M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway

Environmental Assessment Report PCF Stage 3

HE549338-MMSJV-EGN-000-RP-LX-00010 April 2019 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

M3 Junction 9 to 14 SMP

HE549338-MMSJV-EGN-000-RP-LX-00010

Revision Record Rev No Date Originator Checker Approver Status Suitability

P01 19/03/18 R Monckton D Gorman G Hewson 1st Draft S3 for HE comment P02 24/07/18 R Monckton D Gorman G Hewson For review S4 and comment P03 21/12/18 R Monckton D Gorman G Hewson Final S4 Submission P04 29/03/19 R Monckton D Gorman G Hewson Final S4 Submission P05 03/04/19 R Monckton R Monckton D Gorman Final S4 Submission P06 26/06/19 B Skinner D Gorman G Hewson Final S4 Submission

This document has been prepared on behalf of Highways England by Mott MacDonald Sweco JV for Highways England's Collaborative Delivery Framework (CDF). It is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. Mott MacDonald Sweco JV accepts no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from Highways England.

Page 1 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Prepared for: Prepared by: Highways England Mott MacDonald Sweco JV 2 Colmore Square Stoneham Place Birmingham Stoneham Lane B4 6BN Southampton Hampshire SO50 9NW

Contents Page

Executive summary ...... 11

1. Introduction ...... 15 1.1 Overview of the proposed scheme ...... 15 1.2 Purpose of this Environmental Assessment Report...... 16 1.3 Background to the smart motorway programme...... 16 1.4 The Road Investment Strategy and Highways England Licence Road Investment Strategy ...... 18 1.5 Highways England Licence...... 18 1.6 Regulatory framework...... 21 1.7 Guidance followed for this report ...... 22

2. The proposed scheme...... 23 2.1 Need for the proposed scheme...... 23 2.2 Description of the proposed scheme ...... 23 2.3 Operating regime...... 24 2.4 Carriageways...... 24 2.5 Central reserve works...... 24 2.6 Verge and all lane running works...... 25 2.7 Emergency areas...... 26 2.8 Signs and gantries...... 27 2.9 Lighting ...... 30 2.10 Works to structures...... 30 2.11 Retaining walls and piling ...... 32 2.12 Power supply ...... 33 2.13 Noise barriers ...... 33 2.14 Site clearance...... 33

Page 2 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

2.15 Environmental design ...... 34 2.16 Land use setting and land-take...... 34 2.17 Temporary works ...... 35 2.18 Construction process assumptions...... 36 2.19 Proposed scheme delivery and implementation ...... 37 2.20 Proposed operation and long-term management...... 37 2.21 Operational considerations ...... 37

3. Alternatives considered ...... 38 3.1 Programme level alternatives ...... 38 3.2 Proposed scheme specific alternatives...... 38

4. Environmental impact assessment methodology...... 40 4.1 Screening ...... 40 4.2 Scoping...... 41 4.3 Stakeholder engagement...... 43 4.4 Methodology ...... 43 4.5 Study area ...... 45 4.6 Baseline conditions...... 45

5. Air quality ...... 47 5.1 Introduction...... 47 5.2 Assessment methodology...... 48 5.3 Policy and legislation ...... 56 5.4 Baseline conditions...... 60 5.5 Design mitigation ...... 66 5.6 Assessment of effects...... 67 5.7 Assessment of significance ...... 75

6. Cultural heritage ...... 78 6.1 Introduction...... 78 6.2 Study area ...... 78 6.3 Methodology ...... 78 6.4 Baseline conditions...... 81 6.5 Sensitivity of resource...... 87 6.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 91

Page 3 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

6.7 Design and mitigation measures...... 91 6.8 Potential construction effects...... 92 6.9 Potential operational effects ...... 95 6.10 Residual effects ...... 98 6.11 Summary ...... 99

7. Landscape and visual effects ...... 101 7.1 Introduction...... 101 7.2 Study area ...... 101 7.3 Methodology ...... 102 7.4 Baseline conditions...... 105 7.5 Sensitivity of resource...... 109 7.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 109 7.7 Design and mitigation measures...... 110 7.8 Potential construction effects...... 111 7.9 Potential operational effects ...... 113 7.10 Residual effects ...... 115 7.11 Summary ...... 116

8. Biodiversity ...... 117 8.1 Introduction...... 117 8.2 Study area ...... 117 8.3 Methodology ...... 118 8.4 Baseline conditions...... 124 8.5 Sensitivity of resource...... 136 8.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 139 8.7 Design and mitigation measures...... 142 8.8 Potential construction effects...... 149 8.9 Potential operational effects ...... 161 8.10 Residual effects ...... 172 8.11 Summary ...... 173

9. Noise and vibration...... 188 9.1 Introduction...... 188 9.2 Study area ...... 188

Page 4 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

9.3 Methodology ...... 189 9.4 Baseline conditions...... 198 9.5 Sensitivity of resource...... 198 9.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 200 9.7 Design and mitigation measures...... 202 9.8 Potential construction effects...... 203 9.9 Potential operational effects ...... 213 9.10 Residual effects ...... 222 9.11 Summary ...... 223

10. Road drainage and the water environment...... 225 10.1 Introduction...... 225 10.2 Study area ...... 225 10.3 Legislation and policy context...... 225 10.4 Methodology ...... 226 10.5 Baseline information ...... 231 10.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 244 10.7 Design and mitigation measures...... 245 10.8 Potential effects during construction and operation ...... 254 10.9 Residual effects ...... 268 10.10 Summary ...... 268

11. Assessment of combined and cumulative effects ...... 269 11.1 Introduction...... 269 11.2 Study Area...... 269 11.3 Legislation and policy context...... 270 11.4 Methodology ...... 270 11.5 Baseline information ...... 273 11.6 Assumptions and limitations ...... 275 11.7 Engagement ...... 276 11.8 Design and mitigation measures...... 276 11.9 Assessment of effects...... 277 11.10 Conclusion...... 291

12. Conclusions ...... 292

Page 5 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

13. Abbreviations ...... 293

14. Appendix A...... 297

15. Appendix B ...... 298

Tables

Table 1.1 Environmental Objectives ...... 19

Table 2.1: Through junction running ...... 24

Table 2.2 Resurfacing of slip roads ...... 26

Table 2.3 Proposed signs and signals ...... 29

Table 2.4 Existing gantry foundations...... 29

Table 2.5 Existing and new lighting requirements...... 30

Table 2.6 Existing Structures within the proposed Scheme footprint ...... 30

Table 2.7 Affected bridge piers ...... 31

Table 2.8 Estimated vegetation clearance requirements for the proposed Scheme ...... 34

Table 4.1 Annex I, Annex II and relevant project definitions ...... 40

Table 4.2 Scoping report conclusions...... 41

Table 4.3 Descriptors of the significance of effect categories...... 44

Table 4.4 Assessing Significance of potential effects ...... 45

Table 5.1: Summary of human health air quality receptors used in the dispersion modelling...... 51

Table 5.2: Ambient air quality objectives and limit values...... 55

Table 5.3: Critical load for nationally designated site in the study area...... 55

Table 5.4: Classification of the magnitude of change of pollutant concentration and guideline significance criteria ...... 56

Table 5.5: Southampton City Council diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2)...... 61

Table 5.6: Test Valley Borough Council diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2)...... 61

Table 5.7: EBC Diffusion Tube Monitoring Data (NO2) ...... 62

Table 5.8: Fareham and Gosport Borough Councils diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2)62

Page 6 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Table 5.9: Winchester City Council diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2)...... 63

Table 5.10: PCM links contained within the CRRN at risk of exceeding ...... 64

Table 5.11: Annual mean background pollutant concentrations (μg/m3) used within the assessment. Taken from Defra mapped data for 2015, and 2021...... 65

Table 5.12: Baseline nitrogen deposition over designated sites in the study area...... 66

Table 5.13: Annual mean NO2 results at receptors above the air quality objective and at receptors with the greatest annual mean NO2 concentrations coupled with the greatest increases or decreases year 2021...... 70

Table 5.14: Ecological impact of the proposed Scheme at designated sites for the opening year 2021...... 72

Table 5.15: Ecological impact of the proposed Scheme at designated sites for the opening year 2021...... 73

Table 5.16: Regional air quality impacts for carbon dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide for the proposed Scheme ...... 75

Table 5.17: Local air quality receptors informing proposed Scheme significance...... 76

Table 5.18: IAN 174/13 key significance criteria and commentary for the proposed Scheme ...... 76

Table 5.19: Summary of operational and construction effects ...... 77

Table 6.1 Criteria for assessing value/sensitivity ...... 80

Table 6.2: Criteria for assessing the magnitude of impact ...... 81

Table 6.3: Criteria for assessing the significance of the effect...... 81

Table 6.4: Scheduled monuments within 300m of the proposed Scheme ...... 82

Table 6.5: Scheduled monuments within 300m - 1km of the proposed Scheme ...... 83

Table 6.6: Listed buildings within 300m of the proposed Scheme ...... 84

Table 6.7: Conservation areas within 300m of the proposed Scheme...... 85

Table 6.8: Registered parks and gardens within 300m of the proposed Scheme...... 85

Table 6.9: Value of designated assets within 300m of the proposed Scheme...... 89

Table 6.10: Assessment of effects during construction of the proposed Scheme...... 93

Table 6.11: Assessment of effects during operation of the proposed scheme...... 95

Page 7 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Table 7.1 Landscape and visual sensitivity criteria ...... 103

Table 7.2 Magnitude of impact landscape criteria...... 104

Table 7.3 Magnitude of impact visual criteria...... 105

Table 7.4 Significance of landscape and visual effect categories ...... 105

Table 7.5 Key representative viewpoints ...... 108

Table 7.6 Sensitivity of key landscape and visual receptors...... 109

Table 8.1: Study area and Zone of Influence for each ecological receptor ...... 118

Table 8.2: Resource valuation ...... 120

Table 8.3: Criteria for determining the magnitude of impact ...... 122

Table 8.4: Overall assessment category...... 123

Table 8.5: Designated sites within the ZoI of the proposed scheme...... 126

Table 8.6: Rationale and valuation of ecological receptors within the ecological ZoI and further assessment / mitigation required...... 136

Table 8.7: Summary of further protected species surveys...... 142

Table 8.8: Atmospheric NOx concentrations and deposition at the River Itchen SAC .....163

Table 8.9: Atmospheric NOx concentrations and deposition at the Solent Maritime SAC166

Table 8.10: Atmospheric NOx concentrations and deposition at the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar ...... 166

Table 8.11: Atmospheric NOx concentrations and deposition at the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar ...... 167

Table 8.12: Summary of impacts, mitigation and residual effects ...... 174

Table 9.1: Assessment methodology for each noise and vibration topic...... 189

Table 9.2: Summary of long-term noise monitoring results...... 191

Table 9.3: Summary of long-term noise monitoring results...... 191

Table 9.4: SOAEL and LOAEL thresholds for construction noise at dwellings in dB LAeq,T ...... 192

Table 9.5: SOAEL and LOAEL thresholds for construction vibration effects at dwellings, PPV...... 192

Page 8 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Table 9.6: SOAEL and LOAEL thresholds for road traffic noise during day and night-time ...... 194

Table 9.7: Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the short-term ...... 195

Table 9.8: Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the long-term...... 195

Table 9.9: Noise levels predicted for the NIR 1975 (as amended 1988)...... 198

Table 9.10: Criteria to define whether a property qualifies for insulation under the NIR 1975 (as amended 1988)...... 198

Table 9.11: Number of dwellings within road nIAs ...... 199

Table 9.12: Uncertainty in relation to the construction noise assessment...... 201

Table 9.13: Uncertainty in relation to the construction vibration assessment...... 202

Table 9.14: Uncertainty in relation to the operational road traffic noise assessment ...... 202

Table 9.15: Indicative construction noise levels at night – road works...... 204

Table 9.16: Sensitive receptor distance bands for noise – retaining walls and EAs ...... 206

Table 9.17: Sensitive receptor distance bands for noise – gantries...... 208

Table 9.18: Indicative construction noise levels – compound ...... 212

Table 9.19: Indicative construction vibration levels – percussive piling ...... 213

Table 9.20: Long-term DM traffic noise changes ...... 214

Table 9.21: Short-term traffic noise changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.1)...... 215

Table 9.22: Long-term traffic noise changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.2)...... 216

Table 9.23 Short-term traffic noise changes in the design year...... 217

Table 9.24: Traffic noise nuisance changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.3) ...... 217

Table 9.25: Traffic airborne vibration nuisance changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.4)218

Table 9.26: Short-term NPSE summary...... 219

Table 9.27: Long-term NPSE summary ...... 219

Table 9.28: Long-term noise changes in nIAs...... 221

Table 9.29: NPPF assessment summary...... 222

Page 9 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Table 9.30: Summary table of temporary effects on noise and vibration during construction ...... 223

Table 10.1 Estimating the value of water environment attributes...... 227

Table 10.2 Estimating the magnitude of an impact to an attribute ...... 228

Table 10.3 Estimating the Significance of Potential Effects ...... 230

Table 10.4 Summary of WFD surface water bodies within the study area...... 232

Table 10.5 Summary of WFD groundwater bodies within the study area ...... 236

Table 10.6 Importance of water environment attributes in study area ...... 241

Table 10.7 Construction Activities Potentially Affecting Groundwater and Surface Water Receptors for the Proposed Scheme...... 255

Table 10.8 Potential Effects on Groundwater and Surface Water Receptors during Operation of the proposed Scheme ...... 261

Table 11.1 Certainty of outcome and development status...... 271

Table 11.2 Combined and cumulative effects significance definitions ...... 273

Figures

Figure 1-1 Proposed scheme location plan...... 15

Page 10 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Executive summary Highways England has commissioned the Mott MacDonald Sweco Joint Venture to design and assess a proposed smart motorway on the M3 between junction 9 (Winchester / A34 interchange) and junction 14 (Eastleigh / M27 junction 4), referred to in this report as the proposed Scheme. The proposed Scheme would take place entirely within the highways boundary, located in the county of Hampshire. Highways England expects to commence construction in 2020 and it is expected to take approximately 2 years to construct, including commissioning. The proposed Scheme would comprise the upgrading of the motorway between junctions 9 to 14 (approximately 17 kilometres) to a smart motorway by converting the hardshoulder into a fourth lane to provide extra capacity incorporating an All Lanes Running (ALR) operational regime between junctions 9 to 13 and Controlled Motorway (CM) between junction 13 and 14, including works on the link roads to the M27 east. Through Junction Running (TJR) would also be introduced to all junctions except southbound junction 9 and 14 second diverge point. ALR would be supported through the installation of technology to monitor conditions and inform drivers, including overhead gantries and Enhanced Messaging Signs (EMS). Cameras and loop detectors would also provide information to support the technology. Delivery of the proposed Scheme includes the implementation of the following highways infrastructure:

· Conversion of the hardshoulder to a permanent traffic lane - making 4 lanes of 13.75m overall width · Provide a nearside hardstrip of approximately 0.5m width with enhanced edge drainage · Re-surfacing: o Junction 9 to 13 (southbound) - Existing hardshoulder / Lane 1 and 4 o Junction 14 to 9 (southbound and northbound) - Existing hardshoulder / Lane 1 and 4 o Resurfacing of 12 slip roads · Re-configure junction layouts to accommodate TJR · Smart Motorways associated technology and associated road signage · Supporting works including drainage reconfiguration, retaining walls, bridge and pavement repairs where required Where space within the highway boundary is limited and surrounding ground levels require, retaining walls would be constructed to accommodate Emergency Areas (EAs), communications cabinet sites and gantries. Emergency Areas would be provided at regular intervals along the motorway to provide drivers with a safe stopping area for emergency use. Five EAs would be installed eastbound and 5 westbound within the proposed scheme limits. In addition, it is proposed to build a safe refuge area (as defined in IAN161/15) at the junction 11 northbound diverge slip road. The EAs and Safe Refuge Areas would be located as shown in the general arrangement drawings HE549338-MMSJV-HML-000-DR-CH-00101 to HE549338- MMSJV-HML-000-DR-CH-00101. This Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) presents the findings of the non-statutory environmental assessment undertaken to identify and assess potential environmental effects that could arise from the proposed scheme and proposes mitigation measures to

Page 11 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report minimise these effects in order to inform the planning, design and construction process and satisfy legal obligations. Air quality: There are no significant effects to air quality receptors anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme. During construction, the proposed Scheme would follow Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) best practice guidance to ensure there are no significant or non-significant effects on the local receptors with regards to dust and soiling. During operation, there are likely to be both adverse and beneficial permanent non-significant air quality effects as a result of the redistribution of traffic from roads within the existing motorway and the surrounding local road network. The air quality effects of the increase in traffic on the M27 and the M3 are, in places, partially off-set by the effects of congestion relief. Exceedances of the annual mean NO2 objective would occur in the Opening Year both with and without the proposed Scheme at non- motorway receptors. The proposed Scheme is a low risk in relation to impacts on EU limit value compliance. Biodiversity: There are no significant effects to Biodiversity receptors anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme. A slight adverse effect is anticipated on the River Itchen Sites of Special Scientific Interest due to localised temporary habitat loss where the highways boundary overlaps with the designation. Although no works would be located within areas of ancient woodland, there would be works within the 15m of several areas of ancient woodland. The works within the 15m zone would not be within the Root Protection Zone of the ancient woodland and no adverse effect is anticipated. Further surveys are required to establish the details of the populations of some protected species to inform mitigation design and any species licence’s requirements. However, where presence of protected species is assumed, a slight adverse effect from construction is predicted on great crested newt, dormice, bats and badgers. A temporary slight adverse effect during construction is predicted on generic habitats within the highways boundary as a result of vegetation clearance. Landscape: There are no significant effects to Landscape and visual receptors anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme. During construction, year 1 and year 15, it is not considered that the proposed Scheme would result in any significant effects on landscape character. During construction, 18 visual receptors would likely experience temporary non-significant effects, mostly due to the clearance of vegetation and the appearance of the construction site. During operation, 11 would experience non-significant effects at year 1; this would be reduced to 2 by year 15, mostly due to the visibility of gantries. There would be no likely significant effects on the South Downs National Park as a result of the proposed Scheme. Cultural heritage: There are no significant effects to Heritage receptors anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme. During construction, the proposed Scheme would have temporary slight adverse effects on 5 designated heritage assets through the construction of superspan and cantilever gantries as well as vegetation clearance having impacts upon the setting of these assets. During operation, the proposed Scheme would have a slight permanent adverse effect on 4 designated heritage assets as a result of increased noise from traffic combined with light spill from the proposed new gantries having an impact on the setting of these assets. Where buried archaeological remains are disturbed during the preparation of the construction compound, it is anticipated that this would result in a permanent slight adverse effect. The proposed Scheme would have a neutral effect on all other heritage assets which fall within the study area.

Page 12 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Noise and vibration: There are no significant effects to Noise and vibration receptors anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme. During construction, the proposed Scheme would follow CIRIA best practice guidance and night-time working restrictions to ensure there are no significant effects on local receptors with regard to noise and vibration. No non-negligible adverse effects for residential receptors are anticipated for operational noise in either the short-term or the long-term and there are therefore no significant adverse effects due to operation noise. Road drainage and the water environment: There are no significant effects to water environment receptors anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme, subject to the design and monitoring measures included in the Outline Environmental Management Plan. During construction, the proposed Scheme would follow best practice guidance to ensure that there are no adverse water supply or water quality effects on local surface water and groundwater receptors including Principal and Secondary A aquifers, the Natura 2000 site, the River Itchen, and groundwater abstractions including those used for public water supply. During operation, attenuation measures would ensure that there are no increases in discharge rates from outfalls or soakaways, and no significant effects on receiving water quality are anticipated due to the provision of treatment measures. Moreover, the drainage design would be designed to ensure that no pollution impacts from spillages are likely. Combined and cumulative effects Intra-project (combined effects): During construction, effects on Cultural heritage, Landscape and visual, Water environment and human health and communities are anticipated to be Not-Significant adverse. The combined effects on Biodiversity are anticipated to be Neutral. Therefore, overall the combined effects described above would result in a Not-Significant adverse effect during construction. During operation, combined effects on Human health and communities is anticipated to be neutral. Effects upon Cultural heritage, Landscape and visual, Biodiversity and Water environment are anticipated to be not significant adverse. Overall the combined effects described above would result in a not significant adverse effect during operation.

Inter-project (cumulative effects): During construction, cumulative effects would be overall not significant adverse. There would be non-significant adverse effects on Heritage, Landscape, Biodiversity and Human health and communities, and a neutral impact on the Water environment. During operation, cumulative effects would not be significant. There would be a non-significant adverse effect for Heritage and Landscape and visual and neutral effects on Biodiversity, Water environment and Human health and communities. Overall this would cumulate in a non-significant adverse effect, with no additional mitigation required. Conclusion With the provision of mitigation measures, as detailed within this report and the Outline Environmental Management Plan, this assessment has found that there are unlikely to be any significant effects as a result of the proposed Scheme. During construction, Cultural Heritage, Visual and Biodiversity receptors have the potential to experience non-significant adverse effects. Cumulative and combined effects are likely to be non-significant adverse. There are no anticpated effects during construction for Air quality, Landscape, Noise and vibration and Road drainage and the Water environment. During operation, air quality, Cultural heritage, Landscape, Biodiversity along with combined and cumulative receptors are likely to experience insignificant effects. Noise and vibration, Visual along with Road

Page 13 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report drainage and Water environment will likely experience no significant effects. Air quality receptors would experience small levels of beneficial effects as a result of the proposed Scheme.

Page 14 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report 1. Introduction

1.1 Overview of the proposed scheme 1.1.1 Highways England proposes to upgrade the M3 motorway to a smart motorway between junction 9 (Winchester / A34 interchange) and junction 14 (Eastleigh / M27 junction 4). At junction 14, the M3 would interface with the proposed M27 smart Motorway planned between junction 4 and 11. The works aim to deliver the benefits of reduced congestion, improved journey time and traffic flows at a substantially lower cost than conventional motorway widening. 1.1.2 The M3 junction 9 to 14 smart motorway project (herein known as the proposed Scheme) is part of the strategic road network connecting Winchester to Southampton. It is a key corridor for customers with northern access along the M3 to / from London and the A34 to / from M4, Oxfordshire and further afield. Southern access provides strategic access to Southampton, Portsmouth and surrounding areas. It carries elevated levels of freight to local ports and the international airport at Southampton. Consequently, the M3 faces regular delays and congestion on its busiest sections during rush hours and during seasonal periods. 1.1.3 It is proposed that the section between junctions 9 to 14 (approximately 17 kilometres) be upgraded to a smart motorway by converting the hardshoulder into a fourth lane to provide extra capacity – All Lane Running (ALR) supported using technology to provide additional control (Figure 1.1). Figure 1-1 Proposed Scheme location plan

Page 15 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

1.2 Purpose of this Environmental Assessment Report 1.2.1 The Mott MacDonald Sweco Joint Venture (MMSJV) has been commissioned by Highways England to prepare the design and assess the proposed Scheme. 1.2.2 The proposed Scheme is classified as an improvement scheme and permanent works lie within the existing highway boundary. Should the proposed Scheme result in significant environmental effects or involve a requirement for land outside the existing highway boundary, the proposed Scheme would fall under the Planning Act 2008 regime requiring a statutory environmental impact assessment in the form of an Environmental Statement. 1.2.3 This Stage 3 Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) presents the findings of the environmental assessment undertaken to identify and assess potential environmental impacts that could arise from the proposed Scheme. It recommends mitigation, rectification and enhancement measures (see Appendix A, 1.1), which aim to fulfil the environmental objectives required by the Roads Investment Strategy (RIS) and Highways England’s Licence to minimise impacts. The assessments are also used to inform both the planning and design and to satisfy any environmental legal obligations. 1.2.4 The assessment of the proposed Scheme has been undertaken as part of Design Fix 3 (DF3) (also known as Preliminary Design). The Preliminary design was fixed in April 2018. Subsequent design change through detailed design and beyond would be managed to ensure that they do not lead to a change in the significance of the effects of the proposed Scheme, through commitments contained within the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP).

1.3 Background to the smart motorway programme 1.3.1 Highways England has commenced a programme of introducing smart motorways to actively manage traffic and improve journeys on their motorway network. Smart motorways are a technology-driven approach to the use of the motorways, that enables traffic to be managed by regional control centres. CCTV are used to allow Highways England traffic officers to be deployed to incidents where they occur and to help keep traffic moving. Smart motorways aim to increase capacity and relieve congestion while maintaining safety, making journey times more reliable. By using the hardshoulder for traffic, either permanently (All Lane Running) or at peak times (Controlled Motorway) additional capacity is gained without the need for significant infrastructure works. 1.3.2 Technology is used to monitor congestion levels and change the speed limit when needed to smooth the traffic flow. This reduces frustrating stop-start driving and improves journey reliability. This approach forms the basis of the proposed Scheme. 1.3.3 The objectives of the proposed Scheme relate to the wider objectives of the Smart Motorways Programme (SMP). The strategic case of the SMP supports the achievement of the following Highways England national objectives:

· Support the Treasury’s Business Plan 2011-2015 (HM Treasury, 2010) to secure an economy that is growing sustainably, is more resilient, and is more balanced between public and private sectors and between regions through developing a more effective transport network that facilitates movement of people, goods and services between places.

Page 16 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· The Government’s priority to invest in the strategic road network to promote growth and address the congestion that affects people and businesses, and continue to improve road safety as set out in the Department for Transport Business Plan 2012-15 (Department for Transport, 2012). · Delivering a Sustainable Transport System, implementing the recommendations of the Eddington Transport Study 2006 (HM Treasury, 2006), through enhancing national networks to tackle congestion, capacity constraints and unreliability in particular on key inter-urban corridors and international gateways. · Support continued enhancements to the Trans European Road Network (TERN) and secure the benefits it gives in terms of maintaining international connectivity for road users. 1.3.4 The programme also supports the Strategic Outcomes of Highways England, as defined in the Delivery Plan, directly contributing to the following outcomes:

· Supporting economic growth – “In order to relieve congestion and minimise delay, we would deliver 112 individual schemes generating £4 million in long- term economic benefit for every £1 invested. Between 2015/16 and 2019/20 (Road Period or RP1), we would start work on 15 smart motorways projects as identified in Spending Round 2013 (SR13), with 8 of these to be completed by the end of RP1”. · Achieving a more free-flowing network – capacity would be added through smart motorways and “the capital investment of more than £15 billion would contribute significantly to increase capacity and remove bottlenecks to facilitate our ambition for a free-flowing strategic road network. The investment would also allow us to address the environmental impact on people and improve access to and from the strategic and local road networks”. 1.3.5 In addition to these direct contributions, the SMP would support the remaining Strategic Outcomes of ‘A Safe and Serviceable Network’, ‘Improved Environment’ and an ‘Accessible and Integrated Network’, through a sympathetic and collaborative approach to design, working with key stakeholders. Support for all of these outcomes should, in turn, support an improvement in user satisfaction. The delivery of the proposed Scheme is to be in accordance with a suite of Governmental and client policy documents, which have been included within the Highways England Licence and RIS objectives.

Page 17 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

1.4 The Road Investment Strategy and Highways England Licence Road Investment Strategy 1.4.1 The Government’s RIS sets out the intent to develop an upgraded and technology enabled safe and serviceable free flowing network using smart motorways to support economic growth, with a step change in reducing the cost of customer disruption during a scheme delivery. 1.4.2 The Highways England SMP has been established to deliver the objectives set out in the RIS, through improved processes including longer-term collaborative procurement, consistency of scheme development, and an enhanced operating model developing industry capability, to enable programme-wide efficiencies and better customer outcomes. 1.4.3 The first ‘Road Investment Strategy’ (RIS1) outlines a long-term programme for England’s motorways and major roads with the stable funding needed to plan ahead. The RIS1 comprises:

· A long-term vision for England’s motorways and major roads, outlining how Highways England would create smooth, smart and sustainable roads · A multi-year investment plan that would be used to improve the network and create better roads for users · High-level objectives for the first road’s period 2015 to 2020

1.5 Highways England Licence 1.5.1 The Highways England Operating Licence (2015) is a crucial part of the system for the management of roads in England by setting out the Secretary of State's statutory directions and guidance to Highways England. The document makes clear, to both Highways England and the wider community of road users and stakeholders, what Highways England is expected to achieve and how they must behave in discharging their duties and in delivering the Government’s vision and plans for the network, as set out in the RIS. 1.5.2 The Licence emphasises that the role of Highways England is about more than just complying with the letter of the law. It is expected that the company would ‘go the extra mile’ in the way it engages with road users and collaborates with other organisations to develop shared solutions. 1.5.3 Specifically, with regards to the environment, Parts 4.2g and 4.2h require Highways England to “Minimise the environmental impacts of operating, maintaining and improving its network and seek to protect and enhance the quality of the surrounding environment” and “Conform to the principles of sustainable development”. The Highways England Licence and the RIS set out a series of environmental objectives to which the proposed Scheme would seek to deliver. 1.5.4 Further analysis of the environmental policies and objectives was undertaken to develop environmental objectives for the SMP and client environmental scheme requirements. The way in which the proposed Scheme achieves these requirements have been addressed within this report and are summarised in Table 1.1. 1.5.5 The proposed Scheme was confirmed within the Road Investment Strategy 2014 and is part of the government’s £15 billion investment to build 15 smart motorways. The

Page 18 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

proposed Scheme is part of Highways England’s ongoing smart motorways programme within Tranche 3b. Table 1.1 Environmental Objectives

Objectives M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Programme Air quality and carbon emissions To avoid an increase in emissions in NO2 where an increase could threaten Although construction activities have the potential to give rise to the achievement of the Air Quality temporary and localised increases in dust, Nox and nitrogen standards across the wider area, depositions, concentrations due to works, traffic and plant, likely to be affected by working with construction vehicle and plant emissions are unlikely to be relevant authorities to secure significant. appropriate mitigation to ensure so far as possible the standards are not No significant adverse effects are anticipated during operation. breached. To avoid adverse effects upon The proposed Scheme is unlikely to adversely affect any designated sites due to additional designated sites, based on modelled levels. nitrogen deposition. Noise

To achieve reductions in the number Low noise surfacing would be included as part of the design. No of dwellings exposed to noise levels new noise barriers are required to ensure no significant effects to within Noise Important Areas or other local receptors. areas experiencing elevated noise levels using Best Available No significant effects are anticipated as a result of the proposed Technology ensuring the methods are Scheme for the 19 nIAs that are situated within the proposed proportionate and reasonable. Scheme’s study area. To avoid increases in noise levels The proposed Scheme is unlikely to adversely affect any sensitive where there would be a significant receptors based on modelled levels. impact on public amenity. Biodiversity (to explore and achieve where practicable) The biodiversity assessment has identified that it is likely that No direct or indirect effect upon there would be insignificant effects as a result of the proposed designated sites. Scheme. During preliminary design, all works were removed from within the Seek to avoid loss or deterioration of Ancient Woodland and sensitive areas within the buffer zone (15m irreplaceable habitats including from the boundary line of the woodland). Any works that remain ancient woodland and the loss of within the buffer zone have been physically checked by an aged or veteran trees. arboriculturist and are unlikely to cause significant effects to the health of the Root Protection Area (RPA) or woodland itself. Vegetation clearance has been minimised where possible and, Maximise opportunities to deliver where it can be accommodated, would be replaced with beneficial biodiversity outcomes and appropriate native species. The EAR biodiversity assessment has contribute to the ecological objectives identified 3 Biodiversity Opportunity Areas for enhancements, of nearby designated sites. which would be considered during detailed design stage. Landscape The Environmental Masterplan (HE549338-MMSJV-ELS-000-DR- LD-00001 to HE549338-MMSJV-ELS-000-DR-LD-00013) has To deliver infrastructure that is been designed to reduce visual impacts and includes replanting sustainable and as aesthetically with locally appropriate species. Resilience would be secured sensitive, durable, adaptable and through the use of robust planting and a follow up Landscape and resilient as reasonably possible. Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) would be submitted at subsequent stages. The landscape team have assessed the preliminary design and To ensure no adverse significant provided avoidance and mitigation measures to inform the visual intrusion or significant effect Environmental Masterplan, which has been designed to upon heritage assets. purposefully provide screening for sensitive landscape and visual receptors.

Page 19 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

The landscape team have assessed preliminary design and Take all reasonable steps to minimise provided avoidance and mitigation measures to inform the any detrimental impact on amenity Environmental Masterplan, which has been designed to ensure no including the impact of light pollution. significant effects are likely with regards to light pollution. The proposed Scheme is being undertaken entirely within the To maintain functionality and highways boundary, therefore there is limited opportunity to connectivity of the green improve green spaces. There is no existing green infrastructure infrastructure network. Where within the proposed Scheme footprint. Engagement with possible, mitigate adverse impacts stakeholders relating to potential applications for Highways and where appropriate, improve the England Environmental Designated Funding has been network and other areas of open undertaken, which may result in opportunities being identified and space. delivered by these partners, on external, non-Highways England land. To mitigate any existing impacts. No opportunities identified. To deliver a landscape strategy that The landscape design would adhere to best practice and Design aligns with the current environmental Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance. objectives for the proposed Scheme. Heritage The heritage team have assessed the preliminary design and To undertake measures to avoid have provided avoidance and mitigation measures during design significant effects upon heritage to ensure no significant effects are likely with regards to heritage assets. assets. The Environmental Masterplan has been developed to purposefully provide screening for heritage receptors. Accessibility and transport

Explore reasonable measures to Technical Note 7 – HD 42 Walking, Cycling and Horse-Riding enhance accessibility for pedestrians Assessment (WCHAR) was followed during preliminary stage and and cyclists at motorway junctions in endorsed by PSCRG (Project Safety Control Review Group). This order to reduce existing severance. technical note provides the reasoning while the proposed Scheme Promote equality and consider the is exempt from the HD 42 assessment. Going forward into needs of disabled people. enhanced preliminary design (In other words detailed design) Technical Note 7 will remain unchanged and no further Consider other transport modes in developments will be undertaken, given there is no change to the developing the proposed Scheme. preliminary design assessment. Undertake a proportionate assessment of the impacts on other networks and take reasonable steps to mitigate such impacts. Water quality and flood risk Assess any existing water quality and The likelihood of flood risk within the proposed Scheme footprint flood risk issues to contribute towards has been clarified with the Environment Agency. The proposed Water Framework Directive (WFD) Scheme is not believed to be at risk of flooding. This will be and deliver capacity to take account confirmed as part of the Flood Risk Activiites permit. of climate change. Issues relating to increases in volumes and peak flow rates have There is to be no increase in the been assessed and modifications to the drainage design have volume and peak flow rates of surface been specified including ensuring central reserve soakaways water leaving the site unless specific remain at their current capacity and the provision of attenuation off-site arrangements are made to the storage within the drainage system. There is no increased risk or same effect. volume as a result of the proposed Scheme. Design measures have been incorporated into the drainage design to ensure no deterioration of water quality would occur. Avoid any detriment to water quality The design, particularly of below ground excavations, structures or flood risk. and piling will be cognisant of potential risks to groundwater receptors.

Material resources

Page 20 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Maximise the quantity of locally available secondary materials to be deployed within the proposed Scheme. This would be considered within the detailed design of the Maximise the re-use value of surplus proposed Scheme. materials generated during construction of the proposed Scheme. Minimise disposal of surplus materials to waste management facilities.

1.6 Regulatory framework 1.6.1 The European Union (EU) Directive 2014/52/EU (the ‘EIA Directive’) and the 1980 Highways Act, as amended by the Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017, require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be undertaken by the promoters of certain types of developments to identify and assess the environmental effects of certain public and private projects before development consent is given. 1.6.2 Directive 2014/52/EU (the ‘EIA Directive’) and the 1980 Highways Act, as amended by the Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017 specify the qualification requirements and the process by which statutory EIA should be undertaken. All developments listed under Annex I of the EIA Directive must be subject to statutory EIA in every case. Developments listed under Annex II may need to be subject to statutory EIA depending on whether the proposed Scheme qualifies as a ‘relevant project’ (that is if it meets certain criteria and thresholds defined in Annex II) and gives rise to significant effects. The potential to generate significant environmental effects is described within Annex III of the EIA Directive. 1.6.3 In England and Wales, the requirements of the EIA Directive with regards to road projects has been transposed into UK statute by Section 105 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Highways Act - The Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017, as amended. Screening procedures that accord with the requirements of the EIA Regulations exist within Highways England to determine whether trunk road and motorway developments require statutory EIA, leading to the preparation of an EIA. This process is known as determination and this EAR informs this process. 1.6.4 The proposed Scheme has been classified as a relevant Annex II project (i.e. statutory EIA is not mandatory). Under Highways England’s procedures, Annex II relevant projects, such as the application of SMP M3 junction 9 to 14 would require an appropriate level of environmental review in accordance with the regulations. The proposed Scheme has, therefore, been subject to an environmental review and assessment in line with the DMRB Volume 11 and associated updates, IAN and guidance to establish whether significant environmental effects are likely to arise during its construction and operational phases. 1.6.5 If significant environmental effects are predicted, a statutory EIA leading to the production of an EIA report would be required.

Page 21 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

1.7 Guidance followed for this report 1.7.1 Guidance published by the Government for the preparation of environmental assessments of road schemes is contained in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Environmental Assessment. In addition, Highways England issues Interim Advice Notes (IANs) when new guidance emerges which have yet to be incorporated in the DMRB. For some subjects, the guidance within the DMRB has become dated. 1.7.2 For the SMP, the above guidance is tempered by the consideration that it was principally developed for application on new strategic highway routes, whereas smart motorway schemes are delivered within the existing highway estate. In addition, topic assessments may be supported by discipline specific guidance published by other Government departments, public bodies and professional institutions. 1.7.3 The environmental assessment for the proposed Scheme has been undertaken in accordance with the DMRB Volume 11, IAN 125/15: Environmental Assessment Update, IAN 126/15 Environmental Assessment Screening and Determination and IAN 161/15: smart Motorways. IAN 183/14 ‘Environmental Management Plans’ would inform the preparation of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Prior to detailed design, this would take the form of an Outline EMP (OEMP), which would be developed into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) by the contractor and then be passed onto Highways England in the form of a Handover Environmental Management Plan (HEMP). 1.7.4 The scope and content of this EAR have been informed by the M3 junction 9 to 14 SMP Environmental Scoping Report (July 2017) (HE549338-MMSJV-EGN-000-RP- LX-00002) (hereafter referred to as the scoping report), and other previous and current SMP EARs (formally referred to as Environmental Study Reports). 1.7.5 Whilst this project is classifed as an improvement scheme, it is still required to comply with other environmental legislation such as the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Water Framework Directive 2017. Where this is applicable within the assessment it will be discussed within the individual chapters.

Page 22 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report 2. The proposed scheme

2.1 Need for the proposed scheme 2.1.1 The M3 is part of the strategic road network connecting Winchester to Southampton. It is a key corridor for customers with northern access along the M3 to / from London and the A34 to / from the M4, Oxfordshire and further afield. The motorway runs from Sunbury-on-Thames in Surrey to Southampton in Hampshire with a distance of approximately 59 miles (95 kilometres). Along with the A316, the M3 provides the main artery into south-west London as well as access to major towns and cities along its route, which include the Aldershot / Farnborough Urban Area, Basingstoke, Winchester and Southampton. 2.1.2 Southern access provides strategic access to Southampton, Portsmouth and surrounding areas. It carries elevated levels of freight to local ports and the international airport at Southampton. The motorway acts as a major artery to the south coast, and is a frequently used route for holiday makers. Consequently, the M3 faces regular delays and congestion on its busiest sections during rush hours and seasonal periods. The M3 was constructed as a dual 3-lane motorway for most of its length, except for the 2-lane section between junctions 8 (A303) and 9 (A34).

2.2 Description of the proposed scheme 2.2.1 The Mott MacDonald Sweco Joint Venture has been commissioned to prepare the design of the proposed Scheme incorporating an All Lane Running (ALR) operational regime between junctions 9 to 13 and Controlled Motorway (CM) between junction 13 and 14, including works on the link roads to the M27 east. It is proposed that the section between junctions 9 to 14 (approximately 17 kilometres) be upgraded to a smart motorway by converting the hardshoulder into a fourth lane to provide extra capacity – ALR supported by the use of technology to provide additional control. Through Junction Running (TJR) would also be introduced to all junctions except southbound junction 9 and junction 14 second diverge point. 2.2.2 At present the M3 junction 9 to 14 motorway is as described below:

· Junction 9 to 14 South, comprises of 3 lanes plus hardshoulder · Junction 9 to 14 North, comprises of 3 lanes plus hardshoulder · A short stretch south of junction 14 to the A27 / A33 roundabout is a dual 2-lane motorway plus hardstrips · The M3 to M27 motorway links are dual 2-lane motorway plus hardshoulder 2.2.3 Smart motorway infrastructure to be installed and/or constructed along the M3 corridor between junction 9 and 14 would include (list not exhaustive):

· Hardening of the central reservation and installation of a concrete barrier · Alterations to junction configurations to allow for TJR · Earth retaining solutions within verges · Emergency Areas (EAs) and Safe Refuge Areas · Emergency Roadside Telephones (ERTs) co-located with each EA and throughout the CM sections to align with existing standards of provision

Page 23 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Installation of new gantries (super-cantilever and superspan) which would be fitted with Advanced Motorway Indicators (AMIs), Message Signs (MS4s) and/or Advanced Directional Signs (ADS) · Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras providing full coverage of the main carriageways, junctions and EAs. The cameras would provide full visibility in zero light conditions · Side-Fire RADAR technology and inductive loops for Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling (MIDAS) at main carriageway and slip road sites along the proposed Scheme extents · Remotely Operated Temporary Traffic Management (ROTTM) signs located upstream of each Fixed Taper Points, (FTPs) in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8, to satisfy the Road Worker Safety Objective

2.3 Operating regime 2.3.1 Implementation of smart motorway ALR would convert the hardshoulder into a live lane permanently. Through junction running (TJR) would be introduced at certain junctions within the proposed Scheme as set out in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1: Through junction running

M3 junction 9 to 14 Southbound Northbound Junction 9 Non-TJR (Start of proposed Terminal junction Scheme) Junction 10 ALR, TJR ALR, TJR Junction 11 ALR, TJR ALR, TJR Junction 12 ALR, TJR ALR, TJR Junction 13 TJR, End of ALR, Start of CM ALR, TJR Junction 14 Terminal junction (CM through to Non-TJR (Start of proposed adjoining M27 Scheme) Scheme)

2.4 Carriageways 2.4.1 Where the existing standard 3-lane carriageway with hardshoulder is to be upgraded to 4-lane ALR (with or without TJR), the 4 running lanes would be accommodated within the existing paved area and generally no pavement widening within the verge would be required. The overall carriageway width would be 13.75m. 2.4.2 Where a lane drop or lane gain is to be provided, the existing 3 lanes and hardshoulder configuration would be retained through the junction. TJR involves taking the 4 running lanes through the junction.

2.5 Central reserve works 2.5.1 The proposed Scheme would provide a hardened central reserve with a new concrete barrier to replace the steel barrier, which would allow the central reserve to be narrowed for the ALR cross-section. The central reserve works comprise the following components:

· Where the central reserve width is more than 5.5m or the whole width of the central reserve is equal or narrower than 5.5m, it would be paved up to 4.5m

Page 24 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Localised widening and collars at overbridge locations · Central reserve drainage works 2.5.2 There is the greatest potential to achieve reduction in the central reserve in areas where the existing central reserve has localised widening to achieve the required stopping site distance (SSD). Reductions to SSD in accordance with IAN 161/15 and IAN 149/17 would be considered in these areas to determine potential reduction in width.

2.6 Verge and all lane running works 2.6.1 The ALR component of the proposed Scheme would provide 4 permanent running lanes by converting the hardshoulder into lane 1, commencing at junction 9 and finishing at junction 14. The exception to this are at:

· Junction 9 - the beginning of the ALR setup southbound · Junction 9 - the end of the ALR northbound · Junction 14 - the beginning of the ALR scheme northbound · Junction 13 - the end of the ALR scheme southbound · Junction 13 to 14, Controlled Motorway southbound through to the M27 2.6.2 The ALR works comprise the following components:

· Provide 4 permanent running lanes as per IAN 161/15 from Junction 9 to 14 · Redefine junction layouts to accommodate the fourth lane and TJR where applicable · Provide approximately 0.5m wide hardstrip with enhanced edge drainage adjacent to the hardshoulder · Junction 9 to 13 southbound - Existing hardshoulder / proposed Lane 1 and proposed lane 4 to be re-surfaced with low noise surfacing, proposed lane 2 and lane 3 overbanding and joint treatments works to be undertaken. · Junction 13 to 14 southbound no pavement works proposed · Junction 14 to 9 - Existing hardshoulder / proposed Lane 1 and proposed lane 4 to be re-surfaced with low noise surfacing, proposed lane 2 and lane 3 overbanding and joint treatments works to be undertaken · Slip roads that require resurfacing are detailed in Table 2.2 · New carrier drains and attenuation as required for verge drainage · All direction signs currently provided would be replicated in the proposed Scheme, although with some changes to positioning and mounting-type. The majority of direction signs would be gantry-mounted. Existing signs are currently mounted at a height of between 900mm and 1,800mm and the proposed verge- mounted signs would be mounted within this range. Those that remain verge- mounted would be reviewed at detailed design stage to determine the most suitable size; the proposed preliminary design heights are shown in Table 2.3. The height of some of these signs may alter, but are likely to be reduced rather than increased · Installation of 11 new superspan gantries, 8 long span cantilever gantries, 25 flag type MS4 gantries and 9 ADS gantries. See section 2.8 for further details

Page 25 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Provision of 10 new EAs between junction 9 to 13 with re-use of existing hardshoulder area between junction 13 and the M27 · New longitudinal communication ducting along the proposed Scheme length · Upgraded national roads telecommunications services longitudinal infrastructure throughout the length of the proposed Scheme. For preliminary design, the intention is to replace all ducting. However, there may be potential opportunities for the contractor to re-use existing longitudinal ducting, cross-carriageway ducting and ducts through structures where possible · CCTV cameras to be installed to provide 100% coverage of the carriageway · Highway Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System (HADECS) enforcement sites · MIDAS radar sites located throughout the proposed Scheme limits and MIDAS loops sites located on slip roads · New vehicle restraint system (VRS) and Rigid Concrete Barrier (RCB) to protect verge bridge piers · New retaining structures to accommodate EAs, communication cabinet sites, gantries and other associated verge infrastructure. Retaining wall structures are expected to comprise either paving slabs on the edge, modular gravity walls, king post walls or sheet pile walls depending on retained height and site conditions. See Section 2.7 for further details · Remotely Operated Temporary Traffic Management Signs (ROTTMS) · Noise barriers would only be required where existing ones are moved to accommodate new retaining walls or roadside furniture. These would be replaced on a like for like basis. · Resurfacing of slip roads, as detailed in Table 2.2 below Table 2.2 Resurfacing of slip roads

Slip road location Proposed resurfacing type

50 Hot Rolled Asphalt (HRA), 50% Thin Surfacing A27 Link Road to M3 northbound Course (TSC) Junction 13 northbound Exit Slip 85% TSC, 15% High Friction Surfacing (HRS) Junction 13 northbound On Slip 95% TSC, 5% HFS Junction 11 northbound Off Slip 90% TSC, 10% HFS Junction 11 northbound On Slip 100% HRA Northbound Junction 10 northbound Off Slip 30% HFS, 15% HRA, 55% TSC Junction 9 northbound Off Slip 10% HFS, 90% TSC Junction 11 southbound Off Slip 40% TSC, 60% HFS Junction 11 southbound On Slip 75% HRA, 25% TSC Junction 12 southbound Off Slip 60% TSC, HRA 10%, 30% HFS Junction 12 southbound On Slip 30% HRA, 70% TSC

Southbound Junction 13 southbound Off Slip 75% HFS, 5% HRA 2.6.3 The general arrangement drawings HE549338-MMSJV-HML-000-DR-CH-00101 to HE549338-MMSJV-HML-000-DR-CH-00101 show the location of these components.

2.7 Emergency areas 2.7.1 In the ALR sections (where the hardshoulders have been converted into a running lane), dedicated Emergency Areas (EAs) with emergency telephones would be

Page 26 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

constructed. EAs, which are similar to laybys, are required to provide a safe area for vehicles to stop in an emergency without interrupting the flow of traffic. EAs resemble a traditional layby and are 4.6m wide and extend for a length of 100m. 2.7.2 EAs and Safe Refuge Areas (SRAs) have been provided along the ALR section of the project in accordance with IAN 161/15. The distance between EAs has been measured as the distance between stopping areas in accordance with IAN 161/15 section 2.5. EAs on gradients greater than 2% or immediately upstream of a gradient greater than 2% have been avoided wherever practicable. Highways England Project Safety Control Review Group (PSCRG) endorsement would be sought where gradients are greater than 2%. 2.7.3 Within the proposed Scheme limits, there would be 10 EA’s installed in total, along the northbound and southbound verges. There would also be 2 safe refuge areas installed, 1 at junction 11 northbound diverge slip road and 1 at Junction 12 southbound diverge slip road. 2.7.4 Emergency roadside telephones (ERT) would be provided in all dedicated refuge areas. Existing ERTs elsewhere along the extent of the proposed Scheme would be removed, apart from those within a junction where the existing hardshoulder is retained. 2.7.5 Retaining walls would be installed to support EAs, ROTTM signs, communications cabinet sites and gantries as necessary. 2.7.6 EA’s would be provided with an orange coloured surface across the entire smart motorway network, to enhance their visibility to motorway users. Situations may arise where this requirement would give rise to unacceptable visual intrusion to non- motorway receptors, for which a bespoke solution may be deployed e.g. extended screening or a reduction of the coloured surface. This has been considered as part of the Landscape assessment.

2.8 Signs and gantries 2.8.1 The following gantries and signs are proposed:

· All direction signs currently provided would be replicated in the proposed Scheme, though with some changes to positioning and mounting-type · Installation of 11 new superspan gantries · Installation of 8 long span cantilever gantries · Installation of 32 flag type MS4 gantries For heights and width details refer to Table 2.3. Signs 2.8.2 Direction signing is currently provided throughout the proposed Scheme route to direct traffic through the junctions. Direction signs are verge-mounted from junctions 9 to 12 and gantry-mounted at junctions 13 and 14. All direction signs currently provided would be replicated in the proposed Scheme, though with some changes to positioning (described below) and mounting-type. The proposed Scheme would be supported by the following traffic control and road safety measures:

· Variable Mandatory Speed Limits (VMSL) with an associated automated enforcement / compliance system

Page 27 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Driver information, including lane availability, provided at intervals not exceeding 1500m. Information would be provided through MS3 Strategic Signs and new MS4 Variable Message Signs (VMS); see Table 2-3 · Radar detectors would be used in lieu of traditional MIDAS loops on the main carriageways · ERT provided in all dedicated refuge areas. Other existing ERT would be removed, apart from those where the hardshoulder is retained · Installation of MIDAS loops · Upgrade of 17km of buried National Roads Telecommunications Services (NRTS) longitudinal cable along the south bound verge using 100mm OD · Installation of new VRS and safety barrier to protect new and existing asset within the verges · It is currently assumed that any observation platforms would be removed

Page 28 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Table 2.3 Proposed signs and signals

Estimated asset quantities Proposed Type Assets New Retained Dimensions Remove SMP Total (maximum, m) LxWxH MS4 32 0 3 x 3 x 10 10 Signs MS3 0 2 3 x 3 x 9 0 34 EMS 0 0 3 AMI (Gantry with 4 x 6 x 11.5 MS4 on LSC) 64 0 0 AMI (Gantry with Signals 86 MS4 on SSP) 1.5 x 9 x11.5 ESS (AMI type) 17 0 1.6 x 2.1 x 3 2 ESS (MS1 type) 0 5 1 x 1 x 3 48 Mainline Loop 20 0 0.5 x 0.5 x 0 80 20 MIDAS Sites Mainline Radar 69 0 0.8 x 0.8 x 8 0 69 CCTV 2nd Gen 58 0 1 x 1 x 15 0 58 ERT 354 Pod 9 14 1 x 1 x 2 27 23 HADECS V3 8 0 2.8 x 2.8 x 8 0 8 ROTTMS N/A 37 0 2 x 2 x 4 0 37 Electrical Metered Installations 1 23 1 x 1 x 1.5 0 24

Gantries 2.8.3 There are 53 gantries required for the proposed Scheme; 2 existing MS3 gantries would be retained with no structural change, and 51 gantries would have new superstructures. Of these 51 gantries, 42 would have new foundations and 9 new gantries would re-use existing gantry foundation, where possible. Table 2.4 Existing gantry foundations

Approx. Approximate Foundations (sqm) Approx. number span (m) height of of piles structure (m) MS4 Cantilever 8 10 2.4 x 2.4 4 ADS Cantilever Gantry 13 11 4 x 5.6 4 Sign / Signal long span 16 8.5 4 x 5.7 6 cantilever gantry Super span portal gantry 54 12.5 1.5 x 9 4 2.8.4 The base height to the underside of the gantries is approximately 6m with a depth of a further 1.5m to 2m. With the addition of MS4 signs which are 3.2m high, the highest point would be approximately 9m where the MS4s are placed on the face of the gantry rather than on top.

Page 29 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

2.8.5 AMIs are mounted onto the face of the gantry and would not protrude above the gantry top ADS (fixed directional signs) may extend approximately 4m and therefore may have a total height of 12m.

2.9 Lighting 2.9.1 A lighting assessment was completed at preliminary design stage in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Technical Advice Note TA49/07 ‘Appraisal of new and replacement lighting on the strategic motorway and all-purpose trunk road network’. The report assessed whether there was sufficient justification when considering the economic and safety benefits in accordance with the DMRB. While the quantifiable cost benefit exercise showed that road lighting could not be justified, the non-quantifiable assessment process concluded that there is a level of justification for the introduction of replacement lighting. Further engagement with the local Area 3 Asset Support Control (ASC) and Highways England’s Safety Environmental and Standards (SES) lighting team was undertaken, where safety concerns were raised at the proposal to de-illuminate sections of the M3 corridor. 2.9.2 It was concluded that the existing M3 main carriageway and associated slip / link road lighting at junctions 13 to 14 should continue to be lit.All current unlit main carriageway sections (junction 9 to 13) should remain unlit. These are to be renewed on a like for like basis. Table 2.5 Existing and new lighting requirements

Type of Proposed lighting type Number Maximum Foundations lighting height (m) (sqm) New Twin head lighting columns within 75 12 the central reserve 212 No. New Lighting columns within the verge 212 12 foundations Existing Lighting columns (mainly on 42 N/A 1.5m (w) x Junction 13 Slip roads) 1.5m (l) x New Wall mount lighting units 14 N/A 1.3m (h)

2.10 Works to structures 2.10.1 The number of existing structures, retaining walls and CCTV masts are given in Table 2.6 Existing Structures within the proposed Scheme footprint below. Table 2.6 Existing Structures within the proposed Scheme footprint

Structure Number

Overbridges 14

Underbridges 17 Gantries 27

Total 94 (51No. classed as structures Retaining Walls/ Cuttings & 43No. classed as non-structures)

CCTV Masts 16

Page 30 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

2.10.2 No new bridges would be provided as part of the proposed Scheme. There are a total of 14 existing overbridge structures within the proposed Scheme area. Nine overbridge piers are proposed to be modified with non-strengthening concrete collars, to tie into the rigid concrete barrier in the central reserve. One overbridge pier is proposed to be modified to include pier strengthening collars in the northbound, southbound and central reserve. Affected bridge piers are shown in Table 2.7. Table 2.7 Affected bridge piers

Highways Strengthening / non-strengthening Overbridge Structure England concrete collar Structure Key

Fivefields Road 8448

St. Catherine’s Hill 8167

Shawford Road 8227

Shepherds Lane 8228 Central reserve non-strengthening concrete Cranbury Park New 18705 collar to bridge piers, 1.5m high above ground Hocombe Road New 18707 Pitmore Copse 18708 Hut Hill Link 17906 Fred Woolley House 17907

Strengthening concrete collar in the central Parkwood Footbridge 18710 reserve, North & Southbound verges

Underbridge structures

· No works are proposed to underbridge structures, however, minor works associated with reconfiguring underbridge verges and kerb positions to accommodate the ducting is required. · Two of the underbridges cross railway tracks (Shawford Rail and Oakmount Rail). Works would be required to Shawford Rail bridge including the replacement of a gantry and associated retaining walls. These works would not affect the Network Rail Infrastructure. Network Rail have been consulted regarding these works. · The sub-bases for the highway formation over Shawford Rail would be renewed using transverse joints. During the highway formation works, if the waterproofing is found to be damaged, new deck waterproofing would be required for the underbridge. · No transverse joints are proposed to be replaced however should any road surfacing works result in damage to the existing transverse joints then these works would be required.

Minor structures

Page 31 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Eighteen proposed CCTV masts which would have new foundation designed at detailed design stage · MIDAS Radar poles would be mounted on 8m high masts · External Aspect Verification (EAV) cameras would be mounted on 7m high masts · Two types of Entry Stop signals to be installed including Advisory Signals (1m (w) x 1.25m (h)) would be mounted on a single post and Advanced Motorway Indictors (ASMI) (1.8m (w) x 1.5m (h)) which display variable mandatory speed limits and would be mounted on 2 posts. Both of these sign types would have a height of 3m · 16 proposed CCTV masts would be installed on new foundations. These foundations would be designed during detailed design stage. There are 5 existing CCTV masts along the length of the proposed Scheme, which would be retained

2.11 Retaining walls and piling 2.11.1 A geotechnical solution would be designed for spaces where gantries, EAs and other roadside equipment requires the widening of the existing verge adjacent to existing embankment and cutting slopes. This would be achieved through regrading of slopes where practical. However, where this cannot be achieved within the extents of the existing highway boundary without using strengthened earthworks, it is proposed to provide widening through the incorporation of retaining structures. 2.11.2 Selection of the most appropriate retaining structure solution for each location has been based on the anticipated ground conditions, best practice as documented in the Smart Motorway Programme (SMP) design guide, environmental constraints and buildability considerations. Where their inclusion interferes with biodiversity, water environment or arboricultural priorities, these have been moved or restricted as necessary. These modifications are discussed further within the Water Environment section of this EAR. The proposed configuration of this infrastructure would be any of the following:

· Paving slabs on the edge, embedded in cast in-situ concrete for retained heights below 0.5m or · Gravity walls formed of gabions or other modular units for retained heights up to 2.0m where constraints allow or · King post or sheet pile walls depending on local ground conditions, slope geometry and retained heights – generally for retained heights over 2.0m but also where reduction in vegetation clearance requirements is particularly critical. Anchored sheet pile walls are proposed in the cases of greater retained heights to reduce required wall embedment’s and sheet pile section sizes 2.11.3 Bored pile foundations are generally proposed for gantries as shallow foundation options would be expected to be impractical due to their large plan area. Reuse of existing gantry foundations would be proposed where they can be shown to represent an adequate design to current standards. 2.11.4 The proposed retaining walls and their extents are summarised in the Schedule of Retaining Walls, Ref. HE549338-MMSJV-SBR-000-SH-SX-00047 Rev. P02.1.

Page 32 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

2.12 Power supply 2.12.1 Additional Distribution Network Operator supplies would be required to power the roadside technology. The proposed Scheme would re-use existing Ducts Through Structures (DTS) and cross carriageway ducts (CCD) wherever feasible. The preliminary design is currently based on new CCDs being installed adjacent to existing CCDs wherever possible to provide the opportunity for the Contractor to re- use the existing CCDs if they are found to be suitable. Typically, the longitudinal ducts would only be provided in one verge approximately 2m from the edge of the existing carriageway. 2.12.2 For the purposes of this EAR it has been assumed that new ducting would be required, with associated temporary vegetation loss for construction works. Where this clashes with the Root Protection Zone (RPZ) of the Ancient Woodland buffer, measures have been specified to ensure no significant effects are caused. These clashes have been discussed in detail within the Biodiversity chapter, Section 8 of this report.

2.13 Noise barriers 2.13.1 Where existing noise barriers are temporarily removed to facilitate the proposed works on site, these would be replaced. There are no new noise barriers required to provide mitigation measures for sensitive receptors.

2.14 Site clearance 2.14.1 Localised site clearance has been assumed from the edge of the existing hardshoulder throughout the proposed Scheme to accommodate communication cabling requirements. This would be reduced where vegetative screening needs to be maintained. 2.14.2 Additional site clearance for working space would be required at all locations where new infrastructure is proposed, including gantries, retaining walls for gantries, and electricity cabinets. Site clearance is also required for construction of EAs and associated with the construction of drainage features and the improvement of existing drainage. Areas that have been identified as sensitive to vegetation removal for ecological, landscape and arboricultural purposes, have been avoided. This includes within the Ancient Woodland body, vegetation within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of the Ancient Woodland along with areas designated as Road Verges of Ecological Importance (RVEI), as identified within the Biodiversity Constraints map (HE549338- MMSJV-EGN-000-DR-YE-00001). Section 8, Biodiversity discusses these sensitive areas further. 2.14.3 It is currently proposed that the following removals would be required:

· Removal of 10 gantries/signals typically involving the separation of electronic components for specialist recycling and the removal of steel components for recycling. Above ground foundations would be removed to just below ground level with the soil been re-seeded as required. · Existing luminaries at Junction 13 and 14 extents would be removed and replaced along the mainline

Page 33 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Establishment of temporary fencing, utility relocations and establishment of construction compound site(s) and access and vegetation clearing and stripping, stockpiling and management of topsoil and unsuitable material. 2.14.1 Table 2-7 details the estimated vegetation clearance that would be required to construct and operate the proposed Scheme. Table 2.8 Estimated vegetation clearance requirements for the proposed Scheme

Habitat Type Estimated temporary vegetation clearance (ha) Woodland 15.37 Scrub 0.79 Waterbody 0.0048 Grassland 7.98 Bare ground 0.0079 Hard standing 64.65

2.15 Environmental design 2.15.1 Vegetation would be removed only where essential to construct the proposed Scheme and to allow for sight lines and safety requirements. Where the extent of proposed vegetation removal would result in newly exposed views or awareness of the corridor or infrastructure this would be mitigated by the proposed landscape design proposals, as detailed within the Landscape Masterplan (HE549338-MMSJV-ELS-000-DR-LD- 00001 to HE549338-MMSJV-ELS-000-DR-LD-00013). Restrictions and mitigation measures are detailed further in Section 7, Landscape and Visual.

2.16 Land use setting and land-take 2.16.1 The proposed Scheme would cover approximately 135ha in area, including slip roads and the mainline M3 between Junctions 9 and 14; the proposed Scheme is wholly within Highways England land with the exception of the temporary construction compound. The proposed Scheme would require temporary land-take for compound areas, material storage and temporary breakdown vehicles. A preliminary site outside the highways boundary has been identified for these requirements; this was chosen using best practice and local knowledge. The proposed area is off Junction 11 of the M3, approximately 400m to the east. The site is currently used as an agricultural field and is situated between Badger Farm Road and Otterbourne Road. 2.16.2 The proposed site compound is currently used for agricultural purposes (refer to drawing HE549338-MMSJV-ELS-000-DR-0103). The entrance of the compound would likely be via Badger Farm Road, with a left turn in only, utilising existing field access gates. This may require minimal localised vegetation clearance in order to expand these access points. The exit would be located at Otterbourne Road, with a left turn exit only, with limited or no vegetation clearance required. 2.16.3 The size of the compound is estimated to be approximately 60,000m2. Excavation would be required to strip the topsoil, carry out soil stabilisation and install drainage. Some levelling may be required, although this would be kept to a minimum and would follow the existing field topography. All existing material would stay on site. Imported material would be required for hardstanding areas such as a carpark, material compounds and office foundations. It is considered that this site would be required for

Page 34 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

the duration of the construction period of 2 years and would be returned to its previous state upon completion of the main works. 2.16.4 The internal traffic management layout of the compound would be operated as a one- way system. Left turns in and out of the compound would minimise the impact on the local road network and improve safety. 2.16.5 The final locations of these temporary elements would be determined at a later date by the Delivery Partner and would be consented separately under the Town and Country Planning Act 2015. 2.16.6 The compound has been included within the assessment below and where it has been considered likely to have the potential for significant effects, mitigation proposed.

2.17 Temporary works 2.17.1 It is assumed that the construction of the proposed Scheme is likely to involve the following general methodology and sequencing:

· Site mobilisation and site clearance: Establishment of temporary fencing, utility relocations, establishment of construction compound site and access (approximately 4-5 months), vegetation clearing and stripping, stockpiling and management of topsoil and unsuitable material. · Paving Works: It is envisaged that the majority of works associated with the re- surfacing of carriageways and hardshoulders would be undertaken during night- time operations to minimise traffic disruption. Carriageway paving would typically progress between 22:00 and 05:00; the planer would likely operate from 22:00 to 03:00 and the paver from 23:30 to 05:00. Where possible, works that would not require lane closures, such as the paving of EAs, are likely to be undertaken during the day. · Main works: o Establishing the ground levels and undertaking ground works, including drainage systems and installing the gantries, and Rigid Concrete Barrier construction o Resurfacing of the existing surface and other pavement works o Conversion of the hardshoulder into a running lane o Install traffic signs and signals, some located in the verge and others on new gantries o Works to slip road, including provision of safe refuge areas and VRS o Install EAs o Installation of retaining walls as required to accommodate the amended slip roads and EAs o Resurface / strengthen the existing hardshoulder o Install a surface water channel or linear drainage in the verge and associated drainage works o Install buried surface water attenuation systems o Install VRS in the verge to protect gantries and other apparatus o Install power supplies at the highway boundary

Page 35 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Directional drilling: Directional drilling sites would be required to provide cabling ducts beneath the motorway between smart motorways technology installations. These sites can vary by up to 250m either side of the technology installation, therefore there is scope to avoid such operations being located close to sensitive receptors where possible. · Landscaping and decommissioning: Vegetation planting, installation of safety barriers, fencing, pavement marking and removal of site compound and site tidy up.

2.18 Construction process assumptions It should be noted that the assumptions below are applicable to the preliminary design stage and have been considered following engagement with a local construction partner; these may be refined during the detailed design stage, however, they are expected to provide an appropriate reflection of the likely works required to construct the proposed Scheme.

· It is envisaged that the construction works would be undertaken as a single section under traffic management, with the central reserve work being undertaken first. It is likely that some lane closures would be required for the removal of existing gantries and full closures required to facilitate the erection of the new superspan or cantilever gantries. While diversions were identified within the scoping report using the A3090, A272 and A335, it is considered that the proposed hours of closure are unlikely to significantly increase the traffic on these routes. The possible diversions have been considered within the noise and air quality assessments. It is envisaged that full closures would occur at night on a Sunday evening between the hours of midnight and 5am, to ensure minimum traffic diversion. · The avoidance and mitigation measures identified within the individual assessments (and included within the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) (HE549338-MMSJV-EGN-000-RP-LX-00011)) have assumed that both traffic management measures and overnight closures would be required. The construction methods to be used (including overnight lane closures and any possible diversions) would be reviewed during the detailed design stage to ensure the proposed mitigation as set out in the OEMP remains appropriate. · All construction works would be undertaken within the existing highway boundary. Haul routes for materials and equipment would be routed along the existing motorway carriageways. The new gantries and EAs would be installed from the hardshoulder. New cables would be installed within the highway verge to connect the new signage and in a few locations new cables would be installed from the verge to the fence line to connect into the electricity grid. · There may be a requirement for some existing acoustic barriers to be removed temporarily during construction to allow works in the verge to be carried out safely, which would be confirmed during detailed design. If existing barriers are removed temporarily, specific control measures are outlined in the OEMP for the Delivery Partner to offset any noise increases as a result. Any temporary barrier removal would be undertaken in series and barriers would not be removed across the entire proposed Scheme length prior to works commencing

Page 36 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

regardless of the phasing of follow-on work along each section. The mitigation measures outlined in the OEMP would be reviewed at the detailed design stage once the noise barriers to be removed are confirmed by the Delivery Partner. · All works on-site and within the construction compound would be undertaken in compliance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which would be produced by Delivery Partner, to ensure the requirements within the OEMP are fulfilled. · It is currently anticipated that the proposed Scheme would be constructed under a 50mph enforceable variable speed limit with traffic management between junction 9 to 14, extending beyond the junctions to the proposed Scheme extent. The existing 6-lane motorway capacity would be maintained (with a reduced width) during the day-time; reducing outside of peak periods.

2.19 Proposed scheme delivery and implementation 2.19.1 At the time of writing, construction of the proposed Scheme is scheduled to commence in March 2020 and is expected to take 2 years to construct, including commissioning. The intended opening date of the proposed Scheme is March 2022.

2.20 Proposed operation and long-term management 2.20.1 No hardshoulder would be provided as part of the proposed Scheme from junction 9 to 12. Maintenance arrangements are expected to be set out from off-network access, refuge areas with combined maintenance hardstanding’s and under temporary traffic management using ROTTMS. 2.20.2 Junction 13 to 14 would be a controlled motorway therefore a hardshoulder would still be available. The maintenance regime would continue to operate from the hardshoulder. Accessible gantries would come with the added benefit of new technology including AMIs, CCTV with infra-red lighting and Radar equipment. 2.20.3 A Handover Environment Management Plan (HEMP) programme would be developed for the proposed landscape design, to ensure the success of the proposed landscape and ecology mitigation measures.

2.21 Operational considerations 2.21.1 ALR would operate 24 hours a day, with temporary traffic management introduced as appropriate for routine and emergency maintenance. The proposed Scheme would convert the existing dual 3-lane carriageways between junctions 9 to 13 of the M3 to dual 4-lane, ALR, with the mainline hardshoulder re-marked as a running lane. EAs would be provided and drivers would also be able to stop on slip road hardshoulders. The average distance between each safe stopping place would be approximately 2.5 kilometres. 2.21.2 During periods of heavy traffic flow, VMSL would automatically be set to regulate traffic flow, although this is not expected to be a daily occurrence. Mandatory speed limits would also be displayed to protect localised queuing. Speed limits and lane closures would also be set manually by the Regional Control Centre (RCC) to control traffic during incidents. When none of the above conditions are present, the VMSL would not be active and the national speed limit would apply.

Page 37 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report 3. Alternatives considered

3.1 Programme level alternatives 3.1.1 Highways England and the Department for Transport (DfT) have assessed the options for providing extra capacity on the strategic road network at programme level. This has included consideration of traditional widening options as well as options incorporating use of the hardshoulder. 3.1.2 Evaluation of the M42 Active Traffic Management (ATM) pilot demonstrated that managed motorways (smart motorways) are able to deliver clear benefits in terms of improved journey time reliability through reduced congestion. Managed motorways can also be delivered at a lower cost and with less environmental impact than conventional widening programmes; without detriment to road safety performance. 3.1.3 Highways England is, therefore, delivering network capacity improvements with All Lane Running (ALR) as the preferred option and is being delivered as part of the SMP. The M3 junction 9 to 14 ALR Scheme is one of these schemes. At project level, these are being delivered as single option schemes under the Major Projects Project Control Framework (PCF), and as such, design options undergo minimal further consideration.

3.2 Proposed scheme specific alternatives 3.2.1 As the Smart Motorway Programme (SMP) schemes are single option schemes entirely within the existing Highways England road estate, there are Do Nothing scenario has been considered within specific chapters (noise and air quality). Alternative layouts have been considered relating primarily to the locations of gantries, EAs, communications equipment and noise barriers. A number of the gantry locations and other scheme elements proposed in Design Fix 1 (DF1) and DF2 have been amended as part of the preliminary design; these changes have been proposed for various reasons, primarily operational, safety and environmental sensitivity. 3.2.2 The following design changes have been incorporated to avoid and reduce the impact on landscape and visual receptors:

· Gantries have been relocated to reduce potentially significant landscape character and visual effects where feasible, with particular reference to the South Downs National Park · Where areas of Ancient Woodland exist immediately outside the highway boundary and adjoining areas of vegetation clearance, an arboriculturist or other appropriately qualified professional checked the site to ensure that construction would not encroach within the Root Protection Zone (RPZ) · Retaining walls and other roadside furniture have been moved or removed to reduce impact on landscape and visual receptors · Specification for a visually sympathetic retaining walls within the Twyford Cutting have been made and would be incorporated into detailed design at detailed design stage

3.2.3 The following design changes have been incorporated to avoid and reduce the impact on the water environment and drainage:

Page 38 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Drainage would be designed to maintain existing rates of flow and water quality, to avoid impacts on rivers to designated sites which flow under the proposed Scheme · Specification of inbuilt sedimentation filtration systems for existing drains to sensitive receptor waterbodies where required · Highways furniture has been removed from within 8m of watercourses including the Monks Brook and the River Itchen · Modifications specified for the new central barrier and gantry locations to minimise the number of existing soakaways that need to be relocated. · Requirement for treatment on soakaways to be assessed during detailed design where it is shown as medium risk or above to groundwater. · Review of retaining wall foundations / pile design near to and within sensitive groundwater receptors 3.2.4 The following design changes have been incorporated to reduce the impact on the Biodiversity receptors:

· Retaining walls and other roadside furniture have been removed from within the ancient woodland buffer zone to ensure there was no impact to the designation or its Root Protection Zone · Verge ducting has been moved to the opposite verge to ensure no effects to densely populated vegetation areas including the Ancient Woodland · Gullies and drain covers have been specified and designed to ensure there would be no potential for reptile trapping 3.2.5 Alternative construction practices have been considered where there is a risk of such works giving rise to a significant adverse effect, with the aim of providing sufficient mitigation within alternative design or construction practices to eliminate likely significant adverse effects; this is particularly relevant for noise and groundwater effects from piling. Where deemed required, these alternative practices have been included within the preliminary design or specific clauses included within the OEMP. This includes limiting night-time working to protect sensitive noise receptors.

