DOCSLIB.ORG

M25 Junction 28 Improvements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
M25 Junction 28 Improvements Road Investment Programme M25 Junction 28 Improvements Technical Appraisal Report November 2016 Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363 M25 Junction 28 Improvements - Technical Appraisal Report Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Highway England’s information and use in relation to the M25 Junction 28 Technical Appraisal Report. Atkins Ltd assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. Document control Document Title Technical Appraisal Report Author Pete George, Yogesh Patel, Steve Connors, Sarah Wallis, Tamsin MacMillan Owner Piotr Grabowiecki Distribution Highways England Consultees, Atkins Team Document Status Draft Revision History Version Date Description Author Pete George, Yogesh Patel, Steve Connors, Sarah Wallis, 1.1 2/9/2016 Draft Tamsin MacMillan 1.2 24/10/2016 Final Draft Yogesh Patel, Sarah Wallis 1.3 01/11/2016 Final Yogesh Patel, Sarah Wallis 1.4 25/11/2016 Final Yogesh Patel Reviewer List Name Role Piotr Grabowiecki Highways England MP Project Manager Pete George Atkins Project Manager Henry Penner Highways England PTS Environmental Lead Raphael Lung Highways England PTS Geotechnical Lead Russell Martin Highways England PTS TAME Nicholas Bentall Highways England PTS Safer Roads Group Approvals Name Signature Title Date of Issue Version Andy Salmon Senior Responsible Owner Working on behalf of i M25 Junction 28 Improvements - Technical Appraisal Report Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Background 6 1.2 Previous work 6 1.3 Timeframe 8 1.4 Scheme context 9 1.5 Purpose of the Technical Appraisal Report (TAR) 9 1.6 Structure of this report 10 2 Planning brief ............................................................................................... 11 2.1 Phase objectives 11 2.2 Project objectives 11 2.3 Strategic case 13 2.4 Strategic context 14 3 Existing conditions ...................................................................................... 22 3.1 Description of the locality 22 3.2 Existing highway network 23 3.3 Traffic 26 3.4 Accidents and journey time reliability 31 3.5 Topography, land use, property and industry 32 3.6 Climate 33 3.7 Drainage 33 3.8 Geology 36 3.9 Mining 42 3.10 Public utilities 43 3.11 Environmental status 45 3.12 Environment 45 3.13 Journey ambience 54 3.14 Accessibility 55 3.15 Integration 56 3.16 Technology 57 3.17 Maintenance access – maintenance lay-bys, access paths and steps 58 3.18 Existing structures 59 3.19 Other relevant factors 59 4 Planning factors ........................................................................................... 62 4.1 Option constraints 62 5 Scheme options ........................................................................................... 65 Working on behalf of ii M25 Junction 28 Improvements - Technical Appraisal Report 5.1 Introduction 65 5.2 Option development 65 5.3 Interdependencies 70 5.4 Risks 70 5.5 Option descriptions 71 5.6 Summary 83 6 Engineering assessment ............................................................................ 85 6.1 Highway geometry - general 85 6.2 Structures 104 6.3 Earthworks 110 6.4 Drainage 111 6.5 Signing and lining 111 6.6 Gantries 113 6.7 Lighting 113 6.8 Statutory undertakers 113 7 Traffic analysis ........................................................................................... 115 7.1 Overview 115 7.2 Area of interest 115 7.3 Traffic analysis 116 7.4 Traffic forecasting and option testing 119 7.5 Scheme operational performance summary 123 7.6 Road layout and standards 123 8 Option estimates ........................................................................................ 126 8.1 Introduction 126 8.2 Assumptions 127 8.3 Cost estimates by option 127 9 Economic assessment .............................................................................. 129 9.1 Overview 129 9.2 Overview of economic assessment process 129 9.3 TUBA assessments 130 9.4 Safety assessment 131 9.5 Reliability assessment 132 9.6 Construction and maintenance costs 133 9.7 Economic assessment results 134 9.8 Sensitivity tests 136 9.9 Summary 136 10 Safety assessment .................................................................................... 