 from Mercian Recreation Ground to Wood Lane: use bobcat to scrape/plane off existing to 3m width. Use pavior to relay even cambered surface and compact with roller. (All within Order boundary). Provision of Flexi-pave surface for BR49 north to Moor Furlong. (All within Order boundary) At BR14 junction with Wood Lane – new sign needed on existing post to show direction of Jubilee River/Eton Wick. (Within Order boundary). Grading and levelling the existing surface of BR9 on south side of M4 Grading and levelling the existing surface of BR9 on south side of M4. (Within Order boundary). Improved 3m wide surface for cycling on BR9. (Part with Order boundary). Extra maintenance of BR9 to bring back to passable condition following re-opening of Oldway Lane bridge. (Most outside Order boundary but current access for maintenance vehicles will be severed during construction). Wood Lane Improved crossing point from footway of Wood Lane to continue south from a safety point of view. New signage for bridleway including destination information. (All within Order boundary). Improvements required to routes along the Jubilee River: BR84, BR85, FP10 and the cycle way along the Jubilee River including attention in localised areas due to puddling and wear to the surface. (Outside Order boundary but works as a result of Oldway Lane user diversion). Datchet Road Improvements to shared foot/ cycle path alongside Datchet Road & Recreation with Toucan crossing to link with Upton Court Park Road. (All within Ground Order boundary). Improvements to shared foot/ cycle path alongside Upton Court Road. (Outside Order boundary but works needed as a result of Recreation Ground overbridge user diversion). Surfacing of FP36 between Upton Court Road and SL69/1 (Outside Order boundary but works needed as a result of Recreation Ground overbridge closure and minimise diversion for footpath users. Old Slade Improved surfacing of BR2a and BR6 and FP6. (partly within Order Lane boundary, partly outside: would act as a circular route for Colne Valley Trail users during bridge construction). Improvements to diversionary route between Colne Valley Path at Colnbrook and Sutton Lane (Outside Order boundary but only route capable of achieving crossing of the M4 during construction phase).