Page 39 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report 4. Environmental impact assessment methodology

4.1 Screening 4.1.1 The European Union (EU) Directive 2014/52/EU and the 1980 Highways Act, as amended by the Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017 require that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be undertaken by the promoters of certain types of development to identify and assess the environmental effects of projects before implementation. 4.1.2 This legislation specifies the qualification requirements and the process by which statutory EIA should be undertaken. All developments listed under Annex 1 of the EIA Directive must be subject to statutory EIA in every case. Developments listed under Annex 2 may need to be subject to statutory EIA depending on whether the proposed project qualifies as a relevant project (that is if it meets certain criteria and thresholds defined in Annex 2) and gives rise to significant environmental effects. The potential to generate significant environmental effects is described within Annex 3 of the EIA Directive and appropriate definitions of relevance to highways projects are given in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Annex I, Annex II and relevant project definitions Descriptor Definition in relation to highways projects

Construction of motorways and express roads. Construction of a new road of 4 or more lanes, or realignment and/or widening of an existing Annex I road of 2 lanes or less so as to provide 4 or more lanes, where such new road, or realigned and/or widened section of road would be 10km or more in a continuous length.

Annex II All other improvement road projects not listed in Annex I.

A project for constructing or improving a highway where the area of the completed works together with any area occupied during the period of construction or improvement by requisite apparatus, equipment, Relevant project machinery, materials, plant, spoil heaps or other such facilities exceeds 1 hectare or where any such area is situated in whole or in part in a sensitive area.

4.1.3 Statutory EIA is mandatory for all Annex I schemes. All highways projects (excluding those considered strictly maintenance) that are not listed in Annex I, fall under Annex II of the EIA Directive. For Annex II schemes that are identified as a ‘relevant project, it must be determined through a formal screening process, whether the scheme would result in a significant environmental effect. Findings of this determination process must be recorded and a notice served within the public domain. 4.1.4 The proposed Scheme has been classified as a relevant Annex II Project as it would have a works footprint area of greater than 1ha. The proposed Scheme has also been classified as an Improvement Scheme as the extent of the permanent works lies wholly within the existing highways boundary. Under the Highways Act – The Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017, where an Annex II project is

Page 40 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

assessed as an Improvement Scheme and is unlikely to have significant environmental effects, the requirement for statutory EIA is removed and a non- statutory Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) is instead undertaken.

4.2 Scoping 4.2.1 An Environmental Scoping Report has been prepared for the proposed Scheme (HE549338-MMSJV-EGN-000-RP-LX-00002). The Scoping Report has identified which environmental topics listed within Volume 11 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) require additional assessment to either a simple of detailed level and which topics may be scoped out of the requirement for additional assessment on the basis of no likely significant effect. The results of the scoping exercise are summarised within Table 4.2 below. Table 4.2 Scoping report conclusions Factors contained within Regulation DMRB 5(2) of the Infrastructure Planning Scoped in / out of EAR Topic (EIA) Regulations Construction – scoped out (but later (a) Population and human health scoped back in for this assessment for Air quality (b) (c) Land, soil, water, air and detailed assessment level) climate Operation – scoped in for detailed assessment level Construction – scoped in for simple Noise and level assessment (a) Population and human health vibration Operation – scoped in for simple level assessment Construction – scoped in for simple level assessment Biodiversity (b) Biodiversity Operation – scoped in for simple level assessment Construction – scoped in for simple Cultural (d) Material assets, cultural heritage, level assessment heritage and the landscape Operation – scoped in for simple level assessment Landscape Construction – scoped in for simple character & (d) Material assets, cultural heritage, level assessment visual and the landscape Operation – scoped in for simple level amenity assessment Climate Construction – scoped out (c) Land, soil, water, air and climate change Operation – scoped out Construction – scoped out (but later scoped back in for this assessment for Population and human health Water simple level assessment) quality and (a) (c) Land, soil, water, air and Operation – scoped out (but later drainage climate scoped back in for this assessment for simple level assessment) Land, soil, water, air and climate Materials, (b) (d) Material assets, cultural Construction – scoped out geology heritage, and and soils Operation – scoped out (c) the landscape

Page 41 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Factors contained within Regulation DMRB 5(2) of the Infrastructure Planning Scoped in / out of EAR Topic (EIA) Regulations Construction – scoped in for simple Population level assessment and human (a) Population and human health health Operation – scoped in for simple level assessment

Major accidents Construction – scoped out and Operation – scoped out disasters Heat and Construction – scoped out radiation Operation – scoped out Construction – scoped out Demolition Operation – scoped out Combined Construction – scoped in for simple and The interaction between the factors level assessment cumulative referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) Operation – scoped in for simple level effects assessment 4.2.2 The environmental assessment process has been undertaken alongside the development of the proposed Scheme design. Environmental mitigation measures have been developed as part of an iterative design process in order to avoid or reduce the severity of potential environmental impacts, and have been included within this EAR to aid the determination of the overall environmental effects during both the construction and operation phases of the proposed Scheme. Topics that have been scoped into the EAR have been progressed to further assessment within sections 5 to 11 of this report. Topics that were scoped out can be found further detailed below.

Climate change 4.2.3 Climate change has been scoped out of the assessment; increased temperatures and rainfall levels would be accomdated through the drainage design and landscaping provisions. Long-term maintenance strategies are expected to be provided to manage these risks. Refer to Section 3.1.34 of the Scoping Report for further detail.

Materials, geology and soils 4.2.4 The assessment of effects on materials has been scoped out of the assessment as all materials would be sourced from existing quarries, batching plants or factories for which separate planning consent would be in place. The assessment of geology and soils has also been scoped out, due to the controls available via the design, Works Instructions and Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Refer to Section 3.1.63 of the Scoping Report for further detail.

Major accidents and disasters 4.2.5 Major accidents and disasters have been scoped out of the assessment due to the low probability of a significant impact arising from a low probability major event. Refer to Section 3.1.54 of the Scoping Report for details.

Heat and radiation

Page 42 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

4.2.6 Whilst concrete infrastucture is a common cause of heat production / retention, the proposed Scheme adds a non-significant level of infrastructure to the existing highway. For this reason, there is little risk of increased production of heat and radiation. Consequently, these aspects are scoped out of consideration in the assessment.

Demolition 4.2.7 It is not envisaged that demolition or removal during the proposed Scheme’s construction would be required. During demolition of the highway in the future, it is ancitpated that significant impacts would be controlled through the implementation of a CEMP. Therefore demolition has been scoped out of the assessment.

4.3 Stakeholder engagement 4.3.1 The following engagements were undertaken during the preliminary design stage. Further consulation is expected with these parties during detailed design stage:

· Local authorities – specific discipline representatives covering transport, planning, environment and communications have been engaged with through the introductory scheme letter, collaborative workshops and on-going specific transport planning engagement meetings · Landowners – those within the vicinity of the proposed Scheme were directly contacted to seek permission to access their land for non-intrusive site visits, such as great crested newt (GCN) habitat suitability surveys · Route businesses – identified businesses located adjacent to the proposed Scheme were engaged with through the introductory scheme letter · Statutory undertakers and Statutory Environmental Bodies (SEBs) – were directly engaged with to inform them of the proposed Scheme and design specific requirements 4.3.2 Engagement has also been undertaken with Southampton Airport as to the likelihood that the proposed Scheme would affect the flight envelope and the operation of the airport. To date, the airport has not raised any concerns regarding the proposed Scheme. 4.3.3 Following completion, this EAR would be made available to the statutory environmental organisations (Local Authorities, Natural England, Historic England and Environment Agency). Highways England would also host public information events later in development of the proposed Scheme to allow interested organisations and members of the general public to learn more about and comment on the proposals.

4.4 Methodology 4.4.1 This EAR has been written in accordance with the requirements for simple and detailed Environmental Assessment as presented within the DMRB Volume 11, Section 3 for each of the relevant environmental topics, as well as Interim Advice Note (IAN) 125/09. The output of this EAR is to report the likely significance of environmental effects using established significance criteria, as presented within DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 Part 5. This requires an assessment of the receptor or resource environmental value (or sensitivity) and the magnitude of project impact (change).

Page 43 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

4.4.2 DMRB states that the approach to assigning significance of effect relies on reasoned argument, professional judgement and considering the advice and views of appropriate organisations. For some disciplines, predicted effects may be compared with quantitative thresholds and scales in determining significance. Assigning each effect to 1 of the 5 significance categories enables different topic issues to be placed upon the same scale, in order to assist the decision making process at whatever stage the project is at within that process. These 5 significance categories are set out in the Table 4.3. 4.4.3 Significance categories are required for both positive (beneficial) as well as negative (adverse) effects. The 5 significance categories give rise to 9 potential outcomes. Applying the formula, the greater the environmental sensitivity or value of the receptor or resource, and the greater the magnitude of impact, the more significant the effect. For example, the consequences of a very highly valued environmental resource suffering a major detrimental impact would be classified as “Very Large” as shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Descriptors of the significance of effect categories Significance Typical descriptors of effect category Very Large Only adverse effects are normally assigned this level of significance. They represent key factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally, but not exclusively, associated with sites or features of international, national or regional importance that are likely to suffer a most damaging impact and loss of resource integrity. However, a major change in a site or feature of local importance may also enter this category. Large These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to be very important considerations and are likely to be material in the decision-making process. Moderate These beneficial or adverse effects may be important, but are not likely to be key decision-making factors. The cumulative effects of such factors may influence decision-making if they lead to an increase in the overall adverse effect on a particular resource or receptor. Slight These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors. They are unlikely to be critical in the decision-making process, but are important in enhancing the subsequent design of the project. Neutral No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. Source: DMRB Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5, Table 2.3 4.4.4 The sensitivity of environmental receptors or resources are identified for each of the individual topics that have been carried forward from the scoping exercise for further environmental assessment, along with the magnitude of change. In this way, the potential significance of environmental effects has been determined for each relevant environmental topic. An overall significance of the potential environmental effects is presented within the Conclusions chapter of this EAR. For the purposes of this EAR, impacts that are Moderate Beneficial or Adverse or above are considered to be significant. 4.4.5 Effects, whether beneficial or adverse, are expressed in terms of their significance. Significance of effect is derived through consideration of the sensitivity of a receptor

Page 44 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

(sometimes referred to as its value or importance) and the magnitude of the impact, as defined by the amount of change from the baseline. Therefore, the significance of an effect is influenced by both of these variables. 4.4.6 Certain disciplines use a matrix approach to assess the significance of any particular effect, with the sensitivity of the receptor on one axis and the magnitude of impact on the other. Matrices for individual topics may be slightly different, and may appear in the individual topic guidance in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3. Moderate and major effects are considered ‘significant’ for the purposes of the EIA regulations. In all cases, the topic-specific guidance is referenced and followed if there is any discrepancy. 4.4.7 Some disciplines do not use a matrix-based approach, because they use calculations to assess effects in numerical terms; for example, noise and air quality. In all cases, professional judgement based on experience of similar schemes is applied to the assessment to underpin the outcomes identified through the matrix or calculation assessments and in each case, the summary concludes whether the effects are assessed as either significant or insignificant. Table 4-4 details the assessment of significance of potential effects. Table 4.4 Assessing Significance of potential effects Magnitude of potential impact (degree of change) No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major

Very High Neutral Slight Moderate or Large or Very Very Large Large Large High Neutral Slight Slight or Moderate or Large or Very Moderate Large Large Medium Neutral Neutral or Slight Moderate Moderate or Slight Large (sensitivity) Low Neutral Neutral or Neutral or Slight Slight Slight or Slight Moderate Environmental value Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral or Slight Neutral or Slight Slight

Source: DMRB Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5, Table 2.4

4.5 Study area 4.5.1 Each environmental topic has set a study area for the assessment of the potential effects of the proposed Scheme according to the requirements of the applied methodology. The study area for each topic assessment is defined and described in the relevant topic section.

4.6 Baseline conditions 4.6.1 Potential significant environmental effects are described in relation to the extent of changes to the existing baseline environment. The baseline comprises the environmental characteristics and conditions of the area likely to be affected that are present at the time of assessment, or which are predicted to be the case at certain times during a scheme’s development. Baseline information obtained in order to inform the environmental assessment is identified within each technical topic section. 4.6.2 Each study uses existing information to identify potential receptors and their susceptibility to an impact. This then permits the subsequent assessment to focus upon a subset of receptors where specific assessment and design tasks arise.

Page 45 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

4.6.3 The baseline has been subject to updates as the proposed Scheme assessment has progressed. In order to verify and refine the desk based evidence, field surveys have also been conducted by landscape, arboricultural, water environment, and ecology specialists. Noise surveys have been undertaken at representative locations to support the modelling process.

Page 46 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report 5. Air quality Key features for this topic: • There are 5 Air Quality Management Area (AQMAs) within the air quality study area. All are declared for exceedances of the annual mean NO2 UK AQS objective: 2 of these AQMAs (Bitterne Road West and Fareham) are affected by the proposed Scheme • There are 4 roads in the study area for which the EU limit value for annual mean NO2 is exceeded, as predicted by Defra’s Pollutant Climate Mapping (PCM) model, in the proposed Scheme opening year without the proposed Scheme in operation • The proposed Scheme impacts on local air quality are largely ‘imperceptible’ with small beneficial impacts experienced at 1 modelled receptor • This distribution of impacts is a result of the diversion of traffic away from populated roads in urban areas onto the M27 and M3 motorways. Within the proposed Scheme extents, the effects of increased vehicle flows are partially off-set by the effects of congestion relief • The proposed Scheme has been assessed as low risk of causing a non-compliance of the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive • There are 11 designated ecological sites within the air quality study area within which baseline nitrogen deposition levels exceed their respective critical loads. The proposed Scheme results in increased roadside concentrations of NOx and nitrogen deposition within sites designated for nature conservation. The effects of this increase have been deemed not significant by the project ecologist • No significant air quality effects are predicted

5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This chapter presents the air quality assessment for the M3 Smart Motorway Programme (SMP). The proposed Scheme has been developed at the same time as the M27 junction 4 to 11 SMP scheme which would be operational prior to the operation of the M3 SMP. The operation of the M3 SMP is dependent on the operation of the M27 SMP. Due to this dependency, and the close proximity in which the schemes would operate, it is considered appropriate from an air quality perspective to consider the combined operational impacts of both the proposed Scheme in combination with the M27 SMP scheme as this presents the worst-case air quality effects of both schemes. The in-combination impacts of these schemes have been assessed against a scenario where neither are operational. 5.1.2 The assessment of the proposed Scheme for this Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) herein is largely a replication of the M27 SMP EAR as the M27 SMPs EAR included an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the M27 and M3 SMP Schemes. All dispersion modelling and other background work which feeds into this assessment has been undertaken as part of the M27 EAR air quality assessment. The M27 EAR has been adapted to make it relevant to the M3 SMP.

Page 47 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

5.2 Assessment methodology 5.2.1 The proposed Scheme has been assessed in accordance with guidance set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1: HA207/071 for detailed level assessments for local and regional air quality, hereafter referred to as the DMRB HA207/07. The methodology takes into account the following Interim Advice Notes (IANs):

· IAN 170/12v3 Updated Air Quality Advice on the Assessment of Future NOx and NO2 Projections for Users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 'Air Quality' · IAN 174/13 Updated Advice for Evaluating Significant Local Air Quality Effects for DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 'Air Quality' · IAN 175/13 Updated air quality advice on risk assessment related to compliance with EU Directive on ambient air quality and on the production of Scheme Air Quality Action Plans for user of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 'Air Quality' · IAN 185/15 Updated Traffic, Air Quality and Noise Advice on the Assessment of Link Speeds and Generation of Vehicle Data into 'Speed bands' for Users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 'Air Quality' and Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 ‘Noise’

5.2.2 IAN 170/12 includes projection factors for annual mean NO2 and NOx concentrations between 2008 and 2030. Updated projection factors were provided by Highways England in May 2015 and used for this assessment. These updated factors reflect the latest predicted long-term trends from the introduction of Euro 6/VI (termed LTTE6). 5.2.3 IAN 174/13 provides advice for evaluating significance of local air quality effects for public exposure and designated sites. Evaluation of the significance of local air quality effects has been undertaken in accordance with IAN 174/13. 5.2.4 IAN 175/13 is currently pending a new revision. In the absence of a published update, IAN 175/13 has been used to assess the impact of the proposed Scheme for compliance with the EU Directive on ambient air quality.

5.2.5 IAN 185/15 includes vehicle emission rates for NOx, PM10 and CO2, for use in air quality assessments. Different vehicle emission rates are provided for motorway and urban / rural roads and for different levels of congestion. Updated vehicle emission factors, for use with IAN 185/15, were provided by Highways England in November 2016. 5.2.6 Traffic data for the air quality assessment was provided with a base year of 2015, taking into account MPI-28-082014: Highways England Major Projects’ Instructions – Determining the correct base year traffic model to support air quality assessments (August 2014). 5.2.7 The assessment has also taken into account Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance, (LAQM TG)162 in relation to the processing of monitoring data and the verification of dispersion models.

1 DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1: HA207/07 2 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance, April 2016

Page 48 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

5.2.8 The assessment of baseline air quality for the proposed Scheme has revealed a risk of on-going exceedances of the air quality objective for annual mean NO2, along the M27 and M3 corridors within the assessment study area and within adjoining urban areas. 5.2.9 Outputs from the SATURN traffic model have been used for this assessment. Data on vehicle flows, speed and percent of Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV) (HDVs are a sum of Heavy Good Vehicles and buses) are available for the following periods in the base, Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios for the Main Scheme and the Alternative Scheme: · AM peak period (07:00 to 10:00) · Inter-peak (IP) period (10:00 to 16:00) · PM peak period (16:00 to 19:00) · Off-peak period (OP) (19:00 to 07:00) 5.2.10 The diurnal traffic flow characteristics, and therefore emissions, are represented in the dispersion model using time varying emission factors. The same profile used for weekdays has been applied to the weekend. 5.2.11 Speed data have also been derived from the SATURN traffic model and has been Speed Banded following application of derived speed pivots in accordance with IAN 185/153 for use in this assessment. Appendix A, 5.1 provides a summary of traffic data for the study area. 5.2.12 The air quality assessment considers impacts on both local air quality, through changes in roadside pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors, and regional air quality, through impacts on total emissions of pollutants from road transport. Construction phase 5.2.13 The assessment of construction impacts was undertaken qualitatively, taking into account the guidance in HA207/07 paragraph 3.45 and DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 3: Disruption due to construction, and the number and proximity of potentially sensitive receptors within 200m of the proposed Scheme. Study area 5.2.14 The study area for the assessment of operational impacts on local air quality has been set with regard to the criteria set out in the DMRB HA207/074 for determining affected links (i.e. roads), namely, a 200m corridor either side of those links on which: · Road alignment would change by 5m or more · Daily traffic flows would change by 1,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow or more · Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) flows would change by 200 AADT or more

3 Highways Agency (2013) Interim Advice Note 175/13. Updated advice on risk assessment related to compliance with the EU Directive on ambient air quality and on the projection of Scheme Air Quality Action Plans for user of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality’ (HA207/07). Available online at http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/ian175.pdf, last accessed 18/04/16. 4 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, HA 207/07, Highways Agency and Transport Scotland, 2007

Page 49 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Daily average speed would change by 10 km/h or more · Peak hour speed would change by 20 km/h or more 5.2.15 As defined by the DMRB, the study area does not extend beyond 200m from each affected link as the influence of vehicle emissions on ambient air quality is considered to be negligible beyond 200m of the respective road source as pollutant concentrations return to background levels. Pollutant concentrations from sources beyond 200m are accounted for in the background concentrations applied to this assessment and discussed further in Section 5.4. This is predominantly due to horizontal and vertical atmospheric mixing of emissions over this distance. 5.2.16 These criteria have been applied to road links within the Traffic Reliability Area (TRA)5 and a road triggering the DMRB criteria is considered to be within the study area for the assessment. 5.2.17 The local affected links and the extent of the study area are shown in Appendix B, Figure 5.1 and include: · M27 from junction 2 to 12 (including adjoining roads). A predicted increase in traffic flows of approximately 7500 AADT occurs between Junction 5 and 7 and is the greatest predicted increase in AADT along the M27. · M3 from junction 5 to 14 (the M27 interchange and adjoining roads). The greatest changes in traffic flows occur between Junction 11 and 14. A predicted increase of approximately 9900 AADT occurs between Junction 11 and 12 and is the greatest predicted increase in AADT along the M3. · A33 (Bassett Avenue) from the M3 to the junction with Burgess Road has a predicted increase in traffic flow of approximately 1500 AADT. · A27 from M27 junction 9 to Southampton Road Retail Park, Park Gate has a predicted increase in traffic flow of approximately 1500 AADT. · Bitterne Road West (A3024), Bullar Road (A3035) and St Denys Road (A3035) has a predicted decrease in traffic flow of up to approximately 2000 AADT. · Minor Roads between Segensworth Roundabout and Gosport · Additional changes in traffic flows at sensitive6 receptor locations have been discussed in Section 5.2.21 and Table 5.13. 5.2.18 The study area is largely determined by total traffic flow changes rather than changes in vehicle speeds or changes in the numbers of Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDVs are a sum of Heavy Good Vehicles and buses) i.e. there are no links triggering the criteria for speed or HDV changes that do not already trigger the overall daily traffic flow criterion. 5.2.19 For the regional air quality assessment the Affected Route Network (ARN) is defined by DMRB as those roads which in the proposed Scheme opening year or design year (+15 years after opening) meet any of the criteria below and are within the traffic reliability area:

5 The TRA defines the subset of traffic data from the traffic model that has been identified as suitable for informing the environmental assessment. 6 Sensitivity of receptors defined in Section Error! Reference source not found.

Page 50 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Daily traffic flows (2-way) would change by 10% AADT or more · HDV flows (2-way) would change by 10% AADT or more · Daily average speed (2-way) would change by 20km/hr or more 5.2.20 Summary information on the change in traffic flow for the principal road links within the study area is shown Appendix A, 5.1. Sensitivity of resources and receptors 5.2.21 The human health sensitive receptors considered as part of the local air quality assessment were identified using Ordnance Survey data and include all sensitive receptors that have a reasonable risk of exceeding an air quality threshold and ecological receptors have been selected in Engagement with the proposed Scheme ecologists and comprise: · Locations where members of the public are likely to be present, such as residential properties, and/or locations where those more vulnerable to the effects of poor air quality, such as the young and the elderly, regularly congregate such as schools, hospitals and care homes within 200m of the ARN · Any designated site such as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or RAMSAR site susceptible to be affected by changes in air quality within 200m of the ARN 5.2.22 Table 5.1 provides a summary of the 74 representative air quality receptors used in the modelling of impacts on human health. For ease of reference, the receptors are grouped into 7 principal geographic groups, based on the closest affected routes (Appendix B, Figure 5-2). The receptors were selected to represent locations where the greatest change in concentration or the highest concentrations are expected. Full details of all receptors can be found in Appendix A, 5.2. Table 5.1: Summary of human health air quality receptors used in the dispersion modelling.

Closest Group No of Description of area, main receptor and Affected Receptors (Colour) Receptors proposed Scheme impacts Route M3 north of Winchester, predominantly rural. A M3 10 R67 – R76 Increase in traffic flow. M3 between junctions 9 and 13, mixed suburban B M3 12 R57 – R66, R77, R78 (Eastleigh, Winchester) and rural area. Increase in traffic flows and some congestion relief. A30535, Southampton, urban / suburban. Decrease in traffic C 5 R21 – R25 A334 flow. M27, west of junction 4, predominantly rural. D M27 4 R3 – R6 Increase in traffic flow. R27 – R35, R40 – R47, M27, east of junction 4, mixed suburban and rural. E M27 26 R51 – R56, R79 – R81 Increase in traffic flow. Fareham and Gosport, urban / suburban. Mixture F A27 4 R48 – R50, R90 of increases and decreases in traffic flow due to traffic re-routing.

Page 51 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Closest Group No of Description of area, main receptor and Affected Receptors (Colour) Receptors proposed Scheme impacts Route Junction 4 of the M27 and receptors along A33, G M27, A33 13 R7 – R18, R20 Bassett Avenue, mixed rural suburban. Increase in traffic flow. 5.2.23 There are 11 designated sites (some overlapping) within 200m of the ARN with features potentially sensitive to air quality impacts, namely: · River Itchen SAC and SSSI · Solent and Southampton Water SPA and RAMSAR (also covering Lee-on- the Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI) · Butter Wood SSSI · Hook Common and Bartley Heath SSSI · Mapledurwell Fen SSSI · Portsdown SSSI · St. Catherine's Hill SSSI · Solent Maritime SAC 5.2.24 The sites are indicated with shading in Appendix B, Figure 5.2. Designated sites are assessed in the dispersion modelling as a series of discrete receptors aligned as a transect extending from the edge of the designated site nearest the road and up to 200m into the site, in order to determine the spatial extent of potential impacts. These transects are also shown in Appendix B, Figure 5.2. Assessment scenarios 5.2.25 The assessment has considered the potential impacts of the proposed Scheme on relevant air quality objectives, and the risk of affecting the UK’s reported compliance with the Air Quality Directive in the shortest possible time. The air quality effects of the proposed Scheme have been assessed using traffic data for the following scenarios: · Baseline (2015) · Opening Year (2021), Do Minimum and Do Something (M27 and M3) · Design Year (2036), Do Minimum, Do Something (M27 and M3) (using 2030 emission rates). The design year is considered within the regional assessment only 5.2.26 The assessment of the design year (2036) scenario is based on the 2036 modelled traffic flows (the worst case within the 15-year period). Vehicle emissions and background air quality data are available to 2030. The assessment for 2036 assumes that there is no improvement in vehicle emission rates or background pollution levels between 2030 and 2036. This provides a conservative estimate of changes in regional emissions. 5.2.27 DMRB guidance sets out the need for “the worst year in the first 15-years from opening” to be assessed. In general, the worst year from opening is the opening year itself, as it is anticipated that improvements in vehicle emission rates would offset the impacts of growth in vehicle numbers over time. As such, for the operational assessment of local air quality, only those results which relate to the proposed

Page 52 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Scheme opening year (2021) are presented in this report. Both the opening and design years are presented for the assessment of regional air quality. Modelling methodology 5.2.28 The modelling methodology seeks to compare future air quality concentrations and emissions, with and without the traffic changes associated with the operation of the proposed Scheme.

5.2.29 This assessment has used a dispersion model called ‘ADMS-Roads’ (version 4.1.1), a PC-based model of dispersion in the atmosphere of pollutants released from road traffic sources, produced and validated by Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants (CERC). Further details relating to the assessment methodology can be found in Appendix A, 5.3.

Assessment of future NOx and NO2 projections 5.2.30 The Defra background pollution maps and vehicle emission factors assume that air quality improves in future years, as older vehicles are replaced with modern cleaner vehicles (amongst others). However, generally, UK monitored roadside and background NO2 concentrations have not declined as would be expected in recent years. This trend is thought to be related to the increased use of modern diesel vehicles, which emit more NOx than expected under urban driving conditions and 7 have higher primary NO2 emissions than petrol vehicles . 5.2.31 IAN 170/12 (v3) provides advice on taking account of the effect of future alternative NO2 projections. The IAN is in response to Defra’s advice on long-term trends that there is a gap between current projected vehicle emission improvements and projections on the annual rate of improvements in ambient air quality as previously published in Defra’s technical guidance.

5.2.32 The assessment of local air quality NO2 effects has been undertaken in accordance with IAN 170/12. The IAN describes 3 potential approaches for future projections of NOx and NO2 and requires professional judgement to be used to determine the most appropriate approach. 5.2.33 Determining the most appropriate approach requires consideration of the following aspects:

· Trends in ambient background and roadside NO2 concentrations in the study area in recent years. · How far in the future the opening year (2021) the proposed Scheme is. This relates to the proportion of vehicles on the road network in the opening year which would be subject to more stringent Euro emission standards and the degree to which national reductions in emissions of NOx (particularly from road transport) can be expected to reduce ambient NO2 concentrations. The ‘interim alternative long-term trend projections’ assumes there is a greater reduction in emissions compared to the ‘long-term trend projections’ due to the expected benefit of Euro 6/VI vehicles entering the fleet.

7 Defra 2016 Trends in NOx and NO2 emissions and ambient measurements in the UK, available online at https://uk- air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat05/1108251149_110718_AQ0724_Final_report.pdf

Page 53 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

5.2.34 The baseline air quality presented in Section 5.4 of this chapter demonstrates that there is an overall slight decreasing trend in annual mean NO2 concentrations in the study area between 2013 and 2016. In addition, considering the opening year is expected to be 2021, there would be an increased uptake of new Euro VI/6 compliant vehicles, which came into force in 2014. Therefore, to Highways England’s ‘interim alternative long-term trend projections’ has been used within the assessment.

5.2.35 It is important to note that the LTTE6 gap analysis factors have been developed based on a precautionary approach, derived by assuming the mid-point between ‘LTT’ and the forecast that would be produced if LTT fully realised the future benefits of Euro 6/VI vehicles (i.e. they fully meet emissions standards). Uncertainty in Euro 6/IV emissions performance is therefore built into LLTE6. Modelling uncertainties 5.2.36 The air quality modelling predictions for the proposed Scheme assessment are based on the most reasonable, robust and representative methodologies, however, associated with these there is an inherent level of uncertainty, primarily as a result of: · Uncertainties with model input parameters such as surface roughness length (defined by land use) and minimum Monin-Obukhov length (used to calculate stability in the atmosphere) · Uncertainties with traffic forecasts · Uncertainties with vehicle emission predictions · Uncertainties with background air quality data · Uncertainties with recorded meteorological data · Simplifications made in the model algorithms or post processing of the data that represent atmospheric dispersion or chemical reactions 5.2.37 In order to best manage these uncertainties, the air quality model has been evaluated using air quality measurements to verify model outputs. This model verification process has been undertaken in line with Defra (2016) guidance in order to manage the uncertainties referred to above. It does this by comparing modelled and monitored pollutant concentrations and if necessary adjusting the model output to account for systematic bias. In addition, IAN 170/12 addresses uncertainty in future NOx and NO2 projections as discussed in Section 5.2.30. 5.2.38 Following the verification process for this proposed Scheme an overall Root Mean Square Error value of less than 10% is achieved. On this basis the modelled results are considered appropriate to allow a robust professional judgement of significance to be determined. The model verification for this proposed Scheme is presented in Appendix A, 5.4. Assessment criteria 5.2.39 UK legislation includes regulations defining limit values and air quality objectives (i.e. thresholds), as outlined in Section 5.3, for the concentration of air pollutants in ambient air. These criteria are set to protect public health and sensitive vegetation / ecosystems. The air quality objectives and limit values relevant to the assessment are summarised in Table 5.2. There are no legislated standards for dust and nitrogen deposition rates.

Page 54 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Table 5.2: Ambient air quality objectives and limit values

Pollutant Averaging Concentration Allowance Attainment Date Period Air Quality EU Limit Values Objectives Nitrogen Annual 40 μg/m3 - 31 December 2005(a) 1 January 2010(c) dioxide 1 Hour 200 μg/m3 18 31 December 2005(a) 1 January 2010(c) (NO2) Particulates Annual 40 μg/m3 - 31 December 2004(a) 1 January 2005(c) (PM10) 24 Hour 50 μg/m3 35 31 December 2004(a) 1 January 2005(c)

(d) 3 (c) NOx Annual 30µg/m - 31 December 2000

Notes: (a) Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 as amended in 2002

(b) Air Quality Strategy 2007 (c) EU Directive 2008/50/EEC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe and The Air Quality Standards

Regulations 2010. Derogations (time extensions) have been agreed by the EU for meeting the NO2 limit values in some zones / agglomerations

(d) Critical level for the protection of vegetation

5.2.40 In addition to the air quality standard for NOx for ecological receptors, presented in Table 5-2, commonly referred to as the ‘critical level’, impacts must also be assessed for nitrogen deposition (Annex F, DMRB HA207/078). The relevant assessment criteria in this case are the critical loads which are defined as:

"a quantitative estimate of exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur according to present knowledge". 5.2.41 Further information on the policy context of the assessment of ecological receptors and details of the designated sites in the study area are provided in Section 6 (Biodiversity) of this Environmental Assessment Report (EAR). 5.2.42 Table 5-3 presents the critical load ranges for the features within the designated sites within 200m of the ARN, as agreed with the proposed Scheme ecologists (taken from Air Pollution Information System (APIS) guidance8). The minimum critical loads within the respective ranges were used for the assessment. Table 5.3: Critical load for nationally designated site in the study area.

Site Most Sensitive Feature Critical Load Range (kgN/har/yr) Northern wet heath 10 - 20 River Itchen SAC, SSSI Neutral grassland 20 - 30 Solent & Southampton Water SPA, RAMSAR; Coastal stable dune grassland 8 - 10 Lee-on-the Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI Butter Wood SSSI Broadleaved mixed and yew woodland 15 – 20 Fen, marsh and swamp 15 – 25 Hook Common and Bartley Heath SSSI Broadleaved mixed and yew woodland 15 – 20 Mapledurwell Fen SSSI Fen, marsh and swamp 15 – 30

8 Air Pollution Information Service, www.apis.ac.uk, last accessed 07/02/2018

Page 55 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Site Most Sensitive Feature Critical Load Range (kgN/har/yr) Portsdown SSSI Calcareous grassland 15 - 25 St. Catherine's Hill SSSI Calcareous grassland 15 - 25 Solent Maritime SAC Saltmarsh habitats, and estuaries –20-30 Portsmouth Harbour SSSI, SPA and Ramsar Bird species 20 - 30

Assessment of significance 5.2.43 In order to evaluate the impacts on local air quality from the operation of the proposed Scheme, the approach set out in IAN 174/13 was followed. 5.2.44 The criteria in Table 5.4 set out the classification of the magnitude of change of annual mean NO2 and PM10. Table 5.4: Classification of the magnitude of change of pollutant concentration and guideline significance criteria

Classification of Change in NO2 or PM10 No. of receptors constituting a significant effect magnitude concentration (μg/m3) Worsening of air quality Improvement of air quality objective already above objective already above objective or creation of new objective or removal of exceedance existing exceedance Large >4 1 to 10 1 to 10 Medium >2 - 4 10 to 30 10 to 30 Small >0.4 - 2 30 to 60 30 to 60 Imperceptible ≤0.4 Not included in judgement of significant air quality effects 5.2.45 IAN 174/13 suggests that receptor locations where concentrations do not exceed the relevant air quality objective (either in the Do Minimum or Do Something scenarios), or where the change in concentration is imperceptible as defined in Table 5.4, would not experience significant effects. Where receptor locations exceed the air quality threshold, the significance of the effect of the proposed Scheme is informed by the numbers of affected receptors and the balance between receptors experiencing beneficial or adverse impacts. IAN 174/13 provides guideline criteria for the numbers of properties that would constitute a significant effect (Table 5.4).

5.2.46 When NOx concentrations are assessed for ecological receptors, if the total concentration is below the objective of 30μg/m3 then significant effects are not 3 anticipated. If NOx concentrations are above 30µg/m but the change in NOx with the proposed Scheme is ≤0.4μg/m3, then effects are also likely to be not significant. Where the objective is exceeded and the impact of the proposed Scheme is >0.4μg/m3, the significance of any effects must be assessed by the proposed Scheme ecologist taking into account changes to nitrogen deposition. 5.2.47 The overall significance of the effects from the proposed Scheme is assessed using professional judgement taking into consideration (but not limited to) the magnitude of changes with the proposed Scheme and the guideline property criteria, whether pollutants other than NO2 need be taken into account, the level of compliance risk (EU limit values), potential effects on designated sites and the effectiveness of any specified mitigation measures.

5.3 Policy and legislation

Page 56 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

European Union 5.3.1 Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe was adopted in May 2008. This Directive defines limit values and times by which they are to be achieved for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by avoiding, reducing or preventing harmful concentrations of air pollutants. 5.3.2 Directive 2008/50/EC sets out that the Limit Values apply everywhere with the exception of: · any locations situated within areas where members of the public do not have access and there is no fixed habitation · in accordance with Article 2(1), on factory premises or at industrial installations to which all relevant provisions concerning health and safety at work apply · on the carriageway of roads; and on the central reservations of roads except where there is normally pedestrian access to the central reservation 5.3.3 Defra assesses and reports on the compliance with the Air Quality Directive for each of the 43 zones and agglomeration across the UK. England Air Quality Legislation 5.3.4 The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 came into force in June 2010; they are responsible for implementing the EU’s Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality for the UK. 5.3.5 Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 requires that every local authority shall periodically carry out a review of air quality within its area, including likely future air quality. As part of this review, the local authority must assess whether air quality objectives are being achieved, or likely to be achieved within the relevant periods. Any parts of a local authority’s area where the objectives are not being achieved, or are not likely to be achieved within the relevant period, must be identified and declared as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Once such a declaration has been made, authorities are under a duty to prepare an Action Plan which sets out measures to pursue the achievement of the air quality objectives within the AQMA. 5.3.6 The air quality objectives specifically for use by local authorities in carrying out their air quality management duties are set out in the Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 and the Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002. 5.3.7 The Air Quality Strategy (AQS) establishes the UK framework for air quality improvements. The air quality objectives in the AQS are a statement of policy intentions and policy targets. As such, there is no legal requirement to meet these objectives, although local authorities are also required to work towards achieving the Air Quality Strategy’s objectives. 5.3.8 The air quality objectives and limit values relevant to the assessment are summarised in Table 5.2. Construction dust

Page 57 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

5.3.9 Section 79(1)(d) of the Environmental Protection Act 19909 defines one type of ‘statutory nuisance’ as “any dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance”. Where a local authority is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, it must serve an abatement notice. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence. However, it is a defence if an operator employs the best practicable means to prevent or to counteract the effects of the nuisance. National Planning Policy Framework 5.3.10 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s planning policies for England. With regard to air quality the Policy states at paragraph 109 that:

“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:… preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability…” 5.3.11 And at paragraph 124 that:

“Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative effects on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.” Local policy 5.3.12 A review of all affected local authorities was undertaken, the following policies were identified as those which may affect the proposed Scheme. Policies cover air quality impacts on both human and ecological receptors. Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2011-2031 5.3.13 Part A of the Hampshire Local Transport Plan10 sets out a long-term vision for the development of the transport network for the next 20 years and includes a policy to deliver improvements in air quality. 5.3.14 Policy E states: “The Transport for South Hampshire authorities will work with key partners, environmental health professionals and transport operators to mitigate the impacts of traffic on air quality. The principal causes of poor air quality will be addressed by implementing a strategic area-wide approach within each urban centre to minimise the cumulative effect of road transport emissions ... Tackling congestion at hotspots can also improve air quality.”

9 Parliament of the United Kingdom (1990) Environmental Protection Act 1990. 10 http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hampshire-ltp-2011-part-a.pdf

Page 58 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Southampton 5.3.15 Southampton has been named as 1 of the 5 Clean Air Zones (CAZ) in the UK under the national Air Quality Plan for Nitrogen Dioxide in UK (2015)11, brought in to improve air quality across the UK and to ensure compliance with the Air Quality Directive. Southampton City Council (SCC) is under the obligation to develop a package of measures as part of their Air Quality Action Plan and CAZ implementation plan to encourage behaviours that support improvements in Air Quality. 5.3.16 SCC has therefore established the CAZ on a voluntary basis in 2017 with an aim to achieve compliance by 2020. The voluntary CAZ consists of a ‘programme of measures to promote and incentivise actions that will reduce emissions’12. The mandatory CAZ, consisting of ‘access restrictions and penalty charging’13 will be introduced in 2019, in line with SCCs duties as set out in the Air Quality Plan15. 5.3.17 At a regional level, SCC’s Local Plan Policy Sustainability Development Principles (SDP) 15 is relevant, where it states: “Planning permission will be refused where the effect of the proposal would contribute significantly to exceeding the National Air Quality Strategy Standards or where the proposal would be materially affected by existing and continuous poor air quality. Large potentially polluting developments will be required to assess their air quality impact by detailed air dispersion modelling and appropriate monitoring.” Eastleigh 5.3.18 Eastleigh Borough Council’s emerging local plan14 states (policy DM8) that: “On the Borough’s coast, the Borough Council will protect the Natura 2000 and Ramsar designations” “Development will not be permitted if it is likely to cause loss of amenity or other unacceptable environmental impacts through i. Air pollution (including odours or particulate emissions).” 5.3.19 In relation to compliance with UK air quality objectives, the emerging plan is aligned with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It states that air quality would be material consideration where development is proposed within and adjacent to AQMA, where the development could give rise to new AQMA and where the development would prevent an air quality action plan being implemented. Test Valley 5.3.20 Test Valley has no declared AQMAs, although there are 3 PCM links which exceed the Limit Value for annual mean NO2 in the proposed Scheme opening year. Test Valley Borough Council’s Local Plan15 states: “Applications for development which are either likely to generate or are sensitive to pollution will require the submission of the relevant assessment based on current guidance and/or best practice.”

11 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/air-quality-plan-for-nitrogen-dioxide-no2-in-uk-2015 12 https://www.southampton.gov.uk/news/article.aspx?id=tcm:63-389484 13 https://www.southampton.gov.uk/news/article.aspx?id=tcm:63-389484 14 https://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy-and-implementation/local-plan 15 http://www.testvalley.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planningpolicy/local-development-framework/dpd

Page 59 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

“Where mitigation measures are proposed the Council will need to be convinced that the proposed measures will be effective with respect to human health, water sources and the wider environment. The provision of these measures should be in place at an early stage of the development.” Fareham Borough Council 5.3.21 Fareham Borough Council’s Core Strategy16 recognises the importance of preserving sites designated for nature conservations and states it would develop and implement a strategic approach to protecting European sites from development including: “mitigation for impacts on air quality due to road traffic, supported by developer contributions where appropriate. Development likely to have an individual or cumulative adverse impact will not be permitted unless the necessary mitigation measures have been secured” (Policy CS4). 5.3.22 Policies CS7, CS12 and CS13 preclude development where it would have an ‘adverse impact’ on air quality. An adverse impact is not defined by the Core Strategy.

5.4 Baseline conditions 5.4.1 The baseline conditions provide a reference level against which any potential changes in air quality can be assessed. In order to identify the existing air quality conditions, a review of the following sources has been undertaken: · Local Air Quality Management Reports undertaken by Southampton City Council (SCC), Eastleigh District Council, Fareham District Council, Portsmouth City Council and Test Valley District Council

· Project-specific NO2 diffusion tube monitoring undertaken by Highways England between August 2013 and August 2014 · National modelling undertaken by Defra using the Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model · Nitrogen deposition and nitrogen oxides modelling provide by the online Air Pollution Information System (APIS) for ecological sites 5.4.2 The ARN and air quality constraints including Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are shown in Appendix B, Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Local air quality management 5.4.3 A number of routes affected by the proposed Scheme (i.e. within the ARN) lie within an AQMA. These include: · Southampton – AQMA No.2 (Bitterne Road West) · Eastleigh – AQMA No. 1 (A335) · Eastleigh – AQMA No. 2 (M3) · Fareham – Portland Street AQMA · Fareham – Gosport Road 5.4.4 All AQMA designations are due to exceedances of the objective for annual mean NO2, and are caused by road transport.

16 http://www.fareham.gov.uk/pdf/planning/CoreStrategyAdopted.pdf

Page 60 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

5.4.5 Automatic (continuous) and diffusion tube monitoring takes place throughout the study area. The majority of monitoring sites are located within, or within the vicinity of, an AQMA and over 40 monitoring sites, including both local authority and scheme specific, are within 100m of the ARN (Appendix B, Figure 5.3). Southampton City Council 5.4.6 Southampton City Council (SCC) undertakes a combination of automatic and passive monitoring of NO2 and PM10 within the city. 5.4.7 During 2015, SCC undertook diffusion tube monitoring at 6 sites within 200m of the local air quality ARN and at 4 sites in 2016 (Table 5.5). Monitored annual mean NO2 concentrations were elevated but only exceeded the AQS objective on Burgess Road (location not on the ARN). Monitored concentrations within the Bitterne Road West AQMA were just below the objective at the roadside of the ARN.

Table 5.5: Southampton City Council diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2)

3 Monitoring Location ID Type Annual Mean NO2 concentration (µg/m )* 2013 2014 2015 2016 N102 – Burgess Road Roadside 33.3 33.3 29.8 33.5 N113 – Bitterne Road Roadside 39.9 37.9 34.9 38.2 N114 – Bitterne Library Roadside 39.7 39.5 32.8 35.9 N137 – Bitterne AMS Roadside 32.7 36.0 25.5** - N138 – Burgess Road Roadside 44.5 49.8 43.8 46.8 N174 – Bitterne Road W Roadside - - 37.6** -

*Bold indicates exceedance AQS Objective for NO2 ** Annual data capture below 75%, results have been annualised. 5.4.8 Automatic monitoring was undertaken at 3 sites across the City in 2015. However, none of these monitors are located within 200m the ARN. Test Valley Borough Council 5.4.9 Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) undertook diffusion tube monitoring at 17 sites during 2016. Of these sites, 3 are within 200m of the local air quality ARN. These locations are all within 50m of the M27 / M3 junction. Measured annual mean NO2 concentrations at these sites are below the objective as presented in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Test Valley Borough Council diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2)

3 Monitoring Location ID Type Annual mean NO2 concentration (µg/m ) 2013 2014 2015 2016 CHIL12 – Chilworth Rd Roadside 26.0 24.9 23.5 23.3 CHIL13 – Winchester Rd Intermediate(*) 28.0 28.0 25.5 33.5 CHIL14 – Braken Place Intermediate 35.1 37.7 30.9 34.5

*Intermediate specified by Test Valley Borough Council. Assumed to describe a location between roadside and suburban as defined by Defra’s LAQM Technical Guidance 2016. Eastleigh Borough Council 5.4.10 In 2016, Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) undertook monitoring at 50 sites across the borough. Ten of these sites are within 200m of the ARN. These sites are all within 100m of the M3, with the exception of Upper Northam Close which is 90m from the

Page 61 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

M27. Only 1 site measured exceedances of the annual mean NO2 AQS objective in 2016 (LR13 – Leigh Road approximately 85m west of the M3 at a signalised junction). This site measured annual mean NO2 concentrations below the objective in 2015. This monitoring location is within Eastleigh AQMA No.1 (A335) (Table 5.7). Monitored concentrations at Urban Background concentrations (within residential areas of Eastleigh) are below the air quality objective.

Table 5.7: EBC Diffusion Tube Monitoring Data (NO2)

3 Monitoring Location ID Type Annual mean NO2 concentration (µg/m )* 2013 2014 2015 2016 LR13 – Leigh Road Roadside 47.8 50.0 38.0 43.6 BEL – Belmont Road Urban Background 30.0 31.9 24.7 26.5 UNC – Upper Northam Close Urban Background 29.1 29.5 28.3 29.2 SC(A) – Steele Close Urban Background - - 25.2 25.8 SC(B) – Steele Close Urban Background - - 24.3 25.2 SC(C) – Steele Close Urban Background - - 25 26.0 MC – Medina Close Urban Background 31.1 33.2 24.7 27.6 CC – Chestnut Close Roadside 31.0 33.5 26.5 28.6 WA – Woodside Avenue Roadside 38.0 40.2 34.1 35.9 OX – Oxburgh Close Urban Background 23.8 24.2 19.9 22.0

*Bold indicates exceedance AQS Objective for NO2 Fareham & Gosport Borough Councils 5.4.11 Fareham and Gosport Borough Councils monitored air quality at 23 sites within 200m of the local air quality ARN. 5.4.12 Table 5.8 shows that 5 sites measured concentrations above the AQS objective in 2015. Exceedances of the objective occurred both inside and outside the Fareham AQMAs but all concentrations reduced below the AQS objective in 2016 and is noted in the 2017 Air Quality Annual Status Report produced by Fareham Borough Council. Table 5.8: Fareham and Gosport Borough Councils diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2)

3 Monitoring Location ID Type Annual mean NO2 Concentration (µg/m )* 2013 2014 2015 2016

AQ8A – Botley Road Suburban - 27.8 29.8 24.9 BL1 – Bath Lane Roadside 38.5 40.8 40.5 35.7 G1A – Old Gosport Rd Roadside 33.5 35.8 35.8 30.1 G2A – Gosport Road Roadside 32.1 34.1 33.5 27.9 G3 – Gosport Road Roadside 30.8 33.6 31.9 28.9 G4 – Gosport Road Roadside 29.2 32.2 31.5 25.5 G6 – Gosport Road Roadside 35.9 37.4 36.2 30.2 G7 – Gosport Road Roadside 40.1 46.2 45.2 36.0 G8Z – Gosport Road Roadside 33.4 34.3 30.8 27.4 G10 – Gosport Road Roadside 40.5 40.4 41.7 35.5

Page 62 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

G11 – 2 Earles Road Roadside 29.6 29.0 31.3 25.2 G12 – Gosport Road Roadside 37.4 42.2 38.2 32.8 G14 – Beaconsfield Rd Other 36.6 37.0 34.8 30.4 HR2 – Hartlands Rd Roadside 34.0 34.3 33.1 27.1 HR3A – Hartlands Rd Roadside 29.5 30.2 29.0 23.6 HR4 – Hartlands Rd Roadside 31.7 33.8 33.0 29.5 PS1/1A/1B – Sentinel Cott. Roadside 37.0 38.7 37.2 31.9 PS2 – Sentinel Cottages Roadside 36.0 41.3 38.1 35.5 PS3 – Portland Street Roadside 41.6 46.0 40.6 33.6 PS4/5/6 – Portland St Roadside 34.8 40.2 42.9 36.6 E1/2/3 – Gosport Rd Roadside 36.9 39.6 39.2 31.2 RM1 – Runnymede Roadside 29.5 29.5 29.6 25.7 GR/RL – Gosport Rd Roadside 28.4 28.6 26.7 22.5

*Bold indicates exceedance AQS Objective for NO2 Winchester City Council 5.4.13 In 2016, Winchester City Council (WCC) undertook monitoring at 36 sites across the district. Four of these sites are within the ARN along the M3. None of these tubes measured exceedances of the AQS objective (Table 5.9).

Table 5.9: Winchester City Council diffusion tube monitoring data (NO2)

(*) 3 Monitoring Location ID Type Annual Mean NO2 Concentration (µg/m )* 2013 2014 2015 2016 Site 2 (District Study) M3 35.2 28.8 28.5 29.4 Site 3 (District Study) A34 28.0 24.3 25.5 25.5 Site 4 (District Study) Roadside 37.3 30.1 30.1 33.8 Site 8 (District Study) M27 29.9 23.7 21.8 22.6 *Type has been defined by Winchester City Council and are representative of roadside concentrations from the respective road or motorway. Summary of Local Authority monitoring 5.4.14 With the exception of WCC, exceedances of the air quality objectives were monitored in the period 2013 to 2016 in all local authorities within 200m of the local air quality study area / ARN. 5.4.15 There is little evidence that the exceedances are associated with either the M27 or M3 motorways. Rather, the majority of the exceedances occur on heavily trafficked local roads where there is potential exposure close to the roadside. 5.4.16 Overall, the monitoring data presented in the tables above demonstrate that there is a slight decreasing trend in NO2 concentrations between 2013 and 2016. Highways England air quality monitoring 5.4.17 A scheme specific diffusion tube monitoring survey was undertaken at 102 locations in the vicinity of the proposed Scheme. The survey was carried out by Highways England (August 2013 – August 2014). The monitoring sites, illustrated in Appendix B, Figure 5.3, were located to indicate pollutant exposure at existing receptors in the

Page 63 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

area. Eighty of these sites were within 200m of the ARN. The monitored results are presented in Appendix A, 5.5.

5.4.18 Concentrations exceed the air quality objective for annual mean NO2 at 10 locations within 200m of the ARN. Exceedances occur in the vicinity of the M27 / M3 junction 4, M3 in Eastleigh, M27 in the vicinity of junction 12 and on the A27. The maximum recorded concentration was 49.4µg/m3 at HE4 in 2015, on the A27 approaching the Fareham Portland Street AQMA. 5.4.19 The Highways England monitoring survey and local authority monitoring are broadly consistent, despite being undertaken in different years, but there are some locations where concentrations are markedly different at locations of similar exposure. For example, both HE67 and the EBC Medina Close sites represent points of similar exposure (both urban background sites set back from the M3 by approximately 40m), but monitored concentrations differ by 9.5µg/m3 in 2015 (34.1 µg/m3, 24.7µg/m3 respectively). Although there is some discrepancy both sets of data show the concentrations are below the air quality objectives and not at locations sensitive to changes in air quality caused by the proposed Scheme. Defra pollution climate mapping 5.4.20 The Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model is used by Defra, in combination with monitoring data, for the assessment of compliance with EU limit values. Compliance information is reported within 43 zones and urban agglomerations across the UK.

5.4.21 The PCM modelled NO2 concentrations are taken from the latest 2015 base data and are available from Defra’s UK-Air website17. The data indicates maximum roadside annual mean NO2 concentrations from roads which form the compliance risk road network (CRRN) for this Scheme. The CRRN includes roads that trigger the local ARN criteria and overlay links contained within the PCM model. Table 5.10 presents the CRRN links within the air quality study area that exceed or at risk of exceeding the EU limit value in the opening year. Table 5.10: PCM links contained within the CRRN at risk of exceeding

PCM Road 2015 NO2 2021 NO2 PCM Link PCM Compliance Zones Link (μg/m3) (μg/m3) Projected Zone/Agglomeration Compliance Projected Compliance Year Year 16270 A27 50.5 40.1 2022 2028 Portsmouth Urban Area 2023 South-East; 28018 M27 52.6 40.6 2022 Southampton 2023 South-East; 38107 M27 55.0 43.7 2023 Southampton 2028 Southampton Urban 75259 M27 51.7 41.2 2022 Area 5.4.22 Projected data for 2021 for all PCM links in the study area are shown in Appendix B, Figure 5.4; the maximum concentration on any PCM road link within the study area is 43.7μg/m3 in 2021, in exceedance of the limit value (PCM link 38107, M27 junction 4). This link has the highest concentration in the south-east zone in the proposed Scheme opening year of 2021. These future concentrations, predicted by the PCM

17 https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/no2ten/index

Page 64 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

model, do not take account of the measures set out by Defra in their 2017 Air Quality Plan (including the Southampton Clean Air Zone). 5.4.23 It should be noted that the impact of congestion at junctions is not considered in the PCM which may, as a result, not represent localised air pollution levels. The data does, however, indicate that NO2 concentrations within 4m of free-flowing sections of the M27 are high and liable to exceedance of the EU limit value. Defra background mapping

5.4.24 Defra provides estimates of background pollution concentrations for NOX, NO2 and PM10 across the UK for each 1km grid square, for every year from 2013 to 2030. Future year projections, used within this assessment, have been developed on the 2013 base year for the background maps. The maps include a breakdown of background concentrations by emission source, including road and industrial sources which have been calibrated against 2013 UK monitoring data. This data can be used to provide specific background pollutant concentrations at receptors included within the assessment and to supplement local monitoring data. 5.4.25 Table 5.11: A shows a summary of the background data for the assessment years 2015 (assessment baseline), 2021 (opening year). Background concentrations are currently below the air quality objectives for the protection of human health and ecological receptor for all pollutants. It is predicted that they would improve over time due to a reduction in emissions from all emission sources and sectors, both in the UK and in Europe. 5.4.26 Appendix A, 5.9 presents the Defra background pollutant concentrations applied to each grid square. NOx concentrations have been sector removed following Defra LAQM TG16 guidance to avoid double counting of emissions. Table 5.11: Annual mean background pollutant concentrations (μg/m3) used within the assessment. Taken from Defra mapped data for 2015, and 2021

Year Nitrogen dioxide NO2 Nitrogen oxides NOx Particulate matter PM10 Objective 40 μg/m3 30 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 Total pollutant concentrations (µg/m3) 2015 13.3 – 26.9 18.3 – 42.1 17.0-13.1 2021 9.8 – 22.1 13.2 – 33.7 16.1-12.4 Concentrations with road contribution removed (µg/m3) 2015 - 13.4 – 38.5 16.0-13.0 2021 - 10.1- 33.3 15.4-12.3 Sites designated for nature conservation 5.4.27 Table 5.12 shows the baseline nitrogen deposition for the sites designated for nature conservation in the study area. The data are taken from the Air Pollution Information Service (APIS)18 as the average deposition within the 5km x 5km resolution mapped deposition data provided for the period 2013 to 2015. 5.4.28 Baseline (2015) deposition exceeds the minimum of the critical load range for the most sensitive habitats for each of the sites. As per advice in DMRB, the background deposition rate is reduced by 2% per annum (straight line basis) to account for

18 www.apis.ac.uk

Page 65 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

reduction in emissions of NOx over time across all sectors. By 2021, the deposition rate has decreased but only over Portsdown SSSI has the deposition rate decreased to an extent that it is below the lower range of the critical load. 5.4.29 This data is used in the assessment of total deposition for the proposed Scheme. Table 5.12: Baseline nitrogen deposition over designated sites in the study area.

Site Most sensitive feature Critical load Background Background range (kgN/haryr) deposition deposition 2015 2021 (kgN/ha/yr) (kgN/ha/yr) Northern wet heath 10 - 20 16.94 14.91 River Itchen SAC, SSSI Neutral grassland 20 - 30 18.34 16.14 Solent & Southampton Water SPA, RAMSAR; Coastal stable dune 8 - 10 15.82 13.92 Lee-on-the Solent to grassland Itchen Estuary SSSI Broadleaved mixed and Butter Wood SSSI 15 – 20 28.98 25.50 yew woodland Fen, marsh and swamp 15 – 25 18.20 16.02 Hook Common and Broadleaved mixed and Bartley Heath SSSI 15 – 20 28.98 25.50 yew woodland Mapledurwell Fen SSSI Fen, marsh and swamp 15 – 30 18.48 16.26 Portsdown SSSI Calcareous grassland 15 - 25 15.54 13.68 St. Catherine's Hill SSSI Calcareous grassland 15 - 25 18.20 16.02 Saltmarsh habitats, and Solent Maritime SAC 8 - 10 15.68 13.80 estuaries Portsmouth Harbour SSSI, Bird species 20 - 30 14.84 13.06 SPA and Ramsar

5.5 Design mitigation Construction It is expected that construction works would be carried out in accordance with the Best Practicable Means, as described in Section 79 (9) of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990, to reduce fumes or emission which many impact upon air quality. This could include but not be limited to the following mitigation measures that would be included within the OEMP. Site management · Records of dust and air quality complaints to be kept, including likely causes and mitigation measures to reduce impacts if appropriate · Keep site perimeter, fences etc. clean · Undertake daily on-site and off-site visual inspections, where receptors (including roads) are nearby. This should include regular dust soiling checks of watercourses and surfaces such as watercourses, street furniture, cars and window sills within 100 metres of site boundary, with cleaning to be provided if necessary. A log of inspection results is to be kept, and the log made available to the local authority when asked.

Page 66 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

· Increase the frequency of site inspections by the person accountable for air quality and dust issues on site when activities with a high potential to produce dust are being carried out and during prolonged dry or windy conditions. · Visual inspections may need to be supplemented by automatic monitoring of PM10 if the risk of impacts increases e.g. during prolonged dry weather Site planning · Consideration of weather conditions, dust generating potential of material to be excavated prior to commencement of works · Plan site layout to maximise distance from plant / stockpiles etc. to sensitive receptors · Dusty materials should be removed from site as soon as possible Construction traffic · Loads entering and leaving the site with dust generating potential should be covered and wheel washing facilities made available · No idling of vehicles · Vehicles to comply with site speed limits (15mph on hard surfaces, 10mph on unconsolidated surfaces) · Water assisted sweeping of local roads to be undertaken if material tracked out of site · Install hard surfacing as soon as practicable on site and ensure that they are maintained in good condition Site activities · Exposed soils should be protected from winds until sealed or re-vegetated · Minimise dust generating activities, particularly near residential receptors / sensitive ecosystems during prolonged dry, dusty weather unless damping / other suppressants are used · Ensure an adequate water supply to site and use water as dust suppressant where applicable · Ensure any site machinery is well maintained and in full working order · Sand and aggregates should be stored away from sensitive receptors and screened / shielded. Similarly concrete batching should take place away from receptors Operation

5.5.1 The assessment of effects and significance of the proposed Scheme on air quality, (presented in Section 5.6 and 5.7) demonstrates that it does not have a significant air quality impact and nor does it affect reported compliance with the Air Quality Directive and therefore mitigation during operation is not required.

5.6 Assessment of effects

Page 67 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

Construction 5.6.1 Air Quality impacts due to construction would be temporary, and typically include an increase in emissions of dust from earthworks and general construction activity and the presence of heavy construction related traffic. 5.6.2 Different phases of the construction would require more construction movements than others. A total of 70 vehicles per day is an average flow (based on total HDV movements and number of days required for the main construction works) across the construction period. However, approximately 75% of the existing drainage network condition is unknown. Should a major overhaul of the drainage network be required, drainage works in conjunction with emergency area (EA) and gantries may cause construction vehicle movements to slightly exceed 200 HDV per day at the very peak of activity for a short period. However, annual average construction vehicle movements across the duration of the construction phase are not expected to meet the criteria for assessment described in section 5.2.14 and are considered to be small compared to existing flows on the M3. Therefore, potential effects from the proposed Scheme’s construction traffic do not meet the qualifying criteria for assessment, as presented in, section 5.2.14 and set out in HA207/07, and have therefore not been assessed further. 5.6.3 Traffic management is expected to be in force on the M3 throughout the duration of the construction phase. The nature and duration of traffic management is dependent on the section of works being undertaken. These could include road closures, lane closures, narrow lanes and low speeds, often reduced to speeds of 50 miles per hour[1]. 5.6.4 Where road closures and or lane closures are required, works would be undertaken on a Sunday night to cause minimum disruption and traffic rerouting. During road closures, traffic could be diverted on to the AXX, AXX and AXX. As the air quality objectives of key concern are based on an annual mean average, the diversion of traffic for short time periods would not cause a significant change in pollutant concentrations and have therefore not be considered further. 5.6.5 The proposed traffic management is likely to result in vehicles travelling at a constant free flow speed of 50 miles per hour with fewer speed variations compared to normal operation. The free flow speed coupled with a reduction in speed limit from 70 miles per hour to 50 miles per hour is likely to cause a reduction in vehicle emissions which would benefit air quality. 5.6.6 Whilst the potential for impacts from construction works exists, the application of the Best Practicable Means, highlighted in the previous section, would ensure any effects are not significant and the proposed Scheme would not trigger a statutory nuisance. Operation - local air quality Human receptors

5.6.7 The details below relate to modelled annual mean NO2 results following model verification and gap analysis using LTTE6. This is a conservative approach. Results for all receptors, following model verification and gap analysis using LLTE6 are presented in Appendix A, 5.6.

[1] Source: Skanska buildability contractors

Page 68 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

5.6.8 Concentrations of PM10 do not exceed the relevant objectives and impacts on concentrations of PM10 by the proposed Scheme are imperceptible at all receptors in all scenarios. Therefore, PM10 has not been considered further.

5.6.9 Table 5.13 presents the modelled annual mean NO2 results above the air quality objective and receptors with the greatest annual mean NO2 concentrations coupled with the greatest increases and decreases. Receptor locations are presented in Appendix B, Figure 5.2. Table 5.13 also presents the changes in traffic flows associated with each receptor and the distance from the road.

5.6.10 There are no receptors where predicted annual mean NO2 concentrations are above the air quality objective of 40µg/m3 and experience an increase in concentration. 5.6.11 In the proposed Scheme opening year (2021), the majority of receptors experience an imperceptible change in air quality (impacts <=1% of the objective, 62 out of 74 modelled receptors) in comparison to the Do Minimum scenario. Air quality is predicted to worsen at 7 receptors, however, predicted annual mean NO2 concentrations in both the Do Minimum and Do Something are below the annual mean objective at all 7 of these receptors.

5.6.12 Receptor 62 has the highest predicted Do Minimum and Do Something NO2 concentration increasing from 33.4µg/m3 to 33.9µg/m3. This receptor is located approximately 30m east of the centre of M3 which has a traffic increase of approximately 8,900 AADT of which 350 are HDVs. This is partially offset by a change from light congestion to free flow in the PM peak period. 3 5.6.13 Receptor R58 has the greatest predicted change in NO2 concentrations of 0.7µg/m from 28.2µg/m3 in the opening year Do Minimum to 28.9µg/m3 in the opening year Do Something. This receptor is located approximately 50m east from the centre of the M3 and has a traffic increase of approximately 5,800 AADT of which 440 are HDVs. At this location the northbound M3 carriageway (located approximately 60m from R58) has a speed band change from free flow to light congestion in the AM period. Additionally, this receptor is located 24m east of the centre of the M3 to M27 slip road which has a traffic increase of approximately 940 AADT and a decrease of 60 HDVs. The distance from the M3 carriageway reduces both the total NO2 concentrations and the impact of the proposed Scheme at the façades of the receptor. 5.6.14 Air quality is predicted to improve at 5 receptors. Of these receptors, only R21 is above the annual mean NO2 objective in both the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios and experiences a change greater than 0.4µg/m3. The other 5 receptors are all below the annual mean NO2 objective in both the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios, noting that a concentration of 40µg/m3 (as predicted at R23 in the Do Minimum opening year scenario) is not considered to be an exceedance of the annual mean NO2 objective. 5.6.15 R21 is located approximately 1.5m from the edge of Deny Road (A3035) and approximately 5m from its centre. This close proximity, in addition to a Do-Minimum 2- way traffic flow of approximately 46,800 AADT, of which 1,100 are HDVs, is the likely cause of the modelled annual mean NO2 exceedance. The decrease in 2-way traffic flows of approximately 1,500 AADT, of which 10 are HDVs, coupled with the close proximity to the road is the likely cause of the small reduction in annual mean NO2 concentrations. The predicted annual mean NO2 concentration remains above the objective in both the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios.

Page 69 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

5.6.16 R22 and R23 are predicted to have decreases of 0.5 and 0.6µg/m3 respectively and both have concentrations below the annual mean NO2 objective in both the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios. 3 5.6.17 R24 has a predicted NO2 concentration of 44.7µg/m in the Do Minimum scenario, exceeding the annual mean NO2 objective. At this location the proposed Scheme causes a reduction of 0.3µg/m3 and is therefore imperceptible.

Table 5.13: Annual mean NO2 results at receptors above the air quality objective and at receptors with the greatest annual mean NO2 concentrations coupled with the greatest increases or decreases year 2021.

Receptor Base Do Do Change in Commentary ID (2015) Minimum Something concentration (2021) (2021)

Increases in annual mean NO2 52m north of the M27 which has an increase of approximately 6,900 vehicles per day of which 380 are HDVs. R79 27.5 22.2 22.8 0.6 At this location the carriageway closest to the receptor (southbound) changes from light congestion to free flow in the opening year PM period. 49m east the M3 carriageway which has an increase of approximately 5,800 vehicles per day of which 440 are HDVs. 24m east the M3 to M27 slip road which has an increase of approximately 940 R58 34.8 28.2 28.9 0.7 vehicles per day and a decrease of 60 HDVs per day. At this location the M3 carriageway furthest from the receptor (northbound) changes from free flow to light congestion in the opening year IP period. 31m east of the M3 which has an increase of approximately 8,900 vehicles per day of R62 39.7 33.4 33.9 0.5 which 350 are HDVs and partially offset by congestion relief.

Decreases in annual mean NO2 5m north of Deny Road (A3035) which has R21 54.5 44.9 44.2 -0.7 a decrease of approximately 1500 vehicles per day of which 10 are HDVs. 10m north of Cobden Avenue (A3035) which has a decrease of approximately R22 46.2 37.8 37.3 -0.5 1,500 vehicles per day of which 10 are HDVs. 9m east of Buller Road (A3035) which has R23 48.8 40.0 39.4 -0.6 a decrease of approximately 1,500 vehicles per day of which 10 are HDVs. 7m south of Bitterne Road West which has R24 55.2 44.7 44.4 -0.3 a decrease of approximately 1,100 vehicles per day of which 20 are HDVs. Ecological receptors 5.6.18 The complete set of modelled results for ecological receptors is provided in Appendix A, 5.7. The details below relate to modelled annual mean NOx and nitrogen deposition

Page 70 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorway Environmental Assessment Report

results following model verification and gap analysis using LTTE6. This is a conservative approach.

5.6.19 The proposed Scheme (in combination with the M27) increases NOx concentrations on the section of the River Itchen SAC and SSSI crossing the M27 and M3, and on St Catherine’s Hill SSSI adjacent to the M3. Potentially perceptible impacts (>0.4μg/m3) where total pollutant concentrations exceed the objective occur to a maximum distance of 75m from the roadside over the River Itchen SAC and SSSI, and up to 15m from the road over St Catherine’s Hill. 5.6.20 The proposed Scheme (in combination with the M27) is predicted to result in an increase in nitrogen deposition greater than 1% of the critical load at the River Itchen SAC and SSSI at transect RIW2 located where the River Itchen crosses the M3 approximately 600m north of M3 junction 11. The project ecologist has confirmed that there are no sensitive habitats present where the impact is greater than 1% of the critical load at RIW2. 5.6.21 At all other locations, the proposed Scheme results in an increase in deposition levels amounting to less than 1% of the minimum critical load. 5.6.22 The project ecologist has therefore concluded that it was unlikely that the proposed Scheme would cause a significant effect on ecology.

5.6.23 A summary of NOx impacts is shown in Table 5.14; Nitrogen deposition impacts are shown in Table 5.15.

Page 71 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 5.14: Ecological impact of the proposed Scheme at designated sites for the opening year 2021

3 NOX concentrations (μg/m ) Distance from road Change with with change Tran- proposed >0.4μg/m3 and Total Designated Site sect Base Do Minimum Do Something Scheme >30μg/m3 Commentary Transect on M27; Increase due to an 60m from edge of increase in traffic flow of River Itchen SAC/SSSI RIW1 70.7 52.1 55.4 3.3 inside lane approximately 7,500 vehicles per day. Transect on M3; Increase due to an 75m from edge of increase in traffic flow of RIW2 123.2 94.5 103.4 8.9 inside lane approximately 9,000 vehicles per day. 30m from edge of RIW5 72.7 53.4 54.3 0.9 Transect on A34. River Itchen SSSI carriageway 15m from edge of RIW6 46.1 34.2 35.0 0.8 Transect on A33. carriageway 25m from edge of RIW7 62.3 49.9 51.2 1.4 Transect on M3. carriageway Solent and Southampton Water RAMSAR/SPA & Lee- LSY1 45.7 33.2 33.2 0.0 Imperceptible change Transect on A3024. on-the Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI Transect on M3; Increase due to 15m from edge of increase in traffic of approximately St. Catherine's Hill SSSI STV1 69.4 53.4 55.1 1.7 inside lane 8500 vehicles a day and is partially offset by congestion relief. Butter Wood SSSI BUV1 59.0 47.8 48.1 0.3 Imperceptible change Transect on M3 Hook Common and Bartley Imperceptible change HOV1 46.1 36.8 37.0 0.2 Transect on M3 (Grassland) Heath SSSI Hook Common and Bartley Imperceptible change HOV2 57.8 47.6 48.0 0.4 Transect on M3 (Woodland) Heath SSSI Mapledurwell Fen SSSI MAV1 29.7 22.4 22.4 0.0 Imperceptible change Transect on M3

Page 72 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

3 NOX concentrations (μg/m ) Distance from road Change with with change Tran- proposed >0.4μg/m3 and Total Designated Site sect Base Do Minimum Do Something Scheme >30μg/m3 Commentary Portsdown SSSI POV1 62.5 46.5 46.7 0.2 Imperceptible change Transect on M27 Imperceptible change Transect on M27; the M27 is Solent Maritime SAC SOMA1 39.7 29.1 29.1 0.0 approximately 8m above the SAC

3 NOx concentrations are quoted in µg/m for the point of maximum impact on the transect. Where an ‘imperceptible change’ is quoted as the ‘distance from the road with no change >0.4µg/m3 and Total >30µg/m3’, the impact is <0.4µg/m3 at all distances from the road.