138 10.1 Impact on road user – Strategic safety action plan 138 10.2 Impact during construction and operation 140 Working on behalf of iii M25 Junction 28 Improvements - Technical Appraisal Report 10.3 Impact on emergency responders 140 11 Operational characteristics ...................................................................... 141 11.1 Road characteristics and option design implications 141 11.2 Schemes operating regime 141 11.3 Driver compliance 142 12 Technology assessment ........................................................................... 145 12.1 Introduction 145 12.2 Motorway incident detection and automatic signalling (MIDAS) 145 12.3 Variable message signs 145 12.4 Signals 145 12.5 Emergency roadside telephones 146 12.6 CCTV 146 12.7 National traffic information service (NTIS) assets 146 12.8 Distribution network operator supplies 146 12.9 Fog detector 146 12.10 RCC systems and sub systems 146 12.11 Communications network 146 13 Maintenance assessment ......................................................................... 147 13.1 Maintenance and repair strategy for civils infrastructure 147 13.2 Maintenance and repair strategy for road side technology 149 14 Environmental assessment ...................................................................... 150 14.1 Option 2 – Northern hook 150 14.2 Option 4 – Compact hook 152 14.3 Options 5A, 5B, 5C and 5F – Cloverleaf loop variants 155 14.4 Options 5D and 5E – Loop variants 157 14.5 Option 6 - Southern link 160 15 Assessment summary ............................................................................... 163 15.1 Appraisal summary tables (AST) 163 15.2 Summary of consultation with public bodies 163 15.3 Comparison of options 163 16 Programme ................................................................................................. 169 17 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................ 170 17.1 Need for the junction improvement 170 17.2 Recommendation of options for progression to Stage 2 170 17.3 Consideration of options for Stage 2 public consultation 171 Working on behalf of iv M25 Junction 28 Improvements - Technical Appraisal Report List of Appendices Appendix A Base year traffic analysis Appendix B Forecast do-minimum traffic analysis Appendix C Envirocheck Report - Environmental datasheets Appendix D Composite utility plan Appendix E Existing technology geographic layout drawings Appendix F Environmental designation maps Appendix G General option arrangement drawings Appendix H Existing signing and road marking plans Appendix I Do-something traffic analysis by option Appendix J Option estimates Appendix K Outline signing strategy plans Appendix L Appraisal Summary Tables Working on behalf of v M25 Junction 28 Improvements - Technical Appraisal Report Glossary of Abbreviations AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AADT Annual Average Weekday Traffic AQMA Air Quality Management Area AST Appraisal Summary Table BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BCR Benefit Cost Ratio BGL Below Ground Level CCTV Closed Circuit Television COBALT Cost Benefit Analysis CPS Connect Plus Services DBFO Design, Build, Finance and Operate Defra Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DfT Department for Transport DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges EAST Early Assessment Sifting Tool ESR Environmental Study Report GEML Great Eastern Main Line HPI Habitats of Principal Importance ITS Intelligent Transport Systems KPI Key Performance Indicator LDF Local Development Framework LNR Local Nature Reserve MIDAS Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling MP Major Projects MS3 Message Sign Type 3 (Text Only) MTS Mayors Transport Strategy (London) NRTF National Road Traffic Forecasts NMU Non-Motorised User NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NTEM National Trip End Model NTM National Transport Model PCF Project Control Framework PCU Passenger Car Units PRoW Public Rights of Way PTS Professional and Technical Solutions PVB Present Value of Benefits Working on behalf of vi M25 Junction 28 Improvements - Technical Appraisal Report PVC Present Value of Costs QUADRO Queues and Delays at Roadworks RCC Regional Control Centre RIS Road Investment Strategy RTMC Regional Technology Maintenance Contractor SE LEP South East Local Enterprise Partnership SEP Strategic Economic Plan SPI Species of Principal