A120 BRAINTREE TO A12 Essex County Council

Scheme Assessment Report

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 | P05 12/11/18

Essex C ounty Council

A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

A120 Braintree to A12

Project No: B3553T41 Document Title: Scheme Assessment Report Document No.: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 Revision: P05 Date: 12 November 2018 Client Name: Essex County Council Project Manager: James Burke Author: Ransford Wiredu File Name: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008

Jacobs U.K. Limited Simpson House, 6 Cherry Orchard Road, Croydon, CR9 6BE T +44 (0)20.8686.8212 www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2018 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

P00 28/09/17 Draft issue for comment RW/MJ/CH JRW JB

P01 21/05/18 Draft issue for comment RW JRW JB

P02 18/07/18 Draft issue to HE environment team to address HE MW (update of MJ (review of JB comments on environment sections (Sections 2.8 and environment environment section 8) sections only) sections only)

P03 25/08/2018 Issue for TPG review CJH (update of MJS (review of JB economics and economics and Decision Decision Framework) Framework)

P04 20/10/2018 Final report including TGP comments CJH MJS JB

P05 12/11/2018 Final report including appendices RW MS JB

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 ii A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Contents Contents ...... iii 1. Introduction ...... 1 Report Purpose ...... 1 Scheme Description ...... 1 Identified Problems and Do-Nothing Consequences ...... 2 Scheme History ...... 6 Scheme Objectives ...... 7 Summary of Public Consultation Options ...... 8 Technical Reports ...... 9 2. Summary of Existing Conditions ...... 11 Description of Locality ...... 11 Existing Highway Network ...... 11 Traffic ...... 13 Existing Safety Conditions ...... 14 Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding ...... 16 Topography, Land Use, Property and Industry ...... 17 2.6.1 Topography ...... 17 2.6.2 Land Use and Industry ...... 18 Climate...... 18 Environment ...... 18 2.8.1 Air Quality ...... 18 2.8.2 Cultural Heritage ...... 19 2.8.3 Landscape ...... 20 2.8.4 Nature Conservation ...... 20 2.8.5 Geology and Soils ...... 22 2.8.6 Materials ...... 23 2.8.7 Noise and Vibration ...... 23 2.8.8 People and Communities ...... 24 2.8.9 Drainage and the Water Environment ...... 24 Public Utilities ...... 25 Severance ...... 26 3. Planning Factors ...... 27 Option Constraints and Opportunities ...... 27 Relevant Planning Legislation and Policies...... 27 3.2.1 Planning Act 2008 (as amended) ...... 27 3.2.2 National Policy Statement for National Networks (NN NPS)...... 27 3.2.3 Local Development Plans ...... 28 3.2.4 Essex Minerals Local Plan (Adopted 2014) ...... 28 3.2.5 Essex and Southend on Sea Waste Local Plan (Adopted 2017) ...... 30 3.2.6 Adopted Braintree Local Plan ...... 30

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 iii A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

3.2.7 Colchester Borough Council Local Plan (Adopted 2008, Amended 2014) ...... 31 3.2.8 Emerging Development Plans for Braintree and Colchester...... 31 Relevant Transport Policies and Programmes ...... 32 Submission of an application for Development Consent...... 32 Route to Consent ...... 32 4. Summary of Alternative Schemes ...... 33 Operations generation (Stage 0) ...... 33 Initial Option assessment (Stage 1) ...... 33 Options Description ...... 34 4.3.1 Option A ...... 35 4.3.2 Option B ...... 36 4.3.3 Option C ...... 36 4.3.4 Option D ...... 37 4.3.5 Option E ...... 38 Operational Safety ...... 38 Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding ...... 39 Impact during Construction and Operation – Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 ...... 40 Constructability ...... 44 5. Summary Tables of Traffic, Economics and Costs ...... 48 Costs...... 48 Traffic ...... 48 Economics ...... 51 6. Summary of Operational Assessment ...... 53 New A120 and junctions ...... 53 6.1.1 Opening year (2026) daily flows on the new A120 ...... 53 6.1.2 Design year (2041) peak hour flows on the new A120 ...... 53 6.1.3 Weaving between junctions on the new A120 ...... 53 6.1.4 Junctions on the new A120 ...... 54 Adjacent sections of A12 ...... 55 6.2.1 Weaving between junctions on the A12 ...... 55 Local Roads ...... 55 Conclusions ...... 55 7. Summary of Technology and Maintenance Assessment ...... 57 Implications of the Utilisation of Technology on Options Design ...... 57 7.1.1 ITS systems - Traffic loops, VMC, CCTV etc...... 57 7.1.2 Communications Network...... 57 Operational Regime ...... 57 Maintenance Strategies ...... 58 8. Summary of Environmental Assessment and Environmental Design ...... 60 Air Quality ...... 60

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 iv A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

8.1.1 Key Differences between the Options ...... 60 8.1.2 Mitigation ...... 60 Cultural Heritage ...... 61 8.2.1 Key Differences between the Options ...... 61 8.2.2 Mitigation ...... 62 Nature Conservation ...... 62 8.3.1 Option A ...... 62 8.3.2 Option B ...... 63 8.3.3 Option C ...... 64 8.3.4 Option D ...... 65 8.3.5 Option E ...... 65 8.3.6 Key Differences between the Options ...... 66 8.3.7 Mitigation ...... 66 Landscape ...... 67 8.4.1 Key Differences between the Options ...... 67 8.4.2 Mitigation ...... 68 Geology and Soils ...... 69 8.5.1 Key Differences between the Options ...... 69 8.5.2 Mitigation ...... 69 Materials ...... 70 8.6.1 Key differences between the Routes ...... 70 8.6.2 Mitigation ...... 70 Noise and Vibration ...... 70 8.7.1 Differences between the Routes ...... 71 People and Community ...... 72 8.8.1 Key Differences between the Routes ...... 72 8.8.2 Mitigation ...... 73 Road Drainage and the Water Environment ...... 73 8.9.1 Key Differences between the Options ...... 73 8.9.2 Mitigation ...... 74 Overall Conclusions ...... 74 9. Summary of Public Consultation ...... 76 Introduction ...... 76 Quantitative Reponses ...... 76 Qualitative Insight and Key Findings ...... 78 Scheme alternatives ...... 79 9.4.1 Opportunities to add value ...... 81 9.4.2 Developed Alternatives...... 81 Design Changes ...... 82 9.5.1 Summary of Design Modifications for Further Investigation ...... 82 9.5.2 Bradwell Quarry Junction Assessment ...... 83

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 v A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

9.5.3 Modification of A12 Junction 23 (Option D and E) ...... 83 9.5.4 Modification of A12 Junction 24a (Option A, B and C) ...... 84 10. Appraisal Summary Table ...... 85 11. Decision Framework ...... 86 Introduction ...... 86 Methodology ...... 86 11.2.1 Assessment Criteria ...... 87 11.2.2 Development of the Scoring System ...... 89 11.2.3 Aggregating Scores and Ranking Options ...... 89 11.2.4 Sensitivity Testing ...... 89 Decision Framework Results ...... 90 11.3.1 Scores for each Criterion ...... 90 11.3.2 Overall Results ...... 92 11.3.3 Sensitivity Testing ...... 92 11.3.3.1 Sensitivity to Weighting by Business Case Category ...... 93 11.3.3.2 Sensitivity to Weightings on Individual Criteria ...... 93 11.3.3.3 Score Variation Sensitivity ...... 95 11.3.3.4 Key Data Input Sensitivity ...... 98 12. Conclusions ...... 100 Summary of Conclusions...... 100 Detailed Conclusions ...... 101 Recommendations ...... 102 Appendix A: Planning Policies Breakdown ...... 103 Appendix B: A120 Route Plan Drawings ...... 107 Appendix C: Plans for Alternative Options from Public Consultation ...... 108 Appendix D: Bradwell Quarry and Integrated Waste Management Facility Junction Assessment . 110 Appendix E: Environmental Summary ...... 112 Appendix F: AST Tables ...... 117 Appendix G: Option D General Arrangement Drawings ...... 128

Table of Tables Table 1-1: Summary of Current Transport Related Problems and Underlying Causes 4 Table 1-2: Previous Work and Studies 7 Table 1-3: Intervention-Specific Scheme Objections 8 Table 1-4: Revised Option Names for Stage 2 9 Table 2-1: Average Journey Times and Speeds in Peak Periods 13 Table 2-2: Personal Injury Collisions by severity and year - 2011-2015 14 Table 2-3: Personal Injury Casualties by severity and year - 2011-2015 14 Table 2-4: Personal Injury Collisions at Cluster Sites by Severity, Year and Fatal Weighted Index 2011-2015 15 Table 2-5: Collision rates by total and KSI for A120 and national SRN rates for single carriageway and dual carriageway SRN roads - 2011-2015 15 Table 2-6: Collisions by total and severity for A120, walkers, cyclists and horse drivers 17 Table 2-7: Summary of Cultural Heritage Asset Values 20

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 vi A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 2-8: Overall Valuation of Species or Species Group present within the Options 22 Table 2-9: Value of Receptors for Flood Risk 25 Table 3-1: Programme of Mineral Extraction at Bradwell Quarry 28 Table 4-1: Options for detailed assessment 34 Table 4-2: Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Impacts 39 Table 4-3: A120 CDM 2015 Summary 41 Table 5-1: Stage 2 Options Cost Estimate (January 2016 prices) 48 Table 5-2: Overview of Estimated Traffic Volumes (AADT) 50 Table 5-3: Headline Stage 2 Economic Results (£ millions, 2010 market prices discounted to 2010 base year) 51 Table 5-4: Headline Stage 2 Economic Results by Appraisal Item (£ millions, 2010 market prices discounted to 2010 base year) 52 Table 8-1: Potential Significant effects as a result of the scheme during construction and operation (all effects are potential) 61 Table 8-2: Predicted total number of perceptible noise changes for each option during the day 71 Table 8-3: Predicted number of significant noise changes for each option 72 Table 9-1: Proposals following consultation 80 Table 9-2: Developed Alternatives 82 Table 11-1: Decision Framework Criteria 88 Table 11-2: Decision Framework Raw Scores by Criteria 91 Table 11-3: Summary Results from Stage 2 Decision Framework by Business Case Category 92 Table 11-4: Sensitivity of Overall Scores to Weightings (x3) by Business Case 93 Table 11-5: Sensitivity of Overall Scores to Weightings by Individual Criteria (2 times) 94 Table 11-6: Sensitivity testing with variations in scores by a factor of 1.2 by criteria by option 96 Table 11-7: Change in benefits and capital cost required, relative to Option D, to become best performing option (NPV in 2010 market prices discounted to 2010, costs are outturn costs in 2016 prices excluding inflation) 99

Table of Figures Figure 1-1: Location of the A120 (Source: Highways England A12/A120 route based strategy, March 2013) ...... 2 Figure 1-2: Location of Options from Public Consultation ...... 9 Figure 2-1: Geographic Area of Impact ...... 11 Figure 3-1: Bradwell Quarry minerals extraction (4 options) ...... 29 Figure 4-1: Shortlisted route alignments...... 33 Figure 4-2: Location of five public consultation options ...... 35 Figure 9-1: Opinions on upgrading ...... 77 Figure 9-2: Number of Responses on Option Preference by Option ...... 78

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 vii A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

1. Introduction

Report Purpose

This report is a Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) for the A120 Braintree to A12 improvement scheme.

This report is produced as part of Highways England’s Project Control Framework (PCF – Stage 2 Option Selection) “to provide a summary of the Technical Appraisal Report (TAR) and the Report on Public Consultation and to recommend a preferred Option”. It also includes analysis of the relative merits of the routes post consultation and describes the assessment undertaken since the public consultation was held in early 2017.

The SAR also identifies and justifies modifications to the Stage 2 studies undertaken in response to the public consultation and describes the approach for further studies so as to reach an informed decision on a best performing option in 2018.

Following this introduction, the SAR is structured into a further 11 chapters:

• Chapter 2: Summary of Existing Conditions

• Chapter 3: Planning Factors

• Chapter 4: Summary of Alternative Schemes

• Chapter 5: Summary Tables of Traffic, Economics and Costs

• Chapter 6: Summary of Operational Assessment

• Chapter 7: Summary of Technology and Maintenance Assessment

• Chapter 8: Summary of Environmental Assessment and Environmental Design

• Chapter 9: Summary of Public Consultation

• Chapter 10: Appraisal Summary Tables

• Chapter 11: Decision Framework

• Chapter 12: Conclusion

Scheme Description

The A120 trunk road forms a strategic east-west corridor between the M11 near Stansted Airport to Harwich and Harwich International Port, via the A12 between junction 25 at Marks Tey and junction 29 on the Colchester bypass. It is part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and performs several functions: • At the strategic level the corridor provides access to Stansted Airport and the Haven Ports, in particular Harwich International Port, for the movement of freight and passengers. Furthermore, it forms part of the Trans-European Network carrying international traffic. • At the regional level the corridor provides access to regional centres such as Colchester. • At the local level the corridor provides the only access for many villages and towns along the route to essential services and employment.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 1 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

The section of the A120 under specific consideration is from the A131 junction on Braintree bypass to junction 25 on the A12 at Marks Tey; from here on referred to as the corridor. This section is generally a narrow, sub- standard single carriageway alignment. The study area is illustrated in Figure 1-1 below.

Figure 1-1: Location of the A120 (Source: Highways England A12/A120 route based strategy, March 2013)

In April 2015 Highways England published an updated East of England Route Strategy. Whilst identifying the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey as one of the key challenges with the opportunity of widening to dual carriageway, this section has not been included in HE’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS1).

The A120 is to be constructed to Expressway Standard Motorway (ESM) standards (standard still in development) and it assumed that by the design year of 2041, the whole A120 corridor will be operating as an ESM. The design that has been done to date (particularly the basic road layout) makes allowance for the future inclusion of the developing ESM features.

Identified Problems and Do-Nothing Consequences

A thorough analysis of the current transport related problems and their underlying cause was undertaken as part of Stage 0 of the PCF process, with a summary of the key findings outlined below1.

The socio-economic and travel context of the study area, based on 2001 and 2011 census data, points to relatively long commuter journeys that are predominately made by car. There is a significant outflow of traffic from Braintree District with 44% of usual residents commuting outside the district for work. This is in large part due to there being a higher number of workers resident in the district compared to jobs. This manifests itself in a relatively long average journey to work at 21.1km in 2011 (all modes), an increase of 1.0km since 2001. After Greater London, the key destinations for commuter trips out of Braintree District are the surrounding districts of Chelmsford, Uttlesford and Colchester in that order. Aside from London, this outflow is predominately by car at between 86% and 92% of journeys. Taken together, these statistics point to a comparatively high and

1 Jacobs, 5 April 2016: A120 Braintree to A12 Options Assessment Report

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 2 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

increasing level of stress being applied on the Essex Priority Network (PR1) and National Strategic Roads Network (SRN) that provide for longer distance inter-urban travel.

A summary of the current transport related problems and their underlying causes revealed the key issues as outlined in Table 1-1: Summary of Current Transport Related Problems and Underlying Causes.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 3 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 1-1: Summary of Current Transport Related Problems and Underlying Causes

ID Summary Problem Underlying Cause Need to support economic growth and strategic developments 1 Economic growth is a policy directive at Local, Regional and National levels. such as Harwich International Port and Stansted Airport. Increased housing and job allocations emanating from the emerging local plans in Essex Need to accommodate travel demand associated with future 2 and in particular in Braintree District, with 14,000 additional houses and 10,000 additional housing and jobs. jobs. Significant congestion related delay on the corridor as a 3 whole, with journey times taking up to twice as long in peak periods compared to off-peak periods. Lack of capacity relative to current traffic volumes, high car usage due to lack of attractive Significant congestion related delay on links between alternatives and long average trips distance to work due to large outflow of commuters 3a B1024 at Coggeshall and the A12 during multiple hours of the from Braintree District. day. Severe delay and queuing at key junctions of Galley's 3b Corner roundabout and Marks Tey roundabout. Poor journey time reliability over the whole corridor and during six hours in the eastbound direction and three hours in Significant congestion related delay resulting from a lack of capacity relative to travel the westbound direction, with particular sections considered 4 demand and poor resilience associated with the narrow carriageway and lack of unreliable during the entire analysis period of 0700 to 1900, in information on incidents. particular on the approaches to Galley’s Corner roundabout and between the B1024 Colchester Road and the A12. 5 Poor resilience of the corridor. Congestion, narrow carriageway width and lack of information on incidents. Corridor link infrastructure operates over-capacity during up to Narrow carriageway width relative to traffic volumes (lack of capacity) with a high 6 5.75 hours per day (one-way) leading to congestion related proportion of HGVs. delay and poor journey time reliability. Lack of capacity at Galley's Corner roundabout and Marks Tey 7 High peak period traffic flows. roundabout. Severance of several villages on the corridor including The A120 is part of the SRN and has relatively high traffic volumes and proportion of 8 Bradwell, Broad Green and Marks Tey. HGVs and passes directly through these urban areas.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 4 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

ID Summary Problem Underlying Cause High levels of car usage, with 74% of journey to work trips by Lack of attractive alternatives to car and long average trip distance to work due to large 9 usual Braintree District residents by car. outflow of commuters from Braintree District. Car use is generally more attractive (time and cost) than bus 10 Lack of direct rail links and bus priority measures. and rail travel in the corridor. Congestion related delay reduces local air quality and high The A120 is part of the SRN and has relatively high traffic volumes and proportion of 11 traffic volumes through urban areas increase noise. HGVs and passes through villages such as Bradwell, Broad Green and Marks Tey. 12 Limited potential to provide access to new developments. Lack of capacity of the transport system to absorb additional traffic. High collision rate on the A120 relative to UK rural single carriageway rate including 13 Poor safety record of the corridor. pedestrian and cycle collisions. Poor quality Walking, Cycling and Horse-Riding (WCH) infrastructure, including absence of cycling facilities, poor 14 Lack of space for WCH facilities within existing A120 corridor highway boundary. connectivity and standard of pedestrian infrastructure and poor connectivity of bridle-ways.

15 Insufficient maintenance of the corridor. Difficult access due to poor resilience.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 5 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

If left unaddressed, these issues would all be exacerbated over time as the demand for travel on the strategic A120 corridor increases with the following potential consequences: • Constraint on future growth in the region and locally. A study by Peter Brett titled A120 Economic Impact Study (2013) has identified that the constrained scenario of maintaining the current standard on the A120 is likely to result in a loss of £1.1 billion in Gross Value Added (GVA) compared to the current trend. • A barrier to growth for strategic developments in the region including Stansted Airport (London Stansted Airport: The UK’s Southern Gateway, MAG, 2013) and the Haven Ports - particularly Harwich International Port. • Exacerbated impact of incidents such as collisions and maintenance on journey times. • Re-routing of traffic via less appropriate roads, increasing stress on the wider road network. • Constraint on growth of local businesses due to the increased cost of travel. • Constraint on the planned growth in housing and jobs in Braintree District and surrounding Districts. • Increased cost and time for local residents to access employment. • Increased cost and time for local residents to access essential services such as hospitals, education and shopping. • Reduced local air quality in villages along the corridor due to increased congestion. • Increased impact of noise and severance on residents of villages along the corridor.

The identification of the above current and future transport related problems and their underlying causes as well as the magnitude and distribution of the impacts associated with them, clearly establishes the need for significant intervention in the corridor.

The analysis upon which these problems were identified is outlined in detail in the Problems and Objectives Technical Note (Document Reference: B3553T41-JAC-GEN-00-RP-C-0003).

Scheme History

The previous work and studies carried out in the corridor are summarised in Table 1-2: Previous Work and Studies below. These studies have been used to provide context and technical input into the study.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 6 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 1-2: Previous Work and Studies

Study Study Description

A120 Braintree to A Highways England study during the early 2000’s was conducted to identify the Marks Tey problems on the corridor, develop and assess options for addressing the problems Improvement and undertaking public consultation to select a preferred option. Four options were (2005) put forward in a public consultation with the resulting preferred option being an off- line southern bypass. This option did not proceed to construction. It is understood that this was largely due to the high cost of the project given the economic climate of the time and due to local opposition. It should be noted that the public consultation process produced five alternative options plus an additional option proposed by Braintree Council. A120 Galley’s During 2009, Atkins identified a number of options to address congestion and road Corner Local safety issues at Galley’s Corner. These included minor modifications to the Network roundabout, part signalisation, a slip road between A120 eastbound and Management Millennium Way and a scheme that would take the A120 off-line to the east of Scheme (LNMS) Galley’s Corner, providing a grade separated junction to the north-east. One of the Workshop (Atkins, options identified by Atkins has now been implemented, under the ‘pinch point’ October 2009) scheme described below. (Source: AECOM 2015). A120 Millennium During 2013, AECOM carried out initial pre-feasibility work on the potential for Way Slip Roads direct slip roads between the A120 to the west of Galley’s Corner and the B1018 (2013 – 2014) Millennium Way, which crosses the A120 in the vicinity of Braintree Freeport. The objective of the scheme was to remove excess turning traffic from the roundabout and thereby free up capacity. Highways England has recently commissioned further work to establish the engineering feasibility of the scheme, land-take and departures from standard. A120 Pinch Point As part of the 2012 Autumn Statement, a Local Pinch-Point fund was established Scheme (March to remove bottlenecks on the local highway network. According to AECOM (2015) 2014) a Pinch-Point scheme was carried out in March 2014 to improve the capacity of the roundabout at Galley’s Corner. The scheme involved localised widening of the circulatory carriageway to encourage use of both circulatory lanes, coupled with improved signing and road markings. This was designed to ease the path for heavy goods vehicles through the junction and therefore increase the effective capacity of the A120 roundabout entries. East of England In April 2015 Highways England published an updated East of England Route Route Strategy Strategy. Whilst identifying the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey as one of (2017) the key challenges with the opportunity of widening to dual carriageway, this section has not been included in HE’s Road Investment Strategy. A120 Feasibility Review of evidence and identification of problems along the corridor. This study Study Braintree to was undertaken by AECOM in 2015 for Highways England to assess the Marks Tey Stage 1 problems of the A120 corridor from the point of view of identifying more local and (2015) short to medium term improvements.

Given the aforementioned problems, Essex County Council (ECC) has committed to leading on a feasibility study to upgrade the A120 between Braintree Town and the A12. It has been agreed by Essex County Council, the Department for Transport (DfT) and Highways England that the county council will lead on the review of options and routes, undertake public consultation on them and the subsequent identification of a preferred route for the scheme.

Scheme Objectives A final set of intervention-specific objectives were formally approved by the A120 Project Board, which oversees the project with members from Highways England, Essex County Council, and the Jacobs project team, in

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 7 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

March 2016. These are listed in Table 1-3: Intervention-Specific Scheme Objections below, together with the corresponding Highways England RIS objective.

Table 1-3: Intervention-Specific Scheme Objections

A120 Braintree Town to Marks Tey Intervention Specific Objectives RIS Objectives

Reduce congestion related delay, improve journey time reliability and increase the overall transport capacity of the A120 corridor. Increase the resilience of the strategic transport network by improving the ability Reduce existing and of the A120 corridor to cope with incidents such as collisions, breakdowns, future levels of delay maintenance and flooding. and congestion Encourage alternatives to car travel through improvements to the attractiveness of public transport along the A120 corridor. Provide and maintain physical infrastructure that facilitates housing and economic growth, enhances the strategic east-west link and enables businesses Support significant to flourish. levels of planned growth expected in Improve connectivity within communities and integration with the wider transport the area network by reducing severance and increasing accessibility for local residents. Address current road Improve safety for all road users and road workers within the A120 corridor. safety issues Minimise Improve the environmental impact of transport on communities along the environmental impact existing A120 corridor and reduce the impact of new infrastructure on the on sensitive natural and built environment by design. receptors(s) Improve the quality and connectivity of transport provision within the A120 Improve accessibility corridor for people using non-motorised forms of transport, such as pedestrians, for non-motorised cyclists and equestrians. users

Summary of Public Consultation Options

Although the options and their derivation is outlined in more detail later in this report, the location of the five options that went to public consultation is illustrated in Figure 1-2 below to provide context for the chapter to follow.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 8 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Figure 1-2: Location of Options from Public Consultation

Note that the anticipated opening year of the scheme is currently 2026.

Note on option naming convention: this report uses option naming as presented at the public consultation at the start of 2017. The names are therefore different from those used in the PCF stage 0 and 1 documents.

Table 1-4: Revised Option Names for Stage 2

New Name Old Name (PCF Stages 0 & 1)

Option A Option 3

Option B Option 4b

Option C Option 1b

Option D Option 9a

Option E Option 8

Technical Reports

This SAR is based on multidisciplinary reports and studies undertaken by the A120 Project team during PCF Stages 1 and 2 between 2015 and 2018. Stage 0 is as per Stage 1 of the DfT Appraisal Process as detailed in the WebTAG guidance.

Stage 0 comprises: • Definition of problems and objectives • Options generation • Options sifting • Development and assessment of potential options • Identification of better performing options

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 9 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Stage 1 comprises: • Identify options to be taken to public consultation • Assess options in terms of environmental impact, traffic forecasts and economic benefits • Refine the cost estimate of options (including an allowance for risk)

Stage 2 comprises: • Carry out public consultation including exhibitions • Analyse comments received • Finalise analysis and appraisal • Identify preferred route • Refine the cost estimate for preferred route (including allowance for risk) • Refine the environmental impact assessment, traffic forecasts, and economic benefits following public consultation if required • Produce an outline business case • Announce the preferred route

This report represents a final version of the SAR produced at the conclusion of Stage 2 appraisal as one of the key deliverables of the particular PCF stage.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 10 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

2. Summary of Existing Conditions

A full description of the existing conditions is provided in the TAR (Document Reference: B3553T41-JAC-HGN- 00-REP-C-0002) therefore this chapter provides a summary.

Description of Locality

The length of the A120 corridor under consideration runs from the east of the A120’s junction with London Road on the west side of Braintree (A131 junction), to the A12 at the Marks Tey roundabout covering a distance of approximately 13 miles. It forms a major east-west route across mid-Essex serving the towns of Colchester and Braintree as well as several villages along the route to include Marks Tey, Coggeshall and Bradwell. Further afield, it forms part of the wider A120 Trunk road connecting Harwich Port in the east with Stansted Airport and the M11 in the west. It links to another part of the Strategic Road Network at the A12 junction 25 via the Marks Tey and Prince of Wales roundabouts.

The corridor lies within Braintree District for the majority of its length with the eastern end lying in Colchester Borough. It passes through a number of villages including Bradwell, Broad Green and Marks Tey as well as bypassing Coggeshall.

Study Area

Existing A120

Marks Tey Braintree

Bradwell Coggeshall

Silver End Kelvedon

A12

Figure 2-1: Geographic Area of Impact

Existing Highway Network

The existing A120 from the M11 Junction 8/Stansted Airport is dual carriageway with grade separated junctions until the A120 reaches Braintree and the Galley’s Corner roundabout which is an at-grade roundabout, after which the A120 continues north as a dual carriageway until the Marks Farm roundabout. The A120 continues east from the Marks Farm roundabout as a single carriageway road and joins the A12 at the Marks Tey Junction.

The single carriageway section from the A131 junction at Mark’s Farm passes east through the village of Bradwell, with a lowered (30 and 40mph) speed limit and built up frontages. East of Bradwell, the route

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 11 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

continues as a single carriageway rural route until joining the Coggeshall bypass. Coggeshall bypass is also single carriageway, and bypasses Coggeshall to the north until re-joining the original alignment at the east side of Coggeshall. The route continues eastwards to Marks Tey, travelling through Little Tey. The section beyond Little Tey has built up frontages and terminates at a roundabout on the west side of the A12 J25. It is subject to 40 mph and 30mph speed limits over parts of its length.

Apart from Coggeshall Bypass, the route has variable widths, inconsistent Walking Cycling Horse-Riding (WCH) facilities, and numerous direct accesses from properties and fields. The road width in the single carriageway section varies from 6 metres to 10 metres (including painted ghost islands) with verges and footways in places.