Table 5.15: Ecological impact of the proposed Scheme at designated sites for the opening year 2021

Nitrogen deposition (kgN/ha/yr) Change with proposed Scheme Change expressed as a Distance from with percentage of road with change Tran- Do Do proposed minimum critical >0.4μg/m3 and Designated Site sect Base Minimum Something Scheme load Total >30μg/m3 Commentary

N/A. Deposition exceeds Minimum critical load is River Itchen SAC/SSSI RIW1 19.3 16.8 16.9 0.1 1% critical load over all 10kgN/ha/yr; transects on both sites but Transect on M27 impact is <=1% of the critical load at the most Minimum critical load is RIW2 22.6 19.8 20.1 0.3 3% affected location with the 10kgN/ha/yr; exception of RIW2. Transect on M3 Minimum critical load is River Itchen SSSI RIW5 21.0 18.3 18.4 0.1 1% The project ecologist 10kgN/ha/yr; confirmed that there are Transect on A34 no sensitive habitats present where the impact Minimum critical load is RIW6 19.9 17.4 17.5 0.1 1% is greater than 1% of the 10kgN/ha/yr; critical load at RIW2. Transect on A33

Page 73 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Nitrogen deposition (kgN/ha/yr) Change with proposed Scheme Change expressed as a Distance from with percentage of road with change Tran- Do Do proposed minimum critical >0.4μg/m3 and Designated Site sect Base Minimum Something Scheme load Total >30μg/m3 Commentary Minimum critical load is RIW7 19.6 17.3 17.3 0.0 0% 10kgN/ha/yr; Transect on M3 Minimum critical load is St. Catherine's Hill SSSI STV1 20.6 18.1 18.2 0.1 <1% 15kgN/ha/yr; Transect on M3

Nitrogen deposition is provided in kgN/ha/yr at the point of maximum impact on the transect. Data shown for sites with a non-negligible increase in NOx concentrations only Results have been rounded to the nearest 1 decimal place Percentages have been rounded up to the nearest interger

Page 74 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Operation - regional air quality 5.6.24 At a regional level, both the proposed Scheme results in a decrease in emissions of CO2 and NOx and PM10 (Table 5.16). This is due to the diversion of traffic onto the M27 and the M3. The variation in changes between pollutants illustrates that the impact is a small fraction of total emissions and reflects the different responses of vehicle pollutant emissions to changes in speed. Table 5.16: Regional air quality impacts for carbon dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide for the proposed Scheme

Scenario CO2 NOx PM10 Mass Mass Mass Change Change Change (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) Base 642 - 3934 - 114 -0.6

Do Minimum 2021 644 2274 104 -4.1 -21.3 -0.6 Do Something 2021 640 2253 104

Do Minimum 2036 1197 1674 119 -6.9 -22.1 -0.9 Do Something 2036 1187 1652 118

Operation- EU limit value compliance 5.6.25 The compliance risk assessments, following IAN 175/13 are provided in Appendix A, 5.8. 5.6.26 There are 4 PCM links within the local air quality study area (within 200m of the ARN) that exceed the EU limit value for annual mean NO2. The links exceeding the objective occur on the M27, most notably in the vicinity of junction 4 and the M3 interchange. 5.6.27 The impacts of the proposed Scheme at the closest receptors to the links in exceedance of the limit value (excluding locations within 25m of major road. junctions, as per the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive) are imperceptible in all cases. 5.6.28 As such, the proposed Scheme is a low risk in relation to EU limit value compliance.

5.7 Assessment of significance 5.7.1 Table 5.17 presents the number of properties within each magnitude of change category for the proposed Scheme.

Page 75 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 5.17: Local air quality receptors informing proposed Scheme significance

Magnitude of change Total number of modelled receptors (properties represented by modelled (guideline number of receptors) properties constituting a Worsening of air quality above Improvement of air quality above significant impact, IAN objective / new exceedance (2021) objective / removal of exceedance 174/13) (2021) Large (1 to 10) 0 0 Medium (10 to 30) 0 0 Small (30 to 60) 0 1(*) *Additional properties exist in this area but have not been explicitly included in the modelling assessment as the total number of properties would not be high enough to change the assessment of significance. 5.7.2 Table 5.18 presents the overall evaluation of local air quality significance for the proposed Scheme, and the basis of the conclusion that the proposed Scheme’s local air quality effects are not significant. Table 5.18: IAN 174/13 key significance criteria and commentary for the proposed Scheme

Key Criteria Questions Yes/No Evidence in support of professional judgement (IAN 174/13, Table 3.1)

Exceedances of annual mean NO2 objective occur in the Opening Year both with and without the proposed Scheme at non-motorway receptors. Changes in annual mean NO2 concentrations caused by the proposed Scheme are Is there a risk that either decreases or are imperceptible at receptors where the annual mean environmental standards Yes NO2 objective is exceeded. would be breached? PCM model outputs indicate exceedances of limit value along the M27 – proposed Scheme impacts are imperceptible along exceedance links (low compliance risk).

All impacts are small improvements or imperceptible. Potential to improve NO2 concentrations in the Bitterne AQMA. 2016 NO2 monitoring showed NO2 Would there be a large concentrations were just below the relevant objective in the Bitterne AQMA change in environmental No adjacent to the ARN. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed Scheme conditions? would not cause enough small improvements to cause a significant air quality effect. Would the effect Impacts are small in magnitude indicating likely return to pre-scheme No continue for a long time? concentrations is within guideline of 6 years. No as there are no predicted small, medium or large increases in annual mean Would many people be NO2 concentrations. No affected? A small decrease in annual mean NO2 is predicted at a single receptor (R21) only. Is there a risk that designated sites, areas, No This is the conclusion of the scheme ecologist based on modelled impacts. or features would be affected? Would it be difficult to avoid, or reduce or N/A No mitigation considered necessary since no significant effects predicted. repair or compensate for the effect? On Balance is the Overall Effect No Significant

Page 76 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report Summary of effects and conclusions 5.7.3 The summary of operational and construction effects is outlined in Table 5.19, below. Table 5.19: Summary of operational and construction effects

Aspect Proposed Scheme Mitigation The proposed Scheme results in both adverse and beneficial air quality impacts. The majority of receptors experience an imperceptible change in air quality (impacts <=1% of the objective, 62 out of 74 modelled receptors) in comparison to the Do Minimum scenario. Air quality is predicted to worsen at 7 receptors, however, predicted annual mean NO2 concentrations in both the Do Minimum and Do Something are below the annual mean objective at all 7 of these receptors. The changes in air quality is a result of the redistribution of traffic from roads within urban No significant effects anticipated and low Operation areas, (where beneficial impacts are modelled) to risk of affecting compliance with the Air the M27 and the M3 and associated access roads Quality Directive so no mitigation required (where adverse impacts occur). The air quality impacts of the increase in traffic on the M27 and the M3 are, in places, partially off-set by the effects of congestion relief. The maximum impacts of the proposed Scheme is small beneficial in magnitude and the number of properties affected is low. The proposed Scheme is a low risk in relation to impacts on EU limit value compliance. No mitigation is required. The proposed Scheme results in a risk of impacts from construction. With the rigorous application of best practice mitigation measures, including visual No site specific mitigation (beyond Construction monitoring of dust emissions and monitoring of standard best practice) required. dust soiling of roads, street furniture and window sills within 100m of the site boundary, no significant effects are likely.

Page 77 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report 6. Cultural heritage

Key features for this topic: · During construction, the proposed Scheme would have temporary slight adverse effects on the settings of 5 designated heritage assets · As a result of construction, the Proposed Scheme would have a slight permanent adverse effect on the settings of 4 designated heritage assets · The construction of the proposed compound area would likely truncate / remove unknown archaeological remains (if present), resulting in a permanent slight adverse effect · During operation, the proposed Scheme would have slight permanent adverse effects on the settings of nine designated heritage assets

6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 This chapter presents the assessment of effects the proposed Scheme would have on known and potential cultural heritage assets within the study area. This includes both designated and undesignated heritage assets. 6.1.2 This chapter follows on from the M3 junction 9 to 14 Environmental Scoping Report which assessed all designated heritage assets within 1 kilometre of the proposed Scheme to determine which of these were at risk of effects from the proposed Scheme. The Scoping Report found that 9 designated heritage assets, 8 of which lie within 300m of the motorway and 1 of particularly high sensitivity within 1 kilometre of the motorway, were of high value / sensitivity. These assets comprise 5 scheduled monuments, 1 grade II* listed building, 2 conservation areas and 1 grade II* listed registered park and garden.

6.2 Study area 6.2.1 In alignment with the Scoping Report, the study area has been defined as the proposed Scheme footprint and the land within a 1 kilometre radius of this area. It is considered that the extent of the study area is sufficient to compile a comprehensive baseline, identifying designated and undesignated heritage assets and their context. Within the 1 kilometre study area a buffer of 300m has been imposed for primary consideration. Assets which lie within the 300m buffer are thereby the primary focus of this assessment, in accordance with guidance in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Those assets which lie between 300m and 1 kilometre are assessed for exceptional sensitivity, comprising of assets of exceptional interest with elements such as long-range historic views (in accordance with guidance in DMRB), and where such is not identified these have not been taken forward into the assessment.

6.3 Methodology

Assessment methodology

6.3.1 This chapter has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements for a simple level of assessment, as presented within Volume 11 of the Design Manual for Roads

Page 78 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

and Bridges (DMRB). This follows the recommendations made in the Scoping Report and is considered a proportionate methodology. 6.3.2 This assessment considers both temporary and permanent construction, and operational impacts on heritage assets. Temporary construction impacts would be impacts on setting through construction-related activities, whereas permanent construction impacts can be either physical impacts on the integrity of the asset or impacts on the setting. Operational impacts deal with the operation of the proposed Scheme, such as traffic noise or lighting impacts. 6.3.3 A number of resources were consulted in the production of this assessment, including:

· Relevant national policy documents o Department for Transport Road Investment Strategy, 2015 – 2020 o Department for Transport National Policy Statement for National Networks, 2014 o National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2012 · Relevant local policy documents o Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 Joint Core Strategy, 2013 o Adopted Local Plan Eastleigh Borough, 2001 · Practice best guidance documents (listed below) · The online National Heritage List for England · The Winchester and Hampshire Historic Environment Records (HER) databases · Historic maps · Online resources including local history websites 6.3.4 A site visit of the proposed site area was conducted in October 2017 and took the form of a walkover of the accessible areas surrounding the M3 and observation of the motorway itself from a vehicle. This allowed for the baseline character of the area and relationships between the assets in the landscape to be assessed. Guidance documents

6.3.5 The method for determining and appraising baseline conditions involved a desk- based study and was undertaken in accordance with the published standards and guidance set out below:

· Highways England (formerly Highways Agency) (2007) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Environmental Assessment (Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 - Cultural Heritage) · Historic England (formerly English Heritage) (2008) Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance · Historic England (2015) Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2 (GPA2) - Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment · Historic England (2015) Historic Environment Good Practice Advice on Planning Note 3 (GPA3) - The Setting of Heritage Assets · Standard and Guidance from the Chartered Institute of Archaeologists

Page 79 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Assessment of value / sensitivity

6.3.6 The assessment of the value of the heritage assets has been based on the guidance set out in the DMRB and is presented in Table 6-1 below. Assessment of importance takes into account a combination of designated status and professional judgment. It considers the Secretary of State’s non-statutory criteria for the scheduling of ancient monuments, assessment criteria adopted by Historic England as part of the Monument Protection Programme (MPP), and the Secretary of State’s Principles of Selection Criteria for Listed Buildings. 6.3.7 It is also recognises that occasionally some heritage assets have a lower or higher than normal value / sensitivity within a local context. Additionally, this assessment process considers the component of the heritage asset that is being affected, and the ability of the heritage asset to absorb change without compromising the understanding or appreciation of the resource. Table 6.1 Criteria for assessing value/sensitivity Value Criteria for establishing value of heritage assets Very High World Heritage Sites, assets of acknowledged international importance, assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research objectives. High Scheduled Monuments, grade I and II* Listed Buildings, grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields, undesignated assets of schedulable quality, undesignated monuments sites or landscapes that can be shown to have specific nationally important qualities, and assets that can contribute significantly to national research objectives. Medium Grade II Listed Buildings, grade II Registered Parks and Gardens, Conservation Areas, undesignated sites of high importance identified through research or survey, monuments or sites that can be shown to have important qualities in their fabric or historical association. Low Undesignated assets – monuments, archaeological sites with a local importance for education or cultural appreciation and which add to local archaeological and historical research, very badly damaged assets that are of such poor quality that they cannot be classed as high or medium, parks and gardens of local interest. Negligible Heritage resources identified as being of no historic, evidential, aesthetic or communal interest; and resources whose importance compromised by poor preservation or survival or of contextual associations to justify inclusion into a higher grade. Unknown Heritage resources with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance. Source: DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 Cultural Heritage. 6.3.8 The magnitude of impacts is assessed in accordance with the DMRB guidance, as presented in Table 6-2 below.

Page 80 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 6.2: Criteria for assessing the magnitude of impact

Magnitude of impact Description Major Change to most or all key cultural heritage materials, such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to setting. Moderate Changes to many key cultural heritage materials, such that the resource is clearly modified. Considerable changes to setting that affect the character of the asset. Minor Changes to key cultural heritage materials, such that the asset is slightly altered. Negligible Very minor changes to cultural heritage materials, or setting. No change No change. Source: DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 Cultural Heritage. 6.3.9 The overall significance of effect is determined by cross-referencing the value of the asset (Table 6-1) and the magnitude of impact (Table 6-2) as shown in Table 6-3 below. In accordance with DMRB guidance, moderate effects and above are considered to be significant. Where there are 2 levels of significance of effect identified in the matrix professional judgement has been used to identify which level of effect is most appropriate depending on the level of impact from the proposed Scheme on the individual asset. Table 6.3: Criteria for assessing the significance of the effect

Value / Sensitivity of Heritage Asset Very High High Medium Low Negligible Large / Very Moderate / Slight / Major Very Large Slight Large Large Moderate Large / Very Moderate / Neutral / Moderate Moderate Slight Large Large Slight Moderate / Slight / Neutral / Neutral / Minor Slight Large Moderate Slight Slight Neutral / Neutral / Negligible Slight Slight Neutral Slight Slight No Change Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Magnitude of Impact Source: DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 Cultural Heritage.

6.4 Baseline conditions

Topography and geology

6.4.1 Junctions 9 to 14 of the M3 are situated on gently undulating ground with part of the route between junction 11 and 12 sited in a cutting constructed into Twyford Down. This means in some places the motorway is bordered by steep inclines and hills. For the most part, the proposed Scheme is situated at a height of approximately 45m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD), extending to a height of approximately 100m AOD at its highest points. 6.4.2 The underlying geological conditions of the proposed Scheme to the north comprises sedimentary bedrock of chalk formation. These are deposits of the Campanian Age dating to 84-72 million years ago. This natural chalk is partly visible through foliage at the cutting between junctions 9 and 10. Extending south towards junctions 12 to 14

Page 81 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

the sedimentary bedrock comprises a range of clays, silts and sands. These are deposits of the Lutetian Age dating to 48 to 42 million years ago. Archaeological and historical background

Designated assets

Scheduled monuments 6.4.3 There are 5 scheduled monuments within 300m of the proposed Scheme. The details of these assets are listed below in Table 6-4 and shown in Appendix B, Figure 6.1. Table 6.4: Scheduled monuments within 300m of the proposed Scheme

Asset Description Distance from the proposed Scheme Roman road east of St Part of the vast Roman road network in 0m – situated within the footprint Catherine’s Hill (NHLE the area. This road has been bisected of the motorway at junction 10. 1001798) by the current M3, with remains of the monument segregated either side of the motorway. Lynchets on north A group of 4 substantial strip lynchets (a 45m east of the motorway at west spur of Twyford terrace or ridge formed by ploughing a junction 11. Road (NHLE 1017903) hillside) dating from the early Iron Age to Roman periods. Moated site 300m The moat is currently dry and survives 160m of the motorway, south of south-east of Compton as an area of earthworks. The site dates junction 11. House (NHLE from the medieval to post-medieval 1012675) periods and a 16th century wall runs to the south of the moat for approximately 75m. The moated site is likely to have been associated with a chapel and in the 17th century, a house with 10 hearths. Bowl barrow 75m west The monument includes a circular bowl 250m west of the motorway at of Itchen Cottages barrow set on a gentle north-east facing junction 11. (NHLE 1008223) slope. Surrounding the mound is a 3m wide ditch from which material was quarried during its construction, this survives as a buried feature. St Catherine’s Hill A large univallate hillfort situated on a 275m west of the motorway at hillfort (NHLE steep sided chalk hill. The hilltop had junction 10. 1016489) originally formed an unfortified Iron Age settlement, dated at 550-450 BC, before the defences were constructed at around 250-200 BC.

6.4.4 Within the wider 1 kilometre study area, there are an additional 7 scheduled monuments. The details of these assets are listed below in Table 6.5.

Page 82 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 6.5: Scheduled monuments within 300m - 1km of the proposed Scheme

Asset Description Distance from the proposed Scheme Round barrow A round barrow cemetery of Late 330m east of the motorway cemetery on Magdalen Neolithic to Bronze Age date between junctions 9 and 10. Hill Down (NHLE prominently situated on the south facing 1016746) slope of Magdalen Hill Down. It includes a linear arrangement of 5 bowl barrows extending over a distance of approximately 85m along a false crest on the down. Romano-British An earthwork enclosure, interpreted as 425m east of the motorway at enclosure and later containing a late Romano-British junction 11. hollow ways on farmstead or villa, some associated Twyford Down (NHLE lynchets and hollow ways, and a prolific 1017902) series of later, sub-parallel hollow ways, probably of medieval or post-medieval date. The Ring earthwork A small univallate Iron Age hillfort, since 680m south of the motorway at (NHLE 1001941) developed in the 1960s into a circle of junction 14. detached houses lying within the ramparts. Two bowl barrows The monument includes 2 bowl barrows 710m west of the motorway at 200m north of set on the crest of a steep north facing junction 11. Attwoods Drove Farm slope at the east end of Compton Down. (NHLE 1014388) The barrows, which survive as low earthworks, are orientated north-south and are separated by a distance of approximately 10m. Castle Hill (NHLE Earthwork situated within Lords Wood, 935m south of the motorway at 1001885) thought to be remnants of a cattle junction 14. enclosure dating to the Iron Age. Remnants of banks and ditches still partially visible. Wolvesey Palace The upstanding and/or buried remains of 960m west of the motorway (NHLE 1005535) part of the Roman civitas capital of between junctions 9 and 10. Venta Belgarum, part of the city wall, and the early medieval, medieval and late 17th century bishops’ palaces of Wolvesey, also known as ‘Wolvesey Castle’. City Bridge at the The City Bridge at the junction of High 995m west of the motorway junction of High Street Street and Bridge Street is well between junctions 9 and 10. and Bridge Street preserved and is largely unaltered since (NHLE 1021112) its construction in the early 19th century. Situated at the main crossing place of medieval Winchester, the monument preserves archaeological deposits of significance, such as the remains of a medieval bridge. 6.4.5 The superficial geology of the proposed Scheme to the north comprises alluvium (sand, silts and clays) of the Holocene Epoch dating to approximately 11,700 years ago to present day. Further south along the proposed Scheme the superficial geology comprises gravels, silts and clays of the Quaternary period which consists of the

Page 83 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Pleistocene Epoch (dating to 2.588 million years ago to 11.7 thousand years ago) and the Holocene Epoch.

Listed buildings 6.4.6 Within 300m of the proposed Scheme, there are 7 listed buildings, all grade II listed. The details of these assets are listed below in Table 6.6. Table 6.6: Listed buildings within 300m of the proposed Scheme

Asset Description Distance from the proposed Scheme Top Lodge (NHLE Lodge (possibly a hunting lodge) 45m west of the motorway at 1095808) situated within the Cranbury Park junction 12. Registered Park and Garden. Lodge dates to the mid-19th century. Features colour washed rendered brick and tile- hung gables, timber verandah and slate roofs. Four Winds (NHLE Residential house built 1906-07 by 70m west of the motorway 1157050) Robert Weir Schultz. Built of brick with a between junctions 11 and 12. hipped roof. Milestone, opposite Milestone dating to the early 19th 125m south of the motorway at junction with century, painted stone and attached junction 14. Heathlands Road cast-iron plate. (NHLE 1093662) Cocum (NHLE Cottage dating to mid-19th century. Flint 135m west of the motorway 1157169) with brick and part timber-frame with between junctions 11 and 12. brick infill, slate roof. T-shaped building of 3 bays with projecting wing to front. The Manor House 17th century building with late 18th 165m west of the motorway (NHLE 1095830) century re-fronting and wing. Timber- between junctions 11 and 12. frame core, brick with some stone dressings. Milestone 10 metres Milestone dating to the early 19th 210m south of the motorway at south of Tollgate century, painted stone and attached junction 11. Cottages (NHLE cast-iron plate 1095767) Barn 50 metres north Barn dating to c.1700. Timber-frame 215m west of the motorway of Manor House weather-boarded, on brick plinth, between junctions 11 and 12. (NHLE 1095832) corrugated asbestos sheet roof. 6.4.7 There are an additional 117 listed buildings within the wider 1 kilometre study area. These include 2 grade I listed buildings and 11 grade II* listed buildings, including the grade II* church of St Matthew at Otterbourne (NHLE 1095758), identified in the Scoping Report as being of high value/sensitivity.

Conservation Areas 6.4.8 There are 2 conservation areas within 300m of the proposed Scheme. The details of these assets are listed below in Table 6.7.

Page 84 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 6.7: Conservation areas within 300m of the proposed Scheme

Asset Description Distance from the proposed Scheme Giles Hill and The Area capturing 12th century settlement, 95m west of the motorway Soke area of the on the eastern extents of Winchester between junctions 9 and 10. Winchester city centre. Situated on the western Conservation Area edge of the South Downs, a chalk ridge extending from Beachy Head in the east. Compton Street A linear village, included a number of 280m west of the motorway Conservation Area 17th, 18th and 19th buildings including between junctions 11 and 12. places of worship and barns. 6.4.9 Within the wider 1 kilometre study area lies the Twyford Conservation Area which is situated 700m east of the motorway between junctions 11 and 12.

Registered Park and Gardens 6.4.10 There is 1 registered park and garden located within 300m of the proposed Scheme. The details of this asset is listed below in Table 6.8. Table 6.8: Registered parks and gardens within 300m of the proposed Scheme

Asset Description Distance from the proposed Scheme Grade II* Cranbury Mid to late 18th century formal gardens, 0m – situated within the footprint Park (NHLE 1000860) pleasure grounds, and a landscape of the motorway just north of park, developed in the 1830s. junction 12. Associated with the Cranbury estate, property of the Wyndham family, who sold it to Jonathon Conduit in the early 18th century. 6.4.11 Within the wider 1 kilometre study area, there is 1 additional registered park and garden. This is the grade II* listed Compton End, situated 890m west of the motorway between junctions 11 and 12.

Undesignated assets

Historic landscape character 6.4.12 The historic landscape character of the study area comprises primarily rural expanses punctuated with settlements, notably Winchester to the north and Eastleigh to the south. Winchester has been a settlement since the Iron Age and other smaller settlements, notably the small towns and villages of Compton, Shawford and Otterbourne are named ‘old settlements’ on the Winchester HER. Eastleigh is named a ‘recent settlement’ having been rapidly expanded in the 20th-21st centuries. These settlements are surrounded by rural land, namely downland comprising of open chalk hills, where the northern half of the proposed Scheme intercepts the westerly extent of the South Downs National Park. Further south, the proposed Scheme intercepts the woodland at Cranbury Park, a mid to late 18th century formal garden, pleasure grounds and landscape park which is listed as a grade II* registered park and garden (see Table 6.8 above).

Page 85 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Prehistoric (450,000 BC – AD 43) 6.4.13 The landscape of the study area has been used and manipulated by humans since the Prehistoric period onwards. Evidence of this still remain, primarily as earthworks. A number of linear banks running north-south across the downs north-east of junction 9 of the M3 are considered likely to be lynchets, a ridge or ledge formed along the downhill side of a plot by ploughing and are thought to date to the late Prehistoric period (PRN MKM3303). Similarly, evidence of Prehistoric field systems on Twyford Down (PRN 171406) and Winnall Down (PRN 170555) are visible as earthworks on aerial photographs. These field systems would have been associated with a number of prehistoric settlement enclosures and have been partially lost to the current M3 motorway at junctions 9 and 10. 6.4.14 Evidence of further settlements was found approximately 45m east of the M3 at junction 9, where fragments of 4 Iron Age round houses (PRN 170674) were located during excavations in 1995 during the construction of the M3. The ring ditches and an associated field system are visible as cropmarks and soil marks on aerial photographs. Further indication of settlement can be found approximately 250m south-west of junction 9 near Winchester, where post holes, ditches, boundary ditches and signs of round houses indicated a Middle to Late Bronze Age settlement (PRN MWC6589). Another ditched enclosure (PRN MWC6999) dating to the Prehistoric period was identified approximately 300m west of junction 10. 6.4.15 In addition to earthworks, a number of artefacts dating to the Prehistoric period have been located within the study area. A flint axe of Prehistoric date (specific date unknown; PRN 53848) was excavated approximately 100m north-west of junction 12 of the M3. 6.4.16 Part of the significance of the Prehistoric assets within the landscape, including the scheduled monuments dating to this period (see Tables 6.4 and 6.5 above) derives from their relationships within one another. This is primarily as a result of their indivisibility between each other, often achieved through their purposeful placement on high ground, combining to make a connected Prehistoric ritual landscape.

Roman (AD 43 – 410) 6.4.17 A vast network of Roman roads would have spread across the landscape and some evidence of this network remains today. Notably, two Roman roads intercept the footprint of the proposed Scheme: the road from Stoney Cross to Otterbourne (PRN 14) intercepts just north of junction 12 and the road from Winchester to Bitterne (PRN 6) intercepts between junctions 11 and 12 at Compton. Another 2 Roman roads fall within the study area, 1 running 130m west of junction 12 (PRN 25703) and another at Otterbourne Hill approximately 265m east of junction 12 (PRN 53844). 6.4.18 Amongst the network of Roman roads is evidence of settlement; a rectilinear ditched enclosure (PRN 171385) visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs is located approximately 480m east of the proposed Scheme between junctions 11 and 12. The enclosure is 13m across and is considered likely to be late Iron Age or Roman in origin.

Early medieval (AD 410 – 1066) 6.4.19 A Saxon Cemetery which was located at Winnall (PRN 8415) lies approximately 300m south-west of junction 9 of the M3.

Page 86 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

6.4.20 Two unidentified linear features (PRN 170158), visible as cropmarks, are considered to date to the early medieval period and are situated approximately 270m north-west of the proposed Scheme between junction 11 and 12.

Medieval (AD 1066 – 1550) 6.4.21 An extensive system of hollow ways (a type of ancient track) are visible as earthworks on aerial photographs running across Twyford Downs (PRN 171409), partially truncated by the current motorway between junctions 10 and 11 opposite St Catherine’s Hill. They are considered likely to be medieval in date and are known locally as The Dongas. Further south opposite Cranbury Park, pits of a medieval date (PRN 59787) are situated within the vicinity of the existing motorway. 6.4.22 Three small pits are visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs (PRN 170160), situated approximately 25m north of junction 12 near to Otterbourne Hill Common. They are likely to be the remains of grubbed-up trees, planted during the medieval period. 6.4.23 The site of St Cross Mill (PRN MWC7053) was situated 570m north of the proposed Scheme between junctions 11 and 12. St Cross Road, a road of medieval date (PRN MWC6922) is partially truncated by the existing motorway near Compton.

Post-medieval (AD 1550 – 1900) 6.4.24 A number of undesignated post-medieval buildings are situated within study area. Two buildings at Compton, Meadow Farm (MWC1365) and The Chequers (MWC1364) alongside the site of a demolished building (MWC7177) all date to the post-medieval period and are situated approximately 250m west of the proposed Scheme between junctions 11 and 12. Otterbourne Primary School, built in 1874 (PRN 11137) is situated approximately 260m east of the proposed Scheme between junctions 11 and 12 at Otterbourne. 6 Chesil Street (PRN MWC7499), a building of post-medieval date, is situated approximately 960m south-west of the proposed Scheme in Winchester. 6.4.25 In addition to buildings, a number of earthworks dating to the period remain within the study area. Plague pits (PRN MWC4495) were located on the Twyford Downs, to the south of St Catherine’s Hill situated approximately 260m west of the proposed Scheme between junctions 9 and 10. A group of quarries (PRN170156-9) dating to the 19th-20th centuries are visible as earthworks in aerial photography, and are situated approximately 220m east of the proposed Scheme between junction 11 and 12. Post medieval drainage ditches (PRN 9990-1) are situated approximately 350m north-west of the proposed Scheme at junction 12.

6.5 Sensitivity of resource 6.5.1 The value of the known heritage assets within the study area are discussed below.

Designated assets

6.5.2 The scheduled monuments of Round barrow cemetery on Magdalen Hill Down (NHLE 1016746) and St Catherine’s Hill, an Iron Age fort (NHLE 1016489) are of high heritage value, derived from their age and rarity and position on high ground increasing their visual dominance and demonstrating their historic status within the

Page 87 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

landscape. The intervisiblity, across the modern motorway, between the assets also contributes to their value and setting. 6.5.3 Other scheduled ritual sites from the prehistoric period are scattered around the study area. These include the bowl barrow 75m west of Itchen Cottages (NHLE 1008223) and 2 bowl barrows 200m north of Attwoods Drove Farm (NHLE 1014388). Although not as prominent in the landscape as the Round Barrow Cemetery or St Catherine’s Hill, their value is still high due to their age and rarity, and being important related components in the prehistoric landscape. More functional remains of this period exist with the Ring earthwork, a small univallate Iron Age hillfort (NHLE 1001941), Castle Hill, thought to have been an Iron Age cattle enclosure (NHLE 1001885), and lynchets situated on the north-west spur of Twyford Road (NHLE 1017903). Although the position of the lynchets on higher ground is functional and created by the natural settlement of land due to ploughing over an extended period, rather than an indication of status, this prominence in the landscape still contributes to their heritage value. All of these scheduled monuments are of high heritage value due to their age, rarity and demonstration of agricultural practices during the prehistoric period. 6.5.4 Occupation during the Roman period is also reflected through the designation of 2 scheduled monuments within the study area. The Roman road east of St Catherine’s Hill (NHLE 1001798) and Romano-British enclosure and later hollow ways on Twyford Down (NHLE 1017902). Although not directly connected with the Romano-British enclosure, the Roman road forms one of a network of Roman roads in this area (see Undesignated Assets Section 6.5.2). The high value of these designated assets is due to their age and rarity, as well as representing the continued occupation and use of the area during the Roman period. Their connection with the prehistoric landscape is likely to be both deliberate, with the course of the Roman road potentially following a former Iron Age track, and incidental, re-using existing settlements and landmarks. 6.5.5 The medieval scheduled monuments are related to higher status occupation, comprising a moated site 300m south-east of Compton House (NHLE 1012675), Wolvesey Palace (NHLE 1005535) and City Bridge at the junction of High Street and Bridge Street (NHLE 1021112). Although of high heritage value due to their historic status, age and rarity, their setting is restricted to their immediate area due to heavy vegetation and continued modern development screening them from the surrounding area. 6.5.6 The grade II* listed Church of St Matthew at Otterbourne (NHLE 1095758) is considered to be of high value due to its survival as an unaltered early 19th century church. The church is an important feature within its immediate environment. However, due to its lack of tower or spire and surrounding heavy vegetation, it does not feature in longer views across the landscape. 6.5.7 The grade II* listed Registered Park and Garden at Cranbury Park (NHLE 1000860), including the grade II listed Top Lodge (NHLE 1095808) is considered to be of high value due to its survival as a 18th century formal garden. The woodland to the south- east of the registered park and garden is bisected by the motorway, with additional planting likely to have been introduced during the construction of the motorway as screening mitigation. However, the woodland character of this part of the park has been retained. The introduction of the motorway has reduced the sensitivity of this part of the park, with the more sensitive formal gardens around the house situated approximately 1 kilometre to the north-west of the proposed Scheme.

Page 88 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

6.5.8 The grade II listed Milestone opposite the junction with Heathlands Road (NHLE 1093662) and Milestone 10m south of Tollgate Cottages (NHLE 1095767), both of medium value due to their rare survival, rely on their setting adjacent to the road to establish their function. Four Winds (NHLE 1157050), a private grade II listed house of medium value, is 70m from the proposed Scheme. It is currently heavily screened from the motorway by heavy vegetation, although the traffic noise adversely impacts on its setting. Cocum (NHLE 1157169), also a private house and grade II listed, is 135m from the proposed Scheme. As with Four Winds it is heavily screened from the motorway, although the setting is compromised by traffic noise. 6.5.9 The Giles Hill and The Soke area of the Winchester Conservation Area and Compton Street Conservation Area, including the grade II listed Manor House (NHLE1095830) and associated barn (NHLE 1095832) are considered to be of medium value due to their regional significance. Both conservation areas are inward looking and do not rely on long views both into and out of the areas as part of their heritage value. Traffic noise impacts the setting of the closest parts of the Compton Street conservation area. 6.5.10 These designated assets are summarised in Table 6-9 below. Table 6.9: Value of designated assets within 300m of the proposed Scheme

Asset Designation Value Round barrow cemetery on Magdalen Scheduled monument High Hill Down (NHLE 1016746) Bowl barrow 75m west of Itchen Scheduled monument High Cottages (NHLE 1008223) Two bowl barrows 200m north of Scheduled monument High Attwoods Drove Farm (NHLE 1014388) Ring earthwork (NHLE 1001941) Scheduled monument High Castle Hill (NHLE 1001885) Scheduled monument High Lynchets situated on the north-west Scheduled monument High spur of Twyford Road (NHLE 1017903) Roman road east of St Catherine’s Hill Scheduled monument High (NHLE 1001798) Romano-British enclosure and later hollow ways on Twyford Down (NHLE Scheduled monument High 1017902) Moated site 300m south-east of Scheduled monument High Compton House (NHLE 1012675) Wolvesey Palace (NHLE 1005535) Scheduled monument High City Bridge at the junction of High Street and Bridge Street (NHLE Scheduled monument High 1021112) Church of St Matthew at Otterbourne Grade II* listed building High (NHLE 1095758) Grade II* registered park Cranbury Park (NHLE 1000860) and garden; grade II listed High including Top Lodge (NHLE 1095808) building

Page 89 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Asset Designation Value Milestone opposite the junction with Grade II listed building Medium Heathlands Road (NHLE 1093662) Milestone 10m south of Tollgate Grade II listed building Medium Cottages (NHLE 1095767) Four Winds (NHLE 1157050) Grade II listed building Medium Cocum (NHLE 1157169) Grade II listed building Medium Giles Hill and The Soke area of the Conservation area Medium Winchester Conservation Area Compton Street Conservation Area, including the Manor House Conservation area; grade II Medium (NHLE1095830) and associated barn listed buildings (NHLE 1095832)

Undesignated assets

6.5.11 Evidence of Prehistoric activity remains within the vicinity of the northern part of the study area of the proposed Scheme between junctions 9 and 10. These assets are primarily subsurface archaeology, with some earthworks, providing evidence of Prehistoric farming (PRN MKM3303) and field systems (PRN 171406 and PRN 170555) and possible associated settlements. Further assets of this period include that of Iron Age round houses (PRN 170674) post holes, ditches, boundary ditches and signs of round houses dating to the Middle to Late Bronze Age (PRN MWC6589) and another ditched enclosure (PRN MWC6999) dating to the Prehistoric period. These assets are considered to be of low to medium value / sensitivity due to their contribution to the local prehistoric landscape. 6.5.12 Assets dating to the Roman period are located further south along the proposed Scheme between junction 11 and 12. These include Roman roads which intercept the proposed Scheme (PRN 6 and PRN 14) as well as others which run parallel to the proposed Scheme (PRN 25703 and PRN 53844). Again, the majority of assets are subsurface archaeology, with some earthworks. Amongst the network of Roman roads is evidence of settlement (PRN 171385). These assets are considered to be of low value / sensitivity due to their local importance and relationship with the scheduled monuments, the Roman road east of St Catherine’s Hill (NHLE 1001798) and Romano-British enclosure and later hollow ways on Twyford Down (NHLE 1017902). 6.5.13 Assets dating to the early medieval period are limited to a subsurface asset, a Saxon Cemetery (PRN 8415) and 2 unidentified linear features (PRN 170158), situated along the route of the proposed Scheme. These assets are considered to be of medium to low value / sensitivity due to their local importance. 6.5.14 Remains of medieval activity is much more evident within the study area, with hollow ways (PRN 171409), roads (PRN MWC6922), pits (PRN 59787 and PRN 170160), the site of St Cross Mill (PRN MWC7053) and buildings (PRN MWC7499) situated along the length of the proposed Scheme. These assets are considered to be of low value / sensitivity due to their local importance. 6.5.15 A number of buildings dating to the post-medieval period survive within the study area, including Meadow Farm (MWC1365) and The Chequers (MWC1364) alongside the site of a demolished building (MWC7177) and Otterbourne Primary School, built in 1874 (PRN 11137). These assets are situated alongside a number of earthworks

Page 90 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

dating to the period including plague pits (PRN MWC4495), quarries (PRN170156-9) and drainage ditches (PRN 99901). These assets are considered to be of low value / sensitivity due to their local importance.

6.6 Assumptions and limitations 6.6.1 Initial engagement with Winchester City Council, Hampshire County Council and South Downs National Park Authority representatives has been undertaken for the production of the cultural heritage assessment. Engagement with national advisory bodies including Historic England is due to take place in the following stages of the design process for the proposed Scheme. 6.6.2 The site visit undertaken in October 2017 was restricted to external visual inspection from publicly assessable areas only. Use of aerial imagery has aided the overall study of the area and has allowed for a thorough assessment. 6.6.3 For the proposed Scheme itself, it has been assumed that no excavation would be undertaken outside of the existing motorway corridor therefore no non-intrusive or intrusive archaeological surveys are required and any archaeological remains would be physically unaffected. The associated proposed compound area would require some excavation which may result in physical impacts on below ground archaeological remains (see Table 6-9 below). 6.6.4 Information provided by HERs can be limited as it depends on random opportunities for research, fieldwork, and discovery. Where nothing of historic interest is shown in a particular area, this can be down to a lack of targeted research or investigation rather than the genuine absence of subsurface archaeological deposits. 6.6.5 Documentary sources are rare before the medieval period, and many historic documents are inherently biased. Older primary sources often fail to accurately locate sites and interpretation can be subjective.

6.7 Design and mitigation measures 6.7.1 The following mitigation measures have been integrated into the preliminary design:

· Gantries and highways infrastructure have been located to reduce potential visual impacts on heritage assets where engineering and safety constraints allow. This includes consideration for the settings of assets. It is unlikely that the location of gantries and highways infrastructure will change in the detailed design phase in order to ensure the Scheme complies with policy · The use of existing highway structures has been prioritised to reduce vegetation clearance and introducing new structures · Vegetation retention has been prioritised where it currently has a screening function for high value heritage assets, for example within the Cranbury Park Registered Park and Garden Construction 6.7.2 For impacts (both physical and setting) upon heritage assets during construction, mitigation includes appropriate landscaping, including planting (using appropriate species of trees and foliage, particularly in relation to Cranbury Park Registered Park and Garden) and screening (see Chapter 7 Landscape and visual effects). This is captured in the Environmental Masterplan and Landscape Design. Noise attenuation

Page 91 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

and appropriate lighting, comprising of downlighting used within road gantries, has also been integrated into the design where appropriate. This has ensured the reduction of impacts on heritage assets in the vicinity, such as Cranbury Park Registered Park and Garden, by ensuring that inappropriate light from nearby gantries, do not significantly alter the character of the asset and its setting. 6.7.3 Specific mitigation principles have been applied to the detailed design of the proposed Scheme to offset impacts had on heritage assets during the construction phase and ensure no likely significant effects. These are reflected in the current Outline Environmental Management Plan, including:

· Vegetation removal would occur only where it is essential to construct, run and safely maintain the proposed Scheme Operation 6.7.4 The increase in traffic as well as the introduction of new cantilever and superspan gantries, with lighting and changing signage, would be visible from various assets and would impact to a varying degree on the setting of some heritage assets, including scheduled monuments. 6.7.5 However, there are opportunities to mitigate the impacts the proposed Scheme has on heritage assets within the vicinity during operation. 6.7.6 Specific mitigation principles have been specified for the proposed Scheme to offset impacts on heritage assets during the operation phase and ensure no likely significant effects. These are reflected in the current Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), including:

· Vegetation removal would occur only where it is essential to construct, run and safely maintain the proposed Scheme · Planting proposals would be of a similar native mix to the existing surrounding vegetation, retaining the character of heritage assets and their settings · Replacement native tree and shrub planting would be provided where temporary construction activities have taken place and the area is not required to remain clear for sightlines or for safety requirements, lessening the impact on the settings of surrounding heritage assets · Replacement native tree and shrub planting would be provided where the existing highways boundary overlaps with Cranbury Park Registered Park and Garden (NHLE 1095808) and immediately surrounding it. 6.7.7 Best practice measures to limit impacts on heritage assets would be employed during construction through the implementation of the OEMP.

6.8 Potential construction effects 6.8.1 The assessment of effects during the construction of the proposed Scheme is set out below. 6.8.2 The proposed Scheme falls within the existing highways boundary and would require no additional land-take. However, the associated proposed compound area would require some excavation, possibly resulting in impacts on subsurface archaeological remains. This has therefore been captured in the following assessment.

Page 92 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

6.8.3 This assessment of effects focusses on the assets which fall within the 300m study area of primary consideration. 6.8.4 It is considered that all other assets which fall between 300m and 1 kilometre of the proposed Scheme (with the exception of the scheduled monument Round barrow cemetery on Magdalen Hill Down (NHLE 1016746)) would experience no change as a result of the proposed Scheme, due to distance from the works and existing screening which would remain as part of the OEMP. As such, these assets are not included in Table 6-10 below. Table 6.10: Assessment of effects during construction of the proposed Scheme

Asset Description of impact Sensitivity Magnitude Significance of asset of impact of effect Scheduled monument: Temporary adverse - likely increased High Minor Permanent Roman road east of St noise during construction, however this Slight adverse Catherine’s Hill (NHLE would be in the context of existing and not 1001798) motorway noise. significant

Permanent adverse – alteration to setting of asset through construction of supergantry CH105885, situated immediately north of the asset. This gantry has been located here due to engineering and safety constraints, however consideration of the asset has resulted in it not being situated within the footprint of the asset. It will be situated within the highways boundary, requiring no additional land-take and therefore no physical impact to the scheduled monument. The gantry would be seen in the context of the existing motorway, reducing its impact. This impact on setting would not impact the relationship or intervisiblity between this and other assets of the period within the landscape (St Catherine’s Hillfort). Scheduled monument: Temporary adverse - likely increased High Negligible Temporary Lynchets on north west noise during construction, however this Slight adverse spur of Twyford Road would be in the context of existing and not (NHLE 1017903) motorway noise. significant Scheduled monument: Temporary adverse - likely increased High Negligible Temporary Moated site 300m south- noise during construction, however this Slight adverse east of Compton House would be in the context of existing and not (NHLE 1012675) motorway noise. significant Scheduled monument: Temporary adverse - likely increased High Negligible Temporary Bowl barrow 75m west of noise during construction, due mostly to Slight adverse Itchen Cottages (NHLE the nearby construction compound. and not 1008223) Existing vegetation would screen the significant compound from the asset and increased noise would be in the context of existing motorway noise. Scheduled monument: St Temporary adverse - likely increased High Minor Permanent Catherine’s Hillfort (NHLE noise during construction, however this Slight adverse 1016489) would be in the context of existing and not motorway noise. significant

Page 93 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Asset Description of impact Sensitivity Magnitude Significance of asset of impact of effect Permanent adverse – alteration to setting of asset through construction of supergantry CH104040 and CH105885, visible from the asset. However these would be seen in the context of the existing motorway, reducing their impact. This impact on setting would not impact the relationship or intervisiblity between this and other assets of the period within the landscape (Roman road east of St Catherine’s Hill). Scheduled monument: Permanent adverse - alteration to setting High Minor Permanent Round barrow cemetery of asset through construction of Slight adverse on Magdalen Hill Down supergantry CH104010 and cantilever and not (NHLE 1016746) gantries CH103228, CH103404 and significant CH104255, visible from the asset. However these would be seen in the context of the existing motorway, reducing their impact. This impact on setting would not impact the relationship or intervisiblity between this and other assets of the period within the landscape (Lynchets on north west spur of Twyford Road and Bowl barrow 75m west of Itchen Cottages). Grade II* listed building: Temporary adverse - likely increased High Negligible Temporary Church of St Matthew at noise during construction, however this Slight adverse Otterbourne (NHLE would be in the context of existing and not 1095758) motorway noise. significant Grade II listed building: Temporary adverse - likely increased Medium Negligible Neutral Four Winds (NHLE noise during construction, however this 1157050) would be in the context of existing motorway noise. Grade II listed building: Temporary adverse - likely increased Medium Negligible Neutral Milestone, opposite noise during construction, however this junction with Heathlands would be in the context of existing Road (NHLE 1093662) motorway noise. Grade II listed building: Temporary adverse - likely increased Medium Negligible Neutral Cocum (NHLE 1157169) noise during construction, however this would be in the context of existing motorway noise. Grade II listed building: Temporary adverse - likely increased Medium Negligible Neutral Milestone 10 metres noise during construction, however this south of Tollgate would be in the context of existing Cottages (NHLE motorway noise. 1095767) Conservation Area: Giles Temporary adverse - likely increased Medium Negligible Neutral Hill and The Soke area of noise during construction, however this the Winchester would be in the context of existing motorway noise. Conservation Area: Temporary adverse - likely increased Medium Negligible Neutral Compton Street including noise during construction, however this Grade II listed building: would be in the context of existing The Manor House (NHLE motorway noise. 1095830) and Grade II listed building: Barn 50 metres north of Manor House (NHLE 1095832)

Page 94 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Asset Description of impact Sensitivity Magnitude Significance of asset of impact of effect Grade II* Registered Park Temporary adverse - likely increased High Minor Permanent and Garden: Cranbury noise during construction, however this Slight adverse Park including Grade II would be in the context of existing and not listed building: Top Lodge motorway noise. significant (NHLE 1095808) Permanent adverse – vegetation clearance either side of the M3 (extending to a depth of c.15m) within the footprint of the Cranbury Park. This is likely to be mitigation planting from the construction of the existing motorway, and not historically associated with the Registered Park and Garden. However, the removal of this vegetation would have an impact on the setting of the asset, particularly Top Lodge, as would the construction of supergantry CH111880 and cantilever gantry CH112175, visible from the asset. However, these would be seen in the context of the existing motorway, reducing their impact. Undesignated asset: Temporary adverse - likely increased Low Negligible Temporary Post-medieval building, 6 noise during construction, however this Slight adverse Chesil Street (PRN would be in the context of existing and not MWC7499) motorway noise. significant Undesignated asset: Temporary adverse - likely increased Low Negligible Neutral Post-medieval Meadow noise during construction, however this Farm (MWC1365) would be in the context of existing motorway noise. Undesignated asset: Temporary adverse - likely increased Low Negligible Neutral Post-medieval The noise during construction, however this Chequers (MWC1364) would be in the context of existing motorway noise. Undesignated asset: Temporary adverse - likely increased Low Negligible Neutral Post-medieval site of a noise during construction, however this demolished building would be in the context of existing (MWC7177) motorway noise. Undesignated asset: Temporary adverse - likely increased Low Negligible Neutral Otterbourne Primary noise during construction, however this School, built 1874 (PRN would be in the context of existing 11137) motorway noise. Undesignated unknown Permanent adverse – likely truncation / Low High Permanent archaeological remains removal of any surviving archaeological Slight adverse remains within the footprint of the and not proposed compound location. significant

6.9 Potential operational effects 6.9.1 The assessment of effects during the operation of the proposed Scheme is set out in Table 6-11 below. In accordance with DMRB guidance, effects with an assessment of Moderate and above are considered to be significant. 6.9.2 There would be no impacts on subsurface archaeological remains from the operation of the proposed Scheme. Therefore heritage assets of this nature within the study area have not been included in this assessment. Table 6.11: Assessment of effects during operation of the proposed scheme

Page 95 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Asset Description of impact Sensitivity Magnitude Significance of asset of impact of effect Scheduled monument: Increased noise during operation High Minor Permanent Roman road east of St and light reflection from Slight adverse Catherine’s Hill (NHLE supergantry CH105885, situated and not 1001798) immediately north of the asset. significant This gantry has been located here due to engineering and safety constraints. This would result in an alteration to setting of the asset. However, this would be seen in the context of the existing motorway, reducing the impact. This impact on setting would not impact the relationship or intervisiblity between this and other assets of the period within the landscape. Scheduled monument: Likely increased noise during High Negligible Permanent Lynchets on north-west operation. However, this would Slight adverse spur of Twyford Road be in the context of existing and not (NHLE 1017903) motorway noise reducing its significant impact

Scheduled monument: Likely increased noise during High Negligible Permanent Moated site 300m operation. However, this would Slight adverse south-east of Compton be in the context of existing and not House (NHLE 1012675) motorway noise reducing its significant impact.

Scheduled monument: Likely increased noise during High Negligible Permanent Bowl barrow 75m west operation. However, this would Slight adverse of Itchen Cottages be in the context of existing and not (NHLE 1008223) motorway noise reducing its significant impact.

Scheduled monument: Increased noise during operation High Minor Permanent St Catherine’s Hillfort and light reflection from Slight adverse (NHLE 1016489) supergantry CH104040 and and not CH105885 resulting in alteration significant to setting of the asset. However, these would be seen in the context of the existing motorway, reducing their impact. This impact on setting would not impact the relationship or intervisiblity between this and other assets of the period within the landscape. Scheduled monument: Increased noise during operation High Minor Permanent Round barrow cemetery and light reflection from Slight adverse on Magdalen Hill Down supergantry CH104010 and and not (NHLE 1016746) cantilever gantries CH103228, significant CH103404 and CH104255, resulting in alteration to setting of asset. However, these would be seen in the context of the existing motorway, reducing their

Page 96 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Asset Description of impact Sensitivity Magnitude Significance of asset of impact of effect impact. This impact on setting would not impact the relationship or intervisiblity between this and other assets of the period within the landscape. Grade II* listed building: Likely increased noise during High Negligible Permanent Church of St Matthew at operation. However, this would Slight adverse Otterbourne (NHLE be in the context of existing and not 1095758) motorway noise reducing its significant impact. Grade II listed building: Likely increased noise during Medium Negligible Neutral Four Winds (NHLE operation. However, this would 1157050) be in the context of existing motorway noise reducing its impact. Grade II listed building: Likely increased noise during Medium Negligible Neutral Milestone, opposite operation. However, this would junction with be in the context of existing Heathlands Road motorway noise reducing its (NHLE 1093662) impact.

Grade II listed building: Likely increased noise during Medium Negligible Neutral Cocum (NHLE operation. However, this would 1157169) be in the context of existing motorway noise reducing its impact.

Grade II listed building: Likely increased noise during Medium Negligible Neutral Milestone 10 metres operation. However, this would south of Tollgate be in the context of existing Cottages (NHLE motorway noise reducing its 1095767) impact.

Conservation Area: Likely increased noise during Medium Negligible Neutral Giles Hill and The Soke operation. However, this would area of the Winchester be in the context of existing motorway noise reducing its impact.

Conservation Area: Likely increased noise during Medium Negligible Neutral Compton Street operation. However, this would including Grade II listed be in the context of existing building: The Manor motorway noise reducing its House (NHLE 1095830) impact. and grade II listed building: Barn 50 metres north of Manor House (NHLE 1095832)

Grade II* Registered Increased noise during operation High Minor Permanent Park and Garden: and light reflection from Slight adverse Cranbury Park including supergantry CH111880 and and not grade II listed building: cantilever gantry CH112175, significant Top Lodge (NHLE resulting in alteration to setting 1095808) of asset. However, these would be seen in the context of the

Page 97 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Asset Description of impact Sensitivity Magnitude Significance of asset of impact of effect existing motorway, reducing their impact.

Undesignated asset: Likely increased noise during Low Negligible Neutral Post-medieval building, operation. However, this would 6 Chesil Street (PRN be in the context of existing MWC7499) motorway noise reducing its impact.

Undesignated asset: Likely increased noise during Low Negligible Neutral Post-medieval Meadow operation. However, this would Farm (MWC1365) be in the context of existing motorway noise reducing its impact. Undesignated asset: Likely increased noise during Low Negligible Neutral Post-medieval The operation. However, this would Chequers (MWC1364) be in the context of existing motorway noise reducing its impact.

Undesignated asset: Likely increased noise during Low Negligible Neutral Otterbourne Primary operation. However, this would School, built 1874 (PRN be in the context of existing 11137) motorway noise reducing its impact.

6.10 Residual effects 6.10.1 The following section outlines the residual impacts on heritage assets as part of the proposed development, following mitigation. 6.10.2 The proposed Scheme would have no significant residual effects on any heritage assets within the study area, as the assessments above have found that during both construction and operation, the proposed Scheme would have slight adverse at worst or neutral effects on all heritage assets. 6.10.3 Some of these slight adverse effects may be reduced by design mitigation through the application of the following measures:

· Vegetation removal should occur only where it is essential to construct, run and safely maintain the proposed Scheme · Planting proposals should be of a similar native mix to the existing surrounding vegetation · Replacement native tree and shrub planting should be provided where temporary construction activities have taken place and the area is not required to remain clear for sightlines or for safety requirements · Replacement native tree and shrub planting should be provided within and immediately surrounding Cranbury Park Registered Park and Garden (NHLE 1095808)

Page 98 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

6.10.4 These mitigation measures are captured in the Environmental Masterplans.

6.11 Summary 6.11.1 This chapter has assessed which designated and undesignated heritage assets lie within 1 kilometre of the proposed Scheme with a primary focus on those assets which fall within 300m of the proposed Scheme. 6.11.2 This assessment has found that during both construction and operation, the proposed Scheme would have no very large, large or moderate adverse significant effects on any heritage assets within the study area. 6.11.3 During construction, the proposed Scheme would have temporary slight adverse effects on 5 designated heritage assets:

· Scheduled monument: Lynchets on north-west spur of Twyford Road (NHLE 1017903) · Scheduled monument: Moated site 300m south-east of Compton House (NHLE 1012675) · Scheduled monument: Bowl barrow 75m west of Itchen Cottages (NHLE 1008223) · Grade II* listed building: Church of St Matthew at Otterbourne (NHLE 1095758) and · Grade II listed building: Top Lodge (NHLE 1095808) 6.11.4 The construction of the proposed compound area would require excavation. Should archaeological remains be situated within this location, it is likely these would be truncated / removed by construction activities. This would result in a permanent slight adverse effect on unknown undesignated archaeological remains. 6.11.5 As a result of construction, the proposed Scheme would have a slight permanent adverse effect on 4 designated heritage assets:

· Scheduled monument: Roman road east of St Catherine’s Hill (NHLE 1001798) · Scheduled monument: St Catherine’s Hillfort (NHLE 1016489) · Scheduled monument: Round barrow cemetery on Magdalen Hill Down (NHLE 1016746) · Grade II* Registered Park and Garden: Cranbury Park 6.11.6 This is through the construction of superspan and cantilever gantries as well as vegetation clearance having impacts upon the setting of these assets. The proposed Scheme would have a neutral effect on all other heritage assets which fall within the study area. 6.11.7 During operation, the proposed Scheme would have slight permanent adverse effects on the same 9 designated heritage assets. This is through increased noise from traffic during operation combined with light reflections due to the proposed new gantries having an impact on the setting of these assets. The proposed Scheme would have neutral effects on all other heritage assets which fall within the study area. 6.11.8 Some slight adverse effects on the cultural heritage assets may be offset by further design mitigation. Mitigation measures that would be applied in the detailed design phase comprise limited vegetation removal and native replanting to maintain screening between the proposed Scheme and heritage assets. This may result in the

Page 99 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

residual effects on certain heritage assets within the study area being deceased to neutral. This would ensure that the proposed Scheme remains compliant with national and local heritage policy and best practice guidance.

Page 100 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report 7. Landscape and visual effects

Key features for this topic: · Landscape effects on the South Downs National Park and Itchen Valley character areas assessed would be non-significant during construction and operation · During the construction phase,18 representative visual receptors would experience temporary slight adverse effects with the remaining 11 receptors experiencing neutral effects · During the operational phase, slight adverse effects would be experienced by 11 representative visual receptor settlement groups in year 1, with the remaining 16 receptors experiencing neutral visual effects · Slight adverse effects would be experienced by 2 visual receptor settlement groups in year 15, with the remaining 25 receptor groups experiencing neutral visual effects · There would be no significant landscape effects on the South Downs National Park during the construction phase, year 1 and year 15 · On balance, the majority of visual effects would be neutral, with no significant effects being experienced at the settlement level

7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 This chapter provides a simple level assessment of the potential effects associated with the proposed Scheme upon surrounding landscape character and visual amenity during both construction and operation. 7.1.2 Landscape encompasses many more elements than the common association, which focuses merely upon the view or appearance of the land. The notion of landscape can be applied to both rural and urban environments with the term ‘townscape’ frequently adopted within the urban context. From the perspective of environmental assessment, ‘landscape’ applies to physical elements such as topography, drainage, land use, land management and vegetation, as well as ecology, historical and cultural associations.

7.2 Study area 7.2.1 The study area for this section is based on a 1 kilometre buffer from the edge of the proposed redline boundary, in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 1119 and the scoping report. Changes to the landscape and visual receptors are expected to predominantly be limited to within the highways corridor, immediate setting and surrounding area and not beyond 1 kilometre. 7.2.2 Receptors assessed as part of this simple assessment include residential settlements, including those within Conservation Areas, the South Downs National Park, Magdalen

19 Interim Advice Note 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment (IAN 135/10 November 2010).

Page 101 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Hill Down open access land and the registered parks and gardens of Compton End and Cranbury Park.

7.3 Methodology 7.3.1 No single methodology exists for assessing landscape and visual effects. However, this simple level landscape assessment follows the recommendations set out in the following documents, identifying landscape and visual baseline including value and sensitivity to change, prior to considering the magnitude of impact (change) and resulting significance of effect:

· Highways England’s DMRB Volume 11: Environmental Assessment and IAN 135/10 · Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3 produced by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, third edition, 2013 · An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment prepared by Natural England, 2014 7.3.2 Some residential receptors have been addressed in a greater level of detail than ordinarily required at this stage. This is to account for a minority of receptors within those grouped together into Settlements which may experience a disproportionately increased impact from the proposed Scheme due to their proximity to the proposed works.

Baseline Methodology

7.3.3 The landscape and visual baseline were established through a desk study and site survey. The desk study used mapping and literature to gather an understanding of the study area and its surroundings. This included a review of Ordnance Survey mapping and Landscape Character Assessments at a regional and local level, as well as the identification of any key designations that may be impacted by the proposed Scheme. A Chartered Landscape Architect visited the site and the surrounding area in November 2017. During this time, likely visual effects from key settlements were also identified. 7.3.4 Current good practice for visual impact assessments requires that any study area should extend far enough to include all those areas where significant visual impacts are likely to occur. DMRB recommends that all receptors within the visual envelope or Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) within flat landscapes should be assessed up to 1 kilometre from the centre line of the proposed Scheme. Given the enclosed nature of the proposed Scheme, the study area has been kept to 1 kilometre. Although there are elevated views from within the South Downs National Park these key views are best represented within the 1 kilometre study area.

Impact methodology

7.3.5 Landscape and visual impacts are determined by a number of factors which collectively provide a level of significance of effect. Significance is based on the sensitivity of an area or visual receptor to a perceived change, along with an assessment of the magnitude of the change in the view or existing landscape

Page 102 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

character. Impacts upon landscape character and visual amenity are considered during both the construction and operational phases of the development. 7.3.6 The assessment has used structured, informed and reasoned professional judgement, considering a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, derived from desk study and fieldwork.

Value (Sensitivity) of resource

7.3.7 Landscape sensitivity considers the robustness of the landscape to accommodate change. The evaluation of the sensitivity of the landscape resource was based on factors and attributes which affect the value of the landscape and its susceptibility to change. Further explanation is given in Table 7.1 below. 7.3.8 The sensitivity of a visual receptor varies with the type of receptor assessed. For example, within Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) guidance, residential receptors are considered to have a high sensitivity to change, as do Public Rights of Way (PRoWs), where walkers would be focusing on the views within the local landscape. Places of work and recreational receptors where the focus is on the task in hand rather than the surrounding view are considered to have a lower sensitivity to change. The simple level of assessment as described in IAN 135/10 is concerned with representative views from settlements and key views from publicly accessible land. Further explanation is given in Table 7.1 below. Table 7.1 Landscape and visual sensitivity criteria

Visual – typical criteria Sensitivity Landscape - typical criteria descriptors descriptors Landscapes which by nature of their character would be unable to accommodate change of the type proposed. Residential properties. Typically, these would be: Users of Public Rights of Way · Of high quality with distinctive elements and features or other recreational trails making a positive contribution to character and sense (e.g. National Trails, of place. footpaths, bridleways etc.). High · Likely to be designated, but the aspects which Users of recreational facilities underpin such value may also be present outside where the purpose of that designated areas, especially at the local scale. recreation is enjoyment of the · Areas of special recognised value through use, countryside (e.g. Country perception or historic and cultural associations. Parks, National Trust or other · Likely to contain features and elements that are rare access land etc.) and could not be replaced. Landscapes which by nature of their character would be able to partly accommodate change of the type proposed. Typically, these would be: Outdoor workers. · Comprised of commonplace elements and features Users of scenic roads, creating generally unremarkable character but with railways or waterways or some sense of place. users of designated tourist Moderate · Locally designated, or their value may be expressed routes. through non-statutory local publications. Schools and other institutional · Containing some features of value through use, buildings, and their outdoor perception or historic and cultural associations. areas. · Likely to contain some features and elements that could not be replaced.

Page 103 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Visual – typical criteria Sensitivity Landscape - typical criteria descriptors descriptors Landscapes which by nature of their character would be able to accommodate change of the type proposed. Indoor workers. Typically, these would be: Users of main roads (e.g. · Comprised of some features and elements that are trunk roads) or passengers in discordant, derelict or in decline, resulting in indistinct public transport on main Low character with little or no sense of place. arterial routes. · Not designated. Users of recreational facilities · Containing few, if any, features of value through use, where the purpose of that perception or historic and cultural associations. recreation is not related to the · Likely to contain few, if any, features and elements view (e.g. sports facilities). that could not be replaced.

Magnitude of impact

7.3.9 The magnitude of impact looks at the scale and nature of the scheme set within the context of the existing landscape, and in this case, the existing view. Magnitude is assessed on the scale of the change in landscape character / view, as well as the duration and distance of character area / visual receptors concerned from the proposed works. Further explanation is given in Table 7.2 and Table 7.3 below. Table 7.2 Magnitude of impact landscape criteria

Magnitude Typical criteria descriptions of impact

Adverse - Total loss or large-scale damage to existing character or distinctive features and elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic conspicuous features and elements. Major Beneficial - Large scale improvement of character by the restoration of features and elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic and conspicuous features and elements, or by the addition of new distinctive features.

Adverse - Partial loss or noticeable damage to existing character or distinctive features and elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic noticeable features and elements. Moderate Beneficial - Partial or noticeable improvement of character by the restoration of existing features and elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic and noticeable features and elements, or by the addition of new characteristic features. Adverse - Slight loss or damage to existing character or features and elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic features and elements. Minor Beneficial - Slight improvement of character by the restoration of existing features and elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic features and elements, or by the addition of new characteristic elements. Adverse - Barely noticeable loss or damage to existing character or features and elements, and/or the addition of new but uncharacteristic features and elements. Negligible Beneficial - Barely noticeable improvement of character by the restoration of existing features and elements, and/or the removal of uncharacteristic features and elements, or by the addition of new characteristic elements.

No change No noticeable loss, damage or alteration to character or features or elements.

Page 104 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 7.3 Magnitude of impact visual criteria

Magnitude of Typical criteria descriptors impact The proposed Scheme, or a part of it, would become the dominant feature or focal point of Major the view. The proposed Scheme, or a part of it, would form a noticeable feature or element of the Moderate view which is readily apparent to the receptor. The proposed Scheme, or a part of it, would be perceptible but not alter the overall balance Minor of features and elements that comprise the existing view. Only a very small part of the proposed Scheme would be discernible, or it is at such a Negligible distance that it would form a barely noticeable feature or element of the view.

No change No part of the proposed Scheme, or work or activity associated with it, is discernible.

Significance 7.3.10 The assessment of the significance of effect is undertaken by combining the sensitivity to change of an asset with an assessment of the magnitude of change (impact) upon it. The output of this function is detailed within Table 7.4. Table 7.4 Significance of landscape and visual effect categories

Landscape / Magnitude of impact visual No change Negligible Minor Moderate Major sensitivity High Neutral Slight Moderate Large Very Large Neutral or Moderate Neutral Slight Moderate Large Slight Neutral or Low Neutral Neutral Slight Moderate Slight

7.4 Baseline conditions Landscape Character Baseline South Downs National Park 7.4.1 The South Downs National Park abuts the western edge of the M3 highway corridor between junction 9 and 10, and includes the M3 within its boundary between junction 10 and 11. The South Downs National Park falls within the study area from the north of junction 9 to 12 at Otterbourne. The western extent of the National Park is adjacent with the M3 highway corridor from the junction 9 through Twyford Conservation Area to junction 11, where it is separated from the motorway by the South Western Main Line railway. The National Park remains within the 1 kilometre study area until it reaches the settlement of Otterbourne north of junction 12. 7.4.2 The National Park extends far to the east towards Eastbourne and as far north as Guildford. It is well used for leisure activities and contains many Public Rights of Way and Long Distance Footpaths including most notably:

· Pilgrim’s Trail Long Distance Footpath – A 155 mile medieval route from Winchester Cathedral to St Michael in Normandy heading south-east from Winchester

Page 105 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· South Downs Way National Trail – A 100 mile route following the old routes along the chalk escarpment and ridges of the South Downs National Park · Itchen Way Long Distance Footpath – A 30 mile route following the River Itchen north from Southampton Water through Winchester before turning east towards Cheriton · Monarch’s Way Long Distance Footpath – Part of a 615 mile branching route stretching as far as Brighton to the east, Charmouth to the west and Boscobel to the north. This is part of the longest trail in England and is based on a lengthy route taken by King Charles II 7.4.3 This valued local and national asset is characterised by an open landscape, comprising undulating large open irregular arable and pastoral fields, bound by mature trees and hedgerows and steep grazed slopes. Small isolated clusters of residences and other small buildings are uncommon in the landscape. The open nature of the landscape increases its susceptibility to external influences in the character area due to increased connectivity with the surrounding areas. The mosaic of field types is made up of highly managed arable land to unmanaged wetlands and pastoral fields creating a unique and nationally recognised landscape. The M3 corridor bisects St. Catherine’s Hill from the Twyford escarpment, which are both prominent features at the western extent of the National Park and Twyford Down. The M3 is a discordant element currently within the National Park, despite being contained within a cutting or false cutting for much of the area. The highway corridor is at its most apparent where it severs the prominent chalk ridge at St Catherine’s Hill, creating the Twyford Cutting. Although the original M3 scheme created this disharmonious component, the Twyford Cutting has since become an established feature of the character within the SDNP and as such is sensitive to material change. Existing highways vegetation is not a prominent contributor to the landscape character in this area, however this does have the function of reducing the influence of the highway on the surrounding area. 7.4.4 As a National Park, the South Downs is recognised for its natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and is a highly valued local, regional and national asset. In accordance with IAN 135/10 the landscape would have a high sensitivity to change due to its designation, valuable, high quality and distinctive features. Itchen Valley (LCA 3C) 7.4.5 The long linear Itchen Valley Landscape Character Area is in proximity to the existing M3 from junction 9 to 14 and is partially within the South Downs National Park. The Landscape Character Area (LCA) contains a wide and varied array of land types and uses, including arable farmland, dense urban environments in Eastleigh and Winchester, retail and industry, open parkland, small village settlements and the remains of a historic water meadow system. Urbanised sections of the LCA accommodate the M3 motorway. This is typified between junction 12 and 14, where the M3 runs adjacent to Eastleigh. The section of LCA 3C most vulnerable to change is the River Itchen and the area immediately surrounding it. This is particularly around junction 11 where the M3 bridges the river valley and presents itself as a discordant feature. 7.4.6 The River Itchen is a fast-flowing chalk stream which flows north to south through Winchester, before meandering south-east through Twyford Conservation Area. The river valley is characterised by informal pastoral fields, wet meadows, river valley

Page 106 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

floor, downland mosaic and small-scale settlements. The River Itchen chalk stream is a designated Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and is one of only 14 grade A / B fresh water habitats in the UK. The river valley has a number of historic features, small villages and farms, minor crossing points and public rights of way including the Itchen Way long distance footpath. 7.4.7 The low lying land of the river valley is predominantly grassland comprising species rich meadow, neutral grassland and improved meadows. Much of non-grassland vegetation is natural riparian shrub and tree species along the River Itchen. However, there are pockets of mature trees and shrubs around settlements and individual trees within meadows. The existing M3 corridor traverses the Itchen Valley and has a minimal influence on the character of the landscape other than providing uncharacteristic steep vegetated embankments along the highway. The designated river, local cultural and heritage features are highly valued in the local area and this part of the study area is contained within the South Downs National Park. The sensitivity of the landscape is judged to be high in accordance with the guidance from IAN 135/10 due to it partly being in the designated National Park, its recreational uses, number of PRoWs and its unique valued local features. Cultural designated features 7.4.8 The following designated features are identified within the 1 kilometre study area for the scheme, details of these can be found in Appendix B, Figure 8.1 (drawing no. HE549338-MMSJV-EGN-000-DR-YE-00023) and Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Environmental Constraints Plan (drawing no. HE549338-MMSJV-EGN- 000-DR-YE-00100). The Cultural Heritage Assessment in Chapter 6 provides more extensive and detailed study on cultural heritage features. National Park

· South Downs National Park Conservation Areas

· Winchester Conservation Area – St Giles’s Hill and the Soke · Compton Street Conservation Area · Twyford Conservation Area Registered Park and Gardens

· Cranbury Park · Compton End 7.4.9 The impact on these features are assessed within the visual assessment by representative visual receptors. Visual Baseline 7.4.10 Key representative viewpoints have been selected within the 1 kilometre study area to identify visual effects on settlements and key views in accordance with the simple assessment methodology in IAN 135/10. Key views have been reviewed based on the recommendations of the Scoping Report (MP0155-HEX-EGN-ZZ-AS-KK-0016) and refined on site in accordance with the latest engineering design. Interim Advice Note 135/10 advises identifying settlement groups and prominent views from public vantage points only at this stage of assessment. In this assessment these include

Page 107 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

numerous settlement groups along the length of the proposed Scheme, long distance footpaths, a National Trail and Magdalen Gill Down open access land. All key representative viewpoints shown in Table 7.5 and addressed in this simple assessment are illustrated in drawing Appendix A, 7.2 (drawing no. HE549338- MMSJV-ELS-000-DR-LV-00009). Table 7.5 Key representative viewpoints

Key representative Key representative viewpoint description viewpoint no. (refer to Appendix A, 7.1) 1 View looking east from public footpath between residential properties and highways land, representative of views from Winnall. 2 View from Quarry Road representative of views from residential properties in St Giles’s Hill Conservation Area. 3 View from Gordon Avenue representative of views from residential receptors in Highcliffe. 4 View from St. Cross Road representative views from residential receptors in St. Cross. 5 View from Chilcomb Lane representative of residential views in Chilcomb. 6 View from Place Lane representative of residential receptors within Compton Conservation Area. 7 View from Cliff Way representative of views from residential receptors in Compton Down. 8 View from an unnamed road off Pearson Lane representative of views from residential receptors in Shawford. 9 View from PRoW footpath No. 3 representative of views from residential receptors in Twyford Conservation Area. 10 View from Highways Road representative of views from residential receptors in South Down. 11 View from Poles Lane west representative of views from residential receptors in Otterbourne. 12 View east from Hocombe Road representative of residential receptors in Hiltingbury. 13 View from Otterbourne Hill Road south-west representative of views from residential receptors in Allbrook. 14 View from open space behind Medina Close representative of views from residential receptors in Chandlers Ford East. 15 View from Birch Grove, looking east representative of views from residential receptors in Boyatt Wood. 16 View from Oakmount Road representative of views from residential receptors in Chandlers Ford Monks Brook. 17 View from Cox Road east representative of views from residential receptors in Chandlers Ford south. 18 View from Leigh Road representative of views from residential receptors in Eastleigh Core. 19 View from Sparrow Square north west representative of views from residential receptors in Eastleigh south -west. 20 View from Chilworth Road east representative of views from residential receptors in Chilworth. 21 View from Birch Road south east representative of views from residential receptors in Chilworth Triangle.

Page 108 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

22 View from Bassett Green Road looking north representative of views from residential receptors in Bassett North. 23 View from PRoW Footpath No. 9 representative of the Magdalen Hill Down open access land looking south-west. 24 View from the South Downs Way National Trail (Footpath No. 1) looking south-west. 25 View from Pilgrims’ Trail Long Distance Footpath (Bridleway 17) looking north. 26 View from the Itchen Way Long Distance Footpath (Footpath No. 3) looking north- west. 27 View from PRoW Footpath No. 4 representative of views from Cranbury Park Registered Park and Garden looking south-east.