Importance SPZ Source Protection Zones SRN Strategic Road Network SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SUP Shared Use Path TAME Traffic Appraisal Modelling and Economics team WebTAG Web based Transport Analysis Guidance WFD Water Framework Directive TAR Technical Appraisal Report TEMPRO Trip End Model Projections TLRN Transport for London Road Network TUBA Transport User Benefit Analysis VMS Variable Message Sign VMSL Variable Mandatory Speed Limit VOC Vehicle Operating Cost VSL Variable Speed Limits Working on behalf of vii M25 Junction 28 Improvements - Technical Appraisal Report Executive Summary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TC WALK MAP No15 DAGNAM PARK (30 YEAR LOGO)
    Introduction Thames Chase - Community Forest Environmental improvements within the borders of This amazing site in Harold Hill which Thames Chase Community Forest are all around includes Hatters Wood, Fir Wood, Duck you in the many green spaces that are enjoyed Transforming Wood and Dagnam Park offers a diversity of through its 40 sq miles of countryside. different wildlife habitats. landscapes, This landscape regeneration project is now being transforming The site includes almost twenty hectares of managed by the Thames Chase Trust. There is a lives colourful wildflower meadows, over eight wide range of events to interest all ages - pick up a hectares of ancient coppiced woodland, leaflet at the Forest Centre. ponds, scrub and veteran trees. Not only that but the site also preserves a fascinating Opening Hours historical record which stretches back into Visitor Centre: Late March to October; the Middle Ages. Dagnam park, formally laid 10am - 5pm every day. Thames out by the well known Victorian landscape November to Late March; architect Humphrey Repton, preserves its 10am - 4pm each day. original 18th century boundaries together Site: Daily; 8.30am - to dusk. with a number of original landscape features Car parking Chase including copses, ponds and specimen trees. A fixed daily donation to Look out for mature conifers, horse chest- Thames Chase Trust payable at the ticket machine. nuts and cedar. Thames Chase Walks are in Walk No.1 5 The site of the original house is now partnership with the Land of overgrown, but a line of yew trees survives the Fanns in woodland close to the spot where 19th Land of the Fanns is supported by Thames Chase Circular walk via: century cast-iron gateposts flank the former drive.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Implementation Plan 3 Strategic Environmental Assessment
    Image capture: © 2018 Google Local Implementation Plan 3 Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report London Borough of Havering Document Reference: 1000005038 Date: October 2018 Created by Bharati Ghodke [email protected] DOCUMENT CONTROL Project Centre has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions from The London Borough of Havering. Project Centre shall not be liable for the use of any information contained herein for any purpose other than the sole and specific use for which it was prepared. Job Number Issue Description Originator Checked Authorised 1000005038 03 Final Bharati Nick Ruxton- Nick Ruxton- Ghodke Boyle Boyle 24.10.18 26.10.18 26.11.18 File path: G:\Project Centre\Project-BST\1000005038 – Havering SEA\2 Project Delivery\3 Reports\1 Draft Reports\ER © Project Centre Strategic Environmental Assessment ii Quality It is the policy of Project Centre to supply Services that meet or exceed our clients’ expectations of Quality and Service. To this end, the Company's Quality Management System (QMS) has been structured to encompass all aspects of the Company's activities including such areas as Sales, Design and Client Service. By adopting our QMS on all aspects of the Company, Project Centre aims to achieve the following objectives: Ensure a clear understanding of customer requirements; Ensure projects are completed to programme and within budget; Improve productivity by having consistent procedures; Increase flexibility of staff and systems through the adoption of a common approach to staff appraisal and training; Continually improve the standard of service we provide internally and externally; Achieve continuous and appropriate improvement in all aspects of the company; Our Quality Management Manual is supported by detailed operational documentation.