Significant structures: • River Blackwater Bridge near Bradwell • Bridge over Great Eastern Main Line at Marks Tey • A Pedestrian subway beyond Tilkey Road, Coggeshall

Existing significant at-grade priority junctions: • There are a number of at-grade priority junctions including the three listed below, and approximately 20 on the remainder of the route. These at-grade priority junctions are located along the single carriageway section (after Marks Farm Roundabout); the majority situated either side of the Coggeshall bypass. • B1024 Colne Road • West Street • B1024 Colchester Road

Existing Major Junctions: • Galley’s Corner Roundabout - A five arm at-grade roundabout where the A120 meets the B1018 and local roads, to the south-east of Braintree. • Marks Farm Roundabout - A four arm at grade roundabout connecting the A120 and A131 east of Braintree. • B1024 Colne Road Junction - A staggered at-grade priority junction on the Coggeshall Bypass. • Marks Tey Junction - A staggered dumb-bell grade separated roundabout where the A120 joins the A12.

Existing A12

The existing A120 joins the existing A12 at Junction 25 of the A12 at Marks Tey. The A12 is part of the SRN and runs from just north of the Blackwall Tunnel to the coast of East Anglia linking the key settlements of; Brentwood, Chelmsford, Colchester, Ipswich, Lowestoft & Great Yarmouth.

In the locality of the A120 the A12 varies in standard between Junctions 19 (Boreham) and 25 (Marks Tey), with a mixture of dual two lane and dual three lane carriageways. In some locations at-grade accesses to adjacent properties have been retained and there are a number of design elements which do not meet current DMRB design standards.

Regional Roads

The A131 is the main regional road, joining the existing A120 (between Great Notley and Braintree) at the Marks Farm junction and continues through Great Leighs until the A130/ B1008 junction. The road is a single carriageway until joining the A120 at Marks Farm roundabout where it multiplexes with the A120 until the Panners/Great Notley junction where it diverges south on a dual-carriageway around Great Notley bypass and a single carriageway thereafter.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 12 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Local Roads

Examples of these are the B1018 between the A120 at Galley’s Corner and Witham town centre (near to the A12) and two routes comprising of minor rural roads linking A120 Galley’s Corner with A12 at Rivenhall End, through the villages of Cressing and Silver End. These roads are relatively low standard single carriageway rural routes interspersed with village environments.

The B1256 starts at M11 Junction 8 at Birchanger Green and heads east right through Dunmow, Rayne and Braintree where it joins the A120 at the Marks Farm junction. The route varies through urban areas (becomes a restricted road particularly when going through Braintree) and rural areas (operates as an urban single carriageway SU2).

The B1024 starts near Earls Colne (branching off the A1124) and continues southwards along Colne Road until meeting the A120 at Coggeshall. It continues southwards in between Kelvedon and Feering where it joins the A12 via London Road.

Within the study area there is also a large network of unclassified roads which provide access to local farms and individual properties and hamlets, many being single track roads without any road markings.

Public Right of Ways (PRoWs)

Within the A120 study area there is a dense network of PRoWs including the presence of some long distance routes such as the Essex Way which runs from Harwich to Epping.

Traffic

The existing traffic conditions have been described in detail in the Problems and Objectives Technical Note (Document Reference: B3553T41-JAC-GEN-00-RP-C-0003) therefore this section provides a summary.

The section of the A120 analysed extends from the A131 at Great Notley to the A12 at Marks Tey which is about 13.0 miles in length.

Daily two-way traffic volumes (AADT) along the single carriageway corridor between Marks Farm and the A12 at Marks Tey are relatively consistent, varying between about 21,400 and 25,400 vehicles per day. The proportion of heavy goods vehicles on the corridor is also relatively constant between Marks Farm roundabout and the A12 varying between 11.7% and 13.3% of AADT.

Peak hour traffic volumes (June 2014) are also relatively consistent and vary between about 1,950 and 2,300 two-way in the morning peak hour (0730 to 0830) and 1,670 and 2,160 in the evening peak hour (1700 to 1800).

Average speeds and journey time across the entire length of the corridor have also been calculated which are outlined in Table 2-1: Average Journey Times and Speeds in Peak Periods below.

Table 2-1: Average Journey Times and Speeds in Peak Periods

Journey Times (minutes) Average Speed (mph)

A120 Direction of Travel 0800 - 1700 - Free 0800 - 1700 - Free 0900 1800 Flow 0900 1800 Flow

Eastbound 22.3 30.8 16.4 35 25 47

Westbound 24.5 19.9 16.8 32 40 46

Table 2-1 indicates the following key points: • Journey times are highest in the eastbound direction travelling from the A131 junction towards the A12 in the evening peak hour between 1700 and 1800, taking just over 30 minutes to travel the entire corridor at an average speed of 25 mph.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 13 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• This compares to an average free flow journey time of about 16 minutes at 47 mph. • In the morning peak hour, the journey takes about 22 minutes eastbound and 25 minutes westbound compared to about 16 minutes and 17 minutes respectively at free flow speeds.

From the review of existing traffic data, areas with particularly low average speeds and poor journey time reliability include: • In the AM peak the W/B approach to Galley’s Corner Roundabout • In the AM peak the E/B approach to Marks Tey Roundabout • In the PM peak the E/B approach to Galley’s Corner Roundabout • In the PM peak the E/B approach to Marks Tey Roundabout

Existing Safety Conditions

A detailed analysis of collision and casualty records for A120 (west of Galleys Corner to A12 J25, Marks Tey) has been carried out. The analysis covers the period January 2011 to December 2015 inclusive. A total of 149 collisions resulting in 234 casualties were recorded, of which approximately 15% of the casualties were seriously injured. The overall analyses are shown in Table 2-2: Personal Injury Collisions by severity and year - 2011-2015 and Table 2-3: Personal Injury Casualties by severity and year - 2011-2015 below.

The trends displayed in the data are relatively stable for the years 2011 – 2013, with a sharp increase in 2014 (reflecting a similar change nationally), whilst a substantial reduction occurred in 2015. These changes are reflected in serious injuries also. The period average is consistent at around 30 collisions and 47 casualties per annum. It is anticipated that the scheme would address these rates by the reduction of traffic on the existing route, and providing a high standard dual carriageway with technology for strategic traffic.

Table 2-2: Personal Injury Collisions by severity and year - 2011-2015

Year Fatal Serious Slight Total

2011 0 7 23 30

2012 0 5 21 26

2013 0 6 24 30

2014 0 12 33 45

2015 0 0 18 18

Total 0 30 119 149

Table 2-3: Personal Injury Casualties by severity and year - 2011-2015

Year Fatal Serious Slight Total

2011 0 7 36 43

2012 0 5 38 43

2013 0 7 45 52

2014 0 16 51 67

2015 0 0 29 29

Total 0 35 199 234

Cluster sites have been identified within the route where more than 5 collisions occurred within a 100 m length or were attributable to a junction during the five-year period. Six locations were identified, as shown in Table 2-4: Personal Injury Collisions at Cluster Sites by Severity, Year and Fatal Weighted Index 2011-2015. The total number of collisions at these locations was 57, approximately 38% of all of the collisions which occurred in the

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 14 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

route. Of these, 7 collisions involved serious injuries, representing approximately 12% of all collisions at cluster sites. This is a lower proportion than the general proportion of KSI collisions within the route.

Table 2-4: Personal Injury Collisions at Cluster Sites by Severity, Year and Fatal Weighted Index 2011-2015

Total Cluster Fatal Serious Slight Location Collisions KSI Collisions Number Collisions Collisions Collisions (2011-2015)

A120/001 A120/Cressing Road - Galley's 21 0 2 19 2 Corner Roundabout

A120/002 A120/A131/Coggeshall Road - 5 0 2 3 2 Mark's Farm Roundabout

A120/003 A120/Coggeshall Road/King's 11 0 2 9 2 Lane

A120/004 A120/B1024 Colne Road, near 9 0 1 8 1 Coggeshall

A120/005 A120/Salmons Lane, Salmon's 6 0 0 6 0 Corner

A120/006 A120/A12 Mark's Tey Junction 5 0 0 5 0

Total Collisions at A120 cluster locations 57 0 7 50 7

An analysis of existing link collision rates has been carried out for the A120 for the period 2011-2015, and these have been compared with Strategic Road Network rates for similar types of routes. The majority of A120 is a single carriageway route of varying standard, whilst the section from Marks Farm roundabout (near Braintree) to the western boundary of the scheme is a dual carriageway. There are two large roundabouts in this relatively short section of route, Galley’s Corner roundabout and Mark’s Farm roundabout. Table 2-5: Collision rates by total and KSI for A120 and national SRN rates for single carriageway and dual carriageway SRN roads - 2011- 2015 shows the rates and comparisons.

Table 2-5: Collision rates by total and KSI for A120 and national SRN rates for single carriageway and dual carriageway SRN roads - 2011-2015

Section Type Length AADT Total injury Total A120 National A120 National (miles) collisions KSI Collision collision KSI KSI rate4 rate2 rate3 rate2

A120 west of Galleys Corner to D2AP 2.0 38849 40 7 283.74 171.95 49.65 24.59 Mark’s Farm

A120 Mark’s Farm to A12 J25 – S2 9.3 33643 109 23 190.47 245.58 40.19 53.20 Mark’s Tey (single carriageway)

Comparison of the observed rates for all collisions and KSI collisions with those for the whole SRN indicates the single carriageway section of A120 has lower rates than for the remainder of the single carriageway SRN.

2 Collision rates stated per billion vehicle miles 3 Derived from Reported Road Casualties on the Strategic Network 2015 – Highways England - Figure 4-4 4 Derived from Reported Road Casualties on the Strategic Network 2015 – Highways England - Figure 4-5

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 15 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

The dual carriageway section has higher collision and casualty rates than the SRN network-wide values for similar roads. However, the rates may not be strictly comparable because the length is short, and contains two major roundabout junctions (Galley’s Corner and Mark’s Farm junctions).

No other notable variances from normal SRN collision or casualty levels have been identified.

Expressway In HE’s RIS, the aspiration is stated for the A120 to become an Expressway Standard Motorway (ESM). An ESM is an A-road that is as well-designed as a motorway and is able to offer a comparable standard of journey and safety performance to users. As a minimum, ESMs will be generally dual carriageway standard roads that provide a high level of safety for users, reduce maintenance requirements, and are well-built and resilient to delays. They will have junctions that are generally grade separated, will include modern safety measures, construction standards and incorporate technology to manage traffic and provide better information to drivers5.

The new A120 is to be constructed to the developing ESM standard with the assumption that by 2040 and hence the design year of 2041, the whole A120 corridor will be operating as an ESM. It is assumed there would be a phased implementation of the ESM standards along the A120 corridor; the RIS indicates the A120 between the A131 and M11 J8 is designated as a current, planned and potential ESM. Therefore, even though the new A120 is to be constructed to ESM standards, it’s operation as an ‘ESM’ is dependent on the aforementioned corridor.

A key objective of the scheme is to improve road user safety. The provision of a dual carriageway improvement to ESM standard would reduce traffic on the bypassed A120 and the adjoining local road network, where collision rates would be expected to reduce, whilst those on the new route would be expected to reflect those of a motorway without MIDAS, a significant improvement over the existing single carriageway route. Analysis of the safety impact of the scheme is dealt with further in Chapter 4: Summary of Alternative Schemes and Chapter 6: Summary of Operational Assessment.

Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding

The process of Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding (WCH) assessment commenced during PCF stage 1 of the scheme development, and has formed a part of option assessment and selection from early stages of the scheme development.

The existing A120 route is mixed in nature, being largely inter-urban with built-up sections in Marks Tey and Bradwell. There are footways alongside the route in the built-up areas of a range of widths and standards, but in some areas they are discontinuous, requiring users to cross the road to use the facility on the opposite side. In some areas, they are absent completely. Pelican crossing facilities are provided in Marks Tey and Bradwell, whilst underpasses are provided at Galley’s Corner, Braintree (walkers and cyclists) and Coggeshall Bypass (footpath).

In the rural sections, particularly Coggeshall Bypass, the existing route intersects a number of side roads and public rights of way, including the Essex Way long distance footpath. Most of these cross the road at-grade. Bus routes operate along A120, and some bus stops have lay-bys. Operation of bus stops is challenging on a single carriageway route with an AADT over 20,000 vehicles per day.

The safety performance of the route over the period 2011-2015 for walkers, cyclists and horse riders is shown in Table 2-6: Collisions by total and severity for A120, walkers, cyclists and horse drivers. Of the collisions reported, 4 of those with pedestrian involvement and 5 of those with cycle involvement occurred in the section of route between the Kings Arms (Great Tey) and A12 J25 at Marks Tey. This length is largely of an urban nature. There were no collisions involving horse riders reported.

The four collisions involving serious injury to cyclists and the remaining pedestrian slight injury collision occurred in the section of route west of Bradwell. Three of the cycle collisions occurred on the dual carriageway section.

5 Road Investment Strategy: for the 2015/16 – 2019/20 Road Period

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 16 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 2-6: Collisions by total and severity for A120, walkers, cyclists and horse drivers

Year WCH User Fatal Serious Slight Total

Pedestrian 0 0 1 1 2011 P Cyclist 0 0 1 1

Pedestrian 0 0 1 1 2012 P Cyclist 0 0 1 1

Pedestrian 0 0 2 2 2013 P Cyclist 0 1 1 2 Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 2014 P Cyclist 0 3 1 4 Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 2015 P Cyclist 0 0 1 1

Pedestrian 0 0 4 4 Total P Cyclist 0 4 5 9

The improvement options cut through a largely rural area but with a relatively dense network of existing public rights of ways, most of which are footpaths. All options cross the existing A12 route, and thus impact the existing Marks Tey to Kelvedon shared footway/cycleway on the north-west side of the A12. They also all cross the Essex Way long distance footpath and options B and C travel close to a high quality green lane (Pantlings Lane).

Specific engagement with walking, cycling and horse riding stakeholders has been carried out at early stages and is ongoing, to understand the challenges and opportunities perceived by users. Liaison with Essex County Council’s public rights of way and cycling officers has also been carried out to assist in developing walking, cycling and horse riding opportunities and proposals which take account of County and District Council strategies.

Topography, Land Use, Property and Industry

The following sections provide an overview of the topography, land use, property and industry.

A Geographic Area of Impact (GAI) has been determined, based on guidance from the DfT in the Transport Analysis Guidance (DfT, 2014). The GAI extends beyond the likely area within which works would be undertaken in order to fully capture potential effects which may result from the Proposed Scheme. This is shown in Figure 2-1: Geographic Area of Impact.

Each of the individual environmental assessments use a specific study area dependant on relevant guidance and likely scale of effects. This is detailed within the Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) (Jacobs 2018).

2.6.1 Topography

Option A is located within an undulating arable setting, with associated farm buildings scattered across the area. Hedgerows and drainage ditches border the arable fields and connect fragments of woodland. Woodland areas are more frequent and fields are generally smaller along option A than is typical for the arable fields within the wider landscape. The topography ranges between approximately 30 and 65m above ordnance datum (AOD).

Option A lies within the floodplain of the River Blackwater and crosses Robins Brook and Domsey Brook. There are several ditches and small water courses that form tributaries to the River Blackwater.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 17 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Option B would lie within a predominantly flat arable landscape setting, with an active sand and gravel quarry. Hedgerows and drainage ditches border the arable fields and connect fragments of woodland. Many of the arable fields are of large size and have field margins (of variable width). The topographical variation ranges from approximately 30-60m AOD and only a small extent lies within the floodplain of the River Blackwater and the Domsey Brook.

Option C is within a predominantly flat arable landscape setting with associated farm buildings and passes directly across Bradwell Quarry, an active sand and gravel quarry. Hedgerows, field margins and drainage ditches border large arable fields and connect fragments of woodland. Many of the arable fields are large in size and have field margins (of variable widths). The topographical variation ranges from approximately 30-60m AOD, patches of which lie within the floodplain of the River Brain, River Blackwater and Domsey Brook.

Option D is proposed within a predominantly flat arable landscape setting, with associated farm buildings scattered across the area. Hedgerows and drainage ditches border the arable fields and connect fragments of woodland. The topographical variation ranges between approximately 20-60m AOD and is within the floodplain of the River Blackwater at the eastern extent of the route.

Option E is proposed within a predominantly flat landscape. Hedgerows, field margins and ditches border the fields. These features provide some connectivity to woodland copses within the survey area. The topographical variation ranges from approximately 20-60m AOD and passes over the floodplains of the River Brain and the River Blackwater at the western and eastern ends of the route alignment respectively.

2.6.2 Land Use and Industry

The majority of the land use within the study areas is predominantly agricultural with a number of villages and towns. The largest town, Braintree has a population of approximately 43,000 people with some of the villages with populations of approximately 5,000 people. There are also a number of hamlets and isolated properties in the area.

There is a quarry approximately in the centre of the study area, the Bradwell Quarry. There are a number of areas designated for potential future mineral extraction.

There are a number of designated and non-designated sites, watercourses, listed buildings and heritage sites which are described in the following sections.

Climate

Climatically, the area is typical of Eastern England with mean annual temperatures around 9.5 °C to 10.5 °C. The average mean daily temperatures are around 6 °C to 8 °C in the winter, and the summer months around 20 °C to 23 °C. On average, December is the month with the least sunshine and July is the sunniest.

The average number of annual thunderstorms (15) makes a significant contribution to the total annual rainfall. Due to climate change, rainfall intensities are expected to increase over the design life of the options. Therefore, a climate change uplift factor must be applied to incorporate resilience into the new surface water drainage for each of the Options.

Environment

This section provides a high level summary of the key environmental features considered as part of the environmental assessment. To avoid repetition and keep the SAR succinct, this is only intended as a high level summary to inform the route selection process. A full description of the baseline environment and baseline collection methodology is given in the PCF Stage 2 EAR (Jacobs 2018).

2.8.1 Air Quality

There are a number of existing roads in the area which are likely to be primary sources of nitrogen oxides (nitrogen oxide (NOx) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10)).

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 18 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

There are no Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) within the study area. The nearest AQMA is Stanway AQMA at Lucy Lane North. It is approximately 3.5 km to the east of the Prince of Wales roundabout, Marks Tey at the eastern end of the route. This AQMA is declared for public exposure to exceedances of annual mean NO2 concentrations and is managed by Colchester Borough Council.

The background annual mean concentrations of NOx, NO2 and PM10 for each assessment year (2016 and 2026) were obtained from Defra’s Background Maps, which are based on monitoring and meteorological data for a 2015 reference year. Background annual mean pollutant concentrations for the baseline and opening years were found to be well below respective objective thresholds (as set by the European Union (EU)).

In addition to desktop data, monitoring was undertaken around the existing A120 in 2016 and derived for the assessment baseline year of 2016. Estimated annual mean equivalent NO2 concentrations at all of the monitored sites were found to be below objective thresholds as set by the EU.

Braintree District Council and Colchester Borough Council operate a network of diffusion tubes across their respective authority areas. NO2 concentrations at locations close to the major road networks were found to be below the EU objective threshold. Two sites (Chipping Hill Witham and Foxden A12) show exceedances in 2015. Monitored NO2 concentrations at locations within the study area were below objective thresholds in 2016. The level of exceedance is described in the EAR (Jacobs, 2018).

2.8.2 Cultural Heritage

Following guidance in HA208/07 Vol 11, Section 3, Part 2 (Highways Agency et al., 2007) a topic study area extending 200m in all directions from the footprint of each option has been used.

Within the study area 259 cultural heritage assets have been identified, of which 43 are designated. The designated assets include:

• Three Grade II* listed buildings6; Black Notley Lodge (Asset 1), Baytree Farmhouse (Asset 31) and Hole Farmhouse (Asset 166).

• 37 Grade II listed buildings7. Grade II listed buildings are defined by Historic England as ‘of special interest’ and have therefore been assessed to be of Medium value; and • Three Conservation Areas, Stisted (Asset 52), Coggeshall (Asset 203) and Cressing (Asset 40).

There are a further seven undesignated archaeological remains and five undesignated historic landscapes and Historic Landscape Types within the study area which have been assessed to be of value.

There are a large number of cropmarks and artefact findspots across the study area, indicating a rich and complex archaeological landscape. The potential for unknown archaeological remains has therefore been assessed to be high across the entirety of the scheme. This is based on the overall density of known archaeological sites, features, and findspots. This suggests a high level of human activity across a range of periods. Of particular note is the area of high potential for Palaeolithic remains associated with a known interglacial lake that was located near to Rivenhall End. Although the likelihood of discovering the remains of Palaeolithic activity is typically low across Britain, if found, it could be of international significance.

A summary of the value of heritage assets is given in Table 2-7: Summary of Cultural Heritage Asset Values.

6 Grade II* listed buildings are defined by Historic England as ‘particularly important buildings of more than special interest’ and have therefore been assessed to be of High value. 7 Grade II listed buildings are defined by Historic England as ‘of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them’ and have therefore been assessed to be of Medium value.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 19 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 2-7: Summary of Cultural Heritage Asset Values

All Values Sub-topic Negligible Low Medium High Very High Total Archaeological 125 50 7 0 0 182 Remains Historic Buildings 1 9 40 3 0 53 Historic 2 17 5 0 0 24 Landscapes TOTAL 128 76 52 3 0 259

2.8.3 Landscape

There are no national landscape designations, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), within the study area and the area does not fall within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The study area is largely made up of medium sized fields enclosed by hedgerows, and the land use is predominantly arable with some areas of pasture. The Rivers Brain and Blackwater and associated tributaries run through the study area. The river valleys are often well wooded and support riparian vegetation, where typically the land is steeper and/or wetter, and some areas of pasture. There are numerous trees with tree preservation orders throughout the study area, and several pockets of ancient woodland. Stisted, Cressing, Silver End, and parts of Coggeshall, Kelvedon and Feering are designated conservation areas.

Listed buildings are scattered throughout the study area, and are particularly concentrated within conservation areas. There are several scheduled monuments within the study area, including Coggeshall Abbey, and features at Black Notley, Rivenhall and Feering. Braxted Park grade II* registered park and garden lies east of the A12 between Junctions 22 and 23. Notable gardens comprise Glazenwood at Bradwell, Rivenhall Place north west of Rivenhall, Holfield Grange and Feering Manor Garden at Coggeshall. A network of public rights of way crosses the study area, and there are several areas of common land. The A120, A12 roads and railway lines are locally dominant, although away from these corridors and the core settlements of Braintree and Coggeshall the area is reasonably tranquil.

The study area almost entirely lies within National Character Area (NCA) 86: South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland. NCA 86 is described as:

‘It is an ancient landscape of wooded arable countryside with a distinct sense of enclosure. The overall character is of a gently undulating, chalky boulder clay plateau, the undulations being caused by the numerous small-scale river valleys that dissect the plateau. There is a complex network of old species-rich hedgerows, ancient woods and parklands, meadows with streams and rivers that flow eastwards. Traditional irregular field patterns are still discernible over much of the area, despite field enlargements in the second half of the 20th century. The widespread moderately fertile, chalky clay soils give the vegetation a more or less calcareous character. Gravel and sand deposits under the clay are important geological features, often exposed during mineral extraction, which contribute to our understanding of ice-age environmental change.’

2.8.4 Nature Conservation

Statutory Designated Sites

In the study area, there are no Ramsar sites, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) within the Geographical Area of Interest (GAI) or wider study area. The closest statutorily designated site is Abberton Reservoir (SPA) located approximately 6km to the south east of the nearest option. The River Blackwater and water catchment area provides hydrological connectivity between the Options and the designated sites. Additionally, as the designated sites support migratory birds, some species of and which are among the qualifying features for the site designations, there is the potential for one of more species of bird to utilise habitats within the GAI. Given the level of designation, the nature conservation interest of these statutory sites are valued as Very High/ international.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 20 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

The options lie within 1km of Local Nature Reserves (LNR), which are valued Medium/County Importance for their nature conservation interest.

Non-Statutory Designated Sites

The options lie within 1km of Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) and Veteran trees. Based on the designations, the habitats, and the potential for protected species, these features have been valued as Medium / County importance at this stage as a precautionary approach.

Options B and C pass through the Coggeshall Farm LWS, located at the crossing of the Blackwater Valley. Coggeshall Farm LWS is a river valley site comprising a mosaic of open Cricket-bat willow plantation, with some flower-rich grasslands and associated hedgerows. It has been identified as a key foraging area for nationally rare bee species and several scarce bee species listed on the Essex Red Data List.

Habitat Valuations

In terms of landscape habits, the routes pass through an undulating arable setting, with farm buildings, numerous ponds and watercourses and hedgerows which connect fragments of woodland.

The following habitats of principal importance, listed in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, were identified within the study area (these are known as Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)) priority habitats: • Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh; • Traditional orchards; • Hedgerow; • Running water; • Ponds; and • Deciduous woodland.

The study area contains a number of different BAP priority habitats. The value of habitats ranges from High/National to Site/Negligible and are defined in the EAR (Jacobs 2016).

The Phase 1 habitat survey identified habitats that have the potential to support protected and notable species or groups of species. The nature conservation importance of these species are detailed in Table 2-8: Overall Valuation of Species or Species Group present within the Options.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 21 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 2-8: Overall Valuation of Species or Species Group present within the Options

Importance Species

National/international Migratory birds

Regional None present

County • Bat species • Bumblebee • Great Crested Newts • Water vole • Otter • Dormice • White Clawed Crayfish

District • Common lizard • Slow worm • Grass snake • Adder • Golden plover • Lapwing

Local • Badgers • Other notable species (e.g. brown hare, pole cats, harvest mice, hedgehogs)

Bat studies in 2017 have found seven species of bats to be present in the area (all protected under the European Habitats Directive), with three maternity sites in proximity to Routes A and B. This includes the barbastelle bat, a particularly rare bat with a preference for woodland habitat. A brown long eared bat was caught on the River Blackwater west of Coggeshall and tracked to Curd Hall. A natters bat and Daubenton’s was caught at Glazenwood and tracked to Lanham Wood where a roost was found. A noctule bat was caught at Glazenwood and tracked north over the existing A120.

An environmental DNA (eDNA) survey was undertaken on suitable ponds within 250m of the scheme options. The eDNA survey returned positive results for ponds within 250m of options A, B and C.

2.8.5 Geology and Soils

Sandy gravelly clay of the Lowestoft Formation (a secondary undifferentiated aquifer) overlies much of the study area and lies above the Kesgrave Formation of sand and gravel. The Kesgrave formation (Secondary A aquifer) in turn lies above London Clay (unproductive strata). In locations where rivers are found, alluvium is encountered within the floodplain. Soils located within the options are generally considered to be of good quality.

The two main watercourses, the River Blackwater and River Brain, are both classified as having moderate ecological and good chemical quality, but high levels of nitrates and phosphates.

There is one geological Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) within the route study area; the Marks Tey Brick Pit SSSI located to the north of Marks Tey, approximately 2.9km north of option A.

The Essex Minerals Safeguarding Area (as defined in the Essex Minerals Plan 2014) forms a large part of the central study area. Bradwell Quarry is located in the middle of the study area and is an operational sand and gravel quarry which can process up to 1 million m3 of material per annum. The quarry has recently been granted

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 22 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

planning permission to move into future reserve areas and has a further three areas in the Essex County Council (ECC) Minerals Plan.

There is a further extraction area to the east of the A12, south east of Rivenhall End, at Colemans Farm. This is identified in the Essex Minerals Plan as a 46 ha site with the potential for mineral extraction. To the south of Bradwell Quarry there is a potential minerals site called Park Gate Farm, which is a site submitted by Hanson for inclusion in the 2014 Minerals plan. This site is not a preferred site in the Minerals Plan however it does form part of the Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA). It is possible that the areas where the options cross Bradwell Quarry may be at risk of ground instability due to the extraction of minerals and replacement with fill materials.

The disused Rivenhall Airfield is located on and next to Bradwell Quarry. Due to the activity that has been conducted on this site there is the possibility for land contamination, depending on the level of remediation conducted by Bradwell Quarry during mining operations. Other possible sources are poorly compacted material in the historical gravel and sand pits within the study area which could have contaminated materials or cause localised problems during construction. There are a number of other more localised potentially contaminative sources within the study area including railway lines, vehicle scrap yards, sewage works and activities on farms and/or local industrial estates.

Based on the review of Zetica’s Unexploded Bomb (UXB) Risk Map for Essex area (viewed online), some parts of each of the five options (particularly the western areas and the former airfield) may be considered moderate bomb risk areas.

2.8.6 Materials

Based on current data there is unlikely to be primary aggregates available locally during the lifetime of the construction of the scheme. However, there is land bank regionally until 2023.