7.5 Sensitivity of resource 7.5.1 The sensitivity of key landscape and visual receptors have been assessed and summarised in Table 7.6. Table 7.6 Sensitivity of key landscape and visual receptors

Landscape / visual Sensitivity Justification resource South Downs National High The South Downs National Park is nationally recognised as an Park area of outstanding landscape and is designated to conserve the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area and promote opportunities for the enjoyment and understanding of the special qualities of the area by the public. Itchen Valley High The Itchen Valley landscape character area contains the Landscape Character designated River Itchen, local cultural and heritage features highly Area valued in the local area and also part of the South Downs National Park. Winchester High Conservation Areas are designated by local planning authorities Conservation Area as areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Compton Street High Conservation Areas are designated by local planning authorities Conservation Area as areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Twyford Conservation High Conservation Areas are designated by local planning authorities Area as areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. South Downs Way High One of 15 National Trails in England and Wales designated due to National Trail their routes through exceptional landscapes. These routes are managed to a very high standard and are regularly frequented by walkers and ramblers. Long Distance High Long distance footpaths are Public Rights of Way that are Footpaths of Pilgrim’s generally longer than 50km or are expected to take longer than a Trail, Itchen Way, and, day to walk the entirety of the route. Monarchs Way Residential receptors High These are highly sensitive to visual changes in the landscape.

7.6 Assumptions and limitations 7.6.1 It has been assumed that construction activity within the highways boundary would require:

· the use of construction plant · vegetation removal

Page 109 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· installation and/or replacement of noise barriers · site compounds near the scheme mainline · construction or replacement of highways infrastructure including gantries, CCTV masts, emergency areas (EAs), cross carriageway ducts, vehicle restraint systems 7.6.2 All noise barriers to be replaced are detailed within the Environmental Masterplan and the Chapter 9 Noise and vibration of this report. It is anticipated that the removal and replacement of noise barriers would be undertaken within less than a week. Temporary visual intrusion would be experienced during the replacement of the barrier and potentially from any vegetation loss required for the installation. There would be the potential for visual intrusion to be reduced during construction and operation if certain noise barriers can be retained. 7.6.3 A potential site compound has been proposed, this is likely to be situated to the north- west of the south Winchester Park & Ride in an arable field. This proposed site is outside of the South Downs National Park and Itchen Valley (3C) LCAs which have been assessed at this stage. The proposed compound has not been included within the Landscape Character assessment as it sits outside of the landscape character areas that have previously been assessed. 7.6.4 Viewpoints assessed were taken from publicly accessible areas and vantage points. Where access was not available, views and potential impacts were determined from nearby accessible areas and with the help of aerial photographs where necessary. Representative views of settlements comprise the view most likely to experience the greatest impact. This represents a worst-case scenario and on balance the overall impact on the settlement is likely to be lessened. This would not represent the “average” view from the settlement, but would ensure that the most impacted areas of the settlement are assessed. All assessment work has been undertaken on foot from ground level. The site survey was undertaken in November 2017, where some deciduous vegetation had begun to lose its foliage. 7.6.5 A tree survey has not been undertaken by an arboriculturalist. However, LiDAR survey data has been obtained to understand the extent of vegetation on site. A more accurate determination of the trees to be removed or impacted would be identified once detailed design has been undertaken. 7.6.6 Initial stakeholder engagement was undertaken with statutory environmental bodies to inform the assessment of the landscape character areas and areas of visual sensitivity. Representatives were present from the South Downs National Park, Eastleigh Borough Council, the Environment Agency, Natural England, Hampshire County Council and Winchester City Council. 7.6.7 Night works would be required during the construction phase in existing lit and unlit areas of the M3 highways corridor. These would only be undertaken where necessary and mitigation measures including directional lighting and temporary hoarding would be implemented to reduce the effects of the lighting. This is explained in further detail in Section 2.9 of this report.

7.7 Design and mitigation measures 7.7.1 The following design assumptions have been made:

Page 110 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· EAs would have a highly visible orange surface to make them more noticeable to road users · Gantries and highways infrastructure would be located to reduce potential landscape and visual effects where engineering and safety constraints allow · The use of existing highway structures has been prioritised to reduce vegetation clearance and introducing new structures · Vegetation retention has been prioritised where it currently has a screening function for high sensitivity receptors · The following mitigation principles would be applied to the detailed design stage. At present these are committed to in the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) · Vegetation removal would occur only where it is essential to construct, run and safely maintain the proposed Scheme · Where the extent of proposed vegetation removal has the potential to result in adverse effects upon a receptor, the proposed design would be tailored to mitigate any potential impacts · Where noise barriers are replaced or introduced, mitigation planting would be introduced to soften the appearance of the barrier · During the replacement of noise barriers temporary hoarding would be erected to limit short term visual effects on nearby receptors · Where areas of vegetation clearance within the highways boundary adjoin ancient woodland, an arboriculturalist would be present on site to ensure relevant root protection areas are not encroached upon · Areas sensitive to clearance and where specific care should be taken to avoid significant effects on landscape and visual receptors have been identified in the OEMP · Where existing vegetation is to be removed or managed adjacent to a residential receptor or Ancient Woodland, trees would be removed, pruned or protected with adherence to BS 5837:2012 “Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations". For more detail on Ancient Woodland refer to the Biodiversity Chapter 8 7.7.2 An iterative design has been developed in the first instance with the engineering design team to adjust highways infrastructure to reduce or avoid visual impacts. 7.7.3 Planting proposals would be of a similar native mix to the existing surrounding vegetation. 7.7.4 Replacement native tree and shrub planting would be provided where temporary construction activities have taken place and the area is not required to remain clear for sightlines or for safety requirements. The proposed replacement planting design can be found in the Environmental Masterplan Plan (drawing no. HE549338-MMSJV- ELS-000-DR-LD-00001 to HE549338-MMSJV-ELS-000-DR-LD-00013).

7.8 Potential construction effects 7.8.1 This section considers landscape and visual effects during the construction period, in accordance with the design proposals. Landscape character has been addressed at a county and regional level covering South Downs National Park and Itchen Valley

Page 111 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Landscape Character Area (LCA) 3C. Key views and visual receptors have been identified at a settlement level, as agreed in the Scoping Report. Landscape effects 7.8.2 Landscape effects during construction are likely to arise from temporary construction activities including:

· Movement of and use of construction plant and machinery · Installation / removal and replacement of noise barriers · Night works and associated lighting · Decommissioning of existing highways infrastructure · Vegetation loss within the highway boundary South Downs National Park 7.8.3 Temporary construction activity including the movement of large visible construction plant and machinery combined with existing traffic, would exacerbate the impact of existing traffic on the M3. However, this is considered to only be a minimal change in the character of this section of the National Park within the study area. The construction of additional gantries and signage would increase the influence of the existing highways features that are present in the highways corridor and their influence on the South Downs National Park. Within the proximity of the landscape character area, 3 gantries are proposed to be removed, 4 gantry locations would be re-used and 14 gantries would be introduced, across the 5 kilometres assessed. Within the Twyford Cutting the construction of retaining solutions, gantries and signs and the presence of construction plant in particular would, be at odds with the white chalk slopes of the cutting. The enclosed nature of the cutting would also exacerbate the presence of construction activity and machinery. Despite the length of the cutting being approximately 1.3km it is considered that construction activity in this section would have a concentrated effect through this section. Existing highways vegetation contributes to the pattern and structure of the western extents of the National Park and vegetation removal would have an adverse effect on the immediate character area in the short term. However, given the existing context of the highways corridor, the change in character is not considered to be significant within the National Park. Lighting impacts during construction are likely to be contained within the highways corridor and set against the well lit residential areas to the east of Winchester. There are no environmental barrier works proposed within proximity of this LCA. During construction, the magnitude of impact is predicted to be negligible, and the significance of effect is predicted to be slight adverse at worst within the context of the entire landscape character area.

Itchen Valley (LCA 3C) 7.8.4 Temporary construction activity from construction plant, and the transportation of new highways infrastructure are likely to have a non-significant effect on the landscape character area given the context of the existing road network and its current influence on the surrounding landscape. The construction of new gantries and signage would not have a significant effect on the Itchen Valley LCA given the existing influence from similar existing highways infrastructure and traffic on the character area. Existing vegetation in the highways corridor does not contribute or compliment the character of

Page 112 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

the Itchen Valley, however it does limit the influence of the existing highway corridor. The removal of vegetation within the highways corridor would have a slight effect on the character of the Itchen Valley which would detract from the existing landscape character. Noise barriers to be replaced within the landscape character area are adjacent to the Boyatt Wood settlement, the localised clearance and replacement works are not expected to have an impact on the landscape character area as a whole. Night works are predicted to be well contained within the context of the existing highways corridor, residential receptors and lit junctions in the LCA. Within the proximity of the landscape character area 7 gantries would be re-used, 11 gantries would be removed, and 23 gantries would be introduced across the 9.4 kilometres assessed. The wider context of the river valley is unlikely to experience changes to the character extending beyond the existing impact of the M3 corridor. The impacts from construction activity is predicted to result in a negligible magnitude of impact, leading to a slight adverse significance of effect at worst. Visual effects 7.8.5 The visual receptors from key representative viewpoints are assessed in the visual impact schedules in Appendix A, 7.1 and describe the baseline and predicted visual impact on receptors during construction. 7.8.6 It is not expected that any of the 27 settlements and key views assessed would experience temporary moderate, large or very large significant adverse effects during the construction phase of works. 7.8.7 Visual receptors would experience non-significant impacts during the construction phase of works. These are generally due to:

· Long distance views of the works · An expansive view of which the works are only a small element in the view · Existing views of the highways corridor area available that would either not change or feature minor changes, or · No views of the proposed Scheme being afforded 7.8.8 However, some impacts during the replacement of noise barriers would be experienced for a relatively short period of time, typically less than a week. These impacts experienced by receptors would not be significant overall, despite receptors being within proximity to the proposed Scheme.

7.9 Potential operational effects Year 1 7.9.1 This section considers the operational effects of the proposed Scheme on landscape and visual receptors. Effects have been predicted based on a winter setting where deciduous vegetation would not be in leaf. Newly planted mitigation planting would be immature with no effect on visual screening and landscape integration. This presents the assessment on the basis of a worst-case scenario. Landscape effects

Page 113 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

South Downs National Park 7.9.2 Vegetation removed as part of the construction work would influence the integral relationship between the M3 highways corridor and the surrounding character area. Additional gantries, signage and EAs would marginally increase the perception of the motorway from the National Park within the Study Area. Although there are currently influences from the M3 on the National Park these would be further exacerbated with additional highways infrastructure and the loss of intervening vegetation. At year 1 of operation, mitigation planting would take the form of immature native whip planting, within protective tubes, approximately 60-80cm tall. It is assumed at this stage that retaining solutions would be used within the area of false cutting adjacent to the National Park. This would reduce the amount of bank clearance required and vegetation clearance, which currently helps to contain the highways corridor and reduce its effects. Retaining solutions within the Twyford Cutting at year 1 would appear to be at odds with the existing slopes, despite the use of proposed sympathetic materials and finishes. The proposed Scheme would result in a slight adverse effect on the South Downs National Park resulting from a negligible magnitude of change to the high sensitivity landscape. Itchen Valley (LCA 3C) 7.9.3 Vegetation loss is not expected outside of the highway estate, however vegetation within the highways corridor does contribute to the setting and character of the LCA integrating the highways corridor and limiting its visual prominence. The disruptive influence of the existing highway corridor would be increased after scheme completion due to vegetation loss and the increase in highways infrastructure. The southbound carriageway of the scheme is located in false cutting in the most vulnerable areas, which would limit the perception of some of the proposed infrastructure where vegetation is retained. However, some additional impacts from the signage and gantries may still be experienced to the south of the highways corridor. The north of the landscape character area is susceptible to impacts from the proposed Scheme, however, existing influences from the highways corridor include gantries, signage and high sided vehicles. It is not expected that the removal of vegetation or the introduction of additional highways elements would have a significant effect on the local landscape character in the context of the baseline conditions. It is considered there would be a potential slight adverse effect on the highly sensitive landscape resulting from a negligible magnitude of change. Visual effects 7.9.4 Visual receptors from key representative viewpoints assessed in the visual impact schedules in Appendix A, 7.1 indicate that the majority of visual receptors would experience non-significant effects during Year 1 of operation due to:

· Long distance views of the works · An expansive view of which the works are only a small element in the view · Existing views of the highways corridor area available and would either not change or feature minor changes · No views of the proposed Scheme being afforded 7.9.5 None of the 27 visual receptors identified, are expected to experience moderate, large or very large significant effects during the first year of operation.

Page 114 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

7.9.6 Although areas of replacement planting, plant stock would comprise 60 - 80cm whip planting in protective tubes. This planting would not yet be substantial enough to provide effective mitigation in year 1. However, retained vegetation would provide sufficient screening to reduce likely significant effects on receptors. Year 15 South Downs National Park 7.9.7 In year 15 of operation it is expected that replacement and mitigation planting would have reached a level of maturity which would reintegrate areas cleared during construction with the retained pattern and structure of neighbouring highway vegetation. By reintegrating the form and structure of the vegetation along the highway corridor, the baseline pattern and relationship between the National Park and highway would be restored. It is predicted that the areas of permanent clearance would appear to be minor in the context of the surrounding road and the regenerated vegetation. Gantries, EAs, cabinets and other highways infrastructure introduced as part of the proposed Scheme would appear to be more integrated into the fabric of the highways corridor, as vegetation matures and integrates the structures. Retaining solutions within the Twyford Cutting would appear to be predominantly integrated with the existing chalk sides of the cutting as the sympathetic materials and finishes used would have weathered and discoloured to match the rest of the cutting. By year 15, the wider context of the National Park would experience no change from baseline conditions, which would result in a neutral significance of effect in accordance with Table 7.4. Itchen Valley (LCA 3C) 7.9.8 Temporary vegetation loss due to the proposed Scheme would have been replanted and re-established by year 15, aiding the integration of the scheme within the surrounding character area. The proposed highways infrastructure including gantries, EAs and cabinets would be in keeping with the existing context of the highways corridor. It is predicted that there would be no change in the magnitude of impact on the landscape character area from the baseline once mitigation planting has matured. This would result in a neutral effect upon landscape character within the Itchen Valley. Visual effects 7.9.9 In year 15 of operation it is not expected that any of the 27 receptors assessed would still experience moderate or large significant adverse effect.

· Non-significant visual effects are expected to be experienced, due to: o Long distance views of the works o The establishment of mitigation planting restoring visual screening o An expansive view of which the scheme is only a small element in the view o Existing views of the highways corridor area available and would either not change or feature minor changes o No views of the proposed Scheme being afforded 7.10 Residual effects 7.10.1 The addition of new gantries and signs would increase the overall impact of the existing M3 highways corridor. However, the largest impact resulting from the

Page 115 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

proposed Scheme would result from the removal of vegetation. There would be no significant adverse effects upon the South Downs National Park and Itchen River Valley landscape character areas due to the existing context of the M3 corridor and its influence on the surrounding landscape at year 15. 7.10.2 Mitigation planting would not sufficiently replace all vegetation removed in year 1, however much of the removed vegetation would be replaced. Where vegetation could not be replaced there would be an increased impact of the proposed Scheme, although overall this is considered to be non-significant. 7.10.3 The significance of effect on all visual receptors would be non-significant due to the setting of the M3 within the cutting, screening vegetation and the highway already forming an existing part of the view. Overall the proposed Scheme would not result in significant residual effects, due to the considered placement of highways infrastructure, the retention of existing screening vegetation and the implementation of the robust proposed replanting mitigation works.

7.11 Summary 7.11.1 The proposed Scheme has been assessed as part of this simple level assessment identifying the visual baseline and resulting significance of effects. During construction, year 1 and year 15, it is not considered that the proposed Scheme would result in any significant effects on visual receptors or landscape character. The outcomes of this assessment is based on the mitigation measures described in this chapter which would be secured through the implementation of the OEMP.

Page 116 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report 8. Biodiversity

Key features for this topic: · Effects on biodiversity would be non-significant during construction and operation · During construction the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation (SAC) may experience slight adverse effects, reducing to neutral once operational · During the construction phase of works St Catherine’s Hill Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Shawford Down Local Nature Reserve (LNR) would experience temporary slight adverse effects · During construction, direct impacts upon protected species including bats, badgers, great crested newt and dormouse are possible (as well on breeding birds and reptiles); resulting in the potential for slight adverse effects · Calcareous grassland and ponds would be subject to slight adverse effects during construction. Areas of habitat with negligible ecological value, such as scrub and improved grassland, would be subject to slight adverse effects due to habitat loss · Slight adverse effects are anticipated on Hockley Link Road Verges of Ecological Importance (RVEI and 4 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) during construction and operation) · Ancient woodland would be subject to neutral effects during construction and operation of the Scheme, due to appropriate control of works within the 15m buffer of designated Ancient Woodlands · Further surveys for protected species are on-going to establish presence, location and population of protected species · On balance, the majority of effects on biodiversity would be neutral, with no significant effects on ecological receptors.

8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 This chapter provides a simple level assessment of the potential effects associated with the proposed Scheme on biodiversity during both construction and operation. 8.1.2 The chapter summarises the findings of an ecological impact assessment undertaken for the proposed scheme. It considers the potential impacts to relevant ecological receptors identified from desk study and field surveys, outlines recommended mitigation measures and concludes by identifying any potential significant residual effects during construction and operation. The ecological receptors comprise designated sites, notable habitats, and notable and legally protected species recorded within or near to the proposed works.

8.2 Study area 8.2.1 As the proposed Scheme through preliminary design, has progressed this has been refined (Table 8-1), taking into account the presence and location of ecological receptors and their potential Zone of Influence (ZoI) in relation to the proposed Scheme. The ZoI is the area used in the assessment in which ecological receptors

Page 117 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

may be subject to impacts from the proposed Scheme. The potential ZoI of each receptor differs according to the attributes of the receptor. Table 8.1: Study area and Zone of Influence for each ecological receptor Ecological Study area (from proposed Zone of Influence (from proposed scheme) receptor scheme) European Within 2 km Within 200m of footprint of the proposed Scheme 20 designated sites Within river catchment for and of Air Quality affected road network . sites hydrologically Within river catchment for sites hydrologically connected to the proposed connected to the proposed Scheme. Scheme. Within 30km for sites designated for bats. Within 30km for sites designated for bats. Other Statutory Within 2km. Within 200m of footprint of the proposed Scheme designated sites Within river catchment for and of Air Quality affected road network. Within sites hydrologically river catchment for sites hydrologically connected connected to the proposed to the proposed Scheme. Scheme. Non-statutory Within 2km. Within or immediately adjacent to the proposed designated sites and Scheme. notable habitats Notable and legally Within 1km. Within or immediately adjacent to the proposed protected species Scheme. 8.2.2 The proposed Scheme footprint for this assessment has been taken as the M3 between junction 9 for Winnall and the A34 and junction 14 for the M27, as this is the extent of required habitat clearance. The proposed Scheme includes the junction roads at junction 14 connecting to the M27 going east and west. All proposed works would be within the highways boundary with the exception of the site compound. The location of the site compound is assumed for this assessment, to be at junction 11, on Badger Farm Road, A3090 and Otterbourne Road. The proposed Scheme footprint has been taken as the soft estate of the M3 between the junctions named above. A significant proportion of the soft estate would not be affected by the proposed Scheme, as works would be localised within the highways boundary.

8.3 Methodology 8.3.1 The scope of this assessment is in accordance with the Scoping Report, although this has been refined as the proposed Scheme design has developed and more ecological data has been gathered since submission. In accordance with Interim Advice Note (IAN) 125/1521, a detailed assessment has been carried out for this chapter. Biodiversity legislation and policy relevant to this assessment is detailed within Appendix A, 8.1.

Desk study

8.3.2 A desk study was undertaken to obtain ecological information of statutory and non- statutory designated sites, notable habitats and legally protected species present within the study area. Data was obtained from the following organisations:

20 Refer to Air Quality Chapter 5 for methodology and description of affected road network 21 Highways England. (2015). DMRB Interim Advice Note 125/15: Environmental Assessment Update, UK.

Page 118 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) (obtained July 2017) · Highways England Environmental Information System (EnvIS) database (accessed November 2016) · Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website www.magic.defra.gov.uk (accessed September 2017) · Environment Agency www.data.gov.uk (accessed September 2017) · NBN Atlas website at www.nbnatlas.org (accessed September 2017)

Field survey

8.3.3 The general approach to detailed survey work for habitats and notable or legally protected species has been proportional and appropriate to the risk of significant effects and of legal offences in relation to protected species. 8.3.4 Due to the localised nature of the proposed Scheme, detailed surveys have been scoped in only where it is deemed necessary to fully assess the impacts of the proposed Scheme (such as habitat fragmentation) or to identify specific mitigation requirements, as defined in Section 8.7. 8.3.5 Where safe access allowed (or where areas could be viewed with permission from third-party land owners or from Public Right of Way (PRoWs)), an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken throughout July and August 2017, broadly following Phase 1 habitat survey methodology as set out in Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) guidance22. The ecologist recorded information on habitats, evidence of presence, and an assessment of the potential of each habitat to support notable and protected species as recommended by Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM)23. Species lists were noted in areas considered particularly noteworthy or typical of the survey area, and incorporated into the Target Notes within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Report (refer to Appendix A, 8.2). 8.3.6 The PEA mapped the main habitats within and adjacent to the proposed Scheme and are shown in Appendix B, Figure 8.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Where safe access was not possible, habitats have been mapped using aerial imagery. Where access was possible, or where habitats could be viewed from adjacent third-party land or PRoWs, the preliminary investigations undertaken in respect of notable and legally protected species were as follows:

· Assessment of suitable habitats for nesting birds · Assessment of suitable habitat for dormice Muscardinus avellanarius · Search for signs of badger Meles meles activity including setts, tracks, foraging holes and latrines · Assessment of habitat potential for reptiles and amphibians, in particular great crested newts Triturus cristatus · Assessing the suitability of watercourses which pass beneath or adjacent to the proposed Scheme for water vole Arvicola amphibius, otter Lutra lutra and white clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes

22 JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A technique for environmental audit. ISBN 0 86139 636 7 23 CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal (2nd edn.). Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

Page 119 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· A ground level external inspection of structures and trees along the route of the proposed Scheme, to assess their suitability for roosting bats, following current good practice guidance · Assessment of habitat potential for other notable species (e.g. plants, invertebrates and other mammal species) 8.3.7 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey also involved a search for non-native invasive plant species included on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Assessment methodology

8.3.8 The ecological assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Vol 11, Section 324; IAN 130/1025; and CIEEM guidelines26. 8.3.9 This chapter describes the method of ecological assessment used to determine residual effects on ecological receptors and whether an effect would be significant. The method of assessment comprises the following key stages:

· Establishing the baseline conditions through desk study and field survey data · Assessment of nature conservation value of each ecological receptor · Identification of embedded and general mitigation measures · Identification and characterisation of potential impacts on the favourable conservation status and/or conservation objectives of ecological receptors during construction and operational phases. This takes into account factors such as likelihood, reversibility, duration, timing, frequency · Identification of further mitigation measures to avoid and reduce potentially significant impacts on the favourable conservation status and/or integrity of ecological receptors · Determination of any significant residual effects after mitigation is taken into account during construction and operation

Nature conservation valuation

8.3.10 To determine importance, ecological receptors have been valued following the framework provided in IAN 130/10 and the DMRB. The DMRB guidelines recommend that the determination of the value of the ecological receptors is based on a geographic frame of reference, as shown in Table 8-2. Valuing ecological receptors requires professional judgment and information available on the distribution and status of the receptors. For the purpose of this assessment, the value of each ecological feature has been based on available information from the results of the desk and field surveys. Table 8.2: Resource valuation International or European - Very high

24 Highways England. (1993) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Ecology & Nature Conservation Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 4, UK. 25 Highways Agency (2010) Interim Advice Note 130/10 Ecology and Nature Conservation: Criteria for Impact Assessment 26 CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester

Page 120 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Very high importance and rarity, international scale and very limited potential for substitution. Includes: · Ramsar and European designated sites, or sites that meet the published selection criteria but not designated as such · Sites with resident or regularly occurring population/s of species at International or European level where loss would affect the conservation status or distribution at this geographic scale, or where the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale, or is at a critical phase of its life cycle at this scale UK or National - High

High importance and rarity, national scale, and limited potential for substitution. Includes: · Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves and sites that meet published criteria for selection · Key/ priority habitats · Sites with resident or regularly occurring population of species at International, European, · UK or National level where loss would affect the conservation status or distribution at this geographic scale · Where the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale, or is at a critical phase of its life cycle at this scale Regional (England) – High / Medium High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for substitution. Includes: · Key / priority habitats identified in the Natural Area Profile or Highways Biodiversity Action Plan · Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which may be considered at an International, European, UK, National levels, or key / priority species where loss of these species would affect the conservation status or distribution at this geographic scale, or the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale, or is at a critical phase of its life cycle at this scale County (Hampshire) - Medium High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for substitution. Includes Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs); County Wildlife Sites (CWSs); and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) designated in the county or unitary authority area context: · Key habitats identified in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan or Natural Area profile · Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which may be considered at an International, European, UK or National level where loss would affect the conservation status or distribution at this geographic scale, or the population forms a critical part of a wider population at this scale, or is at a critical phase of its life cycle at this scale Local (Site only) - Low Medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for substitution. Includes Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) designated in the local context: · Trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) · Areas of habitat; or populations / communities of species considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the local context (such as veteran trees), including features of value for migration, dispersal or genetic exchange Local (Site only) – Negligible · Sites of low or very low importance, rarity and local scale. 8.3.11 Where a nature conservation resource has value at more than one level, its overriding value is that of the highest level. Effects on conservation status were only assessed in detail for features of sufficient value. Ecological receptors carried through to assessment are those considered to be of Local value and above. Ecological receptors valued below this (i.e. within the proposed Scheme only), which are considered sufficiently widespread, unthreatened or resilient to project impacts, may

Page 121 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

still be subject to legal protection. As such they still require mitigation or compensation measures as outlined in Section 8.7.

Characterisation of impacts

8.3.12 This assessment takes into account both on-site impacts and those that may occur to adjacent and more distant ecological features. Impacts may be adverse or beneficial to the receptor, permanent or temporary, direct or indirect and can occur through several mechanisms, including:

· Direct loss of habitats (including temporary loss of wildlife habitats during construction or small-scale permanent loss of habitats within the soft estate to accommodate Emergency Areas (EAs), gantries, signs and other equipment) · Fragmentation or isolation (dividing habitats or wildlife corridors within the soft estate) · Changes to the local hydrology, water quality and/or air quality (pollution during construction and operation affecting the water environment and adjacent habitats) · Direct mortality or injury to wildlife through construction activities and traffic accidents · Disturbance to species from noise, light or other visual stimuli 8.3.13 In order to characterise potential impacts on the important ecological receptors, the following parameters have been used:

· Extent – the area over which an impact occurs (e.g. size of habitat or territory lost) · Duration – the time for which an impact is expected to last (e.g. is the impact permanent or temporary, or occur over the life-cycle of receptor) · Reversibility – whether an impact can be reversed, whether this is planned or not · Timing and frequency – whether impacts occur during critical life stages or seasons · Direct and Indirect Ecological Impacts · Magnitude – assessed in quantitative terms 8.3.14 In this assessment, a direct impact is attributable to a defined action such as the physical loss of a habitat or the immediate mortality of an individual of a particular species. Indirect impacts are attributable to an action, which affects ecological resources through effects on an intermediary ecosystem, process or receptor. An example of this would be an impact on sensitive terrestrial habitat due to an increase in atmospheric deposition. 8.3.15 The magnitude of impact is the degree of change as a result of the proposed scheme on an ecological receptor. The descriptions for assigning the magnitude of impact to the receptors is based on the DMRB criteria defined in Table 8-3 below. The impacts may be adverse or beneficial to the receptor. Table 8.3: Criteria for determining the magnitude of impact

Page 122 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Criteria Magnitude of Impact Adverse Beneficial Major Loss of resources and/or quality and Large scale or major improvement of integrity of resources; severe damage resource quality; extensive restoration or to key characteristics, features or enhancement; major improvement of attribute elements. quality. Moderate Loss of resources, but not adversely Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, affecting the integrity; partially loss of / features or elements; improvement of attribute damage to key characteristics, quality. features or elements. Minor Some measurable change in Minor benefit to, or addition of, 1 (maybe more) attributes, quality or vulnerability; minor key characteristics, features or elements; some loss of, or alteration, to 1 (maybe beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced risk of more) key characteristics, features or negative impact occurring. elements. Negligible Very minor loss or detrimental Very minor benefit to or positive addition of 1 or alteration to 1 or more characteristics, more characteristics, features or elements. features or elements. No change No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no observable impact in either direction.

Categorising the significance of effects

8.3.16 Using a combination of the conservation value of the receptor, and the magnitude of change, the significance of the effect upon Nature Conservation features as a result of the proposed Scheme can be assigned, as outlined within the matrix shown in Table 8-4 below. The significance of effect is assigned after allowing for the positive contribution of all mitigation that would be delivered. The effectiveness of the mitigation must be made clear, as well as the certainty of their adoption. The determination of the significance of effects takes into account any mitigation or compensation provided as identified in Section 8.8. 8.3.17 The effect on an individual important ecological feature is categorised as ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’ at the level at which the feature is valued. A significant effect would constitute impacts on the structure and functions of designated sites, notable habitats, or ecosystems; or the conservation status of habitats and species at an appropriate geographic scale. The level of significance is ascertained using the criteria set out in Table 8-4. For the purposes of this impact assessment an effect is considered to be significant if it falls into the moderate category or above. Table 8.4: Overall assessment category

Environmental/conservation value (sensitivity) Very High High Medium Low Negligible impact Magnitude of Major Very Large Large to Moderate to Slight to Slight Very Large Large Moderate Moderate Large to Very Moderate to Moderate Slight Neutral to Large Large Slight Minor Moderate to Slight to Slight Neutral to Neutral Slight Moderate Slight

Page 123 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Negligible Slight Slight Neutral to Neutral to Neutral Slight Slight No change Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 8.3.18 The categories of significance effects can be described as follows:

· Very Large: These effects are generally, but not exclusively, associated with sites or features of international, national or regional importance that are likely to suffer a most damaging impact and loss of resource integrity. However, a major change in a site or feature of local importance may also enter this category. This category would be a key consideration in the decision-making process. · Large: These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to be very important considerations and are likely to be material in the decision-making process. · Moderate: These beneficial or adverse effects are important considerations and are material in the decision-making process. · Slight: These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors. They are unlikely to be critical in the decision-making process, but are important in enhancing the subsequent design of the project. · Neutral: No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. 8.3.19 The mitigation hierarchy applied to the proposed Scheme is in line with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)’s Environmental Impact Assessment guidelines27. A hierarchy of 3 tiers of mitigation is used, primary (inherent design), secondary (foreseeable) and tertiary (inexorable) mitigation measures. 8.3.20 Any significant effects remaining after mitigation (the residual effects), together with an assessment of the likelihood of success in the mitigation, are factors to be considered against legislation and policy.

8.4 Baseline conditions

Context

8.4.1 The M3 carriageway crosses urban and semi-rural areas in Hampshire. Junction 9 is adjacent to Winchester in central Hampshire, the motorway heads south to Eastleigh where it merges with the M27 going both east and west. It bisects Twyford Downs and other nearby features of a chalk down landscape such as Shawford Down. 8.4.2 Several watercourses intersect with the M3 including the River Itchen and Monks Brook, which both feed the Solent. They both have features of chalk streams. The area is heavily wooded, some of which are ancient semi-natural woodlands. The majority of the carriageway is bordered by plantation woodland with pockets of grassland present.

Designated sites

8.4.3 Designated sites were identified through data supplied by Hampshire Biological Records Centre and MagicMap28. Search areas of 2 kilometres and 30 kilometres

27 IEMA (2016) Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to: Delivering Quality Developments 28 www.magicmap.gov.uk

Page 124 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

have been applied to the footprint of the proposed scheme. In addition, a search area of 200 metres of the Affected Road Network (ARN) would also be applied, to encompass all sites that may be subject to impacts from changes in traffic volumes. These are shown in the Appendix B, Figure 8.2 Biodiversity Constraints and information relating to these sites is contained within Table 8-5. 8.4.4 Seven European Sites have been identified within the study area:

· Two SAC’s designated for bats within the 30 kilometres of the proposed Scheme: Mottisfont Bats SAC and Briddlesford Copses SAC · One SAC within 2 kilometres of, and hydrologically connected to, the proposed Scheme: River Itchen SAC · One SAC hydrologically connected to the proposed Scheme and within 200m of the ARN: Solent Maritime SAC · Two Special Protection Areas (SPA’s) within 200m of the ARN and hydrologically connected to the proposed Scheme: Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Portsmouth Harbour SPA · Two Ramsar sites within 2 kilometres of and hydrologically connected to the proposed Scheme: Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar and Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar · One potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) within 2 kilometres of the ARN and hydrologically connected to the proposed Scheme: Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA 8.4.5 Following engagement with Natural England (6 February 2018), the inclusion of the New Forest SAC was reviewed. However, the New Forest SAC has not been included within this assessment; this designation is located over 2 kilometres from the proposed Scheme (approximately 8.5 kilometres west), is not hydrologically connected and is not within 200m of the ARN (although it is located just outside the ARN). 8.4.6 A Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening assessment has been undertaken for designated sites within 2 kilometres of the proposed Scheme, those hydrologically connected to the proposed Scheme, and those adjacent to the ARN. Further information on these European Sites and the effect of the proposed Scheme on their integrity is provided in the HRA report29. 8.4.7 Three SSSI have been identified within the study area: the River Itchen SSSI, St Catherine’s Hill SSSI and Southampton Common SSSI. Details of these nationally important sites are given in Table 8.5 below. 8.4.8 Sixty-eight non-statutory locally designated sites are within the study area; 3 Local Nature Reserves (LNR), 2 Road Verges of Ecological Importance (RVEI) and 63 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). A total of 31 locally designated sites are within 200m of the proposed Scheme and susceptible to change in air pollution levels due to the proposed Scheme. These are listed in Table 8-5 below. 8.4.9 Locally designated sites over 200m from the proposed Scheme were scoped out on the basis of distance or unlikely impact pathway and are therefore not considered further in this assessment.

29 Highways England (2018). M3 Junction 9 to 14 SMP Habitat Regulations Assessment – Stage 1 Screening Assessment

Page 125 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 8.5: Designated sites within the ZoI of the proposed scheme

Site name Designation Rationale for designation Direction to site Approximate distance from proposed Scheme (m) Annex I habitats that are the primary reason for selection of this site: 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation. Annex II species that are the primary reason for Crosses the selection of this site: 1044 Southern damselfly proposed River Itchen SAC 0 Coenagrion mercurial, and Bullhead Cottus gobio. Scheme from Annex II species present as a qualifying feature, but north to south not a reason for site selection: 1092 White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes, 1096 Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri, 1106 Atlantic salmon Salmo salar and 1355 Otter Lutra lutra. Annex II species that are a primary reason for Mottisfont Bats SAC selection of this site: 1308 barbastelle bat Barbastella West 14,000m barbastellus. Annex II species that are a primary reason for Briddlesford SAC selection of this site: South 29,000m Copses 1323 Bechstein`s bat Myotis bechsteinii Cluster of coastal plain and bar-built estuaries 7,600m; the supporting rare sponges and polychaetes. Also proposed Solent Maritime SAC South supports white-clawed crayfish, brook lamprey, Scheme Atlantic salmon and otter as qualifying features. crosses ARN A series of estuaries and harbours with extensive mud-flats and saltmarshes with adjacent coastal Solent and SPA and habitats, which support breeding seabirds, including Southampton South 3,500m Ramsar gulls and 4 species of terns in summer and a diverse Water assemblage of waterbirds, including geese, ducks and waders in winter. Coastal grazing marsh and subtidal, tidal and Portsmouth SPA and lagoonal areas, and mudflats that support East 18,000m Harbour Ramsar populations of European importance of migratory birds. Important foraging areas at sea used by qualifying 3,100m; the Solent and interest features from colonies within adjacent, proposed pSAC West Dorset Coast already classifies SPAs. Qualifying features: 3 Scheme species of tern. crosses ARN Classic chalk stream and river is comprised of water courses, fen meadow, flood pasture, swamp and broadleaved woodland as well as other minor Crosses habitats. It is dominated by water crowfoot and proposed River Itchen SSSI 0 supports a significant population of southern Scheme from damselfly, otter, water vole Arvicola terrestris, north to south bullhead, book lamprey, and Atlantic salmon as well as an important assemblage of breeding water birds. Rare chalk grassland, scrub mosaic. The grassland features species such as autumn lady’s tresses Spiranthes spiralis, carline thistle Carlina vulgaris, clustered bellflower Campanula glomerata, common Directly St Catherine's rock-rose Helianthemum nummularium, fairy flax adjacent, west of SSSI 0 Hill Linum catharticum, felwort Gentianella amarella, frog proposed orchid Coeloglossum viride, horseshoe vetch Scheme Hippocrepis comosa, kidney vetch Anthyllis vulneraria, salad burnet Sanguisorba minor, sheep’s fescue Festuca ovina, thyme Thymus praecox. Downland orchids are also prevalent as is juniper

Page 126 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Site name Designation Rationale for designation Direction to site Approximate distance from proposed Scheme (m) Juniperus communis within the scrub which also consists blackthorn Prunus spinosa, dogwood Cornus sanguinea, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, rose Rosa spp., wild privet Ligustrum vulgare. Chalk grassland habitats, scrub and woodland Shawford Down LNR supporting nationally important species such as East 20 chalkhill blue butterfly. The verge at A3090 Hockley link road supports A3090 Hockley several orchid species including bee orchid Ophrys RVEI West 10 Link Road apifera, common spotted-orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii, Pyrimidal orchid Anacamptis pyrimidalis. Great Ancient woodland. Moorlands SINC East & west 10 Copse Complex

Northend Copse Ancient woodland. (East & West of SINC East & west 10 Flyover) Ancient woodland and other woodland where a Boyatt Wood, SINC significant amount of ancient woodland features East 20 Eastleigh remain. Pitmore Copse Woodland where a significant amount of ancient SINC West 20 (West) woodland features remain. Woodland where a significant amount of ancient Chilworth woodland features remain, unimproved grassland, SINC West 20 Common heathland and the presence of bladder sedge Carex vesicaria. Otterbourne Hill Pasture woodland. SINC East 20 Common

Stoneham Golf Unimproved grassland, heathland. Course SINC East 20 Remnant Heath

St Catherine's Unimproved grassland. SINC West 20 Hill (base) Relic unimproved grassland in areas impoverished Shawford Down SINC due to poor management and the presence of East 20 various plant species. Presence of slow worm Anguis fragilis, common Freespace SINC lizard Zootoca vivipara, adder Vipera berus and East 20 Hicknor Hill dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius. Stoneham Golf Ancient woodland. Course (FC Plot SINC East 30 646)

The Dongas SINC Unimproved grassland. East 30

Hockley Golf Unimproved grassland and areas with remnant SINC East 30 Course features of unimproved grassland.

Chilworth Presence of southern wood ant Formica rufa. Common (FC SINC West 30 site 625)

Page 127 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Site name Designation Rationale for designation Direction to site Approximate distance from proposed Scheme (m) Ancient woodland and other woodland where Hut Wood SINC significant amount of ancient woodland features West 40 remain, pasture woodland and dormouse presence. Long Mead SINC Unimproved grassland. East 60 Unimproved grassland and areas with remnant Magdalen Hill SINC features of unimproved grassland and presence of East 60 Down various invertebrates and plants. Unimproved grassland and areas with remnant Deacon Hill SINC features of unimproved grassland and presence of East 80 woolly thistle Cirsium eriophorum. Pitmore Ancient woodland. Copse/Pitmore SINC West 100 Gulley Copse

Hardmoor Ancient woodland. SINC East 100 Copse (North)

Boyatt Wood - Ancient woodland. Woodside SINC East 100 Avenue Extension

Home Wood Woodland where significant amount of ancient (Eastleigh SINC woodland features remains. East 100 extension)

Chilworth Woodland where significant amount of ancient Common SINC woodland features remains, remnant heathland South 100 Plantation features and southern wood ant presence.

Boyatt Wood - Woodland where significant amount of ancient Bosville SINC woodland features remains. East 120 Extension Ancient woodland and woodland where significant Home Wood SINC East 130 amount of ancient woodland features remains. Otterbourne Impoverished grassland due to poor management Primary School SINC with features of unimproved grassland. East 150 Meadow

Ride Through Ancient woodland and unimproved grassland. Plantation on SINC South 150 Chilworth Common

FC Site 614 Area of woodland with heathland features. SINC East 150 Chilworth

Allbrook Clay Impoverished grassland due to poor management SINC with features of unimproved grassland and open East 170 Pit water. Stoneham Golf Ancient woodland, unimproved grassland, heathland. Course Sites B SINC East 200 and C

Bassett Wood Ancient woodland, grassland with unimproved SINC South 200 Greenway grassland features and social value. Woodland where significant amount of ancient Matthew's Moor SINC West 200 woodland features remains.

Page 128 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Site name Designation Rationale for designation Direction to site Approximate distance from proposed Scheme (m) Stoneham Golf Unimproved grassland. Course - SINC East 200 Practice Hole

Notable habitats

Ancient woodland 8.4.10 Ancient woodland is present across the landscape and directly adjacent to the proposed Scheme. There are 37 parcels of land within the study area designated as Ancient semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland covering an extent in excess of 144 hectares. These are shown within Appendix B, Figure 8.2 Biodiversity Constraints Maps. A number of these woodlands are also designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). Ten ancient woodland parcels are directly adjacent to the soft estate or within 15m of the proposed Scheme. Five of these are un-named but the remainder are Great Moorlands Copse, Pitmore Copse, Northend Copse, Boyatt Wood and Park Wood. No sites of replanted ancient woodland are located within proximity of the proposed Scheme, and have therefore not been considered further within this assessment. 8.4.11 An arboricultural survey was undertaken on the 8 February 2018 to understand if and to what extent there were conflicts between the proposed works and the ancient woodland. In order to assess the impact of the proposed works, Root Protection Areas (RPAs) and canopy sizes within the adjacent ancient woodland at key points and its buffer zone were measured and the general defining features and quality of the woodlands were assessed. Further details of the characteristics of these sections of the ancient woodland can be found in the Arboricultural Memorandum in Appendix A, 8.3.

Habitats of priority importance 8.4.12 The following Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI)30 have been identified adjacent to the proposed Scheme:

· Lowland mixed deciduous woodland; areas of deciduous woodland extend into the soft estate of the M3 at several locations · Lowland meadows; areas of lowland meadow are identified within the River Itchen SSSI · Semi-improved calcareous grassland; 2 areas of calcareous semi-improved grassland are located either side of the M3 at St Catherine’s Hill SSSI. Additionally, Shawford Down LNR has calcareous grassland as a qualifying feature · Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh; areas of coastal and floodplain grazing marsh are identified within the River Itchen SSSI · Hedgerows; numerous species poor hedgerows are present in close proximity to the proposed Scheme with 1 native species rich hedgerow near junction 11

30 Habitat of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in England notified under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 and as listed in the England Biodiversity List.

Page 129 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· Ponds; 171 ponds / ditches within 500m were scoped in for further assessment, which were identified during the desk study and walkover survey. The closest of these is within 10m of the proposed Scheme, though there are ponds in close proximity across the landscape 8.4.13 The majority of the woodland recorded within the Highways England soft estate during the Phase 1 Survey was relatively recently created, associated with the construction of the M3 or self-seeded since opening, and consisted primarily of immature or semi- mature trees. This woodland is unlikely to qualify as lowland deciduous woodland HPI due to an absence of a diverse age and height structure, or lack of large standing or fallen dead wood. The exception to this is those locations where ancient semi-natural woodland, identified through a desk study, is located within the soft estate. 8.4.14 Swamp is also listed on the Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan. This habitat parcel lies adjacent to the River Itchen and the M3 where they intersect at Winchester. The area has been assessed as fen on MagicMap which may reflect a poor management regime and degrading quality. These are shown in Appendix B, Figure 8.1 Phase 1 Habitats Survey. 8.4.15 No other priority habitats were identified within the existing M3 highway, except for rivers (River Itchen and Monks Brook) which pass beneath the proposed Scheme. The River Itchen is a chalk river, designated as an SAC and SSSI. Monks Brook flows between Chandlers Ford and Swaythling, Southampton and flows under the M3 at Eastleigh. The brook generally runs through a narrow, wooded valley. 8.4.16 No Habitats of Principal Importance have been identified within the proposed Scheme boundary.

Other habitats 8.4.17 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey identified the following habitats within the study area:

· Broadleaved plantation woodland; large areas of broadleaved plantation woodland are located within the soft estate · Broadleaved semi-natural woodland; beyond the soft estate there are several areas of semi-natural broadleaved woodland which, though not priority habitat, are valuable due to their potential to support protected species and the difficulty of replacing it · Coniferous plantation woodland; several small areas of juniper plantation are located on St Catherine’s Hill · Dry ditch; several dry diches are present in the landscape · Improved grassland; large areas of improved grassland are located in the central reservation and the soft estate · Marginal vegetation; along the southern edge of the River Itchen, marginal vegetation was identified and nowhere else in abundance · Scrub; large swathes of the soft estate are comprised of scrub and pockets beyond the verge were also identified · Semi-improved grassland (poor); pockets of poor semi-improved grassland are located within the verge along the proposed Scheme boundary. There are several other large areas of poor-semi-improved grassland in close proximity to

Page 130 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

the soft estate including several fields at Poles Lane and Lincoln Farm, a parkland at Fleming Park, a small area at Winchester Park & Ride and an area adjacent to Cox’s Rough · Semi-improved neutral grassland; an area of neutral semi-improved grassland mixed with tall ruderal and scrub at Boyatt Wood is located underneath the pylons · Tall ruderal; several small, scattered areas of tall ruderal are present throughout the survey area 8.4.18 The distribution of these habitats is described in greater detail in Appendix A, 8.2 and shown in Appendix B, Figure 8.1. Notable species

8.4.19 This section lists the notable species31 which were recorded (from desk study or field survey) or are considered potentially present, given the suitability of the habitats and frequency of distribution of the species within the county. These are described in greater detail in Appendix A, 8.2. 8.4.20 The protected species surveys are being undertaken in parallel with the writing of this chapter; therefore, presence or likely absence of protected species cannot be confirmed although it has been assumed in suitable habitats (due to knowledge of populations of notable species within the locality). Surveys are required for badgers, dormice, bats and great crested newts (GCN); these commenced in the Spring of 2018 and would extend through the 2018 and 2019 survey seasons. These surveys would inform any mitigation or licencing requirements.

Badgers 8.4.21 The woodland and scrub habitat within and adjacent to the soft estate along the route of the proposed Scheme provide suitable sheltered habitat for badgers to forage and create setts in. Several records for Eurasian badger were reported by HBIC within the study area, the closest of which is within 50m of the proposed Scheme. Furthermore, several features indicating the presence of badgers were identified during the Phase 1 walkover survey including a push under and a disused outlier sett (over 400m from the M3 soft estate). 8.4.22 Surveys have commenced to assess for the presence of setts within the areas identified as suitable and at risk from disturbance. These surveys would inform any mitigation requirements for badgers and subsequent development licence, as necessary. These areas are identified in Appendix B, Figure 8.2.

Bats 8.4.23 Records for bats are present across the study area including brown long-eared Plecotus auritus, Daubenton’s Myotis daubentonii, Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri, long- eared Plecotus sp., noctule Nyctalus noctula, common pipistrelle Pipistrellus

31 Notable invertebrates are taken as principal species for the conservation of biodiversity listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; species included in local biodiversity action plans, species considered notable for their conservation concern (for example, IUCN Red Data Books, bird species are taken as those listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); any bird species listed as Red, Amber of Green status in the Birds of Conservation Concern 3 (RSPB, 2009); and species considered rare in the UK or in local counties.

Page 131 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

pipistrellus, serotine Eptesicus serotinus, and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus. 8.4.24 Habitats within the soft estate of the M3 and in the wider landscape surrounding the proposed Scheme are likely to provide foraging and commuting opportunities for bats. This includes the 10 ancient woodland parcels directly adjacent to the soft estate or within 15ms of the proposed Scheme. Records indicate various species are present within 150m of the proposed Scheme including those listed above. 8.4.25 Underbridges and culverts may offer roosting potential to bats. As such, 16 underbridges, culverts and subways underneath the motorway that offer potential to roosting bats require further assessment to determine their potential. These are identified in Appendix B, Figure 8.2. Bat roost assessments on each of these features have been undertaken in the spring of 2018. The roost assessments have formed the basis of this impact assessment, allowing a ‘worst case scenario’ to be assessed. 8.4.26 Of the 16 bridges/culverts that were assessed for the potential to support roosting bats, 5 were assessed as requiring further survey. Emergence/ re-entry surveys of these 5 bridges recorded roosting bats at 1 location, bridge 3. These surveys will inform the design of mitigation and any subsequent mitigation licences as required. 8.4.27 The majority of trees within the footprint of the proposed Scheme are relatively well managed, with minimal features suitable for roosting bats. However, ancient woodland, which has the potential for suitable habitat for foraging bats and roosting features, is located adjacent to the proposed Scheme. Detailed survey work, including tree assessments and subsequent roost surveys as required, along the entire soft estate would inform the CEMP and any licencing requirements.

Great crested newts 8.4.28 The terrestrial habitats within the footprint of proposed Scheme are likely to support foraging, sheltering and dispersing GCN where these habitats lie within 250m of waterbodies used by this species to breed. Suitable terrestrial habitat is present throughout the study area with high quality features including woodland, hedgerows, scrub and rough grassland. 8.4.29 A total of 185 ponds and ditches have been identified within 250m, 164 of which have been scoped in for further assessment. A further 137 ponds and ditches have been identified between 250 to 500m of the proposed Scheme, 132 of which have been scoped out of further assessment using the Natural England rapid risk assessment tool. The remaining 5 ponds have been scoped in for further survey, totalling 169 ponds. 8.4.30 For the Scoping Report32 Ordnance Survey mapping and aerial photography (from Google Maps, Google Streetview and Google Earth) were reviewed to identify ponds and ditches within 500m of the proposed Scheme, to help determine requirements for further survey in respect of GCN. The Natural England rapid risk assessment tool was used to calculate a notional probability of an offence being committed based on potential impacts on ponds and/or surrounding habitat, which is shown as red (probability ≥0.65), amber (0.3-0.65) or green (<0.3) risk. All ponds and ditches within 500m of the proposed scheme were identified from mapping and aerial photography. Ponds and ditches were scoped in / out based on the following principles:

32 Highways England, 2017. M3 Junction 9 to 14 Environmental Scoping Report

Page 132 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· Ponds and ditches of ‘red’ or ‘amber’ risk within 250m were scoped in for further survey unless a clear barrier to dispersal was identified · Ponds and ditches of ‘red’ or ‘amber’ risk between 250-500m were assessed using aerial mapping for habitat quality, connectivity and barriers to dispersal and scoped in or out accordingly · Ponds and ditches identified as ‘green’ risk were scoped out 8.4.31 Two further ponds were located during the Phase 1 walkover survey and were subject to an initial assessment at that time. All 171 ponds would be subject to a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment33 (where access is permitted). These would be undertaken throughout 2018 and 2019. 8.4.32 No GCN records were presented by HBIC within the study area. However, the Southampton Common SSSI cites the presence of a large population of GCN as its main qualifying feature. The populations of GCN at Southampton Common are located approximately 2.5 kilometres from the interchange with the M3-M27, and is described as one of the largest in the UK. 8.4.33 Additional survey work would be required throughout 2018 and 2019 to assess for the presence in any ponds classified as suitable for GCN by the HSI surveys. These would take the form of environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys to establish presence or likely absence of GCN. Where presence is confirmed, further surveys may be required to establish population sizes for a mitigation licence, if required, subject to the extent of the works footprint. 8.4.34 Where it is not possible to access land to carry out surveys, it would be assumed GCN are present.

Hazel dormouse 8.4.35 The woodland and scrub habitats within the footprint of the proposed Scheme provide suitable habitat for hazel dormouse. Desk study data indicates that dormice are present in the wider landscape with records of individuals within 50m of the proposed Scheme. There are recent records of hazel dormice at junction 5 of the M27 associated with licenced works in the Highways England M27 soft estate. Furthermore, several local sites are designated due, at least in part, to dormouse presence; Hicknor Hill SINC and Hut Wood SINC, both of which lie within 50m of the proposed Scheme. 8.4.36 Habitat suitable for dormice is classified for its connectivity to the wider landscape, its vegetative structure and species content and these have all been identified in Appendix B, Figure 8.2. Nest tube surveys are being undertaken throughout 2018 in these areas. Evidence of hazel dormice, including individual animals or nests, would be recorded where identified and would be used to inform the OEMP and any licencing or additional mitigation requirements.

Reptiles 8.4.37 The desk study returned records of all 4 common reptile species, grass snake Natrix natrix, viviparous lizard Zootoca vivipara, adder Vipera berus and slow worm Anguis fragilis. No records of smooth snake or sand lizard were returned for the study area.

33 Oldman, R. S., Keeble, J., Swan, M. J. S., and Jeffcote, M. (2000) Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155.

Page 133 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.4.38 Reptile presence has been assumed within the footprint of the proposed Scheme based on the desk study records and suitability of habitat. Common reptiles may be present in high numbers throughout the soft estate. Large areas of semi-improved grassland offer suitable reptile habitat and adjacent scrub provides shelter. There are other large areas of semi-improved grassland, scrub and tall ruderal, all offering potential for reptiles as foraging or shelter habitat. Rare reptiles, smooth snake Coronella austriaca and sand lizard, are unlikely to be supported between junction 9 and 14 due to the type and quality of the habitats present, and the restricted range of these species.

Riparian mammals 8.4.39 Multiple records of water vole, otter and water shrew within the study area were returned during the desk study. The former 2 species are included as qualifying features for the River Itchen SSSI. The proposed Scheme crosses 2 major water courses; the River Itchen and Monks Brook and multiple small streams diverted through culverts. These all offer commuting, foraging and shelter to riparian mammals. 8.4.40 Woodland and scrub habitat within the Highways England soft estate adjacent to watercourses may be used by otter for foraging and shelter. No signs of otter or water vole were recorded during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

Breeding birds 8.4.41 The habitats within the proposed Scheme are highly likely to support a low density of common breeding bird species. Scrub and woodland within the soft estate offer nesting opportunity. Grassland features are likely too narrow and disturbed to provide foraging opportunities for species such as barn owl, Tyto alba or ground nesting birds. Those birds with records in the study area of particular note, due to being listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 include barn owl, bewick’s swan Cygnus columbianus, black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros, black-necked grebe Podiceps nigricollis, brambling Fringilla montifringilla, cetti’s warbler Cettia cetti, common crossbill Loxia curvirostra, Dartford warbler Sylvia undata, fieldfare Turdus pilaris, firecrest Regulus ignicapilla, golden oriole Oriolus oriolus, goshawk Accipiter gentilis, hen harrier Circus cyaneus, hobby Falco subbuteo, honey buzzard Pernis apivorus, hoopoe Upupa epops, kingfisher Alcedo atthis, little bittern Ixobrychus minutus, marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus, merlin Falco columbarius, osprey Pandion haliaetus, peregrine Falco peregrinus, quail Coturnix coturnix, red kite Milvus milvus, redwing Turdus iliacus, ruff Calidris pugnax, Slavonian grebe Podiceps auritus, whooper swan Cygnus cygnus, wood sandpiper Tringa glareola, woodlark Lullula arborea, wryneck Jynx torquilla.

Fish 8.4.42 Fish including brown trout Salmo trutta, bullhead, brook lamprey, Atlantic salmon and grayling Thymallus thymallus have all been recorded in the surrounding watercourses. The 2 major watercourses crossing the motorway, the River Itchen and Monks Brook, support known populations of these species. Brown trout was identified in the River Itchen during the walkover survey.

Invertebrates

Page 134 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.4.43 Very large numbers of invertebrate records were catalogued in the desk study; 136 species of Lepidoptera alone and as such are not all be listed here. Potentially significant species due to their level of protection and use as a qualifying feature for locally designated sites include stag beetle, Adonis blue butterfly Polyommatus bellargus, chalkhill blue butterfly, southern wood ant and southern damselfly. Stag beetle is potentially significant due to their exploitation of woodland habitat and the prevalence of this along the proposed Scheme. Several designated sites feature invertebrates in their qualifying criteria including St Catherine’s Hill SSSI (chalk hill blue) and the River Itchen SAC (Southern damselfly). However, the habitats within the proposed Scheme are not of a quality or diversity likely to promote an invertebrate community of special interest. No records of Southern damselfly were returned within the last decade; the most recent record being from 2005 and approximately 1 kilometre from the M3. Although lack of records does not confirm absence of the species, the desk study would suggest that Southern damselfly populations are unlikely within 2 kilometres of the proposed Scheme, and no suitable habitat has been identified within the footprint of the proposed Scheme. 8.4.44 No records of white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes were found within the study area despite suitable habitat in the River Itchen and Monks Brook. Records for Signal Crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus were processed from the Environment Agency; no local records for this invasive (and white-clawed crayfish deterrent) species were present.

Other mammals 8.4.45 Brown hare Lepus europaeus, harvest mouse Micromys minutus, hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus, polecat Mustela putorius, water shrew Neomys fodiens, yellow necked mouse Apodemus flavicollis were all present in local records for the area. Furthermore, there is suitable habitat for all of these species within the soft estate or within close proximity. The agricultural land in the vicinity offers potential to hare, harvest mouse and yellow necked mouse. The ponds and watercourses within the landscape are suitable for water shrew. The woodlands and scrub provide shelter for polecat. The scrub and grassland within the verge are suitable for hedgehog.

Plants 8.4.46 A very large number of plant species (1,059 individual records) have been catalogued in the biodiversity data collected during the desk study, a number of which are listed on Schedule 41 of the NERC Act 2006 including white helleborine Cephalanthera damasonium, frog orchid Coeloglossum viride, corn cleavers Galium tricornutum, musk orchid Herminium monorchis and juniper. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (refer to Appendix A, 8.2) shows locations for key plant species.

Invasive species 8.4.47 The desk study highlighted various invasive plant species within the study area which are listed in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (in reference to Section 14). Those directly adjacent to the proposed Scheme include Indian balsam Impatiens glandulifera, Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica, Nuttall's waterweed Elodea nuttallii, rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum, shallon Gaultheria shallon, three- cornered garlic Allium triquetrum and yellow variegated archangel Lamiastrum galeodbolon argentatum.

Page 135 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.4.48 Various invasive species were identified during the Phase 1 walkover survey within the soft estate or directly adjacent including Canadian goldenrod Solidago canadensis, Indian balsam, Japanese knotweed and rhododendron.

8.5 Sensitivity of resource 8.5.1 The nature conservation value of each ecological receptor is described in Table 8-6. The table also details which ecological receptors would be subject to further assessment and/or standard mitigation measures. However, where such receptors require consideration to avoid the risk of legal offence, any mitigation required would be included in the construction phase environmental management procedures, as described in Section 8.7. Features of less than local importance or with no statutory protection or control have been scoped out of requiring further consideration in the impact assessment. All sensitive receptors are shown in Appendix B, Figure 8.2. Table 8.6: Rationale and valuation of ecological receptors within the ecological ZoI and further assessment / mitigation required

Receptors Valuation Rationale Further assessment / standard mitigation required Standard River Itchen SAC International Site covered by an international designation mitigation measures Standard Mottisfont Bats International Site covered by an international designation mitigation SAC measures Standard Briddlesford International Site covered by an international designation mitigation Copses SAC measures Standard Solent Maritime International Site covered by an international designation mitigation SAC measures Solent and Standard Southampton International Site covered by an international designation mitigation Water SPA and measures Ramsar Portsmouth Standard Harbour SPA and International Site covered by an international designation mitigation Ramsar measures Standard Solent and Dorset International Site covered by an international designation mitigation Coast pSPA measures Standard River Itchen SSSI National Site covered by an international designation mitigation measures Standard St Catherine's Hill National Site covered by an international designation mitigation SSSI measures

Page 136 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Receptors Valuation Rationale Further assessment / standard mitigation required Local Wildlife Sites are designated by the Standard Shawford Down County Local Planning Authority as examples of mitigation LNR important habitats within the county measures Road Verges of Ecological Local Wildlife Sites are designated by the Standard Importance in close County Local Planning Authority as examples of mitigation proximity to the important habitats within the county measures proposed Scheme SINCs adjacent to Local Wildlife Sites are designated by the Standard the proposed County Local Planning Authority as examples of mitigation Scheme important habitats within the county measures Notable habitats National The following habitats present within or Standard within and adjacent adjacent to the proposed Scheme are mitigation to the proposed considered notable as they are Habitats of measures Scheme Principal Importance: · Ancient woodland · Semi-improved calcareous grassland · Rivers · Ponds The habitats are also a resource for notable species including stag beetles, reptiles and GCN. Swamp, a Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat, is adjacent to the proposed Scheme and of County value. Other habitats Proposed Habitats within the proposed Scheme include Standard Scheme broadleaved plantation woodland; scrub mitigation (dense continuous and scattered); tall ruderal, measures improved grassland and semi-improved grassland. The habitats are a resource for notable species including hazel dormouse, badgers, dormouse, reptiles, breeding birds and GCN. Badger Proposed Badgers are widespread in Hampshire and Further Scheme nationally. Although this species may utilise assessment and the habitats within the proposed Scheme, it is standard unlikely that the wider population would be mitigation impacted. Badgers are protected under the measures Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Bats County There is limited potential for roosting bats Further within the proposed Scheme. However, there assessment and is extensive foraging and commuting potential standard and nationally significant species present mitigation within the study area according to the records measures and Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan. All bat species are protected under the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Page 137 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Receptors Valuation Rationale Further assessment / standard mitigation required Populations within the study area would be of County importance.

Great crested County GCN is a Species of Principal Importance. Further newts Though widespread, this species is uncommon assessment and and in decline in Hampshire. GCN are standard protected under the Conservation of Habitats mitigation and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife measures and Countryside Act 1981. Populations within the study area would be of County importance. Hazel dormouse Local Hazel dormouse is a Species of Principal Further Importance in England. Hampshire is a assessment and stronghold for this species, therefore in the standard context of the proposed Scheme any mitigation populations of this species present have Local measures value. Hazel dormouse are protected under the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Populations within the study area would be of Local importance. Reptiles Local Reptiles are widespread within Hampshire, Standard (widespread though nationally protected. There is potential mitigation species) habitat within the proposed Scheme boundary measures that is suitable for reptiles, the majority of which is isolated. All native reptile species are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Populations within the study area would be of Local importance. Riparian mammals County Nationally and internationally protected No further species are within the study area. There are assessment habitats intersecting the proposed Scheme on required. multiple locations and designated sites Standard including these species as qualifying features mitigation directly adjacent to the proposed Scheme. measures Otters are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Water voles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and are a UK priority species. Populations within the study area would be of County importance. Invertebrates County There are habitats within and adjacent to the Standard proposed Scheme that are suitable for notable mitigation invertebrates including stag beetle, adonis measures blue, chalk hill blue and Southern damselfly. Invertebrate assemblages are key features of nationally designated sites such as River Itchen SSSI. Some species are protected under Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Populations within the study area would be of County importance.

Page 138 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Receptors Valuation Rationale Further assessment / standard mitigation required Breeding birds Local There are habitats within and adjacent to the Standard proposed Scheme that are suitable for mitigation breeding bird species, including species measures notable for their conservation concern, although traffic noise may deter most bird species from nesting close to the carriageway. Wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Populations within the study area would be of Local importance. Fish National Known fish species present within the ZoI are Standard protected at a national level and qualifying Mitigation features for the River Itchen SAC. Brook lamprey, Atlantic salmon, bullhead are all listed on Annex II of the European Directive 92/43/EEC. Atlantic Salmon and Brown trout are UK BAP species. Populations within the study area would be of national importance. Plants County There are habitats within and adjacent to the Standard proposed Scheme that are suitable for notable mitigation plant assemblages and species. Plant measures assemblages are key features of nationally designated sites such as St Catherine’s Hill SSSI. Some species are protected under Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Populations within the study area would be of County importance. Other notable Proposed Other notable animals such as hedgehog and Standard species (mammals Scheme common toad may utilise habitats within or mitigation and amphibians) immediately adjacent to the proposed Scheme. measures Species listed as Priority on the UK or Hampshire BAP. Populations within the study area would be of importance within the extents of the proposed Scheme only.

8.6 Assumptions and limitations 8.6.1 The following assumptions and limitations are taken into account during this assessment.

Assumptions

8.6.2 The following assumptions have been made in terms of the assessment:

· The proposed works are limited to the extent of the highways verge. No works would take place outside of the soft estate. If this is subject to change, an alternative assessment would be required based on each case where works exceed these boundaries. · Temporary land-take is required for construction compounds, material storage, and temporary breakdown vehicles etc. For the purpose of this assessment it is

Page 139 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

assumed that the construction compound for the proposed Scheme would be located at junction 11, off Badger Farm Road and Otterbourne Road. · The data that has been gathered, and understanding of the local ecology and distribution of the species considered as part of this assessment, is considered sufficient to make an informed judgement as to the potential impacts and significance of effects at this stage of the design process. · The results of the survey work to date have allowed an evaluation of ecological features within the ZoI to be made, together with an assessment of the significance of any impacts of the proposed development and the requirements for mitigation measures.

Limitations

8.6.3 The extended Phase 1 habitat survey was carried out as a combination of views from PRoW and online aerial and Street View imagery. Access to the verge via the hardshoulder was considered to be an unnecessarily high-risk activity. As a result, species lists are not available for all habitats within the soft estate. Much of the verge could be observed from vantage points along PRoWs. Species lists are therefore available for much of the broadleaved plantation woodland in the verge. This limitation has been mitigated for through a review of aerial imagery and Street View imagery, which has provided confidence in predicting the type and character of habitats within these areas. An area of semi-improved grassland along the verge was surveyed through a mesh fence, and was found to be the only such area closely available viewpoint without accessing the verge from the hardshoulder. Its species list is taken to be representative of the semi-improved grassland along the entire route of the proposed Scheme. 8.6.4 As the Phase 1 walkover survey was undertaken during July after a long dry period, the desiccation of the water bodies may not reflect their status during the winter or GCN breeding season. Suitability surveys of ponds are being undertaken throughout spring and early summer of 2018 and the winter/spring of 2019 to assess all ponds, including those found to be dry in July 2017. 8.6.5 The resolution of desk study data supplied by HBIC varies due to the accuracy of the original record and the protection afforded to the locations of some species. As a result, lower resolution data has not been plotted on the results maps and their exact proximity to the proposed Scheme cannot be ascertained. 8.6.6 Due to the current lack of survey data for protected species at the time of writing, uncertainty remains as to their presence within the footprint of the proposed Scheme and adjacent habitats. Further surveys are being undertaken for GCN, dormice, bats and badgers throughout 2018 and 2019 to provide sufficient information to inform any mitigation required as part of the construction phase CEMP, including European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licences. 8.6.7 The uncertainty over the presence of protected species is not considered to affect the conclusions of this impact assessment. A ‘worst case scenario’ has been assessed, and the uncertainty has been mitigated through the following:

· A precautionary approach has been adopted; the species’ presence has been assumed for the purposes of the impact assessment

Page 140 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· Where presence is assumed and impacts can be avoided through the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures, and these mitigation measures are relatively standard, (for example Precautionary Methods of Working) then these measures have been committed to through the OEMP · Where reasonable uncertainty and risk is evident, and a species may require more complex mitigation or an EPSM licence to avoid an offence, then further surveys are to be undertaken over the course of 2018 and 2019 8.6.8 Therefore, whilst the evidence available is considered sufficient to form a robust assessment, further surveys are required to inform detailed mitigation and any required EPSM licences. The location and population status of GCN, bats, dormice and badgers are essential for the detailed requirements of licence applications. The risk to water quality and the riparian edges is negligible due to the avoidance of works to watercourses or riparian habitats, the proposed waste water management during construction and operation and the limitation of works to the verge. However, the risk to the area of swamp means a scoping assessment is required for water vole and breeding birds. No further surveys of other riparian mammals, fish, white-clawed crayfish or aquatic invertebrates are required. The presence of both breeding birds and reptiles has been assumed due to the habitat presence and their ubiquity. As a result, no further surveys are required for these species. 8.6.9 Further protected species surveys, to be undertaken throughout 2018 and 2019, would inform the mitigation measures and licence applications, and are summarised in Table 8.7.

Page 141 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 8.7: Summary of further protected species surveys

Ecological Survey Methods Optimal Survey Duration of Survey Feature Period Bats Initial assessment of Any time of year One survey per feature structures and trees (ground inspection / tree climbing) Emergence / re-entry May to One to 3 surveys per feature (tree/building) surveys September If a bat roost is confirmed on site, additional survey work may be required to support a (key months May licence application to August) Dormice Nest tube survey April to November Six months for nest tube survey Great Habitat Suitability Anytime One survey per site crested Surveys newts Presence / absence March to June Four surveys of suitable ponds between mid-March to mid-June with a further 2 surveys survey visits, if required, to carry out a Bottle trapping, population estimate torchlight, egg search and netting

eDNA Surveys Mid April to June One survey per pond Badgers Initial assessment to Any time of year One survey per sett location identify setts location Bait marking and February to April Twenty visits within 3 weeks per location territorial analysis or September to October 8.6.10 Ecological surveys are limited by factors which affect the presence of plants and animals, such as the time of year, migration patterns and behaviour. The ecological surveys to date have not, therefore, produced a complete list of plants and animals. The absence of evidence of any particular species should not be taken as conclusive proof that the species is not present or that it would not be present in the future.

8.7 Design and mitigation measures 8.7.1 The approach to mitigation applied below is in line with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)’s Environmental Impact Assessment guidelines34. A hierarchy of 3 tiers of mitigation is applied below.

Primary mitigation

8.7.2 Throughout the design process, consideration has been given to avoiding impacts on important ecological receptors, such as notable habitats or species. This has included minimising vegetation clearance requirements and taking into account the findings of the ecological desk study in the design process. In particular, the following design updates have been implemented to minimise impacts:

· Emergency Areas (EAs) and gantries have been located away from designated sites and watercourses

34 IEMA (2016) Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to: Delivering Quality Developments

Page 142 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· Drainage has been designed to maintain existing rates of flow and water quality, to avoid impacts on rivers within and hydrologically connected to designated sites which flow under the proposed Scheme 8.7.3 In addition to the above, mitigation measures would be included within the detailed design of the proposed Scheme. These would include:

· Sensitive drainage features within 500m of GCN ponds. Gully pots have the potential to trap amphibians, and therefore ‘wildlife kerbs’ rather than standard kerbs would be used if present parallel to gully pots. If these are not used, amphibian ladders would be installed within these gully pots · Filtration devices fitted on 4 sensitive outfalls, 3 which discharge to designated sites. These would accommodate potential increases in sediment.

Secondary mitigation

8.7.4 Secondary mitigation would be committed to through the OEMP, EPSM licences and specific habitat and species Precautionary Methods of Working or Mitigation Strategies. These may also include measures such as construction lighting or noise plans.