    [Show full text]
  • M25 Junction 28 Local Impact Report
    2021 M25 Junction 28 Local Impact Report LONDON BOROUGH OF HAVERING Guidance for the Development of the Local Impact Report ....................... 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................... 4 M25/28 Capacity Improvement Scheme .................................................. 18 Traffic Issues in the Borough ................................................................... 19 Road Safety ............................................................................................. 20 Borough Constraints Maps ...................................................................... 24 Details of the proposal relevant to the London Borough of Havering ....... 27 Relevant Planning History and Any Issues Arising .................................. 30 Relevant Development Plan Policies ....................................................... 35 Policy Compliance ................................................................................... 42 Topic Specific Issues ............................................................................... 50 Contaminated Land .................................................................................. 57 Built Heritage ........................................................................................... 59 Air Quality in Havering ............................................................................. 63 Noise ........................................................................................................ 67 Flood
    [Show full text]
  • M25 Junction 28 Improvement Scheme TR010029 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendix 11.2: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
    M25 junction 28 improvement scheme TR010029 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendix 11.2: Archaeological desk-based assessment APFP Regulation 5(2)(a) Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Volume 6 May 2020 M25 junction 28 improvement scheme TR010029 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendix 11.2: Archaeological desk-based assessment Infrastructure Planning Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 M25 junction 28 scheme Development Consent Order 202[x ] 6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT APPENDIX 11.2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESK-BASED ASSESSMENT Regulation Number: Regulation 5(2)(a) Planning Inspectorate Scheme TR010029 Reference: Application Document Reference: TR010029/APP/6.3 Author: M25 junction 28 improvement scheme project team, Highways England Version Date Status of Version 1 May 2020 Application issue Planning Inspectorate scheme reference: TR010029 Application document reference: TR010029/APP/6.3 Page 2 of 66 M25 junction 28 improvement scheme TR010029 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendix 11.2: Archaeological desk-based assessment Table of contents Chapter Pages Appendix 11.2 Archaeological desk-based assessment 4 Planning Inspectorate scheme reference: TR010029 Application document reference: TR010029/APP/6.3 Page 3 of 66 Appendix 11.2 Archaeological desk-based assessment Junction 28 M25 / A12, Proposed Interchange Upgrade London Borough of Havering & Brentwood, Essex: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Project
    [Show full text]
  • Happy New Year Keep Emerson Park Clean Fighting Local Crime
    Together we can make JANUARY 2020 a local change Your Local Voice on the Council Delivered Every Month by the Residents’ Association of Emerson Park - Part of the Havering Residents’ Association Happy New Year Our Website The Emerson Park Team of the Havering Residents Association would like For the latest news and copies of to wish all our members, deliverers and distributors a very happy New previous Bulletins please check out our upgraded website at www.raep.org Year. We have made great progress over 2019 with strengthening our links with the other Residents’ associations in Havering. With this greater unity we look forward to being in a position to be able to run the council with Christmas Lights local people making decisions for local residents in 2022. The Emerson Park Team helped with the Upminster Christmas lights Laurance Garrard, David Godwin, Paul Knight illumination recently, hundreds of local residents braved the cold to see Keep Emerson Park Clean the entertainment and the switch on. We mentioned the “Love Clean Streets” App last week which we have been using to report litter to the Council, we are monitoring response rates and will let you know how effective this service really is. We had many requests for assistance which we have passed to street care for roads that appear to have missed the cleaning rota. If you have a litter build up please use the App or let us know, we are also scheduling some litter pick-ups in the near future in badly affected areas. Fighting Local Crime Residents on the County Park estate, having seen an increase in burglaries and thefts over the last few months, are investigating a private security service for increased protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne Catchment Plan