ECC and Southend on Sea Borough Council (SSBC, neighbouring council) identified 33 construction and demolition waste recycling sites within, and in proximity to, Essex in 2014, either operating or under construction. These are located mainly near urban areas and main transport routes and provide an estimated capacity of approximately 1.64 million tonnes per annum (tpa). There are generally fewer facilities located in rural areas, typically comprising temporary facilities co-located on operating minerals or landfill sites.

In 2012 there were 48 hazardous waste facilities operating in the ECC and SSBC Plan Area. There are limited facilities dedicated to hazardous waste recovery. There are a number of hazardous waste transfer facilities, which enable waste to be exported beyond the plan area boundary for further recovery and treatment activities. Within the plan area, there are no facilities for incineration with or without Energy from Waste (EfW) or treatment. Therefore, currently all hazardous waste requiring disposal to landfill will need to be exported out of Essex potentially to adjacent counties. However, an EfW site is proposed in Bradwell Quarry, north of routes D & E and it is understood that construction of this plant will commence in the near future.

2.8.7 Noise and Vibration

The Study Area is defined as • A 1 km boundary around the start and end points of the physical works for the scheme, • Any routes that are improved or bypassed as part of the scheme. • Such roads where there is a 1 dB increase or decrease in noise in the baseline year and/or a 3 dB increase or decrease in the future assessment year in comparison with the baseline year.

The calculation area is defined as all residential dwellings and other noise sensitive receptors within 600m of the scheme and for those roads (within 1km of the scheme) on the existing road network that are predicted to result in noise changes of 1 decibel (dB) in the opening year (2026) or 3 dB in the design year (2041).

The Calculation Area is then defined as all residential dwellings and other noise sensitive receptors within 600 m of the scheme and for those roads (within 1 km of the scheme) on the existing road network that are predicted to result in noise changes of 1 dB in the opening year or 3 dB in the design year.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 23 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Road traffic noise emanating from the existing A120 and A12 dominate the existing noise environment for many sensitive premises. Other arterial roads in the area such as the B1018 and B1024 would also be the primary noise source for receptors in their local vicinity. Road traffic noise is particularly dominant for those receptors in closest proximity to the existing busy roads. Within the Calculation Area there are 24 Noise Important Areas (NIA), 15 of which are along the A120.

Indicatively, receptors in the town of Braintree located west of the scheme are relatively accustomed to the presence of traffic noise. Braintree has the A120 and A131 in close proximity. It should be noted that noise levels may vary depending on the acoustic properties of the noise propagation path between the carriageway and the receptor (e.g. if there are intervening features that may act as noise barriers). If no changes are made to the existing road infrastructure, these noise levels would gradually increase with time, due to expected growth in the volume of traffic.

There are a number of rural receptors between Braintree and the A12 located in close proximity to the scheme options that currently have low noise levels as traffic noise is minimal due to a rural road network. Due to the rural nature of these receptors they could be more sensitive to changes in traffic induced noise levels.

2.8.8 People and Communities

A number of public rights of way cross the options. These include footpaths, byways and cycleways. There are a number of bus stops within the study area. There are residential properties to the north and west of the A120, at Coggeshall, Feering, Rivenhall and Silver End. All of the options contain at least one school, except for Option A which has three schools. There is a rugby club along all of the options, except for Option A and B. All of the options include a motor cross track and the Marks Tey Point to Point course except for Option D and E. There are a number of local businesses including a number of retail parks (Galleys Corner and Chapel Hill) within the study area. There is registered common land along all of the options, except for Option A and D.

2.8.9 Drainage and the Water Environment

There are a total of 29 watercourses within the 1km study area identified around the scheme which could be potentially crossed or discharged to. This includes four watercourses which are designated as ‘Main River’ by the Environment Agency (the River Brain, Robins Brook, River Blackwater and Domsey Brook), and 25 watercourses which consist of a combination of local field drains and ordinary (smaller) watercourses. Within the study area there are also four ponds and three lakes which could also be potentially affected by the Proposed Scheme. Within the study area, the predominant areas at risk of surface water flooding are along the River Brain which is crossed by Option C and E south of Braintree and along the River Blackwater which is crossed by Option A south of Stisted and Option B and C south of Coggeshall.

For flood risk, an overview and classification of receptors is given in Table 2-9: Value of Receptors for Flood Risk. This table also gives an indication of the sensitivity/importance of the receptor, which are discussed in more detail in the EAR (Jacobs 2018).

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 24 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 2-9: Value of Receptors for Flood Risk

Receptor Description Sensitivity/importance Fluvial flood risk – River No residential properties in floodplain Low Brain and River Blackwater Fluvial flood risk – Small corridor of Flood Zone 2 adjacent to named Low ordinary watercourses watercourses; however, no properties located within it within the study area Surface water flood Surface water flood risk to land adjacent to Low receptors watercourses, no/very few properties within these areas identified as being at risk Groundwater flood Low groundwater flood risk across study area except Low receptors for immediately adjacent to River Blackwater Reservoir flood receptors Worst case scenario includes floodplain adjacent to Low River Blackwater with very few properties within Other sources flood No other risk sources noted at this stage Low receptors

The Environment Agency Risk of Flooding mapping indicates that there is a risk of surface water flooding within the study area. This is high adjacent to watercourses, with medium and low risk depending on the size of the watercourse.

The study area lies within four Water Framework Directive (WFD) water body catchments which are designated under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017. Each WFD water body is assigned a status/potential (i.e. Bad, Poor, Moderate or Good) which is dictated by a series of quality elements, namely biological, physio-chemical and hydromorphology. The four WFD water bodies within the study are designated as Heavily Modified Water bodies. For these water bodies, there is the aim of achieving Good Potential which recognises the important uses and potential pressures on the water bodies.

The current overall statuses of the WFD water bodies in the study area are as follows: • River Brain (GB105037041140) – moderate potential; • River Blackwater (Combined Essex) (GBB105037033870) – moderate potential; • Domsey Brook (GB105037033870) – good potential; and • Roman Rive (GB105037034150) – moderate potential

There are seven registered domestic abstractions located within 200m of the options. There is one licenced groundwater abstraction well located directly on the eastern section of options A, B and C.

No pollution control or attenuation features are apparent on the existing A120 in the study area, though these may be obscured by vegetation cover. Local roads in the study area are predominantly un-kerbed, with no formal drainage system apparent.

Public Utilities

The C2 Statutory Undertakers inquiries were sent out to all the Statutory Undertakers in the region who have responded with the location of their plant, which has enabled potential clashes at this initial stage to be identified. The list of potentially affected Statutory Undertakers apparatus is detailed in the Statutory Undertakers Estimate PCF Product (Document Reference: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0005).

Prior to producing this report, C2 Preliminary Inquiries had been issued (C2 Preliminary Inquiries from Stage 1 require renewal) and C3 Budget Estimates have been requested. At the time of finalising this product, some

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 25 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Statutory Undertakers have responded with quotes however not all the affected Statutory Undertakers have responded with C3s.

Severance The existing route of A120 between Galley’s Corner Roundabout and Mark’s Tey junction intersects with a number of public rights of way, footpaths and cycle facilities which will affect Walking, Cycling and Horse-Riding (WCH).

Key areas of severance currently experienced for are; Marks Tey, Surrex to Marks Tey, Coggeshall Bypass, Bradwell to Coggeshall, Bradwell to Marks Farm and Marks Farm to West of Galley’s Corner. There are varying degrees of severity between the different areas. Further severity detail is available in the TAR (Document Reference: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0002).

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 26 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

3. Planning Factors

Option Constraints and Opportunities

Potential “high” level scheme constraints: • Land ownership for road widening - this may require compulsory purchase of land and cause either temporary or permanent disruption to tenancies etc. • Great Eastern Main Line - this rail line within 200m of the A12 between junctions 22 and 23, and junctions 24 and 25 which will require crossing for the A120 to tie into the A12. • Braintree Branch line – this rail line runs from Witham to Braintree located in the west of the study area which may need crossing. • Bradwell Quarry located in the middle of study area. • The River Blackwater which runs through the study area. • Environmental constraints – preliminary environmental assessments have been undertaken; further quantification is shown in the Environmental Assessment section. • Loss of agricultural land. • Potential loss of common land or the need to replace lost common land. Potential Scheme opportunities include: • Deliver a Scheme which is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). • Emerging infrastructure – there is a need for co-ordination between improvements brought forward by Highways England and those progressed by local authorities in line with the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) objectives; local and strategic schemes must be phased appropriately. SELEP ‘s purpose being to drive economic growth across East Sussex, Essex, Kent, Medway, Southend and Thurrock. • Emerging development in terms of allocated sites for proposed development being progressed through emerging Local Plans for Braintree, Colchester and Uttlesford Districts. • Deliver environmental enhancements where possible.

Relevant Planning Legislation and Policies

3.2.1 Planning Act 2008 (as amended)

The Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the “Act”) and associated related secondary legislation, including the Localism Act 2011, sets out the planning regime in relation to applications for orders granting development consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). NSIPs are developments which require ‘development consent orders’ under procedures governed by the Act. The A120 Scheme is an NSIP scheme under Section 22 of the Act and will therefore require a Development Consent Order (DCO).

As an NSIP, the A120 Scheme will require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended), otherwise referred to as ‘the EIA Regulations’. The EIA Regulations transpose European Union Directive 2011/92/EU ‘on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment’ into UK law.

3.2.2 National Policy Statement for National Networks (NN NPS)

The Act requires an application for development consent to be decided in accordance with the relevant National Policy Statement (“NPS”) as per Section 104(3) of the Act. In the case of the scheme this is the National Policy Statement for National Networks (NN NPS).

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 27 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Section 104(3) of the Act provides that the Secretary of State (SoS) must decide an application in accordance with any relevant NPS. As the NPS is, subject to Section 104(4) and (8), the primary policy reference for the Secretary of State, it is also the primary policy framework which is taken into consideration by the Examining Authority (ExA) when determining an application for development consent on behalf of the SoS.

In the summary of need on page 9 of the NN NPS the following vision and strategic objectives are set out:

• The Government will deliver national networks that meet the Country’s long-term needs; supporting a prosperous and competitive economy and improving overall quality of life, as part of a wider transport system.

• Networks with the capacity and connectivity and resilience to support national and local economic activity and facilitate growth and create jobs.

• Networks which support and improve journey quality, reliability and safety.

• Networks which support the delivery of environmental goals and the move to a low carbon economy.

• Networks which join up our communities and link effectively to each other.

The Examining Authority can also have regard to any other matter that it considers to be both important and relevant. Other national policies and local planning documents may be considered as falling into this category.

3.2.3 Local Development Plans

Local Development Plan Policies are relevant to NSIP’s insofar that they delineate specific land use designations which may be relevant for the scheme. For clarity, whilst Local Plans do not provide the basis for decision making for NSIP’s, they still have relevance to the process particularly when Local Authorities are required to submit Local Impact Reports to the ExA at Examination Stage.

3.2.4 Essex Minerals Local Plan (Adopted 2014)

The Essex Minerals Local Plan was adopted in 2014 and allocates land for the winning and processing of minerals across the entire County.

Bradwell Quarry – Preferred and Reserve Minerals Site

Table 3-1: Programme of Mineral Extraction at Bradwell Quarry

Quarry Yield (mt) Years Start End Date Section Date

A3 1 1 2016 2017

A4 3 3 2017 2020

A5 3 3 2020 2023

A6 2.5 2.5 2023 2025.5

A7 6.5 6.5 2025.5 2032

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 28 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

A4

R A3 A7

A6 A5

Figure 3-1: Bradwell Quarry minerals extraction (4 options)

Blackwater Aggregates’ existing quarrying operations commenced in 2002 under planning permission ESS/07/98/BTE, granted on the 24 May 1999 for the extraction of 7 million tonnes of sand and gravel from the 65.7 hectares’ extension (known as ‘Site R’) of the Bradwell Quarry, and low level restoration utilising replaced overburden. Subsequent modifications to the planning permission amended the original restoration scheme to include a mixture of shallow sloping agricultural fields, steeper woodland side slopes and a large surface water collection lagoon (New Field Lagoon). Other planning permissions apply to the mineral processing area within Bradwell Quarry, most notably for the Dry Silo Mortar (DSM) plant and for the Bagging Plant within the main processing and infrastructure area of Bradwell Quarry (which now covered under ESS/07/16/BTE). These works are now completed.

Quarrying operations have progressed across Site A2 under planning permission ESS/32/11/BTE which resulted in the recovery of 1.7 million tonnes of sand and gravel (with restoration operations ongoing). Extraction is now completed. Blackwater Aggregates’ existing quarrying operations are currently ongoing within Sites A3 and A4 under planning permission ESS/07/16/BTE. This is for the extraction of an estimated reserve of 3 million tonnes of sand and gravel. The permission also includes retention of the existing access onto the A120, private and internal haul roads, sand and gravel processing plant, ready mixed concrete plant, bagging plant, dry silo mortar plant and water management system, and re-contouring of restoration levels of extraction areas (Sites R and A2). Restoration is to a combination of agriculture, woodland, biodiversity, water lagoons and to levels appropriate to safeguard the implemented planning permission ESS/34/015BTE (Integrated Waste Management Facility).

The quarry operator submitted a further planning application to Essex County Council on 30 January 2018, reference ESS/03/18/BTE to extract a further 2 million tonnes of sand and gravel from Site A5 as identified in the Essex Minerals Local Plan. This includes the retention of the existing access onto the A120, the processing plant (including sand and gravel washing plant), office and weighbridge, ready mix concrete plant, bagging unit, DSM plant, water and silt management systems and extension of the internal haul road into Site A5 with restoration to agriculture and biodiversity (species rich grassland and wetland).

Further ‘reserved’ sites (Sites A6 and A7) are allocated in the Essex Minerals Local Plan under Policy P1 - ‘Preferred and Reserve Sites for Sand and Gravel Extraction’. This would extend the life of the quarry, subject to detailed submission and approval to Essex County Council.

Potential Minerals Site – Not Allocated

To the south of Bradwell Quarry there is a potential minerals site called Park Gate Farm. This was submitted by Hanson for consideration in allocating Preferred or Reserve extraction sites in the Essex Minerals Local Plan.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 29 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

As this was not allocated as a preferred or reserved site it therefore does not have any planning status. However, it is within the Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA) (see below) and therefore is still worth noting.

Minerals Safeguarding Area and Minerals Consultation Zones

Policy S8 - ‘Safeguarding mineral resources and mineral reserves’ of the Essex Minerals Local Plan identifies mineral safeguarded areas for Brick Clay, Brickearth, Chalk and Sand and Gravel. The purpose of this Policy is to prevent non-minerals development sterilising future potential for mineral extraction. The Policy requires the County Council, as Minerals Planning Authority, to be consulted where a planning application is greater than 5 hectares. Any non-mineral planning application above this threshold must be supported by a minerals resource assessment and prior extraction may be required.

In addition, Policy S8 also requires the Minerals Planning Authority to be consulted on any planning application that is within 250m of an active quarry or a preferred or reserved site (as identified in the Essex Minerals Local Plan) for future quarrying. Therefore, this policy includes Bradwell Quarry.

3.2.5 Essex and Southend on Sea Waste Local Plan (Adopted 2017)

The Essex and Southend on Sea Waste Local Plan was adopted in 2017. This plan allocates land for the processing and disposal of waste across the County.

Of particular relevance is Policy 3 – ‘Strategic Site Allocations’ which allocates sites for new waste management facilities. Under Policy 3, the Site Rivenhall (IWMF2) allocates land for an integrated waste management facility within the operational area of Bradwell Quarry (known as Rivenhall Airfield). This allocation reflects an extant planning permission which was granted in 2010 following a public inquiry. The implementation of this permission has been delayed but an Environmental Permit to operate the plant was granted in 2017.

3.2.6 Adopted Braintree Local Plan

The Braintree District Council Local Plan consists of:

• Saved Policies from the Braintree Local Plan, adopted in 2005.

• Braintree District Core Strategy, adopted in September 2011.

• Pre-Submission Site Allocations and Development Management Plan as amended by further changes (this is only a material consideration as it was never formally adopted).

Saved Policies from the Braintree Local Plan (Adopted 2005)

Until such time that this plan is entirely replaced by the new emerging Local Plan (currently at submission stage), these policies remain adopted and relevant to the scheme. The policies which are relevant to the scheme are detailed in Appendix A.

Braintree District Council Core Strategy

Paragraph 7.7 of the Core Strategy states that:

“Braintree District Council, as the Local Planning Authority, has little direct control over the main transport networks because they are managed by the County Council, the Highways Agency and Network Rail. To support the District’s economy, the main road network (in particular the A12, A120 east of Braintree and A131 at Halstead) needs to be improved”.

The Core Strategy seeks to protect the environment from harmful development. Section 8 of the Core Strategy, covering environment, has the following stated aim:

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 30 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

“To protect, restore and enhance the natural habitats, biodiversity, landscape character, amenity and environmental quality of the countryside and the open spaces and green corridors within towns and villages and improve ecological connectivity across the District”.

This aim is developed through Core Strategy Policy CS8 – ‘Natural Environment and Biodiversity’. In addition, Policy CS9 seeks to protect the Built and Historic Environment and Policy CS10 seeks the retention of open space, recreation and sports facilities.

Section 9 deals with infrastructure provision. Table 2 – ‘Infrastructure Requirements’ sets out relieving congestion at Galleys Corner roundabout as a key project.

Development Plan Policies and Site Allocations

This document was not formerly adopted, but it has been determined by Braintree District Council. Its policies still form a relevant material consideration when determining planning applications.

The document sets out detailed development plan policies and allocates specific plots of land for development. Therefore, its policies maybe relevant to determining the details of specific route alignments.

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD’s)

No SPD’s have been prepared.

3.2.7 Colchester Borough Council Local Plan (Adopted 2008, Amended 2014)

Option A would tie into the boundary between Braintree Council and Colchester Borough at the A12, west of Marks Tey. The current route of the A120 passes into Colchester Borough between Coggeshall and Marks Tey.

The Colchester Borough Council, Adopted Local Plan 2001 – 2021, consists of the following documents:

• Core Strategy (adopted 2008, amended 2014).

• Site Allocations DPD (adopted 2010).

• Development Policies DPD (adopted 2010, amended 2014).

• Proposals Maps (adopted 2010).

• Tiptree Jam Factory DPD (adopted 2013).

The most relevant element of the adopted Local Plan is the Core Strategy. Table 6d – ‘Key Facilities and Infrastructure’ of the Core Strategy includes a list of infrastructure schemes to be delivered which includes securing improvements to the A12. Policy ENV1 – ‘Environment’ seeks to protect the environment from the harmful effects of development.

3.2.8 Emerging Development Plans for Braintree and Colchester

Both Colchester and Braintree have recently submitted new Local Plans for Examination, which include a Joint Section 1 setting out strategic economic and housing growth for both local authority areas and joint proposals for three Garden Cities. As at April 2018, the Examination for the joint section 1 is still to conclude.

The other sections of the emerging plans will be examined separately in due course.

Once adopted, these plans will replace or supplement those adopted plans listed in the table above. Therefore, they will continue to be monitored as the scheme progresses. They are being taken into account in developing certain traffic modelling scenarios.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 31 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Relevant Transport Policies and Programmes

There are a number of relevant national plans and programmes that cover road investment. These are covered at Appendix A of this report. However, these are not yet relevant to the A120 until further announcements and funding are in place.

At County Level, the Essex Transport Strategy forms the third Essex Local Transport Plan. Published in 2011, it covers a 15-year period and lists a series of outcomes which the plan seeks to deliver:

• Provide connectivity for Essex communities and international gateways to support sustainable economic growth and regeneration.

• Reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve air quality through lifestyle changes, innovation and technology.

• Improve safety on the transport a) Reducing the number of people killed or seriously.

• Secure and maintain all transport assets to an appropriate standard and ensure that the network is available for use.

• Provide sustainable access and travel choice for Essex residents to help create sustainable communities.

Submission of an application for Development Consent

Once an announcement is made on a Preferred Route, the next stage of the project will be to prepare an application for Development Consent Order in order to compulsory purchase land, obtain rights over this land and construct the scheme. This application will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (the Examining Authority acting on behalf of the Secretary of State) and will be prepared in accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (“APFP Regulations”).

Route to Consent

It is assumed that the project will be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) requiring consent under the processes set out in the Planning Act 2008. Accordingly, the application will be assessed against the National Policy Statement for National Networks (NN NPS).

The NN NPS recognises that there is a critical need to improve the national networks to address road congestion to provide safe, expeditious and resilient networks that better support social and economic activity; and to provide a transport network that is capable of stimulating and supporting economic growth. It provides planning guidance for promoters of NSIPs and is the primary basis for the Secretary of State when making decisions for DCO applications. Further detail is available in the TAR (Chapter 4: Planning Factors). It is essential that any NSIP demonstrates accordance with the NN NPS in order to comply with the fundamental requirements of any application for a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 32 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

4. Summary of Alternative Schemes

Operations generation (Stage 0)

The options generation phase is described in detail in the Options Assessment Report (Document Ref: B3553T41-JAC-GEN-00-RP-C-002), issued April 2016.

In Stage 0 an initial long list of 68 options was generated (including 3 rail options). After an early sifting exercise was conducted, 27 highway options remained to be progressed for further sifting.

Any solutions that clearly failed to meet the defined objectives, alleviate identified problems or meet key viability and acceptability criteria were then discarded. The methodology for achieving this was largely based on the Department for Transport’s Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) and the associated guidance. The assessment criteria were; Strategic fit, Economic case, Managerial case and Financial case. Environmental considerations also formed part of the optioneering exercise. The scoring of these options is in the Options Assessment Report. The outcome of the sifting process was the identification of the nine top performing options which are shown in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1: Shortlisted route alignments

Initial Option assessment (Stage 1)

At the beginning of Stage 1, a further evaluation was undertaken to reduce the number of options down to a manageable number to consider in more detail and potentially present for consultation. To reduce the number of options, three key questions had to be answered:

• Were there any remaining environmental “show stoppers8” that would differentiate between options?

8 As defined in the OAR – high importance local environment features with a score of 1 – significant adverse effects that are not possible to mitigate.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 33 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Were there any engineering feasibility or cost reasons why we cannot pass through Bradwell Quarry? • Were there any engineering feasibility or cost issues that would rule out options starting in the vicinity of the River Brain or at Galley’s Corner?

After evaluating and discussing the three key questions, five routes were selected to be developed in more detail and assessed. Further detail on the Sifting process is available in the Options Assessment Report.

Table 4-1: Options for detailed assessment

Corridor Option Western starting point Route Eastern starting point

Part on-line or north of Between Kelvedon and Northern 3 A Galley’s Corner existing A120 Marks Tey

Through centre of Between Kelvedon and 4b B Galley’s Corner Bradwell Quarry Marks Tey Central Through centre of Between Kelvedon and 1b C River Brain Bradwell Quarry Marks Tey

Through southern section 9a D Galley’s Corner South of Kelvedon of Bradwell Quarry Southern Through southern section 8 E River Brain South of Kelvedon of Bradwell Quarry

Options Description

A more detailed description of each option is available in the Technical Appraisal Report (Jacobs, 11 January 2017: Document Reference: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0002) therefore this chapter provides a summary.

For all options, in addition to the bridges outlined for local road crossings there would be further bridges for public right of way crossings. At this stage it has been assumed such bridges could also serve as accommodation access crossings for severed landholdings.

For Options A, B, C and E, the necessity of a viaduct for the River Brain or River Blackwater means there is requirement for a large concentration of plant as well as creating risks associated with working at height and adjacent to / over water. In addition, on either side of the rivers there is likely to be soft alluvium which could cause adverse settlement, however ground investigation carried out at later stages should help to mitigate this risk. For all options, some existing structures may require reinforcement or lengthening.

River Brain options are expected to have a larger impact on statutory undertakers plant than the Galley’s Corner options, however all options are likely to require significant diversions or protection measures at the western end of the scheme.

The location and schematic alignment of the five options are identified in Figure 4-2.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 34 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Figure 4-2: Location of five public consultation options

Following the Public Consultation in early 2017, due to the proposed junction being the most frequent response to the public consultation question on junction locations, a further investigation was undertaken into the viability of providing a junction around Bradwell Quarry. For all options apart from Option A, refer to Chapter 9.5.2 Bradwell Quarry Junction Assessment for more details on the addition of the Bradwell Quarry and Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) junction.

4.3.1 Option A

The alignment of option A (previously option 3) is shown in overview on B3553T41-JAC-GEN-00-DR-Z-0008 and in detail on plan and profile drawings (B3553T41-JAC-HML-00-DR-C-0301 to 0306) as per Appendix B: A120 Route Plan Drawings.

Option A is approximately 14km long, 5km of which runs along the line of the current A120. It starts just west of Galley’s Corner then bypasses Bradwell to the north, crossing the River Blackwater, and then joins the current A120. East of Coggeshall, it leaves the current A120, heading south east where it joins the A12 at a new junction between Kelvedon and Marks Tey. This option would provide a D2 ESM off-line improvement starting from Galley’s Corner and following an alignment crossing the existing A120 route to the west of Bradwell. It would continue on-line to the east of Coggeshall, and then off-line to a new junction with the A12, south-west of the existing junction on A12 at Marks Tey. The option would include a grade separated junction east of the existing junction at Galley’s Corner, with a D2AP link back to A131 to the north of the location and single carriageway local road links to B1018, Fowlers Farm and Galley’s Corner junctions. Grade separated junctions are provided at the intersection with the A12, and additionally at Bradwell (east) and Coggeshall (east). A compact grade separated junction is provided at Colne Road, north of Coggeshall, with left in/left out manoeuvres permitted from each main carriageway of A120. Between Bradwell junction and West Street, Coggeshall, a single carriageway local access road is provided adjacent to the main alignment.

In addition to the bridges outlined for local roads there would be further bridges for public right of way crossings. At this stage it has been assumed such bridges could also serve as accommodation access crossings for severed landholdings.

Engineering Challenges, Cost and Solution Practicality

Option A has the most departures, due to the constraint of the existing A120 geometry for the online sections, principally the existing single-carriageway Coggeshall Bypass requires widening – which was originally

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 35 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

designed for a lower design speed. For further details on the options departures from standard, refer to Departures from Standard Checklist PCF product (Document Reference: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0006)

In terms of geotechnics, Option A does not impinge into the quarry site or Park Gate Farm.

Drainage considerations include the widening of Coggeshall bypass, which would likely require new attenuation and treatment ponds. The near on-line section of Option A between Bradwell and the start of Coggeshall bypass will need careful consideration, in particular clearances above the watercourses crossing the route in this section.

The Galley’s Corner junction is congested with a high density of utilities such as electricity cables, Local High Pressure (LHP) mains, BT underground and overhead cables and Anglian water are all located in the surrounding area of Galley’s Corner junction which will need diversion. For the online sections, the plant in the existing A120 verges could potentially require long diversions.

The number of additional junctions compared with other options consist of two grade separated and one compact grade separated junctions, the additional section of single carriageway local access road, and the presence of significant departures from standards, is considered to reduce the potential safety performance of this option compared with other options. Nevertheless, this option is assessed as providing major safety benefits (presuming departures can be mitigated appropriately).

4.3.2 Option B

The alignment of option B (previous option 4b) is shown in overview on B3553T41-JAC-GEN-00-DR-Z-0008 and in detail on plan and profile drawings (B3553T41-JAC-HML-00-DR-C-9401 to 9405) as per Appendix B: A120 Route Plan Drawings.

This option would provide a D2 ESM off-line improvement which starts from Galley’s Corner and would continue to the south of the existing A120 alignment, joining the A12 south-west of the existing junction at Marks Tey on A12. The option would include a grade separated junction east of the existing junction at Galley’s Corner, with a D2AP link back to A131 to the north of the location and single carriageway local road links to B1018, Fowlers Farm and Galley’s Corner junctions. This option also traverses the central area of Bradwell quarry, with a compact grade separated junction being provided for access to the quarry and IWMF. Engineering Challenges, Cost and Solution Practicality

Option B has one identified geometric departure from standard associated with the existing vertical A120 vertical alignment on the approach to the Galley’s Corner Junction. Further investigation is required at a later stage when more detailed survey information is available with a view to designing it out

This option impinges on future quarry areas A6 and A7 therefore following discussions with ECC, planning permission for these areas are likely to be combined with the A120 DCO).