Tertiary mitigation

8.7.5 Standard good practices, such as the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Environmental Good Practice on Site Guidelines35, would be implemented during the construction phase to minimise harm to ecological receptors and avoid impacts on the favourable conservation status of species and habitats. These measures would be detailed in the OEMP, which has been produced to provide guidance to the Principal Contractor in preparing their environmental management processes. These would include:

· No works within or to any watercourses · Standard measures to prevent potential pollution risks (water, dust, noise, light) · The requirements relating to air and noise are expanded in the relevant chapters of this assessment. This would include avoiding impacts to all hydrological receptors, such as white-clawed crayfish and the River Itchen SAC · Ensuring no works are undertaken within terrestrial habitats up to 8m from watercourse banks to avoid impacting the river and its associated habitats. Installation of temporary screening on bridge parapets would prevent visual disturbance and pollution from construction dust, and minimise noise · Measures to ensure any impacts resulting from demolition works are avoided · Measures to ensure the temporary removal of noise barriers avoids impacting any receptors · The use of directional drilling beneath the motorway between installations would avoid impact upon sensitive receptors · The provision of 15m exclusion zones around ancient woodland (not including areas of pre-existing hardstanding, such as the hardshoulder of the M3 or bases of existing structures). Works activities would not enter this exclusion zone other

35 Charles, P, Edwards, P (eds). 2015. CIRIA Environmental Good Practice on Site Guidelines

Page 143 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

than at the sites assessed within the Arboricultural memorandum contained in Appendix A, 8.3 · Precautionary methods of working would be used for works adjacent to the SINCs and ancient woodland, including use of temporary fences and silt barriers where necessary to prevent soil run-off and damage of these habitats. Special attention would be paid to the works within close proximity to the swamp at chainage 107150 · Night-time working during construction would be avoided during the season when bats are active (May to October). If night-time work is required, any site illumination would be fully directional and fitted with devices such as hoods and cowls to minimise light-spill into adjacent habitat and minimise impacts to disturbance of foraging bats or other animals such as GCN, otter (near to watercourses) and badgers · Locating construction compounds to minimise local noise disturbance to protected species · Vegetation clearance would be minimised to be of the least extent possible to facilitate construction and provide adequate and safe movement of people and equipment during works. Where vegetation clearance is required, connective canopy / scrub habitat would be retained where possible · All site clearance would be carried out at appropriate time of year to minimise risks to notable and protected species · To prevent unnecessary suffering, such as crushing and suffocation during site clearance, humane methods would be employed where it is necessary to remove fox earths and rabbit burrows from within the working area if these are found to be present · All excavations left open overnight would include measures to prevent mammals becoming trapped (ramped sides or wooden planks). All excavations would be checked for animals prior to infilling · Appropriate storage of materials, equipment and machinery, ensuring vehicles would be kept off retained habitats in the soft estate · Any tree protection measures considered necessary (according to British Standard BS 587:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction) would be detailed in the OEMP to prevent damage to tree roots and stems during works. This would include buffer zones for any works immediately adjacent to ancient woodland · An arboricultural survey would be undertaken in any areas where construction activity would be undertaken in the vicinity of ancient woodland sites to establish root protection measures, and therefore avoid impacts on the trees. Where required, an arboricultural watching brief would be employed · Any notable and rare plant species found within the works areas would be subject to translocation to adjacent areas outside of the works footprint. A pre- construction survey would locate these individual plants · Any non-native invasive plant species would be subject to controlled avoidance under a written method statement · Measures would be taken to manage the spread of invasive species, including Japanese knotweed, during construction. Any non-native invasive plant species

Page 144 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

would be subject to controlled avoidance or treatment under a written method statement to avoid spread of these species · Pre-construction checks for breeding birds (if vegetation clearance is undertaken during the bird breeding season, which is between March and August inclusive) · Pre-construction reptile habitat suitability surveys and, where suitable common reptile habitat is present, adherence to a Precautionary Method of Working or translocation programme as appropriate

Protected species implications

8.7.6 The OEMP would include specific measures to be carried out to ensure that works do not result in an offence with regard to legally protected species. As described above, all habitat clearance would be carried out under a method statement, informed by measures identified within the protected species licence (if required). This would include Tool Box Talks for site contractors, ecological watching briefs where required and hand searches for species by an ecologist prior to clearance. The OEMP would include appropriate timing of habitat clearance to avoid the most sensitive times of year for protected species. 8.7.7 Where necessary, retained habitats outside of the construction footprint would be protected and enhanced prior to construction to ensure that this habitat can support the notable species displaced by construction (such as log piles for sheltering and hibernating newts). Where possible, subject to clearance of sightlines and permanent habitat loss, cleared areas would be replanted to ensure development of suitable habitats following construction. 8.7.8 As described above, the OEMP would include appropriate timing of habitat clearance to avoid the most sensitive times of year for protected species. 8.7.9 To account for any severing of potential commuting routes for bats such as hedgerows, these would be reinstated immediately post-construction, and maintained using fencing or dead hedging during construction to ensure minimal dislocation of linear features. Any works on the road above box culverts and underbridges would be avoided due to their potential to support roosting bats. Any night works within 30m of underbridges and culverts would be avoided due to the increased lighting, which would affect bats. These have been subject to a preliminary assessment of their suitability for roosting bats, to be followed by emergence / re-entry surveys as required. Where these features are found to be of negligible suitability for bats, or surveys indicate a likely absence, then night works need not avoid these locations. 8.7.10 To minimise potential impact on stag beetles, any deadwood found in areas of woodland cleared for the proposed Scheme would be carefully moved to pre-agreed locations. This is to preserve any larvae that might be inhabiting the deadwood. 8.7.11 A Natural England EPSM licence would be required for works in areas where GCN, badgers, bats and dormice are present and likely to be impacted by the proposals. Licences are likely to require the implementation of mitigation measures to compensate for the loss of habitat, sensitive timing of works and supervision by a licensed ecologist. 8.7.12 In addition to the measures described above and detailed within the OEMP, in habitats where reptiles are likely to be present in isolated areas that will be subject to

Page 145 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

significant habitat loss, reducing the ability of the area to support a reptile population, capture programmes according to best practice36 would be undertaken involving:

· The exclusion of the reptile capture areas using appropriate fencing · The setup of reptile refugia in these areas (>100 per hectare) · The capture of reptiles daily during the appropriate season (March to October inclusive) for a minimum of 90 suitable days or 5 consecutive suitable days with no capture · The movement of these reptiles to the receptor site · Once clear of reptiles, the site would be cleared of suitable vegetation in phased clearance under an ecological watching brief; firstly down to 15cm, then to the ground 24 hours later · A supervised destructive search, where the removal of suitable habitat, including the top soil layer is removed from site under the supervision of an Ecologist 8.7.13 Two sites within the highways boundary that offer potential for use as a release site for captures reptiles, which would allow for dispersal into the wider landscape, are located adjacent to the cutting at St Catherine’s Hill (Grid reference SU480268) and adjacent to Freespace Hicknor Hill SINC (Grid reference SU431183).

Notable species compensation and enhancement

8.7.14 As part of the mitigation and compensation measures proposed for notable species such as bats, hazel dormouse, GCN, stag beetles and reptiles, increased sheltering, hibernating and breeding opportunities would be created in retained habitats throughout the proposed Scheme, such as log / brash piles, and nesting boxes. 8.7.15 There is potential that a reptile relocation exercise is will be required. If necessary, proposed release sites would be subject to assessment of enhancement opportunities. The reptile mitigation strategy would detail proposed enhancements and on-going management of the release sites. Enhancements would be implemented through the application of best practice37 and would include an enhancement package beyond minimum compensation. This will increase the carrying capacity of the habitat in order to sustain the additional reptiles . The proposed release sites would be within the highways boundary in areas where the relocated reptiles can disperse into the landscape. These include the land within the highways boundary above the cutting at St Catherine’s Hill (Grid reference SU480268) and adjacent to Freespace Hicknor Hill SINC (Grid reference SU431183). 8.7.16 The requirement for a GCN relocation is currently not known. However, if one is required, an enhancement plan for the receptor site would be produced making clear recommendations regarding enhancements and on-going management of the site, once chosen. Enhancements beyond minimum compensation46 would be implemented through a management plan, according to best practice, in order to allow the newly established population to flourish. 8.7.17 The requirement for a dormouse mitigation licence and associated mitigation is currently unknown. However, any licence application would require no net loss of dormouse habitat, with replanting to provide a diverse range of native woody species

36 HGBI (1998) Evaluating mitigation/translocation programmes: maintaining best practice and lawful practices, HGBI advisory notes for amphibian and reptile groups.

Page 146 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

to provide continuity of food resources throughout the season and installation of dormouse nest boxes. 8.7.18 The requirement for a bat mitigation licence and associated mitigation strategy is currently unknown. However, any licence application would require like for like replacement of any bat roost, with suitable provision of roost features during any potential disturbance. In addition, to compensate for habitat loss within the soft estate bat boxes are recommended for tree-dwelling species. It is recommended that 15 bat boxes be installed per hectare of habitat loss. The bat boxes would be distributed as follows:

· 60% general use such as Schwegler 2F, 2FN and 1FF (if shortage of Schwegler Miramare or Vivara alternatives to be used) · 20% maternity roost boxes such as Schwegler 3FF · 20% hibernation roost boxes such as Schwegler 1FW 8.7.19 The need for badger sett closure under licence is currently not known; however, if a main sett requires closure, alternative provision would be needed. An artificial sett would be constructed in place of the main sett with suitable fruit bearing trees planted in the vicinity. 8.7.20 For breeding and nesting birds, the installation of nest boxes on retained trees would mitigate for the loss of nesting habitats such as trees, hedgerow and scrub. It is recommended that 15 nest boxes be installed per hectare of habitat loss. The types of nest boxes would be distributed as follows:

· 60% with 32mm entrance hole · 20% with 26 / 25mm entrance hole · 20% to be boxes suitable for species which nest in recesses or cavities 8.7.21 The nest boxes would ideally be made of durable materials (for example, woodcrete) to increase their longevity.

European protected species mitigation licences

8.7.22 Where the presence of protected species is established by the surveys licence applications would likely be required and would include additional mitigation37. For GCN this would include:

· The identification (and survey as required) of a suitable receptor site where the captured GCN population would be relocated to · The exclusion of GCN as required, using appropriate fencing · The installation of pitfall traps (final number dependent upon populations estimates) · The capture of GCN in pitfall buckets every day for an as yet to be confirmed period of time · The transportation of the GCN to the receptor site · Once clear of GCN, the site would be cleared of suitable vegetation in phased clearance under an ecological watching brief; firstly down to 15cm, then to the ground 24 hours later

37 English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines

Page 147 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· A supervised destructive search 8.7.23 Works that directly affect active badger setts would require a licence38 which would only be granted outside the breeding season (November – June). The sett would need to be closed under licence and badgers permanently excluded from their setts to prevent them from re-entering. If it is a main sett, alternative provision would be required in the form of an artificial sett. Setts indirectly affected by proposed works would require temporary closure. Any open trenches would be covered overnight during the works to prevent badgers from becoming trapped. If this is not possible, then mammal ladders would be installed to allow any trapped mammals to escape safely. 8.7.24 Where the presence of dormouse is established through the proposed surveys, a licence may stipulate a mitigation package39. This could include supervised vegetation clearance in sensitive locations, replacement planting and installation of dormouse nest boxes. 8.7.25 Where the presence of roosting bats is established as a result of surveys, mitigation as part of the licence40 may include timing of works in the vicinity to sensitive receptors, and enhancements for foraging, commuting and roosting in the vicinity of the roost. The type of roost (i.e. maternity roosts) would dictate the mitigation package requirements.

Monitoring requirements

8.7.26 The success of any reptile relocation (if required) would be subject to monitoring. In order to prove the reptile population has successfully established itself in the release site and the enhancements have been successful, post relocation surveys would be required. The UK standard monitoring protocol for reptiles includes 4 visits per year for 3 years to survey for adult individuals41. The surveys would use transects, visual observation and refuges between March and June as well as September in optimal weather conditions. Furthermore, 3 years post relocation (2021) a survey of the site would be undertaken to assess its habitat structure, hibernation sites and egg laying sites for grass snakes (if subject to relocation). The findings from this monitoring would be presented in a report with recommendations for management to the responsible party. 8.7.27 Licensing agreements may include monitoring programmes for those species affected. If alternative provision is required due to closure of a main sett, the artificial sett constructed would require monitoring to assess its use prior to closure of the existing sett. These can take the form of visual checks and camera trapping. A relocated GCN population would require monitoring to demonstrate the success of the relocation programme; the scale of monitoring would depend on impacts but could be a maximum of 6 years for significant impacts (of which are unlikely). The findings would be reported to the relevant stakeholders including Natural England, Highways England and the land manager. Monitoring of bat mitigation provided may be required, along with management of any roost provision, dependent on the scale of impacts. Hazel dormice would require monitoring of the establishment of mitigation

38 Natural England (2009) Badgers and Development, a guide to best practice and licensing 39 English Nature (2006) The Dormouse Conservation Handbook 40 Bat Conservation trust (2016) Bat surveys for professional ecologists, good practice guidelines 41 JNNC (2004) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Reptiles and Amphibians

Page 148 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

and re-colonisation of the population, which is again dependent upon the scale of impacts.

No net loss commitment

8.7.28 The Road Investment Strategy (RIS) for the 2015-16 to 2019-20 Road period includes an objective to halt ‘net loss’ of biodiversity. It also includes a note that “in the long term, the Company Highways England should deliver a net gain across its broader range of works”. The proposed Scheme would include mitigation and compensation measures to ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity. Compensation measures may also be required as part of EPSM licences for GCN, hazel dormice, bats and badgers. This would involve appropriate re-planting of temporarily cleared habitats where necessary, or measures to promote natural recolonisation. 8.7.29 Where minor permanent loss of vegetation is required (beneath the footprint of proposed new infrastructure), retained habitats would be enhanced to increase their carrying capacity for protected and notable species. This would include sensitive habitat management, scalloping of scrub or woodland edge if present, creation of log/debris piles to provide sheltering, hibernating and foraging opportunities for species, and installation of nest boxes. These measures would benefit other notable species such as stag beetle, common reptiles and toads. By carrying out this work, greater floristic and structural diversity in the soft estate habitats is anticipated and there would be no net loss of biodiversity as part of the proposed Scheme. In addition, a GCN or reptile relocation programme would involve the identification and enhancement of a receptor site, which would contribute toward this goal. 8.7.30 Throughout detailed design opportunities for enhancement which may contribute to a net gain in biodiversity would be considered. Hampshire County Council employs a landscape scale biodiversity enhancement programme using Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (BOAs). The proposed Scheme crosses 2 of these areas; the Itchen Valley BOA and the Ampfield – Baddesley - Chilworth – Lordswood BOA. Any enhancements would be targeted within these areas and in engagement with Hampshire County Council ecologists to ensure they are focused and have the greatest positive impact for wildlife.

8.8 Potential construction effects 8.8.1 The potential impacts on important ecological receptors are characterised here taking into consideration the mitigation described in Section 8.7 above. 8.8.2 There are no diversion routes required during the construction of the proposed Scheme. Should the requirement for a diversion route change, it is anticipated that these would only be used periodically with total closure of the carriageway only taking place at night. If diversion routes are used they are likely to increase disturbance from noise and lights along the diversion route itself, due to increased volumes of traffic. The frequency of use of potential diversion routes (if required) is likely to be small; therefore, significant impacts are not anticipated and would not change the conclusions of this biodiversity assessment. However, if diversion routes are required, further noise assessment may be necessary. Designated sites

Internationally designated sites

Page 149 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.8.3 Construction of the proposed Scheme would not have any significant effect on Mottisfont Bats SAC or Briddlesford Copses SAC. These 2 sites are designated for barbastelle and Bechstein’s bat respectively. Core sustenance zones (CSZ) are outlined in the Bat Conservation Trust Survey Guidelines42 following a review of existing literature and studies, and refer to the area surrounding a communal bat roost within which habitat availability and quality would have a significant influence on the resilience and conservation status of the colony using the roost. The guidelines have been subject to extensive review and consultation, including by Natural England. 8.8.4 The CSZ for Barbastelle bat is considered to be 6 kilometres; this is the area required from the roost to sustain the population. Any impacts within these zones could have a significant impact on bats; however, the site is well outside of this core zone and no impacts on foraging bats associated with the SAC are likely. Additionally, a Natural England report43 concluded that a 7.5 kilometre distance from the Mottisfont Bats SAC boundary should be used to identify plans and projects that could have an impact upon habitats used by the Mottisfont barbastelles, which the proposed Scheme is outside. 8.8.5 The CSZ for Bechstein’s bat is considered to be 1 kilometre; this is the area required from the roost to sustain the population. Any impacts within these zones could have a significant impact on bats, although individual bats have been recorded foraging further afield at distances up to 3.8 kilometres from the roost site. However, the proposed Scheme is well outside of this core zone and separated by the Solent. 8.8.6 Biological records obtained from HBIC found no records of barbastelle or Bechstein bat within 1 kilometre of the proposed Scheme; therefore, it is considered unlikely that barbastelle or Bechstein’s bat would be present within the proposed Scheme extents. Considering the intervening distance between the proposed Scheme and the SACs (14 kilometres and 29 kilometres respectively), the qualifying features of the SACs would not be affected during the construction of the proposed Scheme and no impacts on foraging bats associated with the SACs are likely. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed Scheme would not result in impacts to these 2 SACs. 8.8.7 Construction of the proposed Scheme is unlikely to have a significant effect on the following international sites located within 2 kilometres of the proposed Scheme, within 200m of the ARN, or hydrologically connected to the proposed Scheme:

· River Itchen SAC and SSSI - The proposed Scheme crosses directly over the SAC at 2 locations · Solent Maritime SAC - The proposed Scheme is hydrologically connected to this SAC, via the River Itchen. The M27, part of the ARN, crosses the SAC · Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site - The proposed Scheme is hydrologically connected to this SAC, via the River Itchen. The SPA and Ramsar are within 165m of the ARN at Bittern Road West A3024 · Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA - The proposed Scheme is hydrologically connected to this pSPA, via the River Itchen. The M27, part of the ARN, crosses the pSPA

42 Bat Conservation Trust, Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd Edition. 43 Jonathan Cox Associates, 2010. Mottisfont Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Protocol for Planning Officers

Page 150 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar - The proposed Scheme is hydrologically connected to this SPA and Ramsar, via the River Itchen. The A27 and A32, part of the ARN, are adjacent to the SPA and Ramsar 8.8.8 A detailed impact assessment for the internationally designated sites is presented within the HRA screening report. This concludes construction of the proposed Scheme would not result in significant effects to the conservation objectives of the designated sites, through direct or indirect effects. Construction related impacts would not affect designated sites over 2 kilometres from the proposed Scheme, given the intervening distance and countryside. 8.8.9 There would be no land-take from the sites and standard pollution prevention measures would be put in place during construction. These include silt barriers where necessary to protect retained habitats from pollution from fuel spillage, or material wash off or dust resulting in loss of habitat quality. Construction of the proposed Scheme is therefore unlikely to have any significant effect on the conservation objectives of these statutory designated sites through direct or indirect effects. 8.8.10 Although works would take place in close proximity to the River Itchen SAC (and SSSI), construction of the proposed Scheme is not considered to result in significant effects to the conservation objectives or qualifying features of the site. Generation of air-borne pollution from construction activities, including dust emissions from excavation or NOx emissions from construction vehicles or plant, will be controlled, localised in the vicinity of the works and temporary in nature. Therefore, qualifying features of the SAC would not be significantly affected by air quality impacts during the construction phase. 8.8.11 The proposed Scheme may generate water-borne pollution from construction activities carried out in the vicinity of the River Itchen SAC. However, run off during construction would be contained within the drainage system of the existing M3 motorway. Existing filter drains, gullies, catchpits and oil interceptors would therefore prevent any polluted run-off from construction activities entering the surrounding drainage network, including groundwater and surface water receptors. Isolation of construction drainage and temporary works would be informed by ground investigation. In order to comply with the legal requirements of the Water Resources Act 1991 surface water run-off would be attenuated to ensure that there is no increase in run-off rates. Therefore, impacts to qualifying species or habitats, including Southern Damselfly would not occur. 8.8.12 Suspended solids that may be generated in the chalk aquifer may result in reduced water quality within the SAC. However, any effects on water quality as a result of piling activities would be localised and the detailed design and construction strategy would employ specific measures to prevent impacts to turbidity or contamination of groundwater during construction, as described in Section 10. Therefore, impacts to qualifying fish species, Southern Damselfly, or habitats that require good water quality would not occur. 8.8.13 Dewatering, which may be required in advance of excavation, could affect groundwater levels and baseflow to the River Itchen SAC. However, dewatering activities (if required) would be required on a short-term basis and therefore impacts to flow dependant habitats such as Ranunculus are not anticipated. 8.8.14 With the implementation of pollution prevention measures outlined in the OEMP, along with an appropriate construction methodology, water quality within the River

Page 151 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Itchen SAC would not be significantly affected by the works. Negligible adverse impacts are anticipated during construction on both the River Itchen SAC. A neutral effect on the downstream sites (due to dilution of any impacts) is anticipated during construction. 8.8.15 Similarly, those sites hydrologically connected to the proposed Scheme via the River Itchen SAC will not be subject to impacts during construction, as no changes in water quality, flow or suspended sediments are anticipated to occur downstream of the works.

Nationally and locally designated sites 8.8.16 As described above in Section 8.8.11, impacts to the River Itchen SSSI through ground water pathways, would be avoided through the detailed design of the proposed Scheme, construction methodology and the OEMP. 8.8.17 St Catherine’s Hill SSSI crosses the motorway but the area where the motorway is now located is registered as being destroyed. This SSSI is adjacent to the proposed Scheme; however, as the site is located at the top of Tywford Down cutting no works are proposed within the footprint of the SSSI and there are no hydrological links from the proposed Scheme. With the implementation of the primary and tertiary mitigation measures described in Section 8.7, impacts upon St Catherine’s Hill SSSI from a reduction in air quality or potential for habitat loss due to construction dust, would be avoided or minimised to a negligible adverse impact resulting in a slight adverse effect. 8.8.18 Shawford Down LNR is located 20 meters east of the proposed Scheme, across Otterboune Road. As this site is not directly adjacent, hydrologically connected to works areas, or connected via habitat links there is minimal risk of impacts during construction. With the implementation of the primary and tertiary mitigation measures described in Section 8.7, impacts upon Shawford Down LNR from a reduction in air quality or potential for habitat loss due to construction dust, would be avoided or minimised to a negligible adverse impact resulting in a slight adverse effect. 8.8.19 There are 33 SINCs and a RVEI scoped in for this assessment. As a result of vegetation clearance there would be minor temporary loss of the A3090 Hockley Link RVEI, Hockley Golf Course SINC, Great Moorlands Copse Complex SINC, Pitmore Copse (West) SINC and Northend Copse SINC. Standard pollution prevention measures would avoid any indirect effects on these sites; however, small scale temporary loss of this county level resource due to vegetation clearance is considered a minor adverse impact anticipated, resulting in a slight adverse effect.

Notable habitats

8.8.20 Ancient woodland and veteran trees are afforded equal protection under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), where by the loss of these habitats should be avoided or justified in exceptional circumstances only. In total, 9 areas of ancient semi-natural woodland lie in close proximity (less than 30m from planned works) to the proposed Scheme. Under the assessment for DF2 6 areas of ancient woodland may have been subject to impacts due to the proposed scheme. However, significant impacts have been reduced during preliminary design development to remove and avoid impacts to ancient woodland, by relocating aspects of the proposed Scheme outside of ancient woodland designations and the 15m exclusion zone from the ancient woodland boundary.

Page 152 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.8.21 These relocations were subject to consequences such as various signage moving away from ideal locations or standards, within acceptable tolerances. However, proposed small-scale works still remain within the 15m exclusion zone of blocks of ancient woodland, where the designation is adjacent to or within the highways boundary (refer to Appendix B, Figure 8.3 (areas inside vegetation clearance) for locations):

· Site 1 unnamed woodland 1489079 (approximate grid reference SU457234): Chainage 111088 southbound - Installation of MIDAS equipment and replacement of existing MS4 signal / CCTV gantry · Site 2 Pitmore Copse (approximate grid reference SU451220): Chainage 112665 northbound on slip - Replacement of existing slip road entry signal equipment and ducting · Site 3 unnamed woodland 1488317 (approximate grid reference SU436189): Chainage 116100 north and southbound - Installation of MIDAS equipment and super-span gantry · Ducting along the length of the proposed Scheme 8.8.22 An arboricultural site visit confirmed that these ancient woodland designations are correct, ancient woodland does border and extend into the highways boundary, self- seeding the highways verge. 8.8.23 Proposed locations of infrastructure in these areas are within the 15m buffer of ancient woodland, being just over 5m from ancient woodland at the closest point. The RPAs and canopy sizes of ancient woodland trees closest to the proposed works have been measured and extend into the 15m buffer by 5m (maximum). It is considered that the proposed works would have no impact on the integrity of ancient woodland if outside the RPAs of trees within the ancient woodland. 8.8.24 Due to the presence of existing infrastructure in each of these locations, areas of hardstanding exists within the 15m buffer. Tree roots are not anticipated to be present within these existing areas of infrastructure to any significant extent due to the hostile rooting conditions. It is proposed that the installation of new equipment is confined to the existing hardstanding footprints in these areas, with construction occurring from the hardshoulder. No encroachment into the ancient woodland would be necessary. 8.8.25 These remaining conflicts with the ancient woodland buffer are discussed within the Design Strategy Record (DSR), which would contain mandatory requirements to be applied at detailed design by the contractor. The construction area parameters applied during preliminary provide ‘worst case scenarios’ at these locations, such as conservative construction footprints. The DSR would include measures such as reductions of working areas and requirements for associated infrastructure (such as power cabinets) to be relocated to other locations, outside the ancient woodland buffer zone. This would entail:

· The location of MIDAS equipment at chainage (Ch.)111088 within the existing footprint of the acoustic fencing that extends into the ancient woodland buffer zone · The location of on-slip signals at Ch.112665 within the existing infrastructure footprint

Page 153 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· The location of gantries at Ch.116100 within the existing infrastructure footprint, with associated cabinets on the north-bound carriageway, to the north of the ancient woodland buffer zone · Ducting trenches moved as close as possible to the edge of carriageway in areas of ancient woodland buffers (and hand dug) · Cabinets associated with the Remotely Operable Temporary Traffic Management (ROTTM) at Ch.113500 to be reduced (power cabinet moved to a different location) and the works footprint kept outside the ancient woodland buffer · Retaining walls kept out of ancient woodland and the 15m exclusion zone 8.8.26 Trenching for the placement of electrical ducting along the length of the proposed Scheme may require hand digging to 600m in depth within the 15m buffer zones of ancient woodland under an arboricultural watching brief. 8.8.27 Pruning may be necessary to facilitate the installation of the equipment; however, this would be no greater than the pruning that would normally be associated with the maintenance of the soft estate. It is accepted that trees within ancient woodland are subject to maintenance along the M3 corridor on a regular basis. 8.8.28 The above detailed design requirements specified within the DSR, to be carried forward by the contractor, would ensure that potential impacts to ancient woodland are avoided. No irreplaceable ancient woodland would be lost, and the proposed scheme is not anticipated to result in the deterioration of any ancient woodland or effect the integrity of these habitats. Therefore, with the implementation of the above measures, the impact of the proposed Scheme is considered to be negligible (if any change at all) during construction, resulting in a neutral effect. 8.8.29 Other notable habitats include 2 small areas of calcareous grassland (0.01 hectares) on the verges at the base of the Twyford Cutting (adjacent to the on and off slip roads) would be subject to vegetation clearance to facilitate the proposed Scheme. Therefore, a minor adverse impact is anticipated, resulting in a slight adverse effect during construction due to the temporary loss of 0.01 hectares of calcareous grassland. 8.8.30 Three ditches are located partially or entirely within indicative vegetation clearance; ditches 1-GCN-219, 1-GCN-226 and 1-GCN-228. This would result in a temporary loss of vegetation in the ditches and potential slight damage to these features resulting in a minor impact. The vegetation in the ditches would regrow and there would be a slight adverse effect whilst this regrowth happens. 8.8.31 No other impacts are predicted on notable habitats. 8.8.32 No rivers or ponds would be modified during the works with pollution prevention measures implemented, and no construction works to culverts or outfalls are proposed. Indirect effects from construction on designated rivers are described under the ‘Designated Sites’ section.

Other habitats

8.8.33 The proposed Scheme would not have any significant effect on the structure and function of habitats in the long-term. There would be temporary clearance of habitats within the soft estate to facilitate construction of the proposed Scheme. The loss of this habitat is temporary and reversible. Habitat would be re-instated or left to

Page 154 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

recolonise naturally. The results of protected species surveys would determine the need for further mitigation planting. 8.8.34 There would be small scale permanent loss of habitats such as woodland, scrub, and grassland beneath the footprint of the new infrastructure (EAs, gantries etc.) which cannot be compensated for within the boundary of the proposed Scheme. Gantries would require the permanent loss of 17m by 2.3m; EAs would be 100m in length; midas would be located 4.5m from the carriageway and may require clearance up to 8me in length, and individual chambers would be between 0.9 m2 or 2.5m by 1.5m. 8.8.35 Planting plans would be produced as part of Stage 3 and detailed landscape design to reinstate and enhance the floristic and structural diversity of the habitats lost during construction, which upon maturity would mitigate for habitats lost to localised permanent infrastructure. This habitat loss would result in a moderate adverse impact, though a neutral effect due to the negligible value of the habitats concerned. 8.8.36 Habitat clearance would create temporary gaps in the continuity of habitats within the boundary of the highways land along the soft estate. However, habitat connectivity would be retained through habitats at the back of the soft estate where possible, adjacent to the proposed Scheme and in the wider landscape. 8.8.37 Standard pollution prevention measures would be put in place to protect retained habitats during construction. This would include silt barriers where necessary. 8.8.38 Taking into account the largely temporary nature of the habitat loss, it is considered that there would be no likely significant effects on the conservation status of habitats within the soft estate during construction. Construction of the proposed Scheme would result in a moderate adverse impact, resulting in a neutral effect due to the negligible value of the habitats concerned.

Notable species

Badgers 8.8.39 Construction of the proposed Scheme is unlikely to have any significant effect on the favourable conservation status of the local population of badgers. Further surveys, according to best practice guidance44, would be undertaken for any suitable habitat within 30m of indicative vegetation clearance (refer to Appendix B, Figure 8.2 Biodiversity Constraints). If a set is identified, it may require closure under licence if within 30m of works, due to the potential for damage or disturbance. If required, this would result in a minor temporary adverse impact, though not significant as alternative provision would be available in the form of other setts. If a main sett requires closure, alternative provision would be required in the form of an artificial sett. This would equate in size and number of holes to the sett being lost. Vegetation clearance in the soft estate would mean the removal of potential foraging habitat. Where possible, reinstated habitats would include fruit bearing trees to offset the temporary habitat loss. Therefore, a minor adverse impact may occur during construction, resulting in a slight adverse effect.

Bats 8.8.40 There are 16 underbridges and box culverts along the proposed Scheme which may offer roosting potential to bats. Of these, only 1 has been confirmed as a roost during

44 Harris, S., Cresswell, P. and Jefferies. D. (1989) Surveying Badgers, The Mammal Society, London

Page 155 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

emergence/ re-entry surveys undertaken in 218. If disturbance of this roost is likely, and cannot be avoided by the use of a precautionary method of working, a licence would be required from Natural England. Measures would likely include sensitive timing of works, alternative provision and enhancements such as bat boxes and additional planting in the landscape to offer greater connectivity and foraging potential. 8.8.41 The presence of bats within the verge and adjacent ancient woodland, commuting and foraging is assumed, although no trees were identified as offering roosting potential during the extended Phase 1 survey. Further surveys are to be undertaken in 2019 to establish the presence of potential tree roosts. The OEMP would include measures to ensure the connectivity of this habitat is maintained wherever possible so as not to interfere with commuting routes. The design of the proposed Scheme aims to retain vegetation along the highways boundary fence line to retain a corridor of habitat for foraging and commuting bats. Where this is not possible, temporary fencing would be used to maintain commuting features. In addition to this, there is a large amount of suitable alternative foraging habitat in the form of hedgerows, woodlands, fields and waterbodies in the wider landscape surrounding the proposed Scheme. Habitat temporarily lost during construction is unlikely to form a large proportion of the foraging habitat of bats within the local area, as this would consist of the highways soft estate only, particularly due to its disturbance from vehicles. In addition, the installation of bat boxes during the construction prior will compensate for habitat losses by increasing the suitability of retained vegetation. 8.8.42 Appropriate, directed lighting used during any night-time construction works would minimise light spill into surrounding habitats, including those underbridges used by commuting bats, and would reduce any temporary impacts on bat foraging / commuting routes within and adjacent to the proposed Scheme. Where possible, a buffer strip of vegetation would be retained at the highways boundary fence to prevent light spill and minimise potential short-term interruption of bat foraging and commuting routes within and adjacent to the proposed Scheme due to night-time construction lighting. Disturbance from noise during construction would be localised and temporary. Therefore, construction of the proposed Scheme is unlikely to have a significant effect on the favourable conservation status of the local population of bats. A minor adverse impact may occur during construction, resulting in a slight adverse effect on the bat population present.

Great crested newts 8.8.43 The presence of GCN has not been established as habitat assessments and subsequent presence / likely absence surveys are to be undertaken throughout 2018 and 2019. However, there are 171 ponds and ditches within 250m of the proposed Scheme, which would be subject to further surveys45, as discussed in Section 8.7.5 above. There is habitat within the soft estate suitable for shelter and foraging for GCN, with suitable connectivity in the landscape. If GCN are found to be present in these ponds, a licence may be required from Natural England to permit disturbance. This licence would stipulate the requirements for mitigation which could include exclusion, relocation and compensation. 8.8.44 There would be temporary loss of available habitat for GCN within the construction area of the proposed Scheme, and small scale permanent loss of habitat beneath the

45 Langton, T., Beckett. C. and Foster. J. (2001) Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook, Froglife, Halesworth.

Page 156 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

footprint of new infrastructure. Three ditches are located partially or entirely within indicative vegetation clearance area (refer to Appendix B, Figure 8.2), being ditches 1-GCN-219, 1-GCN-226 and 1-GCN-228. This would result in a short-term minor adverse impact, resulting in a slight adverse effect, but the ditches (and aquatic habitats they provide) would be retained. Due to pollution prevention measures within the OEMP, no other ponds would be modified during the works. 8.8.45 However, taking into account the location of the construction works and extensive habitat available to this species in the wider landscape, this temporary loss is highly unlikely to have any significant impact on any of the populations of GCN, even without mitigation. 8.8.46 The majority of habitat loss would be temporary and reversible. Habitats would be replanted or left to naturally recolonise/regenerate. During construction, retained habitats would be enhanced with log/brash piles to provide additional shelter for GCN displaced by the construction works. Where drainage updates are required near to waterbodies with GCN, appropriate design would be put in place to ensure that drainage features do not trap individual newts (for example, filter drains or removal or kerbs). 8.8.47 To minimise the risk of killing and injury to individual GCN, sensitive habitat clearance would be proposed within the OEMP. This would be in conjunction with a written scheme-wide licence if found to be required. Where necessary (due to proximity of breeding waterbody and size of population), a capture programme would be put in place to move individual GCN from the construction footprint.

Hazel dormouse 8.8.48 Site clearance for construction involves the loss of woodland and scrub habitats where hazel dormice are potentially present. Removal would result in an overall reduction in availability of this habitat throughout the construction period until maturity of re-colonisation or reinstated habitat. Vegetation clearance also poses a risk of disturbing, damaging or killing individual dormice. Surveys are required to further inform the assessment and requirement for a licence. Fifteen sites along the entire proposed Scheme have been identified as being suitable for dormice (refer to Appendix B, Figure 8.2). Of these, 14 are subject to vegetation clearance or impact due to the proximity of works (refer to Appendix B, Figure 8.3 (areas inside vegetation clearance) in. Each site would be surveyed according to best practice39. 8.8.49 The retained habitats within the proposed Scheme are generally well connected to other suitable habitats (woodland, scrub and hedgerows) within the wider landscape. There are some existing breaks in continuity of habitat due to the presence of tracks and roads. Although largely arboreal animals, hazel dormice are known to cross open landscape, including roads, not only during dispersal but nightly between different foraging and nesting sites. Therefore, hazel dormice present in the soft estate would be part of wider populations present on each side of the motorway corridor. Whilst construction would temporarily reduce the continuity of habitat within the soft estate itself, the network of habitat in the wider landscape either side of the motorway would not be affected or fragmented. 8.8.50 The majority of habitat loss would be temporary and reversible. A total of 13 hectares of potential dormouse habitat would be subject to vegetation clearance to facilitate the proposed Scheme, across 14 distinct areas of connected habitat. Habitats would be replanted or left to naturally recolonise and careful design would ensure that dispersal

Page 157 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

routes are maintained throughout construction. Retained habitats would be enhanced with nest boxes and log/brash piles to provide additional hibernation / sheltering opportunities for hazel dormice displaced by the construction works. Whilst these works would help to minimise the impacts displacing hazel dormouse from the working area, it is possible that the reduction in habitat would stress individuals by causing greater territorial conflict with reduced foraging and nesting opportunities, potentially leading to reduced breeding success. Scheme-wide, this may have a temporary minor adverse impact on the population within the footprint of the proposed Scheme, particularly if other variables such as weather, disease or predation are also having a detrimental effect. However, this is considered unlikely to be significant to the conservation status of the local populations of hazel dormice and therefore a temporary slight adverse effect is anticipated.

Reptiles (common lizard, grass snake and slow worm) 8.8.51 It is possible that high numbers of reptiles are present throughout the proposed Scheme in areas of semi-improved grassland and associated scrub. Proposed clearance in these areas could result in the killing of individuals. Within the area of proposed clearance 2.1 hectares of high quality, 0.8 hectares of moderate quality and 0.02 hectares of low quality reptile habitat would be lost. High quality includes semi- improved grassland, moderate includes scrub and low includes habitats such as improved grassland. Though displacement is favourable, the lack of connected suitable habitat, in most of the proposed works locations, to be retained in the surrounding areas for the reptiles to move into means this would not be possible. 8.8.52 Where necessary to minimise the risk of killing and injury to individual reptiles, through loss of sustainable populations, a relocation programme would be undertaken as described in Section 8.7. A receptor site would be identified within the highways boundary, outside of the works footprint, and a management plan for the area produced according to its composition, reptile population, size46. This would include enhancements for the area offsetting habitat loss due to the proposed works. Following these suitable mitigation measures, the construction of the proposed Scheme is unlikely to have a significant effect on the favourable conservation status of reptiles in the local context. Therefore, a minor adverse impact is anticipated, resulting in a slight adverse effect during construction.

Riparian mammals 8.8.53 Construction of the proposed Scheme is unlikely to have any significant effect on the favourable conservation status of otters or water voles. Construction of the proposed Scheme does not involve works which affect the structure of any watercourses or riparian habitats. Measures as described in Section 8.7 would be included within the OEMP to ensure minimal effect on hydrology. Standard mitigation within the OEMP in relation to appropriate night-time lighting and pollution prevention would ensure that, where records show the species make use of the watercourses close to the road, they would not be affected by construction. Therefore, no impact is anticipated, resulting in a neutral effect.

Breeding birds

46 Edgar, P., Foster. J. and Baker. J. (2010) Reptile Habitat Management handbook, Amphibian and Reptile conservation, Bournemouth

Page 158 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.8.54 Construction of the proposed Scheme is unlikely to have any significant effect on the favourable conservation status of the local population of nesting birds including species notable for their conservation concern. Suitable timing of vegetation clearance, as proposed in the OEMP, would avoid damage and destruction of nests. Vegetation clearance associated with construction of the proposed Scheme would result in temporary negative impacts through loss of nesting and foraging habitat and displacement of birds from the immediate area. 8.8.55 Disturbance of nesting habitat would be a temporary negative impact. Vegetation temporarily lost to facilitate construction would be replanted or left to naturally recolonise and there would be no long-term effect in relation to habitat loss. These temporary effects are not considered to be significant in terms of the favourable conservation status of the local population of nesting birds. 8.8.56 There would be only very small scale permanent loss of habitat beneath the footprint of the new infrastructure. However, this loss of vegetation is largely adjacent to the carriageway where it is less likely that birds would currently nest due to disturbance from traffic. Therefore, a minor adverse impact is anticipated, resulting in a neutral effect.

Fish 8.8.57 Notable fish species are present in the water courses intersecting the proposed Scheme. However, with the implementation of standard pollution prevention and waste water management measures, the avoidance of works within the watercourses and their banks, no significant effect is anticipated. No works will take place within 8 metres of a watercourse; however, piling for a proposed retaining wall is required approximately 10 metres from the River Itchen. Piling measures are not confirmed at this stage, and due to chalk at a shallow depth vibratory piling is likely to be required. Due to intervening substrate much of the vibrational effect will have dissipated before it reaches the watercourse. There is potential for fish species to be displaced from the area during vibrational works and vibrations reaching river beds may lead to siltation which could smother spawning grounds. The use of certain piling methods, such as pre-augering. The potential for this can be reduced by certain piling methods and machinery, and by implanting a ‘soft start’ to piling. Therefore, no impact is anticipated, resulting in a neutral effect during.

Invertebrates 8.8.58 Construction of the proposed Scheme is unlikely to have any significant effect on the favourable conservation status of invertebrate assemblages. Measures described in Section 8.7 would be included within a OEMP to ensure minimal effect on invertebrate assemblages. These would include the management of waste water so there is no significant effect on aquatic invertebrates. To minimise potential impact on stag beetles, any deadwood found in areas of woodland cleared for the proposed Scheme would be carefully moved to agreed locations nearby. This is to preserve any larvae that might be within the deadwood. Two small areas of calcareous grassland (0.01 hectares) on the verges at the base of the Twyford Cutting (adjacent to the on and off slip roads) would be subject to vegetation clearance to facilitate the proposed Scheme. However, these areas are highly disturbed at the carriageway edge and connected to the larger area of high quality calcareous grassland of St Catherine’s Hill SSSI to the north-east and Twyford Golf Course to the south. Therefore, the

Page 159 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

temporary loss of 0.01 hectares of calcareous grassland is not likely to affect local invertebrate populations. 8.8.59 Measures as described in Section 8.7 would be included within a OEMP to ensure minimal effect on hydrology. Furthermore, no works would take place within watercourses or their banks. As a result, no effect is predicted on aquatic invertebrates, including white-clawed crayfish. Therefore, a slight adverse impact on invertebrate assemblages is anticipated, resulting in a negligible effect.

Other species 8.8.60 Construction of the proposed Scheme is unlikely to have any significant effect on other notable species. The measures outlined in Section 8.7 would be included within the OEMP to ensure appropriate mitigation is being undertaken. Standard mitigation within the OEMP in relation to appropriate control of disturbance through noise and lighting and pollution prevention would ensure that notable species are not affected by construction. No impact is anticipated during construction, resulting in a neutral effect.

Plants 8.8.61 The presence of notable plant species and assemblages within close proximity to the proposed Scheme has been established within the desk study. As the proposed Scheme would be limited to within the highways boundary, the extent of potentially affected plants would be minimal. However, areas such as calcareous grassland (such as the 0.01 hectare subject to vegetation clearance) may contain rare or notable plant species. These areas would be subject to a survey prior to vegetation clearance, and individual notable plants would be relocated to adjacent retained habitats, resulting in a minor adverse impact. Therefore, a negligible adverse effect is anticipated on rare or notable plant species.

Page 160 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.9 Potential operational effects

Designated sites

Internationally designated sites 8.9.1 No significant effects on the conservation objectives of any statutory designated sites as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme are predicted. 8.9.2 Operation of the proposed Scheme is unlikely to have a significant effect on the following international designated sites located within 2 kilometres of the proposed Scheme, within 200m of the ARN, or hydrologically connected to the proposed Scheme:

· River Itchen SAC and SSSI · Solent Maritime SAC · Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site · Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA · Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar 8.9.3 A detailed impact assessment for the internationally designated sites is presented within the HRA that concludes that operation of the proposed Scheme would not result in significant effects upon the conservation objectives of the designated sites through either direct or indirect effects.

Water environment 8.9.4 During operation, there would be an increase in impermeable surface area due to the proposed Scheme, which would result in an increase in the volume of run-off entering the River Itchen SAC (and SSSI). Upgrades to the drainage system (as described in Section 10) would accommodate predicted increases in volume, and there would be no increase in the rate of discharge into designated sites. Three outfalls, 2 which discharge directly to the River Itchen, and 1 which discharges to Monks Brook, would be subject to modification to accommodate potential increases in sediment, such as a sediment removal vortex. A programme of water quality monitoring at outfalls would be undertaken both prior to and during construction to provide a baseline on the current surface water conditions. Monitoring post installation would also be undertaken to confirm there is no impact following construction of the proposed Scheme. Additionally, soakaways in sensitive areas would be subject to installation of oil and water interceptors / separators, and penstock arrangements to allow for isolation of soakaways in the event of contamination. Modifications would be incorporated in the design of soakaways affected by the proposed Scheme that have been re-assessed as being of medium risk and above to groundwater in accordance with DMRB HD45/09. Therefore, a slight beneficial effect is anticipated on the River Itchen SAC in regard to surface water due to the addition of these filtration devices. 8.9.5 Furthermore, traffic volumes are predicted to increase by approximately 13% due to operation of the proposed Scheme and other projects when in-combination effects are assessed. Where traffic was found to be above the 20% threshold , these were assessed in accordance with DMRB guidance47 and where required, design measures proposed to ensure no significant effects to the receiving waterbody.

47 DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 10 HD 45/09 Road Drainage and the Water Environment, Highways Agency et al., 2009

Page 161 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.9.6 Potential operational impacts on groundwater supplying baseflow to the River Itchen SAC could occur as a result of permanent structures obstructing groundwater flow, causing changes in groundwater levels or flow paths, as well as water quality. Where piles are required, these would be designed to ensure no significant effects to the groudwater supplying baseflow. 8.9.7 Structures potentially extending below the water table are small and would be unlikely to noticeably impede groundwater flow. For larger structures, such as sheet piled retaining walls behind emergency areas, potential dewatering or groundwater mounding impacts would be minimised by careful design. This may be informed by ground investigation and groundwater monitoring, which would be agreed during detailed design. Mitigation such as the below options would be applied: Further design work would be undertaken during detailed design stage to remove this risk.

· Stop every other pile short to create flow pathways · Make the full-length piles even wider spaced and fix waler beams to the piles to spread the load between them · Anchor the tops of the piles to reduce embedment (although this may involve anchors running beneath the carriageway with the associated risk of service strikes etc.) · Locally use a contiguous bored pile wall solution 8.9.8 Some existing culverts run beneath embankments, particularly in proximity to the Itchen and there may be some areas where the alluvium has been excavated and replaced beneath the embankment with granular fill, possibly as a settlement control method or to prevent early deep-seated failure. However, a granular layer would also act as a drainage layer, preventing the embankment structure from acting as a dam. Where embankments requiring toe stabilisation overlie areas at risk of groundwater flooding (and therefore with groundwater levels at or close to surface), piling solutions may not be appropriate, and other solutions such as reinforced soil over drainage layers would be considered as an alternative. There would be a small localised reduction in recharge to the aquifers due to a relatively small increase in the area of impermeable surfacing along the proposed Scheme. However, all run-off would be collected and returned to the catchment, either through discharge to watercourse or discharge to soakaway. The concrete central barrier is likely to be on very shallow foundations and is unlikely to impede groundwater flow, even if groundwater levels are close to the surface. Additionally, for all structures extending below the water table, potential impacts on groundwater flow (without mitigation) would be greater if the structure is perpendicular to the groundwater flow direction than if it is parallel to the direction of flow. 8.9.9 Any potential residual impacts on the river and tributaries due to temporary or permanent changes in groundwater flow and quality, are likely to be negligible and localised and would not be felt downstream or affect the waterbody status as a whole. No operational effects on hydrology are anticipated on the River Itchen SAC or those internationally designated sites hydrologically connected to the proposed Scheme via the River Itchen SAC. Therefore, a no change is anticipated on the River Itchen, and all downstream sites, resulting in a neutral effect.

Air quality impacts

Page 162 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.9.10 An assessment of changes in air quality has been made for 5 internationally designated sites within 2 kilometres of the proposed Scheme or 200 metres of the ARN. These sites are the River Itchen SAC, Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar, Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Dorset Coast potential SPA.

River Itchen SAC 8.9.11 The air quality assessment (refer to Chapter 5) included transect points for the River Itchen SAC and SSSI at the following locations: SU 45278 15765, SU 50283 32387, SU 47722 26491, SU 49312 31444 and SU 49325 31877. The NOx concentrations have been used to calculate the concentrations of nitrogen deposition. 8.9.12 Upon operation, the proposed Scheme would result in increased concentrations of atmospheric nitrogen (NOx) and nitrogen deposition. The lowest Critical Load for the habitat types within the River Itchen SAC, or which support species for which the site is designated, has been used to determine the effect of the proposed Scheme on the SAC and its qualifying features. Table 8.8 below presents the atmospheric NOx concentrations and deposition at a modelled point located approximately adjacent to the M3 (SU 47698 26523). Table 8.8: Atmospheric NOx concentrations and deposition at the River Itchen SAC

Feature NOx Concentration / µg/m3 Without With Change Scheme Scheme

Fen, marsh 94.5 103.43 8.91 and swamp Nitrogen deposition kgN / ha/ yr 19.8 20.1 0.4 8.9.13 In line with the advice set out in Section 2.6 of Interim Advice Note (IAN) 174/13 “Evaluating Significant Air Quality Effects”, as the total NOx concentrations are above 30µg/m³ with the scheme in 2021 and there is a change of more than 0.4µg/m³ of NOx associated with the operation of the scheme, there is a requirement to calculate a change in nitrogen (N) deposition. 8.9.14 The effect of nitrogen deposition on the watercourse has not been modelled here, as there is no Critical Load available for rivers. However, it can be assumed that the impact of nitrogen deposition would be significantly reduced upon contact with aquatic habitats, due to the diffusion of molecules within the water. Therefore, dry habitats that support Annex II species for which the site is designated have been used as the basis for this assessment. It is considered that fen, marsh and swamp habitats are the most sensitive, nearest, dry feature of the River Itchen habitat mosaic within this area, and Southern damselfly the most sensitive species, due to its use of the aforementioned habitats. No Critical Loads are provided by the Air Pollution Inventory System (APIS)48 for the qualifying features of the River Itchen SAC, such as Southern damselfly, otter, salmon or white clawed crayfish. Additionally, features associated with the watercourse itself are unlikely to be impacted by nitrogen deposition, as there is no direct pathway. Therefore, a Critical Load of 10 kg N/ha/yr has been used, which is the lowest Critical Load for fen, marsh and swamp provided on APIS, as this is the

48 Bobbink, R.; Hettelingh, J.P. 2011 Review and revision of empirical critical loads and dose-response relationships

Page 163 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

most appropriate habitat for supporting qualifying species. The use of 10 kg N/ha/yr as a Critical Load for habitats within the SAC is therefore a proportionate and precautionary approach. 8.9.15 It should be noted that for fens of an alkaline nature, such as the River Itchen, phosphorus is the limiting factor which controls vegetation, rather than nitrogen or other nutrients. Additionally, the River Itchen is already nitrogen-rich, due to discharge from Water Treatment Works, both up and down stream of the proposed Scheme, and agricultural practices rather than atmospheric nitrogen. An Environment Agency Review of Consents for the River Itchen SAC49, also applies the approach that the river (and associated habitats) is phosphorus-limited. Therefore, a proportionate approach that considers the already nitrogen-rich nature of the River Itchen and phosphorus as a limiting factor in vegetation composition and distribution is required. 8.9.16 Locations on the M3 west of Easton village, the A34 northbound and the A33 on slip to the A34 (SU 50258 32444, SU 49340 31455 and SU 49297 31867) are predicted to have minimal changes in nitrogen deposition (at the edge of the carriageway) from the ‘Do Minimum’ model, expressed as less than 1% of the Critical Load being attributed to the proposed Scheme. A criterion of 1% is set as the point at impacts of insignificant effect can be screened out, above which the potential for impacts requires ecological evaluation50. Similarly, Environment Agency51 guidance advises that where the contribution of a Scheme is 1%, or less, of the relevant long-term benchmark (Critical Load), the emission is not likely to have a significant effect alone or in-combination irrespective of the background levels. Therefore, these locations are not considered to be subject to potential significant changes in nitrogen deposition due to the proposed Scheme. 8.9.17 Where the M27 crosses the River Itchen SAC (SU 45278 15765) the change in nitrogen deposition at the edge of the carriageway is 1% (of the Critical Load being attributed to the proposed Scheme). This drops to 0% at 20 metres from the carriageway. No sensitive habitats (dry features) supporting qualifying species are located 20 metres from the carriageway therefore no impact is anticpated at this location. 8.9.18 At the point where the River Itchen crosses the M3 (at Hockley Viaduct, SU 47698 26523), the results of the air quality assessment found that there would be an increase of 0.4kg N/ha/yr from baseline levels of nitrogen deposition 5m from the M3. This is expressed as 4% of the Critical Load being attributed to the proposed Scheme, and drops to below 1% once 100 metres from the carriageway. However, this drops to 1% at 20m from the carriageway. 8.9.19 The River Itchen crosses under the M3 at this location, with the SAC boundary following the banks of the watercourse. A total of 0.5 hectares of the River Itchen SAC falls within this 100m zone that could potentially be affected by increases in nitrogen deposition. Within 20m, 0.05 hectares of SAC is potentially affected, and only 0.02 hectares affected at 5m from the carriageway. These areas represent 0.17%, 0.02% and 0.01% of the 303 hectare SAC as a whole. 8.9.20 The habitats adjacent to the proposed Scheme in this area have been assessed, although these do not fall within the SAC boundary these are located within the SSSI

49 Environment Agency. 2007. River Itchen SAC Review of Consents Stage 4 Site Action Plan (SAP) 50 IAQM. 2016. Use of a Criterion for the Determination of an Insignificant Effect of Air Quality Impacts on Sensitive Habitats 51 Environment Agency. 2007. Appendix ASC 1 Environment Agency Stage 1 and 2 Assessment of New PIR Permissions under the Habitats Regulations

Page 164 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

bound. Terrestrial habitats of relevance to the qualifying features of the SAC are not present within the first 35m north of the M3 (due to the presence of the A3090, the reinforced nature of the river bank and roadside planting of broadleaved plantation woodland between the 2 roads). Approximately 30m of broadleaved woodland exists between the A3090 and Hockley Viaduct, before Fen habitats are reached, creating 60m where key habitats to the function or structure of the SAC are not present. These habitats are also not important for Southern damselfly52. Similarly, to the south of the M3, highways planting of broadleaved woodland extends 25m from the carriageway. Therefore, as the Fen, Marsh and Swamp habitats are a minimum of 25 to 60m from the carriageway, the impact is reduced to 1% of the Critical Load being attributed to the proposed Scheme (1.23% of the Critical Load is attributed to the proposed Scheme 25m from the carriageway). There are also no records of the Southern damselfly within 1 kilometre of the proposed Scheme in this location, and the habitats within 100m of the carriageway were considered suboptimal for this species, due to a lack of shallow (less than 0.1m), slow flowing watercourse with detritus53. Therefore, it is considered that habitats or features of importance to the Southern damselfly are not present within the affected area. Therefore, with the absence of sensitive SAC habitats, the integrity and conservation objects of the River Itchen SAC, and SSSI, are not likely to be impacted by predicted increases in nitrogen deposition as a result of the proposed Scheme. Therefore, no change is anticipated on the River Itchen, resulting in a neutral effect. 8.9.21 It is worth noting that tree belts, which are present along the verges of the M3 and A3090, are considered as effective interceptors of a proportion of emitted pollutants, and as such the planting of tree belts is recommended to mitigate air pollution impacts on designated sites54.

Solent Maritime SAC 8.9.22 The air quality assessment (refer to Chapter 5) included 4 transect points for the Solent Maritime SAC, due to the boundary of 2 local authorities boundaries in this location (2 modelled points within each local authority). These are located where the M27 (part of the ARN) crosses the SAC (at SU 49669 10174, SU 49719 10154, SU 49654 10154 and SU 49708 10132). As different values are set by each local authority, the transect points with the greatest predicted increases have been used for the below assessment. Therefore, the results from the western side of the river (Eastleigh Borough Council local authority) (northern SU 49669 10174, southern SU 49654 10154). 8.9.23 Upon operation, the proposed Scheme would result in increased concentrations of atmospheric nitrogen (NOx) and nitrogen deposition. No Critical Load is provided by APIS for the water course but Critical Loads are provided for terrestrial habitats. The lowest Critical Load for the dry habitat types within the Solent Maritime SAC is 8kg N/ha/ya, for perennial vegetation on stony banks. This habitat is not present within 200m of the M27; however, the SAC habitats present within 200m of the ARN are the estuary itself, and potentially Salicornia colonised mud and sand within saltmarsh.

52 Brooks, S. (1997) Field Guide to the Dragonflies and Damselflies of Great Britain and Ireland. British Wildlife Publishing ISBN: 0 9531399 0 5 53 Environment Agency , Thurner M. 1998. Audit of Priority Species of Rivers and Wetlands - Southern Damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale in South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight http://www.environmentdata.org/archive/ealit:467/OBJ/20000794.pdf (accessed 22/02/18) 54 Dragosits, U.; Carnell, E.J.; Misselbrook, T.H.; Stevens, C.; Jones, L.; Rowe, E.; Hall, J.R.; Dise, N.; Dore, A.J.; Tomlinson, S.J.; Sheppard, L.J.; O'Shea, L.; Reis, S.; Bealey, W.; Braban, C.F.; Smyntek, P.; Sutton, M.A.. 2015 Identification of potential “Remedies” for Air Pollution (nitrogen) Impacts on Designated Sites (RAPIDS). London, Defra

Page 165 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

These both have a Critical Load of 20-30kg N/ha/yr. Therefore, 20kg N/ha/yr has been used to determine the effect of the proposed Scheme on the SAC and its qualifying features. The use of 20kg N/ha/yr as a Critical Load for habitats within the SAC in this location is considered a proportionate and precautionary approach. Table 8.9 below presents the atmospheric NOx concentrations at a modelled point located approximately adjacent to the M27 (SU 49654 10154). Table 8.9: Atmospheric NOx concentrations and deposition at the Solent Maritime SAC

Feature NOx Concentration / µg/m3 Without With Change Scheme Scheme

Estuarine 74.9 83.94 9.07 saltmarsh Nitrogen deposition kgN / ha/ yr 16.4 16.8 0.4 8.9.24 In line with the advice set out in Section 2.6 of Interim Advice Note (IAN) 174/13 “Evaluating Significant Air Quality Effects”, as the total NOx concentrations are above 30µg/m³ with the scheme in 2021 and there is a change of more than 0.4µg/m³ of NOx associated with the operation of the scheme, there is a requirement to calculate a change in nitrogen (N) deposition. 8.9.25 Air quality modelling for the proposed Scheme predicts that NOx deposition would increase by 0.3kg N/ha/yr at 5m from the northern edge of the carriageway, which is expressed as 1% of the Critical Load being attributed to the proposed Scheme. When the air quality model is adjusted to accommodate the estimate 8m height difference (drop) between the M27 overbridge and the SAC, this is reduced to no change in nitrogen deposition. At the southern extent of the carriageway the increase is minimal, and 0% of the Critical Load is attributed to the proposed Scheme. 8.9.26 Additionally, the results of the air quality assessment predict that nitrogen deposition rates would be below the Critical Load of 20/kg N/ha/yr (16.8kg N/ha/yr). Therefore, no significant change in atmospheric nitrogen deposition is predicted and Solent Maritime SAC would not be subject to effects due to operation of the proposed Scheme. Therefore, no change is anticipated on the Solent Maritime SAC, resulting in a neutral effect. 8.9.27 It is worth noting that nitrogen deposition with the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario and the ‘With Scheme’ scenario in 2021 are both lower than the 2016 baseline of 18.8kg N/ha/yr.

Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar 8.9.28 The air quality assessment included a transect point for Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar at the closest point to the ARN (Bitterne Road West at SU 43912 13166). The air quality modelling for the proposed Scheme predicts no significant change in atmospheric NOx from the ‘Do Minimum’ baseline, see table 8.10 below for NOx concentrations and deposition at a modelled point located at the closest point to the ARN (Bitterne Road West at SU 43912 13166). Table 8.10: Atmospheric NOx concentrations and deposition at the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar

Page 166 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Feature NOx Concentration / µg/m3 Without With Change Scheme Scheme

Sandwich 33.2 33.2 0.03 Tern/ pSPA Nitrogen deposition kgN / ha/ yr 14.0 14.0 14.0 8.9.29 Air quality modelling for the proposed Scheme predicts that the change in NOx would be 0.03 µg/m3, and therefore, in accordance with IAN 174/13, the effects are considered to be imperceptible and unlikely to be significant. Additionally, the lowest Critical Load provided by APIS for qualifying species of the SPA is 8-10kg N/ha/yr, and therefore 8kg/ha/yr has been used for the purpose of this assessment. This Critical Load applies to Sandwich tern, and is considered to be a precautionary approach. The results of the air quality assessment found that 0% of the Critical Load is being attributed to the proposed Scheme. Therefore, no change in atmospheric nitrogen and deposition are predicted and these 2 sites would not be subject to effects due to operation of the proposed Scheme. 8.9.30 Although above the lowest Critical Load for the site, it is worth noting that nitrogen deposition with the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario and the ‘With Scheme’ scenario in 2021 are both lower than the 2016 baseline of 16.2kg N/ha/yr. Therefore, no change is anticipated on the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar, resulting in a neutral effect.

Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar 8.9.31 The SPA is located adjacent to the ARN where an increase of >1,000 vehicles Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is anticipated. The air quality assessment included a transect point located at the closest points of the SPA to the ARN (SU 58000 05918). The air quality modelling for the proposed Scheme predicts a slight increase in atmospheric nitrogen due to the proposed Scheme, see table 8.11 below for NOx concentrations and deposition at a modelled point located at the closest point to the ARN (SU 57987 05917). Table 8.11: Atmospheric NOx concentrations and deposition at the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar

Feature NOx Concentration / µg/m3 Without With Change Scheme Scheme

Sandwich 84.5 86.14 1.63 Tern/ Nitrogen deposition kgN / ha/ yr Ramsar 16.2 16.3 0.1 8.9.32 In addition, the Critical Load provided by APIS for qualifying species is 20-30kg N/ha/yr, and 20kg/ha/yr has been used for the purpose of this assessment. This Critical Load applies to dark-bellied brent goose, black-tailed godwit, red-breasted merganser and dunlin, which is considered to be a precautionary approach. The results of the air quality assessment predict that nitrogen deposition rates would be below the Critical Load of 20/kg N/ha/yr, and the change from the ‘Do Minimum’ can be expressed as 0% of the Critical Load being attributed to the proposed Scheme.

Page 167 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Therefore, no significant effect is anticipated to Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar. 8.9.33 It is worth noting that nitrogen deposition with the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario and the ‘With Scheme’ scenario in 2021 are both lower than the 2016 baseline of 18.2kg N/ha/yr. Therefore, no change is anticipated on the Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, resulting in a neutral effect.

Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA 8.9.34 Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA encompasses the Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton SPA and Ramsar and Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar. Therefore, it is considered that the assessment of the air quality modelling undertaken for those sites are applicable to this pSPA. As above, no significant change in nitrogen deposition is predicted and Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA would not be subject to effects due to operation of the proposed Scheme. Therefore, no change is anticipated on the Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA, resulting in a neutral effect.

Nationally designated sites

8.9.35 The above assessments for the River Itchen SAC in relation to the water environment and air quality are considered to apply to the River Itchen SSSI; no significant effects are predicted. Localised vegetation clearance will be required where the highways boundary overlaps with the River Itchen SSSI designation to allow for infrastructure footprints, including EAs 8 and 19. These habitats consist of previously disturbed and made ground, which was subject to replanting during construction of the M3. There would be a temporary slight adverse impact whilst reinstated habitats are maturing; however, no long-term impacts to these designations are anticipated. 8.9.36 St Catherine’s Hill SSSI is located adjacent to the proposed Scheme. St Catherine’s Hill SSSI crosses the motorway but the area where the motorway is now located is registered destroyed and no land-take from the SSSI is required. The air quality assessment (refer to Chapter 5) included a transect point for St Catherine’s Hill SSSI at SU 48892 27595. Upon operation, the proposed Scheme would result in increased concentrations of atmospheric nitrogen (NOx); however, the percentage change (from the ‘Do Minimum’ model) is predicted to drop below 1% at 30m from the carriageway in the location of St Catharine’s Hill SSSI. At the closest point between the SSSI and the M3, the NOx concentrations are predicted to increase by 0.98 µg/m3, a percentage change of 3.3%. Approximately 0.4 hectares of St Catherine’s Hill SSSI is within an area potentially affected by nitrogen deposition, which equates to 1% of the 41.5 hectare site. Of that 0.4 hectares affected, 0.1 hectares is considered to be semi- dry calcareous grassland habitats (the rest being successional scrub and woodland). The functionality of the SSSI within the affected area has not been impaired by existing concentrations of NOx, as the condition of the affected area of the SSSI is favourable, and concentrations are expected to decline in the future in response to cleaner vehicle technologies. Therefore, the effects of NOx are not considered to be significant. 8.9.37 The lower limit Critical Load for the habitat types within St Catherine’s SSSI has been used to determine the effect of the proposed Scheme on the SSSI and its qualifying features. Therefore, a Critical Load of 15kg N/ha/yr has been used, which is the lowest Critical Load for sub-atlantic semi-dry calcareous grassland habitats provided

Page 168 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

by the Air Pollution Inventory System (APIS)55. The use of 15kg N/ha/yr as a Critical Load for habitats within the SSSI is therefore a precautionary approach. The results of the air quality assessment found that there would be an increase of 0.1 from baseline levels of nitrogen deposition 5m from the M3 at this location. This is expressed as 1% of the Critical Load being attributed to the proposed Scheme, and drops to below 1% at 10m from the carriageway. The SSSI is 9.4m from the hardshoulder of the M3 at its closest point. Therefore, nitrogen deposition within the SSSI, due to the proposed Scheme and in combination with the M27 SMP, is predicted to drop below this 1% threshold at the boundary of the designated site. Considering that the semi-dry calcareous grassland habitats within the SSSI are located greater than 20m from the edge of the M3, significant change to these habitats would not occur. Therefore, no change is anticipated on St Catherine’s Hill SSSI, resulting in a neutral effect.

Locally designated sites

8.9.38 No specific air quality assessment transect point was given for Shawford Down LNR; however, the same Critical Load of 15kg N/ha/yr has been used for sub-atlantic semi- dry calcareous grassland habitats. The air quality assessment found that a Critical Load of 15kg N/ha/yr was not exceeded past 50m at any point. Therefore, as grassland habitats within Shawford Down LNR are 50m from the M3 at the closest point, no significant change to these habitats is anticipated. Similarly, as the LNR is located 50m from the carriageway, effects of NOx are not considered to be significant. 8.9.39 The air quality assessment does not specifically look at non-statutory designated ecological sites. However, as the assessment does not predict any significant effects for nationally and internationally designated sites adjacent to the M3, it can be assumed that no significant effects would result on SINCs or RVEIs either. Live traffic would be marginally closer to adjacent SINCs. However, species present within the SINCs adjacent to the proposed Scheme which comprise a range of notable species such as Hoverfly Cheilosia, Hornet Robber Fly Asilus crabroniformis, stage beetle Lucanus cervus and bladder-sedge Carex vesicaria for example, to protected species such as slow worm Anguis fragilis and adder Vipera berus are already likely to be habituated to the noise and visual disturbance of live traffic currently present on the carriageway. Therefore, whilst traffic would be marginally closer to the boundary of these sites, this is unlikely to have any additional effect above that which already exists. The same applies for ancient woodland present within the SINC’s. 8.9.40 The overall conclusion regarding local air quality is that there would be no significant adverse effect on locally designated sites as a result of the proposed Scheme (refer to Chapter 5). No changes to lighting are expected, and due to the existing volume of traffic using the motorway and expected improvements to traffic flow, it is unlikely that the proposed Scheme would result in any significant impact on designated sites from visual disturbance or lighting during operation. Similarly, operational noise would either remain the same or be reduced along the majority of the proposed Scheme. Therefore, no change is anticipated on LNRs or SINCs, resulting in a neutral effect on local designations. 8.9.41 Several non-statutory sites would be subject to vegetation clearance as part of the proposed Scheme; A3090 Hockley Link RVEI, Hockley Golf Course SINC, Great Moorlands Copse Complex SINC, Pitmore Copse (West) SINC and Northend Copse

55 Bobbink, R.; Hettelingh, J.P. 2011 Review and revision of empirical critical loads and dose-response relationships

Page 169 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

SINC. There would be a temporary slight adverse impact whilst reinstated habitats are maturing. However, no long-term impacts to these designations are anticipated.

Notable habitats

8.9.42 Due to design development, no ancient woodland would be lost due to the proposed Scheme. Aspects of the proposed Scheme were relocated out of ancient woodland designations and the 15m exclusion zone from the ancient woodland boundary; however, some small scale works still remain within the 15 metre exclusion zone. 8.9.43 Following on from the arboricultural site visit it is considered that the proposed works would have no impact on the integrity of ancient woodland if outside the RPAs of trees within the ancient woodland. Additionally, the installation of new equipment is confined to the existing hardstanding footprints in these areas, with construction occurring from the hardshoulder and no encroachment into the ancient woodland would be necessary. Therefore, the impact of the proposed Scheme is considered to be neutral during operation, resulting in a neutral effect on ancient woodland. 8.9.44 No impacts to wet woodland are anticipated, as the quality of surface water or groundwater, or ground water resources, would not be subject to changes due to the proposed Scheme. 8.9.45 A total of 0.01 hectares of calcareous grassland would be reinstated following construction of the proposed Scheme. Additionally, no operational impact to habitats within the highways verge, such as through the Twyford cutting, are considered likely due to the localised nature of the works. The works would be limited to the soft estate within the highways boundary only, and the majority of habitats effected are species poor. Additionally, no significant impacts due to increases in nitrogen deposition are anticipated. 8.9.46 No other significant effects on notable habitat are anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme. Potential pollution risks are managed through the existing and new drainage network. Whist traffic is expected to increase, the air quality assessment concludes there would be no significant effect on local air quality as a result of the proposed Scheme; as no change is anticipated this would result in a neutral effect.

Notable species

Badgers 8.9.47 No significant impact on the conservation status of badgers is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme as there would not be a significant loss of foraging habitats or severance of habitat connectivity. Therefore, a neutral effect on the local badger population is anticipated.

Bats 8.9.48 No significant impacts on the conservation status of bats is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme, as no operational lighting changes are anticipated and no commuting features would be severed or foraging resources lost. Proposed lighting plans would result in less light pollution on the soft estate. In addition, bat boxes will be installed to compensate for habitat losses and enhance

Page 170 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

retained vegetation. Therefore, once reinstated habitats have matured, the proposed Scheme would result in a neutral effect on the local bat population.

Great crested newts 8.9.49 No significant impact on the conservation status of GCN is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme as habitat loss would be small scale and localised, and connectivity would be maintained. Minor impacts on terrestrial habitat immediately adjacent to the carriageway may occur during operation, due to surface water run-off (for example, through salt deposition during winter). However, this would be small scale and would not affect the wide availability of terrestrial habitat available for this species within and outside of the soft estate. 8.9.50 As part of the drainage features, gully pots may be installed. However, the detailed design of these would incorporate features such as a ‘wildlife kerb’ parallel to the gully pot (rather than a regular kerb), which would allow GCN to pass by the gully pot, therefore avoiding associated pit fall trap issues. Therefore, a neutral effect is anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme.

Hazel dormouse 8.9.51 No significant impact on the conservation status of hazel dormice is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme as habitat loss would be small scale and localised, and connectivity would be maintained. Maintenance of the strip of land immediately adjacent to the carriageway would continue as it has prior to construction of the proposed Scheme at an appropriate time of year to avoid any impact to breeding hazel dormice. This maintenance would not cover a wider area than it does at present and no new impact is anticipated. Hazel dormice are known to utilise areas of habitat right up to live carriageways and the proximity of the traffic to the soft estate is highly unlikely to displace this species from suitable habitat. Therefore, a neutral effect is anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme.

Riparian mammals 8.9.52 No significant effect on the conservation status of riparian mammals is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme. No watercourses would be subject to impacts and the operation of the proposed Scheme would not result in any additional barrier to the dispersal of otters of through the local landscape. Therefore, a neutral effect is anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme.

Reptiles 8.9.53 No significant effect on the conservation status of reptiles is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme. Operation of the proposed Scheme may have minor impacts on terrestrial habitat immediately adjacent to the carriageway through surface water run-off (for example, through salt deposition during winter) and habitat loss. However, this would be small scale and localised, not affecting the wide availability of terrestrial habitat available for this species within and outside of the soft estate. A short to medium-term benefit from a more open habitat may enable reptiles to colonise the soft estate in greater numbers until scrub becomes established following vegetation clearance, such that no long term operational benefit is anticipated. Therefore, a neutral effect is anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme.

Page 171 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Breeding birds 8.9.54 No significant effect on the conservation status of nesting birds is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme. Nesting habitats lost to the proposed Scheme footprint will be mitigated by the installation of a variety of bird nest boxes along the length of the M3 corridor affected. It is possible that there would be minor loss of nesting habitat for passerine birds immediately adjacent to the carriageway, as live traffic would be closer to nesting habitat during operation of the proposed Scheme. However, birds are likely to have habituated to the noise and visual disturbance associated with the existing traffic. These impacts are therefore not considered to be significant to the favourable conservation status of the bird community in the local context and therefore a neutral effect is anticipated.

Fish 8.9.55 No significant effect on the conservation status of fish is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme as no direct or indirect impacts on water courses are anticipated, resulting in a neutral effect.

Invertebrates 8.9.56 No significant effect on the conservation status of invertebrates is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme as the terrestrial habitats lost due to the proposed Scheme are widespread within the surrounding landscape with little variation in diversity and not rare. Therefore, the invertebrate communities within these habitats are assumed to be similarly widespread. No operational impacts to watercourses are predicted as a result of the proposed Scheme; therefore, a neutral effect on aquatic invertebrates, including white-clawed crayfish, is anticipated.

Other species 8.9.57 No significant impact on the conservation status of other notable species is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme. The enhancements proposed within Section 8.10 would offer benefits to hedgehog and common toad within the soft estate with increased foraging and shelter opportunities. Therefore, a neutral effect is anticipated.

Plants 8.9.58 No significant impact on the conservation status of plants is anticipated as a result of the operation of the proposed Scheme, due to the localised nature of works and proposed mitigation above including the translocation of notable plants. A total of 0.01 hectares of calcareous grassland would be reinstated following construction of the proposed Scheme. Additionally, no operational impact to habitats within the highways verge, such as through the Twyford cutting, are considered likely due to the localised nature of the works. The works are limited to the soft estate within the highways boundary only, and the majority of habitats effected are species poor. Additionally, no significant impacts due to increases in nitrogen deposition are anticipated. Therefore, a neutral effect is anticipated upon operation of the proposed Scheme.

8.10 Residual effects 8.10.1 No significant effects on designated sites or protected and notable species are anticipated as a result of the proposed Scheme.