    Roding, Beam & Ingrebourne Catchment Plan A strategic plan which seeks to bring positive change to people, wildlife and the environment through better management of land and water , 2015 - 2018 Executive Summary The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is a wide- The Roding, Beam & Ingrebourne Catchment Partnership ranging piece of European legislation that has become (RBICP) is working at both a catchment and local scale, seeking to liaise with landowners to reduce pollution, and part of UK law. It aims to improve all water bodies in encourage works directly within the river corridor to improve Europe in respect of their water chemistry, wildlife and its habitats. The RBICP is co-chaired by Thames21 and the morphology by setting measurable objectives. Great Thames Chase Trust and current membership includes: steps have been made over recent decades to improve water quality in the Roding, Beam & Ingrebourne area, > Brentwood Borough Council and now the WFD aims to raise the standard even > Environment Agency higher. > Epping Forest District Council > Essex Wildlife Trust There is currently variation across the catchment as to how > Forestry Commission many WFD objectives are being met, but in all areas there > Friends of Ingrebourne Valley is significant potential for improvement. Parts of the Roding, > London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Beam & Ingrebourne catchment currently falls below the > London Borough of Havering required standards. A range of factors are contributing to this, > London Wildlife Trust the most significant for the catchment being high phosphate levels, low water flows, sediment levels and man-made > Royal Society for the Protection of Birds alterations to river corridors such as weirs.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossrail Assessment of Archaeology Impacts, Technical Report
    CROSSRAIL ASSESSMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY IMPACTS, TECHNICAL REPORT. PART 3 OF 6, NORTH-EAST ROUTE SECTION 1E0318-E1E00-00001 CONFIDENTIALITY This document contains proprietary information which shall not be reproduced without the permission of the CLRL Chief Executive Cross London Rail Links Limited 1, Butler Place LONDON SW1H 0PT Tel: 020 7941 7600 Fax: 020 7941 7703 www.crossrail.co.uk CROSSRAIL ASSESSMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY IMPACTS TECHNICAL REPORT PART 3 OF 6, NORTH-EAST ROUTE SECTION: STRATFORD TO SHENFIELD February 2005 Project Manager: George Dennis Project Officer: Nicholas J Elsden Authors: Jon Chandler, Robert Cowie, James Drummond-Murray, Antony Francis, Pat Miller, Heather Knight, Kieron Tyler, Robin Wroe-Brown Museum of London Archaeology Service © Museum of London Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 0207 410 2200 fax 0207 410 2201 email [email protected] Archaeology Service 16/02/2005 Crossrail Archaeological Impact Assessment: Shenfield Route Section © MoLAS List of Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Route overview 2 2.1 Zone E: The Lea Valley (north) 2 2.1.1 Boundaries and layout 2 2.1.2 Topography and geology 2 2.1.3 Archaeological and historical background 3 2.1.4 Selected research themes 7 2.2 Zone A: East of Stratford to Goodmayes 8 2.2.1 Boundaries and layout 8 2.2.2 Topography and geology 8 2.2.3 Archaeological and historical background 8 2.2.4 Selected research themes 13 2.3 Zone B: Romford and Gidea Park 14 2.3.1 Boundaries and layout 14 2.3.2 Topography and geology 14 2.3.3 Archaeological and historical
    [Show full text]
  • Lbr 2008 Front Matter
    London Natural History Society The Society publishes ornithological and other natural history records for the area within 20 miles of St Paul’s Cathedral. As well as Ornithology, other interests in natural history are catered for through the Society's Sections which record and study the major groups of flora and fauna, and the habitats in which they are found. Meetings organised by each Section are open to all members. New members, beginners and experts alike, are welcomed. An extensive programme of talks and field meetings, to which visitors are welcome, is provided throughout the year. As well as the annual London Bird Report, the Society publishes a journal, The London Naturalist, each year and its Newsletter and Bulletin of the London Bird Club every quarter. Members have access to a large lending and reference library of natural history books and can join one or more of several reading circles which circulate many natural history journals at a fraction of the cost of subscribing direct. Yearly subscriptions range from £20 (for ordinary membership) through £16 for senior members (over 65 years and who have been in continuous membership for ten years or more) to £5 for students (under 18 years of age, or receiving full-time education). Additional family members, who enjoy all the benefits of membership except separate publications, pay only £4 each. Cheques should be made payable to the London Natural History Society and sent to the Assistant Treasurer: Robin Blades, 32 Ashfield Road, London N14 7JY. Further copies of this issue of the London Bird Report may be obtained (price £8.00 plus £1.00 postage and packing in the UK) from: Catherine Schmitt, 4 Falkland Avenue, London, N3 1QR.