Drainage considerations are heavily influenced by Bradwell Quarry therefore the design assumes outfalls to the nearest watercourses to the route; these being several hundred metres away with the vertical alignment of the mainline fixed to allow sufficient fall to these. If these outfalls were not provided there would be no outfall on the mainline carriageway between the quarry access road crossing and the River Blackwater, a distance of approximately 4km, which is considered excessive. The drainage in this section would be reviewed should one of these options be selected as the preferred route to help produce an optimal overall solution.

Option B starts at Galley’s Corner and therefore has the same significant impact on statutory undertaker’s plant as Option A at the beginning of the option.

4.3.3 Option C

The alignment of option C (previously option 1b) is shown in overview on B3553T41-JAC-GEN-00-DR-Z-0008 and in detail on plan and profile drawings (B3553T41-JAC-HML-00-DR-C-9101 to 9106) as per Appendix B: A120 Route Plan Drawings.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 36 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

This option would provide a D2 ESM which would commence just west of the existing River Brain bridge and continue to the south of the existing A120 alignment, joining the A12 south-west of the existing junction at Marks Tey on A12. A new junction would be provided to the south-east of the existing Galleys Corner junction, with local road links on the south side of the existing A120 to Long Green and Fowlers Farm roundabout, and across the proposed A120 to a new roundabout on the existing A120 north of Cressing Road. A local link road would be provided from the existing A120 south of Marks Farm to provide a link for A131 traffic to the new grade separated junction, this new link in effect being a “Galleys Corner Bypass”. A further grade separated junction would be provided linking the existing A120 with the new route just west of the River Brain. This option also traverses the central area of Bradwell quarry, with a compact grade separated junction being provided for access to the quarry and an Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF). Engineering Challenges, Cost and Solution Practicality

This option does not have any mainline departures from standard identified at this stage.

This option impinges on future quarry areas A6 and A7 therefore following discussions with ECC, planning permission for these areas are likely to be combined with the A120 DCO.

Drainage considerations are heavily influenced by Bradwell Quarry therefore it has the same drainage considerations as Option B.

The loop proposed for traffic merging onto the A120 W/B travelling from Galley’s Corner impacts on some overhead HV cables, water mains and gas mains due to the mainline travelling very close to the Braintree sub- station. There are also some anticipated clashes underground around Galley’s Corner Bypass ties back into the existing A120.

4.3.4 Option D

The alignment of option D (previously option 9a) is shown in overview on the plans in B3553T41-JAC-GEN-00- DR-Z-0008 and in detail on plan and profile drawings (B3553T41-JAC-HML-00-DR-C-9901 to 9904) as per Appendix B: A120 Route Plan Drawings.

This option would provide a D2 ESM off-line improvement which starts from Galley’s Corner, travels east and then south to join the A12 at junction 23 (south-west of Kelvedon). A new junction would be provided to the south-east of the existing Galley’s Corner junction, with local road links on the south side of the existing A120 to Long Green and Fowlers Farm roundabout, and across the proposed A120 to a new roundabout on the existing A120 north of Cressing Road. This option also traverses the southern area of Bradwell quarry, with a compact grade separated junction being provided for access to the quarry and an Integrated Waste Management Facility. Engineering Challenges, Cost and Solution Practicality

Option D only has one identified departure associated with the existing A120 vertical alignment on the approach to the Galley’s Corner Junction. Further investigation is required at a later stage when more detailed survey information is available.

This option impinges on Park Gate Farm and therefore, following discussions with ECC, would be included in the A120 DCO.

Drainage is affected by a lack of watercourses directly traversed by the route between Park Gate Road and the A12. The nearest watercourses are some distance away to the south; as indicated by examination of contours and detailed aerial photography. It is envisaged that underground pipes may be required to provide the necessary outfall to the watercourses.

There is a significant impact on statutory undertaker’s plant at Galley’s Corner.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 37 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

4.3.5 Option E

The alignment of option E is shown in overview on the plans in B3553T41-JAC-GEN-00-DR-Z-0008 and in detail on plan and profile drawings (B3553T41-JAC-HML-00-DR-C-0801 to 0804) as per Appendix B: A120 Route Plan Drawings.

This option would provide a D2 ESM off-line improvement which would commence just west of the existing River Brain bridge, Braintree and travel east and then south to join the A12 at junction 23 (south-west of Kelvedon). A new junction would be provided to the south-east of the existing Galley’s Corner junction, with local road links on the south side of the existing A120 to Long Green and Fowlers Farm roundabout, and across the proposed A120 to a new roundabout on the existing A120 north of Cressing Road. A local link road would be provided from the existing A120 south of Marks Farm to provide a link for A131 traffic to the new grade separated junction. A further grade separated junction would be provided linking the existing A120 with the new route just west of the River Brain. This option also traverses the southern area of Bradwell quarry, with a compact grade separated junction being provided for access to the quarry and an Integrated Waste Management Facility. Engineering Challenges, Cost and Solution Practicality

This option does not have any mainline departures identified at this stage.

This option impinges on Park Gate Farm and therefore, following discussions with ECC, would be included in the A120 DCO.

Drainage is affected by a lack of watercourses directly traversed by the route between Park Gate Road and the A12. The nearest watercourses are some distance away to the south; as indicated by examination of contours and detailed aerial photography. It is envisaged that underground pipes may be required to provide the necessary outfall to the watercourses.

This has the same loop clashes and issues with Braintree Sub-Station as option C.

Operational Safety

An analysis of safety impacts for each option has been undertaken and forms part of the Wellbeing section of the Decision Framework (section 11 of this report). The analysis has been applied to road users and also road workers, matching Highways England’s core Policy objectives. A COBA LT assessment has provided the basis of the road user (collision) savings predicted, but additional local issues which would affect road user safety performance such as Departures from Standards and weaving lengths applicable to certain options have also been considered and benefits adjusted accordingly. More details are provided in section 6 (Summary of Operational Assessment).

Road Users

Each of the options provides good benefits for road users and all provide savings based on transfer of traffic from the existing A120 route to the higher standard new route. Option D provides the largest safety benefit (collision reduction) on the local road network. All options provide improvements on the SRN, but those for option A are affected more significantly by Departures from Standards. It should be noted that the scheme introduces additional traffic volumes to A12 in the section between the proposed junctions with A120 (J24a to J25 for Options A, B and C; J23 to J25 for Options D and E). These additional lengths and increases in traffic are taken into account in the analysis, which for the section from the A120/A12 junction is based on the standard of the proposed improved A12 (A12 Chelmsford to A120 Improvement Scheme).

Road Workers

The impact of the scheme on road worker safety has been considered and each option would provide a significant improvement over the existing single carriageway route. The new route would be to a high standard

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 38 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

with measures incorporated to enhance road worker safety, such as a concrete barrier, virtually eliminating maintenance interventions, and particularly in the case of collision damage.

The length of the new route is the main factor in judging the performance for road workers (maintenance of the existing route and additional impact on A12 is considered neutral as the change in traffic levels would not change traffic sensitivity or working requirements). Accordingly, Option D is the favoured route from a road worker safety perspective.

Operational Safety – Conclusion

Option D is the favoured option based on a combination of road user and road worker safety.

Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding

As a part of the assessment of options, an analysis of the impacts of each option has been carried on existing walking, cycling and horse riding (WCH) facilities. This has formed one of the elements of the Wellbeing section of the Decision Framework (section 11 of this report).

As a principle, the new A120 route will be a high standard dual carriageway to ESM standard, and WCH users would be prohibited within the new highway boundary. There would be no at-grade crossings on the proposed routes and all intersections would have either grade-separated crossings or nearby paths would be diverted to focus on one grade-separated crossing point.

Opportunities for improving connectivity between destinations for WCH users have been considered and have been developed in outline. This work has been informed by interface with key user stakeholders and officers from Essex County Council, and has enabled proposals to tie into local authority strategies.

All options provide bypasses for the areas of the existing route where there is a record of WCH casualties, and in particular, bypass the section of the route between Great Tey and Marks Tey, where the majority of the WCH casualties have been recorded.

A summary of walking, cycling and horse riding impacts by option is shown in Table 4-2: Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Impacts.

Table 4-2: Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Impacts

Walking/Cycling/Horse Riding Impacts Side PROW roads Footpath Bridleway Byway Cycle diversion TOTAL (WCH required impact) Option A 18 8 1 2 9 14 52 Option B 13 1 1 2 8 6 31 Option C 20 1 0 1 9 13 44

Option D 12 2 1 1 5 6 27 Option E 17 1 0 2 5 13 38

Option A

Option A has the largest volume of WCH impacts of all of the options, impacting 27 public rights of way (PROWs) and requiring 14 diversions of existing PROW routes. Key opportunities provided by this option include a grade separated crossing for the Essex Way long distance walking route, providing a shared cycleway/footway along the proposed local access road (LAR) between Bradwell and Coggeshall and enhancement of links between the north side of A120 at Galley’s Corner, Braintree and Tye Green.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 39 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Option B

Option B has one of the lowest volumes of WCH impacts, impacting 15 PROWs and requiring 6 diversions of existing PROW routes. Key opportunities include a grade separated crossing of the Essex Way long distance walking route and enhancement of links between the north side of A120 at Galley’s Corner, Braintree and Tye Green.

Option C

Option C has one of the largest volume of WCH impacts of all of the options, including 21 existing PROWs with 13 diversions of existing PROW routes required. Option C provides opportunities to link existing footpaths in the area south of the existing A120 west of Galley’s Corner, Braintree with Braintree Road and Fowler’s Corner and providing grade separated links across the Braintree branch railway line and across the alignment of the option. These links would enable a safe crossing of the Braintree branch railway line. Opportunities also include a grade separated crossing of the Essex Way long distance walking route.

Option D

Option D has one of the lowest volumes of WCH impacts, impacting 15 PROWs and requiring 6 diversions of existing PROW routes. Key opportunities include a grade separated crossing of the Essex Way long distance walking route, enhancement of links between the north side of A120 at Galley’s Corner, Braintree and Tye Green and providing links from the existing Kelvedon to Witham footway/cycleway on the north-west side of A12 to bridleways (Sniveller’s Lane) and footpaths using the proposed grade separated crossing of the Great Eastern Main Railway Line (GEML).

Option E

Option E impacts 18 PROWs and requires 13 diversions of existing PROW routes. Option C provides opportunities to link existing footpaths in the area south of the existing A120 west of Galley’s Corner, Braintree with Braintree Road and Fowler’s Corner and providing grade separated links across the Braintree branch railway line and across the alignment of the option. These links would enable a safe crossing of the Braintree branch railway line. Opportunities also include a grade separated crossing of the Essex Way long distance walking route, and providing links from the existing Kelvedon to Witham footway/cycleway on the north-west side of A12 to bridleways (Sniveller’s Lane) and footpaths using the proposed grade separated crossing of the Great Eastern Main Railway Line (GEML).

Summary and Conclusion of WCH Impacts and Opportunities

The preferred option from a WCH perspective is Option D as it has the minimum impacts, whilst providing good opportunities.

Existing WCH issues on the bypassed route to be de-trunked may require additional measures and this will be considered at a later stage of the project when a favoured option has been determined.

Impact during Construction and Operation – Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 This section assesses the health and safety considerations and impacts during construction and use for each option. The observations are based upon Stage 2 Options Selection and safety considerations implemented so far and those to be taken through to further project stages during which further design effort will be applied to mitigate hazards. Throughout the design process, construction, maintenance, operational and future demolition hazards have been identified, considered and recorded. The project Hazard Elimination and Risk Reduction (HERR) form is the record of hazards identified by designers throughout the early design. This has been produced as a single multi-disciplinary register to facilitate early identification of hazards and possible mitigation

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 40 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

that can be applied through cross-discipline working. Design risk workshops have been held to identify hazards and risks that may be applicable to this project.

The scheme falls under the definition of construction work as defined in the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM2015). CDM2015 requires a managed approach to the whole life cycle of an asset. This includes management arrangements developed by Essex County Council, resources for the project with the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience and the application of the principles of prevention to the design process to mitigate foreseeable hazards for construction, use and maintenance, so far as is reasonably practicable. Regulatory Oversight

Table 4-3: A120 CDM 2015 Summary summarises a basic Regulatory Oversight of the project with respect to Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. The detailed regulatory requirements are outlined in the Regulation and accompanying guidance.

Table 4-3: A120 CDM 2015 Summary

Topic Key designations and features

Definition of The Scheme falls under the definition of construction work as defined in the Construction (Design and Construction Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM2015). Work CDM2015 is the law that applies to the whole construction process on all construction projects, from concept to Application of completion; and describes what each duty holder must or should do to comply with the law to ensure projects are CDM2015 to the carried out in a way that secures health and safety so far as is reasonably practicable. project

Identification and CDM2015 requires for projects involving more than one contractor, the appointment of a Principal Designer and at appointment of the appropriate time before construction commences, a Principal Contractor. For the current stage of the project: main CDM2015 Client Essex County Council dutyholders as project Designers Jacobs UK Ltd progresses Principal Designer Jacobs UK Ltd

Principal Contractor TBC by procurement

Contractors TBC by procurement

Notification of The estimated scheme scope and programme duration will trigger the requirement for a F10 Notification to HSE the project to Health & Safety Executive (HSE)

General

All the options represent a significant undertaking with regards to the scale of the construction effort required to deliver the scheme. Although the high level risks identified for each option are mentioned below, as the scheme progresses to a preferred option the project team will continue to work in accordance with the hierarchy of risk control, seeking to eliminate risks where possible before looking for design mitigation measures. At a future stage, compiling information for the construction team and identifying any design-led site control measures will form a key hazard control task as the project moves from pre-construction to construction. Refer to the Technical Appraisal Report (Document Reference: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0002 for more detailed descriptions.

Option A This is the partial online option and therefore qualitatively presents the worst safety profile of the options because of the proportion of work next to live traffic, constrained site boundaries and greatest number of

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 41 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

conflicts with statutory undertaker’s supplies for both road workers and road users during construction and the compromises for operation and maintenance following the existing alignment. It has a higher ratio of online to offline working in comparison to the other options; this is anticipated to result in increased traffic disruption. • Requirement of keeping existing routes open to traffic during construction. Creates constraints such as space restrictions; will require complex TM phasing and adequate site safety procedures.

• Galleys Corner phasing will be complex due to the significant congestion already existing and the public perception of this area. Keeping the A120 at grade through Galleys Corner will help simplify the TM phasing and reduce risk to road workers. The existing subway at Galleys Corner will also require extension and maintaining access to this during construction may prove complex.

• Some Statutory Undertaker clashes have been identified and the degree to which the construction envelope conflicts with utility services will be at a maximum as the majority of services will lie close to the route.

• River Blackwater crossing on a significant river viaduct crossing of around 200m; will require a large concentration of plant and create risks associated with working at height as well as over water. Risk of soft alluvium on river banks; can be mitigated with ground investigations.

• Some structures are likely to require some form of demolition which will create risks which are predominately being constructed on green field sites. These existing crossings will require careful and lengthy planning and phasing and will result in a concentration of plant and work activity in a localised area; increasing the potential hazards arising during construction such as potential exposure to asbestos and silica dust, work at height and extensive temporary works planning.

• Only option which has multiple intermediate junctions.

• Option with the greatest number of mainline geometrical departures which could have an impact on operational safety and may increase the risk to road users. The opportunities to maximise design-led hazard mitigation are reduced by the constraints of the existing alignment.

Option B

• This will have the same risks associated with the Galleys Corner junction as detailed for Option A. This option has a high ratio of offline working which is a benefit to the overall construction; a significant contrast to Option A, the online works being primarily at the western and eastern tie in points.

• Traverses Bradwell Quarry; the restoration methodology implemented by the Quarry will result in poor ground conditions that will require remediation. The current restoration methodology prior to the availability of ground investigation data is based on excavating the restored overburden down to London Clay and then replacing the overburden with standard Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW) compaction. This will involve extensive earthworks activity requiring a large quantity of fill material using heavy plant and equipment and vehicle movements around the locality, generating a hazardous environment with reduced opportunity for mitigation. Opportunity for mitigation include ground investigations to obtain more information and at later project stages of design when more detail is available, investigation into a ground improvement solution in order to avoid the need for a large proportion of the required earthworks at Bradwell quarry.

• Provision of a compact grade separated junction in Bradwell Quarry within vicinity of Silt Lagoons therefore there is a risk to workers and plant. This risk can be partially mitigated with more detailed ground investigation and adequate design consideration to accommodate the necessary features. • River Blackwater crossing is a significant river viaduct crossing of around 200m; the viaduct construction will require a large concentration of plant, equipment and personnel and create risks associated with working at height as well as over water. Soft alluvium on river banks presents a further challenge; can be mitigated with ground investigations.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 42 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Option C

• This option has a high ratio of offline working which is a benefit to the overall construction with the online works being primarily at the western and eastern tie in points.

• Option C requires a large structure across the River Brain (100m) which will require a concentration of plant and involve work at height over water.

• Option C is required to cross under the Braintree – Whitham Branch railway line which is likely to require a more complex structure than is required for other options such as a jacked box which is likely to create higher construction risks than the other structures on the scheme.

• Option C also passes very close to the Braintree sub-station and as a result requires the diversion of some 132kV overhead cables including the relocation of pylons. This work will need to be carefully managed due the risk of working adjacent to electricity as well as dismantling the pylon structures. There is also a localised high pressure gas main affected by Option C. The works associated with Braintree sub-station and the High Pressure gas Main can be carried out safely and would be approached with careful, long-term planning engaging all relevant stakeholders. This type of work however, must be considered to be extremely challenging ad potentially a significant influence on the programme and phasing.

• Traverses the Quarry and passes over the River Blackwater attracting similar risks to those described in Option B.

Option D

• Option D commences at Galleys Corner attracting the traffic management hazards and concentration of utility service diversions as described for option A and B. This option has a high ratio of offline working which is a benefit to the overall construction with the online works being primarily at the western and eastern tie in points. Option D encroaches on Bradwell Quarry similarly to option E; this encroachment is not as extensive as options B & C.

• Provision of a compact grade separated junction in the southern area of Bradwell Quarry.

Option E

• Option E is similar in nature to option C with the River Brain junction (River Brain Viaduct, Braintree Branch Line structure, HV cables and localised high pressure gas main). This option has a high ratio of offline working which is a benefit to the overall construction with the online works being primarily at the western and eastern tie in points. Option E passes through Bradwell Quarry, although for a shorter distance than for options B and C.

• Provision of a compact grade separated junction the southern area of in Bradwell Quarry.

A12 Tie in – All options

All A120 options under consideration tie into the A12 either at J23 or J24a. The junctions at the A12 will require significant volumes of imported fill transported on the A12 requiring a large number of vehicle movements. Options D and E provide an Interchange link on the approach to the junction 23 to accommodate the A120 traffic heading to Witham. Further consideration is required to consider the existing WCH routes and the strategy to be adopted.

Further design effort has the potential to help reduce the vehicle movement load on the network but the issues associated with extensive earthworks and heavy vehicles remain. The junctions will also require bridges that will cross the Great Eastern Mainline Railway, the existing A12 and the new A12 (if offline) which require significant planning and traffic management to construct safely.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 43 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Notwithstanding the post-construction operation of the route, the extensive offline sections do offer the advantage previously stated of allowing the contractor greater control of the construction site operations, lower interaction with the travelling public with reduced potential for conflicts and reduced traffic management burden on the project. This by itself is not conclusive as there are wider benefits locally and nationally from considering how each option meets the overall objectives defined for the scheme.

Maintenance Considerations

A number of health and safety risks relate to the residual maintenance operations depending on the options.

Initial design hazard elimination and risk reduction has commenced; includes strategic elements related to operational and maintenance safety. The development of the maintenance strategy would have the Principles of Prevention at its core using the hierarchy of control – Eliminate, Reduce, Inform, Control (ERIC) for risk reduction or elimination.

Specific hazards during maintenance

• Access to height for Maintenance.

• Setting up traffic management for example for a contraflow or diversion route – maintenance workers on foot in vicinity of live traffic during set up and take down.

• Vehicle Management Systems and street furniture require safe working areas for maintenance; live traffic interface with maintenance workers.

• Grass cutting on earthworks slopes – hazard to maintenance workers adjacent to live highway.

• Access for inspections to roadside assets and structures

Summary

In conclusion, the preferred option from a CDM 2015 perspective is option D. It is the shortest option with the least number of complex elements; Statutory Undertakers plant (public utilities), structures and traffic management considerations. This option avoids the complexities associated with the River Brain and Tye Green junctions hence making it preferable relative to Option E. The central options traverse Bradwell Quarry for a longer length as well requiring the River Blackwater viaduct. Option D is also the only option which does not require the construction of a viaduct; mitigating the hazards associated with working over water.

Constructability

Constructability considerations applicable to all options (A – E)

Given the traffic volumes, the strategic importance of the existing A120 and A12 routes, and the Government’s aim to reduce disruption to roads users, it is vital that the existing network remains operational during construction.

All of the options would require a degree of traffic management at various stages of the construction programme for numerous reasons such as:

• Construction works in close vicinity of live traffic.

• Plant to cross the highway.

• Access and egress to site compounds.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 44 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Lane width reductions and temporary speed limits would be required at each tie in location throughout the scheme on both the A120 and A12 sections. Temporary speed limits would be imposed along these sections together with reduced lane widths. There will be the need for short term temporary full road closures and diversions of certain sections along the new proposed A120 route, associated side roads, and WCH routes (PROW, Footpaths, Bridleways, Byways, and Footway/cycleway) - to allow tie-ins with the new infrastructure to be constructed where required. Where appropriate and practicable, these are likely to occur during the off-peak hours or on weekends. Furthermore, offline construction throughout the scheme will nominally affect the current traffic flows for access and egress on site. As part of the construction operation, moving plant, materials and imported fill is currently envisaged for most of the options with the detail of this being developed at a later design stage.

All traffic management proposals and permitted access routes would be incorporated into a Traffic Management Plan which would be agreed with the relevant highway authority. This would minimise the effect and duration of impact on users and ensure their safety.

The more detailed design, after selection of a Preferred Route, would optimise the cut/fill earthworks balance and other key elements of the scheme such as the structures and pavement works.

Nine influencing factors have been taken into consideration which would impact construction of each of the options.

1. Ratio of online / offline road construction

2. Simplicity of design / junctions

3. Earthwork volumes

4. Geotechnical concerns

5. Pavement metrics

6. Structure - ratio of online vs. offline construction / demolition / widening of structures

7. Extent of traffic disruption and opportunities to improve local stakeholder experience during construction

8. Statutory Undertakers

9. Anticipated construction durations for each of the options.

These factors have been considered and used to appropriately inform the Constructability Assessment.

The potential environmental impact of construction is considered within the Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Report (EAR).

4.7.1 Summary of Constructability considerations: All options cross the Great Eastern Mainline at the eastern tie into the A12. All the options with the exception of Option A impinge into the quarry to varying degrees.

Bradwell Quarry

To date it has been assumed that where the routes (all except A) traverse areas of Bradwell quarry that have or will have been backfilled, that (based on initial discussions with the ECC and the quarry operators) the backfilled material would not have been compacted in accordance with the Specification for Highway Works (SHW) and so likely would not be suitable for road construction on top of this without remediation. In the absence of any further information on the quarry backfill material, it was assumed that the existing backfill material would be removed and then re-placed, compacting in accordance with the SHW. This is a conservative assumption. Now that route alignments have been made public, further dialogue with the quarry operator facilitated via the ECC

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 45 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

minerals team is possible. This might yield further information which might allow less conservative assumptions regarding the remediation to be taken. To date, alternative remediation techniques are being explored to better inform the cost estimate (reduce the worst-case assumption) and provide more certainty. It is expected that if an alternative remediation technique is developed, it would reduce the scheme costs and potentially increase the BCR of the preferred option. Alternative remediation techniques are being investigated to provide substantial cost savings and a more sustainable solution.

The approved restoration proposals for the quarry by the quarry operator are based on a low level restoration, with no import of material being required with the set-aside overburden re-graded across the site.

The ground improvement detailed above is for areas which will have been excavated and restored by the time A120 construction starts (2023). For future quarry areas which includes areas A6 and A7 (for options B and C) and Park Gate Farm (for options E and D) it is assumed following discussions with ECC that the planning permission for these future areas are likely to be combined with the A120 DCO. Therefore, planning restrictions could be placed on the mineral extractor to prevent un-compacted restoration. For pricing purposes in these future areas it has been assumed that the quarry operator will excavate and store the overburden for the A120 contractor to use, therefore removing the excavation costs.

Option A

This option has a higher ratio of online working in comparison with the other options which is anticipated to result in an increased traffic disruption. The approximate ratio of online to offline road construction for this option would be 33% online / 67% offline. It should be noted there are major works proposed to reconfigure Galleys Corner roundabout which is anticipated to cause significant traffic disruption during this construction phase; it is proposed to remove the existing Galleys Corner roundabout and pass through at grade. The existing subway just west of the roundabout is proposed to be lengthened to accommodate the proposed A120 mainline construction; it is anticipated the lengthening of the subway will cause a temporary impact to WCH. There are numerous intermediate junctions proposed with this option which will have an impact on traffic disruption during construction. Environmental considerations during construction have been assessed and can be referred to in Chapter 8. This option has the largest quantity of pavement (road surface) to be constructed (due to the partially online nature of the alignment). This option has the highest number of proposed new structures (32 in total) which cross several watercourses. In order to construct this option, there will be a significant amount of utilities to divert, particularly at the eastern and western tie in points, to enable the new alignment.

Option B

The approximate ratio of online to offline road construction for this option would be 7% online / 93% offline which is a benefit to the overall construction. However, it should be noted there are major works proposed to reconfigure Galleys Corner which is anticipated to cause significant traffic disruption during this construction phase; it is proposed to remove the existing Galleys Corner roundabout and pass through at grade. The existing subway just west of the roundabout is proposed to be lengthened to accommodate the proposed A120 mainline construction; it is anticipated the lengthening of the subway will cause a temporary impact to WCH. Environmental considerations during construction have been assessed and can be referred to in Chapter 8. Where this option passes through Bradwell Quarry, there are large quantities of insufficiently compacted earthworks materials which are required to be removed and replaced or treated to enable the construction of the new road. This option will require the construction of a large viaduct crossing the River Blackwater. In addition, one new structure will be required to cross the existing railway. In order to construct this option, there will be a significant amount of utilities to divert, particularly at the eastern and western tie in points, to enable the new alignment.

Option C

The approximate ratio of online to offline road construction for this option would be 3% online / 97% offline; a significant contrast to Option A. The reconfiguration of the road will have a less impact on traffic than the proposed reconfiguration of Galleys Corner as mentioned for Options A, B and D. Environmental considerations during construction have been assessed and can be referred to in Chapter 8. Where this option passes through the quarry, there are large quantities of insufficiently compacted earthworks materials which are required to be removed and replaced or treated to enable the construction of the new road. This option will require the construction of two major viaducts crossing the River Blackwater and River Brain. In addition, two new bridges

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 46 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

will be required to cross the existing railways. In order to construct this option, major utility works will be required at the Braintree Substation. In addition, there will be a significant amount of utilities to divert to enable the new alignment.

Option D

The approximate ratio of online to offline road construction for this option would be 9% online and 91% offline; this is the most preferable option from the ratio online / offline ratio as it is 1.3km shorter than the next best alternative (Option E 5% to 95%). However, it should be noted there are major works proposed to reconfigure Galleys Corner which is anticipated to cause significant traffic disruption during this construction phase; it is proposed to remove the existing Galleys Corner roundabout and pass through at grade. The existing subway just west of the roundabout is proposed to be lengthened to accommodate the proposed A120 mainline construction; it is anticipated the lengthening of the subway will cause a temporary impact to WCH. Environmental considerations during construction have been assessed and can be referred to in Chapter 8. Where this option passes through Bradwell Quarry, there are large quantities of insufficiently compacted earthworks materials which are required to be removed and replaced or treated to enable the construction of the new road – it should be noted for options B and C, the earthworks quantities to be removed and replaced or treated are much greater. This option will require the construction of one new bridge to cross the existing railway. In order to construct this option, there will be a significant amount of utilities to divert, particularly at the eastern and western tie in points, to enable the new alignment. It should be noted the proposed utilities diversion works required are less than options A, B, C, and E.