Page 172 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

8.10.2 Presence is assumed for protected species such as bats, badgers, GCN and dormice, which could all be subject to slight adverse impacts during construction of the proposed Scheme and require licences from Natural England. The surveys for these species are on-going. If any of these species are found to be present within areas subject to construction impacts, a licence would be applied for. The licence application would include requirements for relocation, exclusion, enhancements and offsetting depending on the species. Similarly, reptiles may require a relocation programme, if populations are to be isolated or lost due to the proposed Scheme. The release sites would undergo enhancements in order to allow for the influx of the reptiles.

8.11 Summary 8.11.1 No significant effects are anticipated on internationally designated sites. 8.11.2 A slight adverse effect is anticipated on the River Itchen SSSI, as a result of localised vegetation clearance. However, this is also not anticipated to be significant of the condition affected unit of the SSSI, or the designation as a whole. 8.11.3 Although no works would be located within ancient woodland, there would be works within the 15m of several areas of ancient woodland. The works within the 15m zone would not be within the RPA within the ancient woodland; therefore, no loss of ancient woodland trees would occur and no adverse effect is anticipated. 8.11.4 Whilst the results of the surveys are sufficient to enable a robust assessment of impacts, further surveys are required to inform the detailed design and any EPSL requirements. However, where presence of protected species is assumed, a slight adverse effect from construction is predicted on GCN, dormice, bats and badgers. A temporary slight adverse effect during construction is predicted on generic habitats within the highways boundary as a result of vegetation clearance. 8.11.5 The overall significance of effects on biodiversity as a result of the proposed Scheme is slight adverse for construction and operation. 8.11.6 A summary of the potential impacts of the proposed Scheme on ecology and nature conservation is set out below in Table 8.12 below.

Page 173 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 8.12: Summary of impacts, mitigation and residual effects

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect Without Minor No works outside of the M3 None required Negligible Neutral Neutral appropriate increases in carriageway to take place adverse management, nitrogen within the SAC or within 8m waste water fuel deposition. of the bank of the river. spillage, Potential for Implementation of pollution material wash changes to control measures as part of off, dust and silt surface water the Outline Environmental River Itchen could affect the run-off, Management Plan (OEMP). International SAC conservation groundwater Design of drainage status of quality, flow infrastructure to manage the qualifying and baseflow flow of water and sediment features. paths. capture before discharge. Design of foundations / piling to be of a permeable nature, groundwater flow not impeded.

Mottisfont None identified None None required None required Neutral Neutral Neutral International identified Bats SAC

Briddlesford None identified None None required None required Neutral Neutral Neutral International identified Copses SAC Without Minor No works outside of the M3 None required Neutral Neutral Neutral appropriate increases in carriageway to take place Solent management, nitrogen within the SAC or within 8m Maritime International waste water fuel deposition. of the bank of the river. spillage, Potential for SAC Implementation of pollution material wash changes to control measures as part of off, dust and silt surface water the OEMP.

Page 174 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect could affect the run-off, Design of drainage conservation groundwater infrastructure to manage the status of quality, flow flow of water and sediment qualifying and baseflow capture before discharge. features. paths. Design of foundations / piling to be of a permeable nature, groundwater flow not impeded. Without Potential for No works outside of the M3 None required Neutral Neutral Neutral appropriate changes to carriageway to take place management, surface water within the SPA or within 8m waste water fuel run-off, of the bank of the river. spillage, groundwater Implementation of pollution Solent and material wash quality, flow control measures as part of off, dust and silt and baseflow the OEMP. Southampton International could affect the paths. Design of drainage Water SPA conservation infrastructure to manage the and Ramsar status of flow of water and sediment qualifying capture before discharge. features. Design of foundations/piling to be of a permeable nature, groundwater flow not impeded. Without Minor No works outside of the M3 None required Neutral Neutral Neutral appropriate increases in carriageway to take place management, nitrogen within the SPA or within 8m Portsmouth waste water fuel deposition. of the bank of the river. Harbour SPA International spillage, Potential for Implementation of pollution and Ramsar material wash changes to control measures as part of off, dust and silt surface water the OEMP. could affect the run-off, conservation groundwater

Page 175 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect status of quality, flow Design of drainage qualifying and baseflow infrastructure to manage the features. paths. flow of water and sediment capture before discharge. Design of foundations / piling to be of a permeable nature, groundwater flow not impeded. Without Potential for No works outside of the M3 None required Neutral Neutral Neutral appropriate changes to carriageway to take place management, surface water within the pSPA or within 8m waste water fuel run-off, of the bank of the river. spillage, groundwater Implementation of pollution material wash quality, flow control measures as part of Solent and off, dust and silt and baseflow the OEMP. Dorset Coast International could affect the paths. Design of drainage conservation pSPA infrastructure to manage the status of flow of water and sediment qualifying capture before discharge. features. Design of foundations/piling to be of a permeable nature, groundwater flow not impeded. Without Minor No works outside of the M3 None required Slight adverse Slight Slight appropriate increases in carriageway to take place adverse adverse management, nitrogen within the SSSI or within 8m River Itchen waste water fuel deposition. of the bank of the river. National spillage, Potential for Implementation of waste SSSI material wash changes to water and pollution control off, dust and silt surface water measures as part of the could affect the run-off, OEMP. conservation groundwater

Page 176 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect status of quality, flow Design of drainage qualifying and baseflow infrastructure to manage the features. paths. flow of water and sediment capture before discharge. Design of foundations / piling to be of a permeable nature, groundwater flow not impeded. Pollution from No impacts None required None required Slight adverse Neutral Neutral St construction identified. Catherine's National dust resulting in Hill SSSI loss of habitat quality. Pollution from No impacts None required None required Slight adverse Neutral Neutral Shawford construction identified. County dust resulting in Down LNR loss of habitat quality. A3090 Hockley Temporary Implementation of pollution None required Slight adverse Slight Slight Road Verges Link is subject to effect whilst control measures as part of adverse adverse vegetation vegetation the OEMP. of Ecological clearance. regrows. Design of drainage Importance Pollution from infrastructure to manage the in close County fuel spillage, flow of water and sediment proximity to material wash capture before discharge. off or dust the proposed resulting in loss Scheme of habitat quality.

Page 177 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect Four sites Temporary Implementation of pollution None required Slight adverse Slight Slight Sites of subject to minor effect control measures as part of adverse adverse Importance loss as a result (habitat loss) the OEMP. of vegetation whilst to Nature Design of drainage clearance. vegetation infrastructure to manage the Conservation Pollution from regrows. County flow of water and sediment in close fuel spillage, capture before discharge. material wash proximity to off or dust the proposed resulting in loss Scheme of habitat quality.

Ancient National Pollution from Temporary Retention of 15m buffer None required / Neural Neutral Neutral fuel spillage, reduction in around ancient woodland. possible Semi-Natural material wash tree growth Construction within the 15m Woodland off or dust whilst root buffer area to avoid root resulting in loss systems zones of ancient woodland of habitat adapt trees, and digging to be done quality. Damage with hand tools only, to avoid to root structure impacts to any roots present. and trees Implementation of pollution through control measures as part of construction the OEMP. activities.

Calcareous National Pollution from No impacts Implementation of pollution None required Slight adverse Neutral Neutral fuel spillage, identified. control measures as part of grassland material wash the OEMP. off or dust resulting in loss

Page 178 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect of habitat quality.

Rivers National Without No impact No works outside of the M3 None required Neutral Neutral Neutral appropriate identified. carriageway to take place management, within 8m of the bank of the waste water fuel river. Implementation of spillage, waste water and pollution material wash control measures as part of off, dust and silt the OEMP. Design of could affect the drainage infrastructure to conservation manage the flow of water status of and sediment capture before qualifying discharge. features.

Ponds County Pollution from Temporary Implementation of pollution None required Slight adverse Neutral Neutral fuel spillage, effect whilst control measures as part of material wash vegetation the OEMP. off or dust regrows. resulting in loss Surface of habitat water run-off quality. and salt Three ditches spray from are subject to carriageway. temporary vegetation clearance.

Swamp Local Without No impacts Implementation of pollution None required Neutral Neutral Neutral appropriate identified. control measures as part of management, the OEMP. waste water fuel spillage,

Page 179 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect material wash off, dust and silt could affect the conservation status of qualifying features.

Other Proposed Temporary loss No impacts Allow habitats to recolonise Carry out habitat Slight adverse Neutral Neutral of habitat to identified. naturally. reinstatement with habitats Scheme facilitate Minimise vegetation diverse species construction. clearance and maintain mix to greater Small scale buffer habitat where notable floristic diversity permanent loss habitats are adjacent to the than those of habitat during Proposed Scheme. habitats removed. construction. Implementation of pollution Pollution from control measures as part of fuel spillage or the OEMP. material wash off and dust resulting in loss of quality of retained habitat.

Badger Local Temporary loss No impacts Standard measures in OEMP Further surveys to Slight adverse Neutral Neutral and damage of identified. to include: assess presence. terrestrial - vegetation clearance Licence habitat. appropriately timed and application to Destruction, minimised and habitat Natural England damage and connectivity retained to permit disturbance of throughout construction and disturbance if setts. operation required.

Page 180 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect Injury or killing - pre-construction monitoring Reinstatement of of individuals in surveys for this species habitat. construction where necessary areas. - prevention of mortality of Increased individuals during barriers to construction dispersion due - enhancement of retained to temporary habitats fencing and excavations.

Bats County Vegetation No impacts Standard measures in OEMP Surveys of Slight adverse Neutral Neutral clearance identified. to include: potential roosts. resulting in - appropriate, directed Licence temporary minor lighting during night-time application to loss of construction works Natural England resources, such - retention of strip of to permit as commuting vegetation along highways disturbance if and foraging boundary fence line where required. habitats. possible to prevent light spill Installation of bat Disturbance to onto surrounding land and roost boxes in roosts (if retain continuity of potential retained habitat. present) and commuting/foraging habitat Upgrade of foraging/commu - any severance of linear lighting ting habitat due structures or vegetation infrastructure to to noise, should be immediately minimise impacts vibrations and reinstated with temporary to bats. night-time fencing lighting during Reinstatement of construction and foraging and due to presence commuting of personnel. habitat.

Page 181 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect

GCN National Temporary loss Temporary The design would Further surveys to Slight adverse Neutral Neutral and damage of effect whilst incorporate features to be assess presence. terrestrial vegetation amphibian friendly (such as Licence habitat reducing regrows. ladders in gully pots of application to available habitat Minor impact wildlife-safe kerbs) to avoid Natural England resource. on terrestrial trapping amphibians. to permit Small scale habitat Standard measures in OEMP disturbance if permanent loss immediately to include: required. of habitat with adjacent to - pre-construction monitoring Carry out habitat new structures. the surveys for this species reinstatement and Temporary loss carriageway where necessary enhancement. and damage to from surface - prevention of injury and aquatic habitat; water run-off mortality of individuals during 3 ditches within and salt construction spray. vegetation - enhancement of retained clearance. habitats to accommodate Potential individuals displaced by pollution of construction aquatic habitats. - implementation of pollution Risk of control measures entrapment in new drainage attenuation features. Killing, injuring or disturbance of individuals during works.

Hazel National Temporary loss No impacts Standard measures in OEMP Further surveys to Slight adverse Neutral Neutral and damage of identified. to include: assess presence. dormouse terrestrial

Page 182 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect habitat resulting - vegetation clearance Licence in reduction in appropriately timed and application to resource minimised and habitat Natural England available to connectivity retained to permit hazel dormouse throughout construction and disturbance if and stress to operation required. individuals from - pre-construction monitoring Reinstatement of territorial surveys for this species habitat. constriction and where necessary conflict. - prevention of mortality of Destruction, individuals during damage or construction disturbance of a - enhancement of retained resting place habitats to accommodate within terrestrial individuals displaced by habitat. construction Breaks in - implementation of pollution continuity of control measures habitat within the Proposed Scheme (however, network of habitat in the wider landscape not affected). Killing, injuring or disturbance of individuals during works.

Page 183 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect

Reptiles Local Loss and Short term Standard measures in OEMP Habitat Slight adverse Neutral Neutral damage of benefit from to include: displacement or (widespread terrestrial more open - vegetation clearance relocation species) habitat resulting habitats appropriately timed and programme, to in reduction of following minimised include: resource clearance. - vegetation clearance of -enhancement of availability and Temporary semi improved grassland receptor site killing, injuring until scrub / phased to increase catch of - installation of or disturbance woodland reptiles exclusion fencing of individuals recolonises. during works - prevention of mortality of - setup of refugia individuals during - daily catch and construction transport to receptor site - phased vegetation clearance and destructive search

Riparian National Without No impact No works outside of the M3 None required. Neutral Neutral Neutral appropriate identified. carriageway to take place mammals management, within 8 metres of the bank of waste water fuel any water course. spillage, Implementation of waste material wash water and pollution control off, dust and silt measures as part of the could affect the OEMP. Design of drainage quality of the infrastructure to manage the river habitat. flow of water and sediment Destruction, capture before discharge. damage or disturbance of shelter, foraging

Page 184 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect or commuting within terrestrial habitat.

Breeding Local Temporary loss Minor loss of Standard measures detailed Habitat re-planted Slight adverse Neutral Neutral of foraging and nesting in OEMP to prevent damage or left to naturally birds nesting habitat. habitat due and disturbance of nesting recolonise. Small scale to birds including timed and permanent loss displacement supervised vegetation of foraging and from habitat clearance and installation of nesting habitat. close to live nest boxes. traffic.

Fish National Without No impacts No works to take place within None required. Neutral Neutral Neutral appropriate identified. 8m of the bank of any water management, course. Implementation of waste water fuel waste water and pollution spillage, control measures as part of material wash the OEMP. Design of off, dust and silt drainage infrastructure to could affect the manage the flow of water quality of the and sediment capture before river habitat. discharge.

Invertebrates National Temporary loss None No works to take place within None required. Negligible Neutral Neutral of habitat for identified. 8m of the bank of the river. woodland Design of drainage invertebrates infrastructure to manage the such as stag flow of water and sediment beetle. capture before discharge. Without Standard measures detailed appropriate in OEMP to prevent damage

Page 185 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect management, and disturbance of notable waste water fuel species: spillage, - prevention of injury and material wash mortality of individuals during off, dust and silt construction could affect - enhancement of retained aquatic habitats to accommodate invertebrates in individuals displaced by the local construction watercourses and - implementation of pollution waterbodies. control measures Increased traffic - relocation of deadwood and plant would from areas to be cleared to produce an nearby woodland to preserve increase in any stag beetle larvae levels of present nitrogen. This - implementation of waste could indirectly water and pollution control impact the measures invertebrate communities of the local calcareous grassland.

Other Proposed Temporary loss No impact Standard measures detailed Habitat re-planted Neutral Neutral Neutral Scheme of foraging, identified. in OEMP to prevent damage or left to naturally notable commuting and and disturbance of notable recolonise. species shelter habitat. species: Small scale - prevention of injury and permanent loss mortality of individuals during of habitat. construction

Page 186 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Baseline Impact assessment Ecological Value Potential effect Potential Mitigation (primary and Further Significance Significance Significance receptor (construction) effect tertiary) mitigation of of operation of residual (operation) (secondary) construction effect effect effect - enhancement of retained habitats to accommodate individuals displaced by construction - implementation of pollution control measures

Plants National Increased traffic None Implementation of pollution Surveys Negligible Neutral Neutral and plant would identified. control measures as part of undertaken to produce an the OEMP. assess the increase in baseline plant levels of communities so nitrogen. This as to compare to could indirectly post-construction impact the plant monitoring. assemblages of the local calcareous grassland.

Page 187 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

9. Noise and vibration

Key features for this topic: · No significant effects are anticipated from operational noise · The M3 is a major source of noise for the local community. There are 19 noise Important Areas (nIA) that lie within the study area for operational noise. Receptors in 14 of these would gain a permanent, direct, but negligible, benefit from new low noise road surfacing as a result proposed Scheme. Receptors in 13 nIA’s would be subject to permanent direct, but negligible, adverse noise effects as a result of the proposed Scheme. There are no non- negligible impacts for receptors in nIA’s · With the inclusion of specific control measures for construction management, which would be committed to within the Construction Environmental Management Plan, it is anticipated that there would be insignificant, indirect, temporary adverse effects during the construction phase

9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 This chapter sets out the findings of a detailed noise and vibration assessment for both the construction and operation of the proposed Scheme, with any cumulative effects arising from the operation and construction of the M3 presented in Combined and cumulative effects Chapter 11. 9.1.2 This chapter builds on the findings and recommendations of the Scoping Report and incorporates any new information that has become available since the Scoping Report was produced in July 2017.

9.2 Study area

Construction noise and vibration

9.2.1 The assessment area is 300 metres from the construction activity. This has been calculated considering the nature of the noise sources, the typical distances from source to receptor, using professional experience for the likely area of potential adverse effects from similar highways construction assessments. Appendix B, Figure 9.1 shows the extent of the study area for construction noise and vibration.

Operational noise

9.2.2 The operational road traffic noise study area and calculation area have been defined in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) HD 213/11. The study area and calculation area have been defined by the following process: i. Identify the start and end points of the physical works associated with the road project ii. Define a boundary 1 kilometre from the carriageway edge of the routes identified in (i) above

Page 188 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

iii. Define a boundary 600m from the carriageway edge around the route identified in (i) above and also 600m from any other affected routes within the boundary defined in (ii) above. The total area within these 600m boundaries is termed the calculation area. An affected route is where there is the possibility of a change of 1dB LA10,18h or more in the short-term or 3dB LA10,18h or more in the long-term iv. Identify any affected routes beyond the boundary defined in (iii) above v. Define a boundary 50m from the carriageway edge of the routes identified in (iv) above 9.2.3 For the proposed Scheme, the calculation area generally covers an area 600m from the M3 main carriageway and within 1 kilometre of M3 where there are increases or decreases on other roads. The start and end points of the proposed Scheme are defined by the first and last signs associated with the smart motorway scheme. 9.2.4 Appendix B, Figure 9.1 shows the extent of the calculation area for operational noise.

Operational airborne vibration

9.2.5 DMRB HD 213/11 states that traffic induced vibration affects only a very small percentage of people below 58dB LA10,18h and that zero per cent should be assumed. While the same study area as for operational noise has been assumed for airborne vibration, a lower cut-off value of 58dB LA10,18h has been applied in the assessment of vibration nuisance.

9.3 Methodology

General

9.3.1 Each topic within the scope of this section has its own methodology as shown in Table 9-1. Table 9.1: Assessment methodology for each noise and vibration topic

Topic Reference documents

Construction noise from the proposed Scheme. BS 5228-1 Construction vibration from the proposed Scheme. BS 5228-2 Operational road traffic noise. DMRB HD 213/11 Operational airborne vibration. DMRB HD 213/11 Sources: BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1: Noise, British Standards Institution BS 5228-2:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration, British Standards Institution DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 7 HD 213/11 Rev. 1 Noise and Vibration, Highways Agency et al., 2011 9.3.2 Current noise policy in England is based on the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)56, which through the effective management and control of environmental noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development, aims to:

· Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life

56 Defra (2010). Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE).

Page 189 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

· Mitigate and minimise other adverse impacts on health and quality of life · Contribute to improvements to health and quality of life, where possible 9.3.3 The Explanatory Note to the NPSE assists in the definition of observed effects with the following concepts:

· NOEL – no observed effect level. This is the level below which no effect can be detected. In simple terms, below this level, there is no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to the noise · LOAEL – lowest observed adverse effect level. This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected · SOAEL – significant observed adverse effect level. This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur 9.3.4 Government policy and guidance does not state values for the NOEL, LOAEL and SOAEL, rather, it considers that they are different for different noise sources, for different receptors and at different times. The derived values for the effect levels that have been adopted for the assessment of the proposed Scheme are set out in Section 9.3. 9.3.5 Further details of regulatory and policy framework can be found in Appendix A, 9.1. 9.3.6 A list of all figures associated with the noise and vibration section can be found in Appendix B. 9.3.7 This section details the potential noise and vibration effects of the proposed Scheme, in terms of:

· Noise effects during construction · Vibration effects during construction · Noise effects during operation · Airborne vibration effects during operation 9.3.8 The following noise and vibration effects are scoped out of the assessment as presented in the Scoping Report:

· Noise and vibration effects as a result of construction related traffic as the additional vehicles associated with construction works would likely be small in comparison with the current volumes of traffic on the motorway network · Ground-borne vibration effects during operation as these effects are anticipated not to be significant, particularly due to the beneficial effects associated with carriageway resurfacing

Baseline

9.3.9 The baseline conditions have been established from:

· Computer noise modelling of the baseline noise levels from road noise sources in the Calculation Area for the opening and future design years · Information from Defra’s noise mapping exercise for England (Round 2) and associated noise action planning noise important areas (nIAs)

Page 190 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

· Six baseline noise measurements undertaken for a period of one week along the proposed Scheme 9.3.10 Full results and graphical data can be found in Appendix A, 9.4. This also includes details of equipment, weather conditions, and monitoring locations. 9.3.11 All long-term measurements were conducted over a week from the 2 February to the 9 February 2018. Table 9-2 below summarises the long-term data collected for each of the six measurement positions. All levels have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 9.2: Summary of long-term noise monitoring results

Position LA10, 18hr dB LAeq, 12hr (Day) dB LAeq, 4hr (Evening) LAeq, 8hr (Night) dB dB Lnight dB LT1 67 66 63 62 LT2 57 56 55 53 LT3 66 65 62 61 LT4 67 65 62 61 LT5 64 65 63 59 LT6 61 59 56 55

9.3.12 Table 9-3 below shows the difference between the measured LA10,18hr and measured Lnight as well as the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) method 3 value of Lnight calculated from the measured LA10,18hr. All levels have been rounded to the nearest whole number. In general, the TRL method tends to slightly overestimate Lnight from a measured LA10,18hr based on data from this survey and the calculated Lnight values are therefore conservative. In similar fashion the night-time assessment with respect to SOAEL values (see Table 9.6) is also conservative. Table 9.3: Summary of long-term noise monitoring results

Position LA10, 18hr dB Lnight dB TRL method 3 Difference

Lnight dB LT1 67 62 63 +1 LT2 57 53 54 +1 LT3 66 61 62 +1 LT4 67 61 63 +1 LT5 64 59 60 +1 LT6 61 55 57 +2

Construction noise

9.3.13 The effects of construction noise would be temporary and defined by the intrusion that construction noise causes in the existing noise environment of the area. Table 9-4 (adapted from Table E.1 in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 - Part 1 Noise, Annex E) shows the noise level thresholds for LOAEL and SOAEL for construction noise adopted for smart motorway schemes.

Page 191 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 9.4: SOAEL and LOAEL thresholds for construction noise at dwellings in dB LAeq,T

Period Time Noise level, dB LAeq,T LOAEL SOAEL Day-time weekday, 07:00 – 19:00 70 75 Saturdays, Sundays Evening 19:00 – 07:00 Existing evening 55 baseline (LAeq,T) Night-time 23:00 – 07:00 Existing night-time 55 baseline (LAeq,T) Note: If the existing ambient noise level exceeds the SOAEL given in the table, then a potential significant effect is indicated if the total LAeq, T noise level for the period increases by more than 3dB due to site noise. 9.3.14 The level at which noise from construction works exceeds the existing baseline noise level has the potential to generate adverse effects is considered to be LOAEL. 9.3.15 The thresholds indicate where there is potential for an adverse impact to arise as a result of the level of construction noise. However, the duration of the impact, character of the area, number of receptors affected and the existing acoustic climate also need to be taken into account in determining the significance of effect in the context of the EIA Regulations. It is also noted that where the existing ambient noise level is already above the SOAEL, threshold levels for adverse effects would be higher. 9.3.16 In terms of the duration of the impact, BS 5228-1 provides guidance on frequency of noisy activities and states in section E4 the following: “… for a period of 10 or more days of working in any 15 consecutive days or for a total number of days exceeding 40 in any 6 consecutive months.” 9.3.17 A significant effect in the context of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations will therefore be defined as when a noise measurement of SOAEL is exceeded for longer than a period of 10 or more days of working in any 15 consecutive days, or for a total number of days exceeding 40 in any 6 consecutive months. 9.3.18 Potential construction noise levels have been predicted using typical road construction equipment in accordance with the guidance in BS 5228-1 (see assumptions in Appendix A, 9.3). The prediction method in BS 5228-1 Annex F was utilised. Construction vibration 9.3.19 The LOAEL has been set at 0.3mm/s and the SOAEL has been defined at 1mm/s for construction vibration. In the absence of any document that specifies the LOAEL and SOAEL for vibration, these criteria have been adopted in line with the guidance contained within BS 5228-2 in Table B.1. Table 9.5: SOAEL and LOAEL thresholds for construction vibration effects at dwellings, PPV

Threshold Vibration level (PPV) LOAEL 0.3 mm/s SOAEL 1.0 mm/s

Page 192 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

9.3.20 As for construction noise, the thresholds in Table 9-5 only indicate where there might be an adverse impact as a result of the level of vibration. However, the duration of the impact also needs to be taken into account in determining significance of effect in the context of the EIA Regulations. 9.3.21 Based on the use of a percussive piling rig, potential vibration levels have been predicted in accordance with the guidance in BS 5228-2 (see assumptions in Appendix A, 9.3).

Operational road traffic noise

9.3.22 The assessment of operational road traffic noise impacts of the proposed Scheme follows the methodology in DMRB HD 213/11, which in turn references the calculation methodology presented in the Department of Transport’s and Welsh Office’s Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN). 9.3.23 The objective of this detailed assessment is to understand the impact on the noise and vibration climate with and without the proposed Scheme, referred to as the Do Something (DS) and Do Minimum (DM) scenarios respectively. These scenarios are required to be assessed for the proposed opening and design year (in this case the 15th year after opening). In this assessment the DM scenario includes the development of the M27 as a smart motorway which is planned to complete before construction of the proposed Scheme. 9.3.24 The proprietary software CadnaA has been used to predict noise levels at residential properties and other potentially sensitive receptor locations within the Calculation Area. The following scenarios have been modelled:

· Opening year (2021), DM scenario (i.e. year of opening without the proposed Scheme) · Opening year (2021), DS scenario (i.e. year of opening with the proposed Scheme) · Design year (2036), DM scenario (i.e. future design year without the proposed Scheme) · Design year (2036), DS scenario (i.e. future design year with the proposed Scheme) 9.3.25 The assessment of noise impacts has involved a comparison of the predicted noise levels resulting from the proposed Scheme for the following scenarios, in line with the guidance presented in the DMRB HD 213/11:

· DS short-term (difference in noise levels between DS 2021 and DM 2021) · DM long-term (difference in noise levels between DM 2036 and DM 2021) · DS long-term (difference in noise levels between DS 2036 and DM 2021) 9.3.26 Calculation points representative of all sensitive receptors were defined 1m from external facades of dwellings and other non-dwelling sensitive receptors within the Calculation Area. Non-dwelling sensitive receptors include schools, health facilities, community facilities and care homes amongst others (refer to Appendix A, 9.3 for further details on the noise model assumptions). In accordance with the DMRB HD 213/11, noise level predictions were undertaken at 4m above ground for all sensitive receptors, with the exception of playgrounds where predictions were undertaken at a height of 1.5m above ground level.

Page 193 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

9.3.27 In order to predict the surface correction that should be applied to each of the above assessment scenarios on the motorway links, the following equation has been used to calculate the road surface influence (RSI)57: ∑ 10 = 10log (⁄)/ ∑ 10

9.3.28 Where is the number of lanes, is the RSI in the th lane (the nearside running lane of the carriageway being = 1). 9.3.29 The calculation of the RSI assumes a traffic speed of greater than 75 km/h. For speeds below this, a -1dB surface correction has been applied based on the advice in the CRTN and the DMRB HD 213/11. Corrections have been applied for all road surfaces but are most pertinent for motorway roads where there are a greater number of lanes with a range of surfaces as well as changes in surface due to the proposed Scheme. The assumption that lanes 1 and 4 of the M3 are surfaced with a low noise surface corresponds to the latest engineering design.

Operational road traffic noise – compliance with policy

9.3.30 Table 9.6 shows the values adopted for the day-time and night-time SOAEL and LOAEL in the context of the NPSE. 58 9.3.31 The SOAEL and LOAEL are presented in terms of both the LA10,18h façade noise level (measured or predicted at a distance of 1m in front of a sound reflecting object) 59 and LAeq,16h free-field noise level (measured or predicted at least 3.5m away from a vertical sound reflecting object). Conversion from LA10,18h to LAeq,16h uses the relationship as set out in Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) unit A3 (LAeq,16h = LA10,18h – 2dB) with a further subtraction of 2.5dB from façade to free-field. Values of 67.5dB LA10,18h would be rounded up to 68dB LA10,18h for the purposes of the Noise Insulation Regulations and hence an additional 0.5 dB has been allowed for in the conversion for both the LOAEL and the SOAEL.

Table 9.6: SOAEL and LOAEL thresholds for road traffic noise during day and night-time

Parameter Value for day-time Value for night-time

SOAEL 68dB LA10,18h (façade) 55dB Lnight,outside (free-field)

63dB LAeq,16h (free-field)

LOAEL 55dB LA10,18h (façade) 40dB Lnight,outside (free-field)

50dB LAeq,16h (free-field) Sources: Night-noise guidelines for Europe, WHO, 200960 for night-time values Noise Insulation Regulations61 Relevant Noise Level for day-time SOAEL 62 Guidelines for community noise, WHO, 1999 for day-time LOAEL (from the 50dB LAeq,16h (7- 23), outdoors for the onset of moderate community annoyance)

60 World Health Organisation (2009). “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe” 61 Statutory Instrument, 1975, No. 1763. Building and Buildings. The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. As amended by Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 2000. Building and Buildings. The Noise Insulation (Amendment) Regulations 1988

Page 194 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

9.3.32 In order to quantify the number of properties and population experiencing noise levels above the LOAEL and SOAEL, the highest noise level predicted on any façade of a building has been taken as representative of each sensitive receptor. 9.3.33 Further to the above, the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) category on Noise states that “in cases where existing noise sensitive locations already experience high noise levels, a development that is expected to cause even a small increase in the overall noise level may result in a significant adverse effect occurring even though little to no change in behaviour would be likely to occur”. 9.3.34 In order to reflect the PPG, an assessment has been undertaken to quantify the number of residential properties that are already exposed to the SOAEL in the DM 2021 scenario and would experience a 1dB increase in noise in the long-term (i.e. between DM 2021 and DS 2036) as a result of the proposed Scheme.

Operational road traffic noise – EIA significance

9.3.35 In line with DMRB HD 213/11, this chapter assesses the magnitude of impact by comparing the increase or decrease in noise levels between scenarios. The magnitudes of impact associated with road traffic noise are presented in Table 9-7 (short-term) and Table 9-8 (long-term). Changes in noise level can be either an increase (adverse) or a decrease (beneficial). Table 9.7: Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the short-term

Noise change LA10,18h (dB) Magnitude of impact 0 No change 0.1 – 0.9 Negligible 1 – 2.9 Minor 3 – 4.9 Moderate 5 + Major

Source: DMRB HD 213/11 Table 3.1.

Table 9.8: Classification of magnitude of noise impacts in the long-term

Noise change LA10,18h (dB) Magnitude of impact 0 No change 0.1 – 2.9 Negligible 3 – 4.9 Minor 5 – 9.9 Moderate 10 + Major

Source: DMRB HD 213/11 Table 3.2.

59 A free-field noise level is measured or predicted at least 3.5m away from a vertical sound reflecting object. 60 World Health Organisation (2009). “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe” 61 Statutory Instrument, 1975, No. 1763. Building and Buildings. The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. As amended by Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 2000. Building and Buildings. The Noise Insulation (Amendment) Regulations 1988 62 World Health Organisation, 1999. “Guidelines for Community Noise”.

Page 195 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

9.3.36 The DMRB HD 213/11 notes that a methodology has not yet been developed to assign significance according to both the value of a resource and the magnitude of impact. Nevertheless it is usual to compare the magnitude of impact with the sensitivity of the receptor to obtain the likelihood of significant effects in the context of the EIA Regulations. All residential, educational and cultural heritage assets would typically be identified as noise sensitive. 9.3.37 The DMRB HD 213/11 states in paragraph 3.37 that "in terms of permanent impacts, a change of 1dB(A) in the short-term (e.g. when a project is opened) is the smallest that is considered perceptible. In the long-term, a 3dB(A) change is considered perceptible. Such increases in noise should be mitigated if possible". Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, the following road traffic noise change thresholds (aligned with a non-negligible magnitude of impact) have been used to indicate the potential for a significant effect to arise for residential receptors in the context of the EIA Regulations:

· ≥ ±1dB LA10,18h in the Do Minimum opening year 2021 to Do Something opening year 2021 scenarios (short-term), where the receptor already exceeds the LOAEL threshold · ≥ ±3dB LA10,18h in the Do Minimum opening year 2021 to Do Something / Do Minimum design year 2036 scenarios (long-term), where the receptor already exceeds the LOAEL threshold

Operational road traffic noise - night-time assessment

9.3.38 In accordance with the DMRB HD 213/11 detailed assessment methodology, this chapter also presents a night-time noise assessment through comparison of the DS scenario in the design year (2036) against the DM scenario in the year of opening (2021). Method 3 of the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) report “Converting the 63 UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping ” provides a formula for estimating night-time noise levels based on the 18-hour day-time predicted noise levels and the type of road. Different corrections are provided for motorway and non-motorway type roads. For this assessment, the M27 and the M3 are considered to be motorways and all other roads in the Calculation Area are considered to be non- motorway. It should be noted that the survey measurements reported in Section 9.3.5 indicate that TRL method 3 may slightly overestimate Lnight when based on LA10,18hr so use of this method in this assessment is considered conservative. 9.3.39 The assessment has been undertaken for receptors where traffic noise levels are predicted to exceed 55dB Lnight, outside in any scenario (DM or DS) as required by the DMRB HD 213/11.

Operational road traffic noise - noise nuisance assessment

9.3.40 The DMRB HD 213/11 notes that the nuisance caused by noise mainly affects people in their homes. Nuisance is measured in terms of the percentage of the population as a whole that is bothered “very much” or “quite a lot” by virtue of a specific traffic related noise level. The correlation between specific levels and the percentage of population bothered for the purposes of the assessment has been developed from

63 Abbott P. G. and Nelson P. M., TRL Limited (2002), Project Report PR/SE/451/02 Converting the UK traffic noise index LA10,18h to EU noise indices for noise mapping

Page 196 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

studies that focused on reported nuisance where traffic related noise has changed over a relatively long period of time. 9.3.41 In line with the DMRB HD 213/11, noise nuisance takes into account both the long- term and short-term impacts. The results are presented for the DM and DS comparisons. The noise nuisance level changes have been directly calculated from the predicted noise level changes.

Mitigation and rectification

9.3.42 In this section, mitigation refers to measures aimed at avoiding or minimising the adverse effects arising from the proposed Scheme. They include the provision of insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations (NIR) 1975, as amended 1988. 9.3.43 Rectification applies to locations where an existing noise barrier may have degraded and there is a need to reinstate the barrier to its original design performance or to the new required performance after the implementation of the proposed Scheme. The proposed Scheme seeks to provide 5-years’ free of major maintenance, including noise barriers.

Noise insulation regulations (mitigation)

9.3.44 The policy of Highways England is to exercise its powers under the NIR 1975 (as amended 1988) and hence a property must meet the following primary conditions to qualify for insulation: · Be within 300m of the proposed Scheme · Show a relevant noise level (the noise level in the future year with the proposed Scheme) of at least 68dB LA10,18h (façade) · Show a noise increase between the relevant noise level and the prevailing noise level of at least 1dB(A) · The contribution to the increase in the relevant noise level from the proposed Scheme must be at least 1dB(A) 9.3.45 The prevailing noise level is that caused by traffic using any highway before works for the alteration of a highway commence. However, due to the relatively short duration of the construction works for a smart motorway scheme, the prevailing noise level is taken to be equivalent to the noise level in the DM opening year scenario. Table 9-9 shows the parameters used to determine eligibility under the NIR whilst Table 9-10 shows the NIR eligibility conditions.

Page 197 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 9.9: Noise levels predicted for the NIR 1975 (as amended 1988)

NIR definition Parameter used in this section

Prevailing noise level (PNL) LA10,18h DM opening year 2021

Relevant noise level (RNL) LA10,18h DS future year 2036

Maximum noise level from altered highways within LA10,18h DS future year 2036 from the proposed 15 years (L’A) Scheme

Maximum noise level from all other highways within LA10,18h DS future year 2036 from all the roads 15 years (L’B) outside the proposed Scheme Source: Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988). For the acronyms see CRTN, Department of Transport and Welsh Office, 1988, Annex 1.

Table 9.10: Criteria to define whether a property qualifies for insulation under the NIR 1975 (as amended 1988)

Provision Criteria NIR 7(1) Distance < 300m from the nearest point of the carriageway to alter.

NIR 2(1)/4(1) RNL ≥ 68 dB LA10,18h façade (with 67.5 dB rounded up). NIR 3(2)a/4(2)b RNL – PNL ≥ +1 dB(A) NIR 3(2)b/4(2)b RNL – L’B ≥ +1 dB(A) Source: Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended 1988). For the acronyms see CRTN, Department of Transport and Welsh Office, 1988, Annex 1.

9.4 Baseline conditions 9.4.1 Baseline road traffic noise levels have been predicted for all receptors within the Calculation Area. The areas which are predicted to be exposed to noise levels above the SOAEL of 68dB LA10,18hr (façade) day-time or 55dB Lnight,outside in the DM 2021 scenario are shown within Appendix B, Figures 9.2 to 9.7. 9.4.2 Of 12,622 residential properties within the Calculation Area, 2,155 are estimated to experience noise levels in excess of the day-time SOAEL of 68dB LA10,18hr (façade) for the DM 2021 scenario and 5,074 properties are estimated to experience noise levels in excess of the night-time SOAEL of 55dB Lnight (free-field).

9.5 Sensitivity of resource

Noise sensitive receptors

9.5.1 The study area comprises settlements including Bassett, Bassett Green and North Stoneham, Swaythling, Eastleigh, Chandlers Ford, Otterbourne, Shawford, and Winchester. Isolated semi-rural properties and open green areas occur all along the proposed Scheme. 9.5.2 There are 12,622 dwellings and 583 other sensitive receptors within the Calculation Area, including community facilities, places of worship, medical facilities, educational establishments, leisure facilities and public open spaces.

Noise important areas

Page 198 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

9.5.3 Table 9-11 below shows the number of dwellings contained within each nIA within the study area, running from north to south. These nIAs, which relate only to road traffic noise, are shown on Appendix B, Figures 9.2 to 9.7. All nIAs are listed in the table from north to south. 9.5.4 Table 9-11 also highlights where the nIA is situated along the proposed Scheme and, therefore, where dwellings could be eligible for mitigation as part of the proposed Scheme (subject to Highways England being the responsible authority). The table also shows whether the dwellings within the nIA are within the Calculation Area. Detailed noise predictions undertaken at each receptor within the Calculation Area, and a summary of the noise changes within each nIA within the Calculation Area, are presented in Table 9-27. Table 9.11: Number of dwellings within road nIAs

Location Along Within Approx. Responsible authority No. of nIAs proposed Calculation length dwellings by ID Scheme Area (m)

M3 eastbound side, 4008 Yes Yes 1055 Highways England south of junction 9 275 B3335 near M3 6195 Yes Yes 200 Highways England 1 westbound side Between M3 5533 eastbound side and Yes Yes 150 Highways England 7 Otterbourne Road Between Shawford 5534 Road and M3 Yes Yes 210 Highways England 6 westbound side M3 between junctions 5535 Yes Yes 1200 Highways England 171 11 and 12 M3 between junctions 6021 11 and 12, over Poles Yes Yes 560 Highways England 43 Lane M3 eastbound side 5532 within the Yes Yes 50 Highways England 1 Chamberlayne Estate M3 between the A336 12656 roundabouts and Yes Yes 2360 Highways England 345 Leigh Road A335 Twyford Road between Rookwood 2234 No Partially 460 Hampshire 25 Close and Roseberry Crescent Highways England and 2236 M3 and Leigh Road Yes Yes 870 130 Hampshire Leigh Road between junctions with 2235 No Yes 330 Hampshire 32 Falkland Road and Meadow Grove M3 from the public 2248 right of way Yes Yes 500 Highways England 62 (connecting Falkland Road and Kingfisher

Page 199 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Location Along Within Approx. Responsible authority No. of nIAs proposed Calculation length dwellings by ID Scheme Area (m)

Road) to Chestnut Avenue M3 crossing over the 2237 A27 and Chilworth Yes Yes Highways England 12 Road A27 and Winchester 2229 No Yes Highways England 20 Road M27 westbound over 6035 Highways England 1 Chilworth Drove M27 eastbound just 2228 No Yes Highways England 1 south of Roman Road M27 westbound just 5531 north of Bassett No Yes Highways England 1 Green Road M27 westbound 12657 between slip road and No Yes Highways England 5 Monks Wood Close Bassett Avenue from 2247 Bassett Row to The No Partially Southampton 24 Spinney

9.6 Assumptions and limitations 9.6.1 The following assumptions and limitations have been identified during the assessment. The uncertainty associated with each limitation has been reduced as far as possible. The assessment is considered appropriate for the purposes of identifying likely significant noise effects.

Construction noise

9.6.2 Planned construction methods and scheduling would not be known until a Delivery Partner is appointed and other engineering and environmental constraints have been taken into account. The methods and scheduling of works would also be subject to change during the construction period to deal with situations arising on-site. A risk- based assessment has therefore been undertaken at this stage, based on typical construction road activities and plant noise levels presented in BS 5228-1. These risks have been taken into account in the development of the methodology and programme to avoid significant effects during construction. 9.6.3 Appendix A, 9.3 provides details of the construction noise assumptions and the source of the information used in the construction noise calculations. Table 9-12 below details the level of uncertainty related to each element of the construction assessment.

Page 200 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 9.12: Uncertainty in relation to the construction noise assessment Parameter Description Level of Comment / actions to resolve uncertainty Road traffic The current understanding is that Medium To be updated by the Delivery diversions there are limited planned traffic Partner with emerging information diversions, instead construction would via the Construction be predominantly managed through Environmental Management Plan lane closures. (CEMP). Construction Construction stages have been based High To be updated with emerging stages on methodology within BS 5228-1 and information via the OEMP. previous smart motorway scheme experience. Construction Standard construction methods using Medium To be updated with emerging plant and plant and equipment detailed in BS information and managed to methods 5228-1. minimise impacts via the OEMP. Construction The timings and duration of the works High To be updated with emerging timings and have not yet been defined. information and managed to duration minimise impacts via the OEMP. Noise Sensitive receptors identified through Low Receptor addresses would be sensitive Ordnance Survey (OS) Address Base updated in response to new receptors data. information. 9.6.4 At this stage, the construction noise assessment has only considered the potential noise levels at different distance bands. This is without taking into account the actual topography or existing screening between construction works and nearby sensitive receptors, such as existing noise barriers or other intervening buildings. Furthermore, the SOAEL presented in Table 9-4 has been adopted for all sensitive receptors, irrespective of the ambient noise levels within the Calculation Area. This approach is considered to be proportionate at this stage given that the exact number and type of construction plant, and location and duration of the works is not known. As such, appropriate controls have been specified within the OEMP. As the Delivery Partner refines these controls to suit the work programme, additional mitigation would be included as required. 9.6.5 The construction noise assessment is based on the preliminary design. The LOAEL has been set at 0.3mm/s and the SOAEL has been defined at 1mm/s for construction vibration. In the absence of any document that specifies the LOAEL and SOAEL for vibration, these criteria have been adopted in line with the guidance contained within BS 5228-2 in Table B.1.

Construction vibration

9.6.6 It has been assumed that percussive piling would be used to install gantries and Emergency Area (EA) retaining walls, which presents a worst-case appraisal of the potential vibration impacts. Alternative methods of installing EA retaining walls that generate less vibration, e.g. continuous flight auger piling, will need to be considered where vibration from construction works will have a significant adverse effect. 9.6.7 Table 9-13 below, provides a summary of uncertainty relating to the construction vibration assessment.

Page 201 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 9.13: Uncertainty in relation to the construction vibration assessment Parameter Description Level of Comment / actions to uncertainty resolve Piling Piling methods have yet to be determined. High The OEMP would set The assessment presented assumes out a methodology for percussive piling during the night-time which managing potential is the preferred method at this stage. impacts due to piling.

Operational noise and vibration

9.6.8 Appendix A, 9.3 provides details of the operational noise model assumptions and the source of the information used in the operational road traffic noise model. Table 9-14 below provides a summary of uncertainty relating to the operational road traffic noise assessment. Table 9.14: Uncertainty in relation to the operational road traffic noise assessment Parameter Description Level of Comment / actions to resolve uncertainty Future Receptors have not been Medium No large-scale planning development included in the noise model for applications have been identified future planning applications. for residential developments within 200m of the proposed Scheme. Height and The height and length of the Low Detailed barrier surveys to be extent of existing existing noise barriers within the undertaken to confirm the accuracy acoustic barriers Calculation Area have been of the model and to update and identified from online mapping revise design where necessary. imagery and a simple level survey including drive-by and measurement at some locations. Condition and All existing barriers have been High Detailed barrier condition surveys performance of considered fit for purpose or to be undertaken. the existing have been assumed to be acoustic barriers replaced with equivalent barriers. Traffic data An opening year of 2021 and a Low Reassessment would be required if future year of 2036 has been the opening year and design year used for the M3. Should the M3 were changed. smart motorway be delayed a new traffic forecast would be required.

9.7 Design and mitigation measures

Construction

9.7.1 Construction noise and vibration would be fully managed through detailed assessments in line with the requirements of the OEMP. 9.7.2 Noise and vibration limits and monitoring locations would be identified in the OEMP. 9.7.3 The potential impacts of the construction activities can be minimised by use of the noise control measures, as suggested in BS 5228, including temporary noise screens

Page 202 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

and partial enclosures. General principles for the control of noise and vibration during the construction works should include: · Use best practicable means during construction works · Switch off plant, equipment and vehicles when they are not in use for longer periods of time · Establish agreed site working hours for normal construction activities · Establish agreed criteria for undertaking significantly noisy or vibration- generating operations near to sensitive locations · Programme works such that the requirement for working outside of normal working hours is minimised · Ensure that all staff and operatives are briefed on the requirement to minimise nuisance from site activities · Use temporary noise screens or partial enclosures around particularly noisy activities used in proximity to dwellings · Use silenced compressors, generators and fans at site locations · Maintain plant regularly 9.7.4 The existing noise barriers would be retained unless it is identified that they are damaged or need to be removed to carry out the works, in which case they would be replaced by barriers which provide noise protection at similar levels as the existing barriers.

Operation

Design and mitigation measures to minimise adverse effects 9.7.5 The proposed Scheme would incorporate a new low noise road surfacing (LNRS) in the opening year on lanes 1 and 4 for the whole of the proposed Scheme. Furthermore, it is assumed that the motorway would have been resurfaced with a LNRS by the design year whether or not the proposed Scheme is constructed. Any LNRS laid as part of the proposed Scheme would be maintained appropriately in accordance with DMRB guidance for such surfaces. 9.7.6 All existing noise barriers would be retained and a survey of their condition would be conducted. Any defects likely to affect their acoustic performance would be rectified as part of the construction works as set out in Section 9.7.3.

9.8 Potential construction effects 9.8.1 The following activities have been considered as part of the construction phase assessment to ensure that appropriate design and management activities are in place and specified in the OEMP to avoid unnecessary adverse impacts: · Central reserve phase, including the replacement of existing structures and the construction of the central reserve barrier (CRB) · Resurfacing works, including removal of existing surface and laying of new surface · Verge phase, including vegetation clearance, stripping out of noise barriers, gantry foundation and EA construction · Drainage works · Road marking works · Signage works

Page 203 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

· Construction of works compound and compound operation (24 hours) 9.8.2 Indicative noise levels at various distance bands ranging from 10-300m have been predicted for each of the key construction activities defined above in accordance with the guidance in BS 5228-1. The predicted noise levels are shown in Table 9-15. A list of the equipment assumed to be used for the purposes of this assessment is provided in Appendix A, 9.3. 9.8.3 The calculations do not take into account existing noise barriers or other screening whether part of the earthworks (such as the top of cutting slopes) or man-made (such as buildings or noise barriers). Where properties are completely screened from the works it would be expected that noise levels would be up to 10dB lower. 9.8.4 Noise levels have been predicted over acoustically absorbent ground, given the predominant nature of the land between the existing M3 and the properties. Noise levels are shown as free-field predictions. 9.8.5 It is understood that some elements of construction works have the potential to be undertaken at night for safety reasons, for example, for the installation of full span gantries. Therefore, the construction noise assessment has been based on night-time working. The noise levels expected to be in excess of the SOAEL threshold construction noise level, Table 9-4, (55dB LAeq,8h) are highlighted in Table 9-15. However, it should also be noted that some receptors near to the M3 are already subject to ambient noise levels in excess of the SOAEL as reported in Table 9.26 9- 25 and Table 9.27. 9.8.6 In order to cross-reference between the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) and the specific mitigation measures in the OEMP, the identification numbers which have been assigned for each structure or activity in the OEMP have been included in Table 9-15 below. Table 9.15: Indicative construction noise levels at night – road works

Phase Activity OEMP Night-time construction noise level dB LAeq,8h at Identification various distances from the works Number 10m 20m 50m 100m 200m 300m

Central Removal of NV003-009, 78 72 62 55 47 43 reserve phase existing NV012, NV014- structures and 015, NV017-022, installation of NV026-027, CRB NV029-032 Verge phase Demolition, NV003-009, 83 77 68 60 53 49 clearance and NV012, NV014- stripping out of 015, NV017-022, noise barriers NV026-027, (if required) NV029-032 Gantry NV003-009, 80 74 65 57 50 45 installation NV012-015, (assumes NV017-022, percussive NV026-027, piling required) NV029-035 EA NV003-009, 79 73 63 56 48 44 construction NV012-015, (assumes NV017-022,

Page 204 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Phase Activity OEMP Night-time construction noise level dB LAeq,8h at Identification various distances from the works Number 10m 20m 50m 100m 200m 300m percussive NV026-027, piling required) NV029-035 Resurfacing Removal of NV003-009, 85 79 69 62 54 50 existing NV012, NV014- works surface 015, NV017-022, NV026-027, NV029-032 Laying new NV003-009, 79 71 62 54 47 43 surface NV012, NV014- 015, NV017-022, NV026-032 Drainage Drainage NV003-009, 79 73 63 56 48 44 works NV012, NV014- works 015, NV017-022, NV026-027, NV029-032 Road marking Road marking NV003-009, 75 69 59 52 44 40 works NV012, NV014- works 015, NV017-022, NV026-027, NV029-032 Signage works Signage works NV003-009, 80 74 64 57 49 45 NV012-015, NV017-022, NV026-027, NV029-035 9.8.7 A significant adverse effect due to construction would only arise where noise levels are predicted to be above the trigger thresholds (shown in bold in Table 9-15) for durations which exceed those presented in BS 5228-1 (as presented at the end of Section 9.3.8)

Construction noise effects – linear activities

9.8.8 Most of the activities listed in Table 9-15 would be of very short duration in a single location or transient in the case of linear activities (e.g. resurfacing, road markings or barrier installation) and on this basis it is considered very unlikely that significant effects would arise. Buildability advice has shown that it is unlikely that plant would be located / used outside of one property for longer than 5 days. Therefore, these activities have not been considered further in this assessment. The adverse impacts of high, albeit temporary, noise levels would be managed and reduced to the lowest levels and durations possible as set out in the OEMP.

Construction noise effects – verge works

9.8.9 It is anticipated that the EA and gantry installation could take up to 13 months. 9.8.10 Gantry installation would consist of 2-4 weeks at each gantry to build the sub- structure and one night per gantry for the superstructure.

Page 205 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

9.8.11 EA construction, including construction of retaining walls, can take between 12-15 weeks with 2-3 weeks of piling activity. 9.8.12 Given the duration of construction for EAs and gantries, significant effects at nearby receptors could arise. As such, this activity is considered in more detail below. 9.8.13 There are 9 proposed new EAs and 39 gantries for the proposed Scheme. There is the potential that piled retaining walls would be required at most of these locations as well as throughout the rest of the proposed Scheme. 9.8.14 Each of the potential retaining wall locations and EAs are listed in Table 9-16 together with the number of properties within relevant distance bands. Each of the potential gantry locations are listed in Table 9-17, together with the number of properties within relevant distance bands. The reference name has either been taken directly from the drawings or given an arbitrary number and label based on their location within the scheme (for example, NB for north bound and SB for south bound), but can be identified by their approximate chainage. 9.8.15 The “Night-time SOAEL” column in both tables corresponds to the number of properties within the distance range to be at or above night-time SOAEL (55dB LAeq,8h). To be conservative it is assumed that retaining walls would use the same equipment as the EAs and therefore have the same distance band (up to 158m) to be at or above night-time SOAEL. Properties up to 122m from the gantry installation works would be at or above night-time SOAEL. 9.8.16 It should be noted that significant adverse effects are also dependent on the duration of the works. Construction works are significant if the duration is likely to be longer than a period of 10 or more days of working in any 15 consecutive days, or for a total number of days exceeding 40 in any 6 consecutive months. The duration of these works is subject to change and is based on a worst-case assumption. Table 9.16: Sensitive receptor distance bands for noise – retaining walls and EAs

Reference Approx. No. of noise sensitive properties within distance bands chainage <20m 20 to 50 to 100 to 200 to Night- 50m 100m 200m 300m time SOAEL (158m) RW_34_4.1T_N B 107150 0 0 0 1 2 0 RW1_1-1T_NB 102350 0 0 0 0 1 0 RW10_1-1B_NB 103200 0 0 0 115 238 30 RW11_1-1B_NB 103300 0 0 7 110 305 51 RW12_1-1B_NB 103350 0 0 6 121 239 55 RW13_1-1B_NB 103400 0 0 12 128 236 72 RW14_1-1B_SB 103600 0 8 28 139 229 113 RW15_1-1B_SB 103200 0 0 14 190 182 94 RW16_1-1B_SB 102900 0 0 0 0 107 0 RW17_1-1B_SB 102850 0 0 0 0 57 0

Page 206 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

RW18_1-1B_SB 102851 0 0 0 0 39 0 RW19_2-1T_NB 103800 0 0 2 56 151 20 RW2_1-1T_NB 102450 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW20_2.1T_NB 104150 0 0 0 43 91 15 RW21_2.1T_NB 104300 0 0 0 13 79 0 RW22_2.1T_SB 104200 0 0 9 65 99 40 RW23_2.1T_SB 103850 0 2 12 48 184 34 RW24_2.1T_SB 103700 0 2 18 113 192 67 104950- RW25_2.1B_SB 104850 0 0 0 7 2 6 RW26_3.1T_NB 105850 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW27_3.1T_NB 105900 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW28_3.1B_NB 106202 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW29_3.1B_NB 106302 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW3_1-1T_NB 102600 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW30_3.1B_NB 106500 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW31_3-1B_SB 106250 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW32_4.1T_NB 106850 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW33_4.1T_NB 107050 0 0 0 1 2 0 RW35_4.1T_NB 107300 0 0 0 0 4 0 RW36_4.1T_NB 107592 0 0 0 0 3 0 RW37_4.1T_SB 107450 0 0 0 3 0 0 RW38_4.1T_SB 107150 0 0 0 0 3 0 RW39_4.1T_SB 107050 0 0 0 0 3 0 RW4_1-1T_NB 102750 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW4_1-1T_NB 102750 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW40_4.1T_SB 107025 0 0 0 0 3 0 RW40_4.1T_SB 107025 0 0 0 3 5 0 RW41_4.2B_NB 107600 0 0 0 0 3 0 RW43_4.2B_NB 108200 0 0 0 5 5 0 RW44_4.2B_NB 108300 0 0 0 7 9 5 RW45_4.2B_SB 108100 0 0 0 2 6 0 RW46_4.2B_SB 108000 0 0 0 0 8 0 RW47_4.3B_SB 107950 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW48_4.2B_SB 107750 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 207 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

RW49_4.2B_SB 107600 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW50_5.1T_NB 106992 0 0 1 15 44 5 RW51_5.1B_SB 108000 0 0 2 14 33 11 RW52_5.1B_SB 108858 0 0 0 11 34 3 RW53_5.1B_SB 108623 0 0 0 6 23 0 RW54_5.1B_SB 108500 0 0 0 10 11 4 RW6_1-1T_NB 102800 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW7_1-1T_SB 102800 0 0 0 0 4 0 RW8_1-1T_SB 102350 0 0 0 0 1 0 RW9_1-1B_NB 102850 0 0 0 0 38 0 ERA NB1_2.18_SB 104825 0 0 0 5 4 0 ERA NB4_ 111734 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERA NB5 114165 0 2 19 142 272 85 ERA SB1_2.1BNB 104765 0 0 0 4 4 0 ERA SB2_4.1T_NB 107423 0 0 0 0 4 0 ERA SB4 113185 0 0 0 21 113 0 ERA WB2_4.1T_SB 107355 0 0 0 0 4 0 ERA-58- 2A_5.2B_MB 109500 0 0 12 47 45 38 Total 0 14 142 1445 3121 748 Note: RW = Retaining Wall ERA = Emergency Refuge Area

Table 9.17: Sensitive receptor distance bands for noise – gantries

Reference Approx. No. of noise sensitive properties within distance bands chainage <20m 20 to 50 to 100 to 200 to Night- 50m 100m 200m 300m time SOAEL (122m) [1] GA-2 118445 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 208 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Reference Approx. No. of noise sensitive properties within distance bands chainage <20m 20 to 50 to 100 to 200 to Night- 50m 100m 200m 300m time SOAEL (122m) [1] GA-2 118445 0 0 2 41 64 13 gantry mantal ADS 104896 0 0 0 7 2 0 gantry mounted ADS 107036 0 0 0 0 3 0 GM27 118926 0 0 0 9 47 1 GM27-84 2118 0 0 0 0 5 0 GM3_27 111859 0 0 0 0 3 0 GM3-01 102465 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM3-02_1- 1B_SB 102850 0 0 0 0 39 0 GM3-03_1- 1B_SB 103250 0 0 16 173 221 30 GM3-04_1- 1B_NB 103400 0 0 15 136 232 35 GM3-05_1- 1B_SB 103600 0 3 30 114 230 50 GM3- 07_2.1B_NB 104705 0 0 0 0 5 0 GM3- 08_2.1T_SB 104207 0 0 4 62 87 15 GM3- 09_3.1T_SB 105541 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM3- 10_2.1T_NB 104000 0 0 0 51 99 0 GM3- 10_2.1T_SB 104014 0 0 7 84 98 14 GM3- 11_3.1T_NB 105901 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM3- 11_3.1T_SB 105901 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM3- 12_3.1B_SB 106250 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM3- 13_4.1T_NB 106867 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 209 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Reference Approx. No. of noise sensitive properties within distance bands chainage <20m 20 to 50 to 100 to 200 to Night- 50m 100m 200m 300m time SOAEL (122m) [1] GM3- 14_4.1T_SB 107436 0 0 0 3 0 0 GM3- 15_4.1T_NB 107592 0 0 0 0 3 0 GM3- 17&GM3- 06_2.1B_SB 104880 0 0 0 7 2 1 GM3- 18_4.2B_NB 107950 0 0 0 8 2 2 GM3- 20_5.1T_NB 106823 0 0 1 11 27 3 GM3-2- 1_5.1B_SB 108858 0 0 0 11 34 0 GM3- 23_5.2B_SB 109468 0 0 12 25 56 17 GM3-27 111859 0 0 0 0 3 0 GM3-29 112629 0 0 0 0 23 0 GM3-30 112789 0 0 0 1 0 0 GM3-31 113250 0 0 15 83 94 32 GM3-32 113727 0 0 12 117 236 31 GM3-32 113727 0 3 25 113 222 45 GM3-33 114260 0 0 12 143 331 23 GM3-33 114260 0 0 27 135 325 47 GM3-34 114841 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM3-34 114841 0 2 38 107 169 58 GM3-35 115253 0 0 0 24 57 2 GM3-35 115253 0 0 4 31 74 11 GM3-37 115812 0 0 0 77 139 10 GM3-37 115812 0 0 12 108 147 28 GM3-38 118070 0 0 0 38 139 0 GM3-38 118070 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM3- 4.9_3.1B_NB 106476 0 0 0 0 0 0 GM3-40 116686 0 0 2 29 63 7

Page 210 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Reference Approx. No. of noise sensitive properties within distance bands chainage <20m 20 to 50 to 100 to 200 to Night- 50m 100m 200m 300m time SOAEL (122m) [1] GM3-40 116686 0 0 0 28 64 6 GM3-42 117586 0 0 0 2 27 0 GM3-43 217 0 0 1 7 48 1 GM3-44 117946 0 0 2 12 45 3 GM3-46 118356 0 0 0 2 12 0 GM-36 1396 0 0 0 0 40 0 MS4 gantry_5.2B_ NB 109290 0 0 0 22 31 2 PROPOSED 2/3 MILE ADS GANRY 117240 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROPOSED 2/3 MILE ADS GANRY 117240 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 8 237 1821 3548 487

9.8.17 There is a total of 1,311 noise sensitive receptors located within 158m of an area that may require piled retaining walls and EAs and 346 noise sensitive receptors located within 122m of an area that may require gantry installation, which in either case would therefore be subject to noise levels in excess of the night-time SOAEL. Noise levels of this magnitude are potentially significant, depending on other factors such as the duration of the exceedance and the existing acoustic climate at the sensitive receptors. 9.8.18 In terms of duration, in order to construct each EA, it is anticipated that 2 to 3 weeks of piling activity would be required. Where these works are continuous, the threshold of duration (10 days out of 15 consecutive days) would be exceeded and a significant adverse effect would arise. 9.8.19 In terms of the existing acoustic climate, noise sensitive receptors close to the proposed retaining wall locations are likely to be dominated by road traffic noise emanating from the M3. The operational noise model and baseline noise measurements indicate that receptors close to the M3 are currently exposed to ambient road traffic noise levels in excess of the operational SOAEL of 55dB LAeq,8h at night, whilst noise levels as a result of piling for retaining walls would be in the order of 73dB at 20m, 63dB at 50m and 56dB at 100m. 9.8.20 In order to prevent any significant adverse effects at these 1,235 noise sensitive receptors, night-time working must be avoided. Where this is not possible due to safety reasons, works must be limited in duration to avoid exceeding 10 days out of

Page 211 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

15 consecutive days and 40 days in any 6 consecutive months. This, in turn, would avoid significant adverse effects arising, in line with the criteria set out in Section 9.3.9. Furthermore, quieter methods of piling, such as rotary bored piling or hydraulic press-in piling and alternative mitigation measures must be considered, such as the use of temporary site hoardings or piling shrouds. The Delivery Partner must also inform the nearby residents in advance of the EA construction works commencing. 9.8.21 Mitigation measures to minimise noise levels and the duration of works will be set out in the OEMP.

Construction noise effects – site compound

9.8.22 The location of the site compound(s) has not been yet been finalised; however, the preferred location is the plot of land south of Badger Farm Road and west of Otterbourne Road. There is 1 residential receptor within 300m of the proposed compound which is in the 200 to 300 distance band. Noise levels associated with the construction and on-going operation of the compound have been predicted at 200m and 300m is presented in Table 9-18. 9.8.23 It has been advised that the construction period of a compound would be approximately 4-5 months and would be operational between March 2020 and March 2022. 9.8.24 It is expected that the site clearance and site compound construction would take place during the day-time but it would be operated during both the day-time and the night- time periods. Noise levels are not above the day-time SOAEL (75dB LAeq,12h) or the night-time SOAEL (55dB LAeq,8h) for any aspects of the compound construction at this potential location. Table 9.18: Indicative construction noise levels – compound

Activity Noise level dB LAeq,T at distance (m) from compound

10m 20m 50m 100m 200m 300m

Site clearance ------51 46 Compound construction ------54 50 Compound operation ------30 25 9.8.25 During operation the compound must be located more than 17m from any residential property to avoid exceeding the night-time SOAEL. As there are no receptors within this distance, there would be no significant adverse effects.

Construction noise effects – diversion routes

9.8.26 The current understanding is that there will be limited requirement for diversion routes, the intention being that lane closures would be sufficient. It may prove the case however that certain construction activities, such as gantry installation, will necessitate full carriageway closures and a re-direction of traffic for a limited period. Given the volume of traffic that typically uses the M3 J9-14, any closure would impact the local communities surrounding any temporary diversion routes (as identified within the scoping report; A3090 A272 and A335). Should this occur, it is envisaged that diversion routes would only be in place over Sunday nights, and that the duration of

Page 212 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

any diversion route used during construction would thus be such that significant effects would not arise.

Construction vibration effects

9.8.27 Percussive piling may be used during the installation of gantries as well as during the construction of EAs and associated retaining walls. Table 9.19 shows the expected vibration levels at different distance bands from all locations where percussive piling may be required (EAs, gantry foundations, signs and retaining 9.8.28 walls). The vibration levels have been calculated in accordance with the formulae contained in BS 5228-2 Table E.1. 9.8.29 The local ground type is varied along the proposed Scheme length and the exact geological conditions would be determined following an intrusive survey to be carried out at a later stage. Therefore, in order to present a worst-case assessment based on BS5228-2 calculation methodology, a Kp factor (a correction applied to account for the geological conditions of the local area) of 3 has been assumed for the whole of the proposed Scheme. Once final piling locations and the soil conditions are known, it is likely that in some areas the Kp factor would be 1.5, in which case the area within which potentially significant effects may occur would reduce. All pile depths have been assumed to be 15m. Table 9.19: Indicative construction vibration levels – percussive piling

Activity Vibration level PPV (mm/s) at horizontal distance (m)

10m 20m 50m 100m

PPV from percussive piling – 17.1 11.2 4.3 1.8 Kp factor of 3 9.8.30 It can be seen from the table that the SOAEL level of PPV 1.0mm/s is exceeded beyond 100m and therefore has the potential to impact hundreds of properties. 9.8.31 However, a significant adverse effect will only arise where the level exceeds SOAEL and vibratory works last more than 10 days in 15 consecutive days or for a total number of days exceeding 40 in any 6 consecutive months. 9.8.32 If percussive piling is used and works will extend beyond the duration mentioned in the paragraph above, alternative techniques such as rotary bored piling or hydraulic press-in piling must be used. Alternatively, the duration of the works must be shortened. 9.8.33 These mitigation measures to minimise the vibration levels at all properties and the duration of works will be set out in the CEMP by the Delivery Partner once the construction programme has been set.

9.9 Potential operational effects

Operational road traffic noise – DMRB HD 213/11 assessment

9.9.1 Detailed predictions have been carried out for a total of 12,622 residential receptors within the Calculation Area; together with 583 non-residential noise sensitive receptors, including schools, health, community and leisure facilities.

Page 213 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

9.9.2 All noise levels and noise changes are presented for both the short-term and the long- term. For the long-term noise impacts, a comparison has been made between the noise levels with the proposed Scheme in the design year (DS 2036) and the noise levels without the proposed Scheme in the opening year (DM 2021). This comparison includes the change in noise level as a result of the proposed Scheme as well as general traffic growth. 9.9.3 A parallel comparison is also made for the DM scenario assuming that the proposed Scheme did not go ahead (i.e. noise change between DM 2021 and DM 2036 including general traffic growth). This comparison is presented in Table 9.20. For night-time noise changes, the DMRB HD 213/11 only requires an assessment of properties that are predicted to experience noise levels above 55dB LAeq,8h, while for day-time all properties are considered irrespective of their noise level. 9.9.4 As required by the DMRB HD 213/11, figures showing the change in noise for the following scenarios are presented in Appendix B, Figures 9.2 to 9.7: · DM 2021 vs DS 2021 to show the short-term change in noise levels as a result of the proposed Scheme (Appendix B, Figure 9.6) · DM 2021 vs DS 2036 to show the long-term change in noise levels as a result of the proposed Scheme (Appendix B, Figure 9.7) 9.9.5 It should be noted that whilst there are some areas with a non-negligible noise change in Appendix B, Figures 9.2 to 9.7 (greater than 1dB in the short-term or 3dB in the long-term), this does not necessarily result in a significant effect. A significant effect is only realised where such a change is experienced at sensitive receptors exposed to noise above LOAEL. Table 9.20: Long-term DM traffic noise changes

Change in noise level Magnitude of Daytime Night-time impact DM2021 v DM2036 Number of Number of Number of dwellings other dwellings sensitive receptors

Increase in noise 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 4,504 295 1,823 level, LA10,18h 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 0 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 >=10 Major 0 0 0 No change = 0 No change 2,222 151 423 Decrease in noise 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 5,896 137 2,530 level, LA10,18h 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 0 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 >=10 Major 0 0 0 9.9.6 In summary, for the day-time period without the proposed Scheme in place, all dwellings and other sensitive receptors are predicted to experience no change or negligible impacts, and these changes are likely to be imperceptible to residents.

Page 214 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

9.9.7 The benefits, albeit negligible, in the DM scenario are a result of the assumed resurfacing of the current road surface on the M3 (a mixture of hot rolled asphalt and LNRS) with a new low noise surface. This is expected to happen between the opening year and the design year even if the proposed Scheme does not go ahead. 9.9.8 For the night-time period, noise levels at all dwellings are predicted to fall within the negligible or no change categories.

Proposed Scheme noise changes

9.9.9 Table 9-21 shows the predicted short-term change in noise level for all modelled receptors within the Calculation Area with the proposed Scheme in the noise change bands following the DMRB HD 213/11 magnitude impact categories as provided in Table 9-7. Table 9.21: Short-term traffic noise changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.1)

Change in noise level Magnitude of Daytime impact DM2021 v DS2021 Number of dwellings Number of other sensitive receptors

Increase in noise 0.1 - 0.9 Negligible 924 102 level, LA10,18h 1 - 2.9 Minor 0 13 3 - 4.9 Moderate 0 3 >=5 Major 0 0 No change = 0 No change 2,835 122 Decrease in noise 0.1 - 0.9 Negligible 8,791 336 level, LA10,18h 1 - 2.9 Minor 72 7 3 - 4.9 Moderate 0 0 >=5 Major 0 0 9.9.10 In summary, in the short-term with the proposed Scheme in place, there are 12,550 dwellings and 560 other sensitive receptors that are expected to experience either no change or a negligible impact and these are likely to be imperceptible to residents. 9.9.11 Seventy-two dwellings and 7 other sensitive receptors are predicted to experience a minor beneficial impact, whilst 13 other sensitive receptors are predicted to experience a minor adverse impact and 3 other sensitive receptors are predicted to experience moderate adverse impacts. However, these receptors are commercial and are not considered high sensitivity so these adverse impacts do not lead to significant adverse effects. 9.9.12 The beneficial impacts to sensitive receptors in the opening year are due to new LNRS on lanes 1 and 4 and on all lanes to replace existing LNRS and hot rolled asphalt. The adverse impacts to sensitive receptors in the opening year are due to changes in traffic, most notably changes in speed. 9.9.13 Table 9-22 shows the predicted change in noise levels for all modelled sensitive receptors within the Calculation Area in the long-term with the proposed Scheme. These are presented in the noise change bands following the DMRB HD 213/11

Page 215 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

magnitude impact categories as shown in Table 9-8. For night-time noise changes, the DMRB HD 213/11 only requires an assessment of properties that are predicted to experience noise levels above 55dB LAeq,8hr while for day-time all properties are considered irrespective of their noise level. Table 9.22: Long-term traffic noise changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.2)

Change in noise level Magnitude of Daytime Night-time impact DM2021 v DS2036 Number of Number of Number of dwellings other dwellings sensitive receptors

Increase in noise 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 4,771 340 1,741 level, LA10,18h 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 3 0 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 >=10 Major 0 0 0 No change = 0 No change 2,352 53 566 Decrease in noise 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 5,499 187 2,543 level, LA10,18h 3 - 4.9 Minor 0 0 0 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 >=10 Major 0 0 0 9.9.14 In the long-term with the proposed Scheme in place, all dwellings and 580 other sensitive receptors that are predicted to experience either negligible impacts or no change in noise level, which are likely to be imperceptible to residents. 9.9.15 Three other sensitive receptors are predicted to experience minor adverse impacts. The adverse impacts to sensitive receptors in the design year are due to changes in traffic, most notably changes in speed. However, these receptors are commercial and are not considered high sensitivity so these adverse impacts do not lead to significant adverse effects. 9.9.16 During the night-time period, all dwellings are predicted to experience either negligible impacts or no change in noise level, all of which would be imperceptible to residents. 9.9.17 Although not a requirement of DMRB HD 213/11, Table 9.23 below shows the predicted short-term change in noise level for all modelled receptors within the Calculation Area with the proposed Scheme for the design year (2036). This is to show potential changes only from difference in traffic with and without the scheme as opposed to benefits from the introduction of LNRS for a DS option.