    [Show full text]
  • M25 Junction 28 Improvements Environmental Study Report
    Road Investment Strategy M25 Junction 28 Improvements Environmental Study Report October 2016 V 3.0, October 2016 Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363 M25 Junction 28 Improvements Environmental Study Report Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Highway England’s information and use in relation to the M25 Junction 28 Improvements. Atkins Ltd assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. Document control The Project Manager is responsible for production of this document, based on the contributions made by his/her team existing at each Stage. Document Title M25 Junction 28 Improvements Environmental Study Report Author Env Team. Co-ordinator: Sarah Wallis Owner Piotr Grabowiecki Distribution HE Reviewers, Atkins Team Document Status Final Revision History This document is updated at least every stage. Version Date Description Author Checked Reviewed Authorised by by by Env SLW VA & NW PG 1.0 22/07/16 First draft Team Revised draft with SLW NW PG Noise & Air Quality and Env 2.0 10/10/2016 addressing comments Team from Highways England Env SLW NW PG 3.0 26/10/2016 Final Team Reviewer List Name Role Victoria Allen Technical Review - Environment Pete George Atkins Project Manager Henry Penner HE PTS Environmental Advisor Piotr Grabowiecki, Eze HE Integrated Project Team Onah, Andrew Salmon. Approvals The Project SRO is accountable for the content of this document Name Signature Title Date of Issue Version Andrew Salmon HE Project SRO i i M25 Junction 28 Improvements Environmental Study Report Table of Contents Glossary ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • London Birding Monthly Highlights from January 2016
    London Birding Monthly Highlights The LNHS recording area is a 20 mile radius of St Paul’s Cathedral. This area encompasses a wide range of wildlife habitats and some outstanding nature reserves which result in a surprisingly high number of species of birds being recorded each year. Around 350 species of birds have been recorded since1900 and in a typical year, over 200 species are recorded. Given below are a series of monthly highlights. September 2020 ESSEX compiled by Howard Vaughan RSPB Rainham Marshes Wader passage was still slow with no one big day and just a steady trickle of Black-tailed Godwits, Curlew, Dunlin, Green Sandpipers and the Avocet flock along with a Curlew Sandpiper (9th), Knot (19th and three 29th), three Bar-tailed Godwits (19th), Turnstone (29th), Grey Plover (19th), four Ruff and Jack Snipe (27th). River watching eventually produced the goods with two Gannet and a juvenile Sabine’s Gull (27th) and a Guillemot (20th) but there were only a few terns and no skuas seen and just a single Brent Goose (21st) and an early Goldeneye (18th). A Great White Egret was seen on a couple of dates and a single Cattle Egret dropped in on the 24th while two Cranes that flew east on the 27th were a great ‘look up’ moment as they were tracked across the South-East. The immature Spoonbill remained throughout although it occasionally wandered elsewhere. The only Red Kite was on the 17th and a ringtail Hen Harrier was quartering on the 26th and 27th with a Merlin also seen on the 26th while Hobbies continued to terrorise the dragonflies.
    [Show full text]
  • M25 Junction 28 Improvement London Borough of Havering
    M25 Junction 28 Improvement London Borough of Havering Archaeological Watching Brief and Test Pitting for Atkins on behalf of Highways England CA Project: SU0020 LAARC Site Code: MJU19 CA Report: SU0020_1 December 2019 M25 Junction 28 Improvement London Borough of Havering Archaeological Watching Brief and Test Pitting CA Project: SU0020 CA Report: SU0020_1 Document Control Grid Revision Date Author Checked by Status Reasons for Approved revision by 1 06/12/19 BHH APS Internal - APS review This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission. © Cotswold Archaeology © Cotswold Archaeology M25 Junction 28 Improvement, London Borough of Havering: Archaeological Watching Brief and Test Pitting CONTENTS SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 2 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 3 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................. 5 3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 8 4. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 8 5. RESULTS (FIGS 2-6)
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Biodiversity
    Regional Investment Programme M25 Junction 25 Improvements Preliminary Environmental Information Report Volume 3 – Figures 7. Biodiversity Figure D-1 Biodiversity Designated Sites (2 Sheets) Revision C03 Page 23 of 48 Gilstead Wood LWS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Weald ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Brook ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Locksmith ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Wood LWS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Wood LWS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! High Wood LWS Weald Country Park LWS St Charles Nature Chequers Reserve LWS St. Thomas' Road Wood Churchyard Noak SBI Grade 2 Hill SBI Grade 2 St Faith's Honeypot Lane Meadows LWS Forge House Paddocks & Fishing Lake Dagnam Park La Plata SBI Grade 2 and Hatter's The Oaks Grove LWS Wood SMI LWS Vicarage Wood LWS Warley Carter's Brook Country & Pitches Brook Park LWS SBI Grade 2 Duck Wood ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Lower ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! SBI ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ingrebourne Vicarage ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Grade 1 Valley SMI Wood LWS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
    [Show full text]