Option E

This option does not follow the current A120 and is approximately 11km long. It starts on the Braintree southern bypass, passes north of Tye Green and Cressing, runs through the south-west corner of Bradwell Quarry, joining the A12 at Kelvedon south junction. The approximate ratio of online to offline road construction for this option would be 5% online and 95% offline; a significant contrast to Option A. The reconfiguration of the road will have a less impact on traffic than the proposed reconfiguration of Galleys Corner as mentioned for Options A, B and D. Environmental considerations during construction have been assessed and can be referred to in Chapter 8. Where this option passes through the quarry, there are large quantities of insufficiently compacted earthworks materials which are required to be removed and replaced or treated to enable the construction of the new road – it should be noted for options B and C, the earthworks quantities to be removed and replaced or treated are much greater. This option will require the construction of a large viaduct crossing the River Blackwater. In addition, two new bridges will be required to cross the existing railways. In order to construct this option, major utility works will be required at the Braintree Substation. In addition, there will be a significant amount of utilities to divert to enable the new alignment.

Summary

Considering the earthworks balance of the all options, Option E has the best earthworks balance; an earthworks surplus due to a combination of a shorter route and the cut material generated from going underneath the Braintree Branch line. This surplus material could be used to construct noise or environmental bunds to reduce to environmental impacts. Option D has the next best earthworks balance followed by options C, B and A (in that order)

The simplicity of junction design is also a key consideration in the constructability assessment. The options beginning at River Brain (C and E) include the complication of crossing the Braintree Branch line and the diversion works required at Braintree Substation.

In conclusion, Option D is the most favoured option from a constructability perspective. Option D is also the only option which does not require the construction of a viaduct and it also traverses the quarry for a shorter length than the central options. Relative to Option E, the western tie in of the alignment is more simple to construct and the superior earthworks balance of E is not considered to be of a greater benefit than the simplicity of Option D’s design. Option D also has the smallest construction duration.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 47 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

5. Summary Tables of Traffic, Economics and Costs

Costs

The costs adopted for Stage 2 are taken from Highways England commercial department estimates based on quantities provided by Jacobs. A detailed breakdown of the quantities considered during Stage 2 is in the Options Estimate PCF product (Document Ref: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-RP-C-0011).

The following costs are taken from Highways England Form 300 and represent the Project Team Cost excluding portfolio risk in January 2016 prices.

Table 5-1: Stage 2 Options Cost Estimate (January 2016 prices)

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Item £ £ £ £ £

Base Estimate 433,394,068 396,408,903 434,694,633 279,856,061 337,896,670

Unscheduled Items 27,183,347 22,916,610 25,091,101 14,972,728 18,218,883

Risk Adjustment 92,791,402 97,278,164 105,801,227 55,426,349 69,138,842

Uncertainty Allowance 871,650 115,648,650 115,011,000 46,144,800 46,144,800

CESS Sub-Total 554,240,467 632,252,326 680,597,961 396,399,938 471,399,195

Inflation Adjustment 227,668,970 262,410,007 293,581,832 158,613,363 200,842,175

Out-Turn Cost Estimate 781,909,437 894,662,333 974,179,793 555,013,301 672,241,370

Option C is the most expensive option due to a combination of the option length, the remediation required through Bradwell Quarry and the cost of the junctions at the west end of the scheme including the Galley’s Corner Bypass. Option B is the second most expensive option due to the remediation required through Bradwell Quarry, despite being a shorter route than Option A. It is cheaper than Option C due to the simpler junction arrangements at the Braintree end. Option A is the median cost option as although it is longer than Option B with 3 intermediate junctions it does not cross Bradwell Quarry and therefore does not incur any remediation costs associated with crossing the Quarry. Option E is the second cheapest option as the southern options are considerably shorter than the central and northern options, although there are still significant costs associated with remediation of Bradwell Quarry. Option D is the cheapest and shortest option, however there are significant costs required for the remediation of Bradwell Quarry; being cheaper than Option E due to simpler junction arrangements at the Braintree end.

Options E and D also have the benefit of sharing the costs of A12 J23 with the A12 scheme as this is a shared A120 / A12 junction. At Stage 1, due to uncertainty as to the proposals for the A12 widening scheme, which were dependent on consultation, and in accordance with DfT WebTAG guidance, it was assumed the full cost of a re-built J23 would be borne by the A120 scheme. It is understood that in the developing A12 scheme that J23 will be included. The majority of the J23 works would be required regardless of any A120 connection, so the cost attributed to the A120 scheme can be reduced to cover any additions or changes to the core A12 J23 design to accommodate the A120.

Traffic

A base year traffic model was developed for Stage 2 using on the best available data at the time. The motivation for updating the Stage 1 traffic model was to expand the scope of the geographic study area to include all potential in-scope journeys and to take advantage of updated prior matrices from Highways England. Key data inputs were provided by Highways England from the South East Regional Traffic Model (SERTM), in

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 48 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

particular a compressed version of the prior matrices (design freeze 3) were used for the development of origin- destination trip matrices. In line with SERTM, this model was developed for an average AM, inter-peak and PM peak hour and validated to 2016 observed traffic data. The forecast year traffic models were developed for the estimated opening year 2026, design year 2041 and an additional future year 2051.

The transport model and subsequent economic appraisal represents a Core scenario that is based on the most unbiased and realistic set of assumptions with respect to the state of the future transport network and future demand. This includes near certain and more than likely transport, housing or commercial developments that could impact on the scheme appraisal. These are typically transport schemes that have committed funding and developments that are at a minimum within the consent process. For the A120 Core scenario this includes significant transport schemes including the upgrade of the A12 between junction 19 and junction 25 and the provision of the Lower Thames Crossing. Demand is based on the DfT National Trip End Model (NTEM), which does not include the specific development sites outlined in the emerging District Local Plans but does include more general estimates of housing and jobs growth. This implies that the North Essex Garden Community developments are not specifically included in the Core scenario, which is not to say that the demand is low but simply dispersed more broadly across each District. The emerging North Essex Local Plans have been modelled as an Alternative Scenario, which provides additional evidence within the scheme Business Case. It is the Core scenario, however, that provides the basis for identifying the preferred option.

The Traffic Model data package approved by TPG demonstrated that the base year traffic model complied with both TPG requirements and DfT guidance in TAG Unit M3.1 with respect to model validation and convergence and provided a robust basis for developing the Forecast Model. The Transport Forecast package approved by TPG summarised future year demand, traffic flows and journey times and is considered appropriate to provide input into Stage 2 economic appraisal to inform the selection of a preferred.

The estimated Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes resulting from these models are summarised for the existing A120 and the proposed options in Table 5-2 below.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 49 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 5-2: Overview of Estimated Traffic Volumes (AADT)

Reference Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Case9

Base Year 2016

Existing A120 through Bradwell 25,800 - - - - -

Existing A120 through Marks Farm 25,200 - - - - -

A120 Braintree Bypass east of Panner’s 42,100 - - - - -

A12 between J22 and J23 68,100 - - - - -

A12 between J23 and J24 60,000 - - - - -

A12 between J24a and J25 67,600 - - - - -

B1018 through Tye Green 13,300 - - - - -

Western Road through Silver End 7,200 - - - - -

Opening Year 2026

Existing A120 through Bradwell 27,100 9,100 10,500 11,500 14,400 14,700

Existing A120 through Marks Farm 26,200 5,500 9,500 10,300 13,600 13,700

A120 Braintree Bypass east of Panner’s 45,500 64,200 66,200 67,400 60,100 61,800

New A120 east of Braintree - 39,600 40,400 40,500 41,100 42,100

New A120 west of A12 - 42,900 40,200 40,300 42,200 42,300

A12 between J22 and J23 75,200 67,100 64,200 63,300 75,400 74,200

A12 between J23 and J24 79,900 70,300 67,300 66,400 96,500 96,500

A12 between J24a and J25 79,200 104,800 102,700 102,000 92,100 92,100

B1018 through Tye Green 15,400 12,500 12,400 15,600 9,900 11,700

Western Road through Silver End 8,800 7,400 7,500 7,400 3,900 4,000

Design Year 2041

Existing A120 through Bradwell 28,000 9,800 12,700 13,300 16,900 17,300

Existing A120 through Marks Farm 26,700 6,100 10,300 10,900 15,200 15,400

A120 Braintree Bypass east of Panner’s 48,900 76,800 77,900 78,400 74,400 76,200

New A120 east of Braintree - 50,700 49,200 49,000 53,400 54,600

New A120 west of A12 - 53,600 49,200 48,900 54,500 54,700

A12 between J22 and J23 86,300 74,100 72,000 71,400 82,100 81,000

A12 between J23 and J24 92,900 77,900 75,700 75,100 110,200 110,000

A12 between J24a and J25 90,500 117,700 116,600 116,100 102,100 102,000

B1018 through Tye Green 17,100 13,500 13,500 17,000 11,000 12,900

Western Road through Silver End 10,900 8,900 9,000 9,000 4,500 4,700

The above table highlights that on average between 39,600 to 42,900 vehicles per day (AADT) are expected to use the new A120 in the 2026 opening year depending on the option and section of the route. The data also highlights that the average daily traffic volumes on the existing A120 are expected to fall by 46% to 67% through Bradwell and 48% to 79% through Marks Tey in the 2026 opening year depending on the option.

In addition, it should be noted that traffic flows are expected to fall significantly on many local roads used as “rat-runs” to avoid the heavily congested A120 corridor as traffic transfers to the new scheme. For example, traffic is expected to fall by up 36% (Option D) on the B1018 through Tye Green and up to 56% on Western

9 The reference case is the case without the scheme in place.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 50 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Road through Silver End (Option D). This is considered a key benefit of the scheme as traffic transfers to a more appropriate road rather than travel through villages on local roads. The increase in the traffic volumes across the old and new A120 routes together illustrates the magnitude of this impact.

Also of note is that traffic flow on the upgraded A12 is expected to increase on the sections that overlap with the new A120 but then would either remain at a similar level or fall south of the new A120 interchange in 2026 and would be lower for all options by 2041, thereby potentially alleviating congestion on the A12 on those sections.

Economics

The headline results from the economic assessment relate to the Core scenario impacts that can be monetised and aggregated together as per DfT guidance. These are divided into two parts, those included in an initial Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), which are established monetised impacts based on accepted, well-researched and tried-and-tested methods, and additional items included in an adjusted BCR, which are based on less widely- accepted evolving methodologies.

The standard measures for economic assessment are the present value of benefits (PVB), present value of costs (PVC), the difference between them in the form of a net present value (NPV) and the ratio of benefits to costs (BCR). These headline results for the Core scenario are outlined in Table 5-3. A more detailed breakdown by appraisal item is outlined in Table 5-4. All monetised values are reported in 2010 market prices discounted to a 2010 base year as per DfT guidance.

Table 5-3: Headline Stage 2 Economic Results (£ millions, 2010 market prices discounted to 2010 base year)

Item Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

Initial Benefit Cost Ratio

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 1286.3 1336.3 1406.1 1099.0 1169.0

Present Value of Costs (PVC) 446.1 506.6 541.9 317.0 374.1

Net Present Value (NPV) 840.3 829.7 864.1 782.1 794.9

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.88 2.64 2.59 3.47 3.12

Adjusted Benefit Cost Ratio

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 1708.9 1784.4 1873.8 1429.0 1524.6

Present Value of Costs (PVC) 446.1 506.6 541.9 317.0 374.1

Net Present Value (NPV) 1262.9 1277.7 1331.9 1112.1 1150.5

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.83 3.52 3.46 4.51 4.08

Option D has the highest BCR with an adjusted value of 4.5. The range of BCRs in the above table indicate that Option D and Option E can be considered to fall into DfT’s very high value for money category, with adjusted BCRs greater than 4.0. All other options can be considered to have high value for money, defined as an adjusted BCR between 2.0 and 4.0. All options have an adjusted present value of benefits exceeding £1.4 billion, with Option C the highest at almost £1.9 billion, and an adjusted NPV exceeding £1.1 billion.

The following table disaggregates the benefits by type.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 51 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 5-4: Headline Stage 2 Economic Results by Appraisal Item (£ millions, 2010 market prices discounted to 2010 base year)

Item Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

Initial Benefit Cost Ratio

Journey time savings 1325.8 1359.4 1415.2 1162.5 1215.3

Vehicle operating cost savings -103.5 -82.4 -69.6 -117.5 -104.3

Indirect taxes 75.3 72.3 70.2 66.0 63.8

Greenhouse gases -37.8 -36.4 -35.2 -33.6 -32.3

Accidents 36.1 25.1 23.8 24.9 22.9

Noise 7.8 10.0 12.6 8.9 15.4

Air Quality -17.7 -11.9 -10.5 -12.4 -11.5

Impact during construction 0.3 0.3 -0.2 0.3 -0.2

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 1286.3 1336.3 1406.1 1099.0 1169.0

Present Value of Costs (PVC) 446.1 506.6 541.9 317.0 374.1

Net Present Value (NPV) 840.3 829.7 864.1 782.1 794.9

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.88 2.64 2.59 3.47 3.12

Adjusted Benefit Cost Ratio

Journey Time Reliability 47.1 47.6 47.4 47.8 50.1

Wider Economic Impacts

Output in imperfectly competitive markets 57.4 61.0 64.2 45.9 49.2

Static clustering (agglomeration) 300.0 320.9 336.6 220.4 239.4

Labour supply 18.1 18.7 19.6 15.9 16.9

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 1708.9 1784.4 1873.8 1429.0 1524.6

Present Value of Costs (PVC) 446.1 506.6 541.9 317.0 374.1

Net Present Value (NPV) 1262.9 1277.7 1331.9 1112.1 1150.5

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.83 3.52 3.46 4.51 4.08

The results of the economic appraisal by item outlined in the above table indicate that by far the largest source of scheme benefits can be attributed to journey time savings. Positive monetised impacts can also be attributed to wider economic impacts, an increase in indirect taxes (fuel duty), a reduction in accidents, a reduction in the impact of traffic related noise and improved journey time reliability.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 52 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

6. Summary of Operational Assessment

This section reviews at a high level the results of the traffic modelling against the capacities of links and junctions to make an assessment of the operation of the scheme.

New A120 and junctions

6.1.1 Opening year (2026) daily flows on the new A120

The opening year (2026) AADT flows on the new A120 for each option, taken from Table 5-2: Overview of Estimated Traffic Volumes (AADT) suggest that the anticipated opening year AADT flows are just above the upper boundary for a D2 ESM (at this stage, assumed to be same flow ranges as D2AP in Table 2.1 of TA46/97). Stage 2 traffic modelling indicates that on average between 39,600 to 42,900 vehicles per day (AADT) are expected to use the new A120 in the 2026 opening year depending on the option and section of the route. These flows justify the provision of a D2AP section. However, these flows are only for initial economic purposes and not an actual measure of capacity.

6.1.2 Design year (2041) peak hour flows on the new A120

The Traffic Forecasting Report gives hourly flows in the design year (2041) for the options for the AM, Inter- peak and PM peak hours respectively.

TA46/97 gives guidance on calculating the free-flow capacity of a traffic lane. TD22/06 gives a flow of 1600 vehicles per lane per hour for an all-purpose road. Comparing the forecast flows against these capacities it can be seen that: • Across all the options, the mainline of the new A120 between Braintree and the A12 is well within capacity. • The section of the A120 immediately west of the scheme is approaching or marginally over-capacity in the design year. • The adoption of ESM standards technology such as monitoring and variable message signs may help increase capacity above the 1600 vehicles per lane per hour value; however, this aspect will be considered further as the scheme is developed.

6.1.3 Weaving between junctions on the new A120

Option A has the most intermediate junctions amongst all the options. All the options, except A, have quarry junctions. For all options, the quarry junctions are compact grade separated junctions and are located more than 1km away from any junctions (western tie or eastern tie in points). Therefore, the weaving sections provided would be more than adequate than the requirements of TD22/06.

For options C and E, the River Brain junction is a limited movement junction with no east-facing sliproads. There is, therefore, no weaving section here and the successive diverges / merges are over 1km apart so there is not anticipated to be any operational issues here. The same applies to Options B and D with the new sliproads at B1018 Millennium Way, with west facing sliproads only, and the new Galley’s Corner junction.

The River Brain junction is around 1km from the preceding junction west on the A120, the London Road junction. This weaving section may just be below the 1km minimum as per TD22/06, requiring a departure. When combined with the high traffic volumes in this section some operational difficulties could occur; this will be further assessed in future stages.

For option A, in general the intermediate junctions are over 2km apart and hence in accordance with TD22/06, the exception being the B1024 Colne Road junction and the Colchester Road junction, which are just under 1km apart, however the weaving flows are anticipated to be very light.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 53 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

6.1.4 Junctions on the new A120

An analysis of the junction capacity has been undertaken at this stage however the traffic model design and junction designs will require further detailed development at a later stage. However, some general observations can be made in relation to the operation the junctions.

River Brain junction (Options C and E) – flows leaving/joining the A120 here are dependent on how much flow from the A131 north direction transfers from the existing route via Galley’s Corner roundabout to the new link from the A131 to the Tye Green junction (the “Galley’s Corner Bypass”). In the design year it is anticipated that congestion at the existing Galley’s Corner roundabout will discourage traffic from using the original route hence traffic using the River Brain junction is anticipated to be limited to the order of 250-350 vehicles in the peak hour in each direction. The initial envisaged layout, particularly the 270 degree loop on the westbound merge sliproad is then anticipated to be suitable for such flows The Stage 2 traffic modelling indicates the necessity of reduced speed limits to encourage traffic unto the new junction. The combination of congestion at the existing Galley’s Corner roundabout and speed limits on Braintree Bypass is envisaged to encourage an increased usage of the River Brain junction. The 270 degree loop may introduce additional operational safety performance issues, particularly for HGVs, so may impact on the overall safety performance of the options.

Tye Green Junction (Options C and E) – assuming transfer of traffic as above the junction is anticipated to see flows in the order of around 1400 vehicles joining/leaving the A120 to the west, much lower flows to the east 200-400 vehicles. It anticipated that with suitable development of the design the initial layout of a dumbbell grade-separated junction should suffice.

Galley’s Corner Junction (Options A, B and D) – the principal flow here is from the A131 to the A120 westbound and vice-versa. Subject to design development the capacity and operation of the envisaged dumb- bell layout is anticipated to be satisfactory. Stage 2 traffic modelling shows that this junction layout operates well within capacity, therefore operational safety performance issues are not envisaged. The proposed bridge over the A120 west of the junction between Cressing Road and Ashes Road provides a separate route for local traffic and thus diverts a smaller, but significant, 400-600 vehicles from the main Galley’s Corner junction, keeping that for strategic traffic.

Doghouse Road, Colne Road, Colchester Road junctions (Option A) – The intermediate junctions on option A are anticipated to have low traffic flows in the range 100-350 vehicles joining or leaving A120 in each direction. There are thus not anticipated to be any capacity issues with these junctions. Colne Road junction is currently envisaged to be a compact grade separated junction due to its constrained location. The operation of such a junction and its proximity to the Colchester Road junction would need careful consideration should this option be progressed. This proximity and the form of the junction depending on the final ESM standard, may require departures from standard to be sought here. The required geometry of the section of the route which follows the existing Coggeshall Bypass, and the proximity of the junctions at Colne Road and the eastern side of Coggeshall, combined with the proposed standard of the Colne Road junction (compact grade separation) are considered likely to reduce the safety performance of the route in this area from the predicted performance of an ESM standard route.

Bradwell Quarry Junciton (Options B, C, D and E) – This junction added as a result of the consultation (see 9.5.2) caters solely for the significant goods vehicle movements associated with the Rivenhall Integrated Waste Management Facility and in the shorter term also Bradwell Quarry. The existing design standards for a high standard all-purpose dual carriageway, and also the likely ESM standard, provision of such a junction as a private means of access will require a departure from standard to be sought here, and operational considerations concerning unauthorised use will need more detailed consideration.

New A120 Junction – A12 Junction 24a (Options C, A and B) – Based on the analysis of the dumb-bell roundabout capacity, this has been modified to a free-flow “trumpet” arrangement which is more appropriate, to reduce queues on the sliproads. The introduction of a ‘“trumpet” arrangement introduces potential operational safety issues, particularly for HGV operation around the loops required. However, the junction detail is heavily dependent on the chosen solution for the A12 widening which is not known at this time.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 54 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Re-built A12 Junction 23 (Options E and D) – Based on Stage 2 traffic modelling data, this should be within the capacity of the currently envisaged dumb-bell arrangement but this will be reviewed as the design progresses. The proposed off-slip from the A120 eastbound to the de-trunked A12 intersects with the Kelvedon-Witham shared footway/cycle route. An at-grade crossing of the slip road would be undesirable. The road and WCH facility layout will be revised to address this as the scheme design progresses.

Adjacent sections of A12

Given that the scheme ties-in to the A12, consideration has been given to the operational effect of new A120 in the immediate vicinity of the tie-in, and the safety impact of the length of A12 affected. A12 has been considered as D3AP standard with CCTV/VMS and incident detection alert (triple package technology) This is the current standard proposed in the A12 Chelmsford to A120 Roads Investment Programme scheme.

For the three lane widened A12 as included in the reference case, the capacity will range between 4800 vehicles and 5694 vehicles per hour, depending on how this is derived

For options with tie-ins north of Kelvedon (A, B and C), without further lane capacity there is very likely to be congestion, operational and safety issues in this section.

For options with tie-ins south of Kelvedon (D and E), forecast traffic flows are approaching capacity in the 2041 design year. Should the housing indicated in the emerging local plans take place, then further review would be necessary.

6.2.1 Weaving between junctions on the A12

For options with tie-ins north of Kelvedon (A, B and C), weaving between the new junction for the A120 and the adjacent junctions on the A12 is an issue.

At the time of writing (based on developing A12 proposals), the proposed location for the new A120 junction will give a weaving length of around 1.1km to the preceding junction (J24) on the A12. The proposals for the A12 widening scheme show a new junction 25 being provided, south of its existing location; giving a weaving length of 1.1km. Both weaving lengths are just above the minimum 1km minimum given in TD22/06. As proposals for both schemes develop maintaining the minimum distance will need to be kept in mind.

However, in certain sections (between J24a and J25), the weaving calculation indicates that four lanes in both directions will be required; provision being made in A120 costings however this aspect ultimately belongs to the A12 project. This area would be given particular consideration as the design of both schemes progress.

The operational safety of a weaving length in this area have been considered, and presuming the lane arrangements required by design standards are provided, the safety performance of the link between J24a and J25 would be expected to be adversely affected by the weaving movements, and this has been considered in the assessment of safety performance of these options.

Local Roads

There is not anticipated to be any capacity or operational issues with the local road realignments.

All of the options provide road user safety benefits for local roads. Option D provides the largest road user safety benefits on local roads.

Conclusions • The new A120 itself between Braintree and the A12 will operate well within capacity and should have no operational capacity issues • The existing A120 west of the scheme will be at or close to capacity and there is the potential for some congestion and reduced performance. This could be considered in the future as a separate study; for instance, part of the development of proposals to convert the A120 from the M11 to Braintree to ESM.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 55 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• For options A, B and C, it is probable that a fourth lane on the A12 to provide capacity for weaving traffic will be needed between the new A120 junction and Marks Tey and allow safe and efficient operation. • For options D and E, the forecast traffic flows are approaching capacity on the A12 in the 2041 design year. • The indications at this time are that there are not anticipated to be any capacity or operational issues with the location/general design of junctions beyond those safety performance issues referred to above. However, in option A the Colne Road junction would need particular consideration given its constrained location. Overall the scheme is anticipated to provide sufficient capacity, operate satisfactorily and fulfil the relevant scheme specific objectives, including improvements to road user and road worker safety.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 56 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

7. Summary of Technology and Maintenance Assessment

All options of the proposed A120 are to be designed as an ESM. The design standards for ESMs are currently under development as detailed in the Implementation of New Standards PCF product (Document Reference: B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-RP-C-0008).

The current available design guidance for ESMs is included in the ESM draft Technical Instruction Notice (TIN) (version 5.3 at the time of writing). The RIS indicates that the A120 between the A131 and M11 J8 is designated as a current, planned and potential expressway. In addition, the A12 between M25 J28 and A14 J55 is also designated as a current, planned and potential expressway. The section of the A120 between the B1417 to Marks Tey is designated as an option for further expressway.

As the A12, which is the location that all A120 options will tie into, will be designed to ESM standards there is the possibility to create a high quality route from the A12 to the M11 and Stansted Airport.

Implications of the Utilisation of Technology on Options Design

7.1.1 ITS systems - Traffic loops, VMC, CCTV etc.

The proposed provision of technology on the A120 is based on the ESM core requirements which are expected to include: • Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling (MIDAS) – It is expected that this would be radar based to avoid the need for loops in the carriageway. The system would detect speed, headway, and occupancy of traffic within a zone and provides the prompt for the system to automatically set variable signs on safety grounds, and to alert Regional Control Centre (RCC) staff of potential congestion or incidents. • Comprehensive CCTV Coverage – It is expected that Pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras will be provided linked to the RCC. CCTV will be used to confirm the presence of incidents. • Variable Message Signs (VMS) – These message signs would display incident and traffic management details. It is anticipated that these signs would be located on MS4s and co-located at Emergency Refuge Areas (ERAs). The draft ESM TIN suggests that for some signs on dual two schemes like the A120 smaller VMS signs might be possible, but this is to be confirmed.

7.1.2 Communications Network • As a part of the emerging and developing ESM standard, communications networks for technology proposals are subject to ongoing development. Communications based on the appropriate standard at the time of more detailed scheme design development would be employed on A120.

Operational Regime

The operational regime for the route would be an ESM standard D2, which incorporates geometry to the highest standard for an all-purpose road. Technology is likely to comprise automatic incident alert, CCTV and variable message signs (likely to be verge-mounted, non-overhead signs), linked to the Regional Control Centre (RCC). Full ESM operation would include patrolling.

The operational regime, when operating at full ESM standard would have a safety objective (as stated in the draft PCF Safety Plan for the scheme) of motorway performance (without MIDAS). This is similar to a SMART motorway performance. Incident close out duration and network availability performance would also be comparable with motorway standards. Emergency bays will be provided (there will be no parking lay-bys).

Slow moving vehicles, walking, cycling and horse riding users (WCH), and other users not permitted on motorways would not be permitted to use the route, and would not be permitted within the highway boundary (WCH users).

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 57 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Maintenance Strategies

The layout and proposals include a number of elements designed to facilitate future maintenance. There would be a five year maintenance free period after completion.

Civils Infrastructure

Key elements include: • Concrete barrier – this would virtually eliminate repair resulting from collisions, reducing exposure to risk for workers and road users, and increasing network availability. • Geometric Standards – the use of high standard geometry would facilitate safer operation of routine maintenance and temporary traffic management. • Structures – New structures would be provided at various locations depending on the chosen option. Safe access will be designed to facilitate maintenance of this infrastructure. • Pavement – pavement would be maintained using standard methods, and would require lane closures. • Drainage – Safe access would be provided to enable required maintenance of drainage facilities • Soft estate and fencing - Safe access would be provided to enable the required maintenance.

Technology

Key elements include: • Maintenance Access – provision of emergency bays combined with maintenance access bays and technology cabinets, and variable message signs would facilitate safer maintenance of assets. • MIDAS Detectors – Above ground detection would reduce maintenance requirements on the carriageway, minimising loop detector repair, traffic management interventions and exposure to risk. • Temporary Traffic Management – Rotating Temporary Traffic Management Signs (ROTTMS) would be provided based on designed fixed taper points to facilitate placing of TM signing without the need for road workers to work from or within the carriageway to place the signs. The signs could be turned on and would provide further protection to road workers engaged in placing cones and lamps from vehicles. • Variable Message Signs – these can be used to further enhance advance warning of road works and implementation of temporary speed limits.