Page 216 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 9.23 Short-term traffic noise changes in the design year

Change in noise level Magnitude of Daytime Night-time impact DS2036 v DM2036 Number of Number of Number of dwellings other dwellings sensitive receptors

Increase in noise 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 5333 194 1912 level, LA10,18h 3 - 4.9 Minor 16 23 0 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 3 0 >=10 Major 0 0 0 No change = 0 No change 4243 144 1608 Decrease in noise 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible 2805 217 1284 level, LA10,18h 3 - 4.9 Minor 225 2 46 5 - 9.9 Moderate 0 0 0 >=10 Major 0 0 0

9.9.18 In summary, in the short-term with the proposed Scheme in place, there are 12,381 dwellings and 555 other sensitive receptors that are expected to experience either no change or a negligible impact and these are likely to be imperceptible to residents. 9.9.19 A minor beneficial impact is expected to be experienced by 225 dwellings and two other sensitive receptors. Sixteen dwellings and 23 other sensitive receptors are predicted to experience a minor adverse impact, as well as a further 3 other sensitive receptors are predicted to experience moderate adverse impacts. For the “other” receptors these are commercial and are not considered high sensitivity, so these adverse impacts do not lead to significant adverse effects. 9.9.20 Table 9.24 and Table 9.25 present respectively the traffic noise nuisance changes for all receptors within the Calculation Area and airborne vibration nuisance changes for properties within 40m of roads within the Calculation Area. Table 9.24: Traffic noise nuisance changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.3)

DM DS DM 2021 v DM2036 DM2021 v DS2036

Change in nuisance level Number of dwellings Number of dwellings

Increase in >0 - <10% 4,655 4,354 nuisance level 10 - <20% 0 867 20 - <30% 0 0 30 - <40% 0 0 >=40% 0 0

Page 217 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

DM DS DM 2021 v DM2036 DM2021 v DS2036

Change in nuisance level Number of dwellings Number of dwellings

No change =0% 2,006 2,195 Decrease in >0 - <10% 5,961 5,206 nuisance level 10 - <20% 0 0 20 - <30% 0 0 30 - <40% 0 0 >=40% 0 0 9.9.21 The proposed Scheme is predicted to result in 301 fewer dwellings experiencing a 0 to 10% increase in traffic noise nuisance when compared with the DM scenario. However, there are an additional 867 dwellings predicted to experience a 10 to 20% increase in traffic noise nuisance. Furthermore, there are 755 fewer dwellings experiencing a 0 to 10% decrease in traffic noise nuisance when compared with the DM scenario. Table 9.25: Traffic airborne vibration nuisance changes (DMRB HD 213/11 Table A1.4)

DM DS DM2021 v DM2036 DM2021 v DS2036

Change in nuisance level Number of dwellings Number of dwellings

Increase in >0 - <10% 3,877 3,122 nuisance level 10 - <20% 0 798 20 - <30% 0 0 30 - <40% 0 0 >=40% 0 0 No change =0 % 648 503 Decrease in >0 - <10% 3,405 3,580 nuisance level 10 - <20% 0 0 20 - <30% 0 0 30 - <40% 0 0 >=40% 0 0 9.9.22 The proposed Scheme is predicted to result in 755 fewer dwellings experiencing a 0 to 10% increase in traffic vibration nuisance when compared with the DM scenario. Furthermore, an additional 175 dwellings are predicted to experience dwellings experiencing a 0 to 10% decrease in vibration nuisance when compared with the DM scenario. However, there are an additional 798 dwellings predicted to experience a 10 to 20% increase in vibration nuisance.

Page 218 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Comparison of the operational noise effects to the aims of the Noise Policy Statement for England, National Planning Policy Framework and National Policy Statement for National Networks

9.9.23 The proposed Scheme would not give rise to any significant noise increases, and therefore, the first and second aims of NPSE are met (refer to Paragraph 8.1.4). A third aim of the NPSE is to contribute to improvements to health and quality of life, where possible. There is a similar policy in paragraph 5.195 of the NPSNN which states: "The Secretary of State should not grant development consent unless satisfied that the proposals would [meet a set of aims] within the context of Government policy on sustainable development [that include making a contribution] to improvements to health and quality of life through the effective management and control of noise, where possible."Table 9.26 and Table 9-27 show the comparisons between the number of residents (assuming an average of 2.3 people per household) above and below the operational SOAEL and LOAEL in the short-term and the long-term respectively. This comparison has been based on the highest noise level predicted on any façade being representative of a particular sensitive receptor. This is considered appropriate as it represents a worst-case for potential health effects. Table 9.26: Short-term NPSE summary

Noise level Day-time (population) Night-time (population)

DM 2021 DS 2021 Difference DM 2021 DS 2021 Difference

Above SOAEL 4957 4724 -232 11670 10831 -840 Between LOAEL 20452 20116 -336 17360 18200 840 and SOAEL Below LOAEL 3623 4191 568 0 0 0 9.9.24 In the short-term, the proposed Scheme would reduce noise levels, in net terms, for 232 residents who are currently exposed to noise levels above the SOAEL during the day-time, and a further 336 residents exposed to noise levels that lie between the LOAEL and the SOAEL. Similarly, for the night-time period, the proposed Scheme would reduce the number of residents who are currently exposed to noise levels in excess of the SOAEL to 840. Table 9.27: Long-term NPSE summary

Noise level Day-time (population) Night-time (population)

DM 2021 DS 2036 Difference DM 2021 DS 2036 Difference

Above SOAEL 4957 4934 -23 11670 11155 -515 Between LOAEL 20452 20498 46 17360 17876 515 and SOAEL Below LOAEL 3623 3600 -23 0 0 0 9.9.25 In the long-term, the proposed Scheme would reduce noise levels, in net terms, for 23 residents who are currently exposed to noise levels above the SOAEL during the day- time, however, a further 46 residents would be exposed to noise levels that lie between the LOAEL and the SOAEL. Similarly, for the night-time period, the proposed Scheme would reduce the number of residents who are currently exposed to noise levels in excess of the SOAEL by 515.

Page 219 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

9.9.26 In overall terms, the proposed Scheme has a positive effect on people living near to the M3, as it reduces the number of people exposed to noise levels above the SOAEL during both the day-time and night-time periods.

Noise important areas

9.9.27 Over the long-term, even without the proposed Scheme in place, noise levels would be expected to increase within nIAs due to a gradual increase in traffic volumes over the 15-year assessment period. Where Highways England is not the asset owner for a nIA (as identified in 9.11), it is not responsible for reducing noise levels in those nIAs. 9.9.28 An analysis of the long-term noise changes in nIAs has only been undertaken where a nIA falls within the Calculation Area (as identified in Table 9-11). This analysis has been based on the highest noise level predicted on any façade being considered representative for each specific sensitive receptor. All nIAs that have been addressed are shown in Table 9.28.

Page 220 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 9.28: Long-term noise changes in nIAs

nIA by ID Total Numbers of dwellings experiencing noise changes for DM Opening Year vs number number DS Design Year of (DM Opening Year vs DM Design Year comparison shown in brackets) dwellings Noise level decrease Noise level increase

-10 to -5dB -5 to - -3 to 0dB 0 to +3dB +3 to +5 to (moderate) 3dB (negligible) (negligible) +5dB +10dB (minor) (minor) (moderate)

12656 345 0 (0) 0 (0) 332 (321) 13 (24) 0 (0) 0 (0) 12657 5 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2228 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2229 20 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (5) 17 (15) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2234 25 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 25 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2235 32 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (6) 32 (26) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2236 130 0 (0) 0 (0) 104 (36) 26 (94) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2237 12 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (12) 12 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2247 24 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 24 (24) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2248 62 0 (0) 0 (0) 57 (9) 5 (53) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4008 275 0 (0) 0 (0) 151 (219) 124 (56) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5531 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5532 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5533 7 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5534 6 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (2) 3 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5535 171 0 (0) 0 (0) 95 (118) 76 (53) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6021 43 0 (0) 0 (0) 29 (25) 14 (18) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6035 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6195 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 9.9.29 In summary, all dwellings within nIAs are predicted to experience a negligible noise change in noise over the long-term (difference between opening year DM and design year DS).

PPG assessment

9.9.30 Paragraphs 9.3.33 and 9.3.34 set out criteria for a PPG assessment with criteria of residential receptors exposed to noise above SOAEL and subject a 1dB increase in the long-term. Table 9.29 shows the number of residential receptors exposed to noise above SOAEL for the Do-Minimum scenario in 2021 and subject to a 1dB increase for either the Do-Minimum 2036 case or the Do-Something 2036 case.

Page 221 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 9.29: NPPF assessment summary

Period DM DS Long-term increase DMDM 2021 > DM 2021 > SOAEL for DS v DM SOAEL and DM2021 and DM201 v Ds2036 v DM2036 > 1dB > 1dB

Day 297 264 -33 Night 198 222 22 9.9.31 The table shows that, in the daytime, although 264 receptors are exposed to a noise above SOAEL and an increase of 1dB with the scheme, some 297 are exposed to noise above SOAEL and 1dB increase even without the scheme. That is, with the proposed Scheme there is a reduction of 33 receptors exposed to noise that exceed the PPG criteria. 9.9.32 At night-time, 222 receptors are exposed to noise above SOAEL and subject to an increase of 1dB with the scheme but there are 198 receptors that would be exposed to noise above SOAEL and subjected to an increase of 1dB without the proposed Scheme. The proposed Scheme therefore represents an increase of 24 receptors exposed to noise that the exceed the PPG criteria. 9.9.33 The predominant cause of the exposure increases of 1dB or more in the long-term is increases in traffic volume. These increases have not been discounted in the analysis above. It is also worth noting that Table 9.21 showed that in the daytime, no residential receptors would be exposed to noise increases of 1dB or more in the short-term.

9.10 Residual effects 9.10.1 The proposed Scheme is not expected to give rise to any significant residual effects during the construction or operational phase. Provision of a new LNRS on lanes 1 and 4 in the opening year (and all lanes by 2036) as part of the proposed Scheme would contribute beneficially. 9.10.2 Table 9.30 summarises predicted temporary effects during construction.

Page 222 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 9.30: Summary table of temporary effects on noise and vibration during construction

Potential environmental Proposed mitigation measures Residual effects impact Construction noise: The OEMP to manage construction noise would include: Non- · Significant adverse · Use of best practicable means under S72 of CoPA significant effects during day-time 1974 adverse · Significant adverse · Good practice measures set out in BS 5228-1 effects. effects at night · Undertaking noisy works during the day-time, where feasible The main potential cause of · Use of lower noise equipment and methods where possible / necessary significant adverse effects at · Limiting the duration of high noise level activities in the sensitive receptors is due to vicinity of sensitive receptors the length of time to · Advanced communication of the works to local construct the EAs, retaining environmental health departments and to the potentially affected residents walls and gantries.

Construction vibration: The OEMP to manage construction noise would include: Non- · Potentially significant · Use of best practicable means under S72 of CoPA significant adverse effect at 1 1974 adverse property at · Good practice measures set out in BS 5228-2 approximately 23m from effects. · Use of low vibration piling methods piling works · Restrictions in the number of consecutive days over The main cause of which piling can take please significant adverse effects at · Advanced communication of the works to local sensitive receptors would be environmental health departments and to the potentially the length of time to affected residents construct the EAs.

Operational noise

9.10.3 The proposed Scheme would not result in significant adverse effects. While use of the existing hardshoulder would move the source of noise closer to the nearest noise sensitive receptors, this would be off-set by the installation of a new LNRS for the main carriageway of the M3. Therefore, the proposed Scheme is considered to have an overall negligible change.

9.11 Summary 9.11.1 The construction vibration assessment is based on the preliminary design. It is noted that there are changes in detail in the location of aspects of the works such as retaining wall positions but that the nature of the construction works is predominantly similar. With such changes it is inevitable that the number of impacted receptors within each of the distance bands will also change as well as construction vibration levels at some receptors. However, the overall assessment outcome is unlikely to change. 9.11.2 Construction noise and vibration has the potential to lead to significant adverse effects. However, when controlled via an OEMP and with some restrictions on night-

Page 223 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

time working, the assessment shows that significant adverse effects for construction noise and vibration would be avoided. 9.11.3 No non-negligible adverse effects for residential receptors are anticipated for operational noise in either the short-term or the long-term and there are therefore no significant adverse effects due to operation noise. However, as the receptors are commercial rather than residential they have a relatively low sensitivity and these noise impacts are therefore not significant adverse effects.

Page 224 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report 10. Road drainage and the water environment

Key features for this topic: · A Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool (HAWRAT) assessment (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Method A) has been undertaken for outfalls receiving drainage from areas predicted to have >20% increase in Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), outfalls which discharge to designated sites and High priority outfalls. · In response to the HAWRAT assessment and engagement with the Environment Agency, design measures have been specified to reduce sedimentation from the flow into 2 outfalls discharging to the River Itchen, 1 outfall discharging to the Itchen Navigation and 1 outfall discharging to a tributary of Monks Brook. · DMRB Method C assessments has been completed for soakaways either receiving drainage from areas predicted to have >20% increase in AADT or that might be moved to allow for central barrier construction. Consultation with the Environment Agency was undertaken in February 2018. · The DMRB Method D assessment has been completed for all soakaways and outfalls mentioned above. No pollution impacts from spillages were identified. · The findings of the assessment show that a permit for Flood Risk Activities will be required. It is also possible that licences for ‘dewatering’, ‘working within 8m of a watercourse’ and ‘discharges to surface water and groundwater’ may be required, subject to further design development and consultation with the Environment Agency. · Potential impacts on surface water and groundwater features have been discussed with the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority. · No significant adverse effects are predicted during construction or operation of the proposed Scheme, subject to the measures in the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP).

10.1 Introduction 10.1.1 This chapter provides a Simple level assessment of the potential effects of the proposed Scheme on the water environment, during construction, operation and demolition. It has been prepared in accordance with DMRB Volume 11, Section 2, Part 4, and DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 (HD 45/09). 10.1.2 This assessment takes into consideration the findings of the Scoping Report.

10.2 Study area 10.2.1 The study area encompasses groundwater and surface water features that could potentially be affected by the proposed Scheme. The study area is based on professional judgement to ensure that effects are sufficiently identified and comprises a 1 kilometre corridor surrounding the proposed Scheme, extended to include features further downstream (surface water features) or down-gradient (groundwater features) that may also be potentially impacted. For groundwater, the assessment of potential effects during the construction and operation phases includes the underlying Water Framework Directive (WFD) groundwater bodies.

10.3 Legislation and policy context

National legislation and policy

Page 225 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

· Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 · The Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 · Flood and Water Management Act, 2010 · The Highways Act (1990) · The Water Resources Act (1991) modified by The Water Act (2003) · The National Networks National Policy Statement (Department of Transport, 2014) · The National Planning Policy Framework (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019)

10.4 Methodology 10.4.1 The Scoping Report concluded that the assessment of potential risks to the water environment, including flood risk, could be largely scoped out of the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) as no residual adverse effects were anticipated subject to appropriate assessment, design management and mitigation. The only aspect that remained scoped in was potential river water quality impacts arising from potential pollutant loading due to increases in traffic flows. 10.4.2 Following a review of the sensitivities at preliminary design stage, it was considered appropriate that these were scoped in as groundwater and surface water receptors were considered potentially to be at risk of significant effects as a result of the proposed Scheme. This includes areas of flood risk associated with FZ3 of Monks Brook, the River Itchen SAC/SSSI, and the Chalk principal aquifer, which supplies baseflow to the River Itchen and a strategic groundwater abstraction (the proposed Scheme crosses SPZs 1 and 2 for above ground and subsurface activities). Due to the high/very high level of importance or these receptors (as defined by DMRB HD45/09) and the potential risks posed by construction and operation of the proposed Scheme, it was deemed appropriate to scope them in for assessment. 10.4.3 The data obtained at this stage of the assessment allows sufficient comprehension of the sensitivity and likely impacts of the water environment, and there is little value that a detailed level assessment could offer at this stage of the design. To ensure the findings of this assessment remain valid, conservative measures have been proposed to ensure that additional baseline information is collected to appropriately inform the detailed design.

Value of receptor

10.4.4 The assessment identifies the water features within the study area (and any downstream water bodies) and determines the importance (value) of the features, based on the examples of criteria set out in Table 10-1. 10.4.5 The conservation value of water resources is in part defined by legislation, which protects all controlled waters in England and Wales and, in effect, protects all water bodies (surface water or groundwater). Therefore, there cannot be any water feature which has negligible value. The value of controlled waters can be defined further by considering the use and conservation importance of the water body. The criteria used

Page 226 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

in this assessment to determine the value of each water feature and its attributes are set out in Table 10-1.

Table 10.1 Estimating the value of water environment attributes Value Criteria Typical Examples Very High Attribute has Surface Water: Site protected under EU or UK habitat legislation a high quality (Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Site of Scientific Interest and rarity on (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA), or Ramsar site); WFD high a regional or status water bodies. national Groundwater: Principal aquifer providing a regionally important scale. resource or supporting site protected under EU habitat legislation; SPZ1. Flood Risk: Receptor is at high risk from flooding (FZ3b); or floodplain or defence protecting more than 100 residential properties from flooding. High Attribute has Surface Water: Site protected under UK habitat legislation (SSSI); WFD a high quality status (or potential) is currently ‘good’ or has a target of good. and rarity on Groundwater: Principal or Secondary A aquifer providing locally a local scale. important resource or supporting site protected under UK habitat legislation; SPZ2. Flood Risk: Receptor is at high risk from flooding (FZ3a); floodplain or defence protecting between 10 and 100 residential properties or industrial premises from flooding. Medium Attribute has Surface Water: Site protected under Local habitat legislation (SNCI), a medium Local Natural Reserve (LNR); WFD status (or potential) is moderate. quality and Groundwater: Secondary B or undifferentiated aquifer which is of rarity on a limited value because the water quality does not allow potable or other local scale. quality sensitive uses, exploitation may be for agricultural or industrial use but is not extensive; limited connection to surface water and may provide some support to local site of nature conservation interest; SPZ3. Flood Risk: Receptor is at moderate risk from flooding (FZ2); floodplain or defence protecting 10 or fewer industrial properties from flooding. Low Attribute has Surface Water: WFD status (or potential) is poor, or water body is not a low quality classified under the WFD. and rarity on Groundwater: Unproductive strata, with no known past or existing a local scale. exploitation and not providing baseflow to rivers or supporting a site of nature conservation interest. Flood Risk: Receptor is at low risk from flooding (FZ1); floodplain with limited constraints and a low probability of flooding of residential and industrial properties. Source: Table A4.3 in DMRB HD 45/09, Annex IV

Magnitude of impact

10.4.6 The assessment of the magnitude of the impact of the proposed Scheme considers any incorporated design measures or strategies, including the likely effectiveness of the measures, the timescale over which the impact occurs and the substitutability of the attribute. The criteria used for determining the magnitude of impact is based on Table A4.4 in DMRB HD 45/09, Annex IV and is summarised in Table 10-2.

Page 227 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 10.2 Estimating the magnitude of an impact to an attribute Magnitude Criteria Typical Example Major Results in Surface Water: Failure of both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants in adverse effect on HAWRAT (Method A, Annex I) and compliance failure with Environmental attribute, but Quality Standards (EQS) values (Method B). of insufficient Calculated risk of pollution from a spillage >2% annually (Spillage Risk magnitude to Assessment, Method D, Annex I). affect the use Loss or extensive change to a fishery. or integrity. Loss or extensive change to a designated Nature Conservation Site. Groundwater: Loss of, or extensive change to, an aquifer. Potential high risk of pollution to groundwater from routine run-off - risk score >250 (Groundwater Assessment, Method C, Annex I). Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >2% annually (Spillage Risk Assessment, Method D, Annex I). Loss of, or extensive change to, groundwater supported designated wetlands. Flood Risk: Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >100mm. (Hydrological Assessment of Design Floods and Hydraulic Assessment, Methods E and F, Annex I). Moderate Results in Surface Water: Failure of both soluble and sediment-bound pollutants in Adverse effect on HAWRAT. integrity of (Method A, Annex I) but compliance with EQS values (Method B). attribute, or Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >1% annually and <2% loss of part of annually. attribute. Partial loss in productivity of a fishery. Groundwater: Partial loss or change to an aquifer. Potential medium risk of pollution to groundwater from routine run-off - risk score 150-250. Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >1% annually and <2% annually. Partial loss of the integrity of groundwater supported designated wetlands. Flood Risk: Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >50mm. Minor Results in Surface Water: Failure of either soluble or sediment-bound pollutants in Adverse some HAWRAT. measurable Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >0.5% annually and <1% change in annually. attributes quality or Groundwater: Potential low risk of pollution to groundwater from routine vulnerability. run-off - risk score <150 Calculated risk of pollution from spillages >0.5% annually and <1% annually Minor effects on groundwater supported wetlands. Flood Risk: Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >10mm. Negligible Results in The proposed Scheme is unlikely to affect the integrity of the water effect on environment. attribute, but Surface Water: No risk identified by HAWRAT (Pass both soluble and of insufficient sediment-bound pollutants). magnitude to affect the use Risk of pollution from spillages <0.5%. or integrity. Groundwater: No measurable impact upon an aquifer and risk of pollution from spillages <0.5%.

Page 228 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Magnitude Criteria Typical Example Flood Risk: Negligible change in peak flood level (1% annual probability) <+/- 10mm. Minor Results in Surface Water: HAWRAT assessment of either soluble or sediment- Beneficial some bound pollutants becomes Pass from an existing site where the baseline beneficial was a Fail condition. effect on Calculated reduction in existing spillage risk by 50% or more (when attribute or a existing spillage risk is <1% annually). reduced risk of negative effect Groundwater: Calculated reduction in existing spillage risk by 50% or occurring. more to an aquifer (when existing spillage risk <1% annually). Flood Risk: Reduction in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >10mm. Moderate Results in Surface Water: HAWRAT assessment of both soluble and sediment- Beneficial moderate bound pollutants becomes Pass from an existing site where the baseline improvement was a Fail condition. of attribute Calculated reduction in existing spillage by 50% or more (when existing quality. spillage risk >1% annually). Groundwater: Calculated reduction in existing spillage risk by 50% or more (when existing spillage risk is >1% annually). Flood Risk: Reduction in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >50mm. Major Results in Surface Water: Removal of existing polluting discharge or removing the Beneficial major likelihood of polluting discharges occurring to a watercourse. improvement Groundwater: Removal of existing polluting discharge to an aquifer or of attribute removing the likelihood of polluting discharges occurring. quality. Recharge of an aquifer. Flood Risk: Reduction in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >100mm. Source: Table A4.4 in DMRB HD 45/09, Annex IV

Significance

10.4.7 The significance of potential effects due to construction and operation (including maintenance) of the proposed Scheme have been predicted through considering both the value of the receptor (Table 10-1) and the predicted magnitude of impact (Table 10-2). The overall assessment scores are based on criteria set out in Table A4.6 in DMRB HD45/09 (Qualifying Conditions for Overall Assessment Scores). Effects that are Moderate or above are considered significant. 10.4.8 The likely significance of effects was calculated using the matrix given in Table 10-3 below, using professional judgement to consider site specific factors that may be of relevance.

Page 229 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Table 10.3 Estimating the Significance of Potential Effects

Magnitude of Impact

Negligible Minor Moderate Major Very high Neutral Moderate / Large Large / Very Large Very Large High Neutral Slight / Moderate Moderate / Large Large / Very Large Medium Neutral Slight Moderate Large Attribute

Importance of Low Neutral Neutral Slight Slight / Moderate

Source: Table A4.4 in DMRB HD 45/09, Annex IV

Consultation

10.4.9 Initial engagement has been undertaken with the Environment Agency in order to reach an agreement on the scope and outcomes of assessment in relation to groundwater, surface water, flood risk and biodiversity. Potential measures to mitigate risks to groundwater and surface water receptors, including the River Itchen, the Chalk aquifer and Southern Water’s groundwater abstraction sourceworks, as well as flooding risks were discussed in a meeting on 21 February 2018. Minutes of this meeting are included in Appendix A, 10.2. 10.4.10 In terms of flood risk, the main uncertainty raised was the risk to the Scheme at Monks Brook Tributary (E443584 N118930) where Flood Zone 3 encroaches the road, and the proposed central barrier could potentially cause a damming effect during a flood event. However, the Environment Agency noted that its Flood Map for Planning Flood Zone 3 is based on modelling that is only suitable for decision- making at a broad catchment scale as the model is based on digital terrain model grids generalised to between 5m and 100m. It is not suitable for use in site-specific flood risk assessments, and therefore the Environment Agency recommends that site- specific hydrological and hydraulic modelling is undertaken, which would help assess the potential risk of flooding to the proposed Scheme and what, if any, impact the concrete barrier may have on flood flows. 10.4.11 In addition, the Environment Agency indicated that it would need to review the detailed design for the concrete central barrier as a Bespoke Environmental Permit for Flood Risk Activities is likely to be required. The Environment Agency also noted that it could not comment on the surface water aspects of the proposed Scheme as this is the responsibility of Hampshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. 10.4.12 Following an initial meeting in February 2018, the Environment Agency provided further information regarding surface water quality impacts on the sensitive surface water receptors. The Environment Agency requests that if water quality treatment is not provided to mitigate any potential impact, it must be demonstrated that the proposed Scheme would not increase the sediment load or chemical concentrations above that of the current road layout. The Environment Agency noted that the most recent condition assessment for the unit of the River Itchen SAC and SSSI receiving discharge from the M3 outfall highlights that the SAC/SSSI is susceptible to sediment pressures and that several of the species for which the river is designated rely on low sediment loads.

Page 230 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

10.4.13 The Environment Agency was generally satisfied with the approach being taken to address potential groundwater flood risk at this stage of the proposed Scheme. 10.4.14 The Environment Agency indicated that it would expect baseline water quality sampling to be undertaken at the locations of soakaways that are to be moved or accept drainage from areas of increased traffic flows, as these soakaways would generally discharge to the Chalk principal aquifer. 10.4.15 Initial engagement with Hampshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority was undertaken through a face to face meeting on 20 February 2018. These organisations were broadly satisfied with the approach being taken to address potential risks at this stage of the proposed Scheme. 10.4.16 An informal meeting was held with Stoneham Golf Club 19th February 2018 to discuss the water environment and to undertake a visual assessment of the spring-fed streams and other water features on the course.

10.5 Baseline information 10.5.1 Sources of information to inform this assessment of baseline conditions are identified in Appendix A, 10.1.

Land use

10.5.2 The eastern boundary of the city of Winchester is situated to the north of the proposed Scheme. Downland (open chalk hills) borders the motorway to the west. South of Winchester, the M3 is in a cutting through Twyford Down, with St Catherine’s Hill immediately to the east. South of this, the M3 crosses the valley of the River Itchen on a viaduct and embankment before passing Compton and Shawford, south of junction 11. The motorway then crosses Otterbourne Stream and passes through agricultural land and woodland to the north of Eastleigh. From junction 12 south, the motorway passes through the urban area of Eastleigh with some isolated areas of public open space and parkland. South of Eastleigh, the motorway joins the M27 within a wooded area at junction 14. Stoneham Golf Course lies immediately to the east of the M3 eastbound slip road onto the M27.

Surface water

Surface Water Features 10.5.3 Surface water features within the study area are shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.1. The River Itchen and Itchen Navigation pass beneath the central part of the proposed Scheme near junction 11. Between the culvert passing under the southbound off-slip at junction 11 and its outfall to the River Itchen, the Itchen Navigation is essentially dry with isolated pools of standing water. 10.5.4 Monks Brook passes beneath the southern part of the proposed Scheme near junction 13. A review of Ordnance Survey (OS) Open Raster mapping identified approximately 10 drainage channels within the study area, most of these are Ordinary watercourse tributaries to the Itchen or Monks Brook WFD water bodies. In addition to this there are numerous ditches within the study area. Approximately 45 ponds are located within the study area, with 22 of these being remote from the proposed Scheme footprint itself and are assumed to be hydraulically disconnected (further details can be found in Appendix A, 10.1).

Page 231 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Water Framework Directive 10.5.5 The majority of the study area is within the Itchen Operational Catchment with the Itchen Management Catchment which itself is part of the South-East River Basin District and comprises: · The River Itchen and the Itchen Navigation is classified as the Itchen WFD water body (GB107042022580) · Monks Brook WFD water body (GB107042016310) 10.5.6 The southern tip of the study area (but not the proposed Scheme itself) is located within the Lower Test and Southampton Streams Operational Catchment, within the Test and Itchen Management Catchment. Ordinary watercourses flowing south from the proposed Scheme area may act as indirect pathways to Tanner’s Brook (GB107042016620). 10.5.7 Table 10.4 summarises the WFD surface water bodies within the study area. 10.5.8 The whole of the study area is within the ET3 Hamble Estuary Eutrophic Water Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ). A small proportion of the northern end of the study area is within the S812 Nun’s Walk Stream Surface Water NVZ.

Table 10.4 Summary of WFD surface water bodies within the study area

Water body ID GB107042016310 GB107042022580 GB107042016620

Water body Name Monks Brook Itchen Tanner’s Brook

Test Lower and Operational Catchment Itchen Itchen Southampton Streams

Management Catchment Test and Itchen Test and Itchen Test and Itchen

River Basin District South East South East South East

Not designated Hydromorphological Status Heavily Modified artificial or heavily Heavily Modified modified Overall Classification (Cycle 2 – Moderate Good Moderate 2016)

Current Ecological Quality Moderate Good Moderate (Cycle 2 – 2016)

Current Chemical Quality (Cycle Good Good Good 2 – 2016)

Ecological Objective Good by 2027 Good by 2015 Good by 2027

Chemical Objective Good by 2015 Good by 2015 Good by 2027

Page 232 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Itchen Drinking Water Protected Area Habitats and Species Habitats and Directive: Species Directive: River Itchen SAC Protected Area Emer Bog SAC Nitrates Directive Nitrates Directive River Itchen SAC River Itchen Urban Nitrates Directive Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD)

Groundwater

Geology 10.5.9 The superficial deposits and bedrock geology along the proposed Scheme and surrounding area is shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.2. A more detailed description of the geology encountered within the study area is provided in Appendix A, 10.1 and the Preliminary Sources Study Report (PSSR) (HE549338-MMSJV-HGT-000-RP-CE- 00001-P02). Patchy superficial deposits of Clay-with-flints, head and river terrace deposits are present within the study area, with more extensive head deposits around South Down. Extensive alluvial deposits are present within the flood plain of the River Itchen. 10.5.10 The solid geology underlying the northern half of study area, from junction 9 at Winchester to between junctions 11 and 12 at Otterbourne, comprises Cretaceous Chalk, including the White Chalk and Grey Chalk subgroups. The Chalk dips gently to the south within the study area. South of this, the Chalk is unconformably overlain by more recent Palaeogene (Tertiary) strata. In stratigraphically ascending order, these comprise the Reading Formation of the Lambeth Group, the London Clay Formation (including the Whitecliff Sand and Nursling Sand members) of the Thames Group, and the Wittering Formation of the Bracklesham Group.

Hydrogeology

Aquifer designations 10.5.11 Environment Agency bedrock and superficial aquifer designations within the study area are shown in Appendix B, Figures 10.3 and 10.4 respectively.

Bedrock aquifers 10.5.12 The Chalk is classed as a Principal Aquifer by the Environment Agency. Principal aquifers have high intergranular and/or fracture permeability and storage, and may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. The Reading Formation of the Lambeth Group is classed as a Secondary A aquifer. These aquifers are defined as permeable layers which support water supply at a local, rather than strategic, scale and may be a source of baseflow to rivers. The London Clay Formation of the Thames Group is classed as unproductive strata (rock layers or superficial deposits with low permeability that have negligible significance for water supply or river baseflow), except for the Nursling Sand and Whitecliff Sand members, which are classified as Secondary A aquifers. The Wittering Formation of the Bracklesham Group, is classified as a Secondary A aquifer.

Page 233 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Superficial aquifers 10.5.13 Narrow strips of Head deposits associated with dry valleys overlying the Chalk are generally classed as Secondary (Undifferentiated) aquifers (assigned in cases where it has not been possible to attribute either Secondary Category A or B to a rock type). The Chalk is also overlain by Clay-with-Flints (classed as unproductive strata) and more extensive Head deposits between Compton and Otterbourne. Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits overlying the Chalk within the River Itchen floodplain and its tributaries are classed as Secondary A aquifers. The proposed Scheme crosses alluvial deposits associated with the River Itchen immediately south of junction 11, with Otterbourne Stream at Otterbourne, and with Monks Brook and its tributaries around junction 13. 10.5.14 South of Otterbourne, superficial deposits of Alluvium within the River Itchen floodplain are also classed as a Secondary A aquifer. Extensive River Terrace Deposits in the Eastleigh area, between junctions 13 and 14, are classed as a Secondary A aquifer where they comprise sands and gravels, and a Secondary Undifferentiated aquifer where they comprise clays and silts.

Aquifer properties 10.5.15 A more detailed discussion of aquifer properties can be found in Appendix A, 10.1.

Chalk 10.5.16 The Chalk is a dual porosity aquifer, with high matrix storage but flow primarily concentrated through fractures and fissures. Recharge to the aquifer through the unsaturated zone is by means of matrix flow and fracture flow, and may include both vertical and horizontal components. Direct recharge may also occur through the more permeable Palaeogene strata (sands and gravels) where these overlie the Chalk. The presence of impermeable deposits (clays and silts) may concentrate flow in certain areas and therefore increase recharge to the underlying aquifer. 10.5.17 Transmissivity (permeability multiplied by effective aquifer thickness) is generally enhanced in the zone of water table fluctuation (typically up to 10m below the water table) and in recharge and discharge zones within valleys such as swallow holes and spring lines respectively. Karst features may be present, for example within the Twyford cutting. The unconfined Chalk in the study area is highly productive, supporting major public water supply abstractions and providing significant baseflow to the River Itchen and its tributaries.

Palaeogene strata 10.5.18 Aquifer properties are dependent on lithology, with groundwater flow concentrated within the more extensive granular (sand and gravel) units, particularly those classified as Secondary A aquifers. However, even where the strata are predominantly impermeable, perched aquifers may be present. The unconsolidated nature of the strata means that flow is intergranular rather than through fractures

Superficial deposits 10.5.19 As with the Paleogene aquifers, aquifer properties are strongly dependent on lithology, as well as the extent and interconnectivity of the more permeable deposits.

Page 234 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Groundwater levels and flow 10.5.20 A discussion on local groundwater levels can be found in Appendix A, 10.1. This is based on a review of selected Geoindex borehole records and British Geological Society (BGS) groundwater flooding susceptibility mapping within 500m of the existing motorway (Appendix B, Figure 10.6). General points are summarised below.

Chalk aquifer 10.5.21 Regional groundwater levels in the Chalk are shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.5. The hydraulic gradient broadly reflects topography, with groundwater flow in the study area towards the south and the River Itchen, which is largely groundwater-fed in its middle and upper reaches. Water table depth also reflects topography, with elevated groundwater levels, but also a greater unsaturated zone depth under hills in comparison to valleys. Where the Chalk becomes confined by Palaogene strata, the limited data available indicates a hydraulic gradient towards the coast to the south. 10.5.22 On a more local scale, groundwater levels are influenced by baseflow to tributaries of the River Itchen and groundwater abstractions, as well as by infiltration. Groundwater mounding occurs within the Chalk beneath the large-scale sewage treatment farm at junction 10. 10.5.23 Although no GI has been undertaken to inform the proposed Scheme to date, there are a number of borehole records on BGS Geoindex64 that include at least some groundwater level information. The BGS has developed a national dataset on the susceptibility of groundwater flooding based on geological and hydrogeological information. This data can be used to identify areas where geological conditions could enable groundwater flooding to occur and where groundwater levels may be close to ground level or artesian. Groundwater levels are likely to be close to or at ground level, or artesian along the low-lying parts of the proposed Scheme, including the section of motorway within a wide dry valley immediately north of junction 10 and the flood plain of the River Itchen where the granular superficial deposits are in hydraulic continuity with the Chalk. Similarly, groundwater levels may be close to or at ground level, or artesian in the valley of Otterbourne Stream where the Palaeogene strata overlap the Chalk. To the south of this, the Chalk is largely confined by overlying low permeability Palaeogene strata, although zones of potential groundwater flooding at surface are present close to tributaries of Monks Brook, suggesting that groundwater levels within superficial deposits overlying the London Clay are also close to or at surface here.

Palaeogene and superficial aquifers 10.5.24 Groundwater flow is strongly dependent on the lateral and vertical extent of the more permeable, granular deposits. The Whitecliff and Nursling sands within the London Clay are confined by the surrounding clay beds, although the former may be locally in hydraulic continuity with the sandy units of the overlying Wittering Formation. Within the Reading Formation, the sandy beds are in places in hydraulic continuity with the underlying Chalk and can be considered as part of the same aquifer. Groundwater levels may be artesian. Rapid lateral and vertical variations in sand and clay content significantly affect groundwater movement within the Wittering Formation, and the degree of hydraulic continuity between this and the overlying and underlying aquifer

64 British Geological Survey (2017) Geoindex Onshore. [online] Available at: http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html?submit=Open+the+onshore+GeoIndex

Page 235 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

units. Groundwater from the Wittering Formation may at least partially contribute to streams crossing Stoneham Golf Course. 10.5.25 Direct recharge to the Palaeogene aquifer units would occur where these outcrop at surface or are overlain by permeable superficial deposits. The River Terrace Deposits overlying Palaeogene strata to the east and west of the proposed Scheme contains perched aquifers.

Groundwater vulnerability 10.5.26 Environment Agency aquifer vulnerability classifications within the study area are shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.7. The highest vulnerability classification is shown where there are vulnerability classifications for both the bedrock and superficial aquifers at the same location. A vulnerability classification of High means that pollution can easily be transmitted to groundwater because of high leaching soils and the absence of low permeability superficial deposits. The Chalk within the study area is classed as being of High vulnerability. The vulnerability classifications for the superficial deposits overlying the Chalk are High to Medium for the Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits. The Clay-with-Flints Formation is classed as unproductive, and the Head deposits are classed as Medium. 10.5.27 The vulnerability classification of the Lambeth Group (Reading Formation) is High within the study area. The Nursling Sand and Whitecliff members of the London Clay Formation, and the Wittering Formation are classed as being High to Medium. The London Clay is classed as unproductive. With respect to the superficial deposits within the Bracklesham Group groundwater body, the Alluvium and the River Terrace Deposits are classed as High to Medium. The above vulnerability classifications indicate that the unconfined Chalk and more permeable London Clay and Wittering formations are particularly vulnerable to pollution, as are the permeable superficial deposits.

Water Framework Directive 10.5.28 WFD groundwater bodies within the study area are shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.8. The Chalk is included in the River Itchen Chalk Groundwater Body within the South- East Ground Water Management Catchment of the South-East River Basin District. South of Otterbourne, the Lambeth Group (Reading Formation) aquifer is included in the Central Hants Lambeth Group Groundwater Body, while the Wittering Formation (Bracklesham Group) is included in the Central Hants Bracklesham Group Groundwater Body. Both groundwater bodies are included within the South-East GW management catchment of the South-East River Basin District. 10.5.29 Overlying superficial deposits in hydraulic continuity with, and providing additional storage to, the above aquifers are considered part of the respective groundwater bodies. A summary of groundwater bodies within the study area, together with their status and objectives, is provided in Table 10-5. Table 10.5 Summary of WFD groundwater bodies within the study area Groundwater GB40702B500900 GB40702G503800 GB40701G505000 body ID Groundwater Central Hants Central Hants River Itchen Chalk body Name Bracklesham Group Lambeth Group

Page 236 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Operational Hants Central Hants Central Itchen River Chalk Catchment Bracklesham Group Lambeth Group Management South-East GW South-East GW South-East GW Catchment River Basin South-East South-East South-East District Poor – Based on Quantitative Current Dependent Surface Water Body Quantitative Good Good status and Quantitative Water Status Balance status Poor – Based on Chemical Drinking Current Good Good Water Protected Area status and Chemical Status General Chemical Test status. Quantitative Achieved (Good by Achieved (Good by Good Quantitative Dependent Objective 2015) 2015) Surface Water body by 2027 Chemical Achieved (Good by Achieved (Good by Good by 2027 Objective 2015) 2015) Drinking Water Drinking Water Drinking Water Protected Area, Protected Area Protected Area Protected Area and Safeguard Zones and Nitrates (DrPA) Nitrates Directive Directive

Other designations 10.5.30 The study area north of junction 12 is located within the G143 Hampshire Chalk Groundwater Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. The central part of the study and proposed Scheme area (between junction 11 and 12) is located within the Otterbourne and Twyford Drinking Water Safeguard Zones (Groundwater) with pressure indicated as nitrate.

Licensed Abstractions

10.5.31 Licensed groundwater, surface water abstractions, and Source Protection Zones (SPZs) within the study area are shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.9. The information is based on the Envirocheck report included as Appendix B of the PSSR (HE549338- MMSJV-HGT-000-RP-CE-00001-P02) and the Environment Agency’s website “What’s in your backyard” website65. The proposed Scheme crosses a SPZ 1 (inner zone) and 2 (outer zone) for a public water supply groundwater abstraction between chainages 109410 (South Down) and 112750 (junction 12 at Chandlers Ford). Between chainages 111250 and 112750, the inner and outer zones are assigned for subsurface activities only due to the confining Palaeogene strata. A further groundwater SPZ 2 is located less than 1 kilometre west of the motorway where it passes through Twyford Down, between approximate chainages 105600 and 105700. A third groundwater SPZ 2 is located within 1 kilometre to the north north-east of junction 9. In addition, there are licensed surface water and groundwater abstractions within the study area, for which SPZs have not been assigned. 10.5.32 Further detailed information on licensed abstractions and SPZs can be found within Appendix A,10.1

65 Environment Agency. (2017a) What’s In Your Backyard? [online] Available at: http://apps.environment- agency.gov.uk/wiyby/default.aspx

Page 237 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Consented discharges

10.5.33 Consented discharges within the study area are shown on Appendix B, Figure 10.10. The Envirocheck report indicates that there are 67 active consented discharges with 1 kilometre of the motorway, which are summarised in Appendix A, 10.1.

Existing drainage

10.5.34 Highways Agency Drainage Data Management Systems (HADDMS)66 confirms the following existing drainage arrangements along the proposed Scheme (details in Appendix A, 10.1) · There are 32 verified priority outfalls with 1 being classed as High Priority. These are shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.10 · An assessment was undertaken on the networks which discharge to the outfalls and no issues were identified with respect to capacity for the existing highway layout 10.5.35 According to HADDMS, there are a total of 49 culverts along the proposed Scheme. Only one of these outfalls is classed as Very High Priority and this is shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.1.

Flood risk

10.5.36 The aspects of flooding considered include pluvial, fluvial, groundwater, sewer flooding and recorded motorway flood events. The proposed Scheme is not at risk of tidal flooding. The flood risk impact of the Project has been fully assessed in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (HE549338-MMSJV-EWE-000-RP-LX-00004) in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF67) and the supporting Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)68. The details of the impacts are presented in the FRA. According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning69 most of the proposed Scheme and study area are within Flood Zone 1 (all areas outside Flood Zones 2 or 3). 10.5.37 The proposed Scheme passes through Flood Zones 2 and 3 associated with the River Itchen between junction 10 and 11 to the south of Winchester. Further south, between junctions 11 and 12, the proposed Scheme is immediately adjacent to an area of Flood Zone 2 associated with Otterbourne Stream. In Eastleigh, between junction 13 and 14, the proposed Scheme passes through Flood Zones 2 and 3 associated with Monks Brook and a smaller tributary of Monks Brook to the south. There are instances of Flood Zones 2 and 3 covering the carriageway itself and further details of these are provided in Appendix A, 10.1 and the FRA. Any

66 Highways England (2017) Highways Agency Drainage Data Management System. [online] Available at: http://www.haddms.com/ 67 Department of Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf 68 Department of Communities and Local Government (2016) Planning Practice Guidance. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance 69 Environment Agency (2017b). Flood Map for Planning. [online] Available at: http://apps.environment- agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37837.aspx

Page 238 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

requirement for site specific flood risk measures following further consultation with the Environment Agency would be actioned as required, prior to commencement on site. 10.5.38 The Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning also shows that the residential area to the west of the proposed Scheme at junction 13 in Eastleigh benefits from flood defences. There are also areas downstream of junction 13 on Monks Brook where residential properties benefit from flood defences. The Test Valley Borough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) indicates the proposed Scheme passes through an area of Flood Zone 2, immediately next to an area of Flood Zone 3b (identified by the Environment Agency as the ‘Functional floodplain’) between junction 10 and 11 as the motorway crosses the River Itchen. There are no designated flood storage areas within the study area. The Environment Agency’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map70 shows that most of the proposed Scheme and study area are at low or very low risk of surface water flooding. 10.5.39 There are localised areas with a medium risk (annual risk of between 1% and 3.3%) and high risk (annual risk of greater than 3.3%) of surface water flooding, as shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.11. The Environment Agency Flood Risk Map for Reservoir Failure indicates that the proposed Scheme is not at risk of flooding due to reservoir failure. According to the Environment Agency’s Historic Flood Map, Eastleigh Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP), there have been a number of flooding incidents remote from the M3 carriageway but still within the study area. Further information can be found in Appendix A, 10.1. 10.5.40 HADDMS identified many instances of historic highway flooding, which are detailed in Appendix A, 10.1.

Groundwater flooding

10.5.41 Groundwater flooding susceptibility within 500m of the motorway is shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.6, based on the BGS groundwater flooding susceptibility dataset included in HADDMS. Low-lying areas along the motorway have the greatest potential for groundwater flooding to occur at surface. Further information can be found in Appendix A, 10.1. The Hampshire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) notes that significant groundwater flooding occurred in the Test and Itchen catchments in 2000 and 2001. Over 700 properties in 100 settlements were flooded. Groundwater flooding susceptibility risks to the proposed Scheme would be informed by the detailed design.

Aquatic ecology

10.5.42 The proposed Scheme has the potential to impact on aquatic ecology in the study area, either via direct surface water links or because groundwater acts as pathway. The impact on such features has been assessed fully in the Biodiversity Chapter 8, of this EAR. Designated sites within the study area are shown in Appendix B, Figure 10.12. A summary of water-dependent designated sites is provided below, with further details included in Appendix A, 10.1. The River Itchen Special Area of Conservation (SAC) extends to 300 hectares and is crossed by the proposed Scheme at junction 11, between chainages 107200 and 107250. The River Itchen is a classic

70 Environment Agency (2017c) Risk of Flooding from Surface Water. [online] Available at: https://data.gov.uk/data/map- preview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fenvironment.data.gov.uk%2Fds%2Fwms%3FSERVICE%3DWMS%26INTERFACE%3DE NVIRONMENT--90342780-d465-11e4-b1ec-f0def148f590%26request%3DGetCapabilities&n=55.816&w=- 6.236&e=2.072&s=49.943

Page 239 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

example of a sub-type 1 chalk river, and the SAC citation indicates that 27% of the SAC area is made up of bogs, marshes, water fringed vegetation and fens71. The SAC is also designated for its Southern damselfly and bullhead populations in particular. 10.5.43 The River Itchen Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is 748.5 hectares and is crossed by the proposed Scheme area at junction 11, between chainages 107000 and 107600. The SSSI is notified for chalk stream and river, fen meadow, flood pasture and swamp habitats, as well as a number of species. The River Itchen SSSI / SAC includes areas designated as lowland fens (Priority Habitat wetlands), which are crossed by the proposed Scheme between chainages 107150 and 107500, around junction 11. They are likely to be at least partially dependent on groundwater supply from the underlying Chalk. Lowland fen is also present 515m to the east of the motorway along the River Itchen at Twyford. 10.5.44 The Shawford Down Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is located within the study area to the south of junction 11. This site is designated due to chalk downland plants and is likely to be at least partially dependent on groundwater supply from the underlying Chalk. 10.5.45 A total of 171 ponds and ditches have been identified within 500m of the proposed Scheme. Non-statutory protected Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) are located within the study area. Of these, it is considered that the following may have features that are at least partially dependent on surface water and/or groundwater (further details provided in Appendix A, 10.1): · Great Moorlands Copse Complex · Otterbourne Wood · The Lakes, Hiltingbury · Northend Copse · Home Wood · Stoneham Golf Course

Recreation and human health

10.5.46 Details of abstractions for potable use are provided earlier in this section. The River Itchen upstream to Winchester was once navigable, and sections of the river were modified and linked with the now disused Itchen Navigation canal system. The river and canal system are interlinked via a series channels, weirs, locks and sluices. The canal towpaths have significant recreational value, and are conserved and maintained by the Itchen Navigation Trust. 10.5.47 The River Itchen is regarded as 1 of the world’s premier chalk streams for fly fishing and attracts anglers from across the world. Monks Brook, Otterbourne Stream and the remaining unnamed Ordinary watercourses may also be used for recreational activities.

Climate change

71 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2018) River Itchen SAC Site Details. [online] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0012599

Page 240 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

10.5.48 The Met Office Southern England regional climate summary72 is summarised in Appendix A, 10.1.

Events

10.5.49 During the winter of 2013 / 2014, sustained heavy rain led to record high groundwater levels in the Chalk, which in turn led to record flows within the baseflow-dependent River Itchen. The rising water overtopped the river banks, flooding low lying areas of Winchester. Monks Brook also broke its banks, causing flooding through Chandlers Ford and Eastleigh. 10.5.50 Environment Agency data on Pollution Incidents indicate that 6 category 2 (Significant) and 1 Category 1 (Major) Water Pollution Incidents have occurred within the study area between 2004 and 2015. Most incidents were remote from the study area, although a Category 2 Pollution Incident occurred in an unnamed Ordinary watercourse immediately adjacent to the southbound M3 carriageway between junctions 12 and 13 in 2004. It is unclear whether this pollution incident was related to highways run-off. 10.5.51 No further information is available at present with respect to major accidents, disasters or pollution events / spills within the study area.

Sensitivity of receptors

10.5.52 Receptors or features have been identified that could potentially be affected by construction and/or operation of the proposed Scheme. In accordance with DMRB guidance, the importance of these features in terms of their attributes are summarised in Table 10-6 below. Ponds that are assumed to be hydraulically isolated from the proposed Scheme (as identified by a desk study in the surface water subheading of Section 10.5) have not been included in this assessment. Ponds that are assumed to be hydraulically linked to the proposed Scheme have been grouped within their respective surface water body or groundwater body. Table 10.6 Importance of water environment attributes in study area Feature Attribute Importance Reason for assigned value Water supply / quality High WFD Good status. River Itchen Dilution and removal of High Consented discharges within study area. water body and waste products its tributaries, Biodiversity Very High Good Ecological Potential, River Itchen SAC, (including River Itchen SSSI. WFD target of Good unnamed Ecological Potential by 2027. Includes ordinary watercourses (ditches and ponds) which have watercourses been scoped in for further great crested newt and ponds) assessment. [GB1070420225 Recreation High Large river of local amenity value, angling 80] (salmonid fishery). Value to economy High Unknown, presumed high value.

72 Met Office (2016) Southern England: climate. [online] Available at: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/regional- climates/so

Page 241 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Feature Attribute Importance Reason for assigned value Conveyance of flow Medium Proposed Scheme crosses Flood Zones 1 and 2. Water supply / quality High WFD Moderate status with Good status target by 2027. Monks Brook Dilution and removal of High Consented discharges within study area. water body and waste products its tributaries Biodiversity Very High WFD target of Good Ecological Potential by (including 2027. Includes watercourses (ditches and ordinary ponds) which have been scoped in for further watercourses great crested newt assessment. Water body and ponds) crosses SINCS with water-dependent habitats. [GB1070420163 Recreation Low No known recreational use. 10] Value to economy Low Limited known usage of river. Conveyance of flow Very High Proposed Scheme crosses Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3. Water supply / quality High WFD Moderate status with Good status target by 2027. Tributaries to Dilution and removal of High Consented discharges within study area. Tanner’s Brook waste products water body Biodiversity Very High WFD target of Good Ecological Potential by (including 2027. WFD target of Good Ecological Potential ordinary by 2027. Includes watercourses (ditches and watercourses ponds) which have been scoped in for further and a pond) great crested newt assessment. [GB1070420166 Recreation Low No known recreational use. 20] Value to economy Low Limited known usage of river. Conveyance of flow Low Flood Zone 1. Water supply/quality Very High Principal aquifer, Poor quantitative and chemical status, objectives for Good status by 2027. Soakaway discharges to the Chalk within SPZ 1 and 2. Soakaway Very High Existing drainage system includes multiple chambered soakaways. Vulnerability Very High High groundwater vulnerability. Economic Value Very High Principal aquifer supplying strategic public River Itchen water supply abstractions. Chalk Conveyance of flow Very High Principal bedrock aquifer and superficial (GB40701G505 secondary aquifers providing baseflow to the 000) River Itchen SSSI and SAC and Priority Habitats (lowland fens). Large areas susceptible to groundwater flooding at surface from clearwater source (bedrock). Biodiversity Very High Principal aquifer providing baseflow to River Itchen SAC and Priority Habitats (Lowland Fens).

Page 242 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Feature Attribute Importance Reason for assigned value Water supply / quality High Secondary A aquifers providing a locally important resource. Good WFD status. Soakaway High Existing drainage system uses a number of soakaway trenches along the motorway verge where it crosses the groundwater body. Vulnerability High (Low Areas of Medium and High groundwater where vulnerability where proposed Scheme is unproductive underlain by Secondary A aquifers. London Clay is present at Central Hants rockhead) Bracklesham Economic Value Medium Abstractions used for industrial and agricultural Group purposes. (GB40702B500 Conveyance of flow Medium or Some areas susceptible to groundwater 900) High flooding at surface relating to superficial (depending deposits within the River Itchen floodplain. on location) Aquifer(s) support baseflow to surface watercourses. Biodiversity High Springs rising from Bracklesham Group appear to support Otterbourne Stream, Monks Brook and tributaries in Home Wood, Northend Copse and Stoneham Golf Course SINCS. The aquifer is also likely to provide baseflow to these watercourses. Water supply / quality Very High Within SPZ1; Good WFD Status; may be in hydraulic continuity with underlying Chalk principal aquifer. Soakaway Very High Soakaways are present but status is not determined. One soakaway trench has ‘risk addressed’ status. Discharge into SPZ1. Vulnerability Very High High groundwater vulnerability Central Hants Economic Value Very High Within SPZ1 Lambeth Group Conveyance of flow Very High May provide baseflow to Otterbourne Stream (GB40702G503 (and River Itchen SSSI/SAC outside 500m 800) study area boundary). Susceptible to groundwater flooding at surface from clearwater and superficial sources (>=25% <50%risk) Biodiversity Very High May provide baseflow to Otterbourne Stream (and River Itchen SSSI/SAC outside 500m study area boundary).

Page 243 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

10.6 Assumptions and limitations 10.6.1 This EAR chapter has been prepared using publicly available information, such as information supplied by the local authorities, the Environment Agency, British Geological Society, Natural England and information from Highways England available on HADDMS. The assessment is based on desk-based study only, and no ground investigation, or groundwater or surface water level or quality monitoring has been carried out to inform this report. A site walkover has been carried out to ground- truth selected water features. This level of detail is considered appropriate at this stage of the design. 10.6.2 For the purposes of the assessment, it is assumed that all SINCs are included within the biodiversity attribute of the relevant groundwater and surface water bodies. It has been assumed for the purposes of this report that the available information on water quality is representative of the general conditions. It is not considered that the data limitations introduce any significant uncertainties with respect to surface water and flooding risks. 10.6.3 Although no recent groundwater level or groundwater quality data is available at present, conservative design measures have been proposed to ensure that no significant effects are likely because of the absence of information. A full quantitative assessment using HAWRAT73 was undertaken on outfalls identified as being High Priority, that were linked to road sections or slip roads that are predicted to have an AADT change greater than 20% or that discharge directly to the River Itchen SAC. 10.6.4 Similarly, although there are numerous existing soakaways between junction 9 and 14 of the proposed Scheme, DMRB Method C qualitative risk assessments have only been carried out for those soakaways receiving drainage from road sections or slip roads that are predicted to have an AADT change greater than 20% or that might have to be moved to allow for concrete central barrier construction. The soakaway(s) would be replaced like-for-like and immediately adjacent to the central barrier at their existing locations along the proposed Scheme. These locations are highlighted in Appendix B, Figure 10.10. 10.6.5 Assumptions have been made with respect to the drainage catchment areas and geometry for each assessed soakaway, based on the information available on HADDMS. All other information required to complete the assessment was obtained from publicly available sources: · BGS GeoRecords · BGS Online Geological Map of Great Britain · The Met Office 10.6.6 Treatment and containment facilities would be fully incorporated into the design to control any risk to the water environment, and all design measures would adhere to standard guidance. 10.6.7 No new bridge pilings would be required where the proposed Scheme crosses watercourses.

73 Highways England (2009a) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool. p.56 [online] Available at: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/section3/hd4509.pdf

Page 244 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

10.6.8 There would be almost no construction activities within the floodplain, temporary crossings of watercourses, watercourse modifications or watercourse diversions, and therefore there would be negligible impact relating to this. 10.6.9 The assessment of effects has been determined using the preliminary design. In the absence of a recent ground investigation, and in cases where detailed design information has not been available, the assessment of effects has been based on professional judgement with respect to the sensitivity of receptors, and the standard solutions detailed within the PSSR with additional design measures, where appropriate.

10.7 Design and mitigation measures

Proposed Scheme construction

Outline Environmental Management Plan 10.7.1 The construction works would be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures included within the OEMP. 10.7.2 The construction phase has the potential to adversely impact surface water and groundwater receptors through mobilisation of sediments and contaminants due to earthworks, construction dewatering, vehicular movements, plants and vehicle washing and alteration of ground levels. During construction, best practice for pollution prevention and water management would be implemented by the Delivery Partner as part of the overall Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Guidance on best practice in relation to pollution prevention and water management is set out in Construction Industry research and Information Association (CIRIA) Guidelines74,75,76, and the Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection77 and groundwater protection guides78, as required under the Water Framework Directive. 10.7.3 There would be inspections and audits along with general monitoring and reporting of effectiveness of control measures throughout the construction programme, as part of best practice construction measures. The mitigation strategies implemented would be reviewed regularly to best suit the practices currently being undertaken on site.

Watercourse permit requirements 10.7.4 There are no proposed works within 8m of a watercourse. Nevertheless, the potential remains for adverse impacts to occur due to construction activities close by, or on construction sites and compounds with drainage systems discharging to the sensitive watercourses or groundwater. The Environment Agency has noted that the River Itchen SAC/SSSI is subject to sediment / siltation pressures in the vicinity of the existing outfalls and that the Chalk aquifer is extremely vulnerable to pollution. Best

74 Soubry, M. (2001) Bridge Detailing Guide. CIRIA C543. 75 Murnane, E., Heap, A. and Swain, A. (2006) Control of water pollution from linear construction projects. Technical guidance. CIRIA C648. 76 Charles, P. and Edwards, P. (2015) Environmental good practice on site guide (Fourth Edition). CIRIA C741. 77 Environment Agency. (2017d). Protect groundwater and prevent groundwater pollution. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protect-groundwater-and-prevent-groundwater-pollution 78 Environment Agency. (2017e). Groundwater protection technical guidance. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/groundwater-protection-technical-guidance

Page 245 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

practice construction guidance would be applied and the need for monitoring would be agreed with the Environment Agency, where required. 10.7.5 Bespoke Flood Risk Activity permits, permits to discharge to surface water or groundwater from temporary works and abstraction licences for temporary dewatering would be obtained from the Environment Agency, where required. Above ground construction activities 10.7.6 No pollution pathways would be created between the construction sites and watercourses, as measures would be implemented to prevent surface water run-off containing suspended sediment reaching watercourses through overland flow during rainfall events. A construction compound would incorporate a closed drainage system with pollution control measures. Discharges to sewer or surface water, including those from construction dewatering, would only be made with the appropriate consents or permits in place. Any non-compliant discharges would be collected and disposed of off-site. 10.7.7 The potential for impacts to occur as a result of contamination of water by oil or other liquids and storage of materials would be minimised by the following measures: · Storage compounds for fuels, oils or other liquid chemicals would be located away from surface water drains. They would have an impermeable base and impermeable bunds with a capacity of 110% of the volume of stored substances, and would not drain directly into the surface water drainage system. Where practicable, drainage from storage compounds would be passed through oil interceptors prior to discharge. · Small plant such as pumps would be equipped with drip trays · Storage compounds of construction materials or temporary stockpiling of excavated soils, would be located away from surface watercourses and drains · Drums and barrels would be stored in a designated, bund-shielded, safe area within the site compound · All drums and barrels would be properly labelled and fitted with flow control taps 10.7.8 There are no proposed works within 8m of a watercourse. Nevertheless, the potential remains for adverse impacts to occur due to construction activities close by, or on construction sites and compounds with drainage systems discharging to watercourses. These would be minimised by the following measures: · The placing of any wet concrete in or close to any watercourse would be controlled in order to minimise the risk of leakage of wet cement into the watercourse. · The washing of any concrete mixing plant or ready-mix lorries would be carried out in a way that prevents cleaning effluent to flow into any watercourse or drain. · Haul roads on the site and the approaches to the watercourse would be cleaned regularly in order to prevent the build-up of mud. · Before any discharge of water were to be made from the site, adequate provisions for preventing pollution would be made, such as by

Page 246 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

incorporating silt settlement techniques. The techniques employed would be chosen as appropriate for each specific site. Techniques may include settlement lagoons, use of straw bales for silt trapping and use of flocculants. · Areas of bare soil would be kept to a minimum to reduce silty run-off. 10.7.9 The potential for impacts to occur as a result of disturbance of silt would be minimised by the following measures: · All pumped drainage from the construction works, including areas used for temporary storage of construction materials or excavated soils, would be passed through silt settlement treatment prior to discharge to surface watercourses or drains. · All roads and hardstanding would be kept clean and tidy in order to prevent the build-up of oil and dirt that may be washed into a watercourse or drain during heavy rainfall. · Where appropriate, watercourses would be shielded by bunds in order to prevent contamination from surface water run-off. · The use of water sprays for reducing dust or washing construction areas would be carefully regulated in order to avoid washing substantial quantities of silt (etc.) into surface water drains. Where large quantities of gravel, mud or other such material required clearing, the area would be swept clean prior to any subsequent hosing down. 10.7.10 The potential for impacts to occur as a result of contamination of water by wet cement or concrete would be minimised by the following measures: · The washing of any concrete mixing plant or ready-mix lorries would be carried out so as to prevent the resulting effluent from being allowed to flow into any watercourse or drain. 10.7.11 The potential for impacts to occur as a result of contamination from accidental spillages would be minimised by the following measures: · Emergency response procedures included in the OEMP to handle any leakages or spillages of potentially contaminating substances. · Spill kits would be located on sites near to watercourses and within the works compounds and staff would be trained in their use. 10.7.12 There are no construction activities planned within 8m of a designated main river or ordinary watercourse, including temporary crossings. However, there are 2 locations where works are within Flood Zone 3 (earthworks at approximate chainage 107200 and structures at approximate chainage 116100) and at these locations best practice measures would be implemented through the OEMP. Additionally, Bespoke Environmental Permit for Flood Risk Activities would be obtained for these 2 areas. 10.7.13 The management of flood risk to construction workers and construction plant when working within an area at risk from surface or groundwater flooding would be managed through raising awareness of the risks within the construction team. If a flooding event is considered likely to occur, construction workers would be made aware of this risk and any construction plant would be made safe. In addition, no

Page 247 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

construction plant would be stored within 10m of a watercourse when it is not required for use. 10.7.14 The management of flood risk to people and property elsewhere caused by the compaction of soils and introduction of impermeable surfaces that may increase the rate and volume of surface water run-off would be managed by the implementation of a construction-phase drainage system. The temporary drainage system would aim to attenuate and treat surface water run-off prior to discharge to prevent increased flood risk to people and property elsewhere, including loss of floodplain storage, and to manage pollution risks most commonly associated with increased sediment loading.

Below ground construction activities 10.7.15 Below ground construction activities have the potential to adversely impact direct groundwater receptors (the groundwater bodies) and indirect groundwater receptors dependent on groundwater supply in terms of groundwater levels and flow, and groundwater quality. For example, unless appropriately designed, structures impeding groundwater flow might locally affect baseflow to a watercourse such as the River Itchen. This might in turn affect local water quality in the hyporheic zone (region beneath and alongside a river or stream bed, where there is mixing of shallow groundwater and surface water) with a corresponding impact on the aquatic ecosystem. Alternatively, placement of the structure might affect groundwater quality through direct contact with construction materials, down drag of contaminants, generation of suspended solids or creation of pathways between aquifers, again potentially leading to a potential impact on the watercourse receiving baseflow. Similarly, groundwater quality impacts may adversely impact groundwater abstractions such as the strategic public water supply abstraction in proximity to the proposed Scheme for which SPZs have been assigned. 10.7.16 The design and construction of all below ground structures, including retaining walls, piles and cable ducts, and also the excavation and widening of existing embankments and cuttings, would aim to minimise the potential for alteration of the hydraulic properties of the surrounding ground, down-drag of contaminants to avoid cross- contamination between aquifer units, and generation of suspended solids: · Drilling action and vibration can generate suspended solids and increase the risk of groundwater turbidity at receptors. The potential impacts on the Chalk groundwater abstractions are of particular concern in this respect. This issue would be mitigated by the choice of piling method. For example, the use of continuous flight auger (CFA) techniques would significantly reduce the vibration generated by the piling works, and the use of permanent or temporary casing, possibly coupled with reverse circulation drilling would also reduce the migration of fines into the surrounding aquifer. · A piling risk assessment would be undertaken prior to commencement of the works and Environment Agency guidance on minimising pollution risk

Page 248 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

due to piling would be adhered to79,80,81. Where required, consultation with Southern Water would be undertaken to ensure the piling risk assessment and design would not adversely impact its strategic groundwater abstraction. · Construction materials would be chosen appropriately to minimise groundwater contamination via direct contact. · Groundwater abstraction required as part of construction dewatering would be carried out in accordance with Environment Agency requirements and with the necessary authorisations. Abstraction exceeding 50m3/d for dewatering purposes (excluding the contribution from direct rainfall to the excavation that would previously have infiltrated into the ground) would require a dewatering licence. The Environment Agency would need to be satisfied that the temporary works design mitigate potential adverse impacts on groundwater receptors before this is granted. · Groundwater would be pumped from excavations into lagoons/settlement tanks to enable sediment to drop out, and if necessary, sediment removal would be aided by the addition of flocculants, subject to the agreement of the Environment Agency. After sediment removal, water would be discharged to a watercourse subject to agreement with the Environment Agency and with the appropriate consents in place. Potential dewatering requirements would be identified during Stage 4/5 once further baseline information and design details are known. However, it is considered that the relevant permits would be granted subject to appropriate dewatering design and abstraction impact assessment. · Subsoil would be exposed for a minimum length of time after topsoil strip. Cut-off trenches, where necessary, would be excavated in order to prevent massive surface water run-off into watercourses. Cut-off trenches would discharge into sediment lagoons, with discharge to watercourses subject to the prior consent of the Environment Agency. · Topsoil / vegetation along watercourses would be retained in order to aid attenuation and sediment infiltration.

Proposed Scheme operation

Surface water flood risk 10.7.17 It is intended that the proposed Scheme would utilise the existing drainage network. Surface water run-off would be attenuated to ensure that there is no increase in surface water run-off rates in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF67. Due to the construction of new structures (a super span gantry, a retaining wall and concrete step barrier) within Flood Zone 3, a desk based Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been prepared to ensure there is not an increase in surface water run-off and/or

79 Environment Agency. (2001). Piling in layered ground: risks to groundwater and archaeology. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/320701/scho0906bllt-e-e.pdf

80 Environment Agency (n.d.) Piling into contaminated sites [online] Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140329082414/http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0202bisw-e-e.pdf 81 F J Westcott, C M B Lean & M L Cunningham (2001) Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention. NGWCLC Report NC/99/73 [online] Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140329082415/http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0501bitt-e-e.pdf

Page 249 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

reduction in floodplain storage resulting from the proposed Scheme. The need for further FRA will be determined as part of detailed design. In addition to this, a Bespoke Environmental Permit for Flood Risk Activities would be required for sections of the proposed Scheme that are within a Flood Zone 3; this was confirmed during preliminary stakeholder engagement and would be applied for and approved during detailed design stage. 10.7.18 Alteration of ground levels and an increase in new areas of hardstanding during construction can have an adverse effect by causing changes in flood flow pathway and overloading of surface water courses and have been considered in the FRA. Most of the proposed Scheme lies within Flood Zone 1, although there are sections of the M3 carriageway and side roads within Flood Zones 2 and 3 (Appendix B, Figure 10.1). The effect of an increase in impermeable area could result in an increase in peak flow rates and volumes which could, in turn, increase flood risk, particularly within areas of Flood Zones 2 and 3. Attenuation measures would be incorporated into the design to ensure that there is no increase in surface water run-off peak flow rate resulting from the proposed Scheme. 10.7.19 All new paved areas (central reserve hardstanding and EAs) would be drained independently of the existing drainage network and provided with localised pollution mitigation measures where required with the aim of reducing the amount of modifications required to the existing drainage features. The discharge from these newly paved areas would be attenuated where required before connection into the existing drainage system at the least number of locations. Guidance provided in Highways England’s Smart Motorways Interim Advice Note82 would be adopted when considering climate change within the drainage design. This is a 20% allowance for an increase in peak rainfall intensity.

Surface water quality 10.7.20 Pollution sources due to operation of the proposed Scheme include vehicle emissions (including atmospheric deposition), vehicle part wear and vehicle leakages, catalytic converters, road surface erosion, and seasonal and regular maintenance practices. Possible contaminants include: particulate solids; hydrocarbons (diesel, petroleum, lubricating oil leakages, and grease); heavy metals (especially copper and zinc but also cadmium, iron, lead and chromium in lesser amounts); oxides of nitrogen; sulphates; rubber; asbestos; tyre wear deposits including lead, zinc and hydrocarbons; and de-icer during cold weather. 10.7.21 The proposed increased areas of hardstanding, along with the potential associated increase in the volume of traffic may result in an increase in pollutant loads in highway run-off, resulting in long-term increase in diffuse pollution and subsequent deterioration in water quality of surface water. Any potential impact would be mitigated using Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) measures, as a preference if possible, or other solutions such as sedimentation separators to reduce the levels of pollutants and provide protection to receiving watercourses. 10.7.22 The water quality impacts of routine road drainage on surface water bodies have been assessed using the DMRB HAWRAT assessment Method A (assessment of pollution impacts from routine run-off to surface waters).

82 Highways England. (2015) Smart Motorways Interim Advice Note 161/15. [online] Available at: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/IAN161_15.pdf

Page 250 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

· Step 1 assesses the quality of direct highway run-off against toxicity thresholds, assuming no in-river dilution, treatment or attenuation · Step 2 assesses the diluting capacity of the watercourse for acute impacts of soluble pollutants, and the likelihood and extent of sediment deposition for chronic impacts of sediment-bound pollutants · Step 3 assesses the effectiveness of existing and proposed treatment systems for soluble pollutants and if the site is predicted to accumulate sediments, the percentage of settlement required to ensure that the extent of sediment coverage complies with the threshold deposition index value 10.7.23 The assessment considers the impact of dissolved copper and zinc, and sediment on the water quality of the receiving waters. These metals are used as indicators of the level of impact as they are generally the main metallic pollutants associated with road drainage and can be toxic to aquatic life. A HAWRAT assessment73 was undertaken on outfalls that were identified from HADDMS66 as being High Priority or discharging into the River Itchen. In addition to this, any outfalls linked to road sections or slip roads that had an AADT change greater than 20% were also assessed (assessed outfalls are shown on Appendix B, Figure 10.10). To establish these changes, AADT was compared between the Do Something (DS) + M27 data against the DS + M27 + M3 data for both the opening year (2012) and the design year (2036). 10.7.24 All 6 outfalls failed Stage 1 of the HAWRAT assessment and therefore a Stage 2 assessment was undertaken using Q95 and Base Flow Index data provided from LowFlows enterprise (the output from these assessments can be found in Appendix A, 10.3): · Outfalls SU4726_9458c - passed HAWRAT Stage 2 for soluble pollutants. However, as there is a SAC less than 1 kilometre downstream of the outfall, the assessment raises an alert regarding sediment bound pollutants, indicating the need for further consideration of this outfall. Note that the alert is only raised because of the proximity of the SAC, not because the outfall fails the HAWRAT assessment. This outfall only drains approximately half of the slip road, with the remaining half draining to soakaway. The outfall is believed to discharge into the Itchen Navigation where it is culverted under the M3 slip road. During water features surveys (20 February 2018 and 12 October 2018), the Itchen Navigation upstream and downstream of this culvert was dry, as was the case during an inspection undertaken in 2010 (as noted on HADDMS). In view of this, it is considered that there would be no risk of sediment build-up to the River Itchen SAC. · Outfall SU4419_0238d passed the Stage 2 HAWRAT assessment for soluble pollutants. However, as there is a structure less than 100m downstream of the outfall, the assessment raises an alert regarding sediment bound pollutants, indicating the need for further consideration of the proposed outfall. It should be noted that the alert is only raised because of the proximity of the structure, not because the outfall fails the HAWRAT assessment. Furthermore, the structure comprises a large bridge in line with the river bank and therefore it is considered that there would be no risk of sediment build-up.

Page 251 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

· Outfall SU4420_4915g failed the HAWRAT assessment due to increased copper levels. This watercourse is culverted after approximately 150m for over 1.6 kilometres and discharges to Monks Books, downstream of junction 13 (as confirmed by the Environment Agency, see Appendix A, 10.2). As this outfall is currently classified as High Priority outfall, due to the outfall failing the HAWRAT assessment in 2013 for both copper and zinc, it is identified as an existing issue. Due to this, it is outside of the scope of the proposed Scheme and it should be addressed by Highway England’s Maintenance Service Provider. · Outfall SU4521_0275i has been assessed using the Method C (soakaway assessment) due to the Q95 flow being less than 0.001 m3/s in accordance with guidance83. The Method C assessment indicates a medium impact, in line with the other soakaways assessed, although as the “soakaway” would discharge to low permeability strata, it is unlikely to operate in this way. The watercourse does not appear to drain to a major river and it is unclear where it discharges to after being culverted under a school playing field. The Lead Local Flood Authority and Environment Agency have agreed to review their records to identify the likely discharge point of this watercourse. 10.7.25 Following engagement with the Environment Agency, 3 outfalls, 2 which discharge directly to the River Itchen and Itchen Navigation, and 1 at the Monks Brook tributary, would be subject to additional design measures to prevent potential increases in sediment, such as a vortex separator. Additional design measures such as filters, would also be included in the design to mitigate the potential increase in copper discharging to Monks Brook tributary. Best design and site practice including monitoring would be used to ensure the specified design measures were sufficient. 10.7.26 Water quality impacts of routine road drainage on surface water bodies are assessed using the DMRB assessment method A (HAWRAT). The potential water quality impacts of accidental spillages on surface water bodies are assessed using the DMRB assessment method D – Assessment of Pollution Impacts from Spillages in Appendix B, Figure 10.10. This method defines the risk as the probability that there would be a spillage of pollutant, which would subsequently reach and impact the water body to such an extent that either a Category 1 or 2 incident (a serious pollution incident) occurs. All 6 outfalls passed the DMRB Method D assessment. The output from these assessments can be found in Appendix A, 10.3.

Surface water flow 10.7.27 The current design shows a total length of below ground structures to be 2,228m. Potential impacts to groundwater flow would be greatest where the M3 motorway is close to the River Itchen. Of the 30 gantries proposed within the chalk aquifer, only 7 are within 500m of the River Itchen. These have a total length of 20.7m. There are 9 retaining structures within this radius, totally 862m in length. As the River Itchen would be chalk fed from both banks, the proposed structures would only potentially obstruct flow from one direction. In addition, groundwater would find its way into the River Itchen SAC around these obstructions.

83 Highways England (2009) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool. p.71 [online] Available at: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/section3/hd4509.pdf

Page 252 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

Groundwater 10.7.28 There is a risk of pollution to groundwater from accidental spillages or pollution incidents and routine run-off due to operation of the proposed Scheme via soakaway discharges to the Chalk. Groundwater pollution may affect down-gradient receptors such as the River Itchen SAC / SSSI and groundwater abstractions in terms of both dissolved pollutants and suspended solids / turbidity. As discussed previously, in accordance with DMRB guidance, Method C and Method D risk assessments have only been undertaken on soakaways receiving drainage from sections of road where the traffic is predicted to increase by more than 20% or soakaways that may need to be moved slightly to accommodate structures such as the concrete central barrier. The Method C assessments indicate a Medium risk for all assessed soakaways primarily because of the sensitivity of the underlying Chalk aquifer rather than the increase in traffic. The Method D results passed the assessment. The output from these assessments can be found in Appendix A, 10.3. 10.7.29 Soakaways assessed as presenting a medium risk to groundwater would be subject to design measures, including pollution control devices and treatment. A review of potential constraints to the installation of additional treatment, for example land availability, would be undertaken during the detailed design stage. 10.7.30 For soakaways presenting a medium risk to groundwater where it is not possible to include treatment measures, the Environment Agency has recommended undertaking baseline groundwater quality sampling to understand the pollution risk presented by the existing soakaways along the proposed Scheme and therefore the likelihood of assessed soakaways presenting a pollution risk without treatment. If required, this would be included in the CEMP. 10.7.31 Structures extending below the water table such as retaining walls and piles or ground improvement works have the potential to impede groundwater flow and possibly locally raise groundwater levels up-gradient and lower groundwater levels down- gradient of the structure. 10.7.32 The PSSR considers potential piling solutions for retaining walls within the Chalk. For areas where the Chalk is overlain by Alluvium, such as in the River Itchen floodplain and along Otterbourne Stream, cuttings and embankments with a retained height of greater than 1.5m are likely to require bored piles that are likely to extend below the water table, particularly where the unsaturated zone is shallow. New subsurface structures placed at the Otterbourne Stream crossing would also lie within an SPZ1. Subsurface structures within the Alluvium overlying the London Clay and Wittering Formation would be likely to require a bored pile wall solution for retained heights greater than 3m, steel sheet piled wall solutions for retained heights of between 1.5m and 3m, concrete wall and kingpost wall solutions for retained heights of between 0.5m and 1.5m, and regrade, slab on edge and plastic sheet piles for retained heights of less than 0.5m. 10.7.33 In most cases, structures potentially extending below the water table are small and would be unlikely to noticeably impede groundwater flow. For larger structures such as sheet piled retaining walls behind emergency areas, potential dewatering or groundwater mounding impacts would be minimised by careful design informed by GI and groundwater monitoring where necessary. For example, it may be possible to: · Stop every other pile short to create flow pathways

Page 253 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9 to 14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment report

· Make the full-length piles even wider spaced and fix some waler beams to the piles to spread the load between them · Anchor the tops of the piles to reduce embedment (although this may involve anchors running beneath the carriageway with the associated risk of service strikes etc.) · Locally use a contiguous bored pile wall solution 10.7.34 Some existing culverts run beneath embankments, particularly in proximity to the River Itchen and there may be some areas where the Alluvium was previously excavated and replaced beneath the embankment with granular fill, possibly as a settlement control method or to prevent early deep-seated failure. However, a granular layer would also act as a drainage layer, preventing the embankment structure from acting as a dam. Where embankments requiring toe stabilisation overlie areas at risk of groundwater flooding (and therefore with groundwater levels at or close to surface), piling solutions may not be appropriate, other solutions such as reinforced soil over drainage layers could be considered as an alternative, although straps or grids would have to extend back beneath at least the hard shoulder. 10.7.35 The concrete central barrier would be on very shallow foundations, typically less than 1m deep and less than the carriageway sub-base. Therefore, the foundations are unlikely to impede groundwater flow, even if groundwater levels are close to surface. Note that for all below ground structures extending below the water table, potential impacts on groundwater flow (without appropriate design measures) would be greater if the structure is perpendicular to the groundwater flow direction than if it is parallel to the direction of flow. Local groundwater flow directions close to sensitive receptors may need to be confirmed through groundwater monitoring. In general, Appendix B, Figure 10.5 shows that regional groundwater flow within the Chalk is broadly southwards but also towards the River Itchen and its tributaries. 10.7.36 Potential impacts on groundwater levels and flow due to below-ground structures, including piles, would be re-evaluated once further details of the proposed design and depth of each structure have been reviewed. 10.7.37 There would be a small localised reduction in recharge to the aquifers due to a relatively small increase in the area of impermeable surfacing along the proposed Scheme. However, all run-off would be collected and returned to the catchment, either through discharge to watercourse or discharge to soakaway, so this is unlikely to cause significant effects.

10.8 Potential effects during construction and operation 10.8.1 Potential effects on surface water and groundwater receptors during construction are summarised in Table 10-7, together with the implementation of design measures. The measures described in Table 10-7 are discussed in detail in Section 10.7 above. 10.8.2 Potential effects on surface water and groundwater receptors during operation are summarised in Table 10-8, together with the implementation of design measures. The measures described in Table 10-8 are discussed in detail in Section 10.7 above.

Page 254 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 10.7 Construction Activities Potentially Affecting Groundwater and Surface Water Receptors for the Proposed Scheme Construction Potential Effects on Direct and Features Relevant Importance Mitigation/design Magnitud Significance Activity Indirect Receptors Attributes (Value) measures e of of Effect after Impact Mitigation Direct Receptors Water Supply / Design refinement Very High Negligible Neutral · Reduction of groundwater Quality to establish levels within zone of Economic Value Very High structure type, Negligible Neutral River Itchen Chalk influence, changes in Biodiversity Very High location and Negligible Neutral groundwater flow paths. Conveyance of flow Very High installation Negligible Neutral methodology to be · Particularly of concern where Vulnerability Very High Negligible Neutral groundwater levels are close undertaken. River Itchen Water Supply to ground level, for example High Negligible Neutral where the proposed Scheme SSSI/SAC (Indirect /Quality crosses the River Itchen Receptor) Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral Water Supply / Dewatering for floodplain, and within the Very High Negligible Neutral Quality foundation Source Protection Zones (SPZ). Central Hants Economic Value Very High Negligible Neutral construction Lambeth Group and access Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral Indirect Receptors (within SPZ1/1a) shafts for Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral · Depletion of flow to existing directional Vulnerability Very High Negligible Neutral watercourses. Water Supply / drilling High Negligible Neutral · Loss of water supply to River Quality beneath the Itchen SSSI / SAC, Monks Economic Value Medium Negligible Neutral existing Brook & tributaries, and carriageway. SINCs. Biodiversity High Negligible Neutral · Loss of supply to groundwater Conveyance of flow High Negligible Neutral abstractions. Central Hants · Reduction in water level in Bracklesham lowland fen and possibly also Group changes in water quality, leading to potential temporary Vulnerability High Negligible Neutral and/or permanent habitat loss. · Settlement effects (only where affected water levels

Page 255 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

are within shallow cohesive deposits). Water Supply / Design refinement Very High Negligible Neutral Quality and OEMP Direct Receptors Economic Value Very High Negligible Neutral · Changes in groundwater levels/heads, including River Itchen Chalk Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral groundwater mounding, which may lead to an increased risk Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral of groundwater flooding. Vulnerability Very High Negligible Neutral · Particularly of concern where Water Supply Earthworks groundwater levels are close High Negligible Neutral within the to ground level or artesian, for River Itchen /Quality saturated example where the proposed SSSI/SAC (Indirect aquifer(s), Scheme crosses the River Receptor) Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral including Itchen floodplain and other Water Supply / excavation, watercourses receiving Very High Negligible Neutral ground baseflow. Quality improvement / Indirect Receptors Central Hants Economic Value Very High Negligible Neutral piling · Interruption of flow, leading to Lambeth Group Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral associated reduction or loss of water (within SPZ1/1a) with supply to abstractions and Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral embankments, watercourses, and potential Vulnerability cuttings and loss of habitat (which may be Very High Negligible Neutral gantries / permanent). Water Supply / High Negligible Neutral cantilevers. · Settlement and buoyancy Quality effects on existing structures (only where affected water Central Hants Economic Value Medium Negligible Neutral levels are within shallow Bracklesham cohesive deposits). Group Biodiversity High Negligible Neutral Conveyance of flow High Negligible Neutral

Vulnerability High Negligible Neutral Water Supply / Direct Receptors River Itchen Chalk Very High Negligible Neutral Quality

Page 256 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· Contamination of groundwater Economic Value Very High Negligible Neutral in direct contact with construction materials, Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral creation of new contamination Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral pathways and an increase in Vulnerability Very High Negligible Neutral suspended solids Water Supply / High Negligible Neutral River Itchen Quality Indirect Receptors SSSI/SAC · Potential pollution of Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral resource, leading to pollution Water Supply / Very High Negligible Neutral of indirect groundwater Quality receptors, in particular the Economic Value Very High Negligible Neutral River Itchen SSSI / SAC and Central Hants groundwater-dependent Lambeth Group Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral habitats within SINCS Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral including lowland fen, and the public water supply Vulnerability Very High Negligible Neutral abstraction for which the SPZ Water Supply / High Negligible Neutral has been assigned. Quality Central Hants Economic Value Medium Negligible Neutral Bracklesham Group Biodiversity High Negligible Neutral Conveyance of flow High Negligible Neutral Vulnerability High Negligible Neutral Direct Receptors River Itchen water Conveyance of flow Medium Negligible Neutral · Concrete step barrier in body and its Construction tributaries, particular could change flow Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral of retaining pathways in Flood Zone 3 (including unnamed Water supply/ High walls, concrete where carriageway flooding ordinary quality step barrier has previously been observed watercourses and Negligible Neutral and gantries at Monks Brook tributary. hydrologically acting as a · Retaining walls could lead to linked ponds) barrier to flow. changes in flow paths. Monks Brook and Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral its tributaries Indirect Receptors (including ordinary Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral

Page 257 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· Reduction or loss of water to watercourses and Water supply / High the downstream water body hydrologically quality Negligible Neutral tributary watercourses and linked ponds) other water users, leading to Tributaries to Conveyance of flow Low Negligible Neutral a permanent reduction in Tanner’s Brook Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral water level, changes in water (including ordinary Water supply / High quality and potential loss of watercourses) quality Negligible Neutral habitat. River Itchen water Design refinement body and its Conveyance of flow Medium and OEMP Negligible Neutral tributaries, Water (including unnamed High Negligible Neutral supply/quality Direct Receptors ordinary · Changes in surface water watercourses and flood flow pathways resulting hydrologically Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral Alteration of in overloading of drainage linked ponds) systems and/or surface ground Monks Brook and Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral watercourses. elevations due its tributaries to re-profiling (including ordinary Water Indirect Receptors High Negligible Neutral watercourses and supply/quality · Effects on flood-sensitive hydrologically receptors proximal to linked ponds) Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral overloaded systems. Tributaries to Conveyance of flow Low Negligible Neutral Tanner’s Brook (including ordinary Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral watercourses) River Itchen water Run-off attenuated Negligible Neutral Drainage of Conveyance of flow Medium body and its to existing or less new areas of Direct Receptors tributaries, run-off rates and hardstanding · Increase in the rate and Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral (including unnamed OEMP. (closed volume of surface water run- ordinary Sedimentation/cop drainage off to surface watercourses. watercourses and Water supply / per filters to be system that High Negligible Neutral hydrologically quality incorporated into Indirect Receptors discharges to linked ponds) the design as outfall). Conveyance of flow Very High identified within the Negligible Neutral

Page 258 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· Effects on properties and Monks Brook and HAWRAT Biodiversity High Negligible Neutral aquatic environments its tributaries assessment. proximal to flood zones. (including ordinary watercourses and Water supply / Very High Negligible Neutral hydrologically quality linked ponds) Tributaries to Conveyance of flow Low Negligible Neutral Tanner’s Brook Biodiversity High Negligible Neutral (including ordinary Water supply / Very High Negligible Neutral watercourses) quality Direct Receptors Water supply / Very High Negligible Neutral · Infiltration of contaminated River Itchen Chalk quality Drainage of run-off to groundwater via Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral new areas of soakaway. Central Hants Water supply / Very High Negligible Neutral hardstanding Lambeth Group quality (drainage Indirect Receptors (within SPZ1) Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral system that · Impacts on the quality of Water supply / High Negligible Neutral discharges to sensitive environments, in Central Hants quality soakaway). particular the River Itchen Bracklesham SAC / SSSI, and abstractions Group Biodiversity High Negligible Neutral including the SPZs. River Itchen water Recreation High Negligible Neutral Direct Receptors body and its Water supply / Run-off of High Negligible Neutral surface water · Pollution of surface tributaries, quality that is polluted watercourse due to placement (including unnamed Dilution and due to of construction materials, ordinary removal of waste High Negligible Neutral watercourses and accidental washing of plant, cleaning products areas of hardstanding etc. hydrologically leakage or Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral (suspended solids and linked ponds) spillage, or dissolved contaminants). Water supply / Monks Brook and High Negligible Neutral has elevated quality its tributaries suspended Indirect Receptors Dilution and (including ordinary sediment · Pollution of environmental removal of waste High Negligible Neutral watercourses and concentrations receptors and potential loss of products hydrologically . aquatic habitat. Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral linked ponds) Recreation Low Negligible Neutral

Page 259 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Pollution of resource, leading Water supply / · High Negligible Neutral to loss of surface water quality abstraction. Tributaries to Dilution and · Pollution of underlying aquifer Tanner’s Brook removal of waste High Negligible Neutral due to infiltration through bed (including ordinary products of watercourse. watercourses) Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral · Pollution of potential great Recreation Low Negligible Neutral crested newt habitat. Direct Receptors Water supply / Very High Negligible Neutral · Groundwater pollution River Itchen Chalk quality through infiltration of run-off, Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral given the lack of overlying low Water supply / Very High Negligible Neutral permeability superficial Central Hants quality deposits over much of the Lambeth Group area. Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral Water supply / High Negligible Neutral Indirect Receptors quality · Pollution of environmental receptors and potential loss of aquatic habitat. This is of particular concern within the Central Hants vicinity of the River Itchen Bracklesham SAC / SSSI. Group Biodiversity High Negligible Neutral · Pollution of resource, leading to loss of abstraction. This is of particular concern within the SPZs. River Itchen water Water supply / Design refinement High Negligible Neutral Direct Receptors body and its quality and OEMP · Pollution of surface tributaries, Dilution and Works close to watercourse due to placement (including unnamed removal of waste High Negligible Neutral watercourses. of construction materials, ordinary products washing of plant, cleaning watercourses and Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral areas of hardstanding etc. hydrologically linked ponds) Recreation Medium Negligible Neutral

Page 260 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

(suspended solids and Water supply / Monks Brook and High Negligible Neutral dissolved contaminants). quality its tributaries Dilution and (including ordinary Indirect Receptors removal of waste High Negligible Neutral watercourses and · Pollution of environmental products hydrologically receptors and potential loss of Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral linked ponds) aquatic habitat. Recreation Low Negligible Neutral · Pollution of resource, leading Water supply / High Negligible Neutral to loss of surface water quality abstraction. Tributaries to Dilution and · Pollution of underlying aquifer Tanner’s Brook removal of waste High Negligible Neutral due to infiltration through bed (including ordinary products of watercourse. watercourses) Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral · Pollution of potential great Recreation Low Negligible Neutral crested newt habitat. Table 10.8 Potential Effects on Groundwater and Surface Water Receptors during Operation of the proposed Scheme Operational Potential Effect on Direct Features Relevant Value Mitigation/design Magnitude of Significance Aspect Receptors Attributes measures Impact of Effect after Mitigation Water Supply / Direct Receptors Very High Negligible Neutral · Retaining walls in particular Quality Economic Value Very High Negligible Neutral Retaining wall could intercept groundwater River Itchen Chalk embedment, where the proposed Scheme Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral and other crosses the River Itchen, or Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral earthworks, within the Source Protection Vulnerability Very High Negligible Neutral Proposed Scheme and piling Zone, leading to groundwater Water Supply / River Itchen High design, and licence Negligible Neutral associated mounding, localised reduction Quality SSSI/SAC requirements as with gantries of groundwater levels, or Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral needed. and changes in flow paths within Water Supply / Very High Negligible Neutral cantilevers the aquifer(s). Quality acting as a · Groundwater mounding may Central Hants Economic Value Very High Negligible Neutral barrier to flow locally increase risk of Lambeth Group Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral groundwater flooding. Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral Vulnerability Very high Negligible Neutral

Page 261 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Operational Potential Effect on Direct Features Relevant Value Mitigation/design Magnitude of Significance Aspect Receptors Attributes measures Impact of Effect after Mitigation Indirect Water Supply / High Negligible Neutral · Loss of water supply to SSSI Quality and Lowland Fen, leading to a Economic Value High Negligible Neutral permanent reduction in water Biodiversity High Negligible Neutral level, changes in water quality Conveyance of flow High Negligible Neutral and potential loss of habitat; · Localised settlement (only Central Hants where affected water levels Bracklesham Group are within shallow cohesive deposits). Vulnerability High Negligible Neutral · A reduction of groundwater flow to protected public and private water supply abstractions. River Itchen water Direct Receptors body and its Conveyance of flow Medium Negligible Neutral · Concrete step barrier in tributaries, particular could change flow (including unnamed Proposed Scheme pathways in Flood Zone 3 ordinary design Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral where flooding has previously watercourses and been observed at Monks hydrologically Retaining wall, Brook tributary. linked ponds) Recreation High Negligible Neutral concrete step · Retaining walls could lead to barrier and Monks Brook and Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral changes in flow paths. gantries acting its tributaries Proposed Scheme as a barrier to (including ordinary Biodiversity Very High design and the use of Negligible Neutral Indirect flow. watercourses and using existing Highways · Reduction or loss of water to hydrologically Recreation Low processes. Negligible Neutral the downstream water body linked ponds) leading to a permanent Conveyance of flow Low Negligible Neutral reduction in water level, Tributaries to changes in water quality and Tanner’s Brook Proposed Scheme potential loss of habitat. (including ordinary Biodiversity Very High Design. Negligible Neutral watercourses)

Page 262 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Operational Potential Effect on Direct Features Relevant Value Mitigation/design Magnitude of Significance Aspect Receptors Attributes measures Impact of Effect after Mitigation Direct Groundwater Receptors Soakaway Very High Risk assessment of · Discharge of routine run-off to Water supply / selected drainage Very High groundwater via soakaway. River Itchen Chalk quality assets in accordance Negligible Neutral · Method C assessments for re- with licence sited soakaways or Biodiversity Very High requirements soakaways receiving drainage Soakaway Very High from areas with a >20% Water supply / increase in AADT score Very High No soakaways present Central Hants quality within the Lambeth potential medium risk to Negligible Neutral groundwater. Lambeth Group Group require · Method D results, assessing Biodiversity Very High reassessment. impacts in the event of spills, indicate areas with >20% High AADT increase would have <0.5% annual risk of pollution. Soakaway Road drainage Indirect Groundwater Receptors · Contaminated groundwater Risk assessment of reaching surface Water supply / High selected drainage watercourses, SSSI / SAC Central Hants quality assets in accordance Negligible Neutral and groundwater-dependent Bracklesham Group habitat within the SINCS, with licence including lowland fen, requirements impacting on quality. · Contaminated groundwater Biodiversity High reaching groundwater abstractions, impacting on water supply quality. River Itchen water Water supply / Run-off attenuated to Direct Surface Water Receptors High Negligible Neutral body and its quality existing or less run-off · Pollution incident (accidental tributaries, Biodiversity Very High rates and pollution Negligible Neutral spill, traffic accident, use of (including unnamed Recreation High prevention measures in Negligible Neutral

Page 263 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Operational Potential Effect on Direct Features Relevant Value Mitigation/design Magnitude of Significance Aspect Receptors Attributes measures Impact of Effect after Mitigation firefighting foams etc.) results ordinary the drainage design. in contaminated drainage. watercourses and Sedimentation/copper Dilution and hydrologically filters to be incorporated · Method A results indicate that removal of waste High Negligible Neutral High Priority outfalls, or linked ponds) into the design as products outfalls draining areas with identified within the >20% AADT or draining to HAWRAT assessment. designated sites passed the Water supply / Monks Brook and High Run-off attenuated to Negligible Neutral assessment with opportunities quality its tributaries existing or less run-off to enhance water quality with Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral (including ordinary rates and pollution additional sediment Recreation Low Negligible Neutral watercourses and prevention measures attenuation measures. hydrologically Dilution and within the drainage · Method D results indicate linked ponds) removal of waste High design. Negligible Neutral drainage areas with >20% products AADT would have <0.5% Water supply / annual risk of pollution. High Negligible Neutral quality

Indirect Surface Water Receptors Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral · Pollution of environmental Tributaries to No outfalls within this receptors and potential loss of Tanner’s Brook Recreation Low catchment required Negligible Neutral aquatic habitat. (including ordinary assessment · Pollution of resource, leading watercourses) to loss of surface water Dilution and abstraction. removal of waste High Negligible Neutral · Pollution of potential great products crested newt habitat. River Itchen water Conveyance of flow Medium Negligible Neutral Direct Receptors body and its Water supply / Unanticipated · Excessive stream flow and High Negligible Neutral tributaries, quality Run-off attenuated to storm event / increase in surface water (including unnamed Dilution and existing or less run-off excessive leading to excess flow, and ordinary removal of waste High rates within the drainage Negligible Neutral rainfall the drainage system / culverts watercourses and products design. being overwhelmed. hydrologically linked ponds) Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral

Page 264 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Operational Potential Effect on Direct Features Relevant Value Mitigation/design Magnitude of Significance Aspect Receptors Attributes measures Impact of Effect after Mitigation Indirect Receptors Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral Monks Brook and · Uncontrolled discharge of Water supply / its tributaries High Run-off attenuated to Negligible Neutral drainage water leading to quality (including ordinary existing or less run-off flooding, and flow and water Dilution and watercourses and rates within the drainage quality effects on removal of waste High Negligible Neutral hydrologically design. environmental receptors, products linked ponds) properties and abstractions. Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral Conveyance of flow Low Negligible Neutral Water supply / Tributaries to High Run-off attenuated to Negligible Neutral quality Tanner’s Brook existing or less run-off Dilution and (including ordinary rates within the drainage removal of waste High Negligible Neutral watercourses) design. products Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral Conveyance of flow Medium Negligible Neutral River Itchen water Water supply / Proposed Scheme body and its High Negligible Neutral Direct Receptors quality design, run-off tributaries, · Changes in surface water attenuated to existing or (including unnamed flood flow pathways resulting Biodiversity Very High less run-off rates and Negligible Neutral ordinary in overloading of drainage pollution measures watercourses and systems and/or surface within the drainage hydrologically watercourses. Recreation High design Negligible Neutral Alteration of linked ponds) ground Indirect Receptors Conveyance of flow Very High Negligible Neutral elevations. · Effects on flood-sensitive Water supply / Proposed Scheme Monks Brook and High Negligible Neutral receptors proximal to quality design, run-off its tributaries overloaded systems attenuated to existing or (including ordinary · Effects on properties and Biodiversity Very High less run-off rates and Negligible Neutral watercourses and aquatic environments pollution measures hydrologically proximal to flood zones. within the drainage linked ponds) Recreation Low design Negligible Neutral

Page 265 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Operational Potential Effect on Direct Features Relevant Value Mitigation/design Magnitude of Significance Aspect Receptors Attributes measures Impact of Effect after Mitigation Tributaries to Scheme design, run-off Tanner’s Brook Conveyance of flow Low attenuated to existing or Negligible Neutral (including ordinary less run-off rates. watercourses) Direct Receptors River Itchen water Water supply / High Negligible Neutral · Pollution of surface body and its quality watercourses. tributaries, Dilution and Pollution control (including unnamed removal of waste High Negligible Neutral · Method D results, assessing measures within ordinary products impacts in the event of spills, drainage design. Surface water indicate areas with >20% watercourses and Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral run-off that is AADT increase would have hydrologically Recreation High Negligible Neutral polluted due to <0.5% annual risk of pollution. linked ponds) Water supply / accidental Monks Brook and High Negligible Neutral Indirect Receptors quality leakage or its tributaries spillage, or Dilution and Pollution control · Pollution of environmental (including ordinary has elevated receptors and potential loss of removal of waste High measures within Negligible Neutral watercourses and suspended aquatic habitat. products drainage design. hydrologically Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral sediment · Pollution of resource, leading linked ponds) concentrations to loss of surface water Recreation Low Negligible Neutral . abstraction. Water supply / High Negligible Neutral · Pollution of underlying aquifer Tributaries to quality No outfalls within this due to infiltration through bed Tanner’s Brook Dilution and catchment required of watercourse. (including ordinary removal of waste High Negligible Neutral assessment · Pollution of potential great watercourses) products crested newt habitat. Biodiversity Very High Negligible Neutral Run-off from River Itchen water Conveyance of flow Medium Negligible Neutral additional area Direct Receptors body and its Water supply / Design. Run-off High Negligible Neutral of road surface · Increase in the rate and tributaries, quality attenuated to existing or (closed volume of surface water run- (including unnamed less run-off rates and drainage off to surface watercourses. ordinary pollution measures system that watercourses and Biodiversity Very High within the drainage Negligible Neutral discharges to Indirect Receptors hydrologically design. outfall). linked ponds)

Page 266 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Operational Potential Effect on Direct Features Relevant Value Mitigation/design Magnitude of Significance Aspect Receptors Attributes measures Impact of Effect after Mitigation · Effects on properties and Monks Brook and Conveyance of flow Very High Design. Run-off Negligible Neutral aquatic environments its tributaries Water supply / attenuated to existing or High Negligible Neutral proximal to flood zones. (including ordinary quality less run-off rates and watercourses and pollution measures hydrologically Biodiversity Very High within the drainage Negligible Neutral linked ponds) design. Conveyance of flow Low Design. Run-off Negligible Neutral Tributaries to attenuated to existing or Tanner’s Brook less run-off rates. No Water supply/ (including ordinary High outfalls within this Negligible Neutral quality watercourses) catchment required assessment.

Page 267 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

10.9 Residual effects 10.9.1 With the appropriate design and mitigation measures, the proposed Scheme is not expected to give rise to significant residual effects during either the construction or operational phases.

10.10 Summary 10.10.1 The proposed Scheme has been subject to Simple level assessment, which identifies surface water and groundwater receptors, potential impacts and measures to avoid these. The assessment includes an appraisal of residual effects. 10.10.2 With the mitigation and design measures, the proposed Scheme is not expected to give rise to significant residual effects during either the construction or operational phases as a result of the current design proposals at preliminary design. The proposed Scheme would likely comply with local, regional and national policies. 10.10.3 The outcome of this assessment is based on the mitigation and design measures described in this chapter and would be secured through the implementation of the OEMP.

Page 268 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

11. Assessment of combined and cumulative effects

Key features for this topic: · No significant adverse residual combined effects are expected on any of the individual or group of sensitive receptors identified in the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) assessment during construction and operation for the proposed Scheme. The assessment has also included the construction compound identified in section in Section 2.16.

· No significant adverse residual cumulative effects are expected as a result of the proposed Scheme and the identified committed developments, including the M27 Smart Motorway Programme junction 4 to 11, assessment during construction and operation. 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 This chapter sets out the findings of the combined and cumulative assessment for both the construction and operation of the proposed Scheme.There is no formal definition within the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive or EIA Regulations in respect to the term “cumulative”. However, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 2 Part 5 identifies 2 types of cumulative impacts: · The combined action of different environmental topic-specific impacts upon a single resource / receptor, which are termed “in combination” effects · The combined action of a number of different projects, cumulatively with the project being assessed, on a single resource / receptor, which are termed “cumulative” effects. This can include multiple impacts of the same or similar type from a number of projects upon the same receptor or resource

11.2 Study Area 11.2.1 The study area for the assessment of combined effects, for both construction and operation, would typically be defined by the study areas identified within the relevant environment topic chapters contained within the EAR for the proposed Scheme. 11.2.2 However, DMRB Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5, states that the study area for the assessment of cumulative effects should be defined on a case-by-case basis reflecting the proposed scheme in question and the area over which significant effects can be reasonably considered to have the potential to occur from both the scheme and in combination with other developments. On this basis, given the scope and scale of the proposed works, the study area for the assessment of cumulative effects of the proposed Scheme would be 300m as set out in the Scoping Report (Highways England, July 2017). The study area includes the proposed construction compound area identified within Section 2.16. In line with the scope and the scale of the works, only specific environmental receptors and resources have been scoped into the cumulative assessment. These receptors and resources are shown in Table 11-4.

Page 269 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

11.3 Legislation and policy context 11.3.1 Currently there is no legislative or policy context for combined and cumulative effects for inclusion in non-statutory environmental assessments. However, the requirement for combined and cumulative effects assessment is set out in Article 4 (3) and Article 5 (1) of the EIA Directive for inclusion within a statutory EIA and this approach has been followed within this assessment by providing the following information:

‘The description of the likely significant effects on the factors specified in Article 3(1) should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-term, medium-term and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project.’

11.4 Methodology 11.4.1 The methodology for assessing combined and cumulative effects has followed guidance from DMRB Volume II, Section 2, Part 584, ‘Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects’.

Combined effects

11.4.2 This chapter describes the requirement and guidance for completing the combined and cumulative effects assessment, the engagement that has been undertaken, and the approach adopted to undertaking the assessment. This chapter draws together the findings from the respective topic-specific technical chapters of this EAR (Chapters 5-10); defines inter-relationships between these assessments (focusing on a range of specific receptors that have been defined in the M3 junction 9 to 14 Environmental Scoping Report) and any other developments in the surrounding area; and establishes whether there are any other residual effects on the identified sensitive receptors which may require additional mitigation not previously identified. 11.4.3 Cumulative effects can be additive or synergistic in nature. Additive effects occur when a receptor experiences 2 effects or more of the same type which add up to a larger and potentially more significant effect. Synergistic effects occur when a receptor experiences 2 or more effects of different types, where the combined effect is greater than the simple sum of its parts. 11.4.4 The assessment methodology for combined effects involves the identification of interactions associated with the proposed Scheme upon separate environmental receptors, to better understand the overall environmental effect of the proposed Scheme. The receptors considered in this assessment have been individually assessed in Sections 5-10. · Cultural heritage · Landscape and visual · Biodiversity · Water environment

84 Highways England (2008) DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 Part 5 HA 205/08 Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects.

Page 270 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

· Human health and communities 11.4.5 Air quality, Biodiversity and Noise as receptors are covered within Human health and communities. Within these receptor groups, individual receptors or groups of receptors that are adversely affected by the proposed Scheme have been considered. The significance of construction and operational phase effects are brought forward from the preceding chapters of this EAR. The assessment considers adverse residual effects, after mitigation has been taken into account. Where effects are found to be non significant, they are not included in this assessment. The significance of combined effects upon each environmental receptor group has then been made based upon the balance of scores and using professional judgement. 11.4.6 For the purposes of this assessment, combined effects of moderate adverse or beneficial and above are considered significant.

Cumulative effects

11.4.7 The assessment methodology for cumulative effects is based on guidance from DMRB Volume II, Section 2, Part 5 and using professional judgement. It involves the identification of incremental changes likely to be caused by other potential major future developments (identified through the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 Screening Criteria) together with the proposed Scheme. 11.4.8 For the purposes of this assessment, the following criteria, based on the type and scale of potential effects generated by a proposed development, were used to define a ‘major development’. This criterion is based on the revised Screening Criteria which was changed as part of the amendments to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. A scheme is defined as a ‘major development’ if: · The development includes more than 1ha of development which is not dwelling house development · The development includes more than 150 dwelling houses · The area of the development exceeds 5ha 11.4.9 It is important to note that proposed developments that are close to the threshold limits but have characteristics likely to give rise to a significant effect, or for which could give rise to a cumulative effect by virtue of proximity to the proposed Scheme, have also been considered in this assessment. 11.4.10 The identification of which potential major developments should then be included within the cumulative effects assessment was based upon the scoping criteria shown in Table 11.1. Developments with a certainty outcome of Near Certain and More Than Likely have been taken forward as part of this assessment. Developments with an outcome of Reasonably Foreseeable have been used in the optimistic growth scenario of the traffic model (refer to the Appraisal Specification Report [MP0155- HEX-EGN-ZZ-PS-KK-0003] report for more detail on the traffic model). Table 11.1 Certainty of outcome and development status

Page 271 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Certainty of Outcome Development Status Near Certain: The outcome would happen or · Intent announced by proponent to regulatory agencies there is a high probability of it occurring. · Approved development proposals · Projects under construction More Than Likely: The outcome is likely to Development application within the consent process and in happen but some uncertainty. accordance with development plan. Reasonably Foreseeable: The outcome may Identified within a development plan and, although not happen but significant uncertainty. directly associated with the project, may occur if the project is implemented. Hypothetical: There is considerable · Conjecture based upon currently available information uncertainty whether the outcome would ever · Discussed on a conceptual basis happen. · One of a number of possible inputs in an initial engagement process

Source: Based on DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 Part 5 and professional judgement 11.4.11 Rather than reporting every interaction, the methodology for the assessment of cumulative effects concentrates on the main significant effects, and would aim to differentiate between permanent, temporary, direct, indirect and secondary effects, positive or negative. Effects that are not considered significant, but still worthy of note, are mentioned where appropriate. 11.4.12 The significance of cumulative effects upon receptors has then been made based on the balance of scores and using professional judgement. An on-balance approach has also been taken when identifying the overall cumulative effect for each option in conjunction with the other proposed major developments. 11.4.13 Where significant cumulative effects, beyond those identified as residual effects from the proposed Scheme in isolation, have been identified, additional mitigation measures would be developed to avoid significant effects.

Significance criteria

11.4.14 For this Simple level assessment, the assessment of significance of the combined and cumulative effects arising from the proposed Scheme with other major developments has been based upon the definitions within Table 11.2 and has been reported as ‘Significant Adverse or Beneficial’, ‘Not Significant Adverse or Beneficial’, or ‘Neutral’. Where an effect is Moderate or above (Adverse or Beneficial), it is deemed to be significant.

Page 272 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 11.2 Combined and cumulative effects significance definitions

Significance Definition Significant Adverse Major (Adverse or Where the combined effects of the scheme or cumulative or Beneficial Beneficial) effects of the scheme in association with other existing, more than likely or near certain future major development upon an individual or collection of environmental receptors would be highly significant. Moderate (Adverse Where the combined effects of the scheme or cumulative or Beneficial) effects of the scheme in association with other existing, more than likely or near certain major future developments upon an individual or collection of environmental receptors would be significant. Not Significant Slight (Adverse or Where the combined effects of the scheme or cumulative Adverse or Beneficial) effects of the scheme in association with other existing, more Beneficial than likely or near certain major development upon an individual or collection of environmental receptors would be noteworthy but not significant. Negligible (Adverse Where the combined effects of the scheme or cumulative or Beneficial) effects of the scheme in association with other existing, more than likely or near certain future major developments upon an individual or collection of environmental receptors would be negligible. Neutral Neutral Where the combined effects of the scheme or the cumulative effects of the scheme in association with other existing, more than likely or near certain future major developments would balance.

Source: Based on DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 Part 5 and professional judgement

11.5 Baseline information

Combined effects

11.5.1 The baseline for each environmental topic is described in detail for Air quality, Cultural heritage, Landscape and visual effects, Biodiversity, Noise and vibration and Road drainage and water environment, all contained in the preceding chapters of this EAR (Chapters 5 – 10). The Scoping Report has scoped out the following topics from the EAR; Climate change, People and communities, Materials, and Geology and Soils.

Cumulative effects

11.5.2 The identified proposed major developments included in this assessment are listed in Table 11-3 below and shown graphically within Appendix B, Figure 11.1. These developments have been identified through engagement with Eastleigh Borough Council, Test Valley Borough Council and Winchester City Council and are identified as ‘Near Certain’ and ‘More Than Likely’ within the addendum to the technical note produced for the SERTM Uncertainty Log, UA008995-TN06, Version 4 (MP0155- HEX-HMO-ZZ-RP-KK-0004) and fit the Screening Criteria described in section 11.3.2.

Page 273 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 11-3 Proposed major developments

ID Development Address Distance of Description of Overlap in Development Name Proposed Development Temporal Status Scheme Scale? 1 Land south of Chestnut Approximately The development Construction Certain Chestnut Avenue, 200m consists of a mix of has already Avenue, Stoneham residential and started. North Lane, community uses Stoneham Eastleigh, (including primary Park SO50 9HT school) together with open space, landscaping and highway works. The site would include 1,100 residential dwellings. 2 M3 Junction 9 Hampshire Overlapping The development Construction Near Certain improvement with scheme would include is expected scheme improved layouts of to start in the A33 diverge from 2021 and the A34 northbound end in 2023. as well as improved non-motorised user provision at junction 9. This scheme would go through Development Consent Order (DCO). 3 M27 junction Hampshire Overlapping Development of M27 Construction Near Certain 4 to 11 SMP with scheme between junction 4, is expected scheme the interchange with to start in the M3 north of late 2018 for Southampton, and 2 years. junction 11, connecting with the A27 north of Fareham. The scheme includes development of the current motorway as part of the Highways England Smart Motorway Program (SMP) into to a smart motorway. 4 Winchester Garrison Approximately Proposed multi-use Unknown More Than Sports and Ground Bar 300m sport and leisure likely Leisure Park End Road, centre. Construction Winchester, dates are currently Hampshire unknown. 11.5.3 Winchester Sports and Leisure Park is over 5 hectares in size and therefore falls within the screening criteria presented in section 11.3.2. However, the development has been subject to an EIA screening assessment which concluded that an EIA would

Page 274 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

not be required. As such, no significant impacts to the environment as a result of the development have been assumed. The EIA screening published on the Winchester City Council website states that there are no known development projects that are considered to require an assessment of the cumulative effects in the locality. On this basis and due to no significant impacts being anticipated from this scheme there is unlikely to be any impact on the proposed Scheme in a cumulative way and therefore the development has been scoped out of further assessment. 11.5.4 The construction period of the proposed Scheme is anticipated to be March 2020 to March 2022, therefore overlapping with the developments listed 1 to 3 above. 11.5.5 A full description of the baseline conditions of the individual topics are contained in the preceding chapters of this EAR (Chapters 5 – 10). Table 11-4 below shows the environmental receptors and resources topics scoped into this assessment.

Table 11-4 Environmental Receptors and Resources Environmental Topic Area Receptors Cultural heritage See Chapter 6 Cultural heritage Landscape and visual See Chapter 7 Landscape Biodiversity See Chapter 8 Biodiversity Water environment See Chapter 10 Water Human health and communities See Chapter 5 Air quality and 9 Noise

11.6 Assumptions and limitations 11.6.1 This assessment is carried out using professional judgement and based on currently available information. It is likely that some of the environmental effects of the other major developments outlined within this chapter would evolve as detailed design for the other developments continues. However, where limited information was available a worse-case approach has been taken to identify the likely environmental effects of the other developments, and therefore the overall conclusions are unlikely to change (specifically worsen) if further detailed assessment is undertaken for the developments. Furthermore, it should be highlighted that additional major developments may be proposed following the submission of this EAR, however this proposed Scheme would be captured within those respective schemes cumulative assessments. 11.6.2 The study area for the cumulative effects assessment is 300m. This is in contrast to the study area used for the traffic model which extends to 10 kilometres. However, as noted in Air quality, Chapter 5, Section 5.2 and Chapter 8 Noise and vibration Section 8.3, the methodologies for these assessments have aligned with the traffic model to enable the use of traffic data, and the developments are therefore considered within the respective Air quality and Noise assessments (refer to Appendix A, 11.1 for a list of all the proposed developments that have been included in the traffic model). 11.6.3 The cumulative assessment relies on environmental information submitted as part of the development planning applications. Therefore, where an assessment has not been undertaken for an environmental topic, it has been assumed that the environmental topic has been scoped out, and as such, no effects are anticipated. It should also be noted that the assessment of likely significant environmental effects would differ slightly across the proposed developments as assessments have been

Page 275 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

undertaken by multiple parties with variations in professional opinion. In addition, some assessments may have taken a balanced approach to the assessment of effects, whilst other assessments may take a worst-case approach. The impact of this limitation is that due to professional judgement differing interpretation of results may be different for different professionals which would impact on consistency. 11.6.4 The EIA Screening assessment undertaken for the Winchester Sports and Leisure Park by Stride Treglown Limited is available on the Winchester City Council planning portal85 and concluded that an EIA is not necessary. There is however no formal Screening Opinion from Winchester City Council therefore it has been assumed that Winchester City Council agree with the Screening assessment conclusion that an EIA is not required. 11.6.5 It is assumed that the construction compound would be required for a maximum of 2 years and would be returned to its original condition following construction completion.

11.7 Engagement 11.7.1 For combined effects, engagement has taken place as part of the individual topic assessments. For cumulative effects, engagement has been undertaken with Eastleigh Borough Council, Test Valley Borough Council and Winchester City Council to gain further information on the proposed developments, and to highlight any developments that had not been identified within 300m of the proposed Scheme. Engagement was also undertaken with the M27 Smart Motorway Programme (SMP) junction 4 to 11 and M3 junction 9 scheme environment teams to ensure that the most up to date information on the developments was used for the cumulative effects assessment.

11.8 Design and mitigation measures

Mitigation embedded in design

11.8.1 The specific chapters in this EAR (chapters 5 -10) describe the mitigation that has been embedded in the both the preliminary design stage.

Best practice mitigation measures

11.8.2 It is anticipated that construction activities for each of the proposed developments would ensure the implementation of best practice measures outlined within a scheme specific Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP). This would ensure that any adverse effects to the environment are avoided or reduced wherever possible. It is also anticipated that construction is in accordance with the developers’ and contractors’ Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and adheres to national programmes and industry bodies such as the ‘Considerate Constructors Scheme’ and Construction Industry Research and Information association (CIRIAs) guidance on ‘Environmental Good Practice on Site’. In addition, it is anticipated that plans including a Transport Management Plan (TMP) and a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP)

85 https://planningapps.winchester.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple

Page 276 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

would be implemented during construction to avoid or reduce adverse effects to road users and the local community, and material resources and waste arisings.

11.9 Assessment of effects

Combined effects

Construction

11.9.1 Table 11.5 below shows the combined effects on receptors during construction of the proposed Scheme.

Page 277 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 11-5 Combined Construction Effects Receptor Topic Area

Ecology and Road Drainage and Landscape and Noise and Significance of Air Quality Cultural Heritage Nature the Water visual Vibration Combined Effects Conservation Environment Cultural Heritage - - -

Landscape and visual - -

Biodiversity -

Water Environment - -

Human Health and Communities - -

Overall significance of combined effects during construction: Not Significant Adverse

Combined Effect Key: Blank = No effect = Neutral - / + = Not Significant Adverse / Beneficial -- / ++ = Significant Adverse / Beneficial

Page 278 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

11.9.2 In terms of Cultural heritage, a combined not significant adverse effect would be anticipated. As reported in Chapter 6 Cultural heritage, the proposed Scheme would have no significant residual effects on any heritage assets within the study area during construction. The assessments reported in Chapter 6 found that during construction the proposed Scheme would have a slight adverse effect on 6 scheduled monuments (including a Roman road east of St Catherine’s Hill, Lynchets on north west spur of Twyford Road, a Moated site 300m south-east of Compton House, Bowl barrow 75m west of Itchen Cottages, St Catherine’s Hillfort and Round barrow cemetery on Magdalen Hill Down), 2 grade II* (Church of St Matthew at Otterbourne and Registered Park and Garden: Cranbury Park) and 1 grade II listed building (Top Lodge) due to construction noise and setting of assets and neutral effects on all other heritage assets. In assessing the combination effects, landscape interactions with heritage are considered. As reported below, there is the potential for a slight adverse impact on 18 representative visual receptors due to construction, however the heritage assets experiencing a slight adverse effect would not be subject to any worse impacts due to effects on visual receptors. Therefore, on balance the 2 slight adverse effects would combine to an overall slight adverse effect. 11.9.3 An on balance combined not significant adverse landscape and visual effect would be anticipated on the Landscape during construction. These effects on landscape (including landscape effects on the South Downs National Park and Itchen Valley character areas) however are anticipated to be temporary. In terms of visual impacts, it is anticipated that there would be slight temporary adverse effects on 18 visual receptors (see Appendix A, 7.1) due to vegetation clearance opening views to construction works, removal and temporary impacts experienced whilst replacing noise barriers and views in proximity to the works. These impacts would only last for the duration of the immediate task, which is estimated to be less than a week. In terms of cultural heritage, as reported in Chapter 6, it is anticipated that there would be a slight adverse effect on a number of heritage assets (listed in the paragraph above), which would have an impact on the overall Landscape. In assessing the combination effects, heritage interactions with landscape are considered. The combination of the 18 temporary not significant adverse effects on the visual receptors and the not significant effect on landscape with the temporary slight adverse effect on heritage assets would not combine to result in a significant effect due to no interactions between these specific receptors. Therefore, on balance a combined effect of temporary not significant adverse for construction is anticipated. 11.9.4 In terms of Biodiversity, the proposed Scheme would have a combined not significant adverse effect during construction. A slight adverse impact on the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Specific Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) is predicted. A slight adverse effect from construction is predicted on great crested newts, dormice, bats and badgers. A temporary slight adverse effect during construction is predicted on generic habitats within the highways boundary as a result of vegetation clearance. Works proposed within the 15m buffer zone of the Ancient Woodland would not be within the root protection areas applied to trees within the Ancient Woodland and therefore no loss of Ancient woodland trees would occur. The combined effect on biodiversity assess how air quality and the water environment could interact with biodiversity receptors. There would be a neutral effect on all biodiversity receptors (including designated sites and aquatic ecology) from Chapter

Page 279 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

10 Road drainage and the water environment, providing recommended mitigation is put in place. Chapter 5 Air quality does not report any construction impacts on designated sites due to the proposed Scheme. Therefore, the receptors identified above would not be subject to any combination effects between air quality, the water environment and biodiversity. Chapter 8 Biodiversity reports the overall on balance significance of effects on biodiversity as a result of the proposed scheme as slight adverse for construction. This, combined with the neutral effect from Air quality and Road drainage and the water environment, would result in an overall neutral combined effect. 11.9.5 A combined not significant adverse effect would be anticipated on the Water environment during construction. Due to construction impacts on the River Itchen SAC, as reported in Chapter 8 Biodiversity, without appropriate management, waste water fuel spillage, material wash off, dust and silt could affect the conservation status of qualifying features, and therefore there is potential for slight adverse effects. Chapter 10 Road drainage and the water environment reports that with appropriate mitigation including route design, selection of construction methods, run-off attenuated to existing or less run-off rates, pollution measures in the drainage design and OEMP, neutral effects are anticipated on all the receptors assessed (including the River Itchen SAC, other surface water and ground water features and flood risk, see Table 10-7 for full list). Therefore, on balance the neutral impact from Road drainage and the water environment combined with the slight adverse impact from Biodiversity would result in a slight adverse combined effect due to the construction impacts on the River Itchen SAC. 11.9.6 For Human health receptors, a combined not significant adverse effect is anticipated during construction. For noise impacts on Human Health, with the appropriate mitigation measures in place, a not significant adverse impact is predicted. No significant effects on air quality are anticipated, including as a result of construction traffic. Therefore, on balance the combination of these impacts would be slight adverse due to the combination of impacts being no worse than the not significant adverse effects on human health due to noise, as air quality impacts are neutral they do not add or take away anything from this impact. 11.9.7 The overall combined effect during construction for the proposed Scheme is anticipated to be not significant adverse.

Operation

11.9.8 Table 11-6 shows the combined effects on receptors during operation of the proposed Scheme.

Page 280 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Page 281 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 11-6 Combined Operational Effects Receptor Topic Area Ecology and Road Drainage Significance of Cultural Landscape Noise and Air Quality Nature and the Water Combined Heritage and visual Vibration Conservation Environment Effects Cultural Heritage - - Landscape and visual - - - Biodiversity - Water Environment - - Human Health and Communities Overall significance of combined effects during operation: Not significant adverse

Combined Effect Key: Blank = No effect = Neutral - / + = Not Significant Adverse / Beneficial -- / ++ = Significant Adverse / Beneficial

Page 282 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

11.9.9 In terms of Cultural heritage, a combined not significant adverse effect would be anticipated. The assessments reported in Chapter 6 concluded that during operation the proposed Scheme would have a slight adverse effect on 6 scheduled monuments (including a Roman road east of St Catherine’s Hill, Lynchets on north west spur of Twyford Road, a Moated site 300m south-east of Compton House, Bowl barrow 75m west of Itchen Cottages, St Catherine’s Hillfort and Round barrow cemetery on Magdalen Hill Down), 1 grade II* building (Church of St Matthew at Otterbourne),and1 grade II* registered park and garden (Cranbury Park including grade II listed building: Top Lodge) due to the change in setting and neutral effects on all other heritage assets. In assessing the combination effects, landscape interactions with heritage are considered. As reported below there would be 1 slight adverse impact on a visual settlement (views from residential receptors in Chandler’s Ford East) at year 15 of operation. This receptor will not have any in combination impacts with the heritage asset receptors. l. Therefore the heritage assets experiencing a slight adverse effect would not be subject to any worse impacts due to effects on landscape. Therefore, on balance the 2 slight adverse effects would combine to an overall not significant adverse effect. 11.9.10 Once operational, a slight adverse effect would be anticipated on the local Landscape character as a result of the proposed Scheme at Year 1 due to additional highways infrastructure and the loss of intervening vegetation. However, this effect would reduce to negligible at Year 15 following the establishment and maturation of planting. At year 15 1 receptor would experience a visual impact (views from residential receptors in Chandler’s Ford East). As reported in Chapter 6 Cultural Heritage, there is anticipated to be a slight adverse effect on a number of heritage assets. The effects on landscape would not be subject to any worse impacts due to the slight adverse impacts on the heritage assets due to no interactions between those receptors. An overall combined effect upon the local landscape character in the long term is anticipated to be not significant adverse. 11.9.11 In terms of Biodiversity, the proposed Scheme would have a combined slight adverse effect during operation. A slight adverse effect on the River Itchen SSSI is predicted due to minor increase in nitrogen deposition and potential changes to surface water run-off, groundwater quality and flow paths. A temporary slight adverse effect during operation is predicted to sites of importance to nature conservation and road verges of ecological importance as a result of vegetation clearance. The combined effect on biodiversity assess how air quality and the water environment could interact with biodiversity receptors which have already been considered for River Itchen SSSI. There would be a neutral operational effect on all biodiversity receptors reported in Chapter 10 Road drainage and the water environment, when recommended mitigation is put in place. The operational effects from nitrogen deposition as reported in Chapter 5 Air quality have been assessed as not significant. The overall on balance significance of effects on biodiversity as a result of the proposed Scheme is neutral for operation. There are no combination effects on any of the biodiversity receptors Therefore, the combined effects have been assessed as Neutral due to there not being any in-combination of effects. 11.9.12 A combined not significant adverse effect would be anticipated on the Water Environment during operation. Chapter 8 Biodiversity has reported that there would be a potential slight adverse impact on the River Itchen SSSI due to changes to surface water run-off, groundwater quality, flow and baseflow paths. Chapter 10 Road

Page 283 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Drainage and the Water Environment reports that with appropriate mitigation including proposed Scheme design, pollution measures in the drainage design and run-off attenuated to existing or less run-off rates, neutral effects are reported on all the receptors assessed. In combination these two effects would not be worse than if they were by themselves, meaning there is no additional interactions than the ones already described in the individual assessments in Chapter 8 and 10. Therefore, on balance, combined this has been assessed as being not significant adverse. 11.9.13 For Human health receptors, a neutral combined effect has been assessed. For air quality a small number of dis-benefits to human receptors has been reported. However, the number of properties affected is low and the impact has been reported as not significant. Therefore, for this assessment it has been considered negligible. The effects on human receptors due to operational noise has been assessed as neutral due to the implementation of new noise barriers. These two effects would not have an impact on each other to result in an impact that is greater than the one already assessed in the individual topics. Overall this on balance would result in a combined neutral impact. 11.9.14 The overall combined effect during operation for the proposed Scheme is anticipated to be not significant adverse.

Cumulative effects

Construction

11.9.15 Table 11-4 shows the specific effects on the environmental resources and receptors scoped into the cumulative assessment from the proposed Scheme and each of the proposed developments within the 300m study area, and how these have resulted in the overall cumulative effects for the proposed Scheme during construction. 11.9.16 The overall cumulative effect during construction and operation for the proposed Scheme is anticipated to be not significant adverse as detailed in Table 11-7 and Table 11-8.

Page 284 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Table 11-7 Construction Cumulative Effects Development ID The proposed Receptor 3. M27 SMP Cumulative Effects Devleopment 1. North Stoneham Park 2. M3 J9 J4 - 11 Cultural Heritage - -

The development would have the potential for a The scheme would not physically impact The M27 Stage 3 EAR has not No cumulative effects are anticipated as neutral impact on 8 heritage assets and a Minor on the statutory designated assets assessed Cultural Heritage as a the other proposed developments are adverse impact on 1 heritage asset North within the 1km study area. The standalone topic. In the Landscape anticipated to have neutral effects on Stoneham Park. proposed Scheme options have some and visual assessment the EAR cultural heritage assets, meaning there potential to have physical effects upon concludes that there would be no will be no interaction between the four non-designated below-ground significant effects on the landscape developments included in this archaeological remains and earthworks. setting of cultural heritage assets cumulative assessment. Therefore, the All of the scheme options could during construction. cumulative effect would not have a potentially have up to a large adverse greater significance than the proposed effect on non-designated below-ground Scheme alone on heritage assets; not archaeological remains and earthworks. significant adverse effects are However, these can all be reduced to a anticipated. neutral effect with mitigation. Once an excavation (mitigation) has taken place to record the archaeology, the resource is then removed during construction, leaving no residual effect (neutral).

Landscape and visual - - - -

The development would not cause any significant There would be no significant effects on There would be no effects on any The scale of North Stoneham Park is effects during construction to the overall character the South Downs National Park (SDNP) landscape designations. There would small in comparison to the proposed of National Character Area (NCA) 128 or the or the local landscape character areas. be no significant effects on any locally Scheme with no overlapping visual surrounding Landscape Character Areas. Other There would be several slight adverse or nationally significant landscapes. No receptors, therefore there would be no local landscape area effects would also be not effects to some visual receptors. local landscape character areas are cumulative effect despite a slight significant and temporary in nature. Following implementation of mitigation susceptible to a significant effect. The adverse impact being reported for North measures the landscape and visual majority of visual effects during Stoneham Park and visual receptors. effects would be slight adverse during construction would be of slight adverse In terms of visual receptors there would be a The slight adverse effects that the M3 construction. and neutral significance. significant Major adverse impact to 4 out of 14 junction 9 are reporting are on visual receptors, including residents along Chestnut Overall, residual landscape character receptors that the proposed Scheme Avenue and users of Public Right of Way (PRoW). and visual effects would not be does not impact on. There would be no No other significant effects are anticipated. significant. cumulative impact on SDNP.

Overall there would be no cumulative effects in terms of interactions on the landscape and visual receptors between the developments. Therefore, the significance is no different to the proposed Scheme by itself which is slight adverse therefore this cumulative assessment it is slight adverse.

Biodiversity - - -

Page 285 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

No significant effects are anticipated during It is likely to be possible to avoid No significant effects on designated The scale of North Stoneham Park is construction due to mitigation put in place for significant residual effects for all of the sites, notable habitats or notable small in comparison to the proposed ecological receptors (statutory and non-statutory biological receptors. However, with species are anticipated as a result of Scheme, meaning cumulative effects designated sites, habitats and species) identified on regard to the River Itchen Special Area the M27 SMP Scheme during are unlikely as a result of the small zone site and in the immediate area. Several ecological of Conservation (SAC) and Sites of operation. of influence overlapping. The other enhancement measures would be implemented Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and proposed developments in this during construction which once matured would associated habitats and fauna, it is cumulative assessment have reported provide benefits during operation. noted that uncertainty remains with neutral effects meaning there will be no respect to potential groundwater interactions on biodiversity receptors related effects, pending the outcome of that could result in a worse impact than further investigations. the proposed Scheme alone. Therefore, the cumulative effect would not have a greater significance than the proposed Scheme alone which would be slight adverse. Water Environment - The scale of North Stoneham Park is During the construction phase there is potential for The effects of all 3 options are No adverse effects are predicted to small in comparison to the proposed release of pollutants into surface water and anticipated to have an overall neutral water features during construction of Scheme, meaning there is not a chance groundwater. However, good site practices would significance, provided that the the proposed M27 SMP Scheme for cumulative effects due to the small reduce the residual effect to not significant. recommended mitigation is area of overlap in the zone of influences. implemented. The other proposed developments are expecting to have neutral effects meaning there will be no interactions on water receptors that could result in a worse impact than the M3 SMP J9 – 14 alone. Therefore, the cumulative effect would not have a greater significance than the proposed Scheme alone which is neutral. Human Health and Communities - - - With the application of best practice No significant effects are anticipated on During construction of North Stoneham Park During construction of the M3 junction mitigation measures, including visual Human Health and Communities due to development, the residual risk from dust soiling is 9 scheme, no significant air quality monitoring of dust emissions and only the M27 SMP reporting potential considered low and therefore not significant, effects on amenity or human health soiling, no significant effects are likely. slight adverse effects due to noise. The provided that mitigation measures for controlling have been predicted. The three options scale of North Stoneham Park is small in of the M3 junction 9 have construction comparison to the proposed Scheme, dust are implemented on site. The Scheme has the potential for periods ranging from 15 to 27 months, meaning there is not a chance for Noise levels during construction are predicted to significant adverse noise effects at with potential opening years of 2023 or cumulative effects through additive significantly increase due to increases in traffic sensitive receptors, the main reason noise or air quality impacts and neutral flows associated with the development and other 2027. Therefore there is a chance of being the duration of construction. impacts have been reported. The M3 J9 committed developments in the area. However, with cumulative effects from overlapping However, with appropriate mitigation in is also expected to have a neutral effect the adoption of proposed mitigation measures, no construction. The assessment for the place, as detailed in the OEMP, the in terms of air quality and noise residual significant noise effects are expected M3 junction 9 has proposed effects would not be significant. during construction, and therefore a neutral impact construction mitigation of dust Therefore, the cumulative effect would has been assumed. suppression and OEMP mitigation not have a greater significance than the measures. Further investigation is proposed Scheme alone and has been required at future stages 4/5/6 of both assessed as not significant. M3 Schemes once construction periods have been confirmed to ensure cumulative effects are mitigated through the CEMP and the OEMP.

Overall cumulative effects during construction: Not Significant Adverse

Page 286 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Combined Effect Key: Blank = No effect = Neutral - / + = Not Significant Adverse / Beneficial -- / ++ = Significant Adverse / Beneficial

Page 287 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

Operation

Table 11-8 Operation Cumulative effects Development ID M3 SMP J9 – 14 Receptor 3. M27 SMP Cumulative Effects Scheme 1. North Stoneham Park 2. M3 J9 J4 - 11 Cultural Heritage - - -

The development would have a neutral impact on 2 There would be no effects on The M27 Stage 3 EAR has not Despite reporting a slight adverse effect on heritage assets and a negligible adverse impact on cultural heritage during the assessed Cultural heritage as a cultural heritage the scale of North Stoneham one heritage asset, grade II listed walled garden to operational phase of the options. Standalone topic. In the Landscape Park is small in comparison to the proposed North Stoneham House. assessment the EAR states that there Scheme, meaning there is not a chance for would be no significant effects on the cumulative effects as none of the receptors landscape setting of cultural heritage impacted are the same. The other proposed assets during operation. developments are expected to have a neutral effect on cultural heritage assets. Therefore, the cumulative effect would not have a greater significance than the proposed Scheme alone which is not significant. Landscape and visual - + - -

The development would not cause any significant Following implementation of There would be no effects on any There is the potential for a not significant slight effects during operation to the overall character of mitigation measures the landscape designations. There would adverse effect on the landscape and visual National Character Area (NCA) 128 or the landscape and visual effects be no significant effects on any locally receptors because of cumulative effects surrounding Landscape Character Areas. There would be no significant effects or nationally significant landscapes. No between the proposed Scheme and the M3 J9 would be a Major Significant Beneficial impact during operation. local landscape character areas are scheme. Both Schemes report slight adverse during year 1 and year 15 to the local Landscape susceptible to a significant effect. The effects and because of the close proximity of Character Area of North Stoneham Park. majority of visual effects during the Schemes there is a chance that the two operation would be of slight adverse slight adverse effects could be additive in nature. However due to mitigation measures In terms of visual receptors during year 1 and year and neutral significance. already described in chapter 7 Landscape and 15 there would be a significant moderate adverse Overall, residual landscape character the M3 junction 9 EAR the impact is not impact to 2 out of 14 receptors, including residents and visual effects would not be anticipated to be significant (which is no worse along Chestnut Avenue. No other significant effects significant. than the proposed scheme alone), therefore no are anticipated. additional mitigation is required.

Biodiversity No cumulative effects are anticipated due to all In the absence of mitigation, the development has It is likely to be possible to avoid No significant effects on designated the proposed developments in the cumulative the potential to cause significant adverse effects on significant residual effects for all sites, notable habitats or notable assessment expecting to have neutral effects. the ecological receptors (statutory and non- of the biological receptors. species are anticipated as a result of This means there will be no interactions on statutory designated Sites, habitats and species) However, with regard to the the proposed scheme during biodiversity receptors that could result in a identified on Site and in the immediate area. The River Itchen SAC and SSSI and operation. worse impact than the proposed Scheme development has retained and enhanced existing associated habitats and fauna, it alone meaning a neutral effect. habitats where possible with new habitats created is noted that uncertainty remains to mitigate for unavoidable loss and enhance with respect to potential ecological value in the long-term. groundwater related effects,

Page 288 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

The retained and enhanced grassland, woodland, pending the outcome of further scrub and hedgerow habitat, with wetland areas investigations. and attenuation ponds would provide a habitat mosaic which would support a range of ecological receptors currently present at the Site including bats, birds and reptiles. With the mitigation and management as detailed in the CEMP in place, it is probable that the proposal would have no significant adverse residual effects on the overall ecological value of the Site in the long-term. Water Environment -

The development would increase impermeable The effects of all 3 options are No adverse effects are predicted to An overall neutral effect is anticipated for the areas on site which would increase peak rates of anticipated to have a Moderate water features during construction of Water Environment. North Stoneham Park is surface water run-off from the Site. However, the to Very Large Adverse the proposed Scheme expecting to have a not significant adverse scheme includes mitigation measures in the form of significance, mainly due to the effect on the water environment, however swales, filter drains, permeable pavements, Medium to Very High importance because North Stoneham Park is small in detention basins and attenuation ponds, providing of the attributes. Post mitigation, comparison to the proposed Scheme there is reductions in flow rate and improvement to water it is concluded that the effects not anticipated to be any cumulative impacts quality. As a result the impact from the development have an overall neutral due to the small size and no overlapping on surface water run-off and off-site flood risk would significance, provided that the receptors. be not significant. The impact on water quality recommended mitigation options The other developments are anticipated to would also be not significant. are implemented. have neutral impacts on the water environment, therefore would not contribute any cumulative effects.

Human Health and Communities - + A cumulative not significant adverse effect would be No significant operational human The proposed Scheme results in both A neutral impact is anticipated on Human anticipated for Air quality as a slight adverse impact health effects as a result of adverse and beneficial air quality Health and Communities due to a mixture of on air quality for existing receptors is anticipated as increased pollutant effects. This is a result of the beneficial and neutral impacts reported for air a result of the North Stoneham Park Development concentrations are considered redistribution of traffic from roads quality and noise from all the developments in during operation in 2018. The proposed Scheme likely with any of the scheme within urban areas, (where beneficial the cumulative assessment. On balance the would begin construction in 2020 and open for options. effects are modelled) to the M27 and one slight adverse impact, together with the operation in 2022 and the slight adverse impact associated access roads (where one slight beneficial impact and two neutral would reduce to negligible by 2025 as vehicle In terms of noise for the M3 adverse effects occur). The air quality impacts would result in a neutral impact on emission technology improves. effects of the increase in traffic on the Human Health and Communities due to air junction 9 scheme the vast M27 are, in places, partially off-set by quality and noise. majority of dwellings are the effects of congestion relief. A moderate adverse residual effect in noise levels predicted to have an impact of due to operation of North Stoneham Park has been negligible magnitude. With The maximum effects of the proposed assessed due to changes in road traffic noise mitigation the adverse effects of Scheme are small in magnitude and levels. However, with the adoption of proposed minor magnitude are eliminated the number of properties affected is low. mitigation measures, no residual significant effects (i.e. residual effects are are expected during operation, and therefore a negligible adverse at worst), neutral impact has been assessed as for this whilst a number of dwellings are Significant beneficial effects are assessment. predicted to have a beneficial anticipated for operational noise. impact of minor magnitude. For Eleven new barriers are proposed to the purpose of this assessment a benefit the noise environment. Twenty- neutral impact has been five noise Important Areas that are the reported. responsibility of Highways England lie within the calculation area for operational noise, 22 of which would be addressed through erection of a

Page 289 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

noise barrier and/or installation of a new low noise road surface to lower noise levels as a result proposed scheme. Overall cumulative effects during construction: Not significant adverse

Combined Effect Key: Blank = No effect = Neutral - / + = Not Significant Adverse / Beneficial -- / ++ = Significant Adverse / Beneficial

Page 290 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

11.10 Conclusion 11.10.1 This chapter provides an assessment of the potential combined and cumulative effects of the proposed Scheme in accordance with DMRB Volume 11 Section 2, Part 5 – Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects (HA205/08). 11.10.2 The assessment for combined effects involves the identification of impact interactions associated with the proposed Scheme upon separate scoped in environmental receptors as per the Scoping Report. The assessment for cumulative effects involves the identification of incremental changes likely to be caused by other developments together with the proposed Scheme and is focused on specific environmental receptors as detailed in the Scoping Report. 11.10.3 In terms of combined effects during construction, effects upon Cultural heritage, Landscape, Water environment and Human health and Communities are anticipated to be not significant adverse. Combined effects on Biodiversity are anticipated to be neutral. Overall the combined effects described above would result in a not significant adverse effect during construction, and no additional mitigation would be required. 11.10.4 During operation, combined effects upon Biodiversity, Human health and Communities is anticipated to be neutral. Effects upon Cultural heritage, Landscape and visual and Water environment are anticipated to be not significant adverse. Mitigation measures noted in the preceding topic chapters would ensure that where adverse effects are predicted, they would be avoided or reduced. Overall the combined effects would result in a not significant adverse effect during operation, and no additional mitigation would be required. 11.10.5 In terms of cumulative effects during construction there would be an overall not significant adverse effect. There would be not significant adverse effects on heritage, landscape and visual, biodiversity and human health and communities, and a neutral impact on the water environment. 11.10.6 Cumulative effects during operation would not be significant. There would be a not significant adverse effect for heritage and landscape and visual and neutral effects on biodiversity, water environment and human health and communities. Overall this would result in a not significant adverse effect and no additional mitigation would be required.

Page 291 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

12. Conclusions

12.1.1 This Environment Assessment Report (EAR) provides the assessment of likely effects as a result of the proposed Scheme and has concluded that it is unlikely to result in significant effects during either construction or operation. Where appropriate, mitigation measures have been identified and included within the assessment chapters (Chapters 5 to 11). 12.1.2 The assessment concludes that the majority of construction stage effects could be minimised and managed through the implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). In addition, an Environmental Masterplan has been produced which details the preliminary environmental mitigation design specified within the assessment. Both the Environmental Masterplan and the CEMP would be further developed during the detailed design stage of the proposed Scheme. Table 12.1 below summarises the likely effects during both construction and operational stages of the proposed Scheme.

Table 12-1 Overall conclusions – Significance of effects during construction and operation Topic Construction Operation Air quality Not significant Not significant adverse and beneficial permanent Cultural heritage Slight temporary adverse Slight permanent adverse Landscape Not significant Year 1 – Slight permanent adverse Year 15 – Slight permanent adverse Visual Slight temporary adverse Not significant Biodiversity Slight temporary adverse Slight permanent adverse Noise and vibration Not significant Not significant Road drainage and Not significant Not significant the water environment Combined and Not Significant temporary Not Significant permanent adverse cumulative effects adverse

Page 292 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

13. Abbreviations

Abbreviation Full Term

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ADMS Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System

ADS Advanced Directional Signs

ALC Agricultural Land Classification

ALR All Lane Running

AMIs Advanced Motorway Indicators

AOD Above Ordnance Datum

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

AQS Air Quality Standard

ARN Affected Road Network

ATM Active Traffic Management

BCT's The Bat Conservation Trust's

CCD Cross Carriageway Ducts

CCTV Closed-Circuit Television

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

CMI Controlled Motorway Indicators

CMS Continuous Monitoring Stations

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DF Design Fix

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

Page 293 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

DTS Ducts Through Structures

eDna Environmental DNA

ECoW Ecological Clerk of Works

EFT Defra's Emission Factor Toolkit

EAR Environmental Assessment Report

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environment Management Plan

EMS Enhanced Messaging Signs

EAs Emergency Areas

ERTs Emergency Roadside Telephones

ESR Environmental Study Report

EU European Union

GLVIA Guidelines for Landscapes and Visual Impact Assessment

HADECS Highway Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System

HAWRAT Highways Agency Water Risk Assessment Tool

HER Historic Environment Record

HMWB Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies

HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment

IAN Interim Advice Note

LAQM.TG Defra's Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance

LCA Landscape Character Areas

LNRS Low Noise Road Surfacing

LNR Local Nature Reserve

MIDAS Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling

Page 294 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

NCA National Character Area

NERC The Natural Environment and Rural Communities

NIAs Noise Important Areas

NMU Non-Motorised Users

NOD Notice of Determination

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

OEMP Outline Environmental Management Plan

OS Ordinance Survey

PCM Pollution Climate Mapping

PM10 Particulate Matter smaller than 10µm

PRoW Public Right of Way

RCB Rigid Concrete Barrier

RCC Regional Control Centre

RIS Roads Investment Strategy

ROD Record of Determination

ROTTMS Remotely Operated Temporary Traffic Management Signs

SAC Special Areas of Conservation

SMP Smart motorways programme

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

SRN Strategic Road Network

TJR Through Junction Running

WFD Water Framework Directive

Page 295 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

VMS Variable Messaging Signs

VMSL Variable Mandatory Speed Limits

VRS Vehicle Restraint System

ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility

Page 296 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

14. Appendix A

Page 297 Collaborative Delivery Framework M3 Junction 9-14 Smart Motorways Environmental Assessment Report

15. Appendix B

Page 298