The development of the Maintenance and Repair Strategy Statement has the Principles of Prevention at its core using the hierarchy of control – Eliminate, Reduce, Investigate, Control (ERIC) for risk reduction or elimination. The scheme has been designed for maintenance and complies with the requirements of Highways England standard TD 69 (Design for Maintenance). This has been achieved through various means, and particularly through avoiding the hazard altogether through design wherever possible by considering occupational and system safety throughout the lifecycle of the asset and minimising exposure to risk. Elements include: • Combining cyclic activities (such as routine street lighting repair, drainage, litter picking) in shared traffic management, subject to appropriate risk assessment of adjoining activities, to minimise network occupation, maximise network availability and minimise periods of exposure to risk for road workers and road users. • Use of materials and products which minimise required maintenance interventions. • Scheme design which minimises maintenance interventions required (for example, drainage). • Off highway maintenance access, where appropriate, from the local road network. • Safe access routes along the highway and to assets such as structures and roadside equipment. • Facilitation of design areas of hardened verge for maintenance vehicle access and to facilitate mobile lane closures where appropriate.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 58 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Use of technology to improve our safety in design approach to improve monitoring, durability and ease of access. • Strategic diversion routes would be developed in collaboration with the Police and Operations Directorate.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 59 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

8. Summary of Environmental Assessment and Environmental Design

This section provides a summary of the outcomes of the environmental assessment on the construction and operation of the scheme to date. This has been undertaken for each of the options with an emphasis placed on the differences between the options. Reference should be made to the EAR (Jacobs 2018) for a full description for the environmental assessment A summary of the environmental assessment methodology is given in Appendix A8-5.

Air Quality

An assessment has been undertaken as to the number of potential receptors which may be affected by the change in local air quality from the scheme and the change in greenhouse gas emissions (regional emissions) which may result from the scheme. In terms of affecting receptors, both have the potential to affect human health and climate change respectively. For the purpose of comparison, the outcomes of the assessment are monetised. These are calculated for the opening year (2026) and a ‘design year’ (year of expected capacity usage, 2041) for the scheme.

The change in air quality was assessed with regards to particulate matter (PM10, being a fraction of particulates in the air) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These has been assessed in terms of the potential change in concentrations (PM10) and emissions (NOx) generated by using changes in vehicle traffic and moving vehicle traffic closer, or further away, from receptors. For all of the scheme options there is a benefit with regards to a reduction to PM10 concentrations. This is due to moving the A120 away from a large number of receptors. All options result in an increase in NOx emissions (dis-benefit) due to the general increase in traffic over the operational life of the Proposed Scheme. Overall, option E has the lowest increase in cost associated with air quality and option A has the greatest. For nitrogen dioxide, option D has the highest proportion of receptors that will benefit from the scheme and option C has the lowest proportion. Overall, all of the options are expected to have a slight beneficial impact on local air quality in terms of concentrations at sensitive receptors.

The change in greenhouse gases is assessed with regards to the potential release of CO2. The scheme is likely to generate more vehicles-kilometres travelled and hence regional and greenhouses gases emissions in the network. Therefore, all options are expected to increase CO2, over the lifetime of the Proposed Scheme and will have a slight adverse impact overall (the regional emissions ‘Slight adverse’ effect are judged to outweigh the more local human receptor ‘Slight benefit’ effect).

8.1.1 Key Differences between the Options • For PM10 concentrations, option E has the greatest benefit with option C the least benefit. • For NOx, option C has the lowest increase in emissions and option A the greatest.

• For NO2, option D has the highest proportion of receptors benefiting from improvements and option C the least. • For construction impacts will be short term and for all options can be managed through mitigation. However, option A has no ecological sites, but the highest number of affected human receptors. Option D has the least number of affected human receptors. Option D is considered to have the most benefit from improving local air quality and not providing the worst change from greenhouse gas emissions.

8.1.2 Mitigation

Local air quality effects during operation has been classed as not significant at this stage for all options, therefore no mitigation is included at this stage.

The risk of dust impacts from construction activities can be controlled with the adoption of standard good practice dust mitigation measures and controls. The relevant good practice mitigation measures for the

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 60 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

construction phase of the preferred option route would be taken from the IAQM guidance, Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction (v1.1), 2016.

Cultural Heritage

An assessment was undertaken for the potential impact on cultural heritage assets as a result of the scheme. Table 8-1 shows the extent to which cultural heritage assets have the potential to be significantly affected by the construction and/or operation of each option. The magnitude of each of these effects is described in the EAR (Jacobs 2018).

Table 8-1: Potential Significant effects as a result of the scheme during construction and operation (all effects are potential) Routes Assets A B C D E Grade II* Listed Setting of None None Setting of Setting of Buildings one asset affected affected one asset one asset affected affected affected Grade II Listed Setting of Setting of Setting of Setting of Setting of Buildings seven assets eight assets nine assets five assets three assets affected affected affected affected affected Undesignated None None One affected None One affected Historic affected affected affected buildings Scheduled None None None None None Monuments affected affected affected affected affected Historic Two historic One historic Two historic Two Two Landscapes landscapes landscape landscapes landscapes landscapes affected affected affected affected affected

Undesignated Eleven Three assets Five assets One asset Three assets archaeological assets affected affected affected affected remains affected

Unknown buried Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential archaeological removal of removal of removal of removal of removal of remains unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown remains remains remains remains remains Overall Potential Potential Potential Potential Potential significant significant significant significant significant adverse- adverse- adverse- adverse- adverse- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation may be may be may be may be may be possible possible possible possible possible

8.2.1 Key Differences between the Options

All of the options are considered to have potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. All of the routes are likely to affect the setting of a number of Grade II listed buildings and may affect unknown buried archaeological remains. Key differences between the routes are: • Options A, D and E may have potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible on the setting of Grade II* listed buildings. • Options B and D may have potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible on the setting of Glazenwood House and Garden (non-designated historic building and garden).

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 61 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Options A, B, D and E may disturb known archaeological remains considered to be of moderate significance. This is considered a potentially significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible, depending on the exact location and nature of the buried remains.

8.2.2 Mitigation

The design will be developed in accordance with HA208/07 and will include embedded mitigations measures which may include: • Avoidance of the removal or disturbance of cultural heritage assets as far as is reasonable practicable; • Potential for archaeological excavation; • Minimising the effect on the setting of any cultural heritage assets, particular care should be given to elevated structures and earthworks; and • Design of earthworks so they are less visually intrusive.

There may be opportunities for environmental enhancement, for example: • Where Public Rights of Ways are being improved or have wider views afforded by the Non-Motorised Users bridges, consideration could be given to interpretation of cultural heritage assets.

Nature Conservation

8.3.1 Option A

Statutory Designated Sites

The Stage 2 EAR (Jacobs 2018) identified that there may be impacts to European designated sites from pollution via hydrological connectivity and disturbance to migratory birds. Both of these impacts may lead to moderate or large adverse effects. However, an assessment was undertaken on the implications to European Sites (Jacobs 2016). This found that there are no likely impacts to European sites due to emissions to air or water. Risks remains as to whether the options pose risks to migratory birds and other protected species utilising the area.

Non-Habitats and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

There are potential impacts to two LNR, six LWS and other habitats including floodplains, ponds and the River Blackwater. Impacts may result from disturbance and loss of habitat corridors during construction and disturbance and loss of individual species during operation. This may lead to significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible. There may be direct impacts on the Tilkey Road LWS, flood plains and the River Blackwater.

Sixteen ponds considered of medium/county importance were identified within 250m of the option for which connectivity of habitats may be affected. One pond lies under the current route which was found to be dry during the environmental DNA (eDNA) great crested newt (GCN) survey. Two ponds within 250 m of the route were found to have the potential for GCN presence (Jacobs 2017). Both of these ponds were located north west of Coggeshall. A number of dry ponds were noted during the survey. It is likely that these will require further survey at a later stage of the project. If these remain dry then Natural England may regard them as having potential for newts (if they fill in the future).

The route would cut through numerous fields and their boundaries, dividing habitats of low/local importance. During the bat surveys a brown long eared bat roost was identified just south of the route along the River Balckwater east of Coggeshall. This was tracked to the main farmhouse at Curd Hall. This is located approximately 250m south of the route alignment.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 62 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Species

The route alignment of any of the options would lead to loss of habitat and would cut through some linear habitats that may provide connectivity between habitats on the north and south of the route. This could be the case for species of high/national importance (including bats and birds), medium/county importance (i.e. great crested newts, dormouse) and low/local importance (i.e. white clawed crayfish, reptiles, badgers and otters).

There are no confirmed maternity colonies from the 2017 radiotracking located within 250m of this Option, and four within 1km, two of which are in areas where the road is existing and are unlikely to be impacted. However, it should be noted that the north-western area of the route is un-surveyed. Analysis of loggers in this area, notably adjacent to the river, may provide additional data on species present and activity.

Further study has been taken on overwintering birds in 2017 (Jacobs 2017), including the qualifying species of designated SPAs. This found that the utilisation of the route area by qualifying birds designated sites was found to be negligible. However, further survey work is required to fully ascertain potential impacts.

Overall

Overall, this route may lead to potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.

8.3.2 Option B

Statutory Designated Sites

There may be impacts to European designated sites from pollution via hydrological connectivity and disturbance to migratory birds. Both of these impacts may lead to potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible. Option B passes through habitats surrounding Bradwell Quarry (which has no designation) which has been highlighted as important for golden plover and lapwing.

Habitats and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

There are potential impacts to national important habitats, including four LWS, an ancient woodland and three veteran trees. Lanham Wood LWS lies 16m from Proposed Option B, and Link’s Wood lies 41m from this Option. Therefore, there is high potential for these ancient woodlands to be directly impacted by this option. One veteran tree will be felled. Templeborder Wood LWS lies 143m away, so impact on this woodland are more likely to be indirect.

There are potential impacts to habitats of county importance, including seven LWS and one LNR. While the majority of these impacts will be indirect, the option passes directly across Coggeshall Hall Farm LWS, and the River Blackwater which are likely to receive direct impacts. The eastern junction crosses Domsey Brook, which is therefore likely to receive direct impacts. All impacts will be potential significant adverse – mitigation may be possible. The level of impact will depend on the final design of the option.

The option would cut through numerous fields, woodlands and their boundaries, dividing habitats of low/local importance.

Species

The route alignment would lead to loss of habitat and quality and would cut through some linear habitats that may provide connectivity between habitats on the north and south of the route. This would be the case for species of high/national importance, medium/county importance and low/local importance. Coggeshall Hall Farm LWS is primarily designated because it is a key foraging area of the nationally rare bumblebee Bombus ruderatus, which gives this site County (medium) level importance. Its fauna includes other scarce Essex insects listed on the provisional Essex Red Data list such as the bumblebee Bombus rupestris.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 63 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

One pond with positive eDNA for GCN is located within 150m of Route B. The option crosses habitat with connectivity to this pond, so GCN using this pond as a breeding site are expected to be directly impacted by this option.

There are two bat colonies located within 250m the option; a maternity colony for Daubenton’s bats approximately 20m away from a proposed road access bridge close to Glazenwood and a natterer’s 250m away. Option B is confirmed as intersecting a natterer’s flight line. Without mitigation, construction of this option is likely to have a significant impact on the Daubenton’s colony. A licence would be required, a condition of which mitigation would be to maintain favourable condition of this colony.

Overall

Overall, this route may lead to potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.

8.3.3 Option C

Statutory Designated Sites There may be impacts to European designated sites from pollution via hydrological connectivity and disturbance to migratory birds. Option C passes through habitats surrounding Bradwell Quarry (which has no designation) which has been highlighted as important for golden plover and lapwing. This may lead to potential significant adverse effects – mitigation maybe be possible.

Habitats and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

There may be indirect impacts to nationally important habitats including five LWS, an ancient woodland and three veteran trees. Of these, Links Wood is in close proximity and therefore there is the potential for direct impacts from this Option. In addition, one of the veteran trees may be required to be felled. These effects are considered to have significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible.

There may be indirect effects to habitats of county importance including two LNR and six LWS. Other habitats include the River Brain, floodplains and traditional orchards. The route crosses a LWS within the Blackwater Valley (Coggeshall Hall Farm LWS). This river valley site comprises a mosaic of open Cricket-bat willow (Salix alba var. caerulea) plantations, with some flower-rich grassland and associated hedgerows. It also provides habitat for several scarce bee species listed on the Essex Red Data List. These species include bumblebee Bombus rupestris and the bee species Sphecodes niger and Lasioglossum pauxillum. The adjacent sections of the River Blackwater are also included. This may be lead to the loss of part of this LWS and subsequent effects on red book listed species.

The route would cut through numerous fields and their boundaries, dividing habitats of low/local importance.

Species

The route alignment may lead to loss of habitat and quality and would cut through some linear habitats that may provide connectivity between habitats on the north and south of the route. This would be the case for species of high/national importance, medium/county importance and low/local importance.

One pond with positive eDNA for GCN is located within 150m of option C. Option C crosses a hedgerow with connectivity to this pond, so GCN using this pond are a breeding site are expected to be directly impacted by this option. For bats, there are no confirmed maternity colonies within 250m and four within 1km of the option. There is additionally a historic soprano pipistrelle colony from 2009 (unconfirmed). However, it should be noted that access was unavailable to much of this route which remains unsurveyed, including Links Wood.

Overall

Overall, this route may lead to potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 64 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

8.3.4 Option D

European Statutory Designated Sites

There may be impacts to European designated sites from pollution via hydrological connectivity and disturbance to migratory birds. Both of these impacts may lead to moderate adverse effects. Habitat around the Bradwell Quarry (which has no designation) is considered of district importance for golden plover and lapwing. Construction of this option may lead to the loss of important wintering habitat for these species.

Habitats and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

There may be indirect impacts to nationally important habitats including five LWS, an ancient woodland and four veteran trees. Of these, Links Wood is in close proximity and therefore there is the potential for direct impacts from this option. These effects are considered to have significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible.

There may be indirect effects to habitats of county importance including two LNR and six LWS. Other habitats include the River Brain, floodplains and traditional orchards. The route would cut through numerous fields and their boundaries, dividing habitats of low/local importance.

Species

No ponds returned positive results for eDNA for GCN were recorded within 250m of option during the 2017 survey. However, the habitat through which this option passes contains many ponds that were dry at the time of survey, and with suitable habitat for GCN. The option would cut through numerous fields and their boundaries, dividing habitats of low/local importance.

The route alignment would lead to loss of habitat and quality, and would cut through some linear habitats that may provide connectivity between habitats on the north and south of the route. This would be the case for species of high/national importance, medium/county importance and low/local importance.

Current surveys have not found bat roosts in close proximity to option D. However, indirect impacts may occur from disturbance and foraging habitat degradation.

Overall

Overall, this route may lead to potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.

8.3.5 Option E

European Statutory Designated Sites

There may be impacts to European designated sites from pollution via hydrological connectivity and disturbance to migratory birds. This option passes through habitats surrounding Bradwell Quarry (which has no designation) which has been highlighted as important for Golden plover and lapwing. Habitat around the Bradwell Quarry is considered of district importance for golden plover and lapwing. Construction of this option may lead to the loss of important wintering habitat for these species.

Habitats and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

There may be indirect impacts to nationally important habitats including five LWS, an ancient woodland and four veteran trees. Of these, Links Wood is in close proximity and therefore there is the potential for direct impacts from this option. These effects are considered to have significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible.

There may be indirect effects to habitats of county importance including two LNR and six LWS. Other habitats include the River Brain, floodplains and traditional orchards. The route would cut through numerous fields and their boundaries, dividing habitats of low/local importance.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 65 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

The route would cut through numerous fields, woodlands and their boundaries, dividing habitats of low/local importance.

Species

The route alignment would lead to loss of habitat and quality, and would cut through some linear habitats that may provide connectivity between habitats on the north and south of the route. This would be the case for species of high/national importance, medium/county importance and low/local importance. No ponds tested positive for GCN eDNA within 250m of this option during the 2017 survey.

Current surveys have not found bats in close proximity to Option E. However, further surveys are required to confirm this.

Overall

Overall, this route may lead to potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible.

8.3.6 Key Differences between the Options

The following differences have been noted between the routes: • Routes A, B and C will have direct effects on a LWS. • There were no recorded GCN presence within 150m of routes D and E. • There were no recorded bat roosts in proximity to options D and E. • Option A did not record potential effects to statutory designated sites. • Options D and E will not directly affect veteran trees.

On the basis of the above, Options D or E are preferable as having the least effects.

It should be noted that further surveys would be required to establish the presence/potential absence of species and population size. This data is required to determine measures that would best minimise adverse impacts and provide residual beneficial effects.

It should be noted that the current impact assessment is based on an ecological phase 1 survey, which access the potential of the site to support, and any evidence of protected species present on the day of the survey. Further surveys would be required to establish the presence/potential absence of species, their population size, and use of this data to determine measures that would best minimise adverse impacts and provide residual beneficial effects.

8.3.7 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures have been proposed for potential impacts to nature conservation. • For the potential loss of parts of the Coggeshall Hall Farm LWS (Routes B and C): - Use of a wildflower seed mix developed for field margins to increase the availability of pollen and nectar each bumblebee species listed in the LWS citation. However, these mixes may need to be specific and targeted for each particular species, not a general one for all. - There is similar habitat along the River Blackwater corridor. Habitat in these areas could be managed to enhance the habitat and monitor its use by the rare invertebrates (Essex Red Book Species) currently using the LWS, to provide an alternative habitat. - All the scarce insects which may use the LWS prefer habitat that has low levels of management and is un-grazed. Therefore, appropriate management, to be defined in a Management Plan, would mitigate the impact on these species.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 66 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Minimise the loss, damage and modification of key habitats by design and a well- considered construction strategy. • Enhance retained habitats by ensuring buffer areas are provided around new and retained habitats. • Undertake compensation planting at least three years in advance of construction to ensure viable, alternative habitats are available. • Clearance of vegetation and earth works would need to be undertaken using sensitive methodologies. This would include phased and progressive habitat manipulation, programmed to avoid sensitive seasons, with ecologist supervision. • Arisings from the vegetation clearance should be retained and used as part of habitat creation. • Design to include the provision of connective routes beneath and over the route. • Provision of earth embankments and screening vegetation. • The design should incorporate minimal and directed lighting. • A habitat management plan and species monitoring strategy should be produced to ensure conservation objectives are realised in the long term. • Habitat protection may be required for areas providing habitat for overwintering birds. • Crossing points may be required to reduce impacts to bats. These may include culverts, green bridges and appropriately designed lighting.

Landscape

During operation, all of the scheme options are considered to have potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible. It is not considered possible to mitigate short term construction effects. However, the longer term operational effects may be possible to mitigate. Realigned side roads, overbridges, junctions and WCH routes have the potential to give rise to adverse landscape and visual effects. However, these effects are similar for all options. All of the routes would have the following general potential effects: • Increased extent and prominence of major highway infrastructure within the landscape, particularly as extensive established vegetation that helps to integrate the existing routes into the landscape is likely to be removed along the online sections. • Increased amount of signage, gantries and lighting. • Landscape impacts caused by the scale of the infrastructure, including major new and improved junctions, and the elevated position of some elements, which would be at odds with the scale and character of the surrounding landscape. • The offline sections, major junctions and interfaces with other major infrastructure including the A12 are likely to impact upon landscape character and quality, with a loss of vegetation, disruption to field pattern and reduced tranquillity. • Borrow pits, if required would also cause vegetation loss, disruption to field pattern, changes to land use and landscape character. • Impacts on the landscape setting of surrounding cultural heritage features, where the highway infrastructure would either become physically closer or would become a more prominent feature within the landscape setting. • Views towards the scheme for a high number of visual receptors, in particular for residents within properties on the peripheries of surrounding nearby settlements and for users of PRoW that run close to, or cross, the corridors.

8.4.1 Key Differences between the Options

The following are differences between the routes:

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 67 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Option A crosses the River Blackwater south of Stisted and Robins Brook north of Coggeshall (refer to Section 8.9 Road Drainage and Water Environment for further information regarding watercourse crossings). This option would run within very close proximity to Stisted Conservation Area, affecting both the setting of and views from this sensitive area. This option includes substantial online sections, which would lead to extensive loss of existing established highway vegetation in these areas and where the route would run parallel with the existing A120, increasing the prominence of highway infrastructure within the landscape. Major junctions east of Braintree and east of Bradwell, north and east of Bradwell, the crossing of the railway line and the A12 and major junction east of the A12 would be intrusive. The existing road is single carriageway bordered for much of its length with native hedgerows and the occasional mature hedgerow oak, with some listed buildings tight to the road and is rural in character. The proposed A120 would comprise a dual carriageway with lit roundabouts and junctions, signs and gantries, the details of which are not known at this project stage. It is therefore likely that there would be significant landscape and visual effects on setting for the online option due to the magnitude of change. • Options B to E would run largely offline which would cause greater severance of the landscape and increased extent of highway infrastructure (in addition to the existing A120) when compared with Option A which would involve more online improvements. • Option B would involve major junctions south east of Braintree, at Bradwell Quarry, crossing the River Blackwater south east of Coggeshall, crossing the railway line and the A12 and the major junction east of the A12, which would be intrusive. • Option C crosses both the River Brain and River Blackwater valleys and both railways lines. Although on the periphery of the urban area of Braintree, the major junction south of Braintree and the crossing of the River Brain Valley would be at odds with the scale and the character of the valley landscape. Other major junctions south east of Braintree, at Bradwell Quarry, crossing the River Blackwater south east of Coggeshall, crossing the railway lines and the A12 and the major junction east of the A12 would be intrusive. • Option D would involve major junctions south east of Braintree, south of Bradwell Quarry and at the tie in with the A12 south west of Kelvedon, where the route would also cross the railway line. • Option E would cross the River Brain and the railway line at the western extent. Although on the periphery of the urban area of Braintree, the major junction south of Braintree and the crossing of River Brain Valley would be at odds with the scale and the character of the valley landscape. Other major junctions would be south east of Braintree south of Bradwell Quarry and at the tie in with the A12 south west of Kelvedon, where the route would also cross the railway line. • Option B and D would run close to, and may have effects on the setting of Glazenwood Park and Garden (non-designated historic garden). • Option C, D and E have potential effects on the setting of and views from conservation areas of Cressing, Silver End and Kelvedon. • Options C and E sever common land. On balance, it is considered that Option D would cause slightly less detrimental landscape and visual effects compared with the other options. This is because it is the shortest option, crossing the Rivers Brain and Blackwater would be avoided, the major junction at the western extent of the route would be set within the urban context of Braintree and the junction at the eastern extent would be set within the context of the A12 and the railway line.

8.4.2 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures are proposed: • Keep vertical alignment as low as possible in the landscape to reduce adverse landscape and visual effects. • Avoid field severance wherever possible by routing the road with the grain of the landscape and enclosure pattern. Where this is not possible logical, usable field parcels should be created to retain the landscape pattern and reduce the effect on agricultural viability.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 68 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Particular care should be given to structures and earthworks that cross sensitive river valleys to provide solutions that balance visual and aesthetic concerns with flood risk, ecological connectivity and the effects of noise. • Incorporate rollover mounding and blend earthworks into natural flowing contours, including consideration of the appropriateness to return land to agricultural use. • Design ‘tie-ins’ and realigned local roads and overbridges to retain existing rural character, including road width, retention/reinstatement of hedgerows, grass verges, no kerbs etc. • Carefully consider the location of, and potential landscape and visual effects of, highway infrastructure including noise barriers, drainage ponds and flood attenuation, signs, gantries and lighting. • Investigate opportunities to reduce the overall cumulative adverse effect of existing and proposed highway infrastructure on the landscape – particularly the combined effect of the existing A12 Kelvedon Bypass, A120 and proposed A12 on the Blackwater Valley. Additional, secondary mitigation is likely to include: • Refinement of the design of earthworks and mounding to create natural gradients and slopes that achieve better integration with the surrounding landform, where space and material are available. • Use of sensitive lighting design such as the use of horizontally mounted flat glass lanterns. • Dense native tree and shrub planting on and adjacent to highway earthworks to create woodlands, copses and shelterbelts in order to break up the scale of the road, screen structures, traffic and lighting and help integrate the Proposed Scheme into the existing landscape pattern. • Use of planting to link into existing field boundary vegetation to provide screening and integration into the local pattern and character, as well as connection of existing wildlife corridors. • The use of locally indigenous native and non-native plants as appropriate to reflect the distinctive local character such as the replication of willow plantation on valley floors, and parkland and avenue near registered parks and gardens. • Retention of views to local landmarks through breaks in the planting to help create a sense of place for vehicle travellers, where possible.

Geology and Soils

All of the options are considered to have a potential significant effects – mitigation may be possible. All of the options will lead to impacts on secondary A aquifers and secondary (undifferentiated) aquifers. Impacts may occur from potential mobilisation of contaminated land and from construction activities. All of the routes will lead to dewatering activities for cuttings, which may have effects on domestic abstractions in the vicinity of the option. In addition, all of the routes will cross land with soils considered of grades 2 and 3 agricultural land (best and most versatile soils).

8.5.1 Key Differences between the Options

The following differences have been noted between the routes: • Options A, B, and C may lead to the removal of a licenced groundwater abstraction well. • Options B, C, D, and E cross areas of proven mineral resource. • Options B, C, D and E may cross areas of potential high risk of land contamination from the former airfield. • There is a high risk of instability where options B, C, D and E cross Bradwell Quarry.

8.5.2 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures have been proposed for potential impacts to geology and soil: • It is anticipated that materials may be imported from offsite for the construction of the proposed embankments on all the options. Imported materials would need to comply with suitability for use

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 69 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

requirements particularly with respect to the contamination status of the materials. Materials movement during construction will need to be managed through an appropriate Materials Management Plan under the CL:AIRE Code of Practice. • Measures to control the risk of watercourses pollution during construction should be implemented through a construction environmental management plan (CEMP); • Construction plant should be refuelled in designated areas on an impermeable surface, away from drains and watercourses; • An emergency spill plan should be generated and spill kits should be available at appropriate locations; and • A targeted intrusive land quality investigation is therefore required to assess potential land contamination in the key areas.

Materials

For materials usage, all of the options would result in potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible. The majority of waste generated from the routes options would be from demolition and construction waste. Potential impacts are primarily associated with the production, movement, transport and processing of wastes on and off-site. It is considered that there is adequate waste management capacity in the area; therefore, the significance for waste effects for all options has been assessed as slight adverse. Further assessment on material usage is given in the constructability section.

8.6.1 Key differences between the Routes • Routes D and E have the least use of materials and least embodied carbon generation.

8.6.2 Mitigation • Maximise use of excavated materials within scheme. • Use local resources where possible. • Adoption of a waste hierarchy. • Appropriate utilisation of waste management facilities to achieve recycling, reuse or recovery as much as possible of inert and non-hazardous waste on or offsite. • Use recycled materials (such as pulverised fuel ash) where possible.

Noise and Vibration Many sensitive receptors located adjacent to the existing A120 are likely to experience significant noise and vibration benefits due a likely substantial reduction in traffic flow. This includes approximately 100 residential properties that currently exist within NIAs along the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey. Significant benefits are also likely for those residential properties within NIA’s adjacent to sections of the Braintree Bypass (A120) due to a reduction in traffic flow and/or the introduction of low noise road surfacing where the scheme option connects into the existing A120. Non-significant noise benefits are also likely for properties in this area which are not within NIA’s. However, at sensitive receptors located adjacent to the existing A120 to the south of Braintree, including those within an NIA, potential adverse effects are possible with a number of the options due to a likely increase in traffic flows. A relatively small number of sensitive receptors located in the rural areas between Braintree and the A12 have the potential to be exposed to adverse impacts. Some of these have the potential to be significant and mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts. Adverse impacts are likely from the construction works associated with the scheme options. However, given the works are largely transient in nature, the impacts will likely be typically non-significant. It would be expected that

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 70 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

all work would be undertaken to the guidance detailed in BS 5228: 2009+A1:2014. As such, it would be anticipated that with typical mitigation noise and vibration levels would be mitigated as far as possible.

8.7.1 Differences between the Routes Perceptible Change

For each of the options, the assessment presents the predicted impacts for all receptors within the Calculation Area. Using this information, the number of receptors predicted to experience significant effects is presented. The Predicted total number of receptors with perceptible noise change (both increase and decrease) is given in Table 8-2: Predicted total number of perceptible noise changes for each option during the day

Table 8-2: Predicted total number of perceptible noise changes for each option during the day Predicted perceptible decreases Predicted perceptible increases Option in noise (no. of receptors) in noise (no. of receptors) Short-term Long-term Short-term Long-term A 5,129 458 2,622 126 B 4,287 377 2,240 443 C 6,120 676 2,633 784 D 4,943 435 1,355 438 E 6,760 688 1,532 635

Table 8-2: Predicted total number of perceptible noise changes for each option during the dayshows that overall each option provides a benefit in terms of noise impacts in the short-term. That is, a greater number of receptors would experience perceptible reductions (1 dB LA10,18hr or more) than increases. Route E is shown to provide the greatest number of potential perceptible benefits in the short-term. Route D shows the least number of potential perceptible disbenefits, followed by Route E. However, Route D exhibits a relatively low number of potential perceptible benefits. Based upon this analysis Route E would be considered the favoured option in the short-term, with route B the least preferred.

In the long-term, Table 8.2 shows that overall each option provides a largely neutral impact when considering potential perceptible noise levels changes. As in the short-term, Route E is shown to provide the greatest number of potential perceptible benefits in the long-term. However, Route E also shows the second largest number of potential perceptible increases in the long-term, after Route C. Route A exhibits the least number of potential perceptible disbenefits in the long-term. Based upon this analysis Routes A and E would be considered the favoured options in the long-term, with route B the least preferred. Significant Effects

An assessment of the number of receptors predicted to experience significant noise change has been undertakenTable 8-3: Predicted number of significant noise changes for each option presents the results of this assessment for each option. Figures in parenthesis denote the ranking of each route.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 71 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 8-3: Predicted number of significant noise changes for each option Predicted number receptors with Predicted number receptors with Option significant benefits significant disbenefits Day Night Day Night A 1137 358 429 374 B 799 316 456 275 C 1253 440 461 380 D 941 353 417 369 E 1429 468 418 340

Table 8-3: Predicted number of significant noise changes for each option shows that during the day: • Each option is predicted to result in a greater number of significant benefits compared to the number of predicted significant disbenefits. • Route E is predicted to result in the greatest number of significant benefits. Route D shows the least number of significant disbenefits, followed by Route E (by only one receptor though). • However, Route D exhibits a relatively low number of significant benefits. • Route E would be considered the preferred option when considering significant impacts during the day. • Route B would be considered the least preferred option.

Table 8-3: Predicted number of significant noise changes for each option shows that at night: • The number of significant benefits and disbenefits are similar. • Route E shows the greatest number of significant benefits and is second only to route B in terms of lowest number of predicted significant disbenefits. • Route E is again considered the preferred option in terms of potential significant impacts during the night.

People and Community

All of the options will lead to an overall potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible. However, there would be some beneficial effects associated with the scheme options including the creation of construction jobs, use of local services and suppliers, improvements in access, relieving congestion and economic benefits from reduced journey times.

All of the Scheme Options will have potentially significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible from temporary disruption during construction to WCHs, permanent loss of common land (for routes C and E) and best and most versatile agricultural land, disruption to local business and cumulative effects with other planned schemes.

8.8.1 Key Differences between the Routes

The following differences have been noted between the routes: • Route A may lead to slight beneficial effects from improvements in connectivity for WCH’s across the existing A120. • Route A will create temporary disturbance for access for the highest amount of schools out of the options. • Options A, B and C will lead to the permanent land take of the western edge of the Marks Tey Point-to- Point course and a potential motor cross track. • Options A and D would require the demolition of Cressing Lodge Farmhouse.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 72 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Option C and E will lead to permanent land take of two areas of registered common land.

8.8.2 Mitigation

A Code of Construction Practice would be prepared to accompany the Environmental Statement during ongoing EIA work for a preferred option at PCF Stage 3. This would include good practice measures to be adopted during construction in order to minimise the impacts on the amenity of local residents, business owners and visitors associated with noise, dust, visual and construction traffic. It would also include requirements relating to construction traffic management, including the preparation and implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan and mitigation measures such as variable construction speed limits, permitted access routes, adequate signage and communication of up-to-date construction information. For best and most versatile agricultural land, land take will be minimised where possible during design. Further work will be undertaken to delineate best and most versatile agricultural land quality.

Optimisation of the design of each option is ongoing. The results of preliminary environmental work are continually fed into design development to minimise the effects to people and communities of the preferred option. This iterative process will seek to avoid sensitive receptors and community facilities and minimise land- take as far as possible.

Potential effects to PRoWs and WCHs would be minimised as far as possible via the development of WCH design objectives. These would be developed based on best practice guidance, national and local policies, local needs, Essex County Council engagement and consultation feedback with key WCH groups and would guide the final design of PRoW interfaces with the scheme. The final design would seek to avoid stopping up PRoWs, limit the length of WCH diversions and ensure all works are disability compliant.

Road Drainage and the Water Environment

All of the options will likely lead to overall potential significant adverse effects – mitigation may be possible on the Road Drainage and Water Environment. The potential significant effects are likely to occur where the options cross or discharge to the significant watercourses, such as the River Brain, River Blackwater, Domsey Brook and Robins Brook, or interact with groundwater. The effects include the potential to increase flood risk, effect existing geomorphological features and processes, cause degradation of existing water quality and effect groundwater quantity and quality. There are also a number of minor watercourses, lakes and ponds which could also potentially be significantly affected by the options. However, it is considered likely that mitigation could be implemented to reduce these effects. The options also cross and overlie a number of surface water and groundwater WFD water bodies, which would need to be assessed to determine compliance with the legislative requirements.

8.9.1 Key Differences between the Options

The following differences have been noted between the options: • Option C cross both the River Brain and River Blackwater and could encroach on Flood Zone 3. There could also be potential impacts associated with fine sediment input to the watercourses and/or changes to drainage. • Option E crosses the River Brain. • Options A and B cross the River Blackwater. • Options A, B and C affect Domsey Brook (considered a high value receptor with regards to water quality), with potential for degradation of geomorphology and water quality from sediment input and physical structures. • Option A could affect Robins Brook, potentially leading to degradation of geomorphology and water quality from sediment input and physical structures. • Options B and C will affect Bradwell Quarry Lake, with regards to degradation of geomorphology and water quality.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 73 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Options D and E will have no effects on small scale abstractions, but the other options potentially could. Option D is preferred as it has the least effects, it does not affect the River Brain, River Blackwater, Domsey Brook nor Bradwell Quarry Lake.

8.9.2 Mitigation

The following provides an indication of mitigation which could be put in place to reduce the effects described above. • During the construction period flows on watercourses would need to be maintained and temporary encroachment into the floodplain minimised both to reduce the impact to receptors and to construction workers. • The location of site compounds and storage areas should be located outside Flood Zones 2 and 3. • Locations to provide mitigation for lost floodplain have been indicatively identified in locations outside Flood Zones 2 and 3 where floodplain compensation may be required (watercourse crossings, junctions within floodplain and increase in hardstanding due to new highway). • Provision of sediment fences and sediment-trapping matting/bunds, reducing sediment input into watercourses; • Limiting the extent of vegetation clearance to necessary areas thereby reducing sediment input during clearance and the potential release of sediment from bare ground following clearance; • Constructing structures during periods of low flow (typically during summer months) to reduce the risk of scour and erosion around the structure or to the disturbed river bed; • In the areas identified as being at risk of flooding from fluvial and surface water sources the recommended approach to reducing impacts would be to have clear span structures across the designated flood zones (plus an allowance for climate change) in addition to the watercourse itself; • Encroachment into the floodplain would be avoided if possible. However, in certain circumstances it may not be possible to avoid. In such situations compensatory floodplain storage would need to be provided as close as practicable to the location of loss. This would ensure that there is no increase in peak water levels up to and including the 1 in 100 year event plus an allowance for climate change; • Floodplain compensation areas have to be constructed before any works that remove existing floodplain on the same watercourse are progressed as defined in the flood risk assessment, • Where the A120 Scheme crosses a surface water flow path it would need to make provision for the continuation of that flow path to ensure there is no deleterious impact upon flood risk. Should this require the inclusion of a new culvert, the structure would need to be designed to convey the 1 in 100 year event plus an allowance for climate change peak flow. • Design of structures such as outfalls and culverts to follow good practice guidance including minimising the size of the structure and tying the structure in with the existing bed and banks.

Overall Conclusions

For noise and vibration and local air quality, there is expected to be an improvement in the noise environment to a greater amount of receptors than will be adversely affected. The greatest benefits will be on routes D and E for noise and for option D for air. For regional emissions, there is expected to a slight worsening due to the additional traffic generated by the scheme.

For cultural heritage all of the options are considered to have potential significant adverse effect - mitigation may be possible. All of the routes are likely to affect the setting of a number of Grade II listed buildings and may affect unknown buried archaeological remains. Several of the routes also affect the setting of scheduled monuments and Grade II* Listed Buildings, but mitigation may be possible.

The most notably effects on landscape are expected to be where the options could conflict with the existing landform, in particular where they cross river valleys, such as the River Brain and River Blackwater, or where

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 74 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

the options cross the A12 and railway. However, two of the routes (Options B and C) cross the River Blackwater valley – considered of particular sensitivity for landscape. It should be noted that all of the options cross at least one river, and all cross the A12 and railway to tie into the A12. In addition, options C and E cross two areas of Common Land.

All of the options would lead to the loss of habitats and isolation for species of high/national importance, including bats and birds and for species of medium and low importance, such as great crested newts, dormouse, badgers and otters. There may be indirect impacts to veteran trees and ancient woodlands for all routes. Route B and C cross a LWS, listed for Essex Red Book species. Further surveys would be required to confirm the presence or absence of species. There may be adverse effects on European Sites from pollution via hydrological connectivity and disturbance to migratory birds. Bats roosts have been found adjacent to three of the routes (A, B and C). One bat was noted to cross Option A. Routes Crossing the Bradwell Quarry may have impacts on wintering birds. However, all of these effects have the potential to be mitigated.

A number of effects ranging from slight adverse to potential significant adverse effect – mitigation may be possible have been noted for junctions and road crossovers. Further opportunities will be sought during the design process, such as moving junctions and cross overs and different design options to reduce these effects.

In summary, all of the options result in broadly similar level of effects, with no overall potential significant adverse effects identified at this stage of the assessment, which cannot be mitigated. There may be significant adverse effects to a number of receptors from additional traffic noise which may not be possible to mitigate. However, there are expected to be overall benefits from an improvement in local air quality and the noise environment for a greater number of receptors than will be adversely effected.

However, on balance, it can be considered that option D has the lesser amount of effects than the other routes. This is shown in Appendix E, Table A8-6 in the scoring section.

However, further investigation through data collection, desk studies and site surveys (particularly with regards to ecology) is required to fully ascertain the effects and mitigation, if required.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 75 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

9. Summary of Public Consultation

Introduction

A non-statutory public consultation was carried out on the five options between 17th January and 14th March 2017. The aim of the consultation was to help inform the selection of a favoured option recommendation for the A120 between Braintree and the A12.

The target population for the consultation and engagement were local authorities, emergency services, strategic traffic generators, business community, local residents, freight and passenger transport, statutory environmental bodies, statutory bodies and utilities, road users, equalities and vulnerable user groups.

Information on the proposed routes was distributed to the public and key stakeholders using a range of direct and indirect channels to ensure wide awareness of the consultation and the opportunity to comment on their favoured route.

These channels included a leaflet distributed to 27,757 addresses in residential postcodes, posters at district and borough council offices, printed and online advertising using social media, local and Parish Council newspapers, mail out to businesses, schools, libraries and community centres and 11 public consultation events. These were backed up by a bespoke A120 consultation website.

Consultees were informed of the actions and research taken to date to determine the five potential options as well as the Options Assessment Report which included costs, feasibility of build, environmental impact, well- being, journey time and safety.

Consultees were asked to reflect on the five options and indicate their preferred option, provide comments and give their views about future junctions.

The 11 public events were attended by 3,143 people.

2,795 responses were received to the consultation in total. Of those respondents that provided their postcode, 85% were within Braintree District and Colchester Borough, and 96% were within Essex.

Quantitative Reponses

Responses

The 2,795 responses received provided both qualitative and quantitative results.

82% of respondents felt that the A120 required a complete upgrade to a dual carriageway to meet current and future demand as illustrated in the figure below.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 76 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Figure 9-1: Opinions on upgrading

Through agreement to a series of statements, respondents indicated that they strongly agreed or agreed that they would like to see upgrades which would: reduce queuing at junctions (86%), reduce HGVs’ need to travel through villages (85%), improve journey times (82%) and upgrade the A120 to dual carriageway (80%). 46% also agreed or strongly agreed that pedestrian, cycling and equestrian facilities should be improved.

Respondents were asked to rank the five options presented from 1 to 5, with 1 being the first preference and 5 being the last preference.

The graph below shows the number of responses where a ranking was provided for each option, and the number of responses where no ranking was provided for that option.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 77 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Ranking by Route Option 3000

2500 858 879 937 1010 969

2000 112 119 292 103 242 1500 443 290 551 1016 483 242 361 Numberofresponses 1000 225 358 29 419

341 583 548 500 44 742 673 428 323 355 0 Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

1 2 3 4 5 no response

Figure 9-2: Number of Responses on Option Preference by Option

The data in the figure above reveals the following key points: • The responses to the public consultation indicate that there is no overwhelming favourite option. • Based on the first preference only, Option C has the highest number of respondents identifying this as their most preferred option, with 29% of those who provided a rank. This is followed by Option E with 27%, Option A (17%), Option D (14%) and Option B (13%). • When the top two preferences are considered there is even less difference between the option preferences, with 25% of respondents preferring Option C, followed by Option E (24%), Option D (20%), Option B (20%) and Option A (11%). • The trend is similar when considering the top three preferences, with Option C on 26% followed by Option E (22%), Option D (21%), Option B (18%) and Option A (13%). • Option A stands out as being the least popular option, with 62% of respondents who provided a ranking identifying it as their least preferred option.

In general, it could be said that the response to the public consultation indicates that Options B, C, D and E would all be acceptable solutions.

Qualitative Insight and Key Findings

Analysis of the open questions identified a series of trends: • There is significant agreement that action is needed to address congestion and improve connections in this area, and that this is needed promptly.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 78 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• East/west connections, and particularly those that facilitate traffic flowing more freely from the wider area, ports and Stansted Airport, are considered key to the area. • Separating local and through traffic and reducing traffic passing through villages, HGV traffic in particular, would be a desirable outcome from any scheme. • The countryside and wildlife of the area is highly valued both for its environmental importance but also for its amenity value, such as rights of way and rural nature. As such there is a desire for any route to minimise impacts on the countryside, wildlife and habitats and in particular areas of particular sensitivity such as the Blackwater and Brain River valleys. • There was a general feeling that the ‘southern’ routes had lower environmental impacts than the ‘northern’ routes, primarily due to those routes being shorter: Routes D and E were felt to have the least environmental impact, primarily because they were the shortest. Routes B and C, as the longer routes, were generally felt to have larger environmental impacts. Route A received the largest number of comments about negative environmental impacts, often related to noise, pollution and visual impacts on villages rather than impacts on wildlife and habitats. • Respondents felt that impacts on local communities from any new route should be minimised. In particular Stisted, Kelvedon, Feering, Coggeshall, Silver End, Bradwell, Cressing and areas around these villages are raised as areas of potential impacts, including noise and air pollution in addition to visual amenity. • Respondents commented that many communities in the area have close ties, and the impact of routes on the interaction of these communities should be considered, in particular Stisted, Pattiswick and Bradwell for route A, Coggeshall, Kelvedon and Feering for routes B and C, Cressing and Tye Green for routes C and E, and Cressing and Braintree for route D. In particular, the impact on smaller roads joining communities should be considered, as these provide access to amenities such as schools and transport. • There is a very strong view that Galleys Corner is a significant issue that needs to be addressed, either by removing traffic from it or by upgrading it. Freeport is often identified as a cause of congestion and also an area where accessibility needs to be maintained. • With regard to potential junction locations, the most frequent response was for an additional junction on Options B, C, D and E to provide access to Bradwell Quarry and the Integrated Waste Management Facility to reduce the number of HGVs on the existing A120 that pass through villages. • It is frequently noted that congestion on the A12 through Kelvedon and up to Marks Tey is a significant issue and that traffic should not be added and, ideally, should be offered alternative routes. There was a general preference for any route to join the A12 to the north of Kelvedon, towards Marks Tey and Colchester, which was felt would address this issue. Those who preferred connections to the south usually mentioned this issue, but tended to suggest that a southern connection to the A12 would better manage traffic from Tiptree and the east and south. • A prevailing view was that every effort should be made to ensure that traffic can flow freely, this often underpinned support for options B, C, D and E where the number of junctions is lower. • There is a good level of recognition amongst respondents that being cost effective can be more important than being cheaper, and that the balance of benefits and costs should be considered.

The full Public Consultation Report provides a thorough analysis of the responses received and should be read in conjunction with this Scheme Assessment Report. Jacobs, September 2017: A120 Braintree to A12 Consultation Report (Document Reference: B3553T41-JAC-VSS-00-REP-C-0003 | 3).

Scheme alternatives

Several alternatives were proposed from the public response and were taken forward for further consideration. These were reviewed by a brief assessment process: • Whether the alternative had opportunities that would add value • Whether the alternative was necessary • Whether the alternative requires further assessment, indicated by ‘Yes’

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 79 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Whether the alternative should be discarded, indicated by ‘No’

Table 9-1: Proposals following consultation

Location Alternative Initial Assessment Further Assessment Required Stisted / Changing the Option A The curve horizontal radius could be Yes Bradwell alignment to increase distance reduced or the alignment could from Stisted and/or go other potentially move south near Miles Farm. side of Miles Farm (as per 2005) Moving to the other side of the Farm would be a more substantial change but might be feasible in alignment terms Cressing / Hybrid of options C or E Could be a viable alternative which Yes Lanham Green (starting at River Brain) with would also avoid the registered options B or D around Lanham Common Land at Lanham Green Green. Involves C/E passing north of Links Wood rather than southwards, continuing north to join B/D route which passes to the north of Links Wood Bradwell Bradwell Quarry junction for Would aid the HGVs looking to gain Yes access to the Quarry or access to the Quarry or planned IWMF Integrated Waste Management for these routes. Otherwise traffic would Facility (IWMF) for Options B, C, be using existing A120, including for D and E. (Junction already traffic going west the existing A120 present in Option A which is through Bradwell nearby to quarry access road connection to existing A120) Kelvedon For Option D and E, A12 Moving the junction is dependent on the No South junction should be moved A12 Junction 19-25 scheme northwards since too far south. progression. If junction 23 is moved Relocate junction 23 or tie further north, it would require a complex alignment at a different junction viaduct to effectively traverse the River Blackwater Kelvedon Add a link road/slip road on A12 Not part of A120 scheme (as a trunk No north of Inworth to provide a road)’s remit. A link could potentially be route for HGVs from Tiptree provided as a separate ECC scheme or part of residential developments around Kelvedon Bradwell Hybrid option proposed to link Cuts through Priority Habitat Deciduous No options C or E to Coggeshall Woodland and Local Wildlife Sites Bypass (Option A) Kelvedon Add a new 4-way junction at the Does not relate to A120 scheme, to be No intersection between Inworth considered as part of A12 scheme. Note Road and the A12 on Kelvedon such a junction location would likely be Bypass in lieu of the existing Junction 24 Rivenhall End New A120/A12 interchange There is already an existing slip road No incorporating a link road to from Braxted Road and Oak Road Braxted Road, providing Tiptree which allows access to the A12 in both traffic with an access to the A12 directions; however, this is located at in both directions Rivenhall End. Therefore, Tiptree traffic would have a long way to travel to access this. Potentially increasing the

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 80 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

congestion on the B1022 and providing an additional local access on the A12 would be undesirable due to the safety implications Coggeshall Colne Road junction converted In option A, the only option which takes Not at this Bypass to a roundabout to improve the new A120 through this area, the stage but safety Colne Road junction would be grade safety separated (which would improve safety). measures / In the other options an at-grade junction improvements at Colne Road would be retained to junction (eg traffic signals) could be considered as part of de- trunking works Kelvedon A120/A12 junction should be Insufficient weaving length between No North/ Marks moved as close to Marks Tey Junction 25 and the proposed junction Tey Junction 25 as possible location. (The end of the slip road tapers need to be at least 1km apart and at this time the A12 proposals are not confirmed. The shorter the length between junctions the less the capacity and potentially less safe)

9.4.1 Opportunities to add value Other suggestions were made regarding the overall scheme:

• Future proofing via allowing for a hard shoulder that can be used as a third lane in future. • The use of noise abating material to reduce noise pollution. • Existing A120 should be improved and adequately maintained regardless of which route is chosen. • Consideration of the impact of the schemes on A12 capacity and journey times.

These will all be considered as the design progresses.

9.4.2 Developed Alternatives

The following alternative junction layouts and alignments were developed and further assessed. The assessment took into consideration the primary concerns regarding the particular alternative and the feasibility of the proposal.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 81 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 9-2: Developed Alternatives

Location Alternative Further Assessment

Stisted / (Alternative 1) Changing Option Realignment of curve to increase distance from Bradwell A alignment by moving it further Stisted and conservation area and avoid intrusion into away from Stisted by the priority habitat woodland. Worthy of further approximately 90m consideration Stisted / (Alternative 2) Changing Option Would require removal of reservoir near Miles Farm Bradwell A alignment by moving it 170m and replacement at an alternative location (outside the further away from Stisted flood zone of the River Blackwater). Closer to local wildlife site. Considered unacceptable due to these concerns Stisted / (Alternative 3) Changing Option Would result in a radical change that would move the Bradwell A alignment by introducing a route closer to a local wildlife site and listed building series of reverse curves. Moves (Dolphin Public House). Would most likely agitate the alignment closer to Bradwell residents of Bradwell due to the proximity to their village. Considered unacceptable due to these concerns Cressing / Hybrid of options C or E One step relaxation (720m radius) which links into Lanham Green (starting at River Brain) with option B/D alignment; however compliant with options B or D around Lanham standards since distance from Tye Green junction Green. Involves C/E passing sufficient enough to not be an issue. Marginally better north of Links Wood rather than for noise on receptors. Severs some hedgerows. May southwards, continuing north to sever habit links. Worthy of further consideration. join B/D route which passes to Refer to Appendix C for details of exploration the north of Links wood Bradwell Bradwell Quarry junction for Initial junction concepts developed which confirm access to the Quarry or feasibility. Worthy of further consideration Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF)

Schematic plans of some the above options can be seen in Appendix C: Plans for Alternative Options from Public Consultation.

Design Changes

9.5.1 Summary of Design Modifications for Further Investigation

The following points are in addition to further consideration of the impact of the A120 scheme on the A12 capacity, safety and operation in conjunction with the A12 project team. The points summarise the design modifications taken forward for further investigation: An additional junction providing access to Bradwell Quarry and the planned Integrated Waste Management Facility will be included in the design for Options B, C, D and E.

A more detailed investigation has been undertaken and is contained in Appendix D: Bradwell Quarry and Integrated Waste Management Facility Junction. The additional junction has been provided for Options B, C, D and E due to the findings from the detailed investigation. An alternative for moving the Option A alignment further away from Stisted. This alternative was explored as shown in Table 9-2: Developed Alternatives. Alternative 1 brings the alignment much closer to the reservoir near Miles Farm; essentially meaning the alignment severely encroaches into the Reservoir. The vicinity of the mainline earthworks to the reservoir for Alternative 1 would likely require the likely relocation of the reservoir; perhaps outside the flood zone of the River Blackwater. The other alternative

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 82 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

explored required the removal of the reservoir and brings the alignment closer to a local wildlife site which is considered unacceptable.

9.5.2 Bradwell Quarry Junction Assessment

A more detailed investigation into the case for an additional junction to provide access to Bradwell Quarry and the planned Integrated Waste Management Facility has been undertaken and is contained in Appendix D: Bradwell Quarry and Integrated Waste Management Facility Junction.

The recommendation of the investigation was that the additional junction should be provided and this was agreed by the A120 Project Board. In summary, this is due to the proposed junction being the most frequent response to the public consultation question on junction locations and would further address a key desire of the public (85% of responses) to reduce the need for heavy goods vehicles to travel through local villages. This measure is expected to reduce traffic through Bradwell by about 590 heavy goods vehicles per day on top of the reduction without the additional junction. The junction would operate effectively as a private means of access as no access to the public road network would occur, so would require a departure from standard. Development of an operating regime to avoid improper use by the public for access to the local road network would also be required.

It should be noted that one of the principles of the developing ESM standards is to limit junctions to A & B class roads only and remove accesses. The draft TIN however does give scope for junctions to be provided to support localised interaction as agreed with the Overseeing Organisation. It is anticipated that this junction, the provision, as has been agreed by the A120 Project Board, would fall into this category. As the situation is not clear, however, the provision of this junction is being considered a potential departure from that standard also.

As detailed in Appendix D: Bradwell Quarry and Integrated Waste Management Facility Junction Assessment it has been considered that a junction generally to the standards of a Compact Grade Separated Junction as per DMRB TD40/94 would be appropriate for this situation. The details of the junction design may need to be varied depending on the final ESM standard and discussions with Highways England.

9.5.3 Modification of A12 Junction 23 (Option D and E) In addition to providing the connection between the new A120 and the A12, this junction also needs to provide access from the A12 and the new A120 to Kelvedon. The junction would tie-in with Highways England’s A12 widening scheme. It has been assumed that the A12 would be widened off-line to dual three lanes to the east of the existing, creating a bypass to Rivenhall End. The junction layout is based on emerging work done for the A12 scheme, modified as required to cater for the A120. The A12 scheme does not explicitly cater for the A120 as the A120 is not in the current HE programme. It is anticipated however that the A12 scheme would provide “passive provision” for the A120, providing a layout that ultimately could facilitate an A120 connection, even if that requires some modification by the A120 scheme. The developing traffic model for the A120 has shown a significant traffic movement from the new A120 to the existing A12 to Witham. This would conflict with the main A12 southbound to A120 westbound movement at the western dumbbell roundabout of the junction causing significant delay and potential ques on the A12. To remove this conflict, the design has been modified provide a separate Interchange link from the new A120 to the Kelvedon link road. Due the A120 being on embankment to cross over the railway, to provide a design providing the requisite sight distances and associated shallow crest curve this slip road is longer than one might initially expect. A roundabout would be provided on the existing A12, which is assumed would remain a dual carriageway. This roundabout would provide access from the existing A12 to junction 23 via a link road and provide (and indeed improve) access to Essex Fire and Rescue headquarters. As the northern roundabout of J23 is on the existing A12, a new single carriageway link road is provided to connect to Kelvedon. This would pass under the new A120. To cater for the significant A120 eastbound to A12 northbound movement a segregated left turn lane would be provided at the western dumbbell roundabout of the junction. It is anticipated that the cost of J23 would be shared between the A12 and A120 scheme. The basic dumbbell junction is proposed on the A12 scheme regardless of the A120, so the A120 scheme would fund only the changes required to the layout to facilitate the A120.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 83 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

This junction requires a safe means of crossing for the Kelvedon to Witham shared footway/cycleway route (north-west side of the existing A12). Further design development is required for this and to deal with other potential operational matters.

9.5.4 Modification of A12 Junction 24a (Option A, B and C)

This grade separated junction forms the interchange between the new A120 and the A12 for options A, B & C. The junction would be located approximately half-way between the existing junctions 24 and 25 and would tie-in to the alignment proposed as part of Highways England’s A12 widening scheme. This junction is required only by the A120 scheme therefore is not link provided to the old A12.

The developing traffic model for the A120 has shown that the dumbbell arrangement does not provide sufficient capacity; hence a more robust solution was required. The most significant flows being the A120 eastbound to A12 northbound and the A12 southbound to A120 west bound. A trumpet layout has been envisaged for the southern roundabout of J24a to provide free flow and increase the capacity of the junction. The loop has also been provided for the junction link which has the least traffic; the A120 eastbound to A12 southbound which is envisaged to have approximately 50 vehicles per hour. Hence justifying the provision of a loop for this particular movement.

There are operational safety concerns regarding the potential safety performance of elements of the layout and further design development would be required to deal with these.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 84 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

10. Appraisal Summary Table

The Stage 2 scheme Appraisal Summary Tables (AST) are contained in Appendix F. ASTs provide a concise, across-the-board overview of the impacts of a scheme option which takes account of all the economic, social, environmental and financial impacts of an intervention as set out in the Treasury Green Book.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 85 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

11. Decision Framework

Introduction

A Decision Framework has been developed to assist in understanding how the five options perform relative to each other based on the latest data available including the results of the public consultation and Stage 2 traffic modelling, noise and air quality modelling and economic appraisal.

This Decision Framework represents a continuation of the appraisal process that started with the initial sifting in Stage 0 of the Highways England Project Control Framework (PCF) process and evolved through Stage 1. As such, the methodology developed is based on the same principles that have guided the process to date to maintain a consistency of approach. Its purpose is to provide a tool for combining both quantitative and qualitative information for a broad range of criteria to understand the implications for the relative performance of the options.

The approach is still based largely on the Department for Transport’s Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) and the associated guidance10, which is also consistent with the appraisal criteria set out for the preparation of the scheme Business Case. Business Cases are developed in line with Treasury’s advice on evidence-based decision making set out in the Green Book and uses its best practice five cases model approach11. The criteria used in the Decision Framework to assess the five options are therefore consistent with this best practice and how the Business Case itself will be assessed by DfT and Highways England.

Methodology

The methodology developed for the Decision Framework consists of the following elements: • Identification of the assessment criteria: this is based on assessment criteria used in DfT’s EAST sifting tool and are consistent with those in the five cases Business Case model; • Development of the scoring system: this includes the scale used for scoring the options, identifying the values that represent the minimum and maximum scores and calculation of quantitative indicators based on the latest available data; • Identification of measures to provide an aggregate score and rank: this includes a simple average and an average with each of the five cases (strategic fit, economic, management, financial, commercial) weighted equally; • Development of sensitivity tests: these are designed to assess the robustness of the results and consist of three types as follows: - Sensitivity to weightings by Business Case category; - Sensitivity to weightings assigned to each individual criterion; - Sensitivity to a variation in the scores of an individual criterion; and - Sensitivity to a change in key data inputs.

This methodology is considered to provide a robust, transparent and auditable process that is consistent with best practice and DfT and Highways England guidance.

Each of the above elements is discussed in more detailed in the following sections.

10 Department for Transport, Early Assessment and Sifting Tool Guidance 11 Department for Transport, January 2013: The Transport Business Cases

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 86 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

11.2.1 Assessment Criteria

The criteria used are based on DfT guidance with respect to options sifting (EAST) and those used for the preparation of the Business Case. Below is an explanation of each of the five business cases and which criteria were considered as part of them.

The Strategic case looks at the problems with the current A120 between Braintree and the A12, scoring potential routes on their ability to tackle underlying issues. These range from the lack of capacity at key junctions like Galleys Corner to safety concerns for road users. In this section we also explore each route’s impact on the objectives set out at the beginning of the A120 Braintree to A12 project, as well as wider Government and transport objectives.

The Economic case is a wide-ranging section encompassing everything from economic growth and value-for- money to carbon emissions and the environment. The value-for-money of each route is worked out by looking at the economic benefit and comparing it to the cost of the scheme, while economic growth is measured by assessing the overall contribution to the economy and the ability of the route to unlock housing and jobs. Environmental considerations include air quality, carbon emissions, cultural heritage, landscape, nature conservation, geology and soils, materials, road drainage, the water environment, noise and vibration, and people and communities. The well-being of residents and road users is taken into account in ensuring the route remains safe, accessible and, wherever practicable, does not sever nearby communities.

The Managerial case takes into account the views of the public, which were collated following an eight-week consultation that launched January 2017. Nearly 3,000 residents, businesses and other organisations responded to the consultation to have their say on a favoured option. A120 road users were also asked for their views in a separate survey run by independent transport watchdog, Transport Focus. This helped to highlight some key issues road users want solved. Each route has been scored on how best it deals with these issues. The expertise of experienced construction engineers is also used to see how practical each route could be transformed from a line on a map, into a fully-functioning dual carriageway. The operational safety of staff working to build the new route is also considered under this section.

The Financial case looks at a number of costs related to building a new road. These include the overall scheme cost (capital cost), the maintenance cost of upkeep on the new road for decades to come (revenue cost) and the financial construction risk associated with each route (overall cost risk).

The Commercial case focuses on funding and income generation for each of the routes. This is neutral for all routes as funding is being sought by Essex County Council through Highways England’s Road Investment Strategy 2.

Table 11-1 below outlines the 14 criteria that have been used in the Decision Framework that fall into the five cases of the DfT Five Cases model in more detail.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 87 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 11-1: Decision Framework Criteria

Case Criteria Comments Considers to what extent the option alleviates the identified Scale of impact on identified transport related problems outlined previously in Table 1-1: problems Summary of Current Transport Related Problems and Underlying Causes. Considers to what extent the option fits with the identified Strategic Fit Fit with project objectives project specific objectives outlined previously in Table 1-3: Intervention-Specific Scheme Objections. Considers how the option fits with wider transport and Wider Transport and government objectives, in particular, with the National Government Objectives Networks National Policy Statement (NN NPS) and the impact on freight. Considers the impact of each option on connectivity and reliability with respect to business travel (which includes Economic growth freight) and commuters, as well as network resilience and the ability to deliver new housing and wider economic impacts. Considers the impact an option could have on carbon emissions either through changes in activity, an increase in Carbon emissions embedded carbon, changes in the carbon content of fuel or changes in efficiency. Considers whether the impact of options with respect to noise, air quality, severance, accessibility, security, Socio-Distributional Impacts accidents, user benefits and personal affordability is either significant in extent or concentrated in terms of the people groups or spatial areas affected, or both. Considers the impact of an option on noise and vibration, Economic air quality, cultural heritage, landscape, nature Local environment conservation, geology and soils, materials, people and communities, and road drainage and the water environment. Considers the impact of an option on people’s physical activity, how it contributes to Highways England’s safety vision and strategic objectives (no-one injured whilst Well being travelling or working on the SRN), accessibility to a range of goods and services and severance (with respect to non- motorised users). Value for money measures the benefits for each £1 of costs. It includes both the benefits and the costs that can be counted in monetary terms (journey time savings, changes Expected value for money in vehicle operating costs, accident benefits, noise, air quality, etc) and other non-monetised impacts, such as severance and environmental impacts. Considers whether there are likely to be any issues around Public acceptability public acceptability of the option. Management Considers the construction feasibility of each option with Practical feasibility respect to technical risk. Considers the total cost of implementing an option ready for Financial Capital costs opening day.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 88 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Case Criteria Comments Revenue costs for this study refer to the ongoing Revenue costs maintenance costs of the scheme. Considers the risk associated with costs estimated at this Overall cost risk stage of the process and an estimate of the likelihood of cost increases.

Note that the fifth case, the commercial case, looks at the sources of funding and is considered the same for all options at present (Highways England / DfT) and as such not included in the assessment.

11.2.2 Development of the Scoring System

The scoring system is based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the worst and 5 representing the best reasonable outcome in the context of the project. Scores are based on a series of more than 60 quantitative indicators together with engineering judgement. Key sources of data are traffic model, economic appraisal, local environment survey and assessment including detailed noise and air quality modelling, and Highways England cost estimates. The raw data for each indicator was used to produce a score between 1 and 5 for the quantitative indicators. Engineering judgement was used to provide a score for the indicators that are more subjective. For the criteria where more than one indicator was used to assist the scoring, a simple average was used for the overall score.

11.2.3 Aggregating Scores and Ranking Options

There is no explicit guidance available on how to use the scores for the various criteria to evaluate the overall performance of each option relative to the others. As such a simple average of the scores for all 14 criteria has been used with rankings then based on these overall scores. Sensitivity testing has then been undertaken to assess the robustness of the overall scores and rankings.

11.2.4 Sensitivity Testing

Sensitivity testing has been carried out on the overall score results to better understand how much confidence can be placed on the overall scores when interpreting the results and rankings. Three different sensitivity tests were carried out: • Robustness: a test of the sensitivity of the overall results to different weightings of the individual criteria; • Scores: a test of the sensitivity of the overall rankings to a variation in the scores on individual criteria, for example, if the score for economic growth is 20% higher for a particular option, what is the impact on the overall rankings; and • Key Data: a test of the sensitivity of the overall results with respect to key data inputs.

The robustness test is designed to understand if the overall results are sensitive to the general Decision Framework methodology by applying weightings to each individual criterion. If reasonable weightings result in a significant variation in the rankings of options, then one would have less confidence making firm conclusions based on the overall results and vice versa.

The scores test is designed to assess the impact of a variation in individual criterion scores on the overall rankings. This examines the sensitivity of the overall results to the data and method used to calculate the scores.

The input data and scores reflect knowledge at the current stage of the process, which has not yet been formally approved by Highways England. The key data sensitivity test is designed to help understand the sensitivity of the overall results to key data inputs. In particular, the test assesses the magnitude of change required in capital costs and user benefits to change the overall results of the Decision Framework. This provides the basis for an assessment of the risk of the overall conclusions changing should any key assumptions change leading up to finalising Stage 2 of the PCF process.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 89 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Decision Framework Results

The Decision Framework has been updated based on the Stage 2 (post public consultation) appraisal undertaken to date. This includes the revised economic appraisal based on the updated traffic model, safety assessment, detailed air quality and noise modelling and revised capital cost estimates from Highways England.

The Decision Framework scores each of 14 categories within the overall structure of the Government’s Five Cases business case model. The individual scores for all categories within each case are outlined in Table 11-2.

The results from the Decision Framework are divided into three parts: the raw scores for each criterion, the overall results and the sensitivity testing. Each of these is outlined in the following sections.

11.3.1 Scores for each Criterion

The individual scores resulting from the above methodology for each criterion are outlined in Table 11-2.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 90 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 11-2: Decision Framework Raw Scores by Criteria

Notes:

1. Scale: scores are on a 1 to 5 scale with 1 being the “worst” and 5 the “best”.

2. Colour codes: Gradually darker shades of green for scores greater than or equal to 3.0, yellow between 2.5 and 3.0, and peach shading for scores less than 2.5.

3. On “Ranking by Criteria” scale, 5 is the lowest ranked option and 1 is the highest ranked option in the criteria assessed.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 91 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

These scores form the basis for the overall results in the following section. The scores reflect the relative performance of each option in each criterion, for example: • The scores reflect that Option D would have the best value for money (BCR) and Option C the lowest; • The scores reflect that Option D is the lowest cost option and Option C is the highest cost option; • It is expected that Option C would have the largest impact on economic growth; • Option D would have the largest impact on well-being in terms of road user and worker safety, severance and access to essential goods and services; • Option D is considered the lowest risk option with respect to both practical feasibility and overall cost risk; • All options are expected to have marginally negative impacts on carbon emissions; • All options are expected to have overall potentially significant effects on the local environment – mitigation may be possible, with Option D having the least impact on the local environment; • Option C is (marginally) the most preferred option by the public followed by options E and D.

The above examples highlight that no single option performs best in all criteria.

11.3.2 Overall Results

A summary of the scores by four business case categories is outlined in Table 11-3 (the commercial case is considered neutral as it relates to the source of funding, which is DfT/Highways England for all options).

Table 11-3: Summary Results from Stage 2 Decision Framework by Business Case Category Overall Strategic Economic Managerial Financial Commercial Overall Option Ranking Fit Case Case Case Case Score12 D 1st 3.66 3.51 3.57 4.60 3.81 E 2nd 3.89 3.47 3.47 4.24 3.73 C 3rd 4.11 3.42 3.24 3.42 neutral 3.54 B 4th 4.00 3.38 3.08 3.71 3.54 A 5th 3.93 3.40 2.78 3.54 3.45

The overall results, as measured by the average of all criteria scores in Table 11-2, indicate that Option D is the best performing option, followed by Option E, Option C and Option B with Option A being the worst performing of the five options. Option D has the highest score for the economic, managerial and financial cases, with Option C having the highest score for strategic fit.

The overall scores and rankings reflect the relative importance of the points highlighted by the individual criteria scores in the previous section. For example, while Option C has the highest impact on economic growth, this is outweighed by the better value for money, lower capital cost and risk and reduced environmental impact of Options D and E.

11.3.3 Sensitivity Testing

Four sensitivity tests were undertaken to assess the robustness of the overall results with respect to their sensitivity to: • Variable weightings by business case category; • Reasonable weightings of the criteria;

12 The overall score is the average of all criteria scores

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 92 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Variation in the scores of each criterion; and • Key data inputs

Each of these tests is outlined in the following sections.

11.3.3.1 Sensitivity to Weighting by Business Case Category

This sensitivity tests the impact of potentially prioritising one of the business case categories over the others. While there is no guidance to suggest why any one business case category should be prioritised, this provides a test of the sensitivity of the overall results to the idea that any one of the cases could be prioritised for some reason. The results are outlined in Table 11-4 below with a weighting of three on each case relative to the others, for example, if Strategic Fit scores are weighted at three times relative to the other cases, the overall score for Option A would be 3.59 compared to the original simple average of 3.47 (see Table 11-3).

Table 11-4: Sensitivity of Overall Scores to Weightings (x3) by Business Case Strategic Economic Managerial Financial Option Fit Case Case Case Overall Scores A 3.58 3.41 3.20 3.46 B 3.70 3.49 3.39 3.60 C 3.74 3.51 3.44 3.51 D 3.84 3.75 3.77 4.11 E 3.81 3.67 3.67 3.93 Rankings A 5 5 5 5 B 4 4 4 3 C 3 3 3 4 D 1 1 1 1 E 2 2 2 2

The table above highlights that Option D remains the best performing option even when a weighting of three is placed on each business case category. The only change in rankings occurs when a weighting of three is placed on the financial case resulting in Option C falling from third place to fourth, with Option B moving up.

11.3.3.2 Sensitivity to Weightings on Individual Criteria

Testing the sensitivity of the overall results to weightings involved placing a weighting on an individual criterion while the remainder of the criteria were all left with the same weighting. There is no justification in any guidance from DfT or Highways England for weighting a criterion higher than any other - the purpose is to simply test the sensitivity of the overall results, as opposed to making a case for any particular alternative result scenario.

The table below outlines the results of weighting each individual criterion at two times all other criteria. It can be seen, for example, that if capital cost is weighted twice as high as all the other criteria, the overall score for Option C decreases from 3.54 (with no weighting see Table 11-3) to 3.52 (with the weighting) making it the fourth ranking option. (Note that a weighting of two times represents a 14% weighting on the criterion compared to 7% for the other criteria).

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 93 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 11-5: Sensitivity of Overall Scores to Weightings by Individual Criteria (2 times)

Strategic Fit Economic Case Managerial Case Financial Case

Scale of Wider Option Fit with Socio- Overall impact on Transport Economic Carbon Local Well- Value for Public Practical Capital Revenue project Dist Cost identified & Gov Growth Emissions Environment being Money Acceptability Feasibility Cost Cost objectives Impacts Risk problems Objectives A 3.49 3.47 3.50 3.50 3.41 3.46 3.38 3.48 3.48 3.44 3.38 3.49 3.54 3.36

B 3.58 3.56 3.58 3.60 3.49 3.54 3.46 3.56 3.54 3.54 3.48 3.53 3.62 3.51

C 3.59 3.57 3.58 3.63 3.49 3.53 3.46 3.56 3.54 3.57 3.47 3.52 3.62 3.47

D 3.82 3.80 3.81 3.81 3.74 3.77 3.72 3.82 3.87 3.80 3.79 3.89 3.88 3.82

E 3.75 3.73 3.73 3.76 3.66 3.70 3.64 3.74 3.76 3.73 3.69 3.78 3.79 3.71

A 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

B 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3

C 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4

D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 94 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

The results of testing the sensitivity of the overall scores and rankings to weightings highlight that the rankings are insensitive to reasonable weightings with no change to the ranking for first and second place. The only variation is where Option B replaces Option C as the third ranked option when various criteria are weighted at two times the others.

In this sense, the sensitivity test indicates that conclusions can be made with relative confidence based on the Decision Framework results.

11.3.3.3 Score Variation Sensitivity

The third test carried out looked at the sensitivity of the overall results to a variation in scores, whether due to the data itself or the method of calculating the scores. For this test, an individual criterion score was factored relative to all others and the overall scores and rankings recalculated.

It should be noted that for two criteria, capital cost and well-being, a change in the data behind these scores implies a direct change to the BCR that informs value for money. The variation in well-being (user benefits and accident benefits) and capital costs is therefore also reflected in the value for money score in calculating the overall score and ranking. The table below outlines the results of this test using a factor of 1.2

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 95 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 11-6: Sensitivity testing with variations in scores by a factor of 1.2 by criteria by option

Strategic Fit Economic Case Managerial Case Financial Case Overall

Scale of Wider Option Fit with Socio- Overall impact on Transport Economic Carbon Local Well- Value for Public Practical Capital Revenue Simple project Dist Cost identified & Gov Growth Emissions Environment being Money Acceptability Feasibility Cost Cost Average objectives Impacts Risk problems Objectives Overall ranking if criterion score for Option A is varied A 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 B 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 C 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Overall ranking if criterion score for Option B is varied A 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 B 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 C 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Overall ranking if criterion score for Option C is varied A 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 B 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 C 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 96 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Strategic Fit Economic Case Managerial Case Financial Case Overall

Scale of Wider Option Fit with Socio- Overall impact on Transport Economic Carbon Local Well- Value for Public Practical Capital Revenue Simple project Dist Cost identified & Gov Growth Emissions Environment being Money Acceptability Feasibility Cost Cost Average objectives Impacts Risk problems Objectives Overall ranking if criterion score for Option D is varied A 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 B 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 C 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Overall ranking if criterion score for Option E is varied A 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 B 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 C 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 97 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

The results in Table 11-6: Sensitivity testing with variations in scores by a factor of 1.2 by criteria by option highlight the following key points: • The overall rankings are relatively insensitive to a variation in the scores; • Option A largely remains the worst performing option, only moving as high as third place if the scores for capital cost and well-being are increased by 20% relative to all other options; • Option B moves up to be the third ranked option ahead of Option C if any of the scores are increased by 20%, highlighting that there is little difference between these two options; • Option C remains the third ranked option in all cases; • Option D is already the best performing option and remains so; and • Option E is the second best performing option and becomes the best performing option if the scores for well-being or capital costs are increased by 20%.

The sensitivity test outcomes again indicate that the overall results of the Decision Framework appear robust to reasonable variation and can be used with confidence to make conclusions on the relative merits of the options. The only risk indicated by this test is that Option E could become the best performing option subject to variations in the data informing the criteria of well-being – transport user benefits, safety and severance – and capital costs. The sensitivity test outlined in the following section undertakes to assess exactly this with a more detailed analysis of the magnitude of the change required in these key data for an option to become the best performing option.

11.3.3.4 Key Data Input Sensitivity

The fourth test carried out looked at the sensitivity of the overall results to key appraisal data inputs. The test assessed the change in key data required to alter the overall rankings such that the option becomes the best performing option. The test therefore attempts to answer the following questions: • How much would benefits have to increase for Options A, B, C and E relative to Option D to become the best performing option? • How much would capital costs have to decrease for Options A, B, C and E relative to Option D to become the best performing option?

Given that much of the data used as the basis for the scoring has yet to be formally approved by Highways England, this test also provides the basis for assessing the risk of the overall rankings changing due to updates in the appraisal.

The key data tested are as follows: • User benefits: this includes the NPV of changes in journey times and vehicle operating costs; • Capital costs: the estimated outturn capital cost of the option (2016 prices); • Value for money: this reflects the impact of a change in user benefits and capital costs from the previous two points on the BCR; • GDP: this reflects the change in user benefits on the GDP indicator for economic growth.

The results of the test are outlined in Table 11-7 below.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 98 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Table 11-7: Change in benefits and capital cost required, relative to Option D, to become best performing option (NPV in 2010 market prices discounted to 2010, costs are outturn costs in 2016 prices excluding inflation)

Change in Benefits Change in Costs Option Amount Amount % % (NPV £m) (£m) A 95% 1,161 -58% -322

B 57% 728 -37% -234

C 59% 794 -36% -245

D Best performing option

E 13% 144 -14% -66

The results of the data inputs sensitivity test highlight the following key points (note that all costs are outturn costs in 2016 prices excluding inflation and all benefits are the present value of benefits in 2010 market prices discounted to 2010): • Option E would replace option D as the best performing option with a 13% relative increase in benefits (PVB £144 million) or a 14% relative decrease in costs (£66 million). This is not considered a realistic possibility with respect to cost given that the two options are very similar and that Highways England have indicated in their cost estimates the same level of uncertainty between the two options and only about £14 million difference in cost risk. Given the robustness of the modelling, the similarity with Stage 1 appraisal results and the completeness of the appraisal, it is also not considered likely that the benefits associated with Option E should increase by such a magnitude relative to Option D. • The changes in benefits or cost required for options A, B and C to be the best performing option are so great that it cannot realistically be considered a possibility.

These results suggest that the overall rankings are relatively insensitive to any likely change in the key data inputs from appraisal.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 99 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

12. Conclusions

The conclusions of this SAR represent a key outcome of the A120 Braintree to A12 project following Stage 2 traffic modelling, appraisal and the public consultation undertaken in January and February 2017. It is considered that Stage 2 appraisal and the Decision Framework results, including a comprehensive series of sensitivity tests, provide a robust picture of the relative merits of the five options representing a credible and transparent evidence base for recommending a preferred option.

Summary of Conclusions

The conclusions from this report can be summarised as follows: • The need for intervention has been firmly established based on the identified transport related problems and their underlying causes. • Stage 2 traffic modelling indicates that on average between 39,600 to 42,900 vehicles per day (AADT) are expected to use the new A120 in the 2026 opening year depending on the option and section of the route. The data also highlights that the AADT on the existing A120 is expected to fall by 46% to 67% through Bradwell and 48% to 79% through Marks Tey in the 2026 opening year depending on the option. • The Stage 2 economic appraisal indicates that Option D is expected to have the highest value for money, with an adjusted BCR of 4.50, followed by Option E (4.07), Option A (3.82), Option B (3.52) and Option C (3.45). The Stage 2 economic appraisal includes a revision of the base appraisal using an updated traffic model as well as estimates of additional benefits from journey time reliability, monetised assessments and noise and air quality and wider economic impacts. As such, the value for money for all options has increased following the Stage 2 appraisal. • Environmentally, all of the options result in broadly similar level of effects, with no overall potential significant adverse effects identified at this stage of the assessment which can’t be mitigated. • It is considered that effects on the local environment for Routes B and C will be more difficult to mitigate. This is due to the route crossing the River Blackwater valley and a local wildlife site located along the River Blackwater. Route A also crosses the River Blackwater valley south of Stisted and may have effects on views from the Stisted conservation area. • Outcomes from the public consultation highlighted that, through agreement with a series of statements, respondents indicated they strongly agreed or agreed that they would like to see upgrades which would: reduce queuing at junctions (86%), reduce HGV’s need to travel through villages (85%), improve journey times (82%) and upgrade the A120 to dual carriageway (80%). 46% also agreed or strongly agreed that pedestrian, cycling and equestrian facilities should be improved. • Respondents to the public consultation were asked to rank the five options presented from 1 to 5. Based on the first preference only, Option C received the highest number of respondents identifying it as their most preferred option, with 29% of those who provided a rank. This was followed by Option E with 27%, Option A (17%), Option D (14%) and Option B (13%). When the top two preferences are considered there is even less difference between the option preferences, with 25% of respondents preferring Option C, followed by Option E (24%), Option D (20%), Option B (20%) and Option A (11%). Option A stands out as being the least popular option, with 62% of respondents who provided a ranking identifying it as their least preferred option. In general, the responses to the public consultation indicate that there is no overwhelming favourite option. It could also be said that the responses indicate that Options B, C, D and E would all be acceptable schemes. • A Decision Framework has been developed to assist in understanding how the five options perform relative to each other based on the latest data available, assessing 14 criteria covering a broad range of impacts including economic growth, value for money, public acceptability, capital costs, local environment and overall cost risk. A rigorous set of sensitivity tests have been used to assess the robustness of the results to changes in inputs and weightings. The methodology is considered to provide a robust, transparent and auditable process that is consistent with best practice and DfT and Highways England guidance.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 100 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• The overall results from the Decision Framework indicate that Option D is the best performing option. This is followed by Option E, then Option C, Option B and Option A in that order. • These overall results reflect the relative importance of the advantages and disadvantages of each option. For example, while Option C has the highest impact on economic growth, this is outweighed by the better value for money, impact on well-being, lower capital cost and lower risk of Option D. • Four sensitivity tests were undertaken to assess the robustness of the results with respect to criteria weightings, score variation and key input data. The sensitivity tests indicate that the results are robust and that the overall rankings are unlikely to change. • The previous iteration of the Decision Framework (post Public Consultation with Stage 1 appraisal inputs) highlighted that it was considered possible that Options C and E might accumulate a significant increase in benefits following Stage 2 appraisal that may influence the relative merits and rankings of the options (Decision Framework). The Stage 2 work undertaken, however, confirms that when all appraisal items are included, Option D is still the best performing option followed by Option E and C.

Detailed Conclusions

The results of the Decision Framework indicate that the best performing option is Option D.

The key reasons for Option D being the best performing option are (all prices are the net present value in 2010 market prices discounted to 2010 over the 60-year appraisal period): • Highest Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) at 4.5, which provides a Very High value for money rating - For every £1 million spent on upgrading the A120, residents, road users and businesses will see £4.50 million in benefits; • Least impacts on the local environment of all the options; • Highest score for well-being: least severance with respect to public rights of way and highest operational safety; • Best option with respect to practical feasibility: least bridges and other complex structures, shortest construction programme; • Lowest cost option with lowest overall cost risk; • Largest reduction in traffic through local villages: 59% less traffic through Silver End and 44% traffic less through Tye Green (as well as 43% less through Bradwell) in the morning peak in opening year.

Other key performance characteristics of Option D are as follows: • Over £1 billion in economic benefits to road users; • £350 million in benefits to freight traffic; • £765 million increase in national GDP; • Improved journey time reliability valued at about £48 million; • Significant reductions in journey times and congestion: up to almost 15 minutes in travel time savings between Braintree and Colchester in the opening year; • Improvement in road safety valued at £24.8 million; • Improved local air quality and reduced noise impacts due to traffic.

Other points to note regarding the analysis of the differences between the options: • The criteria with the largest impact on differentiating between the options are overall cost risk, capital cost, expected value for money, practical feasibility, economic growth and public acceptability: of these Option D is the highest ranked in four of these six categories.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 101 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

• Given that Option D is the best performing option, it would be extremely difficult to make a compelling case to Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) the common land required for Option C and E, representing a high risk to the implementation of the scheme and a potential showstopper.

In summary, the above conclusions highlight Option D as the best performing option and a scheme that delivers exceptional value for money for the taxpayer.

Recommendations

Based on these conclusions the following recommendation is made: • It is recommended that ECC endorse Option D as the best performing option to Highways England/DfT for inclusion in RIS2; • Given the conclusions outlined in the previous section and the supporting evidence base summarised in this report, it is recommended that Highways England select Option D as their preferred option.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 102 A120 Braintree to A12 Scheme Assessment Report

Appendix A: Planning Policies Breakdown

National Policy

Other than the NN-NPS, the following national planning policy documents may be considered relevant to the scheme:

• National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Relevant Local Development Plans

Essex County Council

Relevant Policy Theme Minerals Local Plan (2014) Waste Local Plan (2017)

Strategic Priorities for Minerals Policy S2: Objectives 3-7 are Not Relevant Development particularly relevant to route selection, design and construction.

Reducing the Use of Minerals Policy S4: All the objectives are Not Relevant Resources relevant to the A120

Minerals Landbanks Policy S6: This sets out a Not Relevant requirement to reserve land to meet future mineral need.

This is relevant for options that cross Bradwell Quarry.

Mineral Safeguarding Areas Policy S8: safeguards deposits of Not Relevant mineral from sterilisation by virtue of development that does not enable their future extraction. Point (a) of the policy is relevant, as the Minerals Planning Authority must be consulted on any proposals within the MSA above certain thresholds.

Mineral Consultation Zones Policy S8: The Minerals Planning Not Relevant Authority must be consulted on any proposals within 250m of a safeguarded, preferred site or reserve site.

Restoration of Minerals Site Policy S12: This sets out certain Not Relevant standards for minerals restoration and aftercare.

It may be relevant to options that cross active mineral workings.

B3553T41-JAC-HGN-00-REP-C-0